The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Show me where this is required under current Firearms legislation Sim G.

Explain to me how saving a fire shotgun cartridge is going to be of true forensic benefit considering the nature of Shotgun Cartridges Sim G.

As I have said already don't tell them to shove it up their arse. Politely decline and point them towards the current legislation.

The Police under no circumstances should be allowed to create their own rules when it comes to firearms however reasonable that it might appear, if they have concerns then they present it to the proper political channels with evidence of how it would be of benefit. After that await the appropriate amendment to be made.

Seriously, some of you blokes really need to get your priorities straight. There's more fantasy and bravado displayed here than at a World of Warcraft meeting! FFS, catch yourself on...

I certainly have got my priorities straight, it is nothing to do with fantasy bravado! It is perfectly correct and right to maintain a good relationship with local plod but that does not give them the right to invent new processes however voluntary they call it.

Considering what understanding I have of how Shotguns and cartridges work I am sceptical of the true benefit. Actually I would put money on it that if you took ten different 12 Bore shotguns and fed ten cartridges from the same batch through each gun NABIS wouldn't be able to match cartridge case to gun.

Nobody is suggesting - at least I don't think they are - that they tell Police to go pound salt. They are simply saying that since it is not a legal requirement, they will politely decline to participate. What's wrong with that?

A few years back an American state required a fired case from every firearm and started to build a massive database at the cost of a couple of million dollars. Theory again they could match cases from a crime scene to cases in their database, in practise they couldn't positively identify the gun used. After all that time and money spent the scheme was scrapped.

If anybody is living in a fantasy world it's the person who thought up the scheme.


If anybody thinks it's a good idea please give a scenario in which it would it would solve a crime?

Some of the anger, paranoia and rudeness on this thread is really disappointing. Sounds like the police want some help trying something out.

They're not the enemy. They try their best to keep us safe. They try to run the dogs breakfast of a licensing scheme we use in this country on an ever decreasing budget and everyone I've met and spoken to at my force has been professional and likeable.

There's a lot of angry paranoid people about in this world, that some of them own firearms is a bigger threat to our sport than the police are!

It is not about being rude to anybody or the Police, it is not about being paranoid. I am rather sad that people here are accusing others of such things. This is a matter of principle.

I agree the current legislation is a dogs breakfast nevertheless it is not right for the Police to be inventing processes that lie outside of the Firearms act.

It is indeed a small thing being asked "Just to help try something out sic" but that is the thin edge of the wedge. What they are asking for lies beyond Firearms legislation. The Police are public servants, within a democratic society it is their job to indeed protect us but also perform that within the framework that Publicly elected officials lay out for them. What next, finger prints "just to help try something out"?

If they have a concern about stolen shotguns and think that this is a possible way to help out against violent crime then they need to go through the proper channels.

Remember when Durham (and other forces) started adding extra forms to the application for a FAC/SC, then started telling applicants that they needed this information. "Just to help out", the majority here gave that short shrift and referred the issue to our representing bodies.

This is no different in principle. I have repeatedly said "Be Polite" and maintain your good relations with your local Plod but that does not mean you should be rolling over and accepting processes that have not gone through the correct channels and entered the Statute Book just to help out have ever small and reasonable it appears.

I repeat, it doesn't work, doesn't solve gun crimes. I've found the link, I suggest you print it off and give it to the next feo who asks you to save a fired case in an evidence bag.

http://www.guns.com/2015/05/13/maryland ... ol-groups/

Fedaykin wrote:Show me where this is required under current Firearms legislation Sim G.

Explain to me how saving a fire shotgun cartridge is going to be of true forensic benefit considering the nature of Shotgun Cartridges Sim G.

As I have said already don't tell them to shove it up their arse. Politely decline and point them towards the current legislation.

The Police under no circumstances should be allowed to create their own rules when it comes to firearms however reasonable that it might appear, if they have concerns then they present it to the proper political channels with evidence of how it would be of benefit. After that await the appropriate amendment to be made.

Seriously, some of you blokes really need to get your priorities straight. There's more fantasy and bravado displayed here than at a World of Warcraft meeting! FFS, catch yourself on...

I certainly have got my priorities straight, it is nothing to do with fantasy bravado! It is perfectly correct and right to maintain a good relationship with local plod but that does not give them the right to invent new processes however voluntary they call it.

Considering what understanding I have of how Shotguns and cartridges work I am sceptical of the true benefit. Actually I would put money on it that if you took ten different 12 Bore shotguns and fed ten cartridges from the same batch through each gun NABIS wouldn't be able to match cartridge case to gun.

Sweet Lord, have you not just proved my point?!!!

The process is VOLUNTARY. There is no statute, precedent or SI to compel. It is purely VOLUNTARY and explains the reasons why in plain language. GMP don't even want you to send the cases to them, even though they provide the bags, they want you to hold on to them in case of the "unfortunate" event that a gun is stolen.

The thin end of the wedge? Honestly.... And yes, there have been many an instance of when mass collection of fingerprints or DNA samples have been undertaken voluntarily in the context of a serious and complex investigation.

And here's the little bit I know about forensic ballistics. Bullets are unreliable unless the firearm is recovered immediately after a shooting. apart from the obvious deformation of the bullet and the effect that has on ID, barrels are subject to a constant change when fired given hot gas, temps, friction etc. And so the signature imparted on a projectile, from the same gun, can be different.

However, cartridge cases which bear "tool marks" where a mechanical fit can be matched from the due to the marks made during the movement of the case through the mechanism from such things as feed ramps, extractor claws, ejectors, firing pins etc, which leave a signature that can ID a gun which would previously not have been able to if relying on projectiles alone, especially with smooth bore guns.

As the letter stated, links from locations, to guns, to suspects can be enhanced if certain elements are known, rather than suspected. The more known, the greater the likely hood in catching the perpetrator.
The letter stated that there has been in an increase nationally in the theft of shotguns. GMP haven't seen this increase, but they have seen an increase in the number of discharges. So in short, criminals using guns have become more violent. The use of a gun in crime is becoming more likely to be fired, hence someone is more likely getting shot.

So let's simplify it. Your shotgun is stolen in Inverness. You inform the police, claim on the insurance and buy a new gun. All things being equal, that's the end of it for you. Meanwhile, your gun has turned up in the hands of criminals and is being fired at people.

Nothing to do with you, you are not implicated in any way. That's it, people continue to get shot and crime committed utilising a gun that once belonged to you. Nothing is known about your gun, just some matching cartridge cases at numerous scenes.

Alternatively, you submit a cartridge case as evidence with the crime report of your stolen gun. A connection is made between your stolen gun from Inverness and a spate of shootings in Manchester. Is there a burglar in Inverness with a link to Manchester? Perhaps not, but there's one with a brother in Leeds. The brother in Leeds is a burglar who has a former co-defendant in a gang in Halifax, who has a cousin in a gang in Manchester..... Start lifting a few and it may lead to the shooter and your gun. (Janet and John example accepted, and it's not specifics or procedure just illustration)

Either way, why would you not want to assist in even a tiny, tiny way bringing to justice the scum bag that stole your gun, never mind perhaps help prevent people being shot? Because it wasn't a legal requirement? Because obviously once you do that, they'll have you doing something else.... An easy cop out. And as I said, shameful.

There is a time to fight abuse of legislation, but to bloody mindedness because of something you think will possibly happen to the bigger picture.... Well...

And I believe it was the database itself that brought down the Maryland system, not the concept.

Nah.

Fedaykin wrote:It is not about being rude to anybody or the Police, it is not about being paranoid. I am rather sad that people here are accusing others of such things. This is a matter of principle.

I agree the current legislation is a dogs breakfast nevertheless it is not right for the Police to be inventing processes that lie outside of the Firearms act.

It is indeed a small thing being asked "Just to help try something out sic" but that is the thin edge of the wedge. What they are asking for lies beyond Firearms legislation. The Police are public servants, within a democratic society it is their job to indeed protect us but also perform that within the framework that Publicly elected officials lay out for them. What next, finger prints "just to help try something out"?

If they have a concern about stolen shotguns and think that this is a possible way to help out against violent crime then they need to go through the proper channels.

Remember when Durham (and other forces) started adding extra forms to the application for a FAC/SC, then started telling applicants that they needed this information. "Just to help out", the majority here gave that short shrift and referred the issue to our representing bodies.

This is no different in principle. I have repeatedly said "Be Polite" and maintain your good relations with your local Plod but that does not mean you should be rolling over and accepting processes that have not gone through the correct channels and entered the Statute Book just to help out have ever small and reasonable it appears.

Durham was a completely different kettle of fish. They were requesting personal, confidential information. HRA guarantees your right to private life. There have to be some real extenuating circumstances to breach that.

They have requested a cartridge case from our stolen firearm in the hope it builds evidence/intelligence to bring a perpetrator to justice.

Principals?

Yep, and by all means, maintain those good relations by referring to them as "local plod"....

+1 what Sim said.

I repeat, it doesn't work, doesn't solve gun crimes. I've found the link, I suggest you print it off and give it to the next feo who asks you to save a fired case in an evidence bag.

http://www.guns.com/2015/05/13/maryland ... ol-groups/

These are not the same thing.
The Maryland project failed because of automated imaging and analysis of submitted cases not being matched to questioned cases. It was a failure of the computer system, not the process.

See here:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

..the system Maryland bought created images so imprecise that when an investigator submitted a crime scene casing, the database software would sometimes spit out hundreds of matches. The state sued the manufacturer in 2009 for $1.9 million, settling three years later for $390,000.