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

Dark Skies wrote:This is a country of laws and policing by consent. I'm happy to show my security to an authorized officer - if he makes an appointment
If the police have 'intelligence' or 'information received' as we used to call it when I was an officer (SOCO) then they can get a warrant.

In thirty years the UK has gone from an incredibly liberal and free country to an Orwellian police state in which we are continually spied upon, we have virtually lost the right to silence, almost every minor transgression has become an arrestable offence, trial by media is commonplace, we've lost the right of assembly (we actually have to ask for permission to gather and protest), and have draconian legislation that permits the state unprecedented powers over us with a dismissive wave of 'National Security'. Quite recently the Government were sounding out the possibility of secret courts - which is the natural progression of over powerful states. They're already monitoring our emails, phone use and web browsing. A vast number of people even write their own file notes. logging their every movement, political leanings, and known associates on Facebook - how the authorities must laugh at that one. Especially as every now and then someone actually admits to some thought crime or, indeed, actual crime, and plod duly take their written confession and arrest them

People that take the 'well, if you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear attitude' disgust me. It is naive beyond comprehension. That and cowardice. It's the easy way out - just comply and it'll be all over soon and you can get back to lolling in front of the telly. The constant chipping away of our rights and due process has made us the most spied upon country in the Western world. And it still hasn't made us any safer - we have the most violent crime stats in Europe per capita. Indeed, statistically England suffers more violent crime than South Africa.

Dark Skies

A bit OTT with the statement 'People that take the 'well, if you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear attitude' disgust me. It is naive beyond comprehension. That and cowardice', but other than that, I agree with you. If an authorised person fronts up asking to view my security arrangements I'll be delighted to show him / her ... once they have a warrant! I'll also happily stand in full view of this person while they apply for said warrant so they can see that I have nothing to hide. This may seem like sheer bloody mindedness to some but its simple due process, to which I both comply with and expect in return.
All of this can be avoided by a simple call from the FEO asking if he could pop round for a quick look, a cup of tea and a blether. I fully understand that this is not the intent of the new 'guidance', but it makes a lot more sense to me.

My thoughts only ... Mezzer

karen wrote:

Mr_Logic wrote:you are the same as those who said, "ban handguns! I don't shoot them so why do I care?"

No I'm not and I do find that VERY offensive - why on earth would it follow that by having nothing to hide I would want handguns banned?

Bit of a misquote there... whole sentence please. It is exactly the same. It's an apathetic view that lets the government embark on a slippery slope which removes freedom. This move (the NRA's emailed update to Guidance) tries to establish routine spot checks 'based on intelligence'. Of course, you never see the intelligence in question, and there is no oversight because they're trying to remove the warrant requirement. So must definitely follow they actually do HAVE intelligence. Funnily enough, I don't have anything to hide either, but that doesn't give el Plod the right to come into my home just because they want to. So unless they have a warrant, they can make an appointment.

It is rarely the 'quoted' use of power that is the problem, and usually the misuse. I have a supplier at work who happens to be black. Was telling me about how many times he got stopped and searched, to fill a quota. Is that good use of power?!

The handguns and CF semi auto ban was the same - start with X, then move on to Y, then who knows what?! Resist early, and then you still have a base of voters with which to threaten the establishment. When it comes to us now, we have no power at all because there are so few of us. Who cares about 100,000 votes in a general election? Judging by their policies, maybe UKIP, but nobody else. By sitting idly by, shooters allowed those measures to be passed without much of a grumble. plenty saw that it didn't affect them, so hey ho, no worries, carry on.

This is exactly the same - I've got nothing to hide, hey ho, carry on. Until something gets taken out of context. Then Bad Things will happen, probably unjustified, and then everybody will wish they'd opposed these measures.

karen wrote:

Mr_Logic wrote: What if some Muppet decided you can't wear pink underwear, and we're doing spot checks to see. Still fine?

If you want to look at my underwear feel free - but you'll probably regret it tongueout Its black by the way!

Not what I meant and you know it! Perhaps I should have said black to include more people in that hypothetical scenario...

Karen wrote:

Mr_Logic wrote:It is the principle of the thing. How can you support measures which remove your freedom, don't give the public any security, and cost us ALL more money in tax?

What thing? What measures? We don't know what Blackstuff has alluded to and until tomorrow we won't know - lots of people have just assumed things so far. I just don't have anything to hide and don't have a problem with existing rules. I would certainly be happier if rules were relaxed in certain areas and I would certainly like to see handguns back but I don't feel my freedom has been removed.

What is trying to be established here is not the spot check of a shooter's cabinet. It's the principle of entering a shooter's home without a warrant from a judge, and without any current knowledge of a crime being committed. That's the issue here; what is in the Guidance is not supported in Law. Therefore, it should not be in the Guidance, yet it is. It's never been debated in Parliament, our views have not been heard, but it's there anyway.

That's what I'm objecting to - due process has not been given. I'd say 'what next? Secret courts, detention without trial'? But we're in 2014 and we lost those rights some time ago now. If you told someone in the 70s what it would look like now, I don't think they'd believe you. It's because it's gradual, and the populace stick to the opinion that they trust the Government, that tyranny could never happen here, that it won't affect me.

I don't trust the Government. Not one inch. They've banned most of our civil liberties:

* Freedom of speech
* Freedom of protest
* Right to a fair trial
* Right to not be detained without due process

They're trying to get rid of the Human Rights Act, despite the fact that they could deport people anyway if they just bothered to do it. They're trying very hard to ensure nobody is armed. All because of 'terrorists'.

Well here's a thing... That article linked earlier in the thread about outlawing conspiracy theorists - that is bloody dangerous. And they might be right. 9/11 gave the Western Governments the Thing they needed to be able to pass these draconian laws and be supported by the Public. So in terms of the entrenchment of power, pretty damn good as outcomes go. What did Al Qaeda have to gain from that level of atrocity? It brought down a whole world of s*** for them, didn't it? So it terms purely of motive, the conspiracy theorists may have a point.

On the bigger picture - how is it acceptable to ban them? They disagree with the government. News Mr Government - so do many people.

And yes, I am looking wider than this one piece of HO Guidance, but I believe that we, the people, must not give them an inch. They're out to take a mile - it's obvious with every piece of legislation that gets passed. More scary, is the fact that nobody in Opposition is fighting it, vocally and from the rooftops.

We used to stand for freedom, for rights, for openness. Our critique of the Arabian regimes was that they had closed courts, arbitrary justice based on opinion (i.e. you disagree, I cut off your head). So in our fight to preserve our way of life, we now have closed courts, and are about to outlaw disagreement with the regime (and of course if you outlaw something, there's a penalty. Maybe not the removal of a head, but a penalty nonetheless). Clearly, we are winning our 'War on Terror'!

Mezzer wrote:If an authorised person fronts up asking to view my security arrangements I'll be delighted to show him / her ... once they have a warrant! I'll also happily stand in full view of this person while they apply for said warrant so they can see that I have nothing to hide. This may seem like sheer bloody mindedness to some but its simple due process, to which I both comply with and expect in return.

I fully agree. I have no compunction about keeping outside of my house people who claim to be police (qwhen was the last time an FEO turned up in uniform? Do you know what an FEO's ID card is meant to look like?) while I phone 111 to check that bona fide police can vouch for them. Similarly, if they show up with a warrant I will take copies of it and contact the issuing mags ASAP to check that it was genuine and valid. (again, do you know what a warrant looks like? There's no prescribed format either, AFAIK)

It's a shame that court warrants don't operate like anti-media production orders, where the police must argue their case against their target in a contested hearing before a judge to get their warrant. For all we place our faith in judges' warrants, I've never seen anything to suggest they're not just rubber-stamped by the nearest passing JP.

Gaz wrote:

Mezzer wrote:If an authorised person fronts up asking to view my security arrangements I'll be delighted to show him / her ... once they have a warrant! I'll also happily stand in full view of this person while they apply for said warrant so they can see that I have nothing to hide. This may seem like sheer bloody mindedness to some but its simple due process, to which I both comply with and expect in return.

I fully agree. I have no compunction about keeping outside of my house people who claim to be police (qwhen was the last time an FEO turned up in uniform? Do you know what an FEO's ID card is meant to look like?) while I phone 111 to check that bona fide police can vouch for them. Similarly, if they show up with a warrant I will take copies of it and contact the issuing mags ASAP to check that it was genuine and valid. (again, do you know what a warrant looks like? There's no prescribed format either, AFAIK)

It's a shame that court warrants don't operate like anti-media production orders, where the police must argue their case against their target in a contested hearing before a judge to get their warrant. For all we place our faith in judges' warrants, I've never seen anything to suggest they're not just rubber-stamped by the nearest passing JP.

there are ! they are issued by a JP in court under oath in CLOSED proceedings!

And ringing 111 wouldn't get you anywhere as that number doesn't exist. ....try 101. The warrant will have a power of entry, so closing the door on them will just result in them opening it with their own red key and you getting nicked for obstruction.

"Well m'lud, genuinely believing our life and that of our family to be in mortal danger from persons impersonating Mr Plod, we defended ourselves and our castle..."

Feel free . . . as I said I have nothing to hide. But you would be very bored, very odd and there's sod all in my bank account so knock yourself out

:lol: :lol: Feel free to pm me on this then Karen -I promise not to share :lol: :lol: Chuck XX

From our friends at the Shooting Times:

Police concern that members of the shooting community may be “vulnerable to criminal or terrorist groups” has prompted the Home Office to update its firearms guidance to support forces in England and Wales in their intention to start making unannounced home visits to legitimate gun owners.

The policy, which is effective from today, has been introduced ostensibly to ensure certificate holders are complying with firearms security measures — this is despite the fact that the Home Office’s own figures show that theft of guns is not a widespread concern.

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/exclus ... egin-40860

I told you so!

Never ones to miss an opportunity are they -easier than chasing up thoise who are the root cause of this.!

Of course now this daft idea has just given anyone up to mischief the perfect idea - dress up as cops and hope the "victim" is some hapless "nothing to hide" person who just lets them in - and then has to suffer the consequences!

Nice to see any shooting organisation challenging this. Yay! Let's just roll over some more.