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

ChrisB wrote:Cheshire police have just been on the local radio news announcing ad-hoc visits to the 15,000 Shotgun and Sec 1 Firearm owners....

Which radio station was this? If Cheshire did say that, it destroys the claim that this is all intelligence-led in response to specific threats blah blah blah.

Unless, of course, Cheshire Police have already collected enough "intelligence" on all 15,000 FAC and SGC holders to allow them to effectively cherry-pick which ones they'll visit.

http://www.cheshire.police.uk/news--app ... hecks.aspx

Check the text just below the photo of the cabinet.

MIke

What they're saying goes completely against the home office guidance! They're saying checks for checks' sake, not checks with specific Intel as suggested.
Not sure what you're pointing at Mike?

Ok - I think I have gotten to the bottom of all this.

The way it has been explained to me is that its NOT aimed at looking for the odd round of ammo outside a cabinet or rifle left out too long while cleaning.

Remember the reference to terrorism ?

Well apparently somebody in some dept has worked out that a "cleanskin" - a uk born and educated person with no known links to extremism or criminal record, could in theory get a fac, buy some firearms and then possess them for 5 years without any further checks. So, its possible that a few firearms that should be in cabinets are already in the hands of jihadi groups and nobody would know until its too late.

The random checks are to make sure the firearms are in the UK as opposed to anything else. And those "looked at" will be those individuals who are of interest via deniable intel - the sort of intel that cannot be used or disclosed to get a warrant.

Makes sense to me. I have NEVER had a random check. So, the above scenario made sense to me. It also explains the reference to terrorism.

breacher wrote:Ok - I think I have gotten to the bottom of all this.

The way it has been explained to me is that its NOT aimed at looking for the odd round of ammo outside a cabinet or rifle left out too long while cleaning.

Remember the reference to terrorism ?

Well apparently somebody in some dept has worked out that a "cleanskin" - a uk born and educated person with no known links to extremism or criminal record, could in theory get a fac, buy some firearms and then possess them for 5 years without any further checks. So, its possible that a few firearms that should be in cabinets are already in the hands of jihadi groups and nobody would know until its too late.

The random checks are to make sure the firearms are in the UK as opposed to anything else. And those "looked at" will be those individuals who are of interest via deniable intel - the sort of intel that cannot be used or disclosed to get a warrant.

Makes sense to me. I have NEVER had a random check. So, the above scenario made sense to me. It also explains the reference to terrorism.

If that was the case then either the owners main club or the police aren't doing their jobs very well.

My main club follows the rules and I have to record firearms usage. As those firearms are generally used at club shoots, there is visual evidence of that particular firearm having been used. This report is then returned to the Police on an annual basis who if a firearm is owned but not used have the right to question why.

I am aware of people having received letters from the Police questioning usage.

breacher wrote:Ok - I think I have gotten to the bottom of all this.

The way it has been explained to me is that its NOT aimed at looking for the odd round of ammo outside a cabinet or rifle left out too long while cleaning.

Remember the reference to terrorism ?

Well apparently somebody in some dept has worked out that a "cleanskin" - a uk born and educated person with no known links to extremism or criminal record, could in theory get a fac, buy some firearms and then possess them for 5 years without any further checks. So, its possible that a few firearms that should be in cabinets are already in the hands of jihadi groups and nobody would know until its too late.

The random checks are to make sure the firearms are in the UK as opposed to anything else. And those "looked at" will be those individuals who are of interest via deniable intel - the sort of intel that cannot be used or disclosed to get a warrant.

Makes sense to me. I have NEVER had a random check. So, the above scenario made sense to me. It also explains the reference to terrorism.

So why would they publicise the checks? If, as they claim, provision is already there then they could do the unannounced visits on the "suspects" after maybe a couple of random ones first.

PaulR wrote:

breacher wrote:Ok - I think I have gotten to the bottom of all this.

The way it has been explained to me is that its NOT aimed at looking for the odd round of ammo outside a cabinet or rifle left out too long while cleaning.

Remember the reference to terrorism ?

Well apparently somebody in some dept has worked out that a "cleanskin" - a uk born and educated person with no known links to extremism or criminal record, could in theory get a fac, buy some firearms and then possess them for 5 years without any further checks. So, its possible that a few firearms that should be in cabinets are already in the hands of jihadi groups and nobody would know until its too late.

The random checks are to make sure the firearms are in the UK as opposed to anything else. And those "looked at" will be those individuals who are of interest via deniable intel - the sort of intel that cannot be used or disclosed to get a warrant.

Makes sense to me. I have NEVER had a random check. So, the above scenario made sense to me. It also explains the reference to terrorism.

If that was the case then either the owners main club or the police aren't doing their jobs very well.

My main club follows the rules and I have to record firearms usage. As those firearms are generally used at club shoots, there is visual evidence of that particular firearm having been used. This report is then returned to the Police on an annual basis who if a firearm is owned but not used have the right to question why.

I am aware of people having received letters from the Police questioning usage.

And those who have firearms for sporting purposes?

Members of more than one club?

Again, that is not law, just guidance.

And those who have firearms for sporting purposes?

Members of more than one club?

Again, that is not law, just guidance.

My S1 firearms are all owned for sporting purposes and my Home Office approved club is following the rules/guidelines that they need to meet that approval. I appreciate that not all clubs are HO approved and therefore usage may not be recorded in the same way but surely that then means the Police should be asking for different evidence of usage.

Stalkers and Estate Firearms (if that's what you mean by Sporting Purposes) - well they are indeed another issue but in the scheme of things, the majority of shooting activity in this country is for target purposes and club membership is mandatory for ownership.

I have membership to 3 different clubs but I have to nominate one of them as my main in order to record usage. If I had nominated the NRA then I would use their PC based system, LERA also record use but they're not my main club either. .

Guideline/rules whatever are different for shotguns of course but I'm not sure that they are what would interest 'terrorists' the most.

Yes, your self styled jihadi will look real cool with a bolt action or side by side standing next to his mate with a full auto AK.

Pathetic excuses by the police to take attention away from those who ARE a problem. It's the fact they LIE time and time again that's soannoying, just for once can ACPO/PLOD not tell the TRUTH instead of spinning and hyping to terrify Joe Gullible!

How can they expect public support and respect when they just cannot help bullsh1tting about everything and inventing their own laws previously known as "guidance"

Chuck, quite.

The whole thing is BS as regardless of intelligence they have no right of entry, so they can and should be very politely told to f*** off...