Out of the blue for an update (maybe they work for HQ ACO!).
Cadet Forces mentioned with regard to exemption for FAC.
Can someone please tell the home office that ft lbs is not a unit of kinetic energy.
The guidance may be a new document but the law isn’t.
The cadet forces have been included as a specific exemption since 1997.
yet i have heard local police are surprised and shocked to hear that we have weapons stored within our buildings…
Unless they’re a firearms law expert I’m not surprised.
Police officers are expected to have a good command of the law, but they’re not expected to know the all details of each and every act.
Even those who are aware that an exception exists in law wouldn’t automatically inherit the knowledge that their local unit happen to hold weapons.
it isnt the knowledge of the law I am questioning.
there is annual checks on “civilians” who have gun cabinets and the police are well aware of who they are and in most cases i suspect have a good working relationship.
if there was a break in at said property the Police would have a little more interest than his neighbour.
yet as they dont come round and check out armouries they dont know…and when there is a break in i have heard have been quite shocked and surprised to hear weapons were held…
[quote=“steve679” post=24350]it isnt the knowledge of the law I am questioning.
there is annual checks on “civilians” who have gun cabinets and the police are well aware of who they are and in most cases i suspect have a good working relationship.
if there was a break in at said property the Police would have a little more interest than his neighbour.
yet as they dont come round and check out armouries they dont know…and when there is a break in i have heard have been quite shocked and surprised to hear weapons were held…[/quote]
Local police wouldn’t have a clue that an address had firearms stored in it unless the person ringing 999 tells them. Firearms licensing and checks are almost always conducted by a centralised team (1 or 2 people in most county forces) there is no reason that a local response team would be aware and it wouldn’t be flagged up by a 999 call.
Not 100% sure of that - a couple of years ago, we had issues with a neighbour, who made malicious claims to the local Police; when they came round to get our side of the story, my first point was to advise them that such claims were entirely without foundation, & with one very important premise, based on the need to maintain FAC status - “Thank you, but we know” was the reply. Now, that may have been from background research, but there would have to have been a pointer somewhere to flag up the information.
Of course, now that the database is supposedly linked nationally, then such information is easier to transfer.
It would only flag up if they had a) put it on the local intel system (not done universally) and b) done intel checks before attending. That isn’t something you do as a matter of course when attending a 999 call unless you are going to something like a domestic where you might expect there to be intel of use.
In your case they would have PNC’d you as an individual before attending to speak to you and since you have a FAC you would come back as known on the system. So it would have been you as an individual that the data was stored against rather than your address.
(Interestingly if you have an FAC a person name check to the control room would be reported back to the officer on the ground as if you had a criminal record “known not currently wanted” most controllers wouldn’t give the officer more than that unless they ask for it).
The Law Commission’s scoping consultation paper into firearms law was published recently – and it recommends that the law on firearms be completely re-codified, amid heavy lobbying from police pressure groups demanding new bans and restrictions on the lawful ownership of firearms.
The Law Commission paper sets out a number of further consultation questions, which are set out together in chapter 9 of the paper. Those with an interest in FACs, firearms law, etc, might like to write sensible answers to those questions and to send them in. The deadline for submissions is 21 September 2015.
Some aspects are, as you say, hilarious.
Note that certain proposed changes could see those with deactivated firearms accused of terrorist activities - having a reasonably equipped garage, knowledge + deactivated rifle = no excuse!! That is somewhat worrying. Likewise, proposed charges for medical record report access from GPs - & who would pay?
However, it would also seem that NABIS could be deliberately trying to stir things up?
When you consider how freely it appears other countries allow firearm ownership and use, this country seems to be extremely nervous/twitchy as there is no disconnect in the eyes of politicians and media wrt the person who owns firearms for work (mainly those who work on the land), competitive shooters and leisure (clay etc) and the nutters who once in while get in the media.
I know a number of people who have had to turn their houses into veritable fortresses just to persue a hobby.
There are a number of incidents in the States and other places, far more serious than anything we’ve experienced, yet their politicians / legislators seem to maintain a proper sense of perspective.
Anything to do with terrorism and unlawful ownership will not be stopped and is purely a smokescreen to appease the media and get support for ever more stringent controls. I’m sure we all know that with a word in the right ear in the right place and you could be the owner no questions asked of a firearm and the irony is so do the police (names and places) and yet it still goes on. No matter how much you impinge on the ordinary people you won’t stop criminal activity and everyone knows it, yet punitive legislation is exacted on the majority and because the legal system and outcomes are open to interpretation criminal activity doesn’t stop.
One of the people I know who owns firearms (uses them on his farm and for clay shoots) said if the same furore about accidents involving cars, lorries etc where people other than the driver have died, was exacted in the same way those invollving similar incidents with firearms, we’d be driving around with a man walking in front with a red flag and far tighter controls on vehicle ownership. He’s also said he’s surprised we don’t have to keep knives locked away in an alarmed cabinet.
It really is quite worrying to see how some “experts” (NABIS??) are trying to lobby the Law Commission in a significant attempt to (adversely) change the existing legislation.
Note that the information was only obtained as the result of FoI requests so it would seem that these proposals were meant to be kept from the prying eyes of the public…