'It's NOT a fishing expedition', say police over random spot checks on gun owners As opposition to the Association of Chief Police Officers' campaign to impose random spot checks on lawful gun owners' security arrangements grows, El Reg managed to get some responses out of the police chiefs' trade union. “We have not encouraged forces to use any powers of entry at all, however should the need arise …
Sounds very much like the "must have cause for suspicion before enforcing a stop-and-search" being enacted as
"Stop young vagabond! I wish to search you!"
"...errrm, no thanks..."
"Refusing eh? That's suspicious... now I can enforce a search!"
"Refusing eh? That's suspicious... now I can enforce a search!"
The difference here is unlike young vagabond, most shooters are a member of some organisation - BASC, CPSA, NRA, NSRA. That membership includes substantial legal insurance cover, and those bodies retain heavy-hitting London law firms for exactly such occasions.
So unlike the case with young vagabond, the exchange would be more like.
"I feel that this is a random visit, not a specific, intelligence led visit. Please provide a clear and reasoned explanation for your visit, in accordance with the Home Office Guidance on this matter. If you are unable to do so, I will be unable to grant access because a real officer would have no problem doing so. If you can't I shall have to doubt your legitimacy. I shall then be calling [NGB's] legal department and passing on your name and collar number, before drafting a formal letter of complaint to your Chief Constable regarding your failure to adhere to the standards laid down by the Home Office, in accordance with the advice I have received from [NGB]. Do you feel lucky... officer?"
Seriously, there are checks and balances here. If you think they're taking the piss - and it looks like Cheshire might be - then hold them to account. Work to rule. They can't revoke certificates if people have done nothing wrong, and refusing access to an individual who claims to be a Police Officer but is not following proper protocol is actually the responsible thing to do in terms of firearm security.
"despite the actual crime rates being at an all-time low and falling."
I think that 'reported' or 'charged' or 'convicted' or other such words have been conveniently omitted.
With a reduction of people who can actually nick you out on the streets plus the idea that CCTV replaces foot patrols then there will be a drop in 'crime rates' .
(see under 'loads of jobs and more poorly paid people) (see also dramatic increase in reported sex crimes)
You are right to be suspicious of the figures the police release, given that the police can manipulate them, have incentive to do so and, based on recent headlines, do.
However crime rates are falling according to british crime survey stats, which are less easily manipulated. The figures come from surveying members of the population, and so can't be altered by no criming an offence.
Crime falling in the UK shouldn't really come as a surpise - it is the worldwide trend.
I can never understand the police/spooks wanting to keep all this secret.
I get that they don't want people knowing how they found out about a plot, but surely, if a nasty is being planned, the last thing the crims want is for the public to be made aware of it. That means lots of people will be watching out for it, so they've got to start all over again.
That means lots of people will be watching out for it
A big part of the problem, IMO, is that the Public largely wouldn't know *how* to watch out for it.
In recent years, knowledge of explosives and firearms has ebbed out of General Knowledge - to many, even *looking* for information about guns or bombs means you're definitely a wrong'un. Thus we get a car full of petrol cans being deemed an an explosive[1], because hyping up an event helps sell more tabloids and makes the next power-grab that much easier...
Sarkosy once famously said that he doesn't want everyone getting plans for explosives off the Internet. I actually take exactly the opposite view - I want everyone to know (roughly) how to construct a bomb. That way, the vast majority of us who don't want bombs to go off will have the capability to be vigilant, and so prevent problems. But the modern policing method is always "Nanny knows best" - so, unfortunately,, they're on their own...
Vic.
[1] Making an explosive out of petrol is actually very difficult - you can get a conflagration with ease, leading to the big orange fire cloud so beloved by Hollywood movies. But that's just a fire; achieving detonation - which is what you want from a bomb - is really difficult.
> Petrol makes a fine explosive if you know what to do with it.
You sure? I used to make incendiaries out of it (self-igniting Molotovs) but petrol was never a consideration for explosive contraptions. Not saying it cannot be done--I just lack knowledge in this area.
@Vic
A big part of the problem, IMO, is that the Public largely wouldn't know *how* to watch out for it. Same way any neighborhood looks out for drugs etc, know your neighbors, who is a regular, who is a visitor, and who looks unhappy to visit your lovely neighborhood. Just for starters. It's not rocket science.
This post has been deleted by its author
Same way any neighborhood looks out for drugs etc, know your neighbors, who is a regular, who is a visitor
So only strangers make explosives?
One of my neighbours actually did blow himself up with a "device" a few years back. Your advice would not have discovered him...
Vic.
That's the key bit. Any time you reveal information about any given specific plot, there is some risk you expose sources and/or methods without realizing that you are doing so. The way a plot develops different people usually know about different pieces. The bad guys know who got nicked as well as who didn't. The mastermind also knows who knew what. That lets them start piecing together likely leaks.
But you're right, more people knowing could lead to better confidence in the bits that are kept secret. It's a tough balancing act.
Can you imagine a proposal for extending policing powers ever being resisted by the police themselves? That someone senior might say "narp, that's really overreach, that's going to damage our relationship with the public we serve"?
Me either - I trust ACPO's perspective on "fair and reasonable balance" just as much as I trust any union lobbying, such as Bob Crow deciding on my commute through London. They all have valid points but are devoted to their self-service and must be read as such.
I thought in the UK that owning a potentially lethal device was a privilege only given to those who can be shown to act responsible, not some right given to anyone with a penchant to macho bullshit.
As such I have no problem with the police turning up unannounced and ensuring that you are acting responsible and meeting the law. If you don't like it, don't keep guns at home and save the tax payers a lot of money and a loads of police resources.
And while they are at it, why not have police show up and check your PC to make sure your not downloading anything illegal? Or access the data stored in your cars computer to see if you've been speeding? Hey, let's just have the police show up and see if they can find anything you've done wrong with anything? You got a problem with that?
I'm sorry am I missing something here?
Yeah, you are missing basic lessons in logic and conceptual ideas about how a non-totalitarian society should work.
Moreover you seem to think that the individual is responsible for the costs generated by hare-brained bureaucratic schemes. Sure, he will PAY for it, but that is something else entirely.
Could be you are just 14 and opinionated, in which case there is hope. Otherwise, good luck to you, brave citizen.
@Eric
Would you also remove the rights of car drivers, skiers, parachutists, motorcyclists, caber tossers, javelin throwers, chefs, tailors, etc etc all of whom have/use lethal weapons.
Do you consider all of them as being limped dicked guys that want to feel like real men.
Obviously you don't own any firearms and definately don't have the slightest idea what it is to hunt or target shoot. Your ignorance prevails amongst all else.
Who cares about a minority of limp dicks who need to play with guns to feel like real men?
Eh?
I don't have a FAC. I do like playing with guns at ranges / organised shoots enough to understand why some people want one.
Quite what that has to do with genitalia I don't understand? Perhaps yours isn't up to the job and you're mapping out your impotence onto others? If its really small, do what I did - find a girl with small hands!
> anyone with a penchant to macho bullshit.
I admit to not knowing much about the gun-owning community back in the UK. Where I live though, your description would be very unfair and not corresponding to reality at all.
Are you a regular at shooting ranges, or what is your impression based on?
And bloody annoying they were too. They used a magnifying glass roughly the size and shape of a coke bottle to adjust their sights and still got closer to the middle than I did!
They all understood firearm security to boot.
Going to reply to this one as Trigonoceps is an obvious gun owner/shooter.
When did the law previously change ? My understanding was that anyone who kept guns at home were open for random spot checks to make sure everything was still secure (i.e. guns locked away, no ammunition onsite (or is it in a different safe location ?)).
From my knowledge nothing has changed, just the tin foil brigade making assumptions - as I said I've posted this reply to a gun owner's response as I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.
"My understanding was that anyone who kept guns at home were open for random spot checks to make sure everything was still secure"
I was advised when I was first granted my certificate that they did not do spot checks - Random or otherwise.
There is no provision for them either in Law or in the Home Office Guidance. If some Force Areas have been doing Random Spot Checks then it's been without the (official) sanctioning of the Home Office and with the good will of certificate holders (or they've managed to convince their Certificate Holders that this is a thing they have the power to do and noone has challenged them on it or actually looked it up).
Obviously if they have good reason to think you're actually doing something illegal, various Powers can be enacted, just the same as if they have reason to think you have a grow in your loft or are making illegal firearms on the lathe in your shed.
But Random Spot Checks should not be a thing - they're all whinging and bitching about how underfunded and overworked they are. They don't have time or resource to do Random Spot Checks. The Home Office Framework doesn't call for them, therefore they shouldn't be doing them at the expense of other duties (like renewing people's certificates in under 4 months when the HO reckon they should be able to do it in 2).
Sounds like the H&S "advice" given by a company I worked for a couple of years ago which instructed employees that if stopped traffic police then they should not get out of their car until the police officers making the stop had shown their warrant cards and in addition a call to 999 had confirmed that they were genuine officers. Can't help thinking this was a good way to getting you car windows smashed and youself tasered!
Why would they smash your windows? Presumably you'd have to open them anyway to talk and exchange said warrant card...
The Police do actually need good reason to damage shit, especially now your passenger can be filming them with their phone. If you calmly make a reasonable request, like "Prove you're a Police Officer", they can't really be seen to refuse that unless there are mitigating circumstances.
In a riot or a violent arrest, you're not going to be checking their details. During a routine traffic stop or when they are on your doorstep, you have time to do so.
You do need to pick your moment though. Clearly in some circumstances you may receive shorter thrift than others. But if they're stood on your doorstep (and haven't busted the door down), then they're on your property and are playing by your rules until such a time as they can legitimately claim a power of entry.
It's a rabbit hunting expedition. They're bad them rabbits around 'ere. Worse than fish, much worse. You've all seen what they can do, in that documentary...what was it called? Something about a holy grail. That's who we're hunting. Did I say 'who'? I meant 'what'. Run along, now. Nothing to see here, tally ho!
I believe it has been the case for a number of years, and to be fair I can understand the reasoning behind it.
I hate to say it but I have heard of an FAC holder who had forgotten to secure their firearm, fortunately another FAC holder happened by and gave them a gentle reminder..
If this policy prevents just one person dying, I believe that will justify it.
@AC
As with the previous commenter, I hope you are being ironic. We, and our societies, are the products - in part - of people who decided that death was an acceptable risk to buy freedom.
We show ourselves as unworthy of all who have died for our way of life when we discard freedom in this way.
That said, I am not saying that owning a firearm is some essential liberty.
If this policy prevents just one person dying, I believe that will justify it.
It won't. It can't.
Getting hold of an illegal firearm is quite possibly easier and cheaper than getting a registered one. I'm not some wannabe street yoot gansgsta pimp, quite the opposite, but with a bundle of cash and a trawl through the less classy pubs of south London, I dare say I could turn something up.
Best case, someone will get stabbed instead of shot. But dead's dead, it doesn't matter much how you got there.
No. There are conditions that require you to take reasonable steps to ensure their security. Breaching those conditions is an offence.
If the Police have reason to believe you are breaching any of your conditions, then various powers of entry would apply to allow them to secure and preserve evidence of a crime. This is nothing new.
When I was first granted a Certificate, my Firearms Enquiries Officer (FEO) specifically told me they did not do spot checks - random or otherwise. Any routine visits to do with paperwork would be by appointment.
If for some reason they did have cause to stop by - lets say another local shooter had been burgled and it looked like it was a targetted burglary specifically for the guns, then the Police might be popping round local Certificate Holders to warn them - if they couldn't get hold of you whilst they were on their way, then it may indeed end up being an "unannounced" visit.
In such a case (which has never happened, so far), he advised me to take their Warranr Cards, leave them locked outside and call the local station to confirm their identities and the legitimacy of their business. He said they would have no problem waiting for me to satisfy myself they were genuine.
This changes things very slightly in that they may now plan an unannounced visit if they have reason to be concerned about your security, but they still can't do random spot checks - and if you think that a visit is that, then it needs reporting to an NGB so it can be stamped on tout suite. Depending on the circumstances you may or may not turn them away.
If their opening line is "we're here to see your guns, let us in, we're the Police", then shut the door in their faces.
If they offer some poor excuse for an explanation, then maybe let them in for the sake of 5 minutes of your time (having independently verified their identities), but with the knowledge you are unconvinced - and then lodge their details with your NGB and complain to your Chief Constable.
Firearms are only one small cog in the terrorist threat machine. As IS/ISIS/ISIL (pick one) has demonstrated, it is far more terrorizing to hack off a head than to put a bullet through it. Therefore, responsible authority must prevent terrorist access to sharp and pointy weapons.
Home inspection officers will therefore enforce compliance by issuing hasps and padlocks to secure kitchen and workshop drawers containing knives, scissors, and other cutting-edge implements. Subsequent random inspections will ensure compliance; unsecured items will result in cautions and citations.
@Gray
I appreciate the humour but your comment obviously dodges the fact that kitchen knives don't require a license to own and so there is no reason for someone wanting to use a stab someone breaking into a house and stealing a knife - they are easily available.
they are easily available.
Ayup ... my point exactly. And too easily concealed. Unless it's a full-size machete, of course, which requires a long coat or baggy trousers to conceal, which makes sitting down on public transport a bit dicey. And now we've got the advent of the hatchet as a terrorist weapon of choice, as evidenced by the attack on four New York City policemen by a nutter who ran them down on a sidewalk in plain daylight.
It may be a bit premature to call for locked home kitchen and workshop drawers, but what would you like to bet that there'll soon be a call for metal detectors at all public corners and spaces, soon to be followed by body scanners similar to airport machines, when it occurs to some bureaucrat that ceramic knives are widely available on the open market.
Humo[u]r, yes, but there is no such thing as humor in the opportunistic security services industry and the political arena.
Speaking of hysteria, the State of New York has embarrassed the US by forcibly detaining and quarantining a nurse returned from caring for ebola victims; two days later the US president prevailed on the state's Governor to lighten up and get rational. Meanwhile, Gov. Fatboy Christie of New Jersey is pandering to the electorate by insisting that he'll not yield to science or medical opinion: in the interest of public hysteria, every suspect health worker will be detained under arrest orders if they refuse the mandatory interception and quarantine at any New Jersey airport.
Hysteria rules. Hide yer knives and hatchets, and don't volunteer for medical service in a plague country. (And never, ever, unlock your gun case.)
"Citing a terrorist atrocity that happened in a foreign country with a totally different approach to firearms licensing, particularly background checks and ongoing monitoring, as justification for telling the licensed firearms community that they're to blame for this sort of thing is utterly absurd."
Citing a terrorist atrocity that happened in a foreign country with a totally different approach to firearms licensing, particularly background checks and ongoing monitoring, as justification for telling the licensed firearms community that they're to blame for this sort of thing is utterly absurd entirely consistent with most police and political 'justifications' for any increase in powers.
Fixed, etc . . .
This is about raising security awareness and engagement, and not about catching people out.
The more they repeat this, the more I hear Gene Wilder a la Willie Wonka saying "Strike that, reverse it."
We 'Merkins are a bit newer to the awareness of terrorist potentials than you Brits are. Given our level of awareness, I expect yours is even higher. Even if for the most part you do keep the ole stiff upper lip about it. A lack of hysteria should never be equated with a lack of awareness.
What happened to the Police presenting their case to a Judge or Magistrate and seeking a Warrant. Currently, only HMRC Officials are allowed to enter your house without a Warrant. The Police may enter with the Customs Official to provide support and protection, but the Customs Official must enter first.
This law allows a Police Officer to enter a home without a Warrant. They have not satisfied a Magistrate that they are justified in entering the property - the current law is there to protect people from un-lawful entry.
I have no issue with my Firearms Liaison Officer arriving unannounced and requesting to inspect my gun safe and general security. To me that is their job. I don't see the need for this draconian law.
@ SSB
"There's no law being introduced and this is all panic about nothing.
Oh and police have lots of powers of entry, mostly without warrant."
And so they dont need to do this, dont need a crimewatch phone number and didnt need to rush it through so fast before anyone could oppose it? So why did they do it then?
"What happened to the Police presenting their case to a Judge or Magistrate and seeking a Warrant. Currently, only HMRC Officials are allowed to enter your house without a Warrant. The Police may enter with the Customs Official to provide support and protection, but the Customs Official must enter first."
Whut. The Police may trespass and indeed force entry to a property if they believe life is at imminent risk, or an offence is being committed or about to be committed. If an officer hears screams coming from a flat that sound like someone's being raped or murdered, he does not need a warrant to break the door down and investigate.
PACE also allows for arrests and property searches to secure and preserve evidence.
I'm sure there are other powers of entry that do not need a warrant, but the examples above are sufficient to prove the point.
I'd have thought if anything, HMRC Officials would need a warrant, as presumably if they've arrived at your door it's following an investigation, which would mean they have time to go and secure paperwork - unlike a Police officer stood outside a door listening to a Domestic going on inside! But IANAL, so I don't know the niceties of what HMRC can and can't do - beyond snipping a lump off my payslip every month!
Gareth. - Are those your words or have ACPO actually called these "Random Spot Checks"?
Random Spot Checks would go beyond what the Home Office Guidance recommends and should indeed be challenged fiercely.
But... I've not yet come across a single reference to Random Spot Checks that hasn't been a journalist's words. Not one.
I've not come across a single official source that wavers from the Guidance:
"19.11. Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns.
...
19.12 It is recognised that there are no new powers of entry for police or police staff when conducting home visits. To mitigate any misunderstanding on the part of the certificate holder the police must provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit."
Emphasis mine.
Cleary, the Unnanounced visits authorised by the official Home Office Guidance are a very, very far cry rom "Random Spot Checks".
Did you read the headline and skip straight into the comments again? READ THE ARTICLE. Here, I'll even make it as easy for you to do that as I physically can: Page 2 of article with all the answers you want to hear.
Something tells me you're determined not to believe that the random spot check campaign is a random spot check campaign unless Chief Constable Marsh himself turns up on your doorstep and says those exact words to you in person. If that is the case, please just say so and stop asking questions that have already been conclusively answered.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
