From: "Alex Hamilton", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I think you're being a bit harsh Alex.
In that case I do apologise, but I think it is very important that we do
not antagonise the police.
ACPO must be kept in check, but I found the other ranks of police no
different from us and many quite open in condemning the 1997 Act.
>For one thing, the police do tend to take a dim view of firearms
>being stored in an unoccupied property, the general rule of
>thumb they use is that if the house is unoccupied for more than
>two weeks at a stretch (with a fair bit of occupation in
>between) then it is not secure.
Is that the Law or Police Regulations? If latter we should challenge it
in the courts, because not to do so exposes us to the ever tightening
"security" until not keeping firearms at home at all becomes the rule.
What is stopping the police, upon finding a spate of robberies in a
given area, declaring that firearms cannot be left unattended ever!?
I have always listened to any sensible and reasonable advice from my
firearms officer, but the understanding always has been that the
recommendations were "advisory" and not the law. If privately owned
firearms are being stolen, than it is the duty of the police to catch
the criminals.
>Dumping ammunition in a lake is illegal and stupid,
George did say "bullets" not cartridges or rounds, but even if he was
talking about ammunition, please note that the NRA will take ammunition
for destruction. I had some 357 Mag. hollow point bullets and simply
dumped them into the melting pot, scooped the jackets off the top and
used the lead to cast other legal bullets.
>There is no explicit need to compete to have target shooting
>as your "good reason", however, 12 guns on an FAC is quite
>a lot and if all of them are used for target shooting I
>suspect that competing helps.
Is this another police regulation rather than a specific requirement
imposed by Law? I heard at the last meeting of HBSA that the
applications for Section 7(3) Permits (pistols of historic interest to
be kept and fired at the designated centres) are easier to get if the
applicant already is a "fringe collector" (firearms that can be owned
without FAC, like flintlocks etc..) and it also helps if he is a member
of HBSA.
This is a clear example of "you say you want to become a collector, but
we don't believe you" and it should be challenged in the courts as soon
as possible.
I would also like to know if anyone has been arrested and successfully
prosecuted for illegal possession just because the police did not renew
his FAC within reasonable time. Will any court of law uphold such a
prosecution when it would be easy to prove that the police themselves
created the offence by not acting in good time? Have we really come to
the stage where a law abiding person can be declared a criminal, because
a police officer had been overworked or negligent?
I accept that "technically" it is an offence to possess if FAC had not
been renewed, but have there been any cases in practice?
Alex
--
It is very difficult to get collector's authority, the police
don't like it at all. There was a court case or something back
in 1992 that changed their minds because until that point
several forces would not accept it as a "good reason", period.
However several forces seem to have slipped back into the mode
of not allowing it at all. You're in a catch-22 situation
because you cannot show you are an established collector
without the authority to establish it. I've been to court
twice over it with West Mids Police, and I've lost twice.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
