From: "pa49", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We don't have constables walking around in our houses so it would be safe to
assume that the law refers to a demand made whilst 'out shooting'. The 'out
shooting' demand reasoning would be that the constable had become aware you
had a firearm in your possession and wanted to check that you also had an
FAC. That part seems almost polite and reasonable apart from it being a
demand. They would surely back up a home visit demand with a warrant and a
good enough reason for the demand. As this would be a response to a public
complaint they would surely establish the position regarding the
individual(s) involved before making the home call and if they hadn't they
would be acting 'off the cuff' and would not have any reason to demand
anything. I know the act doesn't mention them having to be reasonable but
they do have to act appropriately and do have a Duty of Care guide line.
This is possibly why they would decide to 'back-off', in such an instance,
as if it went to court they would be open to a claim of over zealousness as
they should have reasonably known regarding the FAC. It should be noted that
no time limit is stated nor does it say where the FAC should be produced for
viewing. This would indicate that the wording is not necessarily bad but
allows some degree of flexibility for the constable involved when a demand
is made. A known local shooter could be asked to produce, at a later time,
the FAC to check it was still in force etc. Yes I know that's not very
likely but I believe that the wording probably stems from the days of much
greater tolerance when the application of the law could be considered and
applied to the degree decided to be appropriate at the time by the constable
concerned. This does apply in many cases across the rest of our laws and
stems from an inherent and systemic application of why laws are required and
why they are written the way they are. That traces back into the mists of
time but is the reason we have "Precedence case Law". It determines some of
what we can rely upon in any defence and I would suggest that the incident
referred to is not the first of it's type and precedence has been set to the
extent that their is likely to be a reliable defence. That does not mean
it's OK to tell the "Bill" on your doorstep to '**ss off' but it is an
indication that our laws are delicate structures that are constructed for
our benefit and the people who write them do have to have regard for this. I
don't know if all that gets us anywhere but does anyone know of any
precedence or similar case law?
Neil Saint
--
Let's put it like this, the police in North Wales intentionally
used Section 48 to stop and search shooters leaving a range to
establish whether any of them were in illegal possession, and
as I recall they came up with an antique rifle and a Parker-Hale
M85 that were unlicensed.
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
