Security

[LarsJ]

No need to bolt it here, if cabinet is 1000kg plus. 

Lars

 

[balltrap]

No need to bolt it here, if cabinet is 1000kg plus. 

Lars

WOW thats nearly has heavy as westley  :lol:

 

[Clay day]

Incredible !!

post the time lapse if you can.

I work within heavy lifting moving loads etc that's why I was interested.

I thought my 6 gun cabinet was a big enough job ?

 

[Rupert]

Oh Dear  !  what will you do with all your guns then  ?     :lol:

Your Mates name isn't Vic by any chance, is it  ?

No its Tristam, he may not read but his mental maths is proper sharp.

 

[westley]

No its Tristam, he may not read but his mental maths is proper sharp.

It is just that I knew someone EXACTLY the same. Skip company, loaded, could not read or write. It was fun when the traps all had numbers on for Compak  !

 

[Doctor Lecter]

I use a key safe, for security and to remember where things are...

Im looking forward to biometric advances, with facial recognition in laptops and phones now  it can't be long until until they are affordable in cabinets..

oh oh  anyone with a fat ugly face would be able to compromise my security    YIKES ! 

 

[Finners]

It isn't written into statutory law or enshrined in common law but, as with many things, the police make it effectively the law on the basis that we either abide by their demands or risk losing our certificates. All we are legally obligated to do is keep guns secured from unauthorised access and theoretically there are various ways to accomplish this by means other than the "approved" steel cabinet and hiding the keys etc. All of that is purely designed by the police and adhered to in order to satisfy them that our security meets their requirements and is all part of fulfilling their relatively new, self appointed priority as guardians of public safety.

Sadly, fewer and fewer people remember a time when the primary function of the police was the maintenance of law and order.

Agreed ref the not specifically needing an "approved" steel cabinet, it's a point I have made many times before.

But in this specific example, your reply could be misunderstood.

Please correct me if I am wrong, the responsibility to prevent unauthorised access to the weapon(s) is not relevant to the specific whereabouts of the gun. ie it applies wherever the gun is at the time should the access restriction/requirement be breached.  

Therefore, in this case letting the whereabouts of the keys and thus allowing access to the guns, to a non certificate holder would be contrary to the Firearms Act, surely?  

 

[Westward]

The Firearms Act is Statutory Law and like much of the Statute Book is fairly vague or unclear in places and since the security aspect hasn't been tested in court and ruled on by a judge which would clarify it in Common Law, it is open to some interpretation by the police. My personal view is that the expression 'secured to prevent unauthorised access' was primarily intended to eliminate the potential for accidents by keeping guns away from children and other unsuitable people. The police evidently see it as primarily securing against theft and preventing guns from being used for criminal purposes.

When you think about it, what exactly is the harm in your wife knowing where the keys are? My wife doesn't know where the keys are but in reality, she's no more of a threat to herself or anyone else than I am.

Therefore, in this case letting the whereabouts of the keys and thus allowing access to the guns, to a non certificate holder would be contrary to the Firearms Act, surely?  

In my opinion it's not against the law since the law doesn't state specifically what 'unauthorised' means and presumably that's why the boy's father hasn't been charged with any offence. It's a classic example of rushed lawmaking that needs clarification by a judge, not the Police Chiefs Council.

 

[Finners]

The Firearms Act is Statutory Law and like much of the Statute Book is fairly vague or unclear in places and since the security aspect hasn't been tested in court and ruled on by a judge which would clarify it in Common Law, it is open to some interpretation by the police. My personal view is that the expression 'secured to prevent unauthorised access' was primarily intended to eliminate the potential for accidents by keeping guns away from children and other unsuitable people. The police evidently see it as primarily securing against theft and preventing guns from being used for criminal purposes.

When you think about it, what exactly is the harm in your wife knowing where the keys are? My wife doesn't know where the keys are but in reality, she's no more of a threat to herself or anyone else than I am.

In my opinion it's not against the law since the law doesn't state specifically what 'unauthorised' means and presumably that's why the boy's father hasn't been charged with any offence. It's a classic example of rushed lawmaking that needs clarification by a judge, not the Police Chiefs Council.

You may be right that the word "unauthorised" is not specifically interpreted in itself. However, when combined with the other words in the sentence, my opinion is that the intent is pretty clear.

My take on this is the reasonable expectation would be that the Certificate holder would be expected to make reasonable endevours to prevent people who are not allowed to possess a shotgun from possessing/accessing their shotgun(s) 

Having said that, I am not familiar with the details of the Nuneaton case; perhaps the reason why the Boy's relative was not prosecuted is because it was determined that all reasonable steps had been taken to prevent the keys being available to the Boy. 

The Boy was prosecuted for illegal possession and possession with intent. 

 

[Westward]

Okay but the police evidently did not agree with your take because they didn't prosecute the gun owner. I do though agree that if there is a locked cabinet it's pretty stupid to leave the keys in lying around in a kitchen drawer.

 

[Salopian]

I think that we may have none or little option , when it comes to interpreting The Firearms Act ?

It is my understanding and certainly BASC's interpretation that we must secure guns in Police approved cabinets bearing a British Standards kitemark.

West Mercia insist that applicants MUST have a cabinet and securely installed before they will conduct a home inspection prior to the granting of a SGC.

There is case law where a Judge (no less ) had his certificate revoked because his Wife or Mother had access to his cabinet keys , this was widely reported inShooting Times  amongst other magazines. 

 

[Westward]

Not a big deal for me really because I take the responsibility of gun ownership very seriously and I would always lock guns away securely.

 

[LarsJ]

West Mercia insist that applicants MUST have a cabinet and securely installed before they will conduct a home inspection prior to the granting of a SGC.

So you have to buy a expensive cabinet, even though you are not sure you will get the license? 

Or is the situation like this? You have passed the background check and nothing is stopping you from getting a SGC on that account, and last thing is a home inspection? 

Lars? 

 

[Salopian]

Lars,

 I am afraid that you are correct as far as West Mercia and many other forces are concerned , sadly some forces make up their own laws as they go along and are nigh on obstructive in their interpretation of firearms law . I have often wondered what the situation would be if you only wanted a certificate to enable you to buy ammunition and carry a gun , and not actually own or keep one at home. How difficult would it be to get a certificate in that situation?

 

[ehb102]

applicants MUST have a cabinet and securely installed before they will conduct a home inspection prior to the granting of a SGC.

In that case West Mercia are full of it. Demanding a cabinet before granting a licence is like demanding a garage before you have a driving licence. Utter rot and discriminatory against the less well off who are less likely to be home owners.

 

[LarsJ]

In that case West Mercia are full of it. Demanding a cabinet before granting a licence is like demanding a garage before you have a driving licence. Utter rot and discriminatory against the less well off who are less likely to be home owners.

My thoughts in my post. Shows the difference between a native speaker and a foreigner

 

[Salopian]

Don't shoot the messenger .

Have a word with West Mercia Constabulary , Hindlip Hall , Droitwich , Worcestershire.

 

[Finners]

Okay but the police evidently did not agree with your take because they didn't prosecute the gun owner. I do though agree that if there is a locked cabinet it's pretty stupid to leave the keys in lying around in a kitchen drawer.

I did say "reasonable endevours", and went on to say that not being familiar with the details of the case I'd assumed they had not prosecuted the cert holder because maybe he HAD taken reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised access. 

 

[Finners]

In that case West Mercia are full of it. Demanding a cabinet before granting a licence is like demanding a garage before you have a driving licence. Utter rot and discriminatory against the less well off who are less likely to be home owners.

But this is nub of the issue isn't it? Previously each constabulary had their own forms and special little rules. So ACPO got together and issued their Guidelines, these were intended to bring some level of standardisation across the Country...... some bloody hope of that! OK so we now have a standard form, but that seems to be about it. 

West Mercia et al, appear to have decided that the people in their area(s) should be subjected to different laws/requirements than those applied to people who just happen to live in other areas.

So, a bit like being prosecuted for driving at 25 mph in a 30 mph speed limit in West Mercia, but Kent will allow 40 mph on Tuesdays if you drive a blue car. And as Peter says, we as gun owners/users seem to have no option but to suck it up.