A LETTER FROM ENGLAND
Like Roger I was a pistol shooter, I had held a shotgun certificate since 1975 and a firearms certificate since 1979. When it became apparent that my sport was to be destroyed for political gain I decided to make a stand and insist that the police obeyed the law.
Roger is wrong in implying that the police have a right to inspect security, this is a misconception held by many shooters, there is no such right under the law as written by Parliament.
In 1997 my shotgun certificate fell due for renewal and when the police firearms department required an ultra vires security inspection I refused to allow it. At this point I must make it clear that they had been happy with my security arrangements for 18 years and I had received a letter from the Assistant Chief Constable (Firearms) to that effect in 1991. When my certificate expired I lodged vital components of my shotguns with a friend; the law refers only to complete shotguns, not components, so we were both in the clear. This dispute related solely to the renewal of my shotgun certificate.
Eventually a 'civilian' employee of the firearms department arrived, unannounced, at my home and informed me that he had my new certificate and was authorised to give it to me after inspecting my security arrangements. I reiterated that he had no legal right to do so and refused him admission, he departed refusing to hand over the certificate.
If this man was a 'civilian' employee what does this make our police? Military, or Para-military?
Some time later I received a telephone call from the Inspector in charge of the firearms department asking to meet me to discuss the matter and we arranged for him to call on me. On the appointed day he arrived with the force armourer and served notice of revocation of both shotgun and firearm certificates seizing all firearms in my possession and the shotgun components, which were not covered by the law.
I appealed the revocation in court and during the hearing it was revealed, when I referred to the letter from the Assistant Chief Constable, that the police had 'lost' my file and could not verify the fact. The judge summed up as follows:
"Your interpretation of the law is correct, the police have no right of inspection. I do not see how they can perform their job without inspecting. Appeal dismissed"
I took legal advice and was informed that a further appeal to a higher court would cost at least £5,000 ($7,500), which I could not afford particularly when I was told that it was unlikely that the appeal court would uphold the law either.
Fortunately I had already removed any pistols I was not prepared to lose from the country and now shoot in a, comparatively, free country.
You may have noted that, in this bastion of democracy, neither the police nor the courts uphold the law over their personal prejudices.
Don't let this happen to you. If something has no paper trail DO NOT GIVE IT ONE.
Privileges can be revoked. Rights can not, as George III found out, but they can be suppressed. To regain our rights would take a revolution; how can I emigrate to America?
Keep up the fight.
Best wishes,
Peter Bridgwood.
************************
Mr Bridgwood is quite correct in saying that it is not a *legal* requirement that the police can inspect gun storage arrangements in the UK, (I've only told you the simplified version). In practice however, if anyone chooses to stand on their legal rights and not allow such an inspection they will meet the same fate as he did. The police will unashamedly use force majeur against him and, generally speaking, the courts will back them. This is the dark underbelly of gun 'control' - apart from the law itself being innately oppressive it allows police officers to make up their own laws without any effective practical redress for the average person.
Briefly, here's another recent 'case study' to emphasize the point.
A retired solicitor (lawyer), not a shooter, owns a .22 rifle for sentimental reasons. When being interviewed in connection with the renewal of his Firearms Certificate, it comes to light that his mother (in her eighties) has access to the keys for his gun safe. 'She's an unauthorized person,' says the police officer pompously. 'Change the locks or we'll not renew.' 'Don't be silly,' replies our solicitor, or words to that effect. However, the Chief Constable is adamant and he refuses to renew the FAC. Our man appeals to Crown Court (expensive) where he loses (as expected). He then goes for a Judicial Review (very expensive - way beyond Mr Average) where he wins. The Chief Constable however, obviously having no crime to deal with in his area and appalled at the prospect of this eighty year old wresting the .22 rifle from its rack and careening across the county in a reign of terror, insists on going to the Appeal Court (mega expensive) where, ludicrously, he wins. Our man could then go to the House of Lords but, quite understandably, he has had enough by now, and gives up. No reproach to him, he fought a good fight and he has at least given us a vivid demonstration of just how ridiculous and vindictive our 'common sense' gun laws are.
Just as a matter of interest, our man was no small-time lawyer working out in the sticks. He was a senior partner in the London firm that has for a client no less a person than Her Majesty the Queen. So much for friends in high places, eh?
Cheers, America. Keep on slugging.
Roger Taylor
