Police interview.... and not the good kind

[chaz]

Hi......don't know if it's the same north of the border but down here you are not entitled to free legal advice (soilcitor) if interviewed at home, however if you attend at the police station voluntarily you are still entitled to free independent legal advice.

 

I'm sure if you turn up with a BASC representative and arrange before hand (through the police) for an independent legal advisor to be present for any voluntary chat, then you will be taken very seriously indeed.

 

Good luck.

 

Regards, Rob.

You took the words right out my mouth Rob.

Refuse to be "spoken to" at home, insist that if they need to "interview/speak" to you under caution, then you want legal representation. And ask for a solicitor, not a "Legal rep". There is a big difference. As in the one is fully trained, the other is not! You are also entitled to a copy of the interview to. Be it tape, pen and paper, or dvd.

Good luck! "Touch wood" WMP don't turn that bad!....

[SWShooter]

I dont know the answer to this but I thought you had to be an RFD to manufacture firearms and parts there of ?

[SWShooter]

You took the words right out my mouth Rob.

Refuse to be "spoken to" at home, insist that if they need to "interview/speak" to you under caution, then you want legal representation. And ask for a solicitor, not a "Legal rep". There is a big difference. As in the one is fully trained, the other is not! You are also entitled to a copy of the interview to. Be it tape, pen and paper, or dvd.

Good luck! "Touch wood" WMP don't turn that bad!....

Very true , as a kid I had a run in with the law ,I got legal aid and the ****ards sent a retired copper!

[Shuggy]

I dont know the answer to this but I thought you had to be an RFD to manufacture firearms and parts there of ?

Only if you manufacture them for commercial gain. It is perfectly lawful if you manufacture them for your own use under the authorisation of your FAC. If you subsequently sell it, you are required to submit it for proof. Although there has been a good deal of disagreement about whether the Proof Act applies to moderators.

[brown dog]

Only if you manufacture them for commercial gain. It is perfectly lawful if you manufacture them for your own use under the authorisation of your FAC. If you subsequently sell it, you are required to submit it for proof. Although there has been a good deal of disagreement about whether the Proof Act applies to moderators.

 

Spot on.

[SWShooter]

So in theory he has nothing to worry about, good luck to him.

[hunter686]

Thank you everyone for the support and advice, it's great to see everyone chiming in with there knowledge and guidance.

 

I have an update on things so far. I had a call back from Colin Shedden today after he contracted the head of Firearms at BASC headquarters. As anticipated I have done absolutely nothing wrong and are completely within my right to make the sound moderator. Next thing I now is to wait on the letter of correspondence with the details of my "Interrogation" I'm genuinely looking forward to it! It's about time someone blew holes in how the poloce handle their operations as far as having monkeys running a system that should have trained and knowable professionals at the helme.

 

I plan to make as big a deal of this as I can now that my know I am in the right and have the backing of a great shooting organisation behind me.

[Dalua]

I dont know the answer to this but I thought you had to be an RFD to manufacture firearms and parts there of ?

I don't know either. However, a moderator of the kind under discussion is neither a firearm nor a part of a firearm.

A moderator which actually is 'an accessory to' a S1 firearm is controlled as a S1 firearm: and as far as I'm aware, that's it.

[SWShooter]

Thank you everyone for the support and advice, it's great to see everyone chiming in with there knowledge and guidance.

 

I have an update on things so far. I had a call back from Colin Shedden today after he contracted the head of Firearms at BASC headquarters. As anticipated I have done absolutely nothing wrong and are completely within my right to make the sound moderator. Next thing I now is to wait on the letter of correspondence with the details of my "Interrogation" I'm genuinely looking forward to it! It's about time someone blew holes in how the poloce handlw their operations as far as having monkeys running a system that should have trained and knowable professionals at the helme.

 

I plan to make as big a deal of this as I can now that my know I am in the right and have the backing of a great shooting organisation behind me.

As has been mentioned record every phone call (you must tell them you are doing so) and record everything in a diary , dates , names and exact times, you may need it.

[srvet]

Best of luck, give them hell!!

[gbal]

Best of luck, give them hell!!

 

"Give them help" might be enlightened self interest! :-)

[TSG]

I have kept out of this so far, mainly because it infuriates me when Police Licencing depts make rules up. I am prepared to accept that sometimes they are doing things with the best intentions, that they have little training, (although it is set to change based upon the last minutes of the NCCPO Firearms Licencing minutes) and that whatever we think, they do have a responsibility for public protection. Decisions around public protection are made using the National decision making model, which can be found on the College of Policing website. I know it well as my work life is ruled by it.

This case is not about public protection but simply reading the law and Guidance to Police. Simple and straightforward.

I hope you get a result with BASC , they can be very good however I think it is now time to have one body that represents us as rifle shooters rather than an umbrella organisation that caters for everyone. The logical choice should be the NRA but they seem divided along old school shooting disciplines and do the Home Office listen to them? We are in most cases the most law abiding section of the community that exists. We have to be because if we are not then we are quite quickly deprived of our sport and in many cases ability to work. Can we continue to be treated like this?

[Montey]

Good luck with the interview its been my experience that a complaint at the end has a great deal of clout!

[Shuggy]

I have kept out of this so far, mainly because it infuriates me when Police Licencing depts make rules up. I am prepared to accept that sometimes they are doing things with the best intentions, that they have little training, (although it is set to change based upon the last minutes of the NCCPO Firearms Licencing minutes) and that whatever we think, they do have a responsibility for public protection. Decisions around public protection are made using the National decision making model, which can be found on the College of Policing website. I know it well as my work life is ruled by it.

This case is not about public protection but simply reading the law and Guidance to Police. Simple and straightforward.

I hope you get a result with BASC , they can be very good however I think it is now time to have one body that represents us as rifle shooters rather than an umbrella organisation that caters for everyone. The logical choice should be the NRA but they seem divided along old school shooting disciplines and do the Home Office listen to them? We are in most cases the most law abiding section of the community that exists. We have to be because if we are not then we are quite quickly deprived of our sport and in many cases ability to work. Can we continue to be treated like this?

The NRA have improved enormously over recent years, but to my mind the BASC have shown themselves to be the most effective association in challenging dubious licensing practices in a professional but firm way.

[Chanonry]

Very honest of you. I suspect there are a number of people out there with funny looking paperweights...

[David Hancock]

"BASC have shown themselves to be the most effective association in challenging dubious licensing practices in a professional but firm way"

 

I totally agree with Shuggy.

 

Reference TSG's point that BASC is an "umbrella" organisation and the NRA has a specific remit, this present a divisive point splitting out rifle shooters as a solus activity.

 

BASC have acted for Hunter in a very fast and effective manner as far as I understand - additionally his UKV friends on this site have positively supported him.

 

IMHO the BASC firearms team is the most accessible, effective and experienced support that any shooter could have, rifle or not.

[activeviii]

Not sure how your lot up there will take it but, as basc have said, you have done nothing wrong.

 

You can manufacture your own pipe, with baffles in it. Once you put it on a firearm, then you better have a slot on your licence for it as that would be where your braking the law. If you wish for it to go with the rifle then you must get it proofed. If not, then like me, you just sign it over to be destroyed. You could hand it into you local RFD for distention but no guarantee it will be destroyed so hand into police for them to deal with.

RFD is a registered firearms dealer, this has no bearing on making firearms, just means they can store, ship and purchase.

 

Anyway, getting back. When I make a mod, I just inform my licencing department and for what slot that it is to cover. As long as I have the empty slot then no problems at all.

When I first starting doing this the department went away, found the correct information and came back to me. Thanks Gloucestershire

[SWShooter]

Not sure how your lot up there will take it but, as basc have said, you have done nothing wrong.

 

You can manufacture your own pipe, with baffles in it. Once you put it on a firearm, then you better have a slot on your licence for it as that would be where your braking the law. If you wish for it to go with the rifle then you must get it proofed. If not, then like me, you just sign it over to be destroyed. You could hand it into you local RFD for distention but no guarantee it will be destroyed so hand into police for them to deal with.

RFD is a registered firearms dealer, this has no bearing on making firearms, just means they can store, ship and purchase.

 

Anyway, getting back. When I make a mod, I just inform my licencing department and for what slot that it is to cover. As long as I have the empty slot then no problems at all.

When I first starting doing this the department went away, found the correct information and came back to me. Thanks Gloucestershire

I was sold and still have a mod on a 308 that is unproofed , I purchased it off an RFD , guess the fun will start if I sell it.

[Akeld]

If you wish for it to go with the rifle then you must get it proofed

Didn't Jacksons get a solicitor/court to say otherwise

[1066]

Didn't Jacksons get a solicitor/court to say otherwise

I seem to remember that Jacksons got expert opinion to say proof was not needed, the case was dropped and not tested in court.

 

 

There you go, interesting reading.

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/proofcounsel.htm

[hunter686]

As far as I am aware proofing I not a legal requirement but more an insurance policy. If your moderator blows up and blinds someone's then the fault is on the company. If the moderator had been proofed you a basically saying "This has been safety checked by an external governing body" and your not just taking our word for it.

[banus02]

good evening,just a question if you can make a moderator why if you fac says .30cal no name no number you can not just swap it publicly i.e.with a mate but you can exchange with a rfd or have to apply for a one for one variation. are makers of moderators rfd or in any other way licenced to make/sell moderators,also if you make your own and are not happy with it can you just make another one and distroy the first does seem a little black market,as I said before I wish you the best of luck

[hunter686]

"Evaluation of continued suitability"

 

http://s1381.photobucket.com/user/hunter686/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20160119_102943_zpskp6i0s7f.jpg.html?filters[user]=142907556&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0

[DL.]

"Evaluation of continued suitability"

 

http://s1381.photobucket.com/user/hunter686/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20160119_102943_zpskp6i0s7f.jpg.html?filters[user]=142907556&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0

 

They are clutching at straws, I realised you're going to fight this all the way, but I hope you hold out for a written apology.

[SWShooter]

 

They are clutching at straws, I realised you're going to fight this all the way, but I hope you hold out for a written apology.

I`d agree , if they thought the OP was no longer suitable everything would have been confiscated and FAC revoked pending further investigation , as has been said before ,you must take a legal representative.