Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts
saddler

Incompetent RFD

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, simgre said:

Proofing is not a requirement of serviceability but a requirement of "sale, export, exchange, transfer or pawn, or the attempted or offering such". If none of the above are the intent, a gun does not need proofing. "Shorten, weaken or remove marks" puts the gun "out of proof" but that means you can't sell it etc, not keep or use it.

Shortening doesn't require re-proof unless the proof marks are only (erroneously) at the muzzle and they have been removed. Shortening doesn't weaken the barrel.

I agree, proof is only required if you intend to transfer and/or offer for transfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, awaiting a phone call back from someone senior

Property NOT returned, having been summoned to attend the city police station to answer questions relating to the un-proofed rifle.
It was nothing less than an interview which was a huge breach of my lawful rights
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How was it a breach of your lawful rights? Presumably this was a voluntary interview conducted under the PACE code of practice? Therefore your rights should have been fully explained to you at the start of the interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shuggy said:

How was it a breach of your lawful rights?
Presumably this was a voluntary interview conducted under the PACE code of practice?
Therefore your rights should have been fully explained to you at the start of the interview.

Ugh Urghh

Computer sez NO - Twice over
Wrong presumption & total lack of any therefore....

NOT done under PACE rules
NOT under caution
NO explanation of any rights

I attended PURELY as the implication of the very short phone call to me on Friday from the same FEO, was that I should attend to collect the rifle having satisfied a couple of questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry to hear that. Your rights should have been explained to you irrespective of whether it was under caution or voluntary. Time to get your solicitor and / or national association involved I would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mattnall said:

Shortening doesn't require re-proof unless the proof marks are only (erroneously) at the muzzle and they have been removed. Shortening doesn't weaken the barrel.

I agree, proof is only required if you intend to transfer and/or offer for transfer.

 

I read plenty of argument that states as such and the rationale behind that argument. But I believe that a court or the Home Office are still yet to be convinced and the Act still states, "reduced in substance OR strength" requires a re-proving if done so in any form other than by the user, or wear and tear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, saddler said:

Re Durham Police - it is "general proceedure" that ANY unproofed gun HAS to be seized by them

That would appear to be an unlawful procedure. As was explained earlier in the thread, it is perfectly lawful to possess an unproved firearm. An offence only occurs if you attempt to sell, exchange, or export an item that is not in proof. Even more reason to get the BASC etc. involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof is not specifically mentioned in this so it going to add to the argument via rival interpretation rather than solve it one way or the other.

https://nra.org.uk/nra-bisley/ranges/latest-range-information/range-regulations/

4. All shooters are responsible for ensuring that their firearms and ammunition are safe to use.

The proof process is one way you can try to ensure the firearm is safe to use.

It seems to be what you are comfortable with on range use. This has been quite an illuminating discussion on the topic. I in no way profess to be an expert in this and am enjoying reading the discussion back and forth, learning on the way.

OP I hope that you had legal representation with you during your chat with the police. I would echo what others have said engage with BASC or similar. 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Webley said:

Proof is not specifically mentioned in this so it going to add to the argument via rival interpretation rather than solve it one way or the other.

https://nra.org.uk/nra-bisley/ranges/latest-range-information/range-regulations/

4. All shooters are responsible for ensuring that their firearms and ammunition are safe to use.

The proof process is one way you can try to ensure the firearm is safe to use.

It seems to be what you are comfortable with on range use. This has been quite an illuminating discussion on the topic. I in no way profess to be an expert in this and am enjoying reading the discussion back and forth, learning on the way.

OP I hope that you had legal representation with you during your chat with the police. I would echo what others have said engage with BASC or similar. 

Matt

Sadly - NO - not offered or even hinted at - just a lot of accusations based on nothing but 2+2=7 type logic...
PACE only came in in 1984 - maybe the FEO missed that memo?

If there is no sign of a time today for collecting the rifle from storage to regain legal possession of it, then there WILL be a high level complaint lodged. (Human Rights Act 1998 - violation of illegal seizure of property, PACE 1984, etc.)
Trying to let them solve the problem locally first, if not & no rifle today = IOPC can look into it
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sympathise with your frustration, but may I respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath? 

Evidently, the police are unlikely to allow you to take possession of the unproofed firearm today. You can't make a 'high level' complaint. Either you complain or you don't. I suspect they don't care much either way. Good luck with getting the IOPC to take seriously a complaint that the police refused to hand you something you can't have. Just make arrangements, in a civil way, to enable an RFD with an IQ greater than that of a coathanger to take possession of said firearm for proofing. Oh, and PACE , although passed by parliament in 1984, didn't come in until 1986.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, if the interview was conducted by the FEO, then I think that there is less cause to be concerned. An FEO is a police civilian employee, so has no powers to conduct a formal or voluntary interview under PACE - only a police officer can do that.

I get that you are upset; and who wouldn’t be in the circumstances? However I think that this is a very good reason for letting someone independent speak on your behalf, such as the BASC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, simgre said:

 

I read plenty of argument that states as such and the rationale behind that argument. But I believe that a court or the Home Office are still yet to be convinced and the Act still states, "reduced in substance OR strength" requires a re-proving if done so in any form other than by the user, or wear and tear. 

Rubbish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Webley said:

Proof is not specifically mentioned in this so it going to add to the argument via rival interpretation rather than solve it one way or the other.

https://nra.org.uk/nra-bisley/ranges/latest-range-information/range-regulations/

4. All shooters are responsible for ensuring that their firearms and ammunition are safe to use.

The proof process is one way you can try to ensure the firearm is safe to use.

It seems to be what you are comfortable with on range use. This has been quite an illuminating discussion on the topic. I in no way profess to be an expert in this and am enjoying reading the discussion back and forth, learning on the way.

OP I hope that you had legal representation with you during your chat with the police. I would echo what others have said engage with BASC or similar. 

Matt

More rubbish, you are inferring what is not there, a modern manufactured firearm made in the USA is not 'proofed' there because it's deemed not necessary, they (US manufacturers) do not generally manufacture and release to the market 'unsafe' firearms. The safety issues is usually the idiot who does not know how to safely use a firearms and either puts the wrong type of ammunition through it (ie not ammunition the firearm was designed to be used with such as 300 Blackout in a .223, it will chamber and will blow your gun up and being in proof will not save it) or a clueless/negligent hand loader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 17 Rem said:

I sympathise with your frustration, but may I respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath? 

Evidently, the police are unlikely to allow you to take possession of the unproofed firearm today. You can't make a 'high level' complaint. Either you complain or you don't. I suspect they don't care much either way. Good luck with getting the IOPC to take seriously a complaint that the police refused to hand you something you can't have. Just make arrangements, in a civil way, to enable an RFD with an IQ greater than that of a coathanger to take possession of said firearm for proofing. Oh, and PACE , although passed by parliament in 1984, didn't come in until 1986.

The firearm was WITH an RFD to go to Proof - the Police removed it from that RFD to make sure it went to Proof - total logic fail.
All they did was seize the gun, stop this lawful process from taking place, then unlawfully refuse to return my private property.

Nothing in the law says that my having the rifle on my FAC was not legal or that my trying to Proof it, somehow meant that I was surrendering my legal claim to ownership; they used the term "illegal" several times, instead of "un Proofed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shuggy said:

Ah, if the interview was conducted by the FEO, then I think that there is less cause to be concerned. An FEO is a police civilian employee, so has no powers to conduct a formal or voluntary interview under PACE - only a police officer can do that.

I get that you are upset; and who wouldn’t be in the circumstances? However I think that this is a very good reason for letting someone independent speak on your behalf, such as the BASC.

FEO FIO is acting on behalf of the Police; so it's ok for them to accuse someone of criminal actions?
If said FEO FIO has no powers to conduct an interview, it further begs the question WHY was he interviewing me & making false accusations?

EDIT - been informed that the title job changed is no longer FEO = E for Enquiry, it is FIO, I for Investigation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, saddler said:

FEO is acting on behalf of the Police; so it's ok for them to accuse someone of criminal actions?
If said FEO has no powers to conduct an interview, it further begs the question WHY was he interviewing me & making false accusations?

The clue is in their job title. FEOs are employed to make enquires on behalf of the police in the administration of the firearms acts. However they have no formal police powers of interview and arrest. I am absolutely no solicitor or legal expert, but I suspect that this would be described as a ‘consensual conversation’, i.e. the FEO could only appear in court as a witness to be cross examined on what was said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Shuggy said:

The clue is in their job title. FEOs are employed to make enquires on behalf of the police in the administration of the firearms acts. However they have no formal police powers of interview and arrest. I am absolutely no solicitor or legal expert, but I suspect that this would be described as a ‘consensual conversation’, i.e. the FEO could only appear in court as a witness to be cross examined on what was said.

Civilian investigators do have devolved powers, including that of interviewing. Those interviews will be conducted under PACE. If this FIO is not designated, he has no business interviewing or putting allegations of criminal behaviour to a suspect, in a police station. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, simgre said:

Civilian investigators do have devolved powers, including that of interviewing. Those interviews will be conducted under PACE. If this FIO is not designated, he has no business interviewing or putting allegations of criminal behaviour to a suspect, in a police station. 

Agreed. If they have been formally designated as an ‘Investigating Officer’ then they do have certain powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, simgre said:

S111 Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868. 

Still rubbish 😁

Shortening a barrel is not reducing its substance or strength, reducing its outside diameter (wall thickness) is, think before typing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, saddler said:

The firearm was WITH an RFD to go to Proof - the Police removed it from that RFD to make sure it went to Proof - total logic fail.
All they did was seize the gun, stop this lawful process from taking place, then unlawfully refuse to return my private property.

Nothing in the law says that my having the rifle on my FAC was not legal or that my trying to Proof it, somehow meant that I was surrendering my legal claim to ownership; they used the term "illegal" several times, instead of "un Proofed"

You really do need to stop for breath. 

You started this thread annoyed with an RFD who handed your property to the police, now rant about the police for taking it. If the RFD won’t send it to proof and hands it to the police as he, rightly or wrongly, thinks you have committed an offence then what can the police do other than take possession of the firearm? They can’t hand an unproofed firearm  to you. If you have approached your conversation with the police as indicated on this thread, no wonder they’re investigating carefully before deciding what to do next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 17 Rem said:

You really do need to stop for breath. 

You started this thread annoyed with an RFD who handed your property to the police, now rant about the police for taking it. If the RFD won’t send it to proof and hands it to the police as he, rightly or wrongly, thinks you have committed an offence then what can the police do other than take possession of the firearm? They can’t hand an unproofed firearm  to you. If you have approached your conversation with the police as indicated on this thread, no wonder they’re investigating carefully before deciding what to do next.

Breathing is fine thanks 😁

Yes, agree, the topic has switched somewhat....that does not mean that both the RFD and the FIO/Police are not equally at fault.

The latter, from events today, seem to have it as "department policy" that ANY un-Proofed gun going through an RFD is deemed to be illegal, so must be passed to the Police.
The former, the original reason for the thread, for not knowing the Firearms Act(s) relating to this scenario, plus this could all have been avoided if the RFD in question refused to accept it, as I would just have either used another RFD or even taken it to the Proof House next time I was passing, or as I have found out from this thread, shipped it directly to them in the mail

The unproofed firearm is listed as possessed on my FAC - so nothing to legally stop the FIO or RFD from returning it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, John MH said:

Still rubbish 😁

Shortening a barrel is not reducing its substance or strength, reducing its outside diameter (wall thickness) is, think before typing.

 

So, after having a 26" barrel proofed and then shortening it to around 20", or over 20%, is not reducing its substance? But reducing its outside diameter, say by screw threading, is....? Think before typing.

Despite the Gun Barrel Proof Act being nonsensical by today's standards and very well redundant, it has not been repealed or amended. It remains in force, which is my point and nothing more. I am not an advocate for it and nor am I promoting it. It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy