As an ex police officer as well as a lawful firearm owner, I understand that the devil is often in the detail, however, unless there is clear evidence to suggest Adam Troman presents a threat to others in the form of a criminal conviction, then the action of Devon and Cornwall police in this case is completely unjustifiable. Take them to task Adam as it is only in the face of punitive damages that this kind of draconian behaviour will stop.
as an ex cop as u said there needs to be clear evidence,but hearsay on a double statement that seems to overide everything..and how easy is that to do.
@@1971carmichael Everyone, not just lawful firearm owners should be concerned by our police forces abusing their powers to appear tough on gun crime or for any other reason. This truly is a matter of concern. Sadly, because most people don't own firearms there is a tendency for the public to turn a blind eye to heavy handed policing as it doesn't affect them. It might be firearms today but tomorrow the police might coming knocking on their door to "check their thinking"in relation to a harmless comment made on Twitter!!
@@johnnydiamondsmusic1673 Exactly! I think we all know the case in question. Just terrifying. We need to change how our police forces and how society in general interprets hate speech/communication. Currently we could find ourselves getting arrested by merely stating unpopular facts and/statistics. It's lunacy.
As an ex police officer you should know the burden of proof is not beyond all reasonable doubt in respect firearms licensing it balance of probabilities a lower threshold.
You failed to disclose an offence from 2006? Isn't it the job of the Police to assess a person's suitability prior to issuing a certificate for firearms?
Well from 2006 till today he must have had two renewals since then and no one picked them up ? My understanding is is that every five years before a renewal the firearms unit check your details against the police national computer
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? It does appear unreasonable that the certificate holder wasn’t given an opportunity to discuss the allegations prior to the guns being seized.
@@Gangster88232 with a user name such as yours I can see where that action would make gangster behavior less risky. Now if they could only seize the knives and blunt objects you could reign terror totally unimpeded.
Was advised my my local authority to request for a subject access disclosure from the Police National Computer (PNC) by ACRO Criminal Records Office so you know what they know about you, saves any confusion or complication.
Almost 20 years ago I was reported by some Karen because she had learned I had bought a replica bb gun here in UK, all completely legal to buy and own at that time. Armed police then attended my house only hours after I had purchased the bb gun, armed with mp5s, they wanted to inspect my gun and see where I shot it (in my bedroom). I was allowed to keep the bb gun as it was perfectly legal, but it still left me with a new understanding of how seriously uptight some people are here in the country. To add insult to injury, the woman who reported me, her children who were younger than me at that time, owned bb guns as well but she determined her kids were responsible enough to own them, but I wasn't. I hate this country for its perspective on guns. Now here in Scotland we can't can't buy air rifles without licenses
@@Gangster88232 hahaha someone with the name "gangster" claims guns aren't necessary for civilians? You have to be joking. Gamekeepers are civilians, slaughtermen are civilians, skeet shooters are civilians, Olympic shooters are civilians, pest controllers are civilians, private security details are civilians... How could you honestly believe that a government should be the only ones to possess guns? Do you know about democide? Have you ever studied history? If you don't feel you need a gun, that's your right, but it should be the right of those who wish to own a gun, to own one, which is the law so far as long as you have good reason to own a gun. There was a newspaper poll a few years ago about what topic they should raise in Parliament. 95% of people voted for them to bring back hand gun ownership. It was such an overwhelming response the newspaper dropped the poll and pretended it never happened.
You need to see a letter from the chief constable or a warrant otherwise you can refuse them entrance. I would not play ball with injustice like this. I would also ensure my optics were removed from my rifles first along with removing any custom parts or stocks which they are not entitled to have. Speeding is viewed as wreckless and irresponsible and was always used as a contributing factor to refuse or revoke a certificate based on assessment of character. As a shooter you have to be careful about these things under current police attitudes. Many authoritie do have an agenda. The simple truth is that those high up in the police and government do not want any public ownership of guns, especially in volatile times where more totallitarian controls are being exercised on the public, where our freedoms continue to be stripped and where we can even be investigated for "thinking a certain way" which may not correlate to current marxist wokeness.
buddy u got no chance of that warrant or suspision they will come and deal with it and u got no say at all..when or if this happens say nothing..record everything like they do be calm and respectful if u never had any criminal offense or accusation then its on like donkey kong but they dont work like that....u say speeding..ppl kill doing that but they get licence back...ppl stab others to death they dont get told sorry nomore knife use what about the acid in face shit or petrol attack u see where im coming from..the law as of now has been respectable in changing laws....its the police that have those records that customise them..ur face dont fit u gone i dont at all blame the government we have some serious deals with countries for arms..thats always out of public knowledge cos its a massive buisness and uk makes some bad ass guns..as a side thought if u had a gun cabinet that record when u take weapons out would that safeguard a genuine user//in todays world i dont think so..our laws are being manipulated like usa has become u r guilty untill proved innocent,not innocent untill proved guilty....go look at american law over the years its changed to such an extent ways to defend have become illegal.
I'm a Brit with a lot of extended family overseas - particularly in the USA. I've never subscribed to gun culture. Always struck me as crazy. That said - looking at tbe increasing incidence of firearms in UK police forces, and their increasing misuse - I have to admit that I'm now moved to believe one increasingly obvious thing. And that is - if my largely brain-dead local police should ever be armed - then I will be seeking a gun too. I'd rather be tried in a dock than carried in a box.
@@MrMcCawber “Gun culture?” This is not gun culture, it’s a private individual who enjoys shooting as a sport! We aren’t in America matey, we’re in the UK. We don’t worship AR15’s and the like and just own guns for the sake of it, home defence or the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, that’s gun culture, we don’t have the same attitude towards firearms as the Americans. I see your point on the second bit though.
There's a good chance that they've added someone else's speeding offences to his file. I've had to deal with a similar problem for a member of my shooting association.
Good luck getting this sorted, regardless of the allegations there should be an opportunity to state your defence rather than the only option being crown court. Guilty until you have enough money to defend yourself this appears. If it were a third world country we would call it a corrupt policing system.
How can you live with weirdo Police after your priveleges and freedoms like above? There's a difference between living and dying, but this is cruel display of tyrants wanting to commit Human rights abuses. This could have serious repercussions, if he knew the right people.
Back in the 70s and 80s when I had police come to my house about a firearms issue they just came unarmed and in plain clothes so as not to freak out the neighbours
This is exactly why you should oppose gun control. It always starts out at what seems reasonable. Ultimately you end up with nothing. Then you are on your own. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
The people involved in these "Witch-hunts" should be able to use taxpayers money to defend their cases; just as the police are WASTING taxpayers money in harassing innocent licenced firearm or shotgun owners.
About 5 or 6 years ago my son received a dawn visit by armed and masked police. TERRIFIED at having an assault rifle pointed directly at his face, he immediately complied with their instructions to lie on the floor. Where were his weapons? Weapons??!! What the HELL were they talking about?! He'd never owned a firearm in his life! Other than an air rifle (for which he had a permit) he used occasionally to pot rabbits (rural area.) The police searched his house and found nothing but the air rifle and left after confiscating it and warning him he might face further prosecution for 'firearms offences.' The source of all this? His ex-girlfriend who had drunkenly phoned police claiming he had 'a house full of guns.' He never had the air gun returned, despite its seizure being illegal, and the ex was never charged with wasting police time. It didn't even end tbere. Pulled over for a dodgy tail light a year later, he couldn't understand the visible caution of the officers involved. He later found out that - having never committed a criminal offence in his life - the police database now cautioned officers to 'approach with caution - may be armed and dangerous.' We're now trying to get that fixed. Given the systematic, institutional rigmarole we've faced so far, we're not holding our breath. My son - post police assault - had some emotional episodes. Eventually identified by his GP as PTSD, for which he's had to seek treatment. He has now replaced his own dumb mobile phone with a smartphone, and both his car and his home are equipped to (quietly) record any future police interactions.
They do this to everyone, a member of my family went through it, everything was taken on hearsay! the court case was a comedy show. you will loose but give them hell.
Get advice from one of the shooting organisations to which, I assume you belong, and contact a lawyer specialising in this sort of dispute. You are indeed being badly served by your force and obviously need to start proceeding quickly. Your chief Constable needs to be aware of what his employees are doing in his name. Your lawyer might advise on what tack to take with that. Good luck and I trust that you find the Police to be acting beyond their powers.
Yet, in the end, americans bowed to every single weapon and ammo ban of the past. Holding on to what daddy still allowes them to own. Right down until all you are allowed to own is a break action single barrel shotgun. And you will still call yourself free because you can own them. Most US states already are more restrictive than all of Europe. Its only a matter of time the last States will pull even or be forced to split of.
The police are being very aggressive on people with firearms at the moment they think they are judge and jury.go to court and get them back but get a barrister to represent you but if you get a judge that’s auntie shooting you had it .the u.k has the most Suppressed gun laws in the world The police will only be happy when they stop gun ownership it’s a pity they aren’t so aggressive with people with knives that kills and wounds 95 percent more people but I so pose they would have to do some work for that they just go for the easy option.
Unfortunately you represent everything the woke police are taught to despise. White, English, male, married with a close/nice family unit. You have a successful business, good manners, well spoken, live in a nice environment and a penchant for riding motorcycles at speeds above legal limits. On the other hand in the metropolitan favelas, where drugs are openly dealt and crimes committed without any fear of being reported let alone investigated or caught, where people walk about carrying assault rifles, automatic sub-machine guns, knives and other weapons there appears to be no requirement to remove these guns from their owners. One day when the public are so underwhelmed by our police that they will never go to their aid, you would hope the police might develop some introspection skills and ask themselves why this is? The first question should be having spent x decades trying to win the hearts and minds of our criminal fraternity by policing by consent has this been a success? They are rapidly loosing the goodwill of society by their actions and your case is a classic example of this.
Sadly I saw the behaviour of the police years ago. I've never been in trouble or got a criminal record but I did help a distressed drunken women out of a busy road and called the police to assist her. I was rewarded by an officer attacking me only to have another drag him off. Then I was in a barber shop in Brum and a guy standing outside just eating a sandwich was hit over the head with a truncheon because there was a protest 100 metres away. He wasn't remotely involved. Later I was fitted up for a car accident when a drunken woman, a friend of the attending officer, drove off her drive into my car. If only I knew the law like I do do now ! I was young and naive. Years later, I worked in London as a Finance Director for a major organisation and drove past a policeman being beaten up by a guy in Deptford. I just drove past. I don't care any more. I'm the kind of guy who always gets involved if someone is being hurt but nowadays never for a policeman. Not worth it.
The woke police are real. This is all about taking guns from whoever they can. Who easier than a law abiding white male to take his guns. It’s all connected to the 2030 agenda. Fact.
An assessment for being reckless could be based on almost anything; drinking alcohol, eating too much fat, living in a high smog area, not having the chimney swept regularly, believing MSM, voting for the 'wrong' party. A list of wrong choices can be used to show a 'reckless character'.
Look mate. The same happened to me. 63 year old. Shooting over 40 years. A mild altercation with a neighbour where I removed him off my property. The letter said I was a liability to society.! They are just looking to justify what is a gun grab. I too told them they are not weapons. I had years ago asked for my police report under the Freedom of information act. It was so heavily redacted to render it useless. So full of supposition too which you don't get a chance to counter. It's a wholly flawed and pernicious police force. They cocked up in Plymouth and other regions. But decent folk are paying the price.
Anybody can get done for speeding these days. It is human to make a mistake and I guarantee every driver in this country has gone over the speed limit at some point. It is not grounds to revoke a SGC or FAC.
@@neilgoodall1768 Speeding isnt grounds for revoking a FAC you are correct, but dangerous driving is. And this guy was caught doing almost 100mph in public, which is instantly dangerous driving. And that was his fourth speeding charge, so it shows a pattern of behaviour. And thats before the alleged road rage incident, which, if proven, makes this even more of a clear cut case.
@@fatbap as I have already replied to your other ill-informed comment, excessive speed is not reckless driving and I do not have 4 convictions. I have one previous speeding conviction. I have absolutely no knowledge of any road rage incident, and as I relay in the video, had this been true or held any merit my licence would not have been renewed after 2018, unless the police were negligent in every aspect.
@@adamtroman8946 Firstly, I should have said dangerous driving, the UK doesnt have a reckless driving charge. Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says its dangerous driving when "driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous". It also says that “dangerous” means “danger either of injury to any person, or of serious damage to property”. 96mph on a dual carriageway meets that standard easily. So yes, you are a dangerous driver. Not sure why I said 4 but you have three. You even said so in the video you liar. Cant even keep your story straight when the lies are right in front of your face. Not only that, but you have an allegation of road rage. So a pattern of behaviour that establishes you are dangerous to both yourself, and others around you. You leave them off the disclosures then you lie about it proving that youre also dishonest. And no, the police dont have to contact you over the road rage incident if the other party didnt wish to pursue charges, but it will still have been recorded. You are exactly the type of person most of the Irish and British shooting community dont want anywhere near us. Dangerous and dishonest. Seems like D&C police can actually get something right once in a while.
To dickie, can you explain to me how your driving record should be any Bering on gun ownership. This has to be one of the most asinine things I’ve ever heard.
Reckless behaviour that puts the public at risk in one aspect of life can be indicative of a reckless attitude to the safety of the public in other aspects of life. That’s the rationale. Obviously the aren’t always linked, but sometimes they are. Whether there is a link will be an issue no doubt for the judge on appeal.
Couple of points here. Sending armed cops is generally the norm. Why send non armed officers for them to then summon armed so the firearms can be made safe as per force standing orders. Non armed cops have no access to the force armoury so again armed cops are the most versatile have access to the armoury and are ultimately trained in handling and storing firearms safely. So this is a practical resourcing measure no need to send four officers when one arv will do. Yes they will have holstered side arms so I get a bit sceptical when I hear firearms owners commenting that they feel worried or uneasy around guns. As far the dog being confused no comment. In the footage there is two mentions of failing to disclose its immaterial what the intial offence was. However failing to disclose is a matter of honesty and its a criminal offence. Its down to the individual to obtain the correct material via acro or dbs checks. It's not down to licensing to do it for you. There appears to be a pattern of offending the previous speeding the failing to disclose and the more recent speeding via the bike. This shows a pattern of behaviour and I suspect that the flm has looked at these and decided to revoke rather than going down the vs route. I suspect that this case will ultimately be decided by a judge at the crown court. To summarise there is always two sides to a story there is always differing opinions what is safe and what is not. There is the appeal process which was set up for these type of incidents so an independent can see both sides. For me having firearms is a privilege so you need to keep yourself out of bother. Doing a ton on bike regardless of the road the conditions you will be risking both your licences. Charlie and the team I would air on the side of caution or look into these type of stories in detail prior to airing them. Negative stories like this don't do our sport any favours. This is great ammunition for the antis and if it falls into the wrong hands it will be manipulated and used against us.
Good point about armed police. That said, I too always feel slightly nervous around armed police. The difference between standing on a clay ground is that part of their job is to threat assess and use deadly force should they deem it necessary. Neither of you know each other. And, to be honest, a lot of coppers aren’t terribly bright and some have terrible judgement. On the other hand at least in the U.K. you have to have done a lot of training to carry a firearm, unlike somewhere like the US.
Had two police officers call go take my statement after a local RTA in which I hadn't been involved other than as a witness. They seemed determined to have me confirm the story of another witness, and I eventually had to request them to leave as I was NOT prepared to alter my original statement. There was obviously an agenda under way, and I wanted nothing to do with it. But the clincher came as they left. From the other end of my hallway I distinctly heard one say to the other "Did you see all those books in there? How f***ing suspicious is that?" (I'm retired after working most of my life in education.)
The whole system regarding firearms and public ownership here in England is a disgrace, the police should have no part in it. It should be a civil operation. I was raided by armed police about 20 yrs ago. There was no conviction, but my firearms certificate was revoked.
as i watched this video of cowards giving up their tools against tyranny. was looking at the solid thumbs down button i had clicked, it unclicks itself.
I think the police's scheme of conjuring the idea of a reckless mindset from speeding offences is nothing other than a blatantly dishonest means of reducing the number of firearms in public hands to an absolute minimum. We all speed at some point every day - intentionally or accidentally, even the pious naysayers commenting on here. If his 96mph in a 70 limit had been reckless, why wasn't he charged with reckless driving at the time? You may say, well it was more than once, but two non reckless offences (in the eyes of the law) don't make a broader propensity for recklessness.
Very simple: there is no such offence. He could arguably have been charged with careless driving but speeding is usually easier to prove, involves less police and lawyer time putting the case together and, in reality when you look at the sentencing guidelines, the sentence will be about the same as careless driving, which is the only other realistic option. The relevance to firearms licensing should be pretty obvious: those entrusted with a firearm need to have good judgment when it comes to taking risks in order to ensure public safety. Exceeding the speed limit to that degree goes beyond mere negligence or momentary omission, which we are all guilty of, to demonstrate a reckless disregard to the safety of other people. Add that to the other speeding convictions it shows a pattern of poor judgment around risk. The last thing one needs is a gun in the hands of somebody with that sort of attitude, because they will likely at some point put people at risk of being shot. That’s the reasoning, and perfectly logical it is too. That’s not, of course, to say that can’t be rebutted. That’s the purpose of an appeal. This guy can call evidence in court to show that, when it comes to guns at least, he actually is a model of safe practice and competence.
@@guy1234484 That's just it, the point I'm trying to make is the law itself does not consider excess speed on it's own to be reckless, careless or whatever, to be charged with careless driving you need other factors involved not just speed. Two officially non reckless events don't make for a propensity for general recklessness. The police are trying to conjure the idea that speeding on its own is reckless when the law itself does not consider it so. They are also using the tax payers wallet to defend these chancy assertions it court. Hope he defends it in court for the sake of everyone.
@@spencereagle1118 oh I get your argument; it’s just a fundamentally flawed one. Firstly, it’s quite wrong to say the criminal law doesn’t recognise recklessness in driving as a form of reprehensible behaviour. It may not appear in the label ascribed to an offence but it is well recognised as an aggravating feature across the sentencing guidance for all driving offences. Moreover driving without due care and attention/careless driving is driving “below the standard of the reasonable and competent driver”. To meet that requirement the standard of driving need not even be as bad as the ordinary definition of “reckless” (as opposed to the very technical and unintuitive use of the term ‘reckless’ in a number of criminal offences). Secondly, the benchmark for the expected standard of behaviour demanded of certificate holders is not set by the criminal law. It is set by the Firearms Act 1968. Criminal offending will generally provide a strong indication of unsuitability to hold a licence (and in some cases lead to an automatic prohibition from holding a licence). Importantly, however, the two do not go hand in glove. Fundamentally, save where the offending leads to automatic prohibition, the task of the FEO is to look at the UNDERLYING behaviour, in all the circumstances, and assess suitability based on that. That is what has happened here.
@@guy1234484 Guy, I don't think you do get my argument. ''Firstly, it’s quite wrong to say the criminal law doesn’t recognise recklessness in driving as a form of reprehensible behaviour. It may not appear in the label ascribed to an offence but it is well recognised as an aggravating feature across the sentencing guidance for all driving offences.'' ...we are not talking about a 'recklessness' offence, this guy committed a speeding offence. By law speeding is not in and of itself an act of recklessness, for a speeding offence to be accomanied by another charge such as careless or dangerous driving you have to commit another act in addition to the act of speeding, without that it is not careless or reckless in the eyes of the law. Indeed, the road traffic act specifically excludes the act of speeding alone from being classified as reckless or careless. The police cannot simply pick up upon something that in itself is not legally defined as reckless, then declare it as reckless when it suits them in the pursuit removing someone's license. 'It is set by the Firearms Act 1968' ..no it's not, it's Home Office guidance that set the parameters for what is considered a 'criminal' offence worthy of note. At one time the police were not at all interested in speeding offences, some forces used to say 'apart from speeding offences' on the past conviction sections of their forms, but over time they have become very creative in coming up with news ways of removing certificate holders. The argument that speeding is in some way indicative of a potential to be reckless with firearms is a spurious one to say the least. It's happening up and down the country and needs to be nipped in the bud by the courts.
@@spencereagle1118 Of course speeding is not an offence where “recklessness” is the mens rea. It is a strict liability offence. Careless driving and even dangerous driving are both offences which do not require any particular state of mind; they are proven on the objective standard of the defendant’s driving, even if (to quote some of the case law) he is doing his “incompetent best.” However, the sentencing exercise for all these offences is a much broader exercise than simply dealing with the actus reus of the offence. Evidence of recklessness and particularly poor driving is something the sentencing magistrates are entitled to take into account as an aggravating feature, and as much is embedded in the Magistrates’ Courts Sentencing Guidelines. Just as the sentencing magistrates are entitled to conclude that the mindset of the offender driving at such speeds was reckless as part of the sentencing exercise, so too are the police when considering the statutory tests under the Firearms Act. While it may not be something you agree with the principle of, I can tell you that it is a perfectly lawful exercise for a firearms licensing decision maker to infer a particular attitude on the part of the certificate holder, even if that particular state of mind isn’t part of the mens rea of the offence of which they’ve been convicted (and, as I say, not even dangerous driving require the prosecution to prove any particular mens rea, even though it’s bloody obvious to any sensible person that someone driving that dangerously is almost certainly acting in a reckless manner). I’m afraid I am actually entirely right when I say that the key test is set out in the Firearms Act 1968. Nevertheless you are still right to point towards the statutory guidance, albeit not for the right reasons. It is not the statutory guidance that solely governs the approach to speeding offences. Like any statutory guidance, the guidance is there to assist decision makers (in this case the police firearms department) in making correct and consistent decisions. Let me quote paragraph 3.6 of the Guidance to you. It is in the section entitled “3. Assessing Suitability” and under the subtitle “Danger to Public Safety or the Peace” (in reference to the power contained in section 30C of the Act for the police to revoke a certificate in such circumstances): “3.6 the applicant [for the purposes of revocation the certificate holder] need not have been involved in any physical violence to be considered unsuitable. For example, abusive behaviour, a lack of self-control, recklessness, disregard for the law in other areas…may suggest that the applicant’s ownership of a firearm could result in a danger to public safety or to the peace.” The reason the police have in the past and current do give relatively little weight to a “normal” speeding offence is that it is usually committed negligently, doesn’t cause significant risk to the public and doesn’t show a fundamental disregard of the law. It is the very high speed in this case that gives rise to the perfectly legitimate inference that this gentleman does act in a reckless manner with respect to other people’s safety. The police are more than entitled, in my view, on the facts of the various offences and allegations (if true) to consider that the last three of those factors in the guidance are engaged. I would be surprised if a Circuit Judge sitting in the Crown Court on the basis of the facts if substantiated by the police and in the absence of any evidence in this gentleman’s favour would allow this appeal. In court I think the previous minor speeding matters will carry little weight. It’s just kitchen sink stuff used to bolster the decision. I suspect that the judge is also unlikely to find any dishonesty regarding the declaration of the convictions, but you can never be sure. What the judge is going to be most concerned about is the road rage allegation followed by this conviction. This guy is going to have to come up with a fair whack of evidence to rebut the road rage allegation and also the natural inferences about his attitude to risk that flow from the conviction. Hopefully he’ll do well when he gives evidence and is cross-examined. That will require a good legal team because at the moment what has been said on the video and in his response to comments may well be seen by the judge as showing a lack of insight and an attitudinal problem. You may well think all of this is entirely unfair, and I have sympathy with that view, but this is how it works in firearm licensing!
As an American, the thought of them attempting to terminate your firearms rights for speeding tickets is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a while. Citizens of the UK have already given up virtually all firearms ownership rights. Stand up now or you’ll lose them all.
Yeah,but someone being nice while they strip you of your Rights is quite irrelevant, it's like someone being nice to you while they beat the crap out of you. You people in Britain need to take back your Rights from parliament!
Ridiculous. They carry out back ground checks with other police departments around the country before issuing a certificate. Not only that a speeding offence is no reason to revoke a certificate not exactly a violent crime or anything.
Devon and cornwall police took 28months to prosses my aplication for a SGC ( i did have one for 5 years with no worries then let it go for 10 years ) they have finally answered me with a rejection on the grounds in my medical history iv asked for help with depression ...... that was 14 years ago and i held a license at the time , they said this proves im a danger to the public . Been shooting air guns, shotguns , rimfire since i was 12 im now 33 and been told im not responsible enough have a certificate i already held with no issues
My neighbour who was a shooting and hunting chap for decades had seized his guns because he threatened to let down the tyres of a digger because it was smashing up dangerous asbestos near his home and the otranto refused to stop.
sorry old boy....it took a lot to get my firearms licence, but i was warned that its easier to loose. One foot out of line and its gone. Being granted a firearms licence nowadays is a privalage, You are expected to be a figure of the community, a simple argument in a bar or road rage can affect your privalage.
to be honest, he shouldn't be that surprised I don't think.there is a bit of overall history there, and if he's been reported for possible road rage and several speeding offences, then it's asking for trouble really.you've got to be a good boy these days to keep your gear, and I think we all know that
Your right but sometimes it’s hard not to tell someone who has upset you to F off , we are all human and not saints. Just because you have road rage at another motorist which they deserve sometimes doesn’t mean your not responsible in the mainstream of life.
Hope you get this sorted Adam i used to live in Devon and all this does is make the public untrust and have no respect for Devon and Cornwall police when they behave so badly
Something similar happened to me. They came to my home out of the blue alleging I had been dishonest and could be a danger to the public. What an Insult... This was regarding a historical issue concerning a family member (whom did not live at my address) and not me. and my previous declaration of suffering from stress at work years before. and an off the cuff comment I made in passing about being worried about loosing my SGC. I had no recourse, nothing I said was listened to or taken into account...At all!!.. They said "Don`t worry its only for a couple of months" I knew even then that was an outright lie and they had no intention of returning my guns. What followed was months of me contacting the Firearms officer with either no reply or more excuses. They knew my certificate was up for renewal in a few months and if you ask me were biding their time. I sent in my renewal when the time came. this was shortly after BASC announced they were removing the Legal cover for their members from the 31st of July 2020. Hmmm I thought.... Low and behold, a few short days after the legal cover ended, I received a letter stating that my renewal had been refused. In my personal opinion they were no doubt aware that I would not be able to ask BASC for help any longer and would have to pay thousands of pounds to fight it. So now who was being dishonest here then?? They took away a pass time that I loved so much. My guns were eventually returned (As they were still legally my property) but were transferred to my brother and put on his certificate. They were returned in a terrible state. The barrels had rusted and needed a lot of work to restore them. It looked like they had been left propped against a wall in the car park for a year. They said "There's nothing stopping you still going shooting,) I would just have to be accompanied by my brother. As if that made up for it.... It didn`t. I feel totally let down by the system. I have been placed in a category I do not wish to ben in. Made to feel like a criminal, had my self esteem destroyed and my good character defiled. I cant remember a time when I felt so sad and rejected. If they genuinely believed I could be a danger to the public how come I could still go out carrying and using a shotgun, albeit with my brother? It is a disgraceful state of affairs when otherwise honest hardworking, diligent and conscientious firearm owners are treated like potential dangerous criminals with little or no defence available to the majority. Yes I still go pigeon shooting with my brother. but it just doesn`t feel the same. My brothers certificate is up for renewal now. I cant wait to see what they do next. ......Hmmm watch this space me thinks.
This "hobby" for the British people will be no longer from the looks of it??. I'm not a legal person but would have thought an "allegation" in law is not proof of anything nor is it a criminal act. Unless guilty before innocent is now ok? Maybe some sh*t hot prosecutors would and could argue differently. Thorough psych testing and firearms competency in handling all done through a mandatory course in order to get a license should be the norm? Maybe it is in the UK? I know for some European country's it is def the case. What says you guys? Although, as someone who takes their driving very seriously and coming from a family of which some members were professional drivers, speeding on several occasions does tell me this is wanton disregard for the public safety.
Firearms are a privilege to own in this country and it is made quite clear that you need to behave yourself in order to maintain that privilege. 100 mph on a bike is incredibly reckless and he could have killed himself or somebody else...do you really think that was going through his head at the time? There was also no mention of the 2014 conviction in this video, so I suspect we aren't getting the full picture. I agree turning up unannounced and taking everything away is over the top, but I do think you should've had a warning that if you continue to speed your certificate would be liable to revocation as you are showing a clear disregard for the law on multiple occasions.
Recently renewed my shotgun certificate, in the letter for the renewal I used to get a renewal form,this time I got a form for handing my guns in and had to download a renewal form myself, how many older people do not have the wherewithal to print a form off, start of the nanny state!!!!
I'm kind of split on this one. Speeding at 100mph is indeed reckless and stupid. It could result in death or serious injury to anyone. The fact you did it is an indication that you are indeed inconsiderate and reckless.
Doubt it was on the round about.....He could have been the only one on the road, or nearly so...but listen to yourself..."The fact that you did it is ...." Have YOU never driven/rode at 100mph? Of course not. Never Mind.
“After what happened in Plymouth” What happened in Plymouth was was a tragedy with the loss of life, but let’s not forget that that was 100% preventable, the police failed in their duty, the warning signs might as well been flashing in neon lights and they still gave his shotgun back to him after already confiscating it on good grounds. It is not a privilege to be granted a shotgun or firearm certificate, it’s earned through being a law abiding responsible citizen. I agree that the police or anyone pulling their strings should not refer to guns as ‘weapons’ because this does infer that they only exist to cause harm to others. I was brought up with shotguns and firearms and see them as just tools for a job, some are beautifully designed and engineered and I appreciate that too, but they are still tools for a job. Every police force in the UK need to get back to following the Home office rules, not their woke interpretation of the rules. Likewise, the Home Office should be working more closely with all shooting organisations and clubs to get more in touch with real shooters and not pandering towards anti shooting activists.
I will try to be polite and un-biased. My understanding is that in every situation where firearm(s) are to be confiscated or otherwise taken way or removed then it is armed response who have to deal with the actual handling. Depending on the number of firearms held then I guess the number of officers could be two or twenty two. On the revocation itself, whilst I sympathise with the situation on a fellow shooter level you have to ask; "would this behaviour prevent an initial grant"? I'm afraid that in my eyes it would and, if it was in between grant and renewal, then you could not reasonably expect the renewal to be granted. Sad situation but the Police are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't and I cannot criticise them on this.
To be fair there was a half-retired copper who was shot dead when he was sent to remove someone's guns. This was around 10 years ago or so but I can't remember exactly.
It's not just shotgun users. I was accused of shooting someone with a std air rifle. I was at my mother in laws birthday party (80th) when the accuser said it happened. I do do target shooting in my garden rarely. The popo arrested my neighbor and took 5 airsoft rifles, but the next day I had a pcso try to question me on my doorstep...... I told him to F off....... next day 2 firearms cops turned up to remove my air rifle. I was questioned ( did a no comment interview) as I knew I wasn't home. Nine months later, I was pleading to get my rifle back only to be told I was informed 5 months before it was NFA, but no one told me........ the popo didn't have the decency to tell me anything 🤷🏻♂️🤦♂️
Off the top of my head the wording in the firearms act is " leathal barrelled weapon" so sadly that's how people who don't have an interest in guns see guns.
you have to be and remain squeaky clean if you want to own and keep firearms. He didn't so he lost the right . Me i am so SQUEAKY clean even my farts are fitted with a moderator
So if someone goes in a car and deliberately mows down a bus queue, killing people, then anyone that commits a traffic offence, no matter how minor, should in the eyes of the law lose his car, and be banned from ever getting another. Guilty until proven innocent!!!!
I know that in some states in Australia the only time you can lose your firearms license for driving offences is if you show a pattern of disregard for the law. Even then the relevant police authority has to be bothered to revoke your license, it's not a foregone conclusion. I'm not sure if it's the same in the UK, but our laws came from UK law. It seems Devon and Cornwall police have zero tolerance.
I would certainly ask my MP to look into this for you. Having said that, find out his/her views on shooting as a sport before digging a bigger hole. I'm sure I speak for most of us to wish you a favourable outcome. Advice from CPSA and BASC is key.
I’m glad I’m not with Devon and cornwall now the way there treating people is pretty terrible they should publicly apologise and there should be an enquiry it’s unacceptable to treat people this way shooting to some people is the only escape they have from work for others it’s part of the job and way of life.
This is complete lunacy. They can revoke your firearm license for a SPEEDING TICKET? Wow, you people really are subjects, huh? So you can stop asking why we Americans fight for our Second Amendment rights that are enumerated in our Constitution. Owning firearms for you is a privilege, but for us it's a RIGHT. That's why we'll never give them up. From my cold, dead hands!
Pathetic excuse to revoke a license, even you have been speeding or in a road rage incident or even drink driving I can’t see how this makes you a danger to the public being a shotgun owner. The antis are also antagonising shooters to get a reaction so you may lose your guns it’s a joke. Why send armed police and not the firearms officer?has the man suddenly turned into Rambo the minute he went speeding.?
The USA is a great place but it's not without fault. Almost daily a US citizen is accidently, mistakenly or illegally shot by a Police officer. Not sure I could take all that excitement.
@@dtaylor9673 I recall someone once did the calculations on the likelihood of being a citizen involved in a police shooting in the USA, it took into account the number of police officers, the population figures, the number of police\citizen interactions per day, per instance eg traffic stops, arrest warrants, domestic calls etc. The chances of getting shot by an American police officer is minute, and the chances of being shot unjustly even less, it's a tiny fraction of a percent of a very small chance indeed. I wouldn't let it worry you 😁
The form is ambiguous as a speeding ticket is generally fixed penalty notice, unless it is a conviction through a court. Generally there would be something else lurking in the background to cause difficulties.
Police being nice you say,let's just think why that was??? One other thing is now you have told the world where your guns are kept. One thinks you won't get them back and also I hope you never showed plod where you keep your keys for the gun safe/cabinet.
You were upset because it was something that you love, and something that is critical for your defense as well. The government cannot keep you safe, that is your responsibility!
Fender and Paul, 100 mph is dangerous? So Germany, USA etc who all have no speed restrictions are wrong? What utter nonsense. Take his guns for speeding? Complete crap.
I can’t believe this even happened! Ok yes you got caught speeding and was maybe classed as reckless on a motorbike but this in no way implies you are reckless with a firearm! How many of us go to the pub and have a few too many on occasion? Could this be classed as reckless? I think you have a very strong case to fight this, unfortunately at your cost! Have BASC offered any legal advice?
Dangerous driving has always been considered in law a valid reason for revocation. 100 mph will be considered dangerous, irresponsible and in most cases an automatic driving ban.
Also the home office guidance specifically states patterns of behaviour will be taken into account, and they don't need to necessarily require a conviction to consider an alleged act as "evidence" of being unsuitable as part of a wider picture. It's clear as day written in the HO guidelines. Whilst D&C are very much poking him with the shit end of the stick, the most recent collaring is most likely what's kicked off the review and revocation. 2 fairly recent speeding offences (within last 10 years is considered recent), 1 of which is bloody fast and also a road rage complaint which will have had to have been properly reported ecorded and not made on a whim (and he won't automatically have been contacted about it either), he's pretty much bang to rights as far as the letter of the law goes on suitability to hold a certificate. I really don't think this is a good example to hold up of the supposed re-evaluation of existing certificates by D&C FLD...
@@bigrack6668 I’ve lived in Japan and Germany and not being a native speaker of either languages, lived in blissful ignorance to how bad their lack of individual rights really were. I’ve visited the U.K.twice and as a native English speaker, I’ve understood EVERYTHING in the upmost clarity. When I arrived home to the USA I literally was overcome with the urge to run off the plane and kiss the ground and shout in praise, “God Bless America”. Other countries are great places unless, 1). You get in trouble with the law, or 2). You have to pay taxes.
If it was considered ‘dangerous driving’ then I’d be getting prosecuted for ‘dangerous driving’. It’s simply excessive speed. I’m not at any point denying the severity of that but the two are grossly different. The traffic officer at the time was the judge of the offence at the time.
@@adamtroman8946 the speeding offence which you have admitted to will be viewed by two different Police Dept in two different ways. Almost like two different charges. Traffic and the Courts will deal with the speeding charge, and administer punishment with regard to driving licence and road traffic law. Firearms licencing will make a separate judgement based on their evidence as to your suitability to keep and control guns. Being a responsible, law abiding adult is key to gun ownership in the UK, and in that respect nothing much as changed in 40 years. Excess speed at this level will be considered wreckless, dangerous and irresponsible. With a willingness to put other road users at serious risk. This is not the actions or behavior Police seek in licence holders. I have seen many similar revokations over many years shooting, there is very little new here. My only surprise is that it took Police six months to act. Pre Pandemic Police would have been knocking on your door within hours or days of the speeding charge.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
As an ex police officer as well as a lawful firearm owner, I understand that the devil is often in the detail, however, unless there is clear evidence to suggest Adam Troman presents a threat to others in the form of a criminal conviction, then the action of Devon and Cornwall police in this case is completely unjustifiable. Take them to task Adam as it is only in the face of punitive damages that this kind of draconian behaviour will stop.
as an ex cop as u said there needs to be clear evidence,but hearsay on a double statement that seems to overide everything..and how easy is that to do.
@@1971carmichael Everyone, not just lawful firearm owners should be concerned by our police forces abusing their powers to appear tough on gun crime or for any other reason. This truly is a matter of concern. Sadly, because most people don't own firearms there is a tendency for the public to turn a blind eye to heavy handed policing as it doesn't affect them.
It might be firearms today but tomorrow the police might coming knocking on their door to "check their thinking"in relation to a harmless comment made on Twitter!!
@@123colinfrost oh they already do turn up on people’s doors for wrong thinking on Twitter etc.
@@johnnydiamondsmusic1673 Exactly! I think we all know the case in question. Just terrifying. We need to change how our police forces and how society in general interprets hate speech/communication. Currently we could find ourselves getting arrested by merely stating unpopular facts and/statistics. It's lunacy.
As an ex police officer you should know the burden of proof is not beyond all reasonable doubt in respect firearms licensing it balance of probabilities a lower threshold.
You failed to disclose an offence from 2006? Isn't it the job of the Police to assess a person's suitability prior to issuing a certificate for firearms?
Well from 2006 till today he must have had two renewals since then and no one picked them up ? My understanding is is that every five years before a renewal the firearms unit check your details against the police national computer
Didn't seem to stop Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane massacre.) Not - to be sure - that Lodge membership ever had anything to do with that affair.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? It does appear unreasonable that the certificate holder wasn’t given an opportunity to discuss the allegations prior to the guns being seized.
You can't be serious.
... "innocent until proven guilty" applies to citizens of states with "inalienable civil rights"... the UK is obviously NOT such a state
It’s as if the police decide to revoke and then look for “evidence” to cobble together a case for that. Legal insurance is the only way forward.
the police will do anything to take guns off the streets and official licence holders are easy targets as well. You fell straight into their hands.
Guns dont belong to streets and have no place in houses. Seize and smash all guns possible. You dont need them.
@@Gangster88232 with a user name such as yours I can see where that action would make gangster behavior less risky. Now if they could only seize the knives and blunt objects you could reign terror totally unimpeded.
@@maikata329 you cant use guns in selfdefence. You should not to be allowed use them at all. You are not in military. No guns, less crime.
@@Gangster88232 You are the internet's thickest c**t so far. Keep it up eh, though I'm sure you will.
@@stinkypete2722 majority is antigun, we have right to destroy your stupid rightwing hobby. All weaponry belongs to state.
Was advised my my local authority to request for a subject access disclosure from the Police National Computer (PNC) by ACRO Criminal Records Office so you know what they know about you, saves any confusion or complication.
Did you have to pay for that then?
It is truly the mark of a free society to send armed police to a citizen’s door after giving him a speeding ticket
They have to send armed police where firearms are involved.
Almost 20 years ago I was reported by some Karen because she had learned I had bought a replica bb gun here in UK, all completely legal to buy and own at that time. Armed police then attended my house only hours after I had purchased the bb gun, armed with mp5s, they wanted to inspect my gun and see where I shot it (in my bedroom). I was allowed to keep the bb gun as it was perfectly legal, but it still left me with a new understanding of how seriously uptight some people are here in the country. To add insult to injury, the woman who reported me, her children who were younger than me at that time, owned bb guns as well but she determined her kids were responsible enough to own them, but I wasn't. I hate this country for its perspective on guns. Now here in Scotland we can't can't buy air rifles without licenses
@@iosis2009 you dont need guns as civilian, so bugger off.
@@Gangster88232 hahaha someone with the name "gangster" claims guns aren't necessary for civilians? You have to be joking. Gamekeepers are civilians, slaughtermen are civilians, skeet shooters are civilians, Olympic shooters are civilians, pest controllers are civilians, private security details are civilians...
How could you honestly believe that a government should be the only ones to possess guns? Do you know about democide? Have you ever studied history? If you don't feel you need a gun, that's your right, but it should be the right of those who wish to own a gun, to own one, which is the law so far as long as you have good reason to own a gun. There was a newspaper poll a few years ago about what topic they should raise in Parliament. 95% of people voted for them to bring back hand gun ownership. It was such an overwhelming response the newspaper dropped the poll and pretended it never happened.
@@iosis2009 we dont need civilian shooters. Their activity is useless.
You need to see a letter from the chief constable or a warrant otherwise you can refuse them entrance. I would not play ball with injustice like this. I would also ensure my optics were removed from my rifles first along with removing any custom parts or stocks which they are not entitled to have.
Speeding is viewed as wreckless and irresponsible and was always used as a contributing factor to refuse or revoke a certificate based on assessment of character. As a shooter you have to be careful about these things under current police attitudes. Many authoritie do have an agenda. The simple truth is that those high up in the police and government do not want any public ownership of guns, especially in volatile times where more totallitarian controls are being exercised on the public, where our freedoms continue to be stripped and where we can even be investigated for "thinking a certain way" which may not correlate to current marxist wokeness.
buddy u got no chance of that warrant or suspision they will come and deal with it and u got no say at all..when or if this happens say nothing..record everything like they do be calm and respectful if u never had any criminal offense or accusation then its on like donkey kong but they dont work like that....u say speeding..ppl kill doing that but they get licence back...ppl stab others to death they dont get told sorry nomore knife use what about the acid in face shit or petrol attack u see where im coming from..the law as of now has been respectable in changing laws....its the police that have those records that customise them..ur face dont fit u gone i dont at all blame the government we have some serious deals with countries for arms..thats always out of public knowledge cos its a massive buisness and uk makes some bad ass guns..as a side thought if u had a gun cabinet that record when u take weapons out would that safeguard a genuine user//in todays world i dont think so..our laws are being manipulated like usa has become u r guilty untill proved innocent,not innocent untill proved guilty....go look at american law over the years its changed to such an extent ways to defend have become illegal.
I'm a Brit with a lot of extended family overseas - particularly in the USA. I've never subscribed to gun culture. Always struck me as crazy.
That said - looking at tbe increasing incidence of firearms in UK police forces, and their increasing misuse - I have to admit that I'm now moved to believe one increasingly obvious thing.
And that is - if my largely brain-dead local police should ever be armed - then I will be seeking a gun too. I'd rather be tried in a dock than carried in a box.
Well said Paul.
@@MrMcCawber “Gun culture?” This is not gun culture, it’s a private individual who enjoys shooting as a sport! We aren’t in America matey, we’re in the UK. We don’t worship AR15’s and the like and just own guns for the sake of it, home defence or the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, that’s gun culture, we don’t have the same attitude towards firearms as the Americans. I see your point on the second bit though.
There's a good chance that they've added someone else's speeding offences to his file. I've had to deal with a similar problem for a member of my shooting association.
Good luck getting this sorted, regardless of the allegations there should be an opportunity to state your defence rather than the only option being crown court. Guilty until you have enough money to defend yourself this appears. If it were a third world country we would call it a corrupt policing system.
How can you live with weirdo Police after your priveleges and freedoms like above?
There's a difference between living and dying, but this is cruel display of tyrants wanting to commit Human rights abuses.
This could have serious repercussions, if he knew the right people.
Back in the 70s and 80s when I had police come to my house about a firearms issue they just came unarmed and in plain clothes so as not to freak out the neighbours
As an American that MORALLY supports gun control, the injustice of what this man has gone through OUTRAGES me. 🤬
This is exactly why you should oppose gun control. It always starts out at what seems reasonable. Ultimately you end up with nothing. Then you are on your own. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
The people involved in these "Witch-hunts" should be able to use taxpayers money to defend their cases; just as the police are WASTING taxpayers money in harassing innocent licenced firearm or shotgun owners.
Ok I'm an American and I've watched a few of these stories now and sorry, your govt is nuts! I'm so happy I do not live under those rules!
About 5 or 6 years ago my son received a dawn visit by armed and masked police.
TERRIFIED at having an assault rifle pointed directly at his face, he immediately complied with their instructions to lie on the floor.
Where were his weapons?
Weapons??!! What the HELL were they talking about?!
He'd never owned a firearm in his life! Other than an air rifle (for which he had a permit) he used occasionally to pot rabbits (rural area.)
The police searched his house and found nothing but the air rifle and left after confiscating it and warning him he might face further prosecution for 'firearms offences.'
The source of all this? His ex-girlfriend who had drunkenly phoned police claiming he had 'a house full of guns.'
He never had the air gun returned, despite its seizure being illegal, and the ex was never charged with wasting police time.
It didn't even end tbere. Pulled over for a dodgy tail light a year later, he couldn't understand the visible caution of the officers involved. He later found out that - having never committed a criminal offence in his life - the police database now cautioned officers to 'approach with caution - may be armed and dangerous.' We're now trying to get that fixed. Given the systematic, institutional rigmarole we've faced so far, we're not holding our breath.
My son - post police assault - had some emotional episodes. Eventually identified by his GP as PTSD, for which he's had to seek treatment. He has now replaced his own dumb mobile phone with a smartphone, and both his car and his home are equipped to (quietly) record any future police interactions.
They do this to everyone, a member of my family went through it, everything was taken on hearsay! the court case was a comedy show. you will loose but give them hell.
They haven't got the police to do normal police enforcement but they manage to find officers to take away a gun licence for speeding.
If the points are no longer on your driving licence, i.e expired. Then why is it relevant to your shotgun certificate?
Being complimentary and nice is no excuse for bad policing.
Get advice from one of the shooting organisations to which, I assume you belong, and contact a lawyer specialising in this sort of dispute. You are indeed being badly served by your force and obviously need to start proceeding quickly. Your chief Constable needs to be aware of what his employees are doing in his name. Your lawyer might advise on what tack to take with that.
Good luck and I trust that you find the Police to be acting beyond their powers.
“No free man shall ever
be debarred the use of arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson
Yet, in the end, americans bowed to every single weapon and ammo ban of the past. Holding on to what daddy still allowes them to own. Right down until all you are allowed to own is a break action single barrel shotgun. And you will still call yourself free because you can own them. Most US states already are more restrictive than all of Europe. Its only a matter of time the last States will pull even or be forced to split of.
@@lobster8009 Sure, I get your point but I´m not American bro. Jefferson spoke for all ``free´´ man, not just for Americans
The police are being very aggressive on people with firearms at the moment they think they are judge and jury.go to court and get them back but get a barrister to represent you but if you get a judge that’s auntie shooting you had it .the u.k has the most Suppressed gun laws in the world The police will only be happy when they stop gun ownership it’s a pity they aren’t so aggressive with people with knives that kills and wounds 95 percent more people but I so pose they would have to do some work for that they just go for the easy option.
The police are only tools of the state. An armed populace does not serve the Crown.
They'll be left poor and dismayed,drunk and homeless when they've finished fckng people over.
... just like the Channel Islands in the 1940s when the British "bobbies" proved all too willing to enforce Nazi style tyranny
So basically if you want to own a gun in the UK, don't be human...
Unfortunately you represent everything the woke police are taught to despise. White, English, male, married with a close/nice family unit. You have a successful business, good manners, well spoken, live in a nice environment and a penchant for riding motorcycles at speeds above legal limits.
On the other hand in the metropolitan favelas, where drugs are openly dealt and crimes committed without any fear of being reported let alone investigated or caught, where people walk about carrying assault rifles, automatic sub-machine guns, knives and other weapons there appears to be no requirement to remove these guns from their owners.
One day when the public are so underwhelmed by our police that they will never go to their aid, you would hope the police might develop some introspection skills and ask themselves why this is? The first question should be having spent x decades trying to win the hearts and minds of our criminal fraternity by policing by consent has this been a success? They are rapidly loosing the goodwill of society by their actions and your case is a classic example of this.
Very well put
Sadly I saw the behaviour of the police years ago. I've never been in trouble or got a criminal record but I did help a distressed drunken women out of a busy road and called the police to assist her. I was rewarded by an officer attacking me only to have another drag him off. Then I was in a barber shop in Brum and a guy standing outside just eating a sandwich was hit over the head with a truncheon because there was a protest 100 metres away. He wasn't remotely involved. Later I was fitted up for a car accident when a drunken woman, a friend of the attending officer, drove off her drive into my car. If only I knew the law like I do do now ! I was young and naive.
Years later, I worked in London as a Finance Director for a major organisation and drove past a policeman being beaten up by a guy in Deptford.
I just drove past. I don't care any more. I'm the kind of guy who always gets involved if someone is being hurt but nowadays never for a policeman. Not worth it.
The woke police are real. This is all about taking guns from whoever they can. Who easier than a law abiding white male to take his guns. It’s all connected to the 2030 agenda. Fact.
An assessment for being reckless could be based on almost anything; drinking alcohol, eating too much fat, living in a high smog area, not having the chimney swept regularly, believing MSM, voting for the 'wrong' party. A list of wrong choices can be used to show a 'reckless character'.
I know somebody who got caught speeding twice in a year,went to court,driving licence now has 12 points nothing mentioned about his sgc license,
A disarmed society is an obedient society.
Any excuse to disarm us.
Look mate. The same happened to me. 63 year old. Shooting over 40 years. A mild altercation with a neighbour where I removed him off my property. The letter said I was a liability to society.! They are just looking to justify what is a gun grab. I too told them they are not weapons. I had years ago asked for my police report under the Freedom of information act. It was so heavily redacted to render it useless. So full of supposition too which you don't get a chance to counter. It's a wholly flawed and pernicious police force. They cocked up in Plymouth and other regions. But decent folk are paying the price.
"I got caught doing a 100mph on my motorbike"
And they took that personally....
You don't have to be found guilty of the speeding offence. They count being reported for speeding as grounds for rescinding a licence.
Anybody can get done for speeding these days. It is human to make a mistake and I guarantee every driver in this country has gone over the speed limit at some point. It is not grounds to revoke a SGC or FAC.
@@neilgoodall1768 Speeding isnt grounds for revoking a FAC you are correct, but dangerous driving is. And this guy was caught doing almost 100mph in public, which is instantly dangerous driving. And that was his fourth speeding charge, so it shows a pattern of behaviour.
And thats before the alleged road rage incident, which, if proven, makes this even more of a clear cut case.
@@fatbap as I have already replied to your other ill-informed comment, excessive speed is not reckless driving and I do not have 4 convictions. I have one previous speeding conviction. I have absolutely no knowledge of any road rage incident, and as I relay in the video, had this been true or held any merit my licence would not have been renewed after 2018, unless the police were negligent in every aspect.
@@adamtroman8946 Firstly, I should have said dangerous driving, the UK doesnt have a reckless driving charge. Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says its dangerous driving when "driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous". It also says that “dangerous” means “danger either of injury to any person, or of serious damage to property”. 96mph on a dual carriageway meets that standard easily. So yes, you are a dangerous driver.
Not sure why I said 4 but you have three. You even said so in the video you liar. Cant even keep your story straight when the lies are right in front of your face. Not only that, but you have an allegation of road rage. So a pattern of behaviour that establishes you are dangerous to both yourself, and others around you. You leave them off the disclosures then you lie about it proving that youre also dishonest. And no, the police dont have to contact you over the road rage incident if the other party didnt wish to pursue charges, but it will still have been recorded. You are exactly the type of person most of the Irish and British shooting community dont want anywhere near us. Dangerous and dishonest. Seems like D&C police can actually get something right once in a while.
@@neilgoodall1768 in your opinion....the law says otherwise...and we have laws for a good reason
To dickie, can you explain to me how your driving record should be any Bering on gun ownership. This has to be one of the most asinine things I’ve ever heard.
Reckless behaviour that puts the public at risk in one aspect of life can be indicative of a reckless attitude to the safety of the public in other aspects of life. That’s the rationale. Obviously the aren’t always linked, but sometimes they are. Whether there is a link will be an issue no doubt for the judge on appeal.
Couple of points here.
Sending armed cops is generally the norm. Why send non armed officers for them to then summon armed so the firearms can be made safe as per force standing orders. Non armed cops have no access to the force armoury so again armed cops are the most versatile have access to the armoury and are ultimately trained in handling and storing firearms safely. So this is a practical resourcing measure no need to send four officers when one arv will do. Yes they will have holstered side arms so I get a bit sceptical when I hear firearms owners commenting that they feel worried or uneasy around guns. As far the dog being confused no comment.
In the footage there is two mentions of failing to disclose its immaterial what the intial offence was. However failing to disclose is a matter of honesty and its a criminal offence. Its down to the individual to obtain the correct material via acro or dbs checks. It's not down to licensing to do it for you.
There appears to be a pattern of offending the previous speeding the failing to disclose and the more recent speeding via the bike. This shows a pattern of behaviour and I suspect that the flm has looked at these and decided to revoke rather than going down the vs route.
I suspect that this case will ultimately be decided by a judge at the crown court.
To summarise there is always two sides to a story there is always differing opinions what is safe and what is not. There is the appeal process which was set up for these type of incidents so an independent can see both sides.
For me having firearms is a privilege so you need to keep yourself out of bother. Doing a ton on bike regardless of the road the conditions you will be risking both your licences.
Charlie and the team I would air on the side of caution or look into these type of stories in detail prior to airing them. Negative stories like this don't do our sport any favours. This is great ammunition for the antis and if it falls into the wrong hands it will be manipulated and used against us.
Good point about armed police. That said, I too always feel slightly nervous around armed police. The difference between standing on a clay ground is that part of their job is to threat assess and use deadly force should they deem it necessary. Neither of you know each other. And, to be honest, a lot of coppers aren’t terribly bright and some have terrible judgement. On the other hand at least in the U.K. you have to have done a lot of training to carry a firearm, unlike somewhere like the US.
Had two police officers call go take my statement after a local RTA in which I hadn't been involved other than as a witness. They seemed determined to have me confirm the story of another witness, and I eventually had to request them to leave as I was NOT prepared to alter my original statement. There was obviously an agenda under way, and I wanted nothing to do with it.
But the clincher came as they left. From the other end of my hallway I distinctly heard one say to the other "Did you see all those books in there? How f***ing suspicious is that?" (I'm retired after working most of my life in education.)
Its the polices job to carry out background checks on crime or offences before giving anyone guns. This just seems like BS to me.
Thank goodness we have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms in the USA
At the moment !
The whole system regarding firearms and public ownership here in England is a disgrace, the police should have no part in it. It should be a civil operation. I was raided by armed police about 20 yrs ago. There was no conviction, but my firearms certificate was revoked.
Gun ownership in the UK is now finished! Just a matter of time.
@@doomfathertm8771 I agree.
as i watched this video of cowards giving up their tools against tyranny. was looking at the solid thumbs down button i had clicked, it unclicks itself.
Good luck, sounds like a terrible situation 😢
And..and...and...your not lying down to this are you???
I think the police's scheme of conjuring the idea of a reckless mindset from speeding offences is nothing other than a blatantly dishonest means of reducing the number of firearms in public hands to an absolute minimum. We all speed at some point every day - intentionally or accidentally, even the pious naysayers commenting on here. If his 96mph in a 70 limit had been reckless, why wasn't he charged with reckless driving at the time? You may say, well it was more than once, but two non reckless offences (in the eyes of the law) don't make a broader propensity for recklessness.
Very simple: there is no such offence. He could arguably have been charged with careless driving but speeding is usually easier to prove, involves less police and lawyer time putting the case together and, in reality when you look at the sentencing guidelines, the sentence will be about the same as careless driving, which is the only other realistic option.
The relevance to firearms licensing should be pretty obvious: those entrusted with a firearm need to have good judgment when it comes to taking risks in order to ensure public safety. Exceeding the speed limit to that degree goes beyond mere negligence or momentary omission, which we are all guilty of, to demonstrate a reckless disregard to the safety of other people. Add that to the other speeding convictions it shows a pattern of poor judgment around risk. The last thing one needs is a gun in the hands of somebody with that sort of attitude, because they will likely at some point put people at risk of being shot. That’s the reasoning, and perfectly logical it is too.
That’s not, of course, to say that can’t be rebutted. That’s the purpose of an appeal. This guy can call evidence in court to show that, when it comes to guns at least, he actually is a model of safe practice and competence.
@@guy1234484 That's just it, the point I'm trying to make is the law itself does not consider excess speed on it's own to be reckless, careless or whatever, to be charged with careless driving you need other factors involved not just speed. Two officially non reckless events don't make for a propensity for general recklessness. The police are trying to conjure the idea that speeding on its own is reckless when the law itself does not consider it so. They are also using the tax payers wallet to defend these chancy assertions it court. Hope he defends it in court for the sake of everyone.
@@spencereagle1118 oh I get your argument; it’s just a fundamentally flawed one. Firstly, it’s quite wrong to say the criminal law doesn’t recognise recklessness in driving as a form of reprehensible behaviour. It may not appear in the label ascribed to an offence but it is well recognised as an aggravating feature across the sentencing guidance for all driving offences. Moreover driving without due care and attention/careless driving is driving “below the standard of the reasonable and competent driver”. To meet that requirement the standard of driving need not even be as bad as the ordinary definition of “reckless” (as opposed to the very technical and unintuitive use of the term ‘reckless’ in a number of criminal offences). Secondly, the benchmark for the expected standard of behaviour demanded of certificate holders is not set by the criminal law. It is set by the Firearms Act 1968. Criminal offending will generally provide a strong indication of unsuitability to hold a licence (and in some cases lead to an automatic prohibition from holding a licence). Importantly, however, the two do not go hand in glove. Fundamentally, save where the offending leads to automatic prohibition, the task of the FEO is to look at the UNDERLYING behaviour, in all the circumstances, and assess suitability based on that. That is what has happened here.
@@guy1234484 Guy, I don't think you do get my argument. ''Firstly, it’s quite wrong to say the criminal law doesn’t recognise recklessness in driving as a form of reprehensible behaviour. It may not appear in the label ascribed to an offence but it is well recognised as an aggravating feature across the sentencing guidance for all driving offences.'' ...we are not talking about a 'recklessness' offence, this guy committed a speeding offence. By law speeding is not in and of itself an act of recklessness, for a speeding offence to be accomanied by another charge such as careless or dangerous driving you have to commit another act in addition to the act of speeding, without that it is not careless or reckless in the eyes of the law. Indeed, the road traffic act specifically excludes the act of speeding alone from being classified as reckless or careless. The police cannot simply pick up upon something that in itself is not legally defined as reckless, then declare it as reckless when it suits them in the pursuit removing someone's license. 'It is set by the Firearms Act 1968' ..no it's not, it's Home Office guidance that set the parameters for what is considered a 'criminal' offence worthy of note. At one time the police were not at all interested in speeding offences, some forces used to say 'apart from speeding offences' on the past conviction sections of their forms, but over time they have become very creative in coming up with news ways of removing certificate holders. The argument that speeding is in some way indicative of a potential to be reckless with firearms is a spurious one to say the least. It's happening up and down the country and needs to be nipped in the bud by the courts.
@@spencereagle1118 Of course speeding is not an offence where “recklessness” is the mens rea. It is a strict liability offence. Careless driving and even dangerous driving are both offences which do not require any particular state of mind; they are proven on the objective standard of the defendant’s driving, even if (to quote some of the case law) he is doing his “incompetent best.” However, the sentencing exercise for all these offences is a much broader exercise than simply dealing with the actus reus of the offence. Evidence of recklessness and particularly poor driving is something the sentencing magistrates are entitled to take into account as an aggravating feature, and as much is embedded in the Magistrates’ Courts Sentencing Guidelines. Just as the sentencing magistrates are entitled to conclude that the mindset of the offender driving at such speeds was reckless as part of the sentencing exercise, so too are the police when considering the statutory tests under the Firearms Act. While it may not be something you agree with the principle of, I can tell you that it is a perfectly lawful exercise for a firearms licensing decision maker to infer a particular attitude on the part of the certificate holder, even if that particular state of mind isn’t part of the mens rea of the offence of which they’ve been convicted (and, as I say, not even dangerous driving require the prosecution to prove any particular mens rea, even though it’s bloody obvious to any sensible person that someone driving that dangerously is almost certainly acting in a reckless manner).
I’m afraid I am actually entirely right when I say that the key test is set out in the Firearms Act 1968. Nevertheless you are still right to point towards the statutory guidance, albeit not for the right reasons. It is not the statutory guidance that solely governs the approach to speeding offences. Like any statutory guidance, the guidance is there to assist decision makers (in this case the police firearms department) in making correct and consistent decisions. Let me quote paragraph 3.6 of the Guidance to you. It is in the section entitled “3. Assessing Suitability” and under the subtitle “Danger to Public Safety or the Peace” (in reference to the power contained in section 30C of the Act for the police to revoke a certificate in such circumstances): “3.6 the applicant [for the purposes of revocation the certificate holder] need not have been involved in any physical violence to be considered unsuitable. For example, abusive behaviour, a lack of self-control, recklessness, disregard for the law in other areas…may suggest that the applicant’s ownership of a firearm could result in a danger to public safety or to the peace.”
The reason the police have in the past and current do give relatively little weight to a “normal” speeding offence is that it is usually committed negligently, doesn’t cause significant risk to the public and doesn’t show a fundamental disregard of the law. It is the very high speed in this case that gives rise to the perfectly legitimate inference that this gentleman does act in a reckless manner with respect to other people’s safety. The police are more than entitled, in my view, on the facts of the various offences and allegations (if true) to consider that the last three of those factors in the guidance are engaged. I would be surprised if a Circuit Judge sitting in the Crown Court on the basis of the facts if substantiated by the police and in the absence of any evidence in this gentleman’s favour would allow this appeal.
In court I think the previous minor speeding matters will carry little weight. It’s just kitchen sink stuff used to bolster the decision. I suspect that the judge is also unlikely to find any dishonesty regarding the declaration of the convictions, but you can never be sure. What the judge is going to be most concerned about is the road rage allegation followed by this conviction. This guy is going to have to come up with a fair whack of evidence to rebut the road rage allegation and also the natural inferences about his attitude to risk that flow from the conviction. Hopefully he’ll do well when he gives evidence and is cross-examined. That will require a good legal team because at the moment what has been said on the video and in his response to comments may well be seen by the judge as showing a lack of insight and an attitudinal problem.
You may well think all of this is entirely unfair, and I have sympathy with that view, but this is how it works in firearm licensing!
As an American, the thought of them attempting to terminate your firearms rights for speeding tickets is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a while. Citizens of the UK have already given up virtually all firearms ownership rights. Stand up now or you’ll lose them all.
Yeah,but someone being nice while they strip you of your Rights is quite irrelevant, it's like someone being nice to you while they beat the crap out of you.
You people in Britain need to take back your Rights from parliament!
Ridiculous. They carry out back ground checks with other police departments around the country before issuing a certificate. Not only that a speeding offence is no reason to revoke a certificate not exactly a violent crime or anything.
What has speeding do to with a fire arm .
Devon and cornwall police took 28months to prosses my aplication for a SGC ( i did have one for 5 years with no worries then let it go for 10 years ) they have finally answered me with a rejection on the grounds in my medical history iv asked for help with depression ...... that was 14 years ago and i held a license at the time , they said this proves im a danger to the public . Been shooting air guns, shotguns , rimfire since i was 12 im now 33 and been told im not responsible enough have a certificate i already held with no issues
Boo hoo. Less guns the better.
My neighbour who was a shooting and hunting chap for decades had seized his guns because he threatened to let down the tyres of a digger because it was smashing up dangerous asbestos near his home and the otranto refused to stop.
Sorry police, you are wrong! Makes me so angry!
sorry old boy....it took a lot to get my firearms licence, but i was warned that its easier to loose. One foot out of line and its gone. Being granted a firearms licence nowadays is a privalage, You are expected to be a figure of the community, a simple argument in a bar or road rage can affect your privalage.
I know of a guy who was the VICTIM of a road rage incident and had his guns seized .. it’s a joke
This is disgusting for a speeding ticket outrageous
I wonder how many police firearms officers are squeaky clean?
One in Kent definitely isn’t .. 🤔
to be honest, he shouldn't be that surprised I don't think.there is a bit of overall history there, and if he's been reported for possible road rage and several speeding offences, then it's asking for trouble really.you've got to be a good boy these days to keep your gear, and I think we all know that
yes we have.
Totally agree
Your right but sometimes it’s hard not to tell someone who has upset you to F off , we are all human and not saints. Just because you have road rage at another motorist which they deserve sometimes doesn’t mean your not responsible in the mainstream of life.
Hope you get this sorted Adam i used to live in Devon and all this does is make the public untrust and have no respect for Devon and Cornwall police when they behave so badly
Gun ownership is absolutely not a privilege, it's a Right that you must fight for!
Something similar happened to me. They came to my home out of the blue alleging I had been dishonest and could be a danger to the public. What an Insult... This was regarding a historical issue concerning a family member (whom did not live at my address) and not me. and my previous declaration of suffering from stress at work years before. and an off the cuff comment I made in passing about being worried about loosing my SGC. I had no recourse, nothing I said was listened to or taken into account...At all!!.. They said "Don`t worry its only for a couple of months" I knew even then that was an outright lie and they had no intention of returning my guns. What followed was months of me contacting the Firearms officer with either no reply or more excuses. They knew my certificate was up for renewal in a few months and if you ask me were biding their time. I sent in my renewal when the time came. this was shortly after BASC announced they were removing the Legal cover for their members from the 31st of July 2020. Hmmm I thought.... Low and behold, a few short days after the legal cover ended, I received a letter stating that my renewal had been refused. In my personal opinion they were no doubt aware that I would not be able to ask BASC for help any longer and would have to pay thousands of pounds to fight it. So now who was being dishonest here then?? They took away a pass time that I loved so much. My guns were eventually returned (As they were still legally my property) but were transferred to my brother and put on his certificate. They were returned in a terrible state. The barrels had rusted and needed a lot of work to restore them. It looked like they had been left propped against a wall in the car park for a year. They said "There's nothing stopping you still going shooting,) I would just have to be accompanied by my brother. As if that made up for it.... It didn`t.
I feel totally let down by the system. I have been placed in a category I do not wish to ben in. Made to feel like a criminal, had my self esteem destroyed and my good character defiled. I cant remember a time when I felt so sad and rejected. If they genuinely believed I could be a danger to the public how come I could still go out carrying and using a shotgun, albeit with my brother? It is a disgraceful state of affairs when otherwise honest hardworking, diligent and conscientious firearm owners are treated like potential dangerous criminals with little or no defence available to the majority. Yes I still go pigeon shooting with my brother. but it just doesn`t feel the same.
My brothers certificate is up for renewal now. I cant wait to see what they do next. ......Hmmm watch this space me thinks.
@@guy1234484 Yes indeed I agree, My point exactly
This "hobby" for the British people will be no longer from the looks of it??. I'm not a legal person but would have thought an "allegation" in law is not proof of anything nor is it a criminal act. Unless guilty before innocent is now ok? Maybe some sh*t hot prosecutors would and could argue differently. Thorough psych testing and firearms competency in handling all done through a mandatory course in order to get a license should be the norm? Maybe it is in the UK? I know for some European country's it is def the case. What says you guys? Although, as someone who takes their driving very seriously and coming from a family of which some members were professional drivers, speeding on several occasions does tell me this is wanton disregard for the public safety.
Are you a member of BASC? if so they can assist with cases such as this.
Firearms are a privilege to own in this country and it is made quite clear that you need to behave yourself in order to maintain that privilege. 100 mph on a bike is incredibly reckless and he could have killed himself or somebody else...do you really think that was going through his head at the time? There was also no mention of the 2014 conviction in this video, so I suspect we aren't getting the full picture.
I agree turning up unannounced and taking everything away is over the top, but I do think you should've had a warning that if you continue to speed your certificate would be liable to revocation as you are showing a clear disregard for the law on multiple occasions.
Watched a few of these gun grab videos.........can they do this without a warrant?
it used to say eny ofences other than driveing ofences on your renewel form when did that change
Tyranny
Recently renewed my shotgun certificate, in the letter for the renewal I used to get a renewal form,this time I got a form for handing my guns in and had to download a renewal form myself, how many older people do not have the wherewithal to print a form off, start of the nanny state!!!!
Good luck with your case. Hopefully you win and the police change the way they handle things like this. Keep us updated.
I'm kind of split on this one. Speeding at 100mph is indeed reckless and stupid.
It could result in death or serious injury to anyone. The fact you did it is an indication that you are indeed inconsiderate and reckless.
Doubt it was on the round about.....He could have been the only one on the road, or nearly so...but listen to
yourself..."The fact that you did it is ...." Have YOU never driven/rode at 100mph? Of course not. Never Mind.
@@xknight-fz8rm sorry you've lost me. But yes, I can confirm I've never driven at 100mph. Ever.
“After what happened in Plymouth” What happened in Plymouth was was a tragedy with the loss of life, but let’s not forget that that was 100% preventable, the police failed in their duty, the warning signs might as well been flashing in neon lights and they still gave his shotgun back to him after already confiscating it on good grounds. It is not a privilege to be granted a shotgun or firearm certificate, it’s earned through being a law abiding responsible citizen. I agree that the police or anyone pulling their strings should not refer to guns as ‘weapons’ because this does infer that they only exist to cause harm to others. I was brought up with shotguns and firearms and see them as just tools for a job, some are beautifully designed and engineered and I appreciate that too, but they are still tools for a job. Every police force in the UK need to get back to following the Home office rules, not their woke interpretation of the rules. Likewise, the Home Office should be working more closely with all shooting organisations and clubs to get more in touch with real shooters and not pandering towards anti shooting activists.
Any outcome?
Please, please, please everyone, buy firearms insurance.
I will try to be polite and un-biased. My understanding is that in every situation where firearm(s) are to be confiscated or otherwise taken way or removed then it is armed response who have to deal with the actual handling. Depending on the number of firearms held then I guess the number of officers could be two or twenty two. On the revocation itself, whilst I sympathise with the situation on a fellow shooter level you have to ask; "would this behaviour prevent an initial grant"? I'm afraid that in my eyes it would and, if it was in between grant and renewal, then you could not reasonably expect the renewal to be granted. Sad situation but the Police are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't and I cannot criticise them on this.
To be fair there was a half-retired copper who was shot dead when he was sent to remove someone's guns. This was around 10 years ago or so but I can't remember exactly.
It's not just shotgun users. I was accused of shooting someone with a std air rifle.
I was at my mother in laws birthday party (80th) when the accuser said it happened.
I do do target shooting in my garden rarely.
The popo arrested my neighbor and took 5 airsoft rifles, but the next day I had a pcso try to question me on my doorstep...... I told him to F off....... next day 2 firearms cops turned up to remove my air rifle.
I was questioned ( did a no comment interview) as I knew I wasn't home.
Nine months later, I was pleading to get my rifle back only to be told I was informed 5 months before it was NFA, but no one told me........ the popo didn't have the decency to tell me anything 🤷🏻♂️🤦♂️
Absolutely Disgusting
Very much so.... SAD TIMES.
Off the top of my head the wording in the firearms act is " leathal barrelled weapon" so sadly that's how people who don't have an interest in guns see guns.
Take them to task bud please keep us informed of how it goes 👍👍👍👍
Is he a member of any shooting organisation and will they help him with the letter if nothing else it sounds like a very badly written one
What a ridiculous state this country has become complete and utter disgrace of prejudiced policing.
I hope that you got a safe custody receipt for your weapons .
And attack the civil servant who was definitely incompetent.
you have to be and remain squeaky clean if you want to own and keep firearms. He didn't so he lost the right . Me i am so SQUEAKY clean even my farts are fitted with a moderator
😁 that's illegal in some countries. / Charlie
So if someone goes in a car and deliberately mows down a bus queue, killing people, then anyone that commits a traffic offence, no matter how minor, should in the eyes of the law lose his car, and be banned from ever getting another. Guilty until proven innocent!!!!
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. Truly beautiful words!!! Y'all need a second amendment.
MAY YOU BE SUCCESSFUL.
I know that in some states in Australia the only time you can lose your firearms license for driving offences is if you show a pattern of disregard for the law. Even then the relevant police authority has to be bothered to revoke your license, it's not a foregone conclusion. I'm not sure if it's the same in the UK, but our laws came from UK law. It seems Devon and Cornwall police have zero tolerance.
UK gun laws are colonial, consider moving from the damn UK.
Has there been an outcome on this yet? problems solved?
Thanks. I'll find out. / Charlie
I would certainly ask my MP to look into this for you. Having said that, find out his/her views on shooting as a sport before digging a bigger hole.
I'm sure I speak for most of us to wish you a favourable outcome.
Advice from CPSA and BASC is key.
I’m glad I’m not with Devon and cornwall now the way there treating people is pretty terrible they should publicly apologise and there should be an enquiry it’s unacceptable to treat people this way shooting to some people is the only escape they have from work for others it’s part of the job and way of life.
communism, you masked for it.
It used to be one of the best counties for gun ownership i heard, before 2020.
they are always nice when they want something, now try and be nice and get them back.
This is complete lunacy. They can revoke your firearm license for a SPEEDING TICKET? Wow, you people really are subjects, huh? So you can stop asking why we Americans fight for our Second Amendment rights that are enumerated in our Constitution. Owning firearms for you is a privilege, but for us it's a RIGHT. That's why we'll never give them up. From my cold, dead hands!
Pathetic excuse to revoke a license, even you have been speeding or in a road rage incident or even drink driving I can’t see how this makes you a danger to the public being a shotgun owner. The antis are also antagonising shooters to get a reaction so you may lose your guns it’s a joke. Why send armed police and not the firearms officer?has the man suddenly turned into Rambo the minute he went speeding.?
Hopefully you will be challenging this decision. If successful your costs should be paid and financial restitution MUST be given.
Abandon your Countrymen and move to the United States to stand with us against this type of tyranny creeping in here.
any private airlines yet? unvaxed are stuck
The USA is a great place but it's not without fault.
Almost daily a US citizen is accidently, mistakenly or illegally shot by a Police officer.
Not sure I could take all that excitement.
@@dtaylor9673 I recall someone once did the calculations on the likelihood of being a citizen involved in a police shooting in the USA, it took into account the number of police officers, the population figures, the number of police\citizen interactions per day, per instance eg traffic stops, arrest warrants, domestic calls etc. The chances of getting shot by an American police officer is minute, and the chances of being shot unjustly even less, it's a tiny fraction of a percent of a very small chance indeed.
I wouldn't let it worry you 😁
With all these videos coming out, has anyone ever been told where these allegations originate from?
A Fixed Penalty is non-disclosable, only convictions through court. Adam give it a reasonable passage of time then re-apply
The form is ambiguous as a speeding ticket is generally fixed penalty notice, unless it is a conviction through a court. Generally there would be something else lurking in the background to cause difficulties.
Police being nice you say,let's just think why that was??? One other thing is now you have told the world where your guns are kept. One thinks you won't get them back and also I hope you never showed plod where you keep your keys for the gun safe/cabinet.
Sadly the UK is now a police state.
lets get over to the devon and cornwall youtube channel and remind them we know your game. Comments are open!
You were upset because it was something that you love, and something that is critical for your defense as well. The government cannot keep you safe, that is your responsibility!
Fender and Paul, 100 mph is dangerous?
So Germany, USA etc who all have no speed restrictions are wrong?
What utter nonsense.
Take his guns for speeding?
Complete crap.
I can’t believe this even happened! Ok yes you got caught speeding and was maybe classed as reckless on a motorbike but this in no way implies you are reckless with a firearm! How many of us go to the pub and have a few too many on occasion? Could this be classed as reckless? I think you have a very strong case to fight this, unfortunately at your cost! Have BASC offered any legal advice?
Drink driving is reckless yes
@@RichardEnglander That's very clever but it's not quite what he said is it.
@@bigrack6668 'a few too many' to me means more than whats allowed, like too many to drive.
Maybe that means something else to others? 🤷🏻
@@RichardEnglander Having too many drinks to be able to drive isn't by itself reckless, no 🙄
@@bigrack6668 it is in the eyes of the law, it is reckless behaviour. Drink driving is a common reason for refusals
I got a driving ban and it didn’t effect my license.
I wonder how many police firearms
Dangerous driving has always been considered in law a valid reason for revocation. 100 mph will be considered dangerous, irresponsible and in most cases an automatic driving ban.
Little know fact: driving 20 mph over the speed limit in my state is felony reckless driving.
Also the home office guidance specifically states patterns of behaviour will be taken into account, and they don't need to necessarily require a conviction to consider an alleged act as "evidence" of being unsuitable as part of a wider picture. It's clear as day written in the HO guidelines. Whilst D&C are very much poking him with the shit end of the stick, the most recent collaring is most likely what's kicked off the review and revocation.
2 fairly recent speeding offences (within last 10 years is considered recent), 1 of which is bloody fast and also a road rage complaint which will have had to have been properly reported
ecorded and not made on a whim (and he won't automatically have been contacted about it either), he's pretty much bang to rights as far as the letter of the law goes on suitability to hold a certificate.
I really don't think this is a good example to hold up of the supposed re-evaluation of existing certificates by D&C FLD...
@@bigrack6668 I’ve lived in Japan and Germany and not being a native speaker of either languages, lived in blissful ignorance to how bad their lack of individual rights really were. I’ve visited the U.K.twice and as a native English speaker, I’ve understood EVERYTHING in the upmost clarity. When I arrived home to the USA I literally was overcome with the urge to run off the plane and kiss the ground and shout in praise, “God Bless America”. Other countries are great places unless, 1). You get in trouble with the law, or 2). You have to pay taxes.
If it was considered ‘dangerous driving’ then I’d be getting prosecuted for ‘dangerous driving’. It’s simply excessive speed. I’m not at any point denying the severity of that but the two are grossly different. The traffic officer at the time was the judge of the offence at the time.
@@adamtroman8946 the speeding offence which you have admitted to will be viewed by two different Police Dept in two different ways. Almost like two different charges.
Traffic and the Courts will deal with the speeding charge, and administer punishment with regard to driving licence and road traffic law.
Firearms licencing will make a separate judgement based on their evidence as to your suitability to keep and control guns.
Being a responsible, law abiding adult is key to gun ownership in the UK, and in that respect nothing much as changed in 40 years.
Excess speed at this level will be considered wreckless, dangerous and irresponsible. With a willingness to put other road users at serious risk.
This is not the actions or behavior Police seek in licence holders.
I have seen many similar revokations over many years shooting, there is very little new here. My only surprise is that it took Police six months to act.
Pre Pandemic Police would have been knocking on your door within hours or days of the speeding charge.