Peter is a fine example of a conscientious gun owner, calm, matter of fact, does not display anger, did what anyone should do after being assaulted and yet became victimised again by the authorities. What a shocking story. I wish Peter all the best for the future and that he never has to deal with any such nonsense again.
Some years ago, I was a victim of a crime. Out of the blue, at the beginning of last year, three armed police officers turned up at my house in the middle of the night and seized all my firearms, saying it was because I was involved in a crime. Within a day or two I was able to speak to the officer who authorised the seizure, who admitted that a mistake had been made. He said he recognised that I was a victim - not a perpetrator - of crime, and he said that there had been some confusion that could easily be cleared up. My FEO visited me and we had a chat and he made an immediate recommendation that my firearms be restored to me, fully understanding that the police had made a mistake. The Firearms manager concurred and they both signed off on the return of my firearms. Six months later, I got a phone call. The DCI had overridden the orders of the two Firearms officers and had cooked up some bizarre new reasons for cancelling my FAC, including 'financial insecurity', despite never having done a credit check on me or asked about my income. It was all bizarre and embarrassing and the police actually phoned my boss at work to tell them that I had had my FAC revoked, like it was any of their business. Anyway, I took them to court and they backed down the day before the court date. Restored my FAC and firearms almost immediately. The whole ordeal lasted about eighteen months.
Britain needs to fight for their right to bear arms back! This is an inexcusable state of affairs. Israel and the Ukraine are the argument for having an armed citizenry. They try and appear to support your long history of game hunting yet do crap like this. And that self defense is not allowed with a firearm, don't even get me started... US concealed carrier, 4 handguns, 3 rifles and a shotgun... And I'd have more if it weren't for poverty. I miss my M1 Carbine, FN FAL, Spas 12, M1944 Mosin Nagant, and my Lee Enfield(cannot recall which one I had anymore) all sold to keep a roof over my head along with a few others that were more common.
@@tom-hk typical police throwing their weight around until some law abiding citizen stands up and challenges them on law and they end up backing down. I hope you made a claim against them.
If real, please reach out to the group. The more of yall reach out and be willing to NAME AND SHAME, the more shame these folks can be put on blast that their nonchalant behavior is UNACCEPTABLE.
4:32 "lack of staff" They have enough staff to make the decision to take his guns, enough staff to go to his house and take the guns, enough staff to do some paper work to store his guns. They have enough staff.
It doesn’t, full stop. The dickheads that run these police forces THINK that now he’s been assaulted he’s going to take one of his guns and unalive the assaulter which is insane seeing as gun owners in this country are less likely to do that than non gun owners. Farcical situation.
The police and all government officials don’t want the private ownership of firearms and will make any excuse to disarm the nation. My question is WHY, WHAT HAVE THEY GOT PLANNED FOR US
Peter is obviously a polite law abiding Gentlmen. What has happened to him us appalling and very worrying for us all. Peter I wish you all the very best.
Peter and other law abiding people being "politely" persecuted by police power. Yes, it is an injustice, but, twisted logic /justice, like this example, will continue to be inflicted on other respectable, law abiding, individuals. I have suffered such nonsensicle "treatment" from our "protectors", and, I am certain that the vast majority of the decent public have suffered from some example of twisted justice, as well.
Being a polite law abiding gentleman is what put him there in the first place. He voluntarily surrendered his firearms when asked if he would. Rather than lawyering up and only handing them over if he was required to by law. He fucked himself there. It's easier to get them back if they have been seized than if they were voluntarily surrendered.
@@magcase2127 No it is not, it is 100% truth. THE STATE and those in it who have gained the most power want to keep it by force. Just look a the gun culture 60 years ago. We did not have this type of goverment intrusion and they has been nothing happen in that time to warrant the heavy hand of state turning against the people. THE STATE fears the people and fear the power the guns can give the people. The action of criminal governments
Some years ago a friend of mine had his firearms taken for no reason and the police were so confident that he wasn’t going to get them back that one of them took the scope off a rifle and sold it! When he got them back it needed a visit from the Asst. Chief Constable to come to an agreement over compensation and no publicity!
There is a lack of general awareness apparent here in the UK with gun owners. Unless you have committed an offence, or the officers have a warrant to seize goods then you just politely say, "Sorry, but unless you have a warrant or other legal power to lawfully seize my property, then it is staying secure in I'm cabinet." It's 'that' simple! If they 'are' (entirely different ball-game) arresting you, then use your noodle and open the cabinet and ask to remove scopes and assist with protecting etc. Take photographs and a full inventory of the items being removed whenever possible. And get bloody insurance!
Indeed, if the Chief Officer issues a revocation, you have to comply with the lawful order. "Voluntarily surrender?" No. This is a typical police trick when they have no lawful authority.
I'm 54 years old and I can honestly say I've watched the decline of the police and civil service over the last 30 years, This is not the country I grew up in.
The answer to the question “we’ve come to ask for you to voluntarily hand over your guns” should almost certainly have been “no”. They had to ask it that way as they had no lawful basis to seize them. Most gun owners are upstanding citizens, want to do the right thing and want to avoid aggravating police. Unfortunately, post-Plymouth, those days are gone. One must always remain unfailingly polite and pleasant but stick to your rights (make sure you know them). Make records of all conversations immediately afterwards. Follow up all discussions by email. Once the police have your guns all urgency is lost as they deem it a low risk and thus low-priority issue. Force them to make a decision - be it to revoke your certificate or seize your guns - because then you have a purportedly lawful decision you can challenge in court. Just hand them over without challenge and they can sit on them
@@FrankToThePoint had you read my post in full with a modicum of care, rather than fast-forwarding to the final sentence and reading it too quickly, you would have realised that I had actually advised precisely the opposite. Lawyers and legal advisors are all too readily advising certificate holders to pass possession of their guns onto RFDs, or even the police, in order to avoid seizure and future revocation of a certificate. With how slow the police now are, I think this well-worn approach is no longer advantageous to many certificate holders, particularly those with the means and ambition to fight. If the police don’t have a clear basis to seize your firearms then it is tactically much better to force them to make a decision. If they decide to revoke, they will likely do it in less than ideal circumstances from their perspective and you get to press the issue by getting it in front of a judge, not having your case just languishing with the police. And why on earth are people not seeking mandatory injunctions against the police when their guns have been unlawfully seized?! Answer: because the insurance doesn’t provide the cover for it. There isn’t a way to force them to make a decision quicker but there’s definitely a way to get them to return the guns.
I read it as IF you hand your guns over then do it ONLY in response to a firm 'lawful' move from the ploddo then you can challenge it in the channels set out. Surrender is a last option, not his first.
@@payres48 no, because that will come back to bite you with the police. The moral is get lawyered up and don’t hand over your guns unless the police have a proper and lawful basis to seize them. Then - and ONLY then - negotiate to lodge them at an RFD to avoid seizure.
So, the man has his guns taken from him, because he is vicariously responsible for other people’s actions? Pathetic police. What next? Banning him from driving because someone else had a crash?
🇦🇺😎👍My mate interrupted a burglar at 11 pm. He got in a scuffle with the burglar . The police were called and the burglar was taken away by the police , eventually only to return and confiscate his gun licence and registered firearms . Court case pending , still 12 months on
Use us here in America as as an example, criminals will get guns outside of the legal ways anywhere. Our most restrictive places(cities and states) are always the ones with the worst gun crime numbers(mostly gang violence and drug related) hence Chicago's unfortunate nickname, Chiraq... And there's always room for another new law that doesn't save lives and restricts the rights of the law abiding person...
@Sadler2010 the criminals know most people don't carry weapons so it makes them bolder.if everyone carried some sort of weapon it might be different. Here in the UK it's illegal to carry anything as a weapon even for self defense
They require a warrant. The police would prefer only other criminals have guns. Don't try and make sense of it, it'll just make you bitter and resentful. We know what the plan is but are bound and gagged already.
@@GavinM161 What does legal reasons have to do with it? Police aren't lawyers, so have a tendency to act first and investigate after. The fact that two clueless junior officers turned up tells us they were Promotion Seekers trying to create a situation, so they could document having conducted a Firearms Offence investigation for their Portfolio. They will act first "on suspicion" then go and ask their Sergeant afterwards, who will offload it on to the FO and in to the twilight zone. Based on previous similar encounters reported, if the plods had not got their way they would have gone away and constructed a narrative that the licence holder was uncooperative and seemed mentally disturbed and would have needed a Mental Health Assessment. Unfortunately that assessment is currently impossible to obtain in the UK as no practicing professional is going to risk having their career destroyed by cross examination in court, so the unfortunate innocent individual has no way of proving anything. 🤷♂️ They would just have come home one day and found their front door smashed in and their gun safe ripped off the wall. All they can do is wait it out then get their Advocate to press that if no charges or investigation are forthcoming then the owner's property should be returned or they should be compensated.
Peter has been the victim of his own ignorance here. After the police grant permission to own and keep a firearm it is actually very difficult for them to seize the firearms without a clear cut reason such as criminality. Do not voluntarily surrender your firearms if you do not want to. What is glossed over in this case is the statement Peter makes @1:32 that the police mention to him about “what has happened in the past with a couple of other incidents with firearms”. We don’t get to learn what they are but I guarantee that they are significant. Police likely have a good reason to seize the firearms, but even then it is difficult so they have gone with the path of least resistance and requested he voluntarily surrender. That makes it inherently more difficult to recover them because Peter now doesn’t have the complaint that police unlawfully seized his guns. He should not have handed them over. When police do attend with a court signed warrant (or other lawful reason) then you MUST afford the police officers every courtesy and assist them willingly to remove your firearms. The police will likely allow you to show the firearms are clear/made safe, or for you to disassemble the firearm for transport - they know these can be expensive items that you may be emotionally attached to. You can then challenge the process and seek to have your guns returned. Failing to do this will make it likely you will NEVER own a firearm again at best. At worst, you may be charged with criminal obstruction and your gun safe prised open with irreparable damage.
If anyone thinks that America is anything other than exceptional, just watch this video. These poor people have lived under this tyranny for hundreds of years. God bless America long live the Republic.
Same in America. A fed was recently videoed saying “We don’t believe any private citizens should have guns. The government should hold a monopoly on violence.” Chilling.
For those who aren’t in the know, BASC does NOT provide firearms legal cover anymore. Public liability insurance is not the same as firearms legal cover, and BASC will not fight your corner if the police treat you unfairly, only provide you with “advice”. Anyway, I just signed up for the yearly subscription with legal cover. I think that this is simply a must-have for shooters these days. It’s a jungle out there!
I also remember an instant where a FAC holder posted videos on FB, showing him shooting rabbits directly towards a main road with cars passing behind no more than 10-15yds behind with only a thin post & rail fence to stop the round & the odd bush. He was reported to, think it was Nottingham Police & they allowed him to carry on with no issues. So, it seems if you behave you get punished, endanger others, even with video evidence you get a way with it. The only back stop was the fence or the vehicles. Crazy
There doesn’t have to be a firearms officer present. The ‘mistakes made’ and Peter pointing out the ‘mistakes’ @2:30 in relation to these just being normal beat bobbies so can’t handle firearms/shotguns is actually wrong. Any police officer can transport a firearm. Field Sports Britain should know that and not peddle the wrong information to its viewers. Peter, a Firearms owner, should also know that.
A fire arms officer has to attend the scene and make a firearm safe. It gets a ticket attached to it when this happens (they used to be red) and then it can be transported by any officer as it is deemed safe. That process has to be done by a trained firearms officer. But they should always be made safe at the scene, not after for obvious reasons. That was certainly the protocol for Greater Manchester Police, from 2005-2016.
@@mikewhittaker387 You are absolutely correct, mostly. The ticket attached by AFOs (Authorised Firearms Officers) is green once it has been made safe, the red ones state that it has not been made safe (either due to it being transported to a station for AFOs to attend there, or attached by an AFO who couldn’t make it safe for whatever reason; like being unfamiliar with a modified firearm or due to it being corroded and working parts not able to be manipulated, for example, in those cases it is then transported in a ballistics bag to forensics for them to do in a sterilised area). The green labels can only be attached by a trained AFO, and only they are able to make a firearm safe, that is correct. You are correct again to say they should be made safe at the scene. This is pretty much always done at a crime scene, certainly where there is a forensic recovery of a firearm. However, given how many firearms are surrendered (sudden deaths where a wife might tell the attending officers that the guy had shotguns for example) and how many AFOs there are available at any given time it just is not practicable. So in practice what often happens is the Community/Response Officers transport the firearm to the local station where it is locked away and AFOs (normally ARV teams) are made aware to attend to make safe. In some areas, ARVs (Armed Response Vehicles) will dedicate a car to the ‘make safes’ on a shift or will wait to a designated day, often a Sunday, for a car to go round all the local stations to carry out the make safes of guns surrendered or seized during that week. My regards to the GMP lot, I’ve worked with a few!
This is why gun owners need to know and understand the laws and their rights. Do not ever hand over your guns without a revocation order! Never “voluntarily surrender” your firearms! It’s not breaking the law, it’s asserting your rights and abiding by the law.
This is absolutely bullshit those cops should be ashamed of themselves treating the victim like a criminal, how would they feel if they were assaulted by a criminal and their bosses said no more pepper spray or stab proof vest for you
I've been threatened by my FAO to have my guns taken from me regardless of what happens & why. After a chat with my brother via message i called him a "cfhucking twanker" he then reported me for violent abusive behaviour. PC arrived, first I thought it was a joke 😂 when i told them what happened they agreed he was. 2 weeks later FAO came to visit me & said even if someone complains about something I haven't done i would lose my guns. I said, even if I did nothing wrong, yes was his reply. I have NEVER hurt or threatened anyone. It's gone crazy
@@peterbalac1915 I said SINCE Plymouth, meaning as a direct consequence, everything has tightened up. More revocations, rechecking of cases where firearms were taken away and then returned, etc.
@@peterbalac1915 Shotgun certificates are issued/granted as long as there is no reason NOT to grant it. Police rely on the character references of others, and doctor’s medical files/reports as well as any previous criminality. Police are not fortune tellers and didn’t know that ‘idiot’ would kill people any more than his doctors or the people who provided the good character references. Look at this very case, how many people are taking the side of old Peter here and bashing the police for taking the guns? What happens when Peter is granted permission to own and keep firearms again… then 2 years later loses the plot and goes on a killing spree? Let me guess, you think it’ll be the police’s fault? Not the doctors, not the referees… not all the people who think he should get his guns back? The police have a greater responsibility than you can fathom, they have to make a decision one way or another (because even indecision results in criticism by the ignoramuses like yourself). They grant millions of shotgun certificates and hundreds of thousands of firearms certificates. If one of those people decide to kill, the ultimate responsibility is on themselves. Stop looking for easy outs and scapegoats, blaming the police for everything is getting boring.
2 месяца назад+6
My wife as she ages became more antagonistic toward my firearms and the result was my firearm acquisition certificate was revoked and $15,000 dollars worth of my property were confiscated by the police.
Tyranny. The senior police officers responsible for this should be sacked. They are the problem, a big clear out of senior police management is required in order to get the focus of the police on real crime, not this sort of nonsense.
If they do not come prepared with a warrant stating they have explicitly come to collect firearms (and ideally an exact list of which firearms and their serial numbers) you should not willingly surrender them. Once you have you are NOT going to get them back without a seriously drawn out court case. Remember, the police have nothing to lose here. It cost them nothing to not talk to you. They have what they came for and it's entirely on you and a legal team to get them to return them. They will only start talking when you have a lawyer involved because that then can come out as your costs after a successful trial/appeal.
Unfortunately, there are several Chief Police Officers and many Police Officers who believe that they have a mandate to reduce the number of Guns in circulation. They will pounce on any opportunity to do that however unfair hoping that the person they have victimised will be unable to take it to court, interestingly when it is taken to court the Police generally fold quickly when the judge intervenes.
Could have said 'No' 'go away'... The police never took anything the bloke surrendered his firearms. It's simple do not ever talk to the police, do not ever let them in your house, never do anything without a warrant wet signed by a judge. Stand up and stop living your lives on your knees.
Also worth pointing out is the officers in effect will be breaking the law as they are not authorised to possess section one firearms. There is no immunity allowed in law.
I am confused. early the man says the cops asked him to hand them over "voluntarily" So did he allow them to take them or did he say "No" and they took the firearms anyway?
@@MadDogSurvival I think you misunderstand ‘Policing by Consent’. It refers to the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can chose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law.
Laws are passed by the consent of the representatives in parliament! They represent the interests of the majority of the people. So we are policed by consent. We the people the majority hold ultimate power as a free state nation as per the magnacarta. Either way the current police are not anything but political enforcers that are not serving the will of the people
@@MadDogSurvival My friend, you are almost right in everything you wrote other than your conclusion; however the police are completely independent of policy and politics, and do not curry favour with any political party or government. The Magna Carta was not a confirmation that the people hold the power; it was a 13th century document stating the principle that Royalty and Government are not above the law. What you should focus on is the ‘Policing by Consent’ definition that comes from Robert Peel’s 9 Principles of Policing which essentially outlines the uniqueness of our policing in the UK that we are not policed by fear/force and a very important reminder that the police are the public, and the public are the police. The police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. So, by definition, we are indeed policed by consent, and this is the type of policing we consent to. Please bear in mind many, many police officers also have their own FAC and shotgun certificates in their personal lives. They are subject to the same laws, legislation, regulations, scrutiny and expectations as everyone else.
@@MadDogSurvival Let’s focus on this specific case before we go down a rabbit hole and lose touch of this: Firstly, we don’t know what happened in the assault (after he was attacked did Peter say he would shoot the assailant, for example? We don’t know but I almost guarantee he didn’t just offer the other cheek). What we do know is that Peter has ‘incidents with firearms’ in the past which he glosses over @1:32 and offers no further information. The police likely have very good reasons for taking Peter’s guns, the police won’t offer that information because it’s against GDPR and Peter isn’t telling us. That being said it is still very difficult for the police to seize weapons without a clear cut reason such as criminality, so they have relied on Peter’s ignorance here and taken the path of least resistance in asking Peter to voluntarily surrender them. Unfortunately Peter has fallen victim to his ignorance and done so, he shouldn’t have. HOWEVER, look at the alternative; police don’t take the guns and old Pete shoots the assailant next time he sees him, or worse; goes on a killing spree out of frustration. Then you’d probably blame the police for taking no action! The police have a greater responsibility than you can fathom and we have to trust that they are making the best decisions based on the information they have (which we don’t).
@@RealityCheck-FYI "look at the alternative; police don’t take the guns and old Pete shoots the assailant next time he sees him, or worse; goes on a killing spree out of frustration." This is the problem with you lukewarm Bri'ish gun owner types. You always think people are going to go on a mass shooting spree after a confrontation. You must be a pig after all the comments I've read from you. Good little sheep.
not just totalitarian behavior but also totalitarian mentality. the govt the people of the UK have repeatedly asked for going back many decades. very sad
How did these leftist gun grabbers get into office? You people voted for this. Strength is numbers, band together and force these tyrants out of office.The police are not your friends, they are the enemy.
The police are a disgrace. The way they talk to people, the way they get something agreed and then lay on the fact that they can't guarantee to look after things in their care. Then they take ages to return the equipment, ignoring that they might be work tools. If you are preventing someone from working you should have to pay damages.
Unfortunately, this gentleman complied and handed over his firearms where the police officers attending had no legal basis to take them. They were unqualified to touch those firearms and effectively broke the law. Surely on that basis alone, the guns should be returned as soon as possible. The legal challenge here should be ( regardless of the original concerns the police may have had) that those officers were put at risk by their employer in carrying out actions for which they were neither trained or qualified. It is surely therefore an illegal possession of his firearms and amounts to both a breach in firearms law and employment law. A Health and Safety Executive investigation should be brought against the police force involved for demanding or 'ordering' their unqualified officers to remove his guns. Imagine the consequences of such an action if in a similar situation, untrained personel attended the address of someone less professional about their own security and storage and for some daft reason, they handled a negligently loaded gun which then was accidentally discharged by those officers!! ? Let alone the possibility that the removal might legally be found to amount to theft. There needs to be a full and very public investigation into the actions of police forces involved in these highly dubious and shady gun grabs. They do not protect the public in any way and cause enormous harm to those individuals involved along with a complete breakdown in the working relationship between the police and lawful shooters and firearms owners. It is reprehensible behaviour which must cease.
Sorry, but you are wrong to state that an unqualified police officer "effectively broke the law", any crown employee is allowed to handle firearms without a license providing they are performing their official duties (see Section 54 of the Firearms Act 1968). Additionally, many forces use untrained taxi drivers to take firearms to approved scrap metal companies for disposal, in this context the taxi driver is considered a crown servant.
@DaveW-h2r Well, that all seems perfectly safe doesn't it!!? You have to love the the way the law operates in the UK. So effectively, any Crown Servant, untrained in clearing and proving a firearm as safe, can pick it up and chuck it in the boot of a police car or a taxi to have it taken to a third party for disposal. It's beyond stupid. But I guess 'ours is not to reason why'. I still think if the H&S executive were to examine this practice in detail and explore the potential ramifications, a legal challenge would stand. As employers, the police are not exempt from H&S law. (Neither are the armed forces). The potential risk of serious harm as a result of an unsafe firearm being handled by inexperienced personnel would be found to be reckless and extreme risk. Just imagine the press having a field day with such an event!? Thanks for your reply. 😊
This is disgusting behaviour, a man is assaulted and he gets punished for it? We need to stand up and revolvt against the system its horrid how we treat firearm owners the restrictions enough are insane.
Look at what Australian government did to aussies during the pandemic... they were abducting people in broad daylight and putting them in concentration camps for the crime of merely potentially talking to someone who maybe had the coronavirus... that's why you have firearms.
I agree... The other option is to have a warrant to seize them. The likelihood of ever getting them back may decrease. To gain a warrant the language the police use would be very different. They may say they had cause to believe he is a danger to society...
I don't know the laws in England and of course they are different than in the USA. However, people need to stand up for themselves instead of being i and let themselves be violated by illegal acts of the law enforcement. He was the victim of a crime and did not even do anything to defend himself during the attack. In what world does this equate to him needing to be disarmed? To assure the safety of the criminal if the criminal were to retaliate against him physically for pressing charges against him?? If the constables were there to ASK him to surrender his guns then they did not have the authority to demand he turn them over. Could he not say "no" and they would be required to leave, especially since they could not legally possess the firearms themselves without the proper training??? Like I said, I know I do not know the laws there, but there is also some common sense that was avoided here. How the people think electing a communist government is going to make things better is beyond me. Brexit was to return their autonomy and independence they once had, only to give it up in another election? It's a sad state of affairs there.
Very sad indeed, an injustice that's unacceptable, we have the same problem here in Canada, a person only has to be falsely accused and the same thing can and will happen here, meanwhile, the real criminals are getting away with murder with our catch and release program we have here for them
Also maybe there have been many firearms incidents in certain parts of the country and the policing is much tougher than other places, but at the end of the day Peter have been truthful all along and it was him who was assaulted and did not even fight back.
Protect the public by penalising the innocent. Yeah, that's our taxes at work!! Why take them if they cant manage the process. Oh yeah, thats right. Protecting the public thing again!!
Say no every time if they do not have a warrant to take them . They are not acting in your best interests , It is not a lack of staff it is because they are being told to do this by POLITICANS . Policing by consent is finished . We have a saying where i live . When seconds count the police are MINUTES away
@@craigjackson8187 The British famously do not give up without a fight, what history books have you been reading? In terms of not learning anything from you (I’m guessing the USA?) then please have a look at the hundreds of body cam videos reviewed by Active Self Protection or Donut Operator showing a LOT of american gun owners not doing what police ask and ending up dead in a gun fight. So please, don’t think of your citizens are shining examples to learn from. Plenty of us gun owners here know our laws and understand when we need to hand over our guns and when we don’t. Old Peter here showed his ignorance and didn’t know better, don’t think of him as a representation of all gun owners in the UK.
@RealityCheck-FYI Unfortunately, the Brits have the mindset of loyal subjects, which makes them modern slaves to their socialist government. Because of that, they have no liberty like we have in the USA under the 1st or 2nd Amendment.
It's getting bad here in Canada, but you British blokes have got to start standing up for yourselves... 😖 🤨 DON'T LET THEM IN YOUR HOUSE ! Don't even talk to them... DO NOT willingly give up any firearms. Ever.
Same in NZ. And in some European countries your not allowed to hunt with high powered rifles unless it’s suppressed because of 92db noise restrictions. Ain’t that great😂
Peter is a fine example of a conscientious gun owner, calm, matter of fact, does not display anger, did what anyone should do after being assaulted and yet became victimised again by the authorities. What a shocking story. I wish Peter all the best for the future and that he never has to deal with any such nonsense again.
Peter was punished more than the man who assaulted him.
He is not being punished. He is being disarmed like everyone else in the UK except for the people who put their weapons in mosques.
NEVER give up your rights, Merica’
Fortunately, we never had the "Lords/Serfs" mentality that seems to be part of the European culture.
@@marksprague1280yeah I'm pretty sure that's why the king tried to take ours 200 years ago
If you still can't see what is happening to our Country, then you probably never will.
We do see what's happening.
The British people need to rise up against this tyranny
A disarmed populace is easier to boss about and oppress. That's what it's all about at the end of the day.
I have the 2nd amendment so I can own any firearm available on the American market which now includes AR and AK platforms with forced reset triggers.
@@secondarytrollaccount666 so you work for the government do you
@@montneymon-ta-knee6810 are you stupid? we in the US have rights
Some years ago, I was a victim of a crime. Out of the blue, at the beginning of last year, three armed police officers turned up at my house in the middle of the night and seized all my firearms, saying it was because I was involved in a crime. Within a day or two I was able to speak to the officer who authorised the seizure, who admitted that a mistake had been made. He said he recognised that I was a victim - not a perpetrator - of crime, and he said that there had been some confusion that could easily be cleared up. My FEO visited me and we had a chat and he made an immediate recommendation that my firearms be restored to me, fully understanding that the police had made a mistake. The Firearms manager concurred and they both signed off on the return of my firearms. Six months later, I got a phone call. The DCI had overridden the orders of the two Firearms officers and had cooked up some bizarre new reasons for cancelling my FAC, including 'financial insecurity', despite never having done a credit check on me or asked about my income. It was all bizarre and embarrassing and the police actually phoned my boss at work to tell them that I had had my FAC revoked, like it was any of their business. Anyway, I took them to court and they backed down the day before the court date. Restored my FAC and firearms almost immediately. The whole ordeal lasted about eighteen months.
Thanks for this. If you would like to tell this story on Fieldsports Channel, please can you get in touch? / Charlie 07850195353
Britain needs to fight for their right to bear arms back! This is an inexcusable state of affairs. Israel and the Ukraine are the argument for having an armed citizenry. They try and appear to support your long history of game hunting yet do crap like this. And that self defense is not allowed with a firearm, don't even get me started... US concealed carrier, 4 handguns, 3 rifles and a shotgun... And I'd have more if it weren't for poverty. I miss my M1 Carbine, FN FAL, Spas 12, M1944 Mosin Nagant, and my Lee Enfield(cannot recall which one I had anymore) all sold to keep a roof over my head along with a few others that were more common.
The process is the punishment...
@@tom-hk typical police throwing their weight around until some law abiding citizen stands up and challenges them on law and they end up backing down.
I hope you made a claim against them.
If real, please reach out to the group. The more of yall reach out and be willing to NAME AND SHAME, the more shame these folks can be put on blast that their nonchalant behavior is UNACCEPTABLE.
4:32 "lack of staff" They have enough staff to make the decision to take his guns, enough staff to go to his house and take the guns, enough staff to do some paper work to store his guns. They have enough staff.
Do not involve the police in anything, these days it will only be you that will come off worse.
THANKS TO GANG CULTURE AND SILLY SLEEVE TATTOOS
Pigs are the same everywhere.
It pays to know someone with a backhoe
What's tattoos got to do with anything?@@michaelfraser5723
Sadly, there’s a lot of truth in what you say
That is so unfair. He gets assaulted and then disarmed? How does that make sense to anyone anywhere?
It doesn’t, full stop. The dickheads that run these police forces THINK that now he’s been assaulted he’s going to take one of his guns and unalive the assaulter which is insane seeing as gun owners in this country are less likely to do that than non gun owners. Farcical situation.
The police and all government officials don’t want the private ownership of firearms and will make any excuse to disarm the nation. My question is WHY, WHAT HAVE THEY GOT PLANNED FOR US
My question exactly.
If they wanted to take all firearms out of circulation, then waiting for someone to get assaulted would be a highly inefficient way of going about it.
@@KW-qq7numaybe in the beginning but they can soon manipulate situations to make it worse and then act accordingly 🤷♂️
@@scratchmonkey9053 Only licensed gun owners get their guns taken away by the plod
It's been happening bit by bit since the 1920s
Peter is obviously a polite law abiding Gentlmen.
What has happened to him us appalling and very worrying for us all.
Peter I wish you all the very best.
Peter and other law abiding people being "politely" persecuted by police power. Yes, it is an injustice, but, twisted logic /justice, like this example, will continue to be inflicted on other respectable, law abiding, individuals.
I have suffered such nonsensicle "treatment" from our "protectors", and, I am certain that the vast majority of the decent public have suffered from some example of twisted justice, as well.
Being a polite law abiding gentleman is what put him there in the first place. He voluntarily surrendered his firearms when asked if he would. Rather than lawyering up and only handing them over if he was required to by law. He fucked himself there. It's easier to get them back if they have been seized than if they were voluntarily surrendered.
him and you voted for this to happen
No guns,no resistance. Simple as that .
@@magcase2127 No it is not, it is 100% truth. THE STATE and those in it who have gained the most power want to keep it by force. Just look a the gun culture 60 years ago. We did not have this type of goverment intrusion and they has been nothing happen in that time to warrant the heavy hand of state turning against the people. THE STATE fears the people and fear the power the guns can give the people. The action of criminal governments
@@magcase2127 Excuse me?
@MickeyD2012 my bad I thought It was pro cofiscation.
Unarmed =easy controlled by the dictators.
Only problem is, they are taken guns away from licensed law abiding citizens. They're to lazy to go and disarm the criminals. Go figure.
Some years ago a friend of mine had his firearms taken for no reason and the police were so confident that he wasn’t going to get them back that one of them took the scope off a rifle and sold it! When he got them back it needed a visit from the Asst. Chief Constable to come to an agreement over compensation and no publicity!
Great to be living in the UK today. British police, contemptible.
Masonic police. Masonic criminals.
If they aren't there to protect you, who are they protecting?????
^if it was stated it would be scrubbed quickly by censorbots
This is why America is better. They actually have rights.
Feel bad for you Brits over there. We have less tolerance for this kind of tyranny in the USA.
There is a lack of general awareness apparent here in the UK with gun owners.
Unless you have committed an offence, or the officers have a warrant to seize goods then you just politely say,
"Sorry, but unless you have a warrant or other legal power to lawfully seize my property, then it is staying secure in I'm cabinet."
It's 'that' simple!
If they 'are' (entirely different ball-game) arresting you, then use your noodle and open the cabinet and ask to remove scopes and assist with protecting etc.
Take photographs and a full inventory of the items being removed whenever possible.
And get bloody insurance!
THIS
Indeed, if the Chief Officer issues a revocation, you have to comply with the lawful order.
"Voluntarily surrender?" No. This is a typical police trick when they have no lawful authority.
@@michaelebbage9166 Yes, and sadly most gun owners naïvely fall for it, not understanding that it will have adverse consequences.
Or defend your hearth and home from thieves.
I'm 54 years old and I can honestly say I've watched the
decline of the police and civil service over the last 30 years,
This is not the country I grew up in.
The answer to the question “we’ve come to ask for you to voluntarily hand over your guns” should almost certainly have been “no”. They had to ask it that way as they had no lawful basis to seize them. Most gun owners are upstanding citizens, want to do the right thing and want to avoid aggravating police. Unfortunately, post-Plymouth, those days are gone. One must always remain unfailingly polite and pleasant but stick to your rights (make sure you know them). Make records of all conversations immediately afterwards. Follow up all discussions by email. Once the police have your guns all urgency is lost as they deem it a low risk and thus low-priority issue. Force them to make a decision - be it to revoke your certificate or seize your guns - because then you have a purportedly lawful decision you can challenge in court. Just hand them over without challenge and they can sit on them
Bull shit... hand them over? You're probably a cop
@@FrankToThePoint had you read my post in full with a modicum of care, rather than fast-forwarding to the final sentence and reading it too quickly, you would have realised that I had actually advised precisely the opposite. Lawyers and legal advisors are all too readily advising certificate holders to pass possession of their guns onto RFDs, or even the police, in order to avoid seizure and future revocation of a certificate. With how slow the police now are, I think this well-worn approach is no longer advantageous to many certificate holders, particularly those with the means and ambition to fight. If the police don’t have a clear basis to seize your firearms then it is tactically much better to force them to make a decision. If they decide to revoke, they will likely do it in less than ideal circumstances from their perspective and you get to press the issue by getting it in front of a judge, not having your case just languishing with the police. And why on earth are people not seeking mandatory injunctions against the police when their guns have been unlawfully seized?! Answer: because the insurance doesn’t provide the cover for it. There isn’t a way to force them to make a decision quicker but there’s definitely a way to get them to return the guns.
I read it, in full. Sounded like you were dlsaying to hand them over. Then fight it in court.
I read it as IF you hand your guns over then do it ONLY in response to a firm 'lawful' move from the ploddo then you can challenge it in the channels set out.
Surrender is a last option, not his first.
@@OldNavajoTricksexactly right.
You cannot comply yourself out of authoritarianism
It seems the moral is don't call the cops if you get attacked by some dirt bag. Better to let them get away with it than lose your firearms.
Keep old wall-to-wall carpets at hand. Befriend yourself with people who raise hogs, which are omnivores.
@@payres48 no, because that will come back to bite you with the police. The moral is get lawyered up and don’t hand over your guns unless the police have a proper and lawful basis to seize them. Then - and ONLY then - negotiate to lodge them at an RFD to avoid seizure.
@@erik_dk842 Well over here in the US we always say befriend a hog farmer, them hogs will eat ANYTHING and leave nothing behind...
Let me quess , dirt bag wasn’t white faced!
US Citizen since 2011. Dystopia sucks!
This is exactly what happens in Australia. Interesting to see this happening in the UK
The UK is lost.
So, the man has his guns taken from him, because he is vicariously responsible for other people’s actions? Pathetic police. What next? Banning him from driving because someone else had a crash?
This nonsense has to stop.
It's getting difficult to find anything the police are actually competent at.......
Answer without fail is always no. Polite but firm.
NEVER GIVE UP YOUR TOOLS OF TRADE!!!
Never voluntarily give your guns to the government.
🇦🇺😎👍My mate interrupted a burglar at 11 pm. He got in a scuffle with the burglar . The police were called and the burglar was taken away by the police , eventually only to return and confiscate his gun licence and registered firearms . Court case pending , still 12 months on
Same problem with knives. The law-abiding citizen gets stuffed. The criminals will still get their hands on the weapons
Use us here in America as as an example, criminals will get guns outside of the legal ways anywhere. Our most restrictive places(cities and states) are always the ones with the worst gun crime numbers(mostly gang violence and drug related) hence Chicago's unfortunate nickname, Chiraq... And there's always room for another new law that doesn't save lives and restricts the rights of the law abiding person...
@Sadler2010 the criminals know most people don't carry weapons so it makes them bolder.if everyone carried some sort of weapon it might be different. Here in the UK it's illegal to carry anything as a weapon even for self defense
@@Phoenixonesix And it's ridiculous.
They require a warrant.
The police would prefer only other criminals have guns.
Don't try and make sense of it, it'll just make you bitter and resentful.
We know what the plan is but are bound and gagged already.
When the Police asked if he would like to handover his firearms why did he oblige?
Was he expecting them to take them by force if he declined?
Of course he was. Just like the political prisoners who pleaded guilty to avoid being thrown in jail until they confessed.
#two tier Kier
Because if you dig your heels in that's your licence gone anyway.
@@Marcus_Shaw No it isn't. They had no legal reason to remove his firearms. That's why they had to ask for voluntary surrender.
@@GavinM161 What does legal reasons have to do with it?
Police aren't lawyers, so have a tendency to act first and investigate after.
The fact that two clueless junior officers turned up tells us they were Promotion Seekers trying to create a situation, so they could document having conducted a Firearms Offence investigation for their Portfolio.
They will act first "on suspicion" then go and ask their Sergeant afterwards, who will offload it on to the FO and in to the twilight zone.
Based on previous similar encounters reported, if the plods had not got their way they would have gone away and constructed a narrative that the licence holder was uncooperative and seemed mentally disturbed and would have needed a Mental Health Assessment.
Unfortunately that assessment is currently impossible to obtain in the UK as no practicing professional is going to risk having their career destroyed by cross examination in court, so the unfortunate innocent individual has no way of proving anything. 🤷♂️ They would just have come home one day and found their front door smashed in and their gun safe ripped off the wall.
All they can do is wait it out then get their Advocate to press that if no charges or investigation are forthcoming then the owner's property should be returned or they should be compensated.
Peter has been the victim of his own ignorance here. After the police grant permission to own and keep a firearm it is actually very difficult for them to seize the firearms without a clear cut reason such as criminality. Do not voluntarily surrender your firearms if you do not want to.
What is glossed over in this case is the statement Peter makes @1:32 that the police mention to him about “what has happened in the past with a couple of other incidents with firearms”. We don’t get to learn what they are but I guarantee that they are significant. Police likely have a good reason to seize the firearms, but even then it is difficult so they have gone with the path of least resistance and requested he voluntarily surrender. That makes it inherently more difficult to recover them because Peter now doesn’t have the complaint that police unlawfully seized his guns. He should not have handed them over.
When police do attend with a court signed warrant (or other lawful reason) then you MUST afford the police officers every courtesy and assist them willingly to remove your firearms. The police will likely allow you to show the firearms are clear/made safe, or for you to disassemble the firearm for transport - they know these can be expensive items that you may be emotionally attached to. You can then challenge the process and seek to have your guns returned. Failing to do this will make it likely you will NEVER own a firearm again at best. At worst, you may be charged with criminal obstruction and your gun safe prised open with irreparable damage.
There is almost nothing that makes sense what authorities do in England anymore.
If anyone thinks that America is anything other than exceptional, just watch this video. These poor people have lived under this tyranny for hundreds of years. God bless America long live the Republic.
Britain didn't used to be this bad. We'd be going down the very same path if Trump weren't elected.
Same in America. A fed was recently videoed saying “We don’t believe any private citizens should have guns. The government should hold a monopoly on violence.”
Chilling.
what a messed up situation.
Where do they find the cops to do these evil acts to the citizens?
Universities
Same place the Guards in the concentration camps came from . " They were only doing their jobs "
Extreme Ignorance of Basic Human Rights, and Complete Lack of Common Sense of Self-Defense,is the REASON this man's guns were taken.
That's what happens to SUBJECTS not CITIZENS.
These people need to be put on a list !!!
1984 just won't go away.
For those who aren’t in the know, BASC does NOT provide firearms legal cover anymore. Public liability insurance is not the same as firearms legal cover, and BASC will not fight your corner if the police treat you unfairly, only provide you with “advice”.
Anyway, I just signed up for the yearly subscription with legal cover. I think that this is simply a must-have for shooters these days. It’s a jungle out there!
I also remember an instant where a FAC holder posted videos on FB, showing him shooting rabbits directly towards a main road with cars passing behind no more than 10-15yds behind with only a thin post & rail fence to stop the round & the odd bush. He was reported to, think it was Nottingham Police & they allowed him to carry on with no issues. So, it seems if you behave you get punished, endanger others, even with video evidence you get a way with it. The only back stop was the fence or the vehicles. Crazy
This is why the US fights so hard to keep the 2nd amendment untouched.
So where was the firearms officer????
There doesn’t have to be a firearms officer present. The ‘mistakes made’ and Peter pointing out the ‘mistakes’ @2:30 in relation to these just being normal beat bobbies so can’t handle firearms/shotguns is actually wrong. Any police officer can transport a firearm. Field Sports Britain should know that and not peddle the wrong information to its viewers. Peter, a Firearms owner, should also know that.
A fire arms officer has to attend the scene and make a firearm safe. It gets a ticket attached to it when this happens (they used to be red) and then it can be transported by any officer as it is deemed safe.
That process has to be done by a trained firearms officer.
But they should always be made safe at the scene, not after for obvious reasons.
That was certainly the protocol for Greater Manchester Police, from 2005-2016.
@@mikewhittaker387 You are absolutely correct, mostly. The ticket attached by AFOs (Authorised Firearms Officers) is green once it has been made safe, the red ones state that it has not been made safe (either due to it being transported to a station for AFOs to attend there, or attached by an AFO who couldn’t make it safe for whatever reason; like being unfamiliar with a modified firearm or due to it being corroded and working parts not able to be manipulated, for example, in those cases it is then transported in a ballistics bag to forensics for them to do in a sterilised area).
The green labels can only be attached by a trained AFO, and only they are able to make a firearm safe, that is correct.
You are correct again to say they should be made safe at the scene. This is pretty much always done at a crime scene, certainly where there is a forensic recovery of a firearm. However, given how many firearms are surrendered (sudden deaths where a wife might tell the attending officers that the guy had shotguns for example) and how many AFOs there are available at any given time it just is not practicable. So in practice what often happens is the Community/Response Officers transport the firearm to the local station where it is locked away and AFOs (normally ARV teams) are made aware to attend to make safe.
In some areas, ARVs (Armed Response Vehicles) will dedicate a car to the ‘make safes’ on a shift or will wait to a designated day, often a Sunday, for a car to go round all the local stations to carry out the make safes of guns surrendered or seized during that week.
My regards to the GMP lot, I’ve worked with a few!
This is why gun owners need to know and understand the laws and their rights.
Do not ever hand over your guns without a revocation order! Never “voluntarily surrender” your firearms! It’s not breaking the law, it’s asserting your rights and abiding by the law.
It’s the UK. The people have zero “rights”. They can be arrested for silently praying. It’s actually happened.
This is absolutely bullshit those cops should be ashamed of themselves treating the victim like a criminal, how would they feel if they were assaulted by a criminal and their bosses said no more pepper spray or stab proof vest for you
I've been threatened by my FAO to have my guns taken from me regardless of what happens & why. After a chat with my brother via message i called him a "cfhucking twanker" he then reported me for violent abusive behaviour. PC arrived, first I thought it was a joke 😂 when i told them what happened they agreed he was. 2 weeks later FAO came to visit me & said even if someone complains about something I haven't done i would lose my guns. I said, even if I did nothing wrong, yes was his reply. I have NEVER hurt or threatened anyone. It's gone crazy
That is indeed crazy, and scary..
Since Plymouth, the police will now err on the side of caution and about time too.
@@KW-qq7nuThey granted that idiot a shot gun certificate then they returned his guns I would hardly call that airing on the side of caution
@@peterbalac1915 I said SINCE Plymouth, meaning as a direct consequence, everything has tightened up. More revocations, rechecking of cases where firearms were taken away and then returned, etc.
@@peterbalac1915 Shotgun certificates are issued/granted as long as there is no reason NOT to grant it. Police rely on the character references of others, and doctor’s medical files/reports as well as any previous criminality. Police are not fortune tellers and didn’t know that ‘idiot’ would kill people any more than his doctors or the people who provided the good character references.
Look at this very case, how many people are taking the side of old Peter here and bashing the police for taking the guns? What happens when Peter is granted permission to own and keep firearms again… then 2 years later loses the plot and goes on a killing spree? Let me guess, you think it’ll be the police’s fault? Not the doctors, not the referees… not all the people who think he should get his guns back?
The police have a greater responsibility than you can fathom, they have to make a decision one way or another (because even indecision results in criticism by the ignoramuses like yourself). They grant millions of shotgun certificates and hundreds of thousands of firearms certificates. If one of those people decide to kill, the ultimate responsibility is on themselves. Stop looking for easy outs and scapegoats, blaming the police for everything is getting boring.
My wife as she ages became more antagonistic toward my firearms and the result was my firearm acquisition certificate was revoked and $15,000 dollars worth of my property were confiscated by the police.
I hope she now an ex wife.
@@kieranb7047 She left !
Tyranny. The senior police officers responsible for this should be sacked. They are the problem, a big clear out of senior police management is required in order to get the focus of the police on real crime, not this sort of nonsense.
This is heartbreaking. This has to affect his human rights. What is happening to our country? I hope it is resolved ASAP.
The victim of assault is obviously guilty of criminal intent!
If they do not come prepared with a warrant stating they have explicitly come to collect firearms (and ideally an exact list of which firearms and their serial numbers) you should not willingly surrender them. Once you have you are NOT going to get them back without a seriously drawn out court case.
Remember, the police have nothing to lose here. It cost them nothing to not talk to you. They have what they came for and it's entirely on you and a legal team to get them to return them. They will only start talking when you have a lawyer involved because that then can come out as your costs after a successful trial/appeal.
Unfortunately, there are several Chief Police Officers and many Police Officers who believe that they have a mandate to reduce the number of Guns in circulation. They will pounce on any opportunity to do that however unfair hoping that the person they have victimised will be unable to take it to court, interestingly when it is taken to court the Police generally fold quickly when the judge intervenes.
Beyond outrageous. I reckon it will only get worse with our new government.
Your public servants will continue this behavior as long as you allow them.
"There is no situation so bad that it cannot be made worse by the presence of police." -William Norman Grigg
Could have said 'No' 'go away'... The police never took anything the bloke surrendered his firearms.
It's simple do not ever talk to the police, do not ever let them in your house, never do anything without a warrant wet signed by a judge.
Stand up and stop living your lives on your knees.
Time for you lads to have a little tea party of your own 😉
Also worth pointing out is the officers in effect will be breaking the law as they are not authorised to possess section one firearms. There is no immunity allowed in law.
I am confused. early the man says the cops asked him to hand them over "voluntarily" So did he allow them to take them or did he say "No" and they took the firearms anyway?
At this time the UK is lost...
We are meant to be policed by consent! This isn’t the type of policing we consent too! 😡😡😡
@@MadDogSurvival I think you misunderstand ‘Policing by Consent’. It refers to the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can chose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law.
Laws are passed by the consent of the representatives in parliament! They represent the interests of the majority of the people. So we are policed by consent. We the people the majority hold ultimate power as a free state nation as per the magnacarta. Either way the current police are not anything but political enforcers that are not serving the will of the people
@@MadDogSurvival My friend, you are almost right in everything you wrote other than your conclusion; however the police are completely independent of policy and politics, and do not curry favour with any political party or government.
The Magna Carta was not a confirmation that the people hold the power; it was a 13th century document stating the principle that Royalty and Government are not above the law.
What you should focus on is the ‘Policing by Consent’ definition that comes from Robert Peel’s 9 Principles of Policing which essentially outlines the uniqueness of our policing in the UK that we are not policed by fear/force and a very important reminder that the police are the public, and the public are the police. The police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
So, by definition, we are indeed policed by consent, and this is the type of policing we consent to.
Please bear in mind many, many police officers also have their own FAC and shotgun certificates in their personal lives. They are subject to the same laws, legislation, regulations, scrutiny and expectations as everyone else.
@@MadDogSurvival Let’s focus on this specific case before we go down a rabbit hole and lose touch of this:
Firstly, we don’t know what happened in the assault (after he was attacked did Peter say he would shoot the assailant, for example? We don’t know but I almost guarantee he didn’t just offer the other cheek). What we do know is that Peter has ‘incidents with firearms’ in the past which he glosses over @1:32 and offers no further information. The police likely have very good reasons for taking Peter’s guns, the police won’t offer that information because it’s against GDPR and Peter isn’t telling us. That being said it is still very difficult for the police to seize weapons without a clear cut reason such as criminality, so they have relied on Peter’s ignorance here and taken the path of least resistance in asking Peter to voluntarily surrender them. Unfortunately Peter has fallen victim to his ignorance and done so, he shouldn’t have.
HOWEVER, look at the alternative; police don’t take the guns and old Pete shoots the assailant next time he sees him, or worse; goes on a killing spree out of frustration. Then you’d probably blame the police for taking no action! The police have a greater responsibility than you can fathom and we have to trust that they are making the best decisions based on the information they have (which we don’t).
@@RealityCheck-FYI "look at the alternative; police don’t take the guns and old Pete shoots the assailant next time he sees him, or worse; goes on a killing spree out of frustration."
This is the problem with you lukewarm Bri'ish gun owner types. You always think people are going to go on a mass shooting spree after a confrontation. You must be a pig after all the comments I've read from you. Good little sheep.
That’s why you never give that authorization to any government
not just totalitarian behavior but also totalitarian mentality. the govt the people of the UK have repeatedly asked for going back many decades. very sad
Absolutely ridiculous
General Gage found out how well that worked.
This is just what they can easily get away with. If they could take them away permanently, they would. Good luck to you.
He should have refused. Without a court order, it was simply a request.
Appears the duty is to protect the criminal who assaulted him, because there was no threat to the public.
He should have refused to give up his guns to ordinary cops with no firearms training
That last statement. "Lets see if the Labour Govt. is better" 😂😂
😂😂😂
Oh, my ribs hurt now!!! 🤣🤣
How did these leftist gun grabbers get into office? You people voted for this. Strength is numbers, band together and force these tyrants out of office.The police are not your friends, they are the enemy.
The police are a disgrace. The way they talk to people, the way they get something agreed and then lay on the fact that they can't guarantee to look after things in their care.
Then they take ages to return the equipment, ignoring that they might be work tools. If you are preventing someone from working you should have to pay damages.
This is a perfect example of the difference between a right and a privilege. You can lose a privilege without doing anything wrong.
One should never call the police - there is no situation that they can't make worse
Unfortunately, this gentleman complied and handed over his firearms where the police officers attending had no legal basis to take them. They were unqualified to touch those firearms and effectively broke the law. Surely on that basis alone, the guns should be returned as soon as possible. The legal challenge here should be ( regardless of the original concerns the police may have had) that those officers were put at risk by their employer in carrying out actions for which they were neither trained or qualified. It is surely therefore an illegal possession of his firearms and amounts to both a breach in firearms law and employment law. A Health and Safety Executive investigation should be brought against the police force involved for demanding or 'ordering' their unqualified officers to remove his guns. Imagine the consequences of such an action if in a similar situation, untrained personel attended the address of someone less professional about their own security and storage and for some daft reason, they handled a negligently loaded gun which then was accidentally discharged by those officers!! ? Let alone the possibility that the removal might legally be found to amount to theft. There needs to be a full and very public investigation into the actions of police forces involved in these highly dubious and shady gun grabs. They do not protect the public in any way and cause enormous harm to those individuals involved along with a complete breakdown in the working relationship between the police and lawful shooters and firearms owners. It is reprehensible behaviour which must cease.
Sorry, but you are wrong to state that an unqualified police officer "effectively broke the law", any crown employee is allowed to handle firearms without a license providing they are performing their official duties (see Section 54 of the Firearms Act 1968). Additionally, many forces use untrained taxi drivers to take firearms to approved scrap metal companies for disposal, in this context the taxi driver is considered a crown servant.
@DaveW-h2r
Well, that all seems perfectly safe doesn't it!!?
You have to love the the way the law operates in the UK.
So effectively, any Crown Servant, untrained in clearing and proving a firearm as safe, can pick it up and chuck it in the boot of a police car or a taxi to have it taken to a third party for disposal. It's beyond stupid. But I guess 'ours is not to reason why'.
I still think if the H&S executive were to examine this practice in detail and explore the potential ramifications, a legal challenge would stand. As employers, the police are not exempt from H&S law. (Neither are the armed forces). The potential risk of serious harm as a result of an unsafe firearm being handled by inexperienced personnel would be found to be reckless and extreme risk. Just imagine the press having a field day with such an event!?
Thanks for your reply.
😊
This is disgusting behaviour, a man is assaulted and he gets punished for it? We need to stand up and revolvt against the system its horrid how we treat firearm owners the restrictions enough are insane.
No registration of long arms like it used to be in Australia before 1996
This is why we have 2a here in the state.
Look at what Australian government did to aussies during the pandemic... they were abducting people in broad daylight and putting them in concentration camps for the crime of merely potentially talking to someone who maybe had the coronavirus... that's why you have firearms.
Watch Out America! Government is trying to do the same here.
So, this bloke was assaulted by a random person , for no reason , no prior argument , no historical dispute , ....right ?
If it was voluntary, why did he give them up? That was a strategic mistake when dealing with a bureacracy.
I agree... The other option is to have a warrant to seize them. The likelihood of ever getting them back may decrease. To gain a warrant the language the police use would be very different. They may say they had cause to believe he is a danger to society...
So the lesson is don't call the police and take care of your own business, especially if you have guns.
I don't know the laws in England and of course they are different than in the USA. However, people need to stand up for themselves instead of being i and let themselves be violated by illegal acts of the law enforcement. He was the victim of a crime and did not even do anything to defend himself during the attack. In what world does this equate to him needing to be disarmed? To assure the safety of the criminal if the criminal were to retaliate against him physically for pressing charges against him??
If the constables were there to ASK him to surrender his guns then they did not have the authority to demand he turn them over. Could he not say "no" and they would be required to leave, especially since they could not legally possess the firearms themselves without the proper training???
Like I said, I know I do not know the laws there, but there is also some common sense that was avoided here. How the people think electing a communist government is going to make things better is beyond me. Brexit was to return their autonomy and independence they once had, only to give it up in another election? It's a sad state of affairs there.
Really feel for the man😢
Very sad indeed, an injustice that's unacceptable, we have the same problem here in Canada, a person only has to be falsely accused and the same thing can and will happen here, meanwhile, the real criminals are getting away with murder with our catch and release program we have here for them
Also maybe there have been many firearms incidents in certain parts of the country and the policing is much tougher than other places, but at the end of the day Peter have been truthful all along and it was him who was assaulted and did not even fight back.
Protect the public by penalising the innocent. Yeah, that's our taxes at work!! Why take them if they cant manage the process. Oh yeah, thats right. Protecting the public thing again!!
Protecting the death out of citizens since XXXX, brought to you by the Gubment and its lackeys!!!
They tried that with me i told them no if you give up your guns it's very difficult to get them back
Say no every time if they do not have a warrant to take them . They are not acting in your best interests , It is not a lack of staff it is because they are being told to do this by POLITICANS . Policing by consent is finished . We have a saying where i live . When seconds count the police are MINUTES away
This is just another advert for the coming of Alan's snack bar.
And I have male appendage, does that me automatically a rapist?? Absurd powers!!
This what happens when your a subject without rights
Just like the British, just give it up without a fight ,,never learned anything from us,,
@@craigjackson8187 The British famously do not give up without a fight, what history books have you been reading? In terms of not learning anything from you (I’m guessing the USA?) then please have a look at the hundreds of body cam videos reviewed by Active Self Protection or Donut Operator showing a LOT of american gun owners not doing what police ask and ending up dead in a gun fight. So please, don’t think of your citizens are shining examples to learn from.
Plenty of us gun owners here know our laws and understand when we need to hand over our guns and when we don’t. Old Peter here showed his ignorance and didn’t know better, don’t think of him as a representation of all gun owners in the UK.
@RealityCheck-FYI Unfortunately, the Brits have the mindset of loyal subjects, which makes them modern slaves to their socialist government. Because of that, they have no liberty like we have in the USA under the 1st or 2nd Amendment.
Criminals have more rights the law abiding people.
You should have said you don't volunteer for any voluntary confiscation
They should be banning a$$holes, not firearms, next you won't be able to possess pointy knives or battery acid.........
wow that is shocking
It's getting bad here in Canada, but you British blokes have got to start standing up for yourselves... 😖
🤨 DON'T LET THEM IN YOUR HOUSE ! Don't even talk to them... DO NOT willingly give up any firearms. Ever.
You hope the Labour Government will be better, with “Two Tier” Keir in charge you’ve got no chance.
And yet the Brits can buy supressors off the shelf - right next to the scope rings!
Same in NZ. And in some European countries your not allowed to hunt with high powered rifles unless it’s suppressed because of 92db noise restrictions. Ain’t that great😂
You yanks can buy many guns, .50 cals, semi-autos etc. but you can't but a suppressor.🤣🤷♂