Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rusty_terrier

Rifle In Car

Recommended Posts

As others have said, I just think you are inviting trouble, imagine the conversation. Plod..."good evening sir,mind telling us what you are doing?" you....."Just shining a lamp over the fields,checking out the local wildlife" plod....I see sir,well this estate/farm has had several incidents of deer poaching,stock theft,machinery theft,do you have firearms in the vehicle sir?" you.... yes I do, I have been shooting on ...... farm 12 miles away earlier, and just thought I would have a look round on my way home" plod....... I see sir, could you step out of the vehicle sir and put your hands behind your back" you see the way this is going mate? If its not land you have authority to be on, dont do it, its not worth the grief.

Pure assumption and speculation.

 

You can not be arrested or cuffed in the scenario you describe.

 

U.

Share this post


Link to post

Well that is your opinion mate and I respect your right to hold it, however, in my opinion (which everyone is entitled to lol) I think that under the circumstances described, or similar, owing to the fact that the op had firearms in the vehicle,he was miles away from his own permission and the land in question, had been subject to poaching etc and that there is physical evidence of him shining a lamp over the ground (I accept not an offence in its own right) it would certainly lead to his being "detained" for further enquiries, irrespective of cuffs being applied or not, there are,I admit many variables to the scenario described, and ultimately, having broken no laws, the op would be released, but I stand firm in what I say, that the potential hassle that could be caused, simply by having a shine round to check out the local rabbit population, is simply not worth it, again, only my opinion, but I suspect one shared by quite a few.

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't attach too much credibility to Sporting Shooter answers online. They advise Polecats can be legally shot and when I rang BASC for confirmation they also quoted the Sporting shooter answer as she went online whilst I was on the phone! Only after a lot of digging myself did I find that Polecats were added full protection in 2006. Remember ignorance is no defence. I've checked the H.O PDF's I have but not found an answer yet, although I've certainly read it somewhere.

 

If you're suggesting that I'm something to do with the publication, then I'm not. Simple as that. Never have been or will be.

 

Alsone, the entire case in that article seems to be, forgive the expression, a cluster f**k.

 

The judge is quoted by the Daily Mail saying "I AM QUITE SATISFIED THAT YOU ARE NOT A CRIMINAL". He has then ordered that the guns be returned to the defendant. He is further quoted as saying "COMMON SENSE" should apply.

 

It would seem from reading it that the police have become frustrated at the defendant not co-operating with them to destroy the gun or accept a caution so have decided, obviously they must have had an admission from the defendant, to charge him. I can see how that could happen, particularly when the gent openly admits to being a re-enactment enthusiast and admitted to having the weapon. They would not need any other evidence to charge him. I also very much doubt the Crown Prosecutors were consulted before he went to court. What I read in the papers I treat with caution and believe about a quarter of it, so who knows.

 

It would quite obviously be for a legal test in court to establish whether the vehicle itself was a public place at the time, which by the definition in the Act the offence is supposedly under, it is not. I am happy to be proved wrong if you can show me that a private vehicle, where legally held firearms are concerned, is always a public place if it is being driven/parked in one. The question is, do the public have access, on payment or otherwise, to your vehicle.

 

To my mind, reading that article, the defendant would have more than ample "reasonable excuse" to have his antique deactivated weapon with him but seems to have been bullied by ill-informed and risk averse police officers. Again, what I believe and what I read are two different things when it comes to newspapers.

 

We can go around in circles debating the point but the above article shows what can happen when situations are misinterpreted and it leads back to the whole point of the thread in the first place, exercise common sense and 99% of the time, situations like this can be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post

Well that is your opinion mate and I respect your right to hold it, however, in my opinion (which everyone is entitled to lol) I think that under the circumstances described, or similar, owing to the fact that the op had firearms in the vehicle,he was miles away from his own permission and the land in question, had been subject to poaching etc and that there is physical evidence of him shining a lamp over the ground (I accept not an offence in its own right) it would certainly lead to his being "detained" for further enquiries, irrespective of cuffs being applied or not, there are,I admit many variables to the scenario described, and ultimately, having broken no laws, the op would be released, but I stand firm in what I say, that the potential hassle that could be caused, simply by having a shine round to check out the local rabbit population, is simply not worth it, again, only my opinion, but I suspect one shared by quite a few.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't attach too much credibility to Sporting Shooter answers online. They advise Polecats can be legally shot and when I rang BASC for confirmation they also quoted the Sporting shooter answer as she went online whilst I was on the phone! Only after a lot of digging myself did I find that Polecats were added full protection in 2006. Remember ignorance is no defence. I've checked the H.O PDF's I have but not found an answer yet, although I've certainly read it somewhere.

 

Sporting Shooter the magazine and SportingShooter the moderator on this site have nothing to do with each other. I attach a lot of credibility to the latter.

 

Whatever anyone's views on this are, the simple fact is if you have a gun in the car in this scenario, it may or it may not cause you grief.

 

If you don't, it definitely won't.

Share this post


Link to post

For clarity, I wasn't even aware of a "Sporting Shooter" on this forum. I was referring to the magazine articles which often come up on a google search for answers regarding shooting queries.

I certainly wasn't calling any individual into question by these comments. Sorry for any confusion I've caused.

 

Edit! Just read Eric Morecombes username is "Sporting shooter" Lol, sorry my bad!

Edited by foxtrotoscar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I really despair that we as a community have let the situation around firearms ownership and use get this bad in our own country. So bad that whether it's legit to take a scenic route home for potentially being more trouble than it's worth is actually worthy of debating!

 

Quite frankly, if I wanted to go into town for a bit of shopping 30 mile away and at the same time chuck a gun in the car to visit a nearby permission afterwards, nobody should raise an eyebrow at it! But we all shit ourselves for the what if's! Madness!

 

I agree it probably ain't worth the agro. But f**k! WTF have we let happen?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

As Charlie caller said yesterday at 2206 that is probably what would happen.

The person wouldn't need to be holding the weapon for him to be guilty of going equipped, he would only have to be in possession of it, which he is by it being in his car.

If he is using it to poach an animal that someone has invested time and money into, then that person owns the animal and that can be classed as theft.

Especially if the person has dead animals with him too, then he would be arrested on suspicion of an offence, his weapons seized and he would then have an opportunity to give his side of events in interview.

He may then be released without charge, he may get his weapons back eventually, his FLO would be informed and the incident will always be recorded as such.

The police don't need to be in possession of all the evidence to arrest someone, that's why they can hold you for 24 hours to get that evidence.

Don't underestimate what the police can or cannot do, you may not like the police, most criminals don't, but having the wrong attitude with them will only make them more determined to use their powers accordingly.

Unless you are a lawyer that knows the law inside out then please be careful with any advice being given out.

I think the OP knew the correct answer when he originally posted the question, it isn't worth it, even if there is no mens rea.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

As Charlie caller said yesterday at 2206 that is probably what would happen.

The person wouldn't need to be holding the weapon for him to be guilty of going equipped, he would only have to be in possession of it, which he is by it being in his car.

If he is using it to poach an animal that someone has invested time and money into, then that person owns the animal and that can be classed as theft.

Especially if the person has dead animals with him too, then he would be arrested on suspicion of an offence, his weapons seized and he would then have an opportunity to give his side of events in interview.

He may then be released without charge, he may get his weapons back eventually, his FLO would be informed and the incident will always be recorded as such.

The police don't need to be in possession of all the evidence to arrest someone, that's why they can hold you for 24 hours to get that evidence.

Don't underestimate what the police can or cannot do, you may not like the police, most criminals don't, but having the wrong attitude with them will only make them more determined to use their powers accordingly.

Unless you are a lawyer that knows the law inside out then please be careful with any advice being given out.

I think the OP knew the correct answer when he originally posted the question, it isn't worth it, even if there is no mens rea.

Who recommended a bad attitude to the police?

 

Of course a person with authorised firearms in their car is going equipped. Equipped to do some shooting where he can or has been.

 

Simply looking does not imply illegal activity despite what you or whoever's opinion may be on how it maybe percieved by the police!

 

A few years ago an anti blood sports tennent called the police out to me lamping. When we were intercepted my details were checked against the car number. I was asked what I was doing to which I replied shooting vermin.

I was not asked if I had permission. I was not asked to produce a firearms licence and no question was asked regarding any gun in possession.

 

This is not an isolated case and most definitely not just an opinion!

 

U.

Share this post


Link to post

As has been mentioned before its a shame we live in a "what if" world where the worst is expected of everyone and decent people have to worry when they know they are doing nothing wrong. It is what it is though

Share this post


Link to post

 

As Charlie caller said yesterday at 2206 that is probably what would happen.

The person wouldn't need to be holding the weapon for him to be guilty of going equipped, he would only have to be in possession of it, which he is by it being in his car.

If he is using it to poach an animal that someone has invested time and money into, then that person owns the animal and that can be classed as theft.

Especially if the person has dead animals with him too, then he would be arrested on suspicion of an offence, his weapons seized and he would then have an opportunity to give his side of events in interview.

He may then be released without charge, he may get his weapons back eventually, his FLO would be informed and the incident will always be recorded as such.

The police don't need to be in possession of all the evidence to arrest someone, that's why they can hold you for 24 hours to get that evidence.

Don't underestimate what the police can or cannot do, you may not like the police, most criminals don't, but having the wrong attitude with them will only make them more determined to use their powers accordingly.

Unless you are a lawyer that knows the law inside out then please be careful with any advice being given out.

I think the OP knew the correct answer when he originally posted the question, it isn't worth it, even if there is no mens rea.

Of course a person with authorised firearms in their car is going equipped. Equipped to do some shooting where he can or has been.

 

Simply looking does not imply illegal activity despite what you or whoever's opinion may be on how it maybe percieved by the police!

 

 

 

If the person is shooting where he has permission then he is fine. He will simply explain what he is doing, facts may be checked and the police will leave.

If the police ask and he says he does not have permission on the land he is looking over, then the police can have reasonable grounds to suspect he is about to commit an offence, and arrest him for such an offence.

He will then explain in interview his reasons for looking over someone else's land, at night (when most poaching occurs), with a lamp, while in possession of firearms, with the reason for police attendance being a report of poaching on the land in question (as police generally just don't just turn up). Then it will be up to the custody Sgt, or the CPS to decide if he is telling the truth and if any charges should be put to him.

If there are charges, or the police need more time for enquiries, he will then be bailed, his equipment will stay seized, as it was on arrest, and he will have to return at a later date with all of this hanging over his head until then.

 

I am not looking to start an argument, and it is fine to have a disagreement of opinions, but I am merely stating what I KNOW the law to be,and the law isn't an opinion, and I am sure you are an intelligent person and can work out how I know what the law is.

Is it really worth it to look at wildlife, as we all like to do, as I am sure we do not shoot every living thing we see, but enjoy watching the world wake up first thing in the morning, and watching wildlife go about their daily business.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

How can someone be arrested for something they have not done.

 

So if I walk up to an empty house and knock on the door a police officer can arrest me because he thinks I may be about to burglar somewhere lol.

 

Nuts.

 

Ifs and buts, maybes and could. Nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post

How can someone be arrested for something they have not done.

 

So if I walk up to an empty house and knock on the door a police officer can arrest me because he thinks I may be about to burglar somewhere lol.

 

Nuts.

 

Ifs and buts, maybes and could. Nonsense.

That's the issue, if you had tools in your bag/pocket you could be assumed to be going equipped at the empty house. Having a Rifle in your car off route could be assumed poaching at night. Quite logical IMO.

Edited by foxtrotoscar
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Ok Underdog, a serious question, I live in Yorkshire, however I have quite a lot of shooting, over the border in Derbyshire, now, on my way home from some of my permissions, there is a large estate, that you may of heard of, it is the Chatsworth estate, now, let us assume I have been shooting elsewhere, on my way home, I decide to stop and shine my lamp across the estate at the resident fallow deer , perhaps some 200 yards away, the police pull along side me and ask me what I am doing, in the boot of my jeep, I have a dead Fallow buck, shot quite legitimately on land I have permission on, assuming the police search my vehicle, on suspicion of poaching/theft, do you think I might have a difficult time explaining myself? Yes perhaps I could prove I had shot the buck legit, but would you want the hassle? I know I would not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×