Shooters complain of 'hysterical' police response to legal field sports. Telegraph.co.uk

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...al-police-response-to-legal-field-sports.html

Shooting groups are reporting a growing number of cases where officers in armed response vehicles and helicopters are swooping on people who are legally shooting.
In many cases, the shooters are arrested and have had their guns seized. They are sometimes locked up and have their DNA taken, before police accept their error.
The Countryside Alliance has described as "hysterical", the "massive overreaction" by officers, while the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) has warned that an incident could lead to a lawful shooter being killed by police marksmen.
The problem has become so great, that the field sports' bible, Shooting Times, has launched an initiative – called the Campaign for Common Sense – to urge police to improve their dealings with field sports enthusiasts. The publication has also submitted a dossier detailing its complaints and proposals to a recent consultation by the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) on police firearm use.
The magazine's news editor, Selena Masson, said: "The police response is completely out of sync with what is actually going on. They send helicopters and up to half a dozen police vehicles, at astronomical cost to the taxpayer. They manhandle shooters, throw them in the cells and take DNA fingerprints, despite the fact that these people have permission and all the relevant documentation."
Christopher Graffius, from the BASC, said: "It doesn't take a lot of imagination to imagine a scene where armed police are called out going horribly wrong. The shooters' lives are at risk. I don't think many police forces have developed procedures to deal with this issue. They need to do so."
He said in his wildfowling club, in the north west, that Merseyside Police had sent an armed response unit in a helicopter in pursuit of wildfowlers on a tidal marsh up to a mile from land, who were shooting legally. The gunmen were forced back to land and interviewed by the police before being released.
In another case, earlier this month, Durham Police sent a helicopter to a spot near Bishop Auckland after a member of the public had reported seeing two men shooting geese at a lake. Instructions from the helicopter ordered the men to meet officers in a nearby village.
Two dead geese and the weapons were later seized from them, although officers later realised the pair had permission to shoot in the area and licences for the firearms.
In July, Kenneth Wilson, 63, and his brother Sid, 65, a former police firearms officer, had permission to shoot pigeon on farmland near Devizes, Wiltshire, when trespassers who were trying to view a crop circle called police to report a gun being used in the field.
A helicopter arrived, along with three squad cars carrying armed police, who arrested Kenneth Wilson. All charges against him were eventually dropped and his seized guns were returned.
He said: "The police dealt with this situation appallingly. It should have been resolved there and then in the field. There is nothing illegal about what I did that day. I have been shooting for more than 30 years and comply with firearms law and all safety practices. The way I was treated by the police was utterly humiliating."
In October, Graham Simmonds, a pest controller, was arrested despite notifying police in advance that he was intending to carry out a legal pigeon cull with an air gun at a shopping centre in Havant, Hampshire, in the early hours of the morning.
Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: "Of course there are times when legitimate shooting might reasonably be confused with illegal shooting, especially at night, but there are many stories of unreasonable reaction to responsible shooting."
Richard Crompton, chief constable of Lincolnshire Police and lead for Rural Affairs for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: "Considering the popularity of shooting in the countryside, complaints of this nature are extremely rare. We have a very good relationship with the BASC but this issue has never been raised with us. I would be more than happy to discuss any concerns they have."

 

[Smokeless Coal]

imported post

While out shooting and having an intimidating visit by the armed response team they tell the shooter "oh you should have contacted the police saying when and where you will be shooting".

It's not yet a legal requirment for us to do this but I think it is what they are trying to force us to do.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Smokeless Coal wrote:

While out shooting and having an intimidating visit by the armed response team they tell the shooter "oh you should have contacted the police saying when and where you will be shooting".

It's not yet a legal requirment for us to do this but I think it is what they are trying to force us to do.

LEOs here also say the same thing, then when we call them they try to intimidate us out of conducting lawful activities, saying that they're going to put us at gunpoint, ANYWAY.

 

[Smokeless Coal]

imported post

This being a site dedicated to open carry I have to admit that I dont think the situation in the UK is really suitable for open carry of firearms, I do however strongly believe we should be allowed carry of pepper spray which our regulations class alongside full auto machine guns, hand grenades and rocket launchers.

 

[Smokeless Coal]

imported post

N6ATF, I read that and thought NO they wouldn't, then I read California and thought ah.

Different states interpreting in different ways. Britain is now unfortunatly in the EU and yet all other EU states allow ownership of pistols for sport. Britain are allowing a select few, around 25, which is discriminatory. It's a shame the rest of the world dont complain because British pistol shooters cant train for the Olympics. It will be a hollow victory for any medal winners because the best shots in the world are barred from competeing.

 

[David Turner]

imported post

Smokeless, you say that you don't think that the UK is a suitable place for the open carriage of firearms...on what do you base that ?

 

[Smokeless Coal]

imported post

I dont say a suitable place but the current situation would make such a change. To go straight from no experience on gun safety and handling for most of the population would be a disaster.

I think pepper spray would be a more sensible first step. Get people used to carrying something for self defence and the responsibility that goes with it.

Perhaps those who have held a firearm certificate for a period or ex army, might be suitable candidates but the average joe has never handled a gun.

 

[David Turner]

imported post

OK, see your point.

Doesn't take long to grasp the basics, though. Load it, clean it, make it safe and know how to shoot it in the right direction. Have I missed anything? (no pun intended)

 

[Smokeless Coal]

imported post

I've been a regular shooter since the late fifties, had a shotgun at a time when no permit was needed (pre 68 firearms act), served in HM forces, have a firearms certificate and do my bit as a range officer. One thing I have noticed in my many moons is that there are idiots out there, people who to put it plainly I would not trust with a pea-shooter let alone a loaded gun.

And yet during range officer duties have seen that with training a good percentage can be taught to act in a responsible manner, the big downer is that there is still a percentage that you would not want to stand next to on a firing point.

So would a blanket relaxation allowing all to carry work?

I have spoken to friends about the CCW exam taken by some Americans.One Brit who spends a lot of time over theretold me hispractical test consisted of emptying a mag into a man sized target at a couple of yards, end of test (he's also a target shooting member of my clubso his 2" group sort of took the examiner by surprise).

 

[David Turner]

imported post

Well, I guess that I'm a bit of a Libertarian, so I'd need a good reason to deny someone the right to own a firearm.

What do you suggest then, SC? Is there a middle way?

 

[Smokeless Coal]

imported post

One thing I dont think they have in America is our pub culture. Large groups of twenty somethings out for what they percieve to be a good time. Getting pished on a friday or saterday nightin the town/city center.All too often the groups clash when young males try to show off etc. Occasionaly these drunken street brawls result in a knifing. What would happen if you put guns into their melee? A libertarian view is that you should not interfere with these juvenile rites and stop them drinking.

It's been 64 years since the last permitted firearms for self defence in the UK, America has an unbroken history of firearms possesion, so I think full unfettered introduction would be a catastrophy.

A middle way, perhaps join a club and establish a clean shooting record for a year. What I am trying to say is some serious training not just pass a simple test. Perhaps limited to over thirties who would hopefully have a more mature attitude. Obviously no criminal record for violence, drink or drugs.

 

[David Turner]

imported post

Interesting.

The BNP suggest that the UK adopt the Swiss model. That is, you serve in the militia and then keep your personal equipment at home...if you wish.

I think that you 'd need, as a society, to be prepared to execute those who abuse the privilege of carrying firearms.

Thing is, if you don't expose people to responsibility, they never learn to take and hold it.

Is our pub culture less dangerous because only people of ill intent have guns...and knives? Will people of good intent create more problems?

I dunno.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Either you trust people or you do not. People do not react to having a gun available by misusing it - we are not talking about the exception, but rather the norm.

Passing laws for things that might happen or have happened on rare occassions penalizes only the good people and leaves the criminal in control.

Gun restrictions = you lose, state cannot protect, only react, criminal profits.

Training is not the question either, although I have lots of it - it is about the natural right to self-defense. The truth of the matter is that is it - nothing is more relevant, more important.

Yata hey

 

[since9]

imported post

Smokeless Coal wrote:

One thing I dont think they have in America is our pub culture. Large groups of twenty somethings out for what they percieve to be a good time. Getting pished on a friday or saterday nightin the town/city center. All too often the groups clash when young males try to show off etc. Occasionaly these drunken street brawls result in a knifing.

[/quote]

Oh, we certainly have that culture here, as well! It may not be as common or as widespread, but it's definitely here. In fact, we had a stabbing at a downtown bar around 2 am just a few days ago.

What would happen if you put guns into their melee? A libertarian view is that you should not interfere with these juvenile rites and stop them drinking.



It's been 64 years since the last permitted firearms for self defence in the UK, America has an unbroken history of firearms possesion, so I think full unfettered introduction would be a catastrophy.

A middle way, perhaps join a club and establish a clean shooting record for a year. What I am trying to say is some serious training not just pass a simple test. Perhaps limited to over thirties who would hopefully have a more mature attitude. Obviously no criminal record for violence, drink or drugs.

Here in America, some states have laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm in bars, but nearly all of them prohibit the possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

I agree that unfettered introduction would be bad. You could certainly allow them for home defense for a few years before moving on to allow either open or concealed carry, subject to a background check and issuance of a permit, and with simple restrictions, such as the prohibition of carry into any establishment which serves alcohol or the possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The legal aspects are easy.

Your largest challenge, by far, will be changing the deeply ingrained anti-gun abhorrence which will result in mothers grabbing their children in fear the first time they see someone other than a soldier walking down the street with a gun in a hip holster. Furthermore, the relative freedom from fear of being shot at is something UK law enforcement has enjoyed for decades! That's not a bad thing, and will be a major hurdle in passing any carry laws in the UK.

Good luck!

 

[since9]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Training is not the question either, although I have lots of it - it is about the natural right to self-defense. The truth of the matter is that is it - nothing is more relevant, more important.

Yata hey

In 1991, in WA, a CWP cost me $27 for three years. I was fingerprinted and an FBI background check was performed. That's $9/yr, and no training was required. Our armed crime rate statistics were among the lowest in the nation.

This morning I applied here in CO and it cost me $152.50, yet the procedures were identical. At least it's good for five years instead of three. That's $30.50/yr. Our armed crime rate statistics are fairly low.

Various online inflation calculators tell me $9 in 1991 is worth about $15.44 today. So why does it cost double that, instead?

Somebody's raking in the bucks!

As for training, while on active duty in 1995, complete with semi-annual training in two weapons, M-9 and M-16, the State of North Carolina wanted $100 per year for a CWP and another $100 to attend a mandatory training course which was arguably far worse than the military training I received.

That was a legalized rip-off, and North Carolina, particularly Fayetteville, had, and still has, fairly high armed crime rate stats.

I'm very glad that the State of Colorado's program, while somewhat pricey compared to that of the state of Washington's twenty years ago, is reasonable, and I'm also glad they recognize the outstanding periodic firearms training received by our fine soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, particularly the fact that there is a strong emphasis on safety.

I do wish more states would get the clue!

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

since9 wrote:

Your largest challenge, by far, will be changing the deeply ingrained anti-gun abhorrence which will result in mothers grabbing their children in fear the first time they see someone other than a soldier walking down the street with a gun in a hip holster. Furthermore, the relative freedom from fear of being shot at is something UK law enforcement has enjoyed for decades! That's not a bad thing, and will be a major hurdle in passing any carry laws in the UK.

Whaaat?

Where are all those screaming women? I OC daily and have not seen one yet.

And where pray tell have you ever seen such a reaction? The fear and screaming over a legally carried gun, quietly resting in a holster - too many movies.

UK law enforcement is so badly outgunned by the BGs that they have started carrying full auto and moving around in squad size groups - where have you been?

The only thing that will truly work is to allow all legal citizens to carry whenever and where ever the chose

Remember the reasons for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Yata hey

 

[Haz.]

imported post

Come to Australia. Dont carry valubles or money when going out in case your accidently killed. Police here go straight for the wallet.

The victim's mother said she was sorry to hear about the alleged theft but urged the police service to "forget about it and move on".

"Police are very underpaid. This officer probably has a few kids and was facing a lot of bills," she said.

(What?), Haz.

_____________________________

Queensland police 'stole $20 from dead man's wallet'

• Robyn Ironside
• From: The Courier-Mail
• May 14, 2010 12:47AM.

A group of police officers are under investigation for allegedly stealing money from a dead man / AAP Source: AAP

• Investigation into stolen cash claim
• Watchdog is looking at another 200 cases
• Three officers under investigation still working

A GROUP of Queensland police officers is being investigated over the alleged theft of $20 from a crash victim's wallet.

The victim's mother said she was sorry to hear about the alleged theft but urged the police service to "forget about it and move on".

"Police are very underpaid. This officer probably has a few kids and was facing a lot of bills," she said.

 

[old dog]

imported post

in re: police overreaction

What your police do is of course rediculous. But I believe it is at least in part that old problem, the cop swagger.

Have you ever noticed they way the move down the street? Lips pressed into a harsh line, stern chin, eagle eyes alert for jaywalkers. Ordinary people cringing before their terrible presence. God, how they love it. If the job carried no salary many of them would pay for the privilege. I suspect this is even more true in the rarefied atmosphere of the armed response units.

Every one of them knows in his heart that he is Marshal Dillon, meeting danger with a grim fatalism.

My (thankfully) brief experience in England tells me that your police are the worst in the civilized world. Even France is more tolerable.

As to the treatment of recreational shooters, does the phrase "shabby intimidation" ring a bell?

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

old dog wrote:

in re: police overreaction

What your police do is of course rediculous. But I believe it is at least in part that old problem, the cop swagger.

Have you ever noticed they way the move down the street? Lips pressed into a harsh line, stern chin, eagle eyes alert for jaywalkers. Ordinary people cringing before their terrible presence. God, how they love it. If the job carried no salary many of them would pay for the privilege. I suspect this is even more true in the rarefied atmosphere of the armed response units.

Every one of them knows in his heart that he is Marshal Dillon, meeting danger with a grim fatalism.

My (thankfully) brief experience in England tells me that your police are the worst in the civilized world. Even France is more tolerable.

As to the treatment of recreational shooters, does the phrase "shabby intimidation" ring a bell?

That's a prime example of the "us vs them" mentality.

The elitists (royals and landed gentry) hired game keepers to protect their sport and meat. The common people were expected to survive on the leavings, bread, potatoes and ultimately in some places were told to eat cake.

Now today the elite still have the protection that the gun affords, but the common people do not. Ah yes, but anybody that wants a cell phone can get one. :banghead:

Yata hey

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Margaret Thatcher, in a 1998 speech to the National Institute for
Public Policy in Washington, DC:

"It is a fact, too -- although a curious one -- that the sale of small
arms to gun enthusiasts or sportsmen produces a greater sense of moral
outrage in Western society, than is produced by the sale to psychotic
despots of weaponry capable of killing thousands.

[line]
"A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat,
not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of
the man who holds it."

Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger", ca. 4 BC - 65 AD:
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est."
("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.")

All above quoted from the Virginia sub-forum compliments of Ed.

Yata hey