UK gun owners now subject to warrantless home searches

[Gman106]

Taking bets on how long before some democrat fuckwit proposes this absurdity on this side of the pond...

Source: FNC
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10...home-searches/

Registered gun owners in the United Kingdom are now subject to unannounced visits to their homes under new guidance that allows police to inspect firearms storage without a warrant.

The new policy from the British Home Office went into effect Oct. 15, permitting police and constabularies to conduct surprise home visits to legitimate gun owners.

“Americans should view the UK’s ever-expanding gun control efforts with grave concern,” the National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm said on its website Friday.

Britain’s gun owners were subject to the home visits before the update, but the inspection had to be conducted with prior notice.

“Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns,” the updated policy says.

In a letter to legal gun owners, a British police organization, the Association of Chief Police Officers, said the revamped guideline does not grant police any new powers but clarifies “the basis on which the visits should be conducted.”

ACPO is also encouraging tipsters to call a new Crimestoppers hotline to report any concerns they have about the storage of legal firearms.

The Home Office is apparently worried that legitimate guns could easily be stolen and wind up in the hands of terrorists.

But Shooting UK, a website for gun club members in Great Britain, said those worries may be overblown. The group said the Home Offices own figures show that theft of guns is not a widespread concern.

“On average, in the past five years, annually just 0.025 percent of the 1,837,243 legally held firearms and shotguns in England and Wales were stolen — an average of just 475 guns per year,” Shooting UK said. Those figures were not broken down to indicate how many firearms were stolen from a legal gun owner’s home.

[Emptymag]

CLICK ON IMAGE for a read that every gun owner should be mandated to read.

When in its Darkest hour Britain found itself short of arms for home defense, Americans, with many NRA members leading the way, donated their guns to fight for freedom. Maj. John W. Hession of Orange, Conn. (r.) presents his championship rifle to C. Suydam Cutting, chaitman of the American Committee for Defense of British Homes. After WWII, a British government that no longer trusted those it served destroyed many of those firearms. Maj. Hession`s rifle survived, however, and today rests is a place of honor in the National Firearms Museum at NRA Headquarters.

Might it be possible for a nation to go from wide-open freedom for the right to arms to almost complete gun prohibition in just a few decades? The answer is yes. The destruction of gun rights in Great Britain during the 20th Century offers an object lesson for American gun owners. If we repeat the mistakes of our British cousins, we too will find ourselves disarmed sooner than we had imagined possible. So let's look carefully at how British gun owners lost their rights and investigate a story with ominous parallels for the United States.

[Torque]

They already tried to get that passed here in CT. These last illegal and un Constitutional laws, which were emergency signed into law, they wanted searches when ever they wanted of firearm owners homes. I'm sure its still on the table for the next round.

[JenniferG]

If at any time a Legislature passes laws that institute warrantless searches that should be the signal that balloon has gone up. Appropriate countermeasures must then be taken. Lexington, Concord, Breed's Hill, Dorchester Heights, the tree of liberty will then be watered.

[internet troll]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm willing to bet it has been considered in some states.

But as watered down as it appears at time, we still have the Bill of Rights that impede actions of this type in America and groups like the NRA, and even the ACLU (whom I believe would take up the fight on the the basis of the 4th if not the 2nd) who will step up to protect the Constitution.

It's reading stories like this that help me to truly appreciate the Bill of Rights and what was create over 200 years ago. Sure there are many things that should be considered natural rights, but as other countries keep on showing, it doesn't matter. Governments will screw over people any way they can with no respect for rights if they can.

btw…. not the definitive information source, but here is what Wikipedia has to say about the right to privacy in the home.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...United_Kingdom

Right to respect for privacy and the home[edit]
Main article: Privacy in English law
There is no general right to privacy in English law.[136] Attempts to establish such a right in Kaye v Robertson and Wainwright v Home Office were rejected on the basis that it could only be done by Parliament.[137] The creation of a tort of infringement of privacy had been recommended by Sir David Calcutt in his Review of Press Self-Regulation published in 1993,[138] but no action was taken.[139] Instead, a patchwork of different torts combine to protect certain aspects of privacy,[140] such as breach of confidence and misuse of private information.[141] In Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, the House of Lords confirmed that a person will be subject to a duty of confidence if they receive information in circumstances where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and where there is no justification for interference with that right to privacy.[142] This was followed by Douglas v Hello! Ltd where a magazine was successfully sued for publishing unauthorised photographs of a celebrity wedding.[citation needed]

The Data Protection Act 1998 protects certain personal data which must be processed in accordance with a number of principles and gives persons a right of access to data which concerns them.[143] Legal privilege protects communications with lawyers for the purposes of giving or obtaining legal advice and in the context of actual or contemplated litigation.[144]

The right to freedom from interference with personal property is well-recognised principle reflected in the maxim "an Englishman's home is his castle."[145][146] In Entick v Carrington, Lord Camden famously asserted that seizure and retention of property will be unlawful unless justified by law.[147] It is an offence to use violence to obtain unauthorised access to a property under the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.[citation needed] Applications for search warrants must comply with the procedure in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and police surveillance is covered in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.[148] Surveillance by the security and intelligence services is provided for in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.[149]

The right to respect for the home relates only to an individual's existing home and there is no right to acquire a home.[150]

[internet troll]

BTW….. as of now, even in California judges are saying that probable a warrant is needed to enter a home to check or collect firearms. (although they can talk their way in:roll eyes

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...bear-arms.html

Probable Cause

Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.

At a house in Fontana, agents were looking for a gun owner with a criminal history of a sex offense, pimping, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh said that while the woman appeared to be home, they got no answer at the door. Without a warrant, the agents couldn’t enter and had to leave empty- handed.

They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

[nfafan]

Good for England; any time LIBTARDS suffer from THEIR OWN doings is a GOOD THING.

Maybe when the last employed, debt-ridden LIBTARD left in the USA realizes he's paying ginormous taxes so as to house the illegals legally allowed to squat next door, while owning a .gov-supplied car, use .gov-supplied cable internet, use .gov-supplied cellphones, a .gov-supplied laptop, visit .gov-supplied doctors, and eat on .gov-supplied foodstamps - maybe then they'll realize how badly they fucked up.

[OwnTheRide]

Taking bets on how long before some democrat fuckwit proposes this absurdity on this side of the pond...

Source: FNC
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10...home-searches/

Already here (to a degree) for FFL holders, even FFL03's (C&R).

It's funny, as a kid I didn't really understand the importance of the fourth amendment. The older I get, the more astounded I am at just how freaking important it really is.

[Gman106]

I found this same subject matter posted on a New York firearms forum. They're busy snarking at the foolish Europeans for giving-up their gun rights. Kind of made me laugh as they're apparently blissfully oblivious that they are also frogs in a pot already simmering on the stove. Maybe I should register on their site and warn them they're one Cuomo re-election away from full boil!

http://nyfirearms.com/forums/firearm...-searches.html

[nfafan]

I found this same subject matter posted on a New York firearms forum. They're busy snarking at the foolish Europeans for giving-up their gun rights. Kind of made me laugh as they're apparently blissfully oblivious that they are also frogs in a pot already simmering on the stove. Maybe I should register on their site and warn them they're one Cuomo re-election away from full boil!

http://nyfirearms.com/forums/firearm...-searches.html

Well what all this now then? I'd say it's jolly good worth repeating!

Good for NEW YAWK; any time LIBTARDS suffer from THEIR OWN doings is a GOOD THING.

Maybe when the last employed, debt-ridden LIBTARD residing in NEW YAWK - as opposed to commuting from Jersey, PA, CT - realizes he's paying ginormous taxes so as to house the illegals legally allowed to squat next door, while traveling on .gov-supplied bus and subway passes, using .gov-supplied cable internet, using .gov-supplied cellphones, a .gov-supplied laptop, visiting .gov-supplied doctors, and eating on .gov-supplied foodstamps - maybe then they'll realize how badly they fucked up.

But - its for Hillaries!