Are you a gun owner? Let us in OR ELSE, say Blighty's top cops

Populist campaign goes off at half cock

This is supposed to tackle an existing problem, isn't it ... oh

The Register repeatedly tried to contact ACPO with a list of questions for Chief Constable Andy Marsh about this new scheme. A press officer eventually rang us back on Friday afternoon and said he wouldn't be able to comment in time for this column's deadline.

Nevertheless, we'd welcome his comments on the new policy – particularly given that he was previously keen to refute the accusation that ACPO wanted to treat shooters as cash cows when ACPO mooted quadrupling the price of a firearm certificate.

"We have not been given a single example of a license holder being radicalised or using a firearm to pursue a terrorist agenda," Tim Bonner, head of campaigns at the Countryside Alliance, told The Register.

And for all the failings of Operation Solitaire, the police campaign which notionally set out to warn the licensed firearms community about the risks of extremists joining clubs, nobody can dispute that police firearms licensing staff are at least trying to engage more with the community they serve - which is something your correspondent, at least, would like to see more of.

To use the hackneyed old cliché, the devil is in the detail; let's have less blaming of the shooting community for the world's ills and more open and honest engagement aimed at helping individuals at risk, please.

The Countryside Alliance has set up a page inviting members of the shooting community to contact their MPs and ask them to oppose the ACPO campaign.

As Bonner says elsewhere on the CA website:

What we do have a problem with is the setting up of a dedicated Crimestoppers line, which is an invitation for malicious and vindictive complaints, the ridiculous suggestion that licence holders might be vulnerable to radicalisation, and the demand by ACPO that police forces carry out a proportionate number of checks, which could not therefore be based on intelligence.

Reverse ferret

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, meanwhile, seems to have completely changed its position on random spot checks. Two years ago it was confident enough to write to chief constables and police and crime commissioners asking them to cease and desist from spot-check policies.

Yet featured in the ACPO press release was a quote from Richard Ali, BASC's chief executive, saying “BASC supports the police in their efforts to help firearms certificate holders maintain the excellent record of safety and security in England and Wales.”

Your correspondent asked BASC what had changed since 2012. Its reply, in full, was "The Home Office Guidance has changed," along with a link to its press release.

After facepalming and pointing out that we were asking about BASC's reverse ferret, the association eventually forwarded us a canned quote from its chief exec: "Where there is specific intelligence of threat, risk or harm then the police should act. This guidance provides that framework and ensures that the police provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit."

A press release on their website does note that “BASC does not believe [the extra Crimestoppers hotline] is necessary or appropriate. BASC will be monitoring this closely.”

Does all of this point to a presumption that you, as a licensed firearm or shotgun owner, are being singled out by the police even though you've done nothing wrong? Don't worry – in a Twitter message seemingly endorsed by Hampshire Crimestoppers ...

RT @robinedwardscla: Police visits to legal gun owners begin http://t.co/owYEn7mJbj via @shootinguk - why worry if you have nothing to hide!

— Hants Crimestoppers (@HantsCrimestopp) October 13, 2014

“Why worry if you have nothing to hide?” Why indeed. It's not as if the police are in the habit of “accidentally” forgetting to mention key facts to oversight authorities. ®