Deputy Chief Constable Derek Benson (courtesy essex.police.uk)

What’s wrong with this sentence: “Deputy Chief Constable Derek Benson commissioned the review to check whether any firearms licence holders in Essex had been the perpetrator of domestic abuse, even if they had not been arrested, charged, or been found guilty of an offence.” No, it’s not the spelling of license or offense. It’s the fact that DCC Benson has revoked [or forced the surrender of] 50 shotgun licenses from Essex natives without even a nod to due process. The eye-opening essexchronicle.co.uk story is a frightening cautionary tale for Californians and other Americans living under repressive gun control regimes. Check this out . . .

Operation Wishbone team leader, Chief Inspector Tom Simons, said: “The purpose of the review was to identify licensed firearms holders where we had information to suggest they might have been involved in perpetrating domestic abuse.

“If there were concerns, we took steps to remove guns, ammunition and certificates where we believed there was a danger to public safety.”

A further 86 [out of 777] owners were given warnings about the manner in which they stored their guns following home visits.

Inspector Neal Miller said: “We prioritised the cases, focusing on the highest risk first and began visiting the holders to check on their suitability.

“We also made our approach much more victim based so that they had an opportunity to say whether they believed their partners or family members should be allowed to keep their guns.”

That last bit’s reminiscent of California’s recently enacted Gun Violence Retraining Order, which empowers police to confiscate guns from Golden State citizens whose relatives consider them a danger to themselves, their family or society – without due process. Only in this case, there isn’t even a judge [secretly] involved.

Gun control -> police state. ‘Nuff said?

44 Responses to This Is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace: Department of No-Crime Edition

  1. Sadly this is what happens when you lose almost all your best, brightest, and bravest in two world wars… you’re left with survival of the unfittest to sustain your gene pool. Looks like it’s pretty shallow at this bloke’s end.

    • Cut the poetic bullshit, Don. The USA lost few men in WW2 than it did on the Civil war in absolute numbers, and of course the population was much bigger during the time of WW2. Russia had at least 40 times the casualities that the USA did.

        • Oh, my bad then. But I still fail to see a solid correlation. Just the fact that got in a very, very stupid and senseless WW1 shows how the brits were doomed to have the state regulating the shit out of them.

  2. “had been the perpetrator of domestic abuse, even if they had not been arrested, charged, or been found guilty of an offence.”

    Isn’t being convicted of an offense the sole rubric by which a government may make the determination that one is a perpetrator?

    EDIT: Ok, ok. I’m referring to any modern government that is supposed to answer to the people. Myanmar and Nazi Germany obviously don’t need to convict.

  3. . But they are used to that stuff..The Brits have been ruled for 900 yrs.. why would they all of the sudden demand due process now?

    • The Constitutional Framers got the idea of individual liberty from British common law.
      Fortunately for us, they were smart enough to explicitly write it down in the Constitution, which has made it harder for our government to do away with it, than for the British government to do away with their tradition of liberty.

      • “Fortunately for us, they were smart enough to explicitly write it [Common Law] down in the Constitution, which has made it harder for our government to do away with it …”

        Unfortunately, we still have two huge problems:
        (1) We The People of the United States do not understand nor apply Common Law. If we did, Jury Nullification would be so commonplace that prosecutors would no longer bother trying to prosecute people for victimless crimes (breaking malum prohibitum laws).
        (2) Attorneys, judges, and the courts are not operating according to Common Law.

        If we can find a way to fix those two huge problems, almost all of our other problems go away. For example a court would throw out all cases of “illegally armed” individuals because there is no victim. And even if the court allowed the case to proceed in defiance of Common Law, Jury Nullification would return a not-guilty verdict. Then we wouldn’t need to overturn or repeal all of the stupid gun control laws.

        • Those with the intelligence and independence of thought to understand jury nullification are rarely selected for jury duty.

        • int19h,

          To be honest I am not sure exactly what a “sovereign citizen” is.

          I am simply reminding people that we are a Common Law country and it is to our advantage to handle all cases under Common Law rather than Statutory Law. What most people do not know is that Statutory Law is heavily stacked in the government’s favor whereas Common Law is stacked in the favor of the people.

          For example a basic principle of Common Law is that there is no crime if there is no victim. That has huge implications for victimless crimes such as “illegal” weapons possession. The mere act of possessing a handgun in public without a license violates Statutory Law in California, and yet there is no victim so there cannot be a crime in Common Law. The $64,000 question is how to apply that fact in our favor when we possess a handgun without a license in California.

          Note: I am not an attorney and what I wrote above is not legal advice. Rather what I wrote is my budding understanding of the legal landscape in our nation. Please research such matters yourself.

        • @uncommon_sense: you may not know what the “sovereign citizen” movement is (also known as “freemen-on-the-land”, and a bunch of other less common varieties), but you’re citing things straight from their textbook which have no basis in reality whatsoever. For example, your notion that “a basic principle of Common Law is that there is no crime if there is no victim” is plainly false.

          Common law is really simple: it’s the law derived from the past decisions of courts and tribunals, set as precedent, as opposed to laws written down by legislature (statutory). Since judges themselves rule based on statutes, common law effectively clarifies statutory law, not subsumes it.

          If you (like the “freemen”) prefer the archaic definition, then that’s the customary law of England before the time of written laws – basically, before Normans – handed down orally through the centuries, and varying from locale to locale in details. Also known as “law of the land”. There’s nothing magical about it – it’s not more fair and just than the written laws that followed it (not surprising, given that said written laws were in large part codifications of existing practices).

          Read this and see for yourself where that line of thinking leads:
          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

    • That’s kinda how I see it too. It’s the UK, they don’t have a 2A, so they get what they deserve.

      Now, if they truly want firearms freedom, all they have to do is walk across the US/Mexican border and receive the bonus of a new life of free healthcare, free food, and a check in the bank every month. Just as long as you vote Democrat!

  4. The purpose of the review was to identify licensed firearms holders where we had information to suggest they might have been involved in perpetrating domestic abuse.

    Weasel word much?

  5. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    Innocent until there’s a belief in the mind of a cop.

    They’re practically the same thing, right?

  6. “The purpose of the review was to identify licensed firearms holders where we had information to suggest they might have been involved in perpetrating domestic abuse.” — Chief Inspector Tom Simons (emphasis mine)

    The key words in that statement were “suggest” and “might have been involved”. In other words the local police meddled in people’s lives and infringed their rights based on nothing more than supposition. Got it.

    The fact that the police acted this way doesn’t disturb me nearly as much as the fact that many people are not concerned about it.

  7. Inspector Neal Miller said: “We prioritised the cases, focusing on the highest risk first and began visiting the holders to check on their suitability.

    “We also made our approach much more victim based so that they had an opportunity to say whether they believed their partners or family members should be allowed to keep their guns.” One licence holder appealed the police’s decision to seize their collection. The case went to Basildon Crown Court, which upheld the police decision and awarded the force costs.

    Absolutely stunning. Imagine gun rights being something awarded you, or not, by your cranky teenager or the wife who’s been thinking of having an affair.

    “Britains never ever ever shall be slaves.” (Rule Britannia) Sure. That’s a laugh.

    The Romans disarmed the Brits. When the Romans left, the Brits were therefore easy pickings for the Angles & Saxons, who enslaved the Brits. When the Angles & Saxons were well beaten up through battles with the Danes, the Norman French decided to jump the Angles & Saxons while they were down, conquered them, and enserfed the entire lot (while ending what technically could be called slavery). Then the Deputy Chief Constables were appointed to insure that only the most gentle might lawfully have guns, IF their various family members find them suitably tame.

    The Deputy Chief Constable’s uniform looks quite well pressed, but for some inexplicable reason he has left his SS insignia at home.

  8. So, they do anything about the abuse? Or just collect the guns and let them carry on?

    So, who won ww2? I’m confused now. guess the nazi’s were playing the long game.

  9. ” . . . we had information to suggest they might have been involved in perpetrating domestic abuse.”

    The department of pre-crime in action. Note that an actual offense wasn’t necessary for the local constabulary to prioritize . . . “the cases, focusing on the highest risk first” and then move to confiscate people’s shotguns and, licenses. So, a private citizen in the UK can become a “risk” even though no actionable crime has been committed. All that’s required is for the local police, entirely at their discretion, to label someone a “risk” and automatically they become one simply because they own a shotgun. On the other hand, you can be a radical Muslim, make threats about destroying western culture and society, “groom” and then pimp out young Christian girls and the UK police will give you pass because they don’t want to offend people’s racial sensitivities. Way to go, UK. It’s always good to get your priorities in the right order.

  10. That Constable’s opportunistic oppression of gun owners and extrajudicial shotgun seizures because he can at his whim is so wrong on so many levels. Nanny police state serfdom at its worst.

    What’s next, being drug out of your home and shot for possessing a firearm?

  11. The article doesn’t mention whether exceptions were made by the Constable when the domestic abuse complied with Sharia law.

  12. Profiling at its finest. That is, to profile anyone who owns a firearm. To disarm them if the opinion is the person for some reason, any reason, just seems like they might go bad, maybe, at some point in the future.
    It can happen in the USA. The only way to fight is to swing very hard to the right. Not maybe the favorite way for many, but the extremists and elites of the left have forced the issue and leave no other choice.

  13. If the license holders really was at threat to domestic tranquility they’d have a number of implements handy to cause the abuse, not just the shotguns. Confiscation doesn’t solve any (potential) problems for the (potential) victims. But there is something about civilian owned firearms that scares the hell out of TPTB

  14. good to know that the poilce are just a phone call and half an hour away if an armed intruder breaks into your home in the uk….if you can just make sure that he doesn’t fire at you for half an hour, then you’re probably in the clear…

    i’m not a gun owner and wouldn’t own one in contravention of the law, but i do believe that with increasing gun crime using illegally held weapons, the british public need to be able to defend themselves and should have the right to do so.

    removing legally held firearms without any recourse to the legal process is most definitely undemocratic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *