Police Ignorance of Firearms & the Legislation.

[Keith]

Can you refuse to comply with a police officers order if you know for a fact they are wrong?

I have had problems in the past, & I expect these same problems will continue in the future; Police officers that do not know all of the firearms legislation, officers that are not familiar with a variety of firearms, officers that can't tell a copy from an antique.
I came close to losing my antiques because an officer did not believe they were antiques, even though from the engraving & the obvious look of the pieces they were obviously antiques.
Proof fell to me apparently, he allowed me to keep the antiques providing I could get a registered gunsmith to provide written confirmation. I found one, but he was not willing to put anything in writing. He said he would contact the police, he didn't contact the police. When the police phoned me to make sure I had written confirmation I informed them of what the gunsmith said, they said they had not heard from the gunsmith. So far they have not done anything about this.
It just seems to me that the responsibility should not be on the gun owner, the police assigned to inspections should have the necessary qualifications. In future I think I will just not show the antiques, it would save a lot of hassles.
Keith.

[bladeracer]

There must be a reason a gunsmith would decline to identify your firearms. Find out his reason and correct it or find a better gunsmith. A smith is only giving his expert opinion, based on his own experience and training. If he has little experience in identifying antiques he might opt out in the assumption you probably don't want to pay for him to do hours of research. The onus is on you to prove them antique so it might get expensive. Or simply licence them. Then you can even go shooting with them.

Can you refuse to comply with a police officers order if you know for a fact they are wrong?

I have had problems in the past, & I expect these same problems will continue in the future; Police officers that do not know all of the firearms legislation, officers that are not familiar with a variety of firearms, officers that can't tell a copy from an antique.
I came close to losing my antiques because an officer did not believe they were antiques, even though from the engraving & the obvious look of the pieces they were obviously antiques.
Proof fell to me apparently, he allowed me to keep the antiques providing I could get a registered gunsmith to provide written confirmation. I found one, but he was not willing to put anything in writing. He said he would contact the police, he didn't contact the police. When the police phoned me to make sure I had written confirmation I informed them of what the gunsmith said, they said they had not heard from the gunsmith. So far they have not done anything about this.
It just seems to me that the responsibility should not be on the gun owner, the police assigned to inspections should have the necessary qualifications. In future I think I will just not show the antiques, it would save a lot of hassles.
Keith.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

Short answer is yes, it is is lawful to refuse an unlawful direction.

I am not aware of your financial situation but I highly suggest you engage an experienced firearms lawyer and never talk to the police directly but through your lawyer.

[Bugman]

Short answer is yes, it is is lawful to refuse an unlawful direction.

I am not aware of your financial situation but I highly suggest you engage an experienced firearms lawyer and never talk to the police directly but through your lawyer.

I don't know about QLD...BUT in NSW if a policeman who is carrying out an audit issues a directive, you must comply.
You must have all documentation of the items in question and they must match the documentation they have, AND you should have a copy of the regulations that allow you keep such items in accordance with your issued licence. It is your responsibility. I understand your frustration. To not respond to a police officer who is carrying out the audit is a foolhardy in my opinion.

[Oldbloke]

Short answer is yes, it is is lawful to refuse an unlawful direction.

I am not aware of your financial situation but I highly suggest you engage an experienced firearms lawyer and never talk to the police directly but through your lawyer.

I don't know about QLD...BUT in NSW if a policeman who is carrying out an audit issues a directive, you must comply.
You must have all documentation of the items in question and they must match the documentation they have, AND you should have a copy of the regulations that allow you keep such items in accordance with your issued licence. It is your responsibility. I understand your frustration. To not respond to a police officer who is carrying out the audit is a foolhardy in my opinion.

Im inclined to agree with Bugman.

You might find more info here with luck.

https://www.sportingshooter.com.au/gun-law

Nothing worse than a knowall on a power trip. Seen it many times.

Good luck Kieth and keep the youtube stuff comming.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

Short answer is yes, it is is lawful to refuse an unlawful direction.

I am not aware of your financial situation but I highly suggest you engage an experienced firearms lawyer and never talk to the police directly but through your lawyer.

I don't know about QLD...BUT in NSW if a policeman who is carrying out an audit issues a directive, you must comply.
You must have all documentation of the items in question and they must match the documentation they have, AND you should have a copy of the regulations that allow you keep such items in accordance with your issued licence. It is your responsibility. I understand your frustration. To not respond to a police officer who is carrying out the audit is a foolhardy in my opinion.

If it is a lawful direction then you must comply if it is not then you shouldn't as it would be unlawful. Even in NSW this would be the case. Old mate believes he has been given unlawful directions so seeking legal advise from an expert is far from foolhardy but in my opinion what any law abiding citizen should do. Just because the police say something does not mean one has to follow it as the police are not above the law. Seeking legal advise and getting the lawyer to act as the intermediate protects the citizen from potentially incriminating oneself and is ones legal right to do so.

[bladeracer]

Short answer is yes, it is is lawful to refuse an unlawful direction.

I am not aware of your financial situation but I highly suggest you engage an experienced firearms lawyer and never talk to the police directly but through your lawyer.

It may be lawful but is generally ill-advised. Comply with Police on scene, have somebody record the interaction if possible, then take it up afterwards. Arguing with the Officer on scene is too likely to wind up as an ego battle achieving nothing good.

As has been said, the onus to prove a firearm is exempt from the legislation is on you as the possessor. Either keep it out of the interaction entirely or have such proof ready on-hand. I don't understand how your antiques even became an issue, are they laying about the house? Was this an inspection or were they responding to a complaint?

As the officer didn't seize anything it sounds like he extended you more latitude than the law might require if you had no proof they were antiques. If a Police officer honestly believed you had possession of unlicensed firearms I would expect he would probably be required to seize such until you could prove otherwise, I don't know that there is much officer discretion in that situation.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

Short answer is yes, it is is lawful to refuse an unlawful direction.

I am not aware of your financial situation but I highly suggest you engage an experienced firearms lawyer and never talk to the police directly but through your lawyer.

It may be lawful but is generally ill-advised. Comply with Police on scene, have somebody record the interaction if possible, then take it up afterwards. Arguing with the Officer on scene is too likely to wind up as an ego battle achieving nothing good.

As has been said, the onus to prove a firearm is exempt from the legislation is on you as the possessor. Either keep it out of the interaction entirely or have such proof ready on-hand. I don't understand how your antiques even became an issue, are they laying about the house? Was this an inspection or were they responding to a complaint?

As the officer didn't seize anything it sounds like he extended you more latitude than the law might require if you had no proof they were antiques. If a Police officer honestly believed you had possession of unlicensed firearms I would expect he would probably be required to seize such until you could prove otherwise, I don't know that there is much officer discretion in that situation.

I used the word “short answer” because there is a lot of context missing but that is the legal advise I paid good money to receive. I never condone breaking the law however I always condone people standing up for themselves in a respectful lawful matter. Bugman makes a good point about keeping copies of the regulations/acts around to use when needed.

I really agree with that. I really like the idea of people researching the laws of the land they are governed by.

[bladeracer]

Short answer is yes, it is is lawful to refuse an unlawful direction.

I am not aware of your financial situation but I highly suggest you engage an experienced firearms lawyer and never talk to the police directly but through your lawyer.

I don't know about QLD...BUT in NSW if a policeman who is carrying out an audit issues a directive, you must comply.
You must have all documentation of the items in question and they must match the documentation they have, AND you should have a copy of the regulations that allow you keep such items in accordance with your issued licence. It is your responsibility. I understand your frustration. To not respond to a police officer who is carrying out the audit is a foolhardy in my opinion.

If it is a lawful direction then you must comply if it is not then you shouldn't as it would be unlawful. Even in NSW this would be the case. Old mate believes he has been given unlawful directions so seeking legal advise from an expert is far from foolhardy but in my opinion what any law abiding citizen should do. Just because the police say something does not mean one has to follow it as the police are not above the law. Seeking legal advise and getting the lawyer to act as the intermediate protects the citizen from potentially incriminating oneself and is ones legal right to do so.

If he had kept the required proof handy then It would be worth offering it to the officer, before refusing compliance. If you have failed in your onus to have such proof available then I think you would be very stupid to argue without any supporting evidence...yes officer, that Remington 700 is an antique, no I don't have any way to prove it...is going nowhere.

As you have a responsibility to be able to prove they are antiques when asked, if you have made no effort to secure anything to support this, I'm not sure the law would be required to return them upon later receiving such evidence.

Much like importing something without an import permit. BF will generally allow you to lodge a permit application after the goods have been seized, but legally they are not obliged to give you those goods since you failed to get the permit beforehand. One of those situations where being polite and professional can be far more helpful than insisting you have rights.

[bladeracer]

Absolutely, and the law is that if you possess an antique firearm you must be able to prove it is an antique when you are asked to. If you choose to ignore your legal responsibility then the law can bite you.

Short answer is yes, it is is lawful to refuse an unlawful direction.

I am not aware of your financial situation but I highly suggest you engage an experienced firearms lawyer and never talk to the police directly but through your lawyer.

It may be lawful but is generally ill-advised. Comply with Police on scene, have somebody record the interaction if possible, then take it up afterwards. Arguing with the Officer on scene is too likely to wind up as an ego battle achieving nothing good.

As has been said, the onus to prove a firearm is exempt from the legislation is on you as the possessor. Either keep it out of the interaction entirely or have such proof ready on-hand. I don't understand how your antiques even became an issue, are they laying about the house? Was this an inspection or were they responding to a complaint?

As the officer didn't seize anything it sounds like he extended you more latitude than the law might require if you had no proof they were antiques. If a Police officer honestly believed you had possession of unlicensed firearms I would expect he would probably be required to seize such until you could prove otherwise, I don't know that there is much officer discretion in that situation.

I used the word “short answer” because there is a lot of context missing. I never condone breaking the law however I always condone people standing up for themselves in a respectful lawful matter. Bugman makes a good point about keeping copies of the regulations/acts around to use when needed.

I really agree with that. I really like the idea of people researching the laws of the land they are governed by.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

Absolutely, and the law is that if you possess an antique firearm you must be able to prove it is an antique when you are asked to. If you choose to ignore your legal responsibility then the law can bite you.

And if old mate did break the law then he really should seek legal advise. Either way he should seek legal advise.

[Keith]

Thank you everyone for your answers, much appreciated.
Regards, Keith.

[Bugman]

Hope it works out ok for you Keith. All the best.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

Yes, keep us posted if things progress.

[cz515]

Lawyers love one thing and that's money.

While it might be cool to jump on your high horse, and refuse to deal with the cops, but then they are likely to sieze the firearms, and may even go to placing you on custody, depending on how you go.

Anyway my logic is cops like humans are either good or aholes, don't upset them more then necessary as you don't know if they had an ahole client before you or had a fight with their wife making even the good ones into an ahole. And yes like you and I they too can make mistakes, have your proof ready. And not push it as 9 times out of 10 if you are reasonable it will not end up in you needing a lawyer.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

Lawyers love one thing and that's money.

While it might be cool to jump on your high horse, and refuse to deal with the cops, but then they are likely to sieze the firearms, and may even go to placing you on custody, depending on how you go.

Anyway my logic is cops like humans are either good or aholes, don't upset them more then necessary as you don't know if they had an ahole client before you or had a fight with their wife making even the good ones into an ahole. And yes like you and I they too can make mistakes, have your proof ready. And not push it as 9 times out of 10 if you are reasonable it will not end up in you needing a lawyer.

100% lawyers are a scum profession especially in divorce cases where they drag it out so they keep getting paid over years. However they have their purpose. Police are allowed to open carry firearms whilst Joe citizen can not, so I don't accept the notion that they have the right to be assholes on duty. They have the right to follow the law, nothing more, nothing less.

[cz515]

That's cuz we elected the politicians and the politicians then gave them the authority to carry firearms.

Except America I believe no other country allows their citizen to open carry. And even there not every state allows it. So honestly your argument is pointless.