The true smiling face of firearms licensing staff

already running on Pigeon Watch ,everyone very worried but the peeps in Northern Ireland already have only FAC ,with the chance to lose it cos your wearing the wrong socks .The end is nigh unless we join together as a unified voice and say sod off.Trouble is we are our own worst enemy and too many chiefs will not give up their stipend to unify and fight the shooting corner
 
In Scotland we're already on the road to having air rifles licenced from April next year.

Ed

:rolleyes: Well at least in Scotland , you can walk around with a rifle and no one bats an EYELID including a rifle case in a hotel reception :lol:
 
More Struggles on thier way for FAC holders?
This thread has the link to the full FOI disclosure - althouth the link quoted by TfI is the fruitiest bit.

It is alarming (though perhaps not surprising) to see what is going through the minds of the upper level of the Police on the subject of firearms licensing - it is almost as if they have seen the Law Commission review as an opportunity to suggest a list of increased restrictions based on whim rather than evidence: and supporting their general inclination to restrict law-abiding shooters as much as possible.

To be fair, I suspect that the folks on the front line at the FLDs will not have had much input into this submission - but it does make one wonder about what's been going through the minds of the generally very-reasonable-sounding police representatives at, for example, FELWG.

As I mentioned in the other thread, the removal of expanding bullets/ammuntion from S5 is the only suggestion which seems sensible. Even the change from five to ten-year validity falls down when you realise they want it to cost us the same per year in order to support some kind of '24/7 monitoring service for firearms incidents' - whatever that may mean.

The focus seems to be on:
1. Increasing costs (loss of free one-for-one, increase FAC/SGC and RFD duration without passing on the savings, charging for everything, including security visits and changes of address on certificates)
2. Increasing restricitions, but without evidence that public safety will be improved thereby (loss of self-loaders, .5" rifles, FAC-type controls for shotguns, airgun licensing, tighter control on 'borrowing' firearms on private premises - the list goes on...) Even right of appeal to the Crown Court is removed: wheras originally this right was of appeal to the much cheaper, quicker and more local Magistrates' Court.

I think it would be very useful if the authors of this submission, which after all is from one body of salaried public servants to another, were to justify their position in terms of the increase in cost and loss of freedom vs. increase in public safety.
 
Dalua I think a few of the proposals are very sensible and warrant further discussion e.g. returning expanding ammunition to section 1 status and removing the day to day administration of firearms from the police.

The other proposals are all very fair also. No single type of shooting singled out, they simply attack every shooter and every shooting discipline. Even poor old miniature rifle clubs come in for attack. What's the matter with these people, bloody power crazed or what? :evil:
 
I just don't understand. What is the benefit of these proposals, other than the increased revenue (although that will be negated by the increases in bureaucracy).
 
Shh don't tell anyone but I think they may have missed one group off the list. They mention magazine capacities with .22 semi automatic rifles and shotguns but haven't mentioned magazine capacities with tactical rifles obviously an oversight or they would have attacked them also. :finger:
 
I wonder how many senior members of NPCC/Continuity ACPO are graduates of Common Purpose?
 
Anyone know what their respective shooting organisations are planning to say ? Anyone been asked what their views are ? is it likely you will know what your Org says and have chance to comment before its submitted? I am sending my own response and will be asking for a joint response from all shooting orgs via my organisation.
A once in a lifetime opportunity, literally, to explain the needs of shooters and all I hear and see is the police view, ACPO at that, who want firearms ownership by individuals curtailed and oppressively controlled.
Time to ask your organisation what it is doing/done. Whether it will be giving evidence verbally or in writing. Whether members should vote on the response prior to submission or 'trust' the Orgs to do it right. We are facing a potential lead shot ban thanks to a rogue and arrogant ex org chief, who has yet to be denounced other than by CA.
We are facing stricter controls on firearms ownership and its not uppermost in conversation? A smaller shooting community is easily ignored and further oppressed with tighter rules, now is the time to react. Are you doing that or expecting someone may do it on your behalf ?
 
The other proposals are all very fair also. No single type of shooting singled out, they simply attack every shooter and every shooting discipline. Even poor old miniature rifle clubs come in for attack. What's the matter with these people, bloody power crazed or what? :evil:

Quite. It looks like an unhealthy blend of the 1973 Green Paper and the Gun Control Network's submission to the 2010-11 Home Office Select Committee report.

Indeed, that report might be a good place for the Law Commission to start: it seemed a fairly balanced review of a great many submissions including most of what the Police seem now to be suggesting .
 
Last edited:
There is a quote:

"Firearms dealers operate in an area of extreme trust and there have been a number of examples where they have operated outside the law."

I can't see where they have put:

""Police officers operate in an area of extreme trust and there have been a number of examples where they have operated outside the law."

But its is well known that there are hundreds of police officers with criminal convictions still "serving" in their respective police services.

They do play lip service to the concept of firearms (back office) work being off-loaded to a central unit.
 
BASC are seriously going to need their wits about them, and will I'm sure be keeping in mind that although they might be experts in fields that seem relevant, the true experts in getting what they want out of quasi-legislative review processess probably reside in the Home Office and the Police.

It is rather disturbing to compare the this exctract from the BASC press-release on increase of certificate duration (on the face of it a Good Thing, of course)
This paper calls for the extension of shotgun and firearm certificate duration from five to ten years,
on the basis that such a change will improve efficiency and effectiveness within the police service,
and provide an enhanced service to certificate holders without impacting public safety.
Significant improvements in police licensing now allow 24/7/365 monitoring of certificate holders,
meaning that risk remains low and stable over time.



with this from the NABIS-document

6. Duration of a certificate
Certificates are currently valid for 5 years, subject to a robust medical vetting
procedure including an enduring medical marker on an individual’s medical record
and police forces being able to monitor incidents reported to the police 24/7, 365
days a year, then consideration could be given to extending the life of a certificate to
10 years. Cost of certificate should be increased pro rata to allow forces the
resources to provide the monitoring service.

The highlights are mine, of course, to draw attention to the 24/7/365 monitoring that sounds so superficially reasonable, benign and no different from current practice when mentioned by the BASC; yet suddenly turns in the Police document into some additonal monitoring setup requiring further resource to be extracted from certificate-holders.
 
Last edited:
The highlights are mine, of course, to draw attention to the 24/7/365 monitoring that sounds so superficially reasonable, benign and no different from current practice when mentioned by the BASC; yet suddenly turns in the Police document into some additonal monitoring setup requiring further resource to be extracted from certificate-holders.

How often, following a terrorist or other atrocity, does one hear that the perpetrator was a 'person of interest' but the authorities lacked the resources to keep tabs on them before they surfaced and did the deed? And yet law-abiding citizens are deemed to need 24/7/365 monitoring simply because they choose to exercise their right to possess legally held firearms. What kind of kafkaesque society are we in danger of becoming?
 
I think "24/7/365 monitoring" is simply shorthand for saying that the Police have now got a reasonably well joined up database on which all FAC and SGC holders are included.
When any sort of incident occurs and the police enter the names of the people involved in the incident into the data base - FAC holders and SGC holders are "flagged up"
If the incident is not firearms related, then the "flagging up" is irrelevant and ignored
I don't see a problem with this.

Cheers

Bruce
 
Back
Top