Change to FAC laws?

Dan Newcombe

Well-Known Member
I know everyone find that FAC laws a pain in the arse here with the restriction on the calibres you are allowed to buy and the restrictions.

As my mind wandered today i was thinking. Would 4 rifles be enough?

What would people think if you applied for your domestic FAC and you could have one of each:
A rimfire
Centrefire up to and including .243
Centrefire .25 - 7mm
Centrefire 7mm - .375

You can hold one of each of the ranges at any one time but all that is required is to tell the police that one is gone and replaced by another. No 1 for 1 variations etc. So you could walk into a shop and give then your .222 and walk out with a .22-250

Thats generally reflective of what people have on a license anyway eg i have a
.22
.22-250
6.5x55
30-06
on my ticket but they wouldnt change the bigger 2 to 6.5mm and 30cal

Obviously his isnt going anywhere but i was just thinking it would streamline the whole thing and make it more flexible
 
Last edited:
I couldn't understand the system when I first wanted to change my .308 for another .308, I honestly thought it was as simple as go in with one, walk out with another so long as you notified the police...I thought then and still do that the system is putting extra burden onto a system that gets nothing back from the cost......

Once I found this system out, I was even more hacked off that they would not put a variation (One for One)on with the clause to "Buy one, on disposal of the other" which would make sense, which meant 2 trips to the dealer some 78 miles away

Now thankfully I am in an area where the Local FLO is on the ball, they will condition for such an event and would probably allow all of the calibers/cartridge sizes upto .375 with out question.........

(I'm sure someone will now say that they never got what they wanted from Northern Constabulary)

TJ
 
Personally I think the best way to do it would be to do a land and quarry check and the home visit and then say "right, you can have up to (whatever number the security/safe allows for) rifles up to a maximum calibre of (whatever the ground is suitable for) to shoot any lawful quarry". Then perhaps special cases could be allowed for, ie use abroad/ranges only etc if needed/proved.

Buying and selling could be controlled in the normal manner by informing the police of any transfer. They'd soon know if you went over your allowance and your FAC could be revoked.

That would just be too simple wouldn't it?! Just think how much money it would save in the long term through reduced admin.
 
Personally I think the best way to do it would be to do a land and quarry check and the home visit and then say "right, you can have up to (whatever number the security/safe allows for) rifles up to a maximum calibre of (whatever the ground is suitable for) to shoot any lawful quarry". Then perhaps special cases could be allowed for, ie use abroad/ranges only etc if needed/proved. Buying and selling could be controlled in the normal manner by informing the police of any transfer. They'd soon know if you went over your allowance and your FAC could be revoked. That would just be too simple wouldn't it?! Just think how much money it would save in the long term through reduced admin.

I don't get this concept of a "ground/calibre-suitability" thing. A safely used centrefire is a safely used centrefire and if they're not being used safely....Well... what is the material difference between a .222 or a .375 H&H? I certainly wouldn't feel any safer being shot towards by an idiot with a .222 or even a .22rf. However, I do understand the broad concept of matching calibre to target species. That's another matter entirely. But, unless I'm mistaken, that is not what this ground/calibre thing is about. Similarly I can't see why a restriction to 4 bands of calibre choice is relevant to anything.
 
I don't get this concept of a "ground/calibre-suitability" thing. A safely used centrefire is a safely used centrefire and if they're not being used safely....Well... what is the material difference between a .222 or a .375 H&H? I certainly wouldn't feel any safer being shot towards by an idiot with a .222 or even a .22rf. However, I do understand the broad concept of matching calibre to target species. That's another matter entirely. But, unless I'm mistaken, that is not what this ground/calibre thing is about. Similarly I can't see why a restriction to 4 bands of calibre choice is relevant to anything.

Agree 100%

Is everyone so 'conditioned' :)oops:) by the strokes that plod have been pulling over the years that they are actually hoping for checks like these to be put in place? :doh:

Keep it simple and make your wish list for something like a 'Hunters Licence' that then authorises you to have a truly open FAC with the quantity and calibre of rifles that you decide you have a requirement for, (maybe a pistol or two thrown in as well - sound familiar ;)). They might also then think you're enough of a big boy for you to decide where you are going to use them and what species you will humanely or (legally) shoot.
 
Hi Frank How much did thay give you, last thay took it from me!:lol:.
What points did thay give you to ponder over?:D.

Dry Powder.

Barry Thom
 
On the other hand, the history of firearms control in this country in the last 120 years teaches us that every time the law is changed it gets more restrictive and more expensive for the shooting public.

We must be careful what we wish for; my position is that the Law as it stands is the best we're likely to get, and that we should strive for more sensible and just administration of it.
 
Agree 100%

Is everyone so 'conditioned' :)oops:) by the strokes that plod have been pulling over the years that they are actually hoping for checks like these to be put in place? :doh:

Keep it simple and make your wish list for something like a 'Hunters Licence' that then authorises you to have a truly open FAC with the quantity and calibre of rifles that you decide you have a requirement for, (maybe a pistol or two thrown in as well - sound familiar ;)). They might also then think you're enough of a big boy for you to decide where you are going to use them and what species you will humanely or (legally) shoot.

Stockholm syndrome I think!

To the original OP, I have 3 rimfire slots + mods on my ticket. Why? Because I happen to have a need for 3 different rimfires for the disciplines I can/will shoot. Then there is a .223 for med range/small stuff and a .308 for longer/bigger stuff, plus the moderators again and another slot for a .303.... So no, 4 slots isn't enough. :-|
 
Stockholm syndrome I think!

I wasn't aware of being held hostage to anyone or anything!

Hoping for a complete overhaul of the Firearms Acts might be unrealistic, but no more so that the OP thinking that 4 calibre slots would suffice. At least it might make some consider the alternatives to actually believing that plod should carry out land and species checks as a matter of course.
 
To be fair, the current system is fine and perfectly workable (with the exeption of 'land checks' whatever they are). What is totally wrong and unworkable is the way different forces and individuals implement the rules and add in there own problems. One centralised Firearms Licencing body put in place to administrate the current system should work. JC
 
I think the slot system has a lot of merit. It does not have to be four slots and that's it. If a person has been granted an FAC, give them four slots, one RF, one 22CF, one slot for "small deer cals" 243-6.8/270, and a 7mm - 30cal slot. If you want more than that, show good reason.

It would simplify the system for 90% plus of firearms owners, the bulk of the variation/one-one, one-off admin would disappear, and the burden on licensing departments would greatly reduce - we could make half of them redundant.

A somewhat similar system is being introduced in NI, accept that the deer cals can only be calibre for calire exchanges. They are even creating a slot system for pistols.
 
To be fair, the current system is fine and perfectly workable (with the exeption of 'land checks' whatever they are). What is totally wrong and unworkable is the way different forces and individuals implement the rules and add in there own problems. One centralised Firearms Licencing body put in place to administrate the current system should work. JC
+ 1 on this !
 
I can foresee one MAJOR problem with a centralised licensing body.. We currently have tales of woe when your FAC has not arrived on time or has been altered or has an ommission, this could be dealt with at present locally,with centralised licensing they would be overworked and faceless, and probably without recourse, and if there was, the timescale would be horrific.
At present the current system works fine, at least here in D&G.
What is blatantly obvious it that there are those that seem to impose nothing but their own personal whim when it comes to FAC's.
I for one would not like to see centralised licensing, however I think with the current cut backs, firearms licensing by civilians will go and the police may take this in house.
wether that is a good thing or not we will have to wait and see, should it happen..

One of the reasons for the inconsistency's with firearms licensing is that they have never been challenged, and when I say challenged, I don't mean that there is negotiation between the two party's, I mean that there is a precedent set in law that if and when there is an imposition placed upon an individual that is illegal or unjust, there is clear guidelines with no grey areas that can be interpreted differently by different forces..

I also would like to see employment kept local and not some PO box address in one of the big cities..

regards
griff
 
Hi Frank How much did thay give you, last thay took it from me!:lol:.
What points did thay give you to ponder over?:D.

Dry Powder.

Barry Thom

£60i had to pay for the privilege
penalty point one for owning a van and doing 66 when the legal limit for a van is 50 on all single carriage ways oopps
penalty point two was for asking for my picture of the offence
penalty point three was for asking why i got a fine....

all in all a good day and an even better six weeks querying it

all done and dusted now
as they say gone but nae forgotten....

f.
 
4 slots? 4 slots............are you mad?
I myself have 12 firearms and need each and every one of them!

Whilst i agree in principle with Griff's argument and think that the centralised licensing office idea is a big white elephant, i don't live in Dumfries & Galloway and have been 'done over' by my local licensing office on a number of occassions.
 
I will happilly have one Central Licencing Centre, one set of rules across the country.

This is a very small island, if sent be registered post a licence can be delivered in 24 hours. This is 2010 and we should move forward in a joined up professional manner.

The majority of recreational stalkers 90% would be happy with 4 slots , the other 10% collectors can have collectors licences, professionals can have exemptions and brithunter gets locked up :D.

Job done.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top