Mandatory training for firearms enquiry officers in England and Wales

[Tf223]

Should have happened in the 1990s after Dunblane instead of the 100 year cover up and ridiculous handgun ban. As for costs let us all remember that firearms licensing exists as a general crime prevention measure to protect the public by restricting lawful access to guns by crooks, a benefit enjoyed by all citizens.

And taxis exist to provide transport to the public, they still pay by or the licence cost - often £300 annually for a vehicle, £200 three yearly for driver licensing, and £200-500 for operator licensing. That assesses fitness and is designed to prevent those like John Warbois etc from being in a position to abuse potentially vulnerable passengers.
Alcohol premises pay typically £190 for a licence app, and then £180 per year for the ongoing maintainable of the licences.
Animal activity premises typically pay £300-500 to provide animal services such as boarding.
I could go on, and each is regulated in some way for the public interest and or public safety.

Whilst I don’t want to pay more, we have to accept the fee for a five year licence is low, and the cost of proper regulation will be picked up by the licensee. I am content if it is fair and managed appropriately. But I’m not silly enough to think most will agree!!

 

[Dalua]

And taxis exist to provide transport to the public, they still pay by or the licence cost - often £300 annually for a vehicle, £200 three yearly for driver licensing, and £200-500 for operator licensing. That assesses fitness and is designed to prevent those like John Warbois etc from being in a position to abuse potentially vulnerable passengers.
Alcohol premises pay typically £190 for a licence app, and then £180 per year for the ongoing maintainable of the licences.
Animal activity premises typically pay £300-500 to provide animal services such as boarding.
I could go on, and each is regulated in some way for the public interest and or public safety.

...but there is no right in common law to provide those services. That is why they require a licence rather than a certificate.

I can't fathom why this principle is not more-readily grasped by FAC/SGC holders, who better than anyone else know the expense and inconvenience occasioned by the Firearms Act and nevertheless are threatened with and/or subjected to further expense, inconvenience and restriction of liberty more or less every time those charged with the administration of the firearms legislation fall short.

I'm all in favour of our firearms laws being administered fairly by competent and efficient departments to minimise risks to public safety from lawful ownership and use of firearms - but is is grossly unfair for the cost of this beyond the modest statutory fees for be borne by the certificate-holders. The creep of extra costs (the disagreeable novelty of having to pay for GPs' reports, for example) should be resisted on the grounds of fairness, and in the interests of survival of shooting sports: increases in fees have often been seen by those whose goal this is as a useful way of reducing lawful firearms ownership.

 

[timbrayford]

And taxis exist to provide transport to the public, they still pay by or the licence cost - often £300 annually for a vehicle, £200 three yearly for driver licensing, and £200-500 for operator licensing. That assesses fitness and is designed to prevent those like John Warbois etc from being in a position to abuse potentially vulnerable passengers.
Alcohol premises pay typically £190 for a licence app, and then £180 per year for the ongoing maintainable of the licences.
Animal activity premises typically pay £300-500 to provide animal services such as boarding.
I could go on, and each is regulated in some way for the public interest and or public safety.

Whilst I don’t want to pay more, we have to accept the fee for a five year licence is low, and the cost of proper regulation will be picked up by the licensee. I am content if it is fair and managed appropriately. But I’m not silly enough to think most will agree!!

Chalk and cheese comparison, think again

 

[cjm1066]

Can Northamptonshire please recruit some staff to train, a years wait for renewal is appalling.

 

[potshotpat]

...but there is no right in common law to provide those services. That is why they require a licence rather than a certificate.

I can't fathom why this principle is not more-readily grasped by FAC/SGC holders, who better than anyone else know the expense and inconvenience occasioned by the Firearms Act and nevertheless are threatened with and/or subjected to further expense, inconvenience and restriction of liberty more or less every time those charged with the administration of the firearms legislation fall short.

I'm all in favour of our firearms laws being administered fairly by competent and efficient departments to minimise risks to public safety from lawful ownership and use of firearms - but is is grossly unfair for the cost of this beyond the modest statutory fees for be borne by the certificate-holders. The creep of extra costs (the disagreeable novelty of having to pay for GPs' reports, for example) should be resisted on the grounds of fairness, and in the interests of survival of shooting sports: increases in fees have often been seen by those whose goal this is as a useful way of reducing lawful firearms ownership.

I can't fault this reply. Put across in a matter of fact way, understandable and common sense. I hope the programme makers take the same lawful view.

...but there is no right in common law to provide those services. That is why they require a licence rather than a certificate.

I can't fathom why this principle is not more-readily grasped by FAC/SGC holders, who better than anyone else know the expense and inconvenience occasioned by the Firearms Act and nevertheless are threatened with and/or subjected to further expense, inconvenience and restriction of liberty more or less every time those charged with the administration of the firearms legislation fall short.

I'm all in favour of our firearms laws being administered fairly by competent and efficient departments to minimise risks to public safety from lawful ownership and use of firearms - but is is grossly unfair for the cost of this beyond the modest statutory fees for be borne by the certificate-holders. The creep of extra costs (the disagreeable novelty of having to pay for GPs' reports, for example) should be resisted on the grounds of fairness, and in the interests of survival of shooting sports: increases in fees have often been seen by those whose goal this is as a useful way of reducing lawful firearms ownership.

 

[potshotpat]

I can't fault this reply. Put across in a matter of fact way, understandable and common sense. I hope the programme makers take the same lawful view.

Double post. Sorry.

 

[markj1]

Why only England and Wales?
The same firearms law applies to Scotland, so there;s no reason why FEOs in Scotland should not be trained to the same standard.
Having said that I expect to hear that the excuse for long delays in renewals and first grants will be that a particular force does not have enough trained FEOs

Cheers

Bruce

Same standards, but possibly not same budget? Police Scotland may have a separate balance sheet to England and Wales and someone else should cough up the money?

 

[Tf223]

Chalk and cheese comparison, think again

Out of genuine interest, why?

I note mention of it being a certificate rather than licence, where in the Firearm Act(s) does that expressly prevent the cost recovery, or recovery of some costs as it is now? - I vaguely recall that existing fees were set some time ago on cost recovery evidence.

Taking taxi licensing for example, both are licensing schemes designed to protect the public from public safety issues by having criteria in which to assess whether person is fit and proper. - criminal record checks, assessment of non-conviction information, etc.

Both are subject to an Act and statutory guidance? And other guidance.

Both have examples of what happens when it goes wrong - Plymouth and Rotherham etc.

Keen to understand why it is believed the Firearms Act prevents the government/police seeking cost recovery.

 

[Dalua]

Keen to understand why it is believed the Firearms Act prevents the government/police seeking cost recovery.

What I'm saying is that is neither just, nor within the spirit of the Act specifically and the common law in general, to expect only those members of the public who lawfully use firearms to foot the bill for a bureaucratic set-up designed not to benefit the lawful firearms-users - who have an extant right in law to own and use firearms - but, rather, the public as a whole.

 

[Tf223]

What I'm saying is that is neither just, nor within the spirit of the Act specifically and the common law in general, to expect only those members of the public who lawfully use firearms to foot the bill for a bureaucratic set-up designed not to benefit the lawful firearms-users - who have an extant right in law to own and use firearms - but, rather, the public as a whole.

The Act just specifies the fees payable. It also states

1)Sections 32 and 35 of this Act may be amended by an order made by the Secretary of State so as to vary any sum specified thereby, or so as to provide that any sum payable thereunder shall cease to be so payable

Where therefore is it written/documented that the fee that is now charged (which has increased in over the years) is based upon partial recovery based on this right and shared benefit?

What determines that shared benefit figure for the current fees, and presumably if the cost is to be shared any increase in that cost would be partially recovered through increase in the set fees anyway?

Or if it being said that the fee is not lawful why has this not been successfully challenged in the many years of the Act?

 

[markj1]

What I'm saying is that is neither just, nor within the spirit of the Act specifically and the common law in general, to expect only those members of the public who lawfully use firearms to foot the bill for a bureaucratic set-up designed not to benefit the lawful firearms-users - who have an extant right in law to own and use firearms - but, rather, the public as a whole.

However, the 'risk to the public' is posed by firearms owners - and it makes sense that those who pose the risk will incur the cost of mitigating it?

If you have a driver license and own a car, you have to insure it to cover any damages to third-parties (the public), it would be unreasonable to expect the public to insure themselves against the risk that cars pose.

 

[spanj]

And taxis exist to provide transport to the public, they still pay by or the licence cost - often £300 annually for a vehicle, £200 three yearly for driver licensing, and £200-500 for operator licensing. That assesses fitness and is designed to prevent those like John Warbois etc from being in a position to abuse potentially vulnerable passengers.
Alcohol premises pay typically £190 for a licence app, and then £180 per year for the ongoing maintainable of the licences.
Animal activity premises typically pay £300-500 to provide animal services such as boarding.
I could go on, and each is regulated in some way for the public interest and or public safety.

Whilst I don’t want to pay more, we have to accept the fee for a five year licence is low, and the cost of proper regulation will be picked up by the licensee. I am content if it is fair and managed appropriately. But I’m not silly enough to think most will agree!!

There are a few other threads on the firearms licencing acts and the reasons for it. You’d do well to read them. Let’s not be turkeys voting for Christmas …….

 

[Dalua]

However, the 'risk to the public' is posed by firearms owners

Not often by lawful firearms owners, when the FLDs have discharged their duties effectively.

If you have a driver license and own a car, you have to insure it to cover any damages to third-parties (the public), it would be unreasonable to expect the public to insure themselves against the risk that cars pose.

There is no right in law to drive a motor on the highway. Those who use the road by right do so without licence, without charge, and without obligation to take out insurance.

 

[Tf223]

There are a few other threads on the firearms licencing acts and the reasons for it. You’d do well to read them. Let’s not be turkeys voting for Christmas …….

There’s a lot of opinion on here and I’m not trawling though all that!

I asked to be pointed toward the confirmation of the views mentioned as document by Act, regulation, guidance or other official document.

That seems to be lacking in the counter argument against the SoS varying the fees as permitted by Act todo so.

In terms of voting, I vote for realism, and positive engagement in consultations to produce well rounded positive updates to law/regulation. Being closed minded to such topics doesn’t do our chosen activity, business, or pastime any favours either.

There is balance in these things as always. It is healthy to debate that balance - regardless of differences of opinion.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

The following article may help as regards recent comments on this thread:

Both Barrels - Bill of Rights - BASC

BASC's Bill Harriman dispels the belief that the Bill of Rights 1689 offers a safeguard for the private ownership of firearms in the UK.

basc.org.uk

 

[Tf223]

The following article may help as regards recent comments on this thread:

Both Barrels - Bill of Rights - BASC

BASC's Bill Harriman dispels the belief that the Bill of Rights 1689 offers a safeguard for the private ownership of firearms in the UK.

basc.org.uk

perfect thanks @Conor O'Gorman. That’s the sort of info I was seeking to read.

 

[enfieldspares]

Bill Harriman is incorrect. Where did he do his law? The words "as allowed by law" mean as allowed by the Common Law and not by Act of Parliament.

He is also incorrect that implied repeal applies to the BoR. Many cases on "fines and forfeitures" reassert this. Thus parking "charges" not parking "fines".

Indeed some Acts or Parliament in fact also cannot be impliedly repealed. Such as the 1931 Statute of Westminster. And...Gina Miller's Brexit case...the Act that took the UK into the EU.

Provisions in the Bill of Rights therefore must be expressly repealed which he should know if as then he correctly says that jurors need no longer be freeholders. This provision had to be expressly repealed. See below.

Bill Harriman is correct that the BoR, or parts of it could be repealed. But to do that the Act of Parliament would need to state in it AS DOES THE JURIES ACT 1825 that the relevant conflicting part of the Bill of Rights is repealed.

Therefore as the Firearms Acts do not do this the provisions of the Bill of Rights "trump" any implied repeal of the relevant part of the Bill of Rights. That notwithstanding relying on the BoR to retain MARS rifles is folly unless the protagonists were prepared...as did Gina Miller with Brexit...to go to law.

 

[Tf223]

Bill Harriman is incorrect. Where did he do his law? The words "as allowed by law" mean as allowed by the Common Law and not by Act of Parliament.

He is also incorrect that implied repeal applies to the BoR. Many cases on "fines and forfeitures" reassert this. Thus parking "charges" not parking "fines".

Indeed some Acts or Parliament in fact also cannot be impliedly repealed. Such as the 1931 Statute of Westminster. And...Gina Miller's Brexit case...the Act that took the UK into the EU.

Provisions in the Bill of Rights therefore must be expressly repealed which he should know if as then he correctly says that jurors need no longer be freeholders. This provision had to be expressly repealed. See below.

Bill Harriman is correct that the BoR, or parts of it could be repealed. But to do that the Act of Parliament would need to state in it AS DOES THE JURIES ACT 1825 that the relevant conflicting part of the Bill of Rights is repealed.

Therefore as the Firearms Acts do not do this the provisions of the Bill of Rights "trump" any implied repeal of the relevant part of the Bill of Rights. That notwithstanding relying on the BoR to retain MARS rifles is folly unless the protagonists were prepared...as did Gina Miller with Brexit...to go to law.

Well… I look forwards to seeing the judgement on that one. Best of luck to the protagonists!

 

[Apthorpe]

However, the 'risk to the public' is posed by firearms owners - and it makes sense that those who pose the risk will incur the cost of mitigating it?

Really. By definition, legal firearms owners are those who are deemed not to pose a risk to the public. Using your argument that those who pose the risk should pay the cost, it implies that the wider public, the group containing the individuals who pose a risk, should pay.

If you have a driver license and own a car, you have to insure it to cover any damages to third-parties (the public),

That is because cars are used almost exclusively on public highways in mixed traffic and close proximity to the public. Firearms are not.

it would be unreasonable to expect the public to insure themselves against the risk that cars pose.

Since you make the comparison, insurance provides elements of protection to the policyholder and insurance companies provide their services in a competitive market rather than a mandatory inefficient monopoly. Firearms licences provide no benefit to the holder. The comparison does not hold up.

 

[Rewulf]

Why only England and Wales?
The same firearms law applies to Scotland, so there;s no reason why FEOs in Scotland should not be trained to the same standard

Won't be needed in Scotland.
Your new SNP leader likely has a plan up his sleeve to ban private firearm ownership.
You'll be able to hire a gun and shoot under supervision though, so it's not all bad.