licensing fees - ACPO proposal

[Mr. Gain]

First of all, the outdated HO Guidance document has to be properly revised in consultation with national shooting organisations so that is fit to be used as a benchmark for licensing decisions.
Secondly, some minimum service levels have to be negotiated with ACPO regarding turn-around times for grants, renewals and variations, which must be much better than they currently are: i.e. weeks, not months.
Once this has been done, and shooters have some guarantee of receiving a licensing service that is prompt, transparent and fair, ACPO will have a case for asking for a rise in fees.
If as part of the same discussions we can also get authorisations to possess defined in terms of calibre banding, rather than in terms of specific cartridge and action types, this would be a positive step forward too, as would a protocol for instant point-of-sale, one-for-one exchange for guns of the same type, in place of the current unwieldy system of selling first, then applying/waiting for a variation, and finally buying a replacement. The current restrictions in these areas make no contribution to public safety but result in considerable cost, inconvenience and work for licensing offices, RFDs and shooters alike.

 

[Orion]

First of all, the outdated HO Guidance document has to be properly revised in consultation with national shooting organisations so that is fit to be used as a benchmark for licensing decisions.

You can forget that. The police evidence to the recent enquiry made it clear that they were running away from any form of 'Best Practice' being imposed on them. They will fight tooth and nail for CCs to retain the right to administer the firearms licensing in a way that reflects there own 'local needs' i.e. impose their own agenda on FAC holders in their parish and s*d any national co-ordinated approach. They like the system too much the way it is because they can largely impose their own policies without fear of too much crticism.

 

[jack]

I read the NGO's response to this which is on their web site.
News - NGO Anger at Proposed Firearms Fees Rise of 88%
To quote:

The ACPO FELWG (Association of Chief Police Officers Firearms and Explosive Licensing working group) paper claims, "Firearms licensing is not a part of core policing duties and therefore the cost of firearms licensing should not be borne by the public purse."


In fact the licensing of firearms has been a police duty, by law, since 1920 and ACPO's own paper acknowledges that, "The primary objective of the firearms licensing process is to protect the public from harm."


A spokesman for the NGO said:

"The licensing of firearms and shot guns is to keep the public safe. It has no benefit to the licence holder. Licensees have always paid about a third of the overall cost, which is more than their share for a system designed for the public benefit. Governments have accepted that the balance should come from central funds. For the police to argue now that licensing is not a police duty when legislation has required them to undertake it since 1920 is simply extraordinary. Whenever anyone has suggested that a civilian authority could be a more appropriate vehicle for licensing, the police have always insisted on retaining responsibility."



You know the country is broke when you read stupid comments like this from ACPO FELWG

 

[timbrayford]

First of all, the outdated HO Guidance document has to be properly revised in consultation with national shooting organisations so that is fit to be used as a benchmark for licensing decisions.
Secondly, some minimum service levels have to be negotiated with ACPO regarding turn-around times for grants, renewals and variations, which must be much better than they currently are: i.e. weeks, not months.
Once this has been done, and shooters have some guarantee of receiving a licensing service that is prompt, transparent and fair, ACPO will have a case for asking for a rise in fees.
If as part of the same discussions we can also get authorisations to possess defined in terms of calibre banding, rather than in terms of specific cartridge and action types, this would be a positive step forward too, as would a protocol for instant point-of-sale, one-for-one exchange for guns of the same type, in place of the current unwieldy system of selling first, then applying/waiting for a variation, and finally buying a replacement. The current restrictions in these areas make no contribution to public safety but result in considerable cost, inconvenience and work for licensing offices, RFDs and shooters alike.

I entirely agree with you. I think what is really needed at this stage is a unified approach and a very positive atttitude from the shooting community as a whole. Perhaps the BASC and other shooting organisations can co-ordinate that effort by informing us of what we can do as individuals to progress the matter further.

 

[mickjgardner]

Instead of a centralised system would it not be cheaper and simpler to have an appeals panel that could decide if a decision made by your local firearms office is reasonable without having the absurd costs of an appeal which most of us cannot afford

 

[keith@honda]

raising the cost of the licencing side of things is to be expected, if you make something to expensive people will decide to give up doing it and move onto something cheaper, if the licencing departments improved that would be a bonus ,a provisional car licence is now £50 because they want to get people off the road that is why new drivers are also charged approx £3500 on their first years insurance.it is good to see BASC and the NGO on the same side .

 

[Fisheruk]

My FAC and SC are due for renewal in 5 months, hope I can get them through before then.

 

[widows son]

Moan Moan Whine Whine.

David BASC, have you taken the time to calculate what it will cost per week or per day, even if it was to rise too £200.00 per year, less than a packet of fags and in some places a pint of beer and far less than a gallon of diesel, per week , everything goes up leave it alone, stop wasting money get a positive challenge like grant of a certificate, mentoring and DMQ level 1 these raise their head all the time on this site i don't see BASC coming up the the right answers this is still a nation wide problem but far less a problem in Scotland what are we doing right and the English constabularies are not. ,

Is it because BASC runs the DMQ set up and would loose money if the boat was to be rocked .

I paid £ 56.00 this year for a co-term Fac/ sg certificate renewal thats £1.07 per day nothing

 

[timbrayford]

Moan Moan Whine Whine.

David BASC, have you taken the time to calculate what it will cost per week or per day, even if it was to rise too £200.00 per year, less than a packet of fags and in some places a pint of beer and far less than a gallon of diesel, per week , everything goes up leave it alone, stop wasting money get a positive challenge like grant of a certificate, mentoring and DMQ level 1 these raise their head all the time on this site i don't see BASC coming up the the right answers this is still a nation wide problem but far less a problem in Scotland what are we doing right and the English constabularies are not. ,

Is it because BASC runs the DMQ set up and would loose money if the boat was to be rocked .

I paid £ 56.00 this year for a co-term Fac/ sg certificate renewal thats £1.07 per day nothing

I rather think that it is not a question of the fees increase itself that is necessarily at issue here but what we get in return. The Firearms Act requires that Chiefs of Police administer the lawful possession of firearms but lays down no minimum standard of efficiency which they must comply with, nor does it leave open to a legal appeal any additional conditions that a Chief of Police is empowered to add to a certificate.
As ACPO has asked for a substantial price increase now is a very good time to ask our Government to carry out a thorough review of how the police administer the current rules and see what efficiencies can be carried out with or without a new Firearms Act

 

[David63]

A totally incorrect statement from WS! BASC does not run DMQ – get your facts straight!

Also I think your maths are wrong, last time I checked FAC’s run for 5 years not 1

But never mind at least you got your chance to jump on this thread and have a go at me and BASC…

Regardless of whether it costs £50 or £200 the bottom line is that the service must improve, I think all of us can agree on that.Why should we even tolerate an increase when the service delivery is not there?

More importantly there must be across the board compliance with HO guidance and ACPO best practice. That would get rid of the excessive use of mentoring and ‘training’ conditions that some forces apply for example!

David

 

[finnbear270]

Moan Moan Whine Whine.

David BASC, have you taken the time to calculate what it will cost per week or per day, even if it was to rise too £200.00 per year, less than a packet of fags and in some places a pint of beer and far less than a gallon of diesel, per week , everything goes up leave it alone, stop wasting money get a positive challenge like grant of a certificate, mentoring and DMQ level 1 these raise their head all the time on this site i don't see BASC coming up the the right answers this is still a nation wide problem but far less a problem in Scotland what are we doing right and the English constabularies are not. ,

Is it because BASC runs the DMQ set up and would loose money if the boat was to be rocked .

I paid £ 56.00 this year for a co-term Fac/ sg certificate renewal thats £1.07 per day nothing

Bob, I think you might not object if I were to stand shoulder to shoulder with you on this one.

 

[Z-Plex]

Consistency is a double-edged sword, and the standard bureaucratic response to demands for consistency usually results in a centralised, depersonalised and inefficient system where everyone gets the minimum acceptable service. If you really hit the bureaucratic jackpot you'll get that solution privatised and outsourced too.

I'd much rather BASC pushed for quality of service rather than consistency. If some police forces (my local one is Northern Constabulary, for whom I have nothing but praise for a sensible, practical, highly efficient and responsive service) can get it right, why not simply take the best examples and follow them? To do otherwise invites a solution that drags everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Which police forces would BASC rate as the top 3 in terms of quality of service?

 

[David63]

So you guys are going to stand shoulder to shoulder for a co term certificate that costs £1.07 per day or £1952 over the 5 years...good luck with that one. I think you will be on your own.

Seriously if the licensing teams had to stick to the HO guidance then they cannot add on silly conditions that simply cause aggravation and expense to the shooter but which do nothing to protect public safety. That’s the important point and one that I think a couple have missed in their eagerness to swipe at BASC.

You may or may not know that this consistency of approach to the HO guidance is common policy between the NGO and BASC, and I am yet to hear of any other shooting organization who would not agree with this.

Z Plex, I will ask and let you know.

David

 

[finnbear270]

Which police forces would BASC rate as the top 3 in terms of quality of service?

This is a hard one, soon as a decent FEO retires or moves on, the crock of sh*t returns,

where everyone gets the minimum acceptable service.

this one is for lots of us , already a reality. Steve.

 

[timbrayford]

A totally incorrect statement from WS! BASC does not run DMQ – get your facts straight!

Also I think your maths are wrong, last time I checked FAC’s run for 5 years not 1

But never mind at least you got your chance to jump on this thread and have a go at me and BASC…

Regardless of whether it costs £50 or £200 the bottom line is that the service must improve, I think all of us can agree on that.Why should we even tolerate an increase when the service delivery is not there?

More importantly there must be across the board compliance with HO guidance and ACPO best practice. That would get rid of the excessive use of mentoring and ‘training’ conditions that some forces apply for example!

David

David, apart from the odd negative comment on this thread there appears to be a general consensus supporting the BASC's position on this. But what happens next and how can individual shooters assist in progressing the matter forward?

 

[finnbear270]

get a positive challenge like grant of a certificate, mentoring and DMQ level 1 these raise their head all the time on this site i don't see BASC coming up the the right answers this is still a nation wide problem but far less a problem in Scotland what are we doing right and the English constabularies are not. ,

In answer to the above!

 

[David63]

Timbrayford, I agree, most of us seem to be on the same side! What next? Good question, both NGO and BASC are seeking meetings with the minister.

However those of you who are willing to contact your MP, please ask them to agree that there is no justification for any change in license fees until there is an efficient and consistent service in place.

If there is anything else the general shooting community can do we will let you know

Z-plan, the forces we get the least complaints about are: Northants, Norfolk, Suffolk and N Yorks.

David

 

[timbrayford]

Timbrayford, I agree, most of us seem to be on the same side! What next? Good question, both NGO and BASC are seeking meetings with the minister.

However those of you who are willing to contact your MP, please ask them to agree that there is no justification for any change in license fees until there is an efficient and consistent service in place.

If there is anything else the general shooting community can do we will let you know

Z-plan, the forces we get the least complaints about are: Northants, Norfolk, Suffolk and N Yorks.

David

I shall certainly be in contact with my MP - Andrew Turner, shortly. He is aware of, and assisted with some of the problems that I have had with Hampshire Police and I know him to be a reliable supporter of the rural community

 

[caorach]

Here in Northern Ireland it took approx 1 year and in some cases up to 2 years to get a FAC or even a renewal. I've no idea why and, of course, there were always occasional certificates that came back faster but to state an average of 1 year would not be far wrong. BASC got involved and, all of a sudden, people are getting certificates in a matter of weeks with around 3 months now being the average. So, it is worth making the point that intervention from BASC can be useful and productive.

However, sometimes we have to be careful what we wish for. Some posting on this thread might imagine that consistent application of the law and guidelines will lead to the end of mentoring and random restrictive conditions. The other side of the coin is that if consistent regulation was to be applied then each force that has a CC who has is own idea for random and restrictive conditions will be fighting to have his good ideas included. I would guess that the police is a pretty PC organisation where it is a good career move to be seen to be anti-gun and so it may also be a good career move to be seen to place the most restrictions on shooters in terms of the wording of the new "consistent regulations." So, if a move to consistent regulation were not carefully managed by our shooting organisations we could end up with a rewrite of the home office guidelines and could easily find that the most hated and restricted conditions became part of the published guidelines.

I would, therefore, urge that BASC and shooters in general are very careful indeed when asking for consistent conditions on the basis that shooters and the police will be approaching this from different directions and, in the end, the CCs of various forces will have more say in any rewrite of Home Office guidelines than we will. We might imagine that we will dispose of the crazy conditions and impositiions while the CCs are thinking about their next promotion and how good it would look on their CV to have introduced a condition that forced 10% of shooters to give up because it was more trouble than it was worth.

I would argue, therefore, that instead of consistent conditions we should be fighting for a measure of "reasonableness" and quantative assessment to be applied to firearms licensing based upon the ballistics of a rifle bullet and the actual measured and known threat to the public. Such an enforced "reasonable" approach would remove most of the crazy conditions (like being able to shoot a fox with your 243 but needing a mentor present to shoot a deer with it or being allow to own a "big game" rifle but not being allowed to fire it in the UK) while leaving no scope for the various CCs to try and enforce their most restrictive conditions upon everyone in a bid for police service politically correct stardom.

 

[timbrayford]

Here in Northern Ireland it took approx 1 year and in some cases up to 2 years to get a FAC or even a renewal. I've no idea why and, of course, there were always occasional certificates that came back faster but to state an average of 1 year would not be far wrong. BASC got involved and, all of a sudden, people are getting certificates in a matter of weeks with around 3 months now being the average. So, it is worth making the point that intervention from BASC can be useful and productive.

However, sometimes we have to be careful what we wish for. Some posting on this thread might imagine that consistent application of the law and guidelines will lead to the end of mentoring and random restrictive conditions. The other side of the coin is that if consistent regulation was to be applied then each force that has a CC who has is own idea for random and restrictive conditions will be fighting to have his good ideas included. I would guess that the police is a pretty PC organisation where it is a good career move to be seen to be anti-gun and so it may also be a good career move to be seen to place the most restrictions on shooters in terms of the wording of the new "consistent regulations." So, if a move to consistent regulation were not carefully managed by our shooting organisations we could end up with a rewrite of the home office guidelines and could easily find that the most hated and restricted conditions became part of the published guidelines.

I would, therefore, urge that BASC and shooters in general are very careful indeed when asking for consistent conditions on the basis that shooters and the police will be approaching this from different directions and, in the end, the CCs of various forces will have more say in any rewrite of Home Office guidelines than we will. We might imagine that we will dispose of the crazy conditions and impositiions while the CCs are thinking about their next promotion and how good it would look on their CV to have introduced a condition that forced 10% of shooters to give up because it was more trouble than it was worth.

I would argue, therefore, that instead of consistent conditions we should be fighting for a measure of "reasonableness" and quantative assessment to be applied to firearms licensing based upon the ballistics of a rifle bullet and the actual measured and known threat to the public. Such an enforced "reasonable" approach would remove most of the crazy conditions (like being able to shoot a fox with your 243 but needing a mentor present to shoot a deer with it or being allow to own a "big game" rifle but not being allowed to fire it in the UK) while leaving no scope for the various CCs to try and enforce their most restrictive conditions upon everyone in a bid for police service politically correct stardom.

Of course if we were to campaign for section 1 controls to be dispensed with in favour of section 2 for Rifles than all this expensive and police time consuming nonsense could be done away with