licensing fees - ACPO proposal

[JabaliHunter]

I can see the argument about the difference between S1 and S2 being largely bureaucratic, however, I'm not sure that I would support a move to remove the 'good reason' requirement (land, shooting club, etc). But, I can't see S2 holders supporting the addition of a 'good reason' requirement for shotguns though, just to have a single S1/S2 certification system. However, I don't see why a S1 certificate holder should also have to have an S2 certificate. Nevertheless, once you have a S1, there should be fewer restrictions on additional rifles and calibres, even if as a consequence it means that the initial grant of a S1 certificate is more difficult to qualify for (e.g. shooting tests, DSC1, good reason, etc.).

 

[flytie]

I wonder how many people have written to their MP's on this matter?

I have, and provided a link to this thread. I have given my support to the proposals made by BASC and the NGO for an improvment in service before any increase in fees.

Simon

 

[timbrayford]

I can see the argument about the difference between S1 and S2 being largely bureaucratic, however, I'm not sure that I would support a move to remove the 'good reason' requirement (land, shooting club, etc). But, I can't see S2 holders supporting the addition of a 'good reason' requirement for shotguns though, just to have a single S1/S2 certification system. However, I don't see why a S1 certificate holder should also have to have an S2 certificate. Nevertheless, once you have a S1, there should be fewer restrictions on additional rifles and calibres, even if as a consequence it means that the initial grant of a S1 certificate is more difficult to qualify for (e.g. shooting tests, DSC1, good reason, etc.).

I think it will help if I relate some firsthand experience that I have had regarding the "good reason requirement". Last year ahead of renewing my FAC I bought a days deer stalking for a Roe buck in the BDS auction. I had already possessed the .243 rifle that I intended to use for around 12 years, a FAC holder and club member for around 25 years and a SGC holder for around 40 years. In accordance with the Firearms Act 1968 this was my good reason for the requisite expanding ammunition, as previously the permission on the rifle was for target shooting only.
I applied for my renewal in good time some 3 months ahead of the planned trip during the rut. Despite many communications from myself the Certificate failed to arrive before late September by which time it had become impracticable to zero the rifle and do the stalk. A condition imposed by Hampshire Police was that as I had only one stalk arranged I would no longer have the "good reason" and my certificate would be partially revoked once I had been on the trip. As circumstances transpired a substitute stalk for a Roe doe was very generously offered by the donor but this proved unsuccessful due to adverse weather conditions and a further invitation was most generously offered to return in the Spring to once more try for a Roe buck. It was only after much communication and by involving the Home Office that Hampshire Police relented and complied with the Home Office guidelines and they have now permitted me to continue deer stalking for the full 5 years of the certificate. So you will understand why I fail to see what useful purpose the "good reason" requirement serves and why I have such enthusiasm for a central licensing authority with specified minimum levels of customer service

 

[caorach]

My concern Tim, as per the earlier post, is that the very people who give you such grief over good reason will be keen that it is their intrepretation of "good reason" that appears in any document relating to a central administration of firearms rather than any more liberal reading of the law. We all know there is no one more vocal than the jobsworth or do-gooder especially when it comes to restricting the rights and actions of others.

I can't see the various interested parties allowing centralisation without them wishing to meddle in the HO Guidelines along the way.

 

[timbrayford]

My concern Tim, as per the earlier post, is that the very people who give you such grief over good reason will be keen that it is their intrepretation of "good reason" that appears in any document relating to a central administration of firearms rather than any more liberal reading of the law. We all know there is no one more vocal than the jobsworth or do-gooder especially when it comes to restricting the rights and actions of others.

I can't see the various interested parties allowing centralisation without them wishing to meddle in the HO Guidelines along the way.

Ok I understand your concerns but what other way forward would you suggest, ominously the ACPO representative on this issue is the Deputy Chief Constable of Hampshire

 

[geordieh]

Can we also keep tar macadam television telephone and hundreds of other key inventions that make the world a better place.

Ah Geordie I do feel for the English .Scotland's Regiments have been at the front of every major campaign since the were formed have a wee look at some of the accolades that have came back home with them,now lets not take anything from the English line Regiments that hold hundreds of accolades and traditions but the English government sacked and merged a lot of them and hung the rest of the colours up just as they have now done with the Scottish divisions regiments .


All this for a hand ball wow. lol

Don't you be kicking the cat over this, it's only light hearted banter I know nothing about football and actually hate the game and the crap that follows it with a passion.

Hi WS
You can definately keep television and telephones and as for tarmacadam we don't have a lot down here the roads are mostly holes. As for the army worst thing they ever did was disband family and regional regiments my dad was Durham Light Infantry by the time i joined up they were long gone so i joined the Royal Signals.Football is only a game; i enjoy it but don't take it too seriously i do wish i was young and fit enough to still be playing it though

Happy Christmas

Geordie

 

[caorach]

Well, in the first instance I think that the various shooting organisations need to engineer a position of some power, if you have no power or support it is not a position from which you can make demands. I imagine this will be a long road to travel and will require considerable strategic planning. At the present time the general population, which is mostly urban, gets its view of guns from an anti-gun media and so the public view is generally speaking in keeping with this.

As I've indicated earlier I think that licensing conditions and restrictions should be based upon a reasonable application of knowledge and a quantitative approach to risk. I often quote that it costs me £600 to insure my car and only about £10 to insure my shooting and the money rarely lies, if it did the insurance companies would long since have gone bust. The evidence clearly indicates that legal shooting and shooters are not a significant risk to the general public or themselves.

Such an approach would dispose of many of the mad conditions we see today, for example recently someone was allowed to keep a big game rifle but was not allowed to shoot it in the UK. Under my "reasonable and measurable" proposal the police would have to indicate that there was evidence that people with big game rifles intended for use in Africa posed an increased threat to the public if they were allowed to use and zero them here in the UK. This would have to be supported by figures showing incidents where there was a clear threat to the public good. If such a risk could not be demonstrated and supported by evidence then there would be no reasonable excuse for a restrictive condition limiting the gun owner.

In your specific situation the police would have to show that it was reasonable to ask you to apply to be allowed to use your rifle each time you booked some stalking, and that it was reasonable that such a request would take months to process leaving you having to book days months in advance. They would also have to demonstrate that there was a proven increase in the risk to the general public by allowing you to shoot deer with your rifle and, in view of your stated position, I can't see how they could possibly prove that adding deer to your ticket would increase your risk to the public in respect of a rifle you already own and use on a regular basis.

So, I believe making them quantify any risk that a condition was introduced to eliminate plus making them subject, as most of the law is, to having to be reasonable will abolish most of the mad conditions we see. The bottom line is that legal shooters pose virtually zero risk to the general public and so there is no reasonable justification to place restrictions on their actions based on some imagined risk which has no quantative basis. Each year about 141 people die putting on their trousers, I am not aware of the police conditioning trousers even though the risk to the public is much higher than that posed by legally owned firearms.

 

[timbrayford]

Well, in the first instance I think that the various shooting organisations need to engineer a position of some power, if you have no power or support it is not a position from which you can make demands. I imagine this will be a long road to travel and will require considerable strategic planning. At the present time the general population, which is mostly urban, gets its view of guns from an anti-gun media and so the public view is generally speaking in keeping with this.

As I've indicated earlier I think that licensing conditions and restrictions should be based upon a reasonable application of knowledge and a quantitative approach to risk. I often quote that it costs me £600 to insure my car and only about £10 to insure my shooting and the money rarely lies, if it did the insurance companies would long since have gone bust. The evidence clearly indicates that legal shooting and shooters are not a significant risk to the general public or themselves.

Such an approach would dispose of many of the mad conditions we see today, for example recently someone was allowed to keep a big game rifle but was not allowed to shoot it in the UK. Under my "reasonable and measurable" proposal the police would have to indicate that there was evidence that people with big game rifles intended for use in Africa posed an increased threat to the public if they were allowed to use and zero them here in the UK. This would have to be supported by figures showing incidents where there was a clear threat to the public good. If such a risk could not be demonstrated and supported by evidence then there would be no reasonable excuse for a restrictive condition limiting the gun owner.

In your specific situation the police would have to show that it was reasonable to ask you to apply to be allowed to use your rifle each time you booked some stalking, and that it was reasonable that such a request would take months to process leaving you having to book days months in advance. They would also have to demonstrate that there was a proven increase in the risk to the general public by allowing you to shoot deer with your rifle and, in view of your stated position, I can't see how they could possibly prove that adding deer to your ticket would increase your risk to the public in respect of a rifle you already own and use on a regular basis.

So, I believe making them quantify any risk that a condition was introduced to eliminate plus making them subject, as most of the law is, to having to be reasonable will abolish most of the mad conditions we see. The bottom line is that legal shooters pose virtually zero risk to the general public and so there is no reasonable justification to place restrictions on their actions based on some imagined risk which has no quantative basis. Each year about 141 people die putting on their trousers, I am not aware of the police conditioning trousers even though the risk to the public is much higher than that posed by legally owned firearms.

Your points are well made and I agree wth what you say, I think the challenge is to get the message over to the politicians and the general public

 

[finnbear270]

Probably the "Wrong Trousers".............. Grommit.

 

[DL]

Just written the following to my MP

"Dear Mr Herbert,

I have recently read in the shooting media that the Association of Chief Officers of Police are proposing an increase to the cost of Shotgun and Firearms certificate applications and renewals. This is understandable as the cost of everything is increasing and I can understand the police time involved with such tasks....

I don't believe an increase in costs is understandable, I have an FAC because the laws of this country demand that I do in order to own a rifle.
I'd rather buy rifles and ammo from the supermarket than an RFD, as it would save me a lot of time and effort.

I don't even believe we should be describing FAC's as being good value as they stand, because when I look at how much the government take of my salary in tax, they can damn well get on with firearms licencing with what they get from me, without extorting an extra few hundred pounds every five years for something I'm obliged to have.

 

[adjman]

I don't believe an increase in costs is understandable, I have an FAC because the laws of this country demand that I do in order to own a rifle.
I'd rather buy rifles and ammo from the supermarket than an RFD, as it would save me a lot of time and effort.

I don't even believe we should be describing FAC's as being good value as they stand, because when I look at how much the government take of my salary in tax, they can damn well get on with firearms licencing with what they get from me, without extorting an extra few hundred pounds every five years for something I'm obliged to have.

This is another case of slowly slowly catchy monkey. It is always advisable to be "reasonable" about your requests/demands on politicians and especially the Police Service. If you make blanket demands and take strong viewpoints you are less likely to be listened to. If you are willing to demonstrate understanding and give a little on your side then the opposition are likely to be more reasonable and listen to what you have to say.

I agree with the sentiment that we pay enough in tax already and that this should more than cover the imposed license costs, however I am also realistic and don't expect the charges to disappear overnight, they have stood for a long time now and change will have to be gradual. However when things like this are discussed at parliamentary level I think the best we can do is offer our careful and reasoned opinion and hope that it is listened to with as much respect as we have shown in our request.

 

[DL]

This is another case of slowly slowly catchy monkey. It is always advisable to be "reasonable" about your requests/demands on politicians and especially the Police Service. If you make blanket demands and take strong viewpoints you are less likely to be listened to. If you are willing to demonstrate understanding and give a little on your side then the opposition are likely to be more reasonable and listen to what you have to say.

I agree with the sentiment that we pay enough in tax already and that this should more than cover the imposed license costs, however I am also realistic and don't expect the charges to disappear overnight, they have stood for a long time now and change will have to be gradual. However when things like this are discussed at parliamentary level I think the best we can do is offer our careful and reasoned opinion and hope that it is listened to with as much respect as we have shown in our request.

I hope you reeled your MP in by opening your letter gentley.

I think FAC's should be free. The rules aren't ours, I can't see why we've ended up in a position where we contribute to the costs. The whole amount should come out of the police budget. I can't imagine for a minute that anyone on this site wants to be bound by the hoo ha of a FAC, so I fail to see why we should pay towards something we are legally compelled to do.

They've got us over a barrel, and we are a very captive market.

 

[caorach]

They've got us over a barrel, and we are a very captive market.

There are actually quite a considerable number of shooters in the UK. For the most part the reason we are over a barrel is because we are divided and you need only watch the sniping that takes place on this forum when BASC are mentioned or make a posting to see that. Of course we all disagree with some elements of what BASC, for example, are doing but if we are to protect and retain shooting as a sport we can all enjoy then, at some point, we are going to have to stand together and take the fight to the enemy without bickering and sniping and fighting like children among ourselves.

If we fail to stand together then shooting in this country will be carried out by government appointed "expert marksmen" or by foreign tourists with fat wallets. The rest of us will be divided and picked off one small group at a time until the only hobby we will have left will be fighting among ourselves.

 

[finnbear270]

There is a difference between bickering etc, & asking our shooting orgs to get off their arses & take hold of the nettle/s.

 

[Monument veiw]

Dickie , ive heard the same rumour of Avon n Somerset but as i understand it the intention is to do away with the sub contract and civilians working in and around the dept and use accredited police officers . By all accounts this is happening from March onwards .

 

[Taff]

When I first got my fac, a local Bobbie called around to see me look at the gun safe and speak to me, all the problems with restrictions seem to have started with the introduction of FLOs, some of who are shooters themselves with there own agenda advising there forces about dsc etc.

 

[dogtired]

Sorry wrong! Figures don't reflect this. Name ONE INCIDENT in which a lawfully held full-bore rifle held on an FAC has been used in any crime involving murder or wounding? None! Not even I would suggest one stolen from a lawful owner!
.

I think you are getting the term "lethal" mixed up with "dangerous".
A full bore rifle is many times more lethal than a shotgun. The original example given is a good one. Anyone who has ever been in a grouse beating line will tell you whether they would prefer the guns used shotguns or rifles!

Are you serious about no legally held rifles being used in murders? We could start with Whitehaven, and work our way down to, oh lets say Hungerford? Somewhere between you could add in the nutter who shot his wife and kids, horses and dogs, before shooting himself and torching his gaff? All S1 firearms and all legally held. You may have forgotten that handguns were S1 too, before they were taken off us.

There is as much chance of rifles being put on S2 as there is of getting handguns back, having semi-auto full bore back, and being allowed a concealed carry policy. There is much more of a chance of shotguns going on S1, which is what ACPO have wanted for years. The only thing they have to do is work a way around the "good reason" of S1 and a "reason for use" of S2. Once they have that ironed out, it will be bye bye S2 and start thinking of a good reason to hold several of the same action/calibre shotguns

 

[timbrayford]

There are actually quite a considerable number of shooters in the UK. For the most part the reason we are over a barrel is because we are divided and you need only watch the sniping that takes place on this forum when BASC are mentioned or make a posting to see that. Of course we all disagree with some elements of what BASC, for example, are doing but if we are to protect and retain shooting as a sport we can all enjoy then, at some point, we are going to have to stand together and take the fight to the enemy without bickering and sniping and fighting like children among ourselves.

If we fail to stand together then shooting in this country will be carried out by government appointed "expert marksmen" or by foreign tourists with fat wallets. The rest of us will be divided and picked off one small group at a time until the only hobby we will have left will be fighting among ourselves.

+1

 

[Gingwa]

Licensing Fees

I have just received a telephone call from my local MP's office. David Mowat - Con, is writing to the ACPO with regards to this matter and also highlighting administration issues with Cheshire licensing office.

 

[Monument veiw]

Just pay up and look big , most shooting organisations are not about to challange any decision made by the H O .
unfortunately most shooting organisations are going down the same route as gas safe or the citb trying to encourage people to undertake accreditation which has no duristiction in law or legislation , but if they keep shouting that they give good guidance etc eventually the authorities will have to listen and in some countys they already have .