GTA challenges Met’s unlawful licence form

[tim@tcs]

Demonstrates what we all know each force do what they like.
Are you a Servant or the holder of the RFD certificate.

Holder, it’s down as a trading name so I’m not on it at all!

 

[Bowland blades]

Agreed, just seems odd that a servant of a section 5 RFD can be in possession of all sorts of interesting firearms on and off the premises (if transferring etc) without any official vetting whatsoever

Thing is have the Parcelforce drivers and staff at all their depots got such checking ? Have the Met police ? From my own experiences with Parcelforce i seriously doubt that one !

 

[mathieson]

its been a few years but when I was a named servant at the dealer I worked for my name was not on the rfds cert but was registered with the firarms dept when in procession of firearms of premises I would carry a copy of the rfd cert and a letter of authority this was all that was required legally at that time

 

[tim@tcs]

Thing is have the Parcelforce drivers and staff at all their depots got such checking ? Have the Met police ? From my own experiences with Parcelforce i seriously doubt that one !

Canada post has already told the Canadian government it can’t be involved in the surrender of newly banned firearms by post. That’s management not the union. Ours well let’s just say it’s a miracle anything gets through London!

 

[ContinShots]

To be fair, having worked at a section 5 RFD, where there was easy access to firearms (and with employees who have clear mental issues) I’d welcome medical checks for firearms businesses.

The costs associated with that would put most small RFDs out of business.

 

[tim@tcs]

The costs associated with that would put most small RFDs out of business.

I got the impression from Sussex that they want as many gone as possible asap!
What they will do for employment when they have killed off the trade and customers I’m not sure!