If firearms licensing was to be reformed what should it look like?

[Foxyboy43]

We have had a banded system for about 10 years in NI - it works well and means that you can go to an RFD and do a one/on one off for the same chambering there and then and walk out with your new sporting rifle but strangely not for rifles approved for range work…

 

[25 Sharps]

I’ve no idea where it came from originally it’s absurd isn’t it. Of course I can totally see why you might separate out rim fire and centre fire but once you get into cf what on earth difference does it really make between them all in terms of how dangerous they are. As you say and people have said above a set of calibre groupings such as deer 243/6.5/270/275/308 etc etc, fox 222/223/22-250 and then you have good reason for a certain amount of that type of rifle and go and buy whatever you like and sell it if you like and buy a different one.

I’m terms of calibre groupings that’s exactly how the guidance is currently set up

 

[kenbro]

the number of firearms you can store safely not the type is a good start
digital online license without the requirement to notify or get a variation , it's all completed at the time of sale online
if you are cleared responsible enough to own firearms then the type should not matter , a certain type of firearm does not change the person
i think 5 years is a good period but the renewal process needs to be much easier , if nothings changed then a few background checks to ensure nothing illegal/antisocial/red flaggy has been added to your file and theres no mental health issues listed then an interview should be sufficient max time for the checks surely shouldn't exceed a month ?
no moderators should not be licensed
it should be a national set of guidelines that are followed with an ombudsman that can easily be contacted if the local team start freestyling ?

How long before Mr. AI could visit a shop and come out having bought a firearm?
Kb.

 

[weblyish]

We have had a banded system for about 10 years in NI - it works well and means that you can go to an RFD and do a one/on one off for the same chambering there and then and walk out with your new sporting rifle but strangely not for rifles approved for range work…

That is a massive improvement

The target/sporting bit sounds exactly how I'd expect the government to screw up
They got so close to a sensible system but then had to make one dumb rule which probably doesn't solve the issue they wanted to solve

 

[Foxyboy43]

That is a massive improvement

The target/sporting bit sounds exactly how I'd expect the government to screw up
They got so close to a sensible system but then had to make one dumb rule which probably doesn't solve the issue they wanted to solve

There you go..
If your rifle is in that band you can do a one on one off for anything in your caliber band for a £15 fee without any BS
1. Small quarry Air rifles
.177
.20
.22
.25


2. Small quarry
.17 Mach 2
.17 HMR (Hornady Magnum Rimfire)
.22 LR (Long Rifle)
.22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire)


3. Medium quarry Centre Fire
.17 Hornet
.17 Remington
.17 Remington Fireball
.22 Hornet / 5.6 x 36Rmm
.222
.204 Ruger
.223 Remington/5.56 x 45mm
.220 Swift
.22-250


4. Large quarry Centre Fire
.243 Winchester
25-06
6.5mm x 55/.256
7mm x 08 Remington
.270
7.62 x 51mm/.308 Winchester
30/06

 

[RS99]

There you go..
If your rifle is in that band you can do a one on one off for anything in your caliber band for a £15 fee without any BS
1. Small quarry Air rifles
.177
.20
.22
.25


2. Small quarry
.17 Mach 2
.17 HMR (Hornady Magnum Rimfire)
.22 LR (Long Rifle)
.22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire)


3. Medium quarry Centre Fire
.17 Hornet
.17 Remington
.17 Remington Fireball
.22 Hornet / 5.6 x 36Rmm
.222
.204 Ruger
.223 Remington/5.56 x 45mm
.220 Swift
.22-250


4. Large quarry Centre Fire
.243 Winchester
25-06
6.5mm x 55/.256
7mm x 08 Remington
.270
7.62 x 51mm/.308 Winchester
30/06

They potentially could have had a great system here. But, as per usual, made a balls of it! You cannot change a 270 for a 6.5CM. In fact you cannot change a 6.5CM for another 6.5CM because it isn't one of those 7 listed.
Don't dare ask for a 7mm PRC as it's too powerful for any quarry in NI. The 7mm bullet from that obviously being more dangerous than the 7mm bullet from the 7mm-08

 

[weblyish]

They potentially could have had a great system here. But, as per usual, made a balls of it! You cannot change a 270 for a 6.5CM. In fact you cannot change a 6.5CM for another 6.5CM because it isn't one of those 7 listed.
Don't dare ask for a 7mm PRC as it's too powerful for any quarry in NI. The 7mm bullet from that obviously being more dangerous than the 7mm bullet from the 7mm-08

Boom!

There it is government at its finest

Write a set of calibres groups but only allow specifically mentioned ones rather than any all similar and then never update it

 

[Twodogs]

There you go..
If your rifle is in that band you can do a one on one off for anything in your caliber band for a £15 fee without any BS
1. Small quarry Air rifles
.177
.20
.22
.25


2. Small quarry
.17 Mach 2
.17 HMR (Hornady Magnum Rimfire)
.22 LR (Long Rifle)
.22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire)


3. Medium quarry Centre Fire
.17 Hornet
.17 Remington
.17 Remington Fireball
.22 Hornet / 5.6 x 36Rmm
.222
.204 Ruger
.223 Remington/5.56 x 45mm
.220 Swift
.22-250


4. Large quarry Centre Fire
.243 Winchester
25-06
6.5mm x 55/.256
7mm x 08 Remington
.270
7.62 x 51mm/.308 Winchester
30/06

Being the pedant that I am.
These are chamberings not calibres. The problem with using specific chamberings is that you will inevitably miss some and not allow flexibility for new chamberings when they come on the market without recourse to changing legislation. Calibre groups would be much simpler.

 

[RS99]

Being the pedant that I am.
These are chamberings not calibres. The problem with using specific chamberings is that you will inevitably miss some and not allow flexibility for new chamberings when they come on the market without recourse to changing legislation. Calibre groups would be much simpler.

Like I said...they nearly had a good system, and then made a balls of it.

 

[25 Sharps]

There you go..
If your rifle is in that band you can do a one on one off for anything in your caliber band for a £15 fee without any BS
1. Small quarry Air rifles
.177
.20
.22
.25


2. Small quarry
.17 Mach 2
.17 HMR (Hornady Magnum Rimfire)
.22 LR (Long Rifle)
.22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire)


3. Medium quarry Centre Fire
.17 Hornet
.17 Remington
.17 Remington Fireball
.22 Hornet / 5.6 x 36Rmm
.222
.204 Ruger
.223 Remington/5.56 x 45mm
.220 Swift
.22-250


4. Large quarry Centre Fire
.243 Winchester
25-06
6.5mm x 55/.256
7mm x 08 Remington
.270
7.62 x 51mm/.308 Winchester
30/06

Where does my 25-45 sit? Or my 300 PRC?

Both currently conditioned for deer…

 

[RS99]

Where does my 25-45 sit? Or my 300 PRC?

Both currently conditioned for deer…

They don't I'd guess. The PSNI told me this week that my 7PRC application was being refused as it was considered too powerful for any quarry in Northern Ireland

 

[Foxyboy43]

Where does my 25-45 sit? Or my 300 PRC?

Both currently conditioned for deer…

A fine example of licensing improvement shortfall - if it ain’t listed you can’t do it….

 

[25 Sharps]

A fine example of licensing improvement shortfall - if it ain’t listed you can’t do it….

They don't I'd guess. The PSNI told me this week that my 7PRC application was being refused as it was considered too powerful for any quarry in Northern Ireland

Which is why I would suggest we don’t rock the boat.

As cumbersome as the system can be, any change is bound to bring further restrictions, no ifs, no buts.

 

[kuksmith]

Banding of calibres reportedly works in Norther Ireland (where they can still have handguns!) and would make for a much more efficient system here.
10 year FAC/SGC were PROMISED once medical reporting was established - the latter is now in place but they have again broken their word over 10 year certificates - length is not an issue, medical markers flag-up health problems, Police use "intelligence" when revieweing certificate holders. Have interviews at intervals if felt necessary but the whole panolpy of the renewal process is not necessary. Take the process out of the hands of the Police - they have a "view" on private ownership of firearms- understandably - but it colours their organisational attitude. The current application system is cumbersome and should be easier to complete, such as allowing a section to be saved when only partially completed (it works with your Self-Assessment Tax return), having your existing firearms already listed. A more equitable and independent appeals process and not requiring court in the first instance. Frustrated rant over.

 

[Crunchy Peanut Butter]

The whole piece is a risk management exercise. Considering the low level of licenced firearms related crime in the UK, I would argue that it works well and the Home Secretary manages the risk to acceptable levels. From a personal perspective, I have never felt limited by conditions placed upon me and it has all come at limited finical penalty. As such I am not sure reforms are needed other than ensuring it remains affordable for both police forces and gun owners, for what is a comprehensive service I think it is inevitable that costs will have to rise.

 

[BryanDC]

I think a centralised National Body should exist, administering Scotland, England, and Wales under a unified system based on the existing Home Office guidelines, but with a few changes. Ten year licenses, for one. No requirements for moderators to be on-ticket. No ammunition holding limits. DSC1 to be a mandatory requirement (I know, I know) All tickets to be issued AOLQ, with no idiotic restrictive conditions applied. FAC to be issued with maximum calibre listed, and maximum number of firearms to be set based on initial agreed requirements. Under those terms, no restrictions on acquiring, selling, or replacing firearms. So for example you could be authorised to hold five firearms, with a maximum calibre of .308, 9 x 25, .338 or whatever, and freely acquire calibres below the maximum, and change as you like subject to notifying the administrative body, rather than seeking permission.

And all information held on a central database, available to the police and other appropriate authorities online as-required.

Big ask, I know.

That is about where we are here in DK. I feel quite lucky.

 

[User00056]

That is about where we are here in DK. I feel quite lucky.

I think that's about as good a system as I can think of

 

[weblyish]

Simply not sure why it is in the hands of the police

The police are responsible for crimes, not assessing suitability for something- we have a wealth of other organisations handling that for specific situations(social workers. Parole board, DVSA, passport office, Atlantic data/DBS agencies etc) why has this one ended up with the police who get limited resources and have a clear incentive to reduce a possible risk

 

[Crunchy Peanut Butter]

Simply not sure why it is in the hands of the police

The police are responsible for crimes, not assessing suitability for something- we have a wealth of other organisations handling that for specific situations(social workers. Parole board, DVSA, passport office, Atlantic data/DBS agencies etc) why has this one ended up with the police who get limited resources and have a clear incentive to reduce a possible risk

Without creating a new body specifically for the purpose, I cannot imagine that any other organisation would be better than the police and if you gave it to UKSV, I expect it would become much more stringent. To transfer the role to another organisation or create a bespoke, regulated organisation would be very expensive and that cost would land in one place.

 

[georgedoubleyou]

This is a bit pie in the sky thinking as this will probably never happen but it may be a useful exercise.
How could firearms licensing be reformed to streamline the process yet maintain or hopefully improve public safety?
There are clearly regular issues that crop up that clog the system, 1 for 1 variations and changing rifles and moderators immediately spring to mind. There are also substantial differences in decisions between constabularies that are often ridiculous.
How could the system be improved?
Centralisation of licensing?
Applying bands of calibres (eg can purchase/ hold up to three deer rifles between .243 and .300 that can be purchased and traded? Similar bands for fox, small vermin, game abroad, target rimfire, target centrefire etc.,.
Standardisation of ammunition allowance for each calibre unless a need for more can be proven?
Moderators off ticket?
Thoughts on a postcard please!!

Get rid of the whole open/closed land clearence thing. It doesn't seem to have caused any problems in scotland.

If you've been deemed suitable to own a rifle, surely a part of that assessment is if you have the sense/experience/training to determine whether something is a safe shot for that calibre? Similarly, if a piece of land is cleared up to say a 223, why is a 243 any more dangerous if we are trusted to make a judgement with regards to backstop etc.

I see someone else has mentioned on this thread about how a lot of these replies will be from the FAC holders perspective, and whilst this would be beneficial to FAC holders, theres no denying that removing closed tickets and land clearence would would ease what I imagine is quite the administrative burden.