Certificate fees: a fair price for a fair service. BASC statement.

[Taff]

Apache which state in the USA can you walk into and just walk out with a firearm ?, most require a cooling off period, even at a gun show in Missouri they carried out a police check, which only took 15mins,now that service.
new York and Massachusetts have stricter gun laws than here, which goes to prove regulation does not work

 

[finnbear270]

Yes - but that was Stan's and Gobowen is just down the road!

You may be familiar with a certain hostelry, The Butcher's? we use it when foxing the tops between Llansillin ranges & Kronospan, good beers like Weetwoods after a fish supper from the lower village, great for warming up before going back up.

 

[Virbius]

Apache which state in the USA can you walk into and just walk out with a firearm ?, most require a cooling off period, even at a gun show in Missouri they carried out a police check, which only took 15mins,now that service.
new York and Massachusetts have stricter gun laws than here, which goes to prove regulation does not work

Every gun shop in the USA requires that the purchaser complete a form with name, address, social security number etc and a background check is carried out each and every time a firearm is purchased, even if you have a mini-arsenal at home already. This is by a telephone call from the RFD, which normally takes 15 minutes or so to clear but can take longer. I have an American friend in Louisiana who has an explosives licence (for using explosive charges in the oilfield indusrty) and his background checks normally take 3-4 days. Doesn't that make our system for shotguns pretty liberal in comparison with the ability to buy freely in a 5 year period? The recent attempt by Obama was to close the loophole in private and gun show transactions that do not require the background check.

 

[timbrayford]

Honestly that would be wasted breath. Certificates in one guise or another are here to stay. It's not a particularly onerous procedure. Take a look at the stats in America with legally held guns!

I don't want any moron to walk into ASDA and grab a new pistol with their weekly shopping. There needs to be a procedure to stop unsuitable people having access to guns. Whilst I appreciate that doesn't stop them getting one on the black market, it makes it a damn sight harder than walking into their local RFD!

I am in complete favour of simplification of the system, but to suggest it is abandoned is ludicrous.

If you care to actually read what I posted I was suggesting that the taxpayers as a whole should bear the burden of the cost of certificates and that they were unnecessarily bureaucratic. I wasn't suggesting abolition of all gun controls, I thought that was clear from what I had said but apparently not. atb Tim

 

[charlieboy-shooter]

Hi, whilst I agree with earlier posts that £94 ( or similar amount) will not break the bank and is not going to be a factor that stops people owning a firearm or shot gun. But just a thought. For most of us, I imagine shooting is a leisure activity, but one that also often provides a free service. As shooters do we not protect crops, livestock, flower & fauna. In doing so, do we therefore, help offset or reduce financial loss incurred by the people who give us permission to shoot on there land. Certain aspects of what we do also helps employ people, i.e game dealer who has pheasants to collect from the Gamekeeper as the fox did not ruin the shoot as the leisure shooter helped in the vermin control. The people who earn there living from shooting, either directly or indirectly, pay taxes and contribute already like us.
Now I am not saying that the farmer / landowner should pay us or anything towards FA/SG certificate.

I suppose my point is that. No the current fee does not appear to cover the cost, but do we not cover that shortfall other-ways??? Does our service not benefits this country more than the average man would realize ?? and whats even better we do it for pleasure.

 

[Jagdmatch]

I do not mind £94. What I do mind is poor administration, petty interpretation of law and rules and you will like this, Kent Police FLD who have so far been very good are now, it is rumoured at a standstill because the wonderful Anne Barnes,(you know the one who employed the teenage advisor with baggage) fancied the offices they use so insisted the whole office was moved!

 

[Patterdale Terrier]

I would just like to say thankyou to BASC for keeping the membership up to date. A point missed by most here but let us not forget BASC will continue to work in the best interests of us all in these matters and they have a voice in the greater debate. Our comments are not going unnoticed and a finalisation is not far off. Comments about a general working practice for all Licensing Departments are most interesting and I wholeheartedly agree, having seen many comments on this Forum over many months, I would hope our Fireams Licensing Department in this county is not forced to drop its standards to meet sub standards experienced in other areas. On the other hand, whilst many Licensing Departments have slimmed down in staff to such an extent they fail to meet the Home Office Guidance or the basis for it through The Cullen Report, what will it cost and what will the cost be to its clients if they have to raise its standards to meet the standards of the better performers in the country? Having said that I have to agree with others on this Forum, that I am quite happy with what we have here. I therfore fear standardisation of licensing practices throughout the country unless of course the standard is based on the working practices of the better Licensing Departments. How will that be achieved? It may be costly of course. But bear this mind if everybody was happy would there be any need for these Forums?

 

[sharkbait]

It seems to me the police offer and oblige to do this service on behalf of the taxpayer for the safety of general public of wich I am both and I am also the third the licensee holder so it would seem we are all paying more for our license's anyway!

 

[Moray Outfitting]

Does it/ should it be the Police in the administration role? Police enforce motor vehicle statute, but ownership/ possession / fitness to use administration is administered - pretty efficiently these days and with a level of counter checks - by the DVLA ( or what the current guise is ).

Just a thought...

 

[finnbear270]

D.V.L.A. always use the correct details when contacting me , in good time when something is due, for something I own, plus I don't need a variation to carry a pillion on the bikes, or fit a roofrack, or a towbar on the motors!!!

 

[8x57]

D.V.L.A. always use the correct details when contacting me , in good time when something is due, for something I own, plus I don't need a variation to carry a pillion on the bikes, or fit a roofrack, or a towbar on the motors!!!

I've seen a roofrack on a sidecar but have yet to see one on a motorbike Steve, I suppose there's always a first.

 

[PeteL1]

Once again, for those who have not grasped the point in my previous post, the FAC/SGC system is there, enshrined in Statute, to protect the PUBLIC and is therefore, paid for out of the PUBLIC purse, like may other "services"(including the police)
Consequently, we shooters should not be paying for an FAC, simply because it is already paid for and, moreover, we have contributed to this payment via our taxes. We sure as hell should not be even considering any increases.
To take that a stage further, is it logical to assume that the fees we pay for our certificates to the police could be construed as "profit" to them because, as above, the costs of administering the system are already covered. One has to ask, are the police a profit making organisation or are they a public service?.
I would take any pronouncement by ACPO (which is only a chief officers union, after all) with a large bucketful of the well known saline compound.
Peter

 

[Moray Outfitting]

PeterL - I dont entirely disagree with your proposition, but in the current politico/economic climate it is going to find no resonance with any decision maker.

 

[timbrayford]

Once again, for those who have not grasped the point in my previous post, the FAC/SGC system is there, enshrined in Statute, to protect the PUBLIC and is therefore, paid for out of the PUBLIC purse, like may other "services"(including the police)
Consequently, we shooters should not be paying for an FAC, simply because it is already paid for and, moreover, we have contributed to this payment via our taxes. We sure as hell should not be even considering any increases.
To take that a stage further, is it logical to assume that the fees we pay for our certificates to the police could be construed as "profit" to them because, as above, the costs of administering the system are already covered. One has to ask, are the police a profit making organisation or are they a public service?.
I would take any pronouncement by ACPO (which is only a chief officers union, after all) with a large bucketful of the well known saline compound.
Peter

I couldn't agree more. I would hope that BASC and a good many other SD members would stand back and look at the bigger picture on this. atb Tim

 

[david1976]

There are far to many people on this forum who seem to think it is their god given right to expect everything for nothing with no questions asked and to be honest with some of the opinions I have read in posts recently, I am actually surprised that some members of this forum are trusted with firearms such is their bitterness and rabid opinion on a variety of subjects. £94 over five years works out about five pence a day, if you consider that's too painful an amount to pay to enjoy your hobby, get a new one.

 

[finnbear270]

Once again, for those who have not grasped the point in my previous post, the FAC/SGC system is there, enshrined in Statute, to protect the PUBLIC and is therefore, paid for out of the PUBLIC purse, like may other "services"(including the police)

Consequently, we shooters should not be paying for an FAC, simply because it is already paid for and, moreover, we have contributed to this payment via our taxes.

We sure as hell should not be even considering any increases.
To take that a stage further, is it logical to assume that the fees we pay for our certificates to the police could be construed as "profit" to them because, as above, the costs of administering the system are already covered. One has to ask, are the police a profit making organisation or are they a public service?.
I would take any pronouncement by ACPO (which is only a chief officers union, after all) with a large bucketful of the well known saline compound.
Peter

Some similarities here to road tax & fuel duty, none of which seems to go where it's supposed to, probably ends up with some of it going into an indian rocket launch.

 

[finnbear270]

There are far to many people on this forum who seem to think it is their god given right to expect everything for nothing with no questions asked and to be honest with some of the opinions I have read in posts recently, I am actually surprised that some members of this forum are trusted with firearms such is their bitterness and rabid opinion on a variety of subjects. £94 over five years works out about five pence a day, if you consider that's too painful an amount to pay to enjoy your hobby, get a new one.

I certainly do not expect summat for now't!, but I do expect any hard earned taxes / fees to go on the proper delivery of proper services.

 

[timbrayford]

I certainly do not expect summat for now't!, but I do expect any hard earned taxes / fees to go on the proper delivery of proper services.

Well said. atb Tim

 

[re'M'ington]

The fee is simply a tax on those who want to legally own a firearm.

100% agree!

 

[DaveK]

I keep reading that BASC should be doing this and BASC should be doing that but really isn't this a situation where ALL shooting organisations should be putting up a unified front? It'll not happen but by doing that they'd have to be listened to.