Certificate fees: a fair price for a fair service. BASC statement.
- Thread starter Simon Clarke
- Start date
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
ACPO has apparently initiated discussions with the HO & BASC about the provisions of the Firearms Act and have selected the very narrow topic of a possible increase in FAC/SGC fees based on their own apparent increased costs in processing these.
The wider issues are:-
1. Why should the law abiding shooting community be expected to bear the cost of what is in essence a crime prevention measure from which society at large benefits?
2. What provisions of the Firearms Act actually contribute significantly to crime prevention and which are primarily bureaucratic but are of little practical value within this context, but are costly to the police to administer.
e.g. Andy Marsh of ACPO & Hampshire Police has called in to question mentoring conditions and is advising the use of AOLQ, the placing of expanding ammunition in S5 is already under review as being of no practical use.
Surely this is an opportunity to discuss with both ACPO and HO which provisions of the Firearms Act insofar as they relate to lawful shooting activities are really of any use.
Within the context of crime prevention S2 controls appear to work remarkably well without the need for territorial conditions & inspections, "good reason" for each gun held, one for one variations, limits on ammunition held etc.
I would have thought that this would be a good opportunity for BASC to proactively raise these issues, even if they have been discussed and dismissed in the past. One thing is certain, if you do not enter negotiations without asking for what you want you will come away with what you don't want.
Nobody expects miracles but merely haggling a few measly quid off any proposed increase simply will not do.
atb Tim
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
As Andy Marsh has advocated getting rid of unnecessary restrictions he may also be inclined to listen to what our representatives have to say.........if only we can persuade them to ask in the first place
atb Tm
Some fantastic stuff, and proper scrutiny of the case being made here from the NI government
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Docume...msLicensingFeesandMiscellaneousAmendments.pdf
some great examples:
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Docume...msLicensingFeesandMiscellaneousAmendments.pdf
some great examples:
A bit of confusion perhaps. We are not looking at changing the wording of the Firearms Act with this current exercise with ACPO. Many of the points you raise have been lobbied for by BASC to the Home Affairs Select committee when they were looking into firearms law not that long ago for example. See here :Government Response to Firearms Control Inquiry
It was from that enquiry that several proposals that would haven restrictive, such as putting shotguns onto S1 were defeated, but as you will see that’s where the issue of fees was also raised.
However, this bigger issue is this; it does not matter what the wording of the Act reads, or what its real objective is, IF the licencing teams choose to create their own red tape, apply daft conditions where they are not needed, and tie themselves up on knots so it takes months and months to grant, renew or vary a certificate,
There is no benefit at all getting changes made if we are still left with a slow, inefficient service that can choose to apply different restrictive conditions whenever they choose.
Yes we agree, aspects of the Act need to be revisited, and we will keep pushing that of course ,after all the Act has been amended so many times it’s a bit of a hotch potch some may argue, so a full review may not hurt, provided of course we are not left in a worse state, but all that comes to nought if those who apply it don’t do so efficiently and effectively, we need to get that fixed first.
David
It was from that enquiry that several proposals that would haven restrictive, such as putting shotguns onto S1 were defeated, but as you will see that’s where the issue of fees was also raised.
However, this bigger issue is this; it does not matter what the wording of the Act reads, or what its real objective is, IF the licencing teams choose to create their own red tape, apply daft conditions where they are not needed, and tie themselves up on knots so it takes months and months to grant, renew or vary a certificate,
There is no benefit at all getting changes made if we are still left with a slow, inefficient service that can choose to apply different restrictive conditions whenever they choose.
Yes we agree, aspects of the Act need to be revisited, and we will keep pushing that of course ,after all the Act has been amended so many times it’s a bit of a hotch potch some may argue, so a full review may not hurt, provided of course we are not left in a worse state, but all that comes to nought if those who apply it don’t do so efficiently and effectively, we need to get that fixed first.
David
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
David, what you say is all very well but you are currently in a negotiating situation.
ACPO want to change the fees in the Firearms Act so now that the matter has been raised by them it is entirely appropriate for BASC to expect those negotiations to include all the factors that give rise to these fees.
Restricting the discussions to numbers but not words and talking only in terms of inflation and police efficiency is merely scratching at the surface of the issue.
Once you have agreed the price rise on our behalf I do not see what incentive either ACPO or HO have to hold any meaningful discussions with BASC about all the unnecessary bureaucractic controls that surround S1 firearms. atb Tim
On the contrary, after considerable lobbying ACPO have already sent very clear messages to the firearms licencing teams and the officers in charge that the self-inflicted unnecessary bureaucratic controls that surround S1 firearms, specifically daft conditions, has to stop. This will be further discussed in September at the conference aranged by the NGO and fully supported by BASC where ACPO and just about every firearms licencing team will be present.
The issue of the cost of licencing is a separate issue, this rests with the Secretary of State and not ACPO, and yes we are in parliament and we are putting our points overs on fees.
Parliament are not minded at this time to re-visit the details of the Firearms Act or to instigate an overhaul of the Act.
David
The issue of the cost of licencing is a separate issue, this rests with the Secretary of State and not ACPO, and yes we are in parliament and we are putting our points overs on fees.
Parliament are not minded at this time to re-visit the details of the Firearms Act or to instigate an overhaul of the Act.
David
CWMMAN3738
Well-Known Member
+1 Tim it's about time for BASC to MAN UP and start pushing the needs of its members instead of accepting the scraps from the ACPO's table!
While at the table with ACPO why not raise the issue of knives and suggest a presumption that anyone with a deer calibre rifle be deemed to have lawful authority to carry a knife/knives which lock, blade length etc. Forget drowning squirrels...
As I say, already turned a massive corner on unnecessary bureaucratic controls that surround S1 firearms, but we need to keep the pressure up on those licencing teams that are not delivering.
Need to keep the pressure up on ACPO and the Secretary of State on fees.
David
Need to keep the pressure up on ACPO and the Secretary of State on fees.
David
CWMMAN3738
Well-Known Member
The problem is David that there has been no significant improvement for many years with poor levels doing the rounds from one constabulary to another but it is only a brief improvement as staff & attitudes keep changing, Also there needs to be clearer definition on things at a higher level that can be enforced if needed, removing the widespread abuse of interpretation as is happening extensively by the police not just on firearms but knife legislation also & it's about time BASC got something done. It's about time BASC actually achieved more than empty promises from the ACPO, HO, & politicians, it hasn't changed for the better in many,many years just look at the link from Lord Swansea's speech back in the 80's and you wouldn't change much but the dates to make it applicable now, so I say to you (while I support BASC fully) what real progress has been made, it's about time you archived something tangible or risk loosing your credibility that you have in this area it's no good saying you negotiated terms if it means nothing(a bit like Chamberlin in 1939) or is it that BASC believes it has lost the war and is fighting a rearguard action yet again, tell me please what real improvements hav BASC acheived in firearms licencing. (and i dont mean stopping actions i mean positive gains)
Rant over!
David I'm not having a go I'm just pointing out that it's vote worse not better for legitimate gun owners.
Rant over!
David I'm not having a go I'm just pointing out that it's vote worse not better for legitimate gun owners.
I don’t mind a rant!
I agree there are still several constabularies that frankly are not up to the mark, but that is getting fewer, and that’s what we have been delivering on.
The support from ACPO to get this sorted and have unnecessary conditions removed and ALOQ pushed ‘should be welcomed. However, we must not and will not sit back and simply crow about it – we must push on!
I agree there are still several constabularies that frankly are not up to the mark, but that is getting fewer, and that’s what we have been delivering on.
The support from ACPO to get this sorted and have unnecessary conditions removed and ALOQ pushed ‘should be welcomed. However, we must not and will not sit back and simply crow about it – we must push on!
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
I repeat, the matter of fees cannot be separated from the factors from which they arise. The fact that Parliament, ACPO, HO or anyone else concerned might find it inconvenient for shooting representatives to raise this matter at the current time is immaterial, the function of BASC is to represent its' members of which I am one.
I can see no viable excuse for the current meek and inept reactive response to ACPO's proposals when a substantial measure of proactivity is what is required.
At the very least you ought to be discussing and trying to obtain a consensus with both HO & ACPO on what parts of the S1 controls genuinely contribute to crime prevention and which are ineffective, bureaucratic, outdated and largely an unnecessary expense to both shooter and taxpayer alike.
Surely a large representitive organisation like BASC cannot find this too much of a challenge?
atb Tim
CWMMAN3738
Well-Known Member
Well put Tim.
Thank you, from our experience, based on feedback from members all over the UK, it is blatantly clear that IF the licencing teams simply do what they are supposed to do, follow the HO guidance and ACPO best practice, then there are no issues - applications, variations and renewals go through smoothly and in time. Who could ask for more?
But maybe you have a different view from personal experience? From your experience please could you tell me which bits of S1 do you think need changing or removing to help the application and delivery of firearms licencing run more smoothly?
Yet again I come back to the point that if the licencing teams do not deliver an efficient service we have significant problems – as many reading this will have experienced first-hand, and it is not an issue of the Firearms Act per se, but it is a factor of licencing teams dumping on the process of licencing their own cumbersome and pointless red tape. That has to be sorted regardless of the current wording of the Firearms Act.
David
But maybe you have a different view from personal experience? From your experience please could you tell me which bits of S1 do you think need changing or removing to help the application and delivery of firearms licencing run more smoothly?
Yet again I come back to the point that if the licencing teams do not deliver an efficient service we have significant problems – as many reading this will have experienced first-hand, and it is not an issue of the Firearms Act per se, but it is a factor of licencing teams dumping on the process of licencing their own cumbersome and pointless red tape. That has to be sorted regardless of the current wording of the Firearms Act.
David
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Simple , all those elements of S1 that are not in common with S2, they appear to contribute nothing extra to crime prevention, but on occasion cause unnecessary inconvenience to the law abiding shooting public.
It may be that ACPO have a different opinion but this is where it is of vital importance to the shooting community to try to obtain a consensus.
e.g. if limits on ammunition held, territorial conditions, land clearances, 0ne for one variations etc. to name but a few conditions are only adding mutual expense and inconvenience then they should be done away with.
Whether Parliament wishes to address the issue or not if both representatives of the shooting community and ACPO approach the HO with a common request for reform our politicians might find this hard to resist.
Now that the matter of the costly administration of FAC/SGC has been raised it must be entirely appropriate to deal with all those factors from which these costs arise.
atb Tim
Thanks, we are in agreement that the emphasis should be on licencing the person, like section 2, and not each gun, like section 1- however, as I say, regardless of S1 or S2 if the licencing teams stick to the guidance there are no problems.
I remember last year for example, west midlands police were on the BASC stand at the Midland Game fair doing variations on the spot – literally a chap could walk along gunmakers row, spot the rifle they wanted, come to the BASC stand with their certificate, the licencing team were there and did the business there and then, off went a happy customer – what could be easier and better then that – proves it can be done – oh and the crime rate in the West Midlands involving legitimately held firearms has not increased as a result!!
David
I remember last year for example, west midlands police were on the BASC stand at the Midland Game fair doing variations on the spot – literally a chap could walk along gunmakers row, spot the rifle they wanted, come to the BASC stand with their certificate, the licencing team were there and did the business there and then, off went a happy customer – what could be easier and better then that – proves it can be done – oh and the crime rate in the West Midlands involving legitimately held firearms has not increased as a result!!
David
David, without a doubt, the biggest revision that could go through would be the removal of the arcane 1 for 1 process, which creates a huge burden of needless administration when an owner wishes to change one firearm for another, even where identical, and as you say above, this could be allied to the banding of calibre's.
From my own experience, 1-1 variations would be the main reason for certificates to be returned to the police I can see a justification for this where someone might claim to have privately disposed of a firearm and not done it then buy another, but for replacements through a registered firearms dealer, the requirement for a variation should be removed, its simply intolerable that an FAC holder has to apply for permission from the police to replace a rusty moderator for a new one - even more intolerable when we are being told that the police will in future want us to pay a fee to do so!
Similar threads
