Firearms fees proposals

[enfieldspares]

"Not unreasonable"..."Only a small increase" and etc. Very few, but at least SOME here, have questioned the whole FAC/SGC "circus".

I am from that last generation that can, just, remember when there was no such thing as a SGC and when FAC fees were 7s 6d (that's 37 pence...actually 37.5 pence) in our current decimal money. And albeit an FAC lasted only three years it was that amount (every time my mother renewed her FAC for her rifle) for years.

We have become conditioned to accept this FAC/SGC "circus" without question such that we view licensing of shot guns as normal. Yet in fact shot guns, breechloading shot guns have existed since the 1860s and have ONLY been licensed since 1967.

Just a thought.

 

[FGYT]

I would say BASCs own figures on the value of shooting shows that licence holders more than cover the (claimed) £17million cost of the licence admin country wide and that's on top of individuals contributing the current Fees


every time most pull the trigger 20% in Vat goes to the Gov

or buy a new gun
or scope

so base line you pay £50 for a FAC

the more you shoot the more you contribute via VAT

seems fair

a stalker only shooting 10-20 shots a year pays less than a practical target shooter who used 100's of rounds every weekend

 

[Mr. Gain]

I can see the urgency to get a fee increase agreed before there's a change of government, but I find it extraordinary that the HO can't come up with a set of minimum service levels so that certificate holders know what they can expect from the freshly-funded system and have some formal redress if it fails to meet them. Even an agreement that these would be in place within a definite time frame would be a crucial step forward. Instead we get vague claims that "it'll all be better once we're paying more" with no clarity about what "better" will actually mean. It won't do.

As for general taxation, we all make choices about how we live our lives. If we don't have children, why should we pay for schools? If we take care of our health, why should we pay the medical costs of those who don't? And then there are all the things we disapprove of that we still pay for. Nevertheless, we do it because we are a society in which we all chip in, more or less according to our means, to keep everything going.

That some get back less than they contribute is inevitable. I just wonder how the principle that particular life choices should be a basis for requiring an extra contribution fits in to this, and why it seems to be applied so inequitably. (The answer to the last part of the question is that for political reasons it is still much easier to penalise some minority interests.)

It might be argued that the difference is instead that between privileges and rights. Indeed, Labour have already made this point. Where they are mistaken of course is that we have a right to be granted a certificate provided we meet the conditions for issue. What other rights do we have to pay for? (I imagine there are some, but none spring to mind).

I know BASC would like what they've achieved to make us all happy, and I'm sure they've put a lot of effort into it, and I'm grateful for that, but the lack of a clear statement on service levels remains a major shortcoming of the proposed settlement.

If we must pay, whether we pay more or not -and the politics suggest we will have to-, then for goodness' sake let's have an official statement of the level of service we can expect in return for our contribution.

 

[David63]

I agree with your point about service levels, and I will take this forward to my colleagues who deal with the Home Office

David

 

[FGYT]

I agree with your point about service levels, and I will take this forward to my colleagues who deal with the Home Office

David

can you get the Time and motions study showing exactly how they worked out the £200-£400 costs etc

or commission one with a FLO

 

[artschool]

"Not unreasonable"..."Only a small increase" and etc. Very few, but at least SOME here, have questioned the whole FAC/SGC "circus".

I am from that last generation that can, just, remember when there was no such thing as a SGC and when FAC fees were 7s 6d (that's 37 pence...actually 37.5 pence) in our current decimal money. And albeit an FAC lasted only three years it was that amount (every time my mother renewed her FAC for her rifle) for years.

We have become conditioned to accept this FAC/SGC "circus" without question such that we view licensing of shot guns as normal. Yet in fact shot guns, breechloading shot guns have existed since the 1860s and have ONLY been licensed since 1967.

Just a thought.

absolutely agree.

this is all about conditioning. the process should only be about public safety anything else should be disregarded, i had a situation last year where i had a slot for a 308 rifle and wanted to buy a 308 barrel instead.

I had to send my ticket back in to have the wording changed from rifle to barrel.

What difference does it make to public safety? None, yet my time and the police's time was wasted.

all this type of nonsense has to go.

 

[Orion]

I agree with your point about service levels, and I will take this forward to my colleagues who deal with the Home Office

I can see that ACPO FELWG and the College of Policing are moving in the right direction on this with relatively recent 'directives' and the Authorised Professional Practice, which effectively instruct FLDs to adhere to the HO Guidelines - that's if you consider singing from the same songsheet as providing a certain 'level of service'. Of course there are still FLDs making it up as they go along, but at least it gives the knowledgeable FAC holder, (and hopefully the shooting organisations ), a bigger stick to come back at them with.

Woefully low staffing levels in FLDs and dire waiting times for processing applications, and more frustratingly simple renewals and variations, are something else that need to be addressed by CCs and PCCs before service levels could be considered as acceptable.

 

[Uncle Norm]

I agree with your point about service levels, and I will take this forward to my colleagues who deal with the Home Office

David

David.
Service level agreements in public service are little more than window dressing.
Standards for service delivery need to be binding on Chief Officers of police with financial penalties if not met.
I will be delighted but amazed if this is achieved but hope burns eternal.

 

[Uncle Norm]

"Not unreasonable"..."Only a small increase" and etc. Very few, but at least SOME here, have questioned the whole FAC/SGC "circus".

I am from that last generation that can, just, remember when there was no such thing as a SGC and when FAC fees were 7s 6d (that's 37 pence...actually 37.5 pence) in our current decimal money. And albeit an FAC lasted only three years it was that amount (every time my mother renewed her FAC for her rifle) for years.

We have become conditioned to accept this FAC/SGC "circus" without question such that we view licensing of shot guns as normal. Yet in fact shot guns, breechloading shot guns have existed since the 1860s and have ONLY been licensed since 1967.

Just a thought.

Indeed, as Colin Greenwood has pointed out, the Labour Government. of the day with that wonderful Home Secretary 'Woy' Jenkins, only did it as a sop to public opinion, because they had so recently abolished capital punishment and as a result three police officers had been murdered by Harry Roberts in Shepherds Bush in 1966 and they were concerned that public opinion would demand the return of the death penalty. Colin Geenwood had a 'nasty' habit of being right.

 

[Apache]

David.
Service level agreements in public service are little more than window dressing.
Standards for service delivery need to be binding on Chief Officers of police with financial penalties if not met.
I will be delighted but amazed if this is achieved but hope burns eternal.

You will never be able to get every FAC or SGC done in a fixed time frame - some applicants will take a lot more work than others. I do have to wonder when someone moans how long it is taking, whether extra investigations are ongoing over their past, their acquaintances, waiting on doctors reports etc. You could never say "a new grant MUST be issued or refused in 6 weeks" or whatever. You wouldn't give the police an arbitrary time to solve a murder.

If forced by time-frame then I suspect the only option would be more people refused grants and renewals based on lack of time to identify and quantify some risks. Is that what we want?

 

[jimbo1984]

You will never be able to get every FAC or SGC done in a fixed time frame - some applicants will take a lot more work than others. I do have to wonder when someone moans how long it is taking, whether extra investigations are ongoing over their past, their acquaintances, waiting on doctors reports etc. You could never say "a new grant MUST be issued or refused in 6 weeks" or whatever. You wouldn't give the police an arbitrary time to solve a murder.

If forced by time-frame then I suspect the only option would be more people refused grants and renewals based on lack of time to identify and quantify some risks. Is that what we want?

Or maybe said FLD is not pulling it's weight / bad at thier job ? Contary to your belief I doubt very much that someone who's complaining thier cert is taking a long time has anything to hide or requires any more research just thier FLD needs to pull thier finger out !

 

[FGYT]

You will never be able to get every FAC or SGC done in a fixed time frame - some applicants will take a lot more work than others. I do have to wonder when someone moans how long it is taking, whether extra investigations are ongoing over their past, their acquaintances, waiting on doctors reports etc. You could never say "a new grant MUST be issued or refused in 6 weeks" or whatever. You wouldn't give the police an arbitrary time to solve a murder.

If forced by time-frame then I suspect the only option would be more people refused grants and renewals based on lack of time to identify and quantify some risks. Is that what we want?

nope mine arrived and logged 9th sept rang up to check as you dont get confirmation it arrived

yes sir its in the pile we are just starting July's so 4-6mths (was told the year before it was 18mths)

yes there will be differences on applications but the majority will be similer and there must be the std Flow chart of what they need to do most of which is running data base checks which shouldnt take long maybe 1hr if they have an extra doughnut

( I have a friend who was armed response copper 7yrs and now SIB hes horrified with the inability . He moved house it took a few months to get his change of address done and it was wrong when the FLO came round to hand it over and check the cabinet It took another month before he goe teh Cert back with the correct address this is Hants where the Head of the Fire arms working group is )

 

[Mr. Gain]

You will never be able to get every FAC or SGC done in a fixed time frame - some applicants will take a lot more work than others. I do have to wonder when someone moans how long it is taking, whether extra investigations are ongoing over their past, their acquaintances, waiting on doctors reports etc. You could never say "a new grant MUST be issued or refused in 6 weeks" or whatever. You wouldn't give the police an arbitrary time to solve a murder. If forced by time-frame then I suspect the only option would be more people refused grants and renewals based on lack of time to identify and quantify some risks. Is that what we want?

There is a point there, and I agree that there are inevitably cases in which more careful examination of the applicant's suitability is required, but a licensing dept. not meeting the standards set in its service agreement could then be required to justify the delay. If justified there would be no problem. At present, however, there is no public benchmark against which to judge the efficiency or consistency with which a particular licensing dept. carries out its work.

I believe that when they fall short it is usually for lack of resources, but the allocation of resources is a responsibility of CCs and PCCs who find it more difficult politically to account for resources allocated to licensing departments (with no public performance targets) than to pay the extra costs if -heaven forbid- the system they have under-resourced should fail.

Some argue -and I have explored this view myself- that, in the light of the penalties suffered by law-abiding shooters following the horrors of Hungerford and Dunblane, we should regard such disasters as the greatest risk we face as shooters and respond by underwriting an improved firearms licensing system at our own cost.

Indeed, I'd be happy enough with such a system if I thought shooters would be treated with the consideration due to a major stakeholder in the process. However, I fear that if we were to fund our own policing at a level that would make a difference -as some would want us to-, and even if we thereby earned ourselves a meaningful seat at the table when it came to saying how it was done -which the same people would object to-, we would merely end up being calumniated as foxes set to guard a chicken coop rather than -as is all too often the case at present- as free-loaders draining the public purse for our own amusement.

 

[David63]

The vast majority of renewals should be problem free, as are the majority of applications, as very few are refused, QED.

Even in what will be a busy year (2015) BASC believes it is perfectly reasonable that renewals to take no more than 12 weeks, and we are urging people to get their renewals in at least 12 weeks before they are due.

Yes I agree that shortfalls in performance are sometimes a resource issues, but they are also caused when authorities add in extra administrative hurdles that are outside of the HO Guidance, that has to stop!

 

[Taff]

So BASC think 12 weeks is a reasonable time, and taking 12 weeks archives what ?, it certainly can,t be public safety, as the people they are checking would have been advised to get there maximum alication of ammo, and would still have there firearms, why are BASC not pushing for 1 - 1 variations on firearms via a RFD to not need to be approved, this would save a vast amount of time and paper work for the police, and have no threat to public safety.

 

[David63]

No more than 12 weeks even in what will be a very busy year due to the renewal cycle

Please take part in the consultation, if you have not done so already

 

[Taff]

Not knocking BASC just wondering why you think it's ok, and why we can,t simplify the system.

 

[artschool]

i think that sometimes the unintended consequence of legislation is that it starts up a mini industry that is more about revenue generation than actually solving the problem it was created for.

this is an opportunity to keep the public safeguards in place yet remove the unnecessary and tiresome bureaucracy that is associated with FAC's that benefits no one.

 

[David63]

the online renewals system that is due to start should simplify the system

 

[enfieldspares]

I can't believe you would even suggest it was wise for a single second to abolish the certification procedure and just let anyone who wanted one a gun.

Really?

Once upon a time members of the Government lauded the idea that, in Britain, there should be "a rifle in every home". Where was the armed crime BEFORE 1920 when FACs came in in this country and when firearms were wholly unlicensed except as a revenue measure (the old 10s 6d....50p or actually 52.5p...Gun Licence obtainable over the counter from every Post Office if you wanted to travel with a gun outside of you actual dwelling)?

I'll swap you. The armed crime levels and licensing controls of pre-1920 for the armed crime levels and licensing controls of 2014.