Fingers crossed. Expanding bullets MAY be taken off section 5

amongst other things I understand that if the Police fail to renew your certificate in good time
your old certificate will still have effect after the expiry date ?????
 
amongst other things I understand that if the Police fail to renew your certificate in good time
your old certificate will still have effect after the expiry date ?????

...........up until the application is determined???
Interesting use of words, the way i see this means that an application could be given the nod by the licensing manager(on behalf of the CC) but the paperwork could sit in the pile for several weeks until the certificate is issued still leaving applicants with a period where they could be in possession of firearms without a current FAC

Ian.
 
I think you're splitting hairs, it's clearly the intent of the amendment to get rid of the current ludicrous situation surrounding the issue of temporary permits.
If the application has been "given the nod", that surely means there is a record - physical or electronic that the application has been approved. If the Police fail to send out the new FAC to the applicant, then the existing FAC is still valid until he receives and signs the new document
If the application is refused, I have no doubt the rozzers would be round toute suite to take away the applicants firearms


Cheers

Bruce
 
The vain hope was that moderators might have been removed from Section 1 but there's no mention of that which is an opportunity missed.
 
Trying to use Parliamentary Language. If MPs voted on it, I'm guessing it's probably safe to say it is a balls up.

I'm not sure that MPs voted on it initially. :?:

I think it may have been an enactment by the Home Secretary after advise from a Home Office department and following a EU directive regarding expanding PISTOL ammunition and projectiles. Of course this would have been later reinforced by legislation that brought about the pistol ban.
 
The recent Commission on Firearms law was critical of the extensions given to FAC holders past the end of their Fac validity period, saying this effectively allowed people who had not been recently vetted to continue to hold firearms. So it seems like MP's dont listen to them. However the converse is that implementing the certficate process properly is (currently) well beyond the capabilities of a good number of forces and to avoid s7 or this new proposal, would involve more staff (or significantly better management) and that would be a second hike in FAC/SGC costs. Until someone tackles poor performing police authorities, we will remain on a balanced see-saw of police costs and certificate fees. An area where a clear view from an ORG like CA would bring the situation to a successful conclusion.
 
Better cross the fingers on both hands, Labour are opposed to the amendments and the Government doesn't appear to be interested in them!

"Responding for the Government, the Minister Karen Bradley MP, said the priority of this Bill was closing loopholes to prevent “exploitation by criminals” and did not want to include these amendments. However, the Minister did assure Mr Clifton-Brown that the amendments would not be kicked into the long grass and said “we will study [these] new clauses further” and they may be taken forward as part of the codification process."

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.co...must-act-now-to-improve-firearms-law-says-ca/
 
Better cross the fingers on both hands, Labour are opposed to the amendments and the Government doesn't appear to be interested in them!

"Responding for the Government, the Minister Karen Bradley MP, said the priority of this Bill was closing loopholes to prevent “exploitation by criminals” and did not want to include these amendments. However, the Minister did assure Mr Clifton-Brown that the amendments would not be kicked into the long grass and said “we will study [these] new clauses further” and they may be taken forward as part of the codification process."

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.co...must-act-now-to-improve-firearms-law-says-ca/

We obviously need some high profile political lobbying to ensure shooters interests are not just sidelined. Lets hope the org which claims this goes on all the time is up to the job. Cometh the test, cometh the org, with apologies.
 
Back
Top