Are you mates with John Swift by any chance?
BASC calls for independent regulatory body for firearms licensing
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
no, I’m not, I’m just a bloke who sees things for how they are, honestly, you lot live in the bloody dreamworld!
You want want want where are prepared not to put your hand in a pocket and pay for it, we are in the world now where staff costs a lot more money than it did, so therefore really, we should be thinking about getting our hands in our pockets and paying two or three times as much for our certificates to get a five star job!
Anything less than that really and you’re ****ing in the wind!
Well, in the world I inhabit lawful use of firearms has been under threat from the Police and the Home Office since 1920 despite such use still being a right in the UK.
One of the weapons used by those who oppose it is to increase the fees for certificates - because that reduces the number of applicants and holders.
Going along with the idea that we have to pay more because the service is rubbish and/or everything is getting more expensive is likely to end up with fewer of us paying more for a worse service.
There you go again - where do you get this stuff? The public purse doesn't owe me everything, I agree - but it sure as hell doesn't owe me nothing!
Have you considered that perhaps you might be one of the many blokes out there who sees things as being exactly as he sees them; and is disinclined to let anything get in the way of the opinions so held.
Last edited:
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
Yep and there is the problem in black and white, the whole system is 103 years out of date!
And in my opinion you sir and most of the SD are trying to cling onto it.
Everything needs to be brought forward, updated and sorted!
Certainly the administration of the Firearms Act needs to be improved. That might need practices 'updating', and certainly it needs 'sorting' - so no arguments from me on that.
It's just that I don't think soaking lawful shooters to fund it is the right way to get that done. It would send the public servants who administer the Act, as well as the non-shooting public, completely the wrong message about what the Act is meant to be doing, and for whose benefit it is meant to do it.
Shooters are not high on the list of those who gain benefit from the Firearms Act. To us it represents only inconvenience and expense - which does not always seem proportionate to the benefits to our own safety that we gain through our being members of the public.
Thats pretty much everyones argument, if the system was brought up to date I fail to see how a renewal would take more than a day, if efficiency costs more, it isn't really efficient
Always assuming if we paid more we would get a more efficient service, no guarantee to that and why reward inefficiency? It’s not just about paying more they also need to accept change where it would reduce the burden on what they do without increasing public safety, like sound mods removed from certificates, no need for a one for one variation if within a caliber band and land clearing.
Len the dog
Well-Known Member
As a taxpayer I contribute to some degree for the policing of football activities, I have never been to a football match in my life. I also contribute towards the police for my protection from those that would seek to relieve me of my possessions, but I have never been burgled. Should I now expect all football fans and burglars to foot the entire policing bill as they are the ones costing the public purse?
If not then why as a gun owner should I be expected to pay for the police to ensure that the public are kept safe from me? I don’t personally need firearms legislation to pursue my pastime, I could quite happily continue without it, it would actually be better for me if we didn’t have it, it is the non gun owners that apparently need it.
If not then why as a gun owner should I be expected to pay for the police to ensure that the public are kept safe from me? I don’t personally need firearms legislation to pursue my pastime, I could quite happily continue without it, it would actually be better for me if we didn’t have it, it is the non gun owners that apparently need it.
Chemists don't subsidise visits from a Crime Prevention Officer (if such still exist) when vetting security on a new build pharmacy. Premier League football teams don't pay the cost of policing outside of the ground and etc., etc..
Correct.
On the other work Leicestershire's team not only do firearms but also explosives AND liquor licensing so, indeed, they do other work as well as just individual personal FACs and SGCs.
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
You lot than are like a broken record screeching, or is that your wallets opening?
I really do hope they do have a good sort out, and I do hope they whack the licenses up to cover costs and make things a lot better!
Then that will give you something else to moan about!
I really do hope they do have a good sort out, and I do hope they whack the licenses up to cover costs and make things a lot better!
Then that will give you something else to moan about!
Nor do many of the Police given the shambolic output. We all know that many FLDs don't even know the rules they're supposed to be following. You cannot pretend that essentially the customer knows nothing. BASC has several faults, but being more ignorant than many Police forces as to how licensing should work is not one of them. You don't find BASC clogging up the system with pointless extra bureaucracy, refusing to use the statutory guidance and so on.
Certificate holders are not unduly subsidised. That is both factually false, and a misunderstanding of what firearms law is for. The beneficiaries of firearms licensing are not shooters, they are the wider public - that is why the Home Office pays some of the costs. Certificate holders pay the large majority of the cost of this regime.
Well said
Last renewal, new certificate arrived I think 3 days before the old one expired, that's how it should be
This time I applied just over 8 weeks before expiry.
Ix month after expiry I am told my certificates are "Electronically Renewed". Rhetorically does that mean if they decide not to renew they have to revoke the certificates - what legal basis does "Electronically Renewed" have - none its a civil servant inventing the law!
2 month after expiry, section 7 permits arrive.
Experience from a friend in same constabulary, he has waited over a year.
Fortunately I have enough stock to keep me going, but that's not the point is it.
I have been in illegal possession of my own property
.I am surprised you think that - are you in favour of detailed medicals at a substantial and variable cost, dislike anything lead and love to pay over the odds for everything. Think of young shots how can they afford to get in the sport these days and own their own gun etc etc. I am not in favour of "I'm all right jack" - so I try, in my small way, to make things better for all, all round. Perhaps you might like to reconsider?
If costs go up by a substantial amount, then I’ll have to give up shooting. Between non-lead, stalking fees and energy costs any hike on license fees would be a potential game changer.You lot than are like a broken record screeching, or is that your wallets opening?
I really do hope they do have a good sort out, and I do hope they whack the licenses up to cover costs and make things a lot better!
Then that will give you something else to moan about!
I wonder how many more there are in a similar position.
As one of the other posts mentioned, less licenses then increase the costs on those that remain.
Then comes the question, if there are less stalkers, will the government step in and get contractors to do more culling to keep deer numbers down?
Lastly if I give up stalking, how will it affect my mental health?
I take a pride in being able to provide meals for my family myself. From field to fork literally! If that goes then my self esteem goes down markedly.
How would you propose to counter that?
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
I couldn’t really give a monkeys about the medical situation, it costs what it costs, same as anything you want fuel in your car it costs, do you want bullets for a rifle? Is it costs you want to go stalking , it costs!
Everything costs, so, therefore, if you can’t afford to do, it, don’t do it, it really is a simple as that!
You will never hear me moan about the price of a medical, the price of my FAC/SGC Because I want to do it, therefore, it costs what it costs, if I can’t afford it, I won’t do it. It’s a simple as that, is it going to have a impact on my mental health or make me unhappy anyway shape or form, no not really because I am very lucky that in my lifetime I’ve done a lot of stalking / shooting.
If I can’t stalk or go shooting, I just go fishing, instead others may not one bit
TH4
Well-Known Member
Fill your licence with as much ammo as you like, once your licence runs out you won't be able to use it as you are no longer a certificate holder so have to store your guns with an RFD. And I would love to know why you think existing certificate holders are more important than new applicants. Must be wonderful to be that self important.
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
If I am at self-important then please answer me this l, how come I have given away a day stalking for seven ladies of the ladies deerstalking group worth in monetary value over £2k, for the princely sum of nothing not £1 totally FOC with no limits on what is shot!
I don’t see you lot giving, bugger all away for nothing, to help others in the stalking community, all I tend to hear, and Read is a load of bitching and whingeing!
Yeah I’m so selfish, just because I don’t see things the way you lot do but does not mean I am against it in any way, shape or form!
Good for you giving something back but you are not alone. A lot of us put something back, do not treat "us lot" as incapable of doing similar to you.
"Bitching and whineging," again I see you giving a good amount back too.
Similar threads
