Willowthewhisk
Well-Known Member
It's nothing to do with safety, it's money making like everything else that they've done...
BBC - will new gun licence fees make Britain safer?
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
BenBhoy
Well-Known Member
Should your employer not pay it then?
Imo if you genuinely need it for work, employer should pay or at least subside. If it's for recreation, then suck it up. Nobody is forcing anyone to own a firearm. We choose to do it & that's the price.
let’s hope they don’t take the same attitude with car tax or passports, after all nobody is forcing anyone to own a vehicle or go on holiday, suck it up !
Firearm legislation was introduced to protect society at large and hence like a lot of other activities the police do society at large contributed.
jimmer.13
Well-Known Member
Self employed.
Totally disagree…. I pay enough taxes already. If some departments can run efficiently within budget then why should we pay more for the incompetence of others.
Already been explained why certification became law.
I don’t require social benefits, never have done. Didn’t claim anything during the scamdemic but I pay for it.
No. Understand why firearms licencing was introduced. That premise has not changed
Like the vet, you need to understand why the FLA was brought in.
Exceptions can be made for those with a work requirement. I've paid my RCVS fees for 35 years, currently about £400 and I'm happy to pay it and would pay more if they were better at some of the stuff they do (interesting parallel). A lot of vets resent the fee in the same way a lot of folk on here do.
Thats slightly different as you just pass on your increased costs to your customers. As said elsewhere, us paying more for FL is absolutely no guarantee of an improved service. Indeed I doubt the money received would be spent on improving the process at all
I've heard a lot of folk say this is a public safety issue, so the public should pay, is there any evidence of this? I've had a bit of a browse and all I can see is that firearms were restricted to the "nobility" and then further restricted in case of an armed uprise after WW1. I don't accept the "public pays for public safety" argument as we make a decision to own the firearm and, much like my RCVS fees, I want checks performed So firearms are hard to obtain. that the current system is crap and needs reform is obvious
True, but then vetting wasn't a hobby. (well, slightly, I had fun doing it)
That is not a sensible premise to proceed from. OK. So who pays for the full cost of policing teenage gangs in inner cities? Their hobby.... Or the cost of cycle tracks? Sports centres? Footpaths? Community centres? Pavements? The extraneous costs of pets to society?
Firearms licensing is not about a hobby. It is about protecting the public. The beneficiary of the service is the public, and therefore they should pay. It is of no benefit at all to the gun owner.
Yes. When members of the public get shot, it is bad for their safety.
If they ever were, which is unlikely, that is of no consequence because the same applied to voting rights.
Your argument makes no sense. Your decision to own a firearm is not the issue. Nobody ever states that we have firearms laws to control people's decision making, it is ostensibly to protect public safety. That is the raison d'etre. Your RCVS fees are fees for membership of a professional body, which exists to protect you from unlicensed economic competition within that profession exclusively. Firearms licensing doesn't provide any parallel protection exclusively to certificate holders.
Given that the RCVS appears to be self-governing, do you see any good reason why firearms licensing shouldn't also be self-governing, independent and taken away from the police forces?
RCVS actually exists to protect the public from seriously incompetent or dishonest vets. There is a degree of protectionism there I'll admit, essentially ensuring animal welfare isn't compromised by poorly trained people. There are flaws and it's going to get reviewed soon.
Your last statement is entirely sensible and I'd support it. The admin work could probably be run by a competent company that then feeds the details to the police. All online, one for one trade in at the dealer without paperwork, mods off tickets. 10 year life with a 5 year medical review.
Just out of interest, I received a reply from Ben Maguire (North Cornwall. Lib Dem) :-
Dear downwind,
Thank you very much for contacting me on this issue.
Whilst I believe that gun controls should be strengthened, to protect the wider community, I completely understand that in rural communities such as ours, guns are an important part of many peoples’ livelihoods.
I am concerned that there seems to have been a lack of consultation on the decision by the Government to increase firearms licensing fees.
My colleagues and I will continue to urge the Government to provide greater transparency and clarity on this decision which will make a significant difference to many farmers and our rural communities.
With best wishes / Gans gorhemynadow a'n gwella
Ben
Wapinschaw
Well-Known Member
Section 2 controls were introduced in the Firearms Act 1968 as a classic Government deflection tactic in the wake of the murder of several Met Police officers in 1966. Hanging had been paused for 5 years in 1965 and there was an outcry and a demand for it's reinstatement for the three men convicted of the murders. The murders were committed with illegally held pistols, so shotgun licensing was introduced in a "crime reduction" effort. Sounds familiar?
Similar threads
