Firearms fees proposals

[Bandit Country]

Once upon a time members of the Government lauded the idea that, in Britain, there should be "a rifle in every home".

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

Given that we're all about to be murdered in our beds by lone wolf fanatics a "rifle in every home" might not be a bad idea to resurrect? The abject failure of Capita to recruit sufficient reservists to fully man an effective army would further support the idea of resurrecting local militias. Perhaps we should be lobbying for us to be subsidised to own a firearm and protect our communities rather than simply paying more money for a potentially improved service?

 

[Dalua]

If for my sport or leisure I chose to have a SGC and or a FAC then I should pay the real cost.

No-one chooses to have a FAC or SGC.

We may choose to shoot: but having made the choice, in order to persue the activity lawfully we are obliged to apply for FAC/SGC, and that requirement is ostensibly for the public good rather than for our specific benefit as shooting folk.

It isn't clear to me why you don't find this argument persuasive.

 

[Dalua]

Yes to right, sale rifle £20 ! sale moderator £20 add condition £20 Add or change ammunition £20 buy rifle £20 buy moderator £20 all these can take place a fair few times within the five years , well could turn out very expensive for some , be cheaper to pay £200 ON RENEWAL and keep the free one for one if it means all Variations to cost £20 well its not very clear ,

Why do we think the one-for-one variation is no longer going to be free? The table on the document says 'Variations (not like for like)' currently cost £26 and will cost £20. Despite the not altogether accurate description ('not like for like') I suspect that they mean one-for-ones will continue to be free. Otherwise they would have had to put 'variations currently free will cost £20'

Changing ammuntion allowances or conditions does not as far as I'm aware count as 'a variation', and therefore should neither now nor in future attract a charge.

 

[Simjim33]

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

How? All it means is that a email will sit in a inbox rather than some sheats of paper sat in a tray.
Taff makes a good piont. Why the need to make a 1 for 1 change a paper work issue?
Online system! We live in hope!
Im just about to put my ticket in to have 3 rifles removed and 1 added. But I don't expect my ticket back much before mid 2015. THAT, David, is what is expected in this area.

 

[Taff]

I have a e mail from hants sayin 1-1 variations in 2 weeks, I wait and see when I put in for one.

 

[FGYT]

I have a e mail from hants sayin 1-1 variations in 2 weeks, I wait and see when I put in for one.

yep accurate one week they will turn up with it with wrong info in another week some when further on they will turn up with the corrected cert

 

[49ERIC]

Why do we think the one-for-one variation is no longer going to be free? The table on the document says 'Variations (not like for like)' currently cost £26 and will cost £20. Despite the not altogether accurate description ('not like for like') I suspect that they mean one-for-ones will continue to be free. Otherwise they would have had to put 'variations currently free will cost £20'

Changing ammuntion allowances or conditions does not as far as I'm aware count as 'a variation', and therefore should neither now nor in future attract a charge.

well not thinking anything, Just asking , because is it a very important factor just trying to make sure there are NO nasty surprises , because a Variation is exactly that a variation , one for one ''FREE'' at the moment or something added £26 which is fine , i,e is the one for one free variation staying the same , ??? Suspecting is not a lot of good is it , much better to make sure

 

[Apache]

No-one chooses to have a FAC or SGC.

We may choose to shoot: but having made the choice, in order to persue the activity lawfully we are obliged to apply for FAC/SGC, and that requirement is ostensibly for the public good rather than for our specific benefit as shooting folk.

It isn't clear to me why you don't find this argument persuasive.

???

My wife wanted a horse trailer. As I passed my driving test after 1997 I needed to take a trailer test. My mother can legally tow a car-trailer combination up to 7.5 tonnes, but you wouldn't want her to. I'd towed on farms since I was 14 years old. The test was a formality. I still had to pay to do it because I wanted to tow a trailer.

If I want to go abroad then I need a passport. You can argue in the same vein that doesn't give me any direct benefits. The benefit is to Great Britain - why should I have to pay for it?

So if I want to tow a trailer I need to pay out for a test. If I want to go abroad I need to pay for a passport. If I want some guns I need to pay for a FAC/SGC. I'm not forced to buy one, it's my free will that decides what I drive, where I go on holiday and if I will take up shooting. As a taxpayer I don't want to subsidise other's hobbies.

 

[Disco Stu]

No increase in fees. Less 'red tape' and far more efficient firearms departments. The whole firearms hotchpotch of various pieces of legislation, many of which have been shoved through as knee jerk responses needs to be scrapped and a properly thought out, joined up firearms bill passed. The current mess has been allowed (deliberately ) by successive governments, aided and abetted by various chief constables and the whims of ACPO and various FLO's. It is not cricket to propose increasing fees so that 'shooters' pay for the inefficiencies of those who created and continue to add ever more to the licencing system.

 

[Dalua]

My wife wanted a horse trailer. As I passed my driving test after 1997 I needed to take a trailer test. My mother can legally tow a car-trailer combination up to 7.5 tonnes, but you wouldn't want her to. I'd towed on farms since I was 14 years old. The test was a formality. I still had to pay to do it because I wanted to tow a trailer.

In contrast to the right to own and use firearms, there's no right in law to tow a trailer with a motor vehicle on the public highway. Your and your wife may own and use the trailer on private land without restriction.
I suppose you're right - other road-users benefit from having the competence of drivers/towers checked. However, it is a one-off cost and has no bearing on your ownership or use of anything on private property.

If I want to go abroad then I need a passport. You can argue in the same vein that doesn't give me any direct benefits. The benefit is to Great Britain - why should I have to pay for it?

You certainly need a passport to get into other countries and back into this one. If you're going abroad and intend coming home, a passport is an excellent investment with very clear benefits to the holder!

So if I want to tow a trailer I need to pay out for a test. If I want to go abroad I need to pay for a passport. If I want some guns I need to pay for a FAC/SGC. I'm not forced to buy one, it's my free will that decides what I drive, where I go on holiday and if I will take up shooting. As a taxpayer I don't want to subsidise other's hobbies.

So we return to your idea that the provision of FLDs to administer the Firearms Act is something shooters whould be funding entirely themselves.
Apart from the obvious conflict of interest, how do you uncouple the concept of the Act's purpose to protect the peace and the public from the idea that the public (which of course includes FAC/SGC-holders) should be paying for it?
Passports and driving licences are red herrings in this argument.
It would have been disingenuous of parliament to limit a common law right by certification, and then to expect the applicants for certificates to pay through the nose in order to be able to exercise that right: though not as disingenuous as it is to hear arguments for yet higher fees from a shooting man.

Really, you might just as well say, 'As a taxpayer, I don't want to put out other peoples' fires, solve their crimes, treat their illnessess, educate their children': for that is the same category of things that the ostensible public benefit from the Firearms Act belongs in.

 

[8x57]

So you want to sell alcohol or operate a place of assembly to which the licensing act applies. You apply for a premises licence but is full recovery of costs by all agencies concerned invoked with regard to issuing and administering the licensing act. Absolutely not.

So you want to operate a professional football club that can and often causes great disturbance and inconvenience to the area immediately surrounding the ground and the whole town in which it stands. Some charges are made for policing the ground and immediate surrounding area, and some costs are recovered for providing medical support but is full recovery of costs by all agencies concerned invoked. Absolutely not.

Why then has recovery of all costs been mentioned in respect of the administration of the firearms acts ? Especially galling when some police forces have shown themselves to be inefficient and incompetant in administering this legislation already.

 

[artschool]

Why then has recovery of all costs been mentioned in respect of the administration of the firearms acts ?

sadly the answer is because it seems that some FAC holders are happy to hand over more of their money for a bit of paper.

its like the emperors new clothes.

 

[billh]

I don't think the fees proposed are unreasonable BUT I want to see an improvement is the service we receive before the increases are approved.
There are still a lot of elementary mistakes being made by the FLA's on SGC/FAC's that require double the work to issue them.
Recent case from Gloucestershire - FAC issued at variation stating user could use his 243 on fox, he does not have a 243.

 

[JabaliHunter]

So you want to sell alcohol or operate a place of assembly to which the licensing act applies. You apply for a premises licence but is full recovery of costs by all agencies concerned invoked with regard to issuing and administering the licensing act. Absolutely not.

So you want to operate a professional football club that can and often causes great disturbance and inconvenience to the area immediately surrounding the ground and the whole town in which it stands. Some charges are made for policing the ground and immediate surrounding area, and some costs are recovered for providing medical support but is full recovery of costs by all agencies concerned invoked. Absolutely not.

Why then has recovery of all costs been mentioned in respect of the administration of the firearms acts ? Especially galling when some police forces have shown themselves to be inefficient and incompetant in administering this legislation already.

sadly the answer is because it seems that some FAC holders are happy to hand over more of their money for a bit of paper.

its like the emperors new clothes.

"Threats to civil liberties only ever come a few dollars at a time."

 

[geoshot]

I have a variation somewhere in the mills of the Met, and they do seem to grind excessively slow, I wasn't surprised not to receive my FAC before the holidays but am growing ever more annoyed by the complete lack of communication from the licensing dept or FEO, they're short staffed, snowed under or such no doubt - so what are we paying for?
As I said, an increase in fees might be a little easier to accept if the police would sort their act out. Their current level of service re firearms licensing in most forces is appallingly poor even by UK customer-service standards.
I bet we end up paying more for even worse service, and we're fecked if it ever goes to an online system, I mean who can name a gov't IT system that was ever built properly or even worked?
Applications, variations or renewals require paperwork to be spot on, no omissions or errors or it's back to square one - that's what they expect from us.
What we get from them is delay without adequate/acceptable reason, serious errors re the likes of serial numbers, mispelt names of owners or rifles - and all without recourse to any complaints procedure never mind recompense or compensation for inconvenience or loss.

Yep, the cost of all things FAC-related will go up, it's inevitable, but the likes of BASC should demand a serious and measurable improvement in service levels too.
We pay twice for out FAC's, via fees and general taxation, we have a right to expect better service than we get.

Fees are going to rise, that is inevitable, but we must be able to ask for an improvement in service and for standards to be set eg turn around times on grants, variations etc.
Hopefully the involvement of the likes of BASC in the discussions will counterbalance or negate the input form the antis who simply want fees to be used to discourage gun ownership in the UK.