Firearms Licensing Improvements - Your views (and why / supporting argument)

[TomTalks]

As my previous post is meandering off topic.....as if'
Thought it might be useful to group, what is fast becoming a descent down a deep rabbit hole, on another thread!

From a previous thread on a different topic!

Continuous monitoring by GP’s via marker on record tripping red flag police response!............

Makes it sound like as firearms owners we have monthly GP appointments.

Its just PR crap to fall the general public and make the Home Office look good, oh and yes cover the Chief Constables backside.

I couldn't agree more, in fact many of the S1 controls are PR, to give just a couple of examples does anyone seriously believe that things like restrictions on the quantities of ammunition held are enforceable, and what about sound moderators being classed as a firearm?

I submitted an initial seven-page document (Overview) to my local MP (He has a foot in the Home Office firearms legislation door ), amongst other things:

• Moderators - Once a no-no on a FAC, until, a health and safety approach was taken, it should not be a separate licensable item!
  • Whilst it does need to be a licensed item, it should be automatically licensed in number and calibre as part of the calibre grant, not a (Now mandatory) separate grant!
  • This will also reduce human error (Cost retrieval impact)
    • Case in point! My latest license freshly returned from a long, long, looooong variation vacation
    • Came back with an error that would render me in breach of firearms legislation had I not done my due diligence and spotted it!
    • Proves that too much manual/human process is involved in license items that must be automated.....automated because there is no decision to be made (Much like a moderator, you will have one granted for a caliber, if the caliber is granted)

Amongst a long list of improvements were also:

• Remove FULL license conditions (Mainly set by none shooters!)
  • Move to the tried, tested, and completely accepted driving license model
  • Preceed conditions on a FULL license with a probationer license, which 'is' by nature restricted, like a proby drivers license (Actual restrictions not important for the purposes of this post)
  • Then, after a certain amount of experience is gained (Proven from vrious sources) move to a full license, which is open.
    • You either can, or cannot decide, if the land is suitable for a safe shot
    • Or is suitable for a calibre
    • Having conditions on a FULL license is a diametrically opposing argument for grant and condition! Which only serves to frustrate an already muddy process based upon 'guidelines' interpreted county by county!

Trust me, there are many more 'suggestions'....

What are your suggestions?
AND what is the persuasive arguement for them?

 

[saddler]

I spent a little time in NZ, before the present .gov there changed a lot of legislation.

The main Firearms Permit at the time was closer in theory to a UK Section 2 idea, with the actual "document" being plastic photo ID card.
No prior permission slots needed for our S.1 type firearms (akin to present S.2 rules here), no restriction on ammunition quantity.
The big difference was that the NZ system covered all standard sporting arms, rifle as well as shotgun - and within an hour of being on the ground there I had a 12-month Visitor Permit that allowed me to borrow (or buy if I so chose to) several rifles, etc. for hunting trips out.
The more detailed checks were placed on the ownership of some types of guns.....so, the system THERE was one that firmly concentrated on licensing the individual shooter = pass the checks, you are confirmed as being safe to own guns, etc., so crack on & enjoy your sport/hobby....no waiting weeks or months for a variation, which may or not be granted at the behest of the whims of the local FLM team - who each view implementing the UK legislation differently to the teams in adjacent county force areas, plus each even adjoining force can have widely varying time scales to carry out the same job = I know of one force that's approaching 18 months to do a renewal, with the FEO visit taking over 15-16 months due to staffing shortages, yet another force is within regular Home Office time scales and does the renewal interview by telephone (I have direct experience of the latter from a couple of my renewals in Scotland)

The NZ system at the time I was there freed a lot of such admin, resources to concentrate on more detailed checks on the owners of the more restricted there (& banned here) types of guns. The system was a lot more efficient than the present mess here - and the ONLY complaint I heard from the shooters I chatted to in NZ was that the license had changed from being a lifetime one to a limited duration type, from memory it was 5 years, but may have been 10 years.

Given the amount of admin, issues HERE the system THERE was a much better idea.
Also, look to the pre-1968 UK SGC - issued at the Post Office - as an example of getting rid of the administrative burden

 

[finnbear270]

One office dealing with, fully staffed by people who have the relevant knowledge needed, removed from police "Fiefdom" controls, & full compliance with HOG.

 

[Jeff8861]

As my previous post is meandering off topic.....as if'
Thought it might be useful to group, what is fast becoming a descent down a deep rabbit hole, on another thread!

From a previous thread on a different topic!






I submitted an initial seven-page document (Overview) to my local MP (He has a foot in the Home Office firearms legislation door ), amongst other things:

• Moderators - Once a no-no on a FAC, until, a health and safety approach was taken, it should not be a separate licensable item!
  • Whilst it does need to be a licensed item, it should be automatically licensed in number and calibre as part of the calibre grant, not a (Now mandatory) separate grant!
  • This will also reduce human error (Cost retrieval impact)
    • Case in point! My latest license freshly returned from a long, long, looooong variation vacation
    • Came back with an error that would render me in breach of firearms legislation had I not done my due diligence and spotted it!
    • Proves that too much manual/human process is involved in license items that must be automated.....automated because there is no decision to be made (Much like a moderator, you will have one granted for a caliber, if the caliber is granted)

Amongst a long list of improvements were also:

• Remove FULL license conditions (Mainly set by none shooters!)
  • Move to the tried, tested, and completely accepted driving license model
  • Preceed conditions on a FULL license with a probationer license, which 'is' by nature restricted, like a proby drivers license (Actual restrictions not important for the purposes of this post)
  • Then, after a certain amount of experience is gained (Proven from vrious sources) move to a full license, which is open.
    • You either can, or cannot decide, if the land is suitable for a safe shot
    • Or is suitable for a calibre
    • Having conditions on a FULL license is a diametrically opposing argument for grant and condition! Which only serves to frustrate an already muddy process based upon 'guidelines' interpreted county by county!

Trust me, there are many more 'suggestions'....

What are your suggestions?
AND what is the persuasive arguement for them?

The majority of your points are already being addresses or are in place.

Mods have already been addressed and will come through rendering them a non component part.

An error on a cert will not render you liable to prosecution if the error is down to an admin process this can be audited and you will not be at fault.

Land checks are done as a matter of course mainly on new pieces of land that haven't been checked previoulsy. Regardless what ever the ground is rated for its down to the shooter to do the risk assessment. You judge the backstop and surroundings you get it wrong then its down to you not the feo or the department.

Driving licence approach is flawed why set this up, more cost, more delays, more individuals to train more it issues, more transferring of files the list goes and look at the state of the dvla.

In regards to open tickets and expirence. After five years of holding a fac and during that time no issues you are already granted open cert status.
The current IT system is being resourced and is put out for tender.

Firearms Licensing don't just do grants and renewals. They have a number of other roles. RFD grants and renewals rfd inspections. Again same duties with rfd but with explosives.
Safeguarding holder welfare.
Section 11 ground inspection and the associated admin.
There own force training on new local systems.
Voluntary surrenders and the admin following this.
Revocations and subsequent appeals.
File prep evidence gathering and court procedures.
Seizures of firearms and thier disposal.
medical process and contact correspondence with gp and other medical providets. Answering the phone and emails.
I could go on.

Imagine the likes of the dvla doing this. I hope this offers an insight and balances the discussion. Overall delays are coming down departments have taken on more staff it is getting better.
It really comes down to what is reported the majority of it being wrong scare mongering and utter rubbish. Agendas are being pushed by others. At the end of the day put into context the amount of cert holders to the amount of complaints. You are only going to see negative comments and I suspect the majority of the negativity is down to cert holders own failings. Don't think ive ever read a comment where a cert holder has admitted blame.
Just my thoughts hope this helps others and gives an insight.

 

[timbrayford]

As my previous post is meandering off topic.....as if'
Thought it might be useful to group, what is fast becoming a descent down a deep rabbit hole, on another thread!

From a previous thread on a different topic!






I submitted an initial seven-page document (Overview) to my local MP (He has a foot in the Home Office firearms legislation door ), amongst other things:

• Moderators - Once a no-no on a FAC, until, a health and safety approach was taken, it should not be a separate licensable item!
  • Whilst it does need to be a licensed item, it should be automatically licensed in number and calibre as part of the calibre grant, not a (Now mandatory) separate grant!
  • This will also reduce human error (Cost retrieval impact)
    • Case in point! My latest license freshly returned from a long, long, looooong variation vacation
    • Came back with an error that would render me in breach of firearms legislation had I not done my due diligence and spotted it!
    • Proves that too much manual/human process is involved in license items that must be automated.....automated because there is no decision to be made (Much like a moderator, you will have one granted for a caliber, if the caliber is granted)

Amongst a long list of improvements were also:

• Remove FULL license conditions (Mainly set by none shooters!)
  • Move to the tried, tested, and completely accepted driving license model
  • Preceed conditions on a FULL license with a probationer license, which 'is' by nature restricted, like a proby drivers license (Actual restrictions not important for the purposes of this post)
  • Then, after a certain amount of experience is gained (Proven from vrious sources) move to a full license, which is open.
    • You either can, or cannot decide, if the land is suitable for a safe shot
    • Or is suitable for a calibre
    • Having conditions on a FULL license is a diametrically opposing argument for grant and condition! Which only serves to frustrate an already muddy process based upon 'guidelines' interpreted county by county!

Trust me, there are many more 'suggestions'....

What are your suggestions?
AND what is the persuasive arguement for them?

Broadly I agree. Apart from the odd FLD lack of due diligence disaster the S2 controls work every bit as well as the more bureaucratic S1. I agree with having a probationary period but after a suitable period gaining experience what useful purpose does restricting the number of firearms and amount of ammunition held serve?

 

[Jeff8861]

One office dealing with, fully staffed by people who have the relevant knowledge needed, removed from police "Fiefdom" controls, & full compliance with HOG.

Where do you base the office. How do you arrange home visits how do you arrange urgent transactions. It won't work

 

[Husky]

You want shooters in Scotland to have to go through the nonsense that you do in England regarding open/closed certificates and land checks ?

 

[NullMac]

Calibre groups would be nice.

No one 4 one variations. Notification scheme should handle that. Authority does not lapse when selling a rifle. Simpler for everyone ?

 

[mealiejimmy]

I have no major gripes with the current system for granting or renewing FAC/SGC
Making sure the applicant is suitable and not a danger to themself or the general public must be the priority.
However, once the police are satisfied on the suitability of the applicant an FAC holder should have far more freedom of choice on quantities and calibres of weapons and ammunition possessed
Once an FAC is granted the admin involved in acquiring and disposing of weapons could be greatly simplified
One for one is a complete joke - it should be possible to dispose of one rifle and acquire another rifle of the same calibre without requiring a variation
I would also investigate calibre groups to allow one for one transfers within a calibre group without the need for a variation
Moderators should be removed from licensing completely.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[finnbear270]

Where do you base the office. How do you arrange home visits how do you arrange urgent transactions. It won't work

Urgent online, And anywhere suitable for online traffic.

 

[Klenchblaize]

The majority of your points are already being addresses or are in place.

Mods have already been addressed and will come through rendering them a non component part.

An error on a cert will not render you liable to prosecution if the error is down to an admin process this can be audited and you will not be at fault.

Land checks are done as a matter of course mainly on new pieces of land that haven't been checked previoulsy. Regardless what ever the ground is rated for its down to the shooter to do the risk assessment. You judge the backstop and surroundings you get it wrong then its down to you not the feo or the department.

Driving licence approach is flawed why set this up, more cost, more delays, more individuals to train more it issues, more transferring of files the list goes and look at the state of the dvla.

In regards to open tickets and expirence. After five years of holding a fac and during that time no issues you are already granted open cert status.
The current IT system is being resourced and is put out for tender.

Firearms Licensing don't just do grants and renewals. They have a number of other roles. RFD grants and renewals rfd inspections. Again same duties with rfd but with explosives.
Safeguarding holder welfare.
Section 11 ground inspection and the associated admin.
There own force training on new local systems.
Voluntary surrenders and the admin following this.
Revocations and subsequent appeals.
File prep evidence gathering and court procedures.
Seizures of firearms and thier disposal.
medical process and contact correspondence with gp and other medical providets. Answering the phone and emails.
I could go on.

Imagine the likes of the dvla doing this. I hope this offers an insight and balances the discussion. Overall delays are coming down departments have taken on more staff it is getting better.
It really comes down to what is reported the majority of it being wrong scare mongering and utter rubbish. Agendas are being pushed by others. At the end of the day put into context the amount of cert holders to the amount of complaints. You are only going to see negative comments and I suspect the majority of the negativity is down to cert holders own failings. Don't think ive ever read a comment where a cert holder has admitted blame.
Just my thoughts hope this helps others and gives an insight.

My hopefully constructive observations based on that encountered as recently as May this year:

1. Address the disconnect between the Licensing Admin Department (those who word/print certificates) and that applied for on-line and subsequently ‘agreed’ with the FEO.

2. Invite and listen to Applicant feedback in how the on-line application for grant and renewal can better capture key information.

3. Less focus on the calibre of rifle/s the Applicant may be permitted to acquire. (A so-called “open certificate” that relies on the certificate holder exercising judgment in a rifle’s deployment should cover concerns around MV/ME.)

4. Review the need for a one-for-one variation and linked to more robustly managed on-line notification of rifle disposal and acquisition.

5. Review the challenges (for Applicants) posed by the current medical form requirements and with particular regard to ensuring there is a;- zero need for third-party involvement by the likes of Medcert and b;- increase the cost of an FAC to include the cost of NHS GP’s providing the required info. The idea being that each General Practice is paid, in arrears, a sum of money commensurate with the number of FAC Applicants they process per year.

K

 

[Sika98k]

I have no major gripes with the current system for granting or renewing FAC/SGC
Making sure the applicant is suitable and not a danger to themself or the general public must be the priority.
However, once the police are satisfied on the suitability of the applicant an FAC holder should have far more freedom of choice on quantities and calibres of weapons and ammunition possessed
Once an FAC is granted the admin involved in acquiring and disposing of weapons could be greatly simplified
One for one is a complete joke - it should be possible to dispose of one rifle and acquire another rifle of the same calibre without requiring a variation
I would also investigate calibre groups to allow one for one transfers within a calibre group without the need for a variation
Moderators should be removed from licensing completely.

Cheers

Bruce

Pretty much what they do in Norn Ireland for one off, one ons within caliber groups. Done and dusted in the RFD’s.

 

[paultap]

The general excuse for increasing renewal and variation times seems to be a lack of staffing. Having miraculously diagnosed the issues, it seems to be beyond the capabilities of the forces involved to take on and train more staff. An increasingly overly complicated system certainly doesn’t help.

I am sure that if underperformance in this area led to job losses of those at the top of the tree, we might suddenly find that there would be a dramatic Improvement in performance.

 

[kes]

I would implement a system in the police which called for a peer review of decisions where a beat officer (familiar with the applicant) has reservations about allowing a licence or a renewal. The peer review could recommend review by an independent force if there was no conclusive decision. This would have stopped the massacres at Dunblane in Durham and in Cumbria, possibly Plymouth. If ever there was a further incident (God forbid) I would AUTOMATICALLY refer it to a QC with wide power to interview and call for evidence. Police checking Police does not work in the instance where a murder with a legal firearm has occurred.

As for the grant and renewal processes I would commence and independent review of fees and performance and ensure no police force which cannot meet the standards set, based on this assessment, was no longer allowed to process firearms work and it would be farmed out to an adjacent force which did meet the standards.

I would institute a nationwide gun amnesty and then task a specific group to remove illegal guns from criminals by ensuring anyone found with an illegal gun and a criminal record was given a minimum max security sentence of 10 Years.
Designating land would follow the Yorkshire model - open from the start. I would, at the same time offer a very reasonably priced course separately for shotgun shooters and rifle shooters without obligation to take such a course. A 'score' for that course or no score would be part of an ongoing individuals record.

Medicals would be on grant or renewal but it would be the Police's responsibility to obtain the medical info for a fee determined by the review above - no medical practice could opt out.

I would ensure all new grants would receive a written best practice guide developed to ensure - if followed - a best practice shooter was created. Within the new grant fee.
I would ensure ALL firearms legislation was statutory and remove the option of interpretation from Chief Constables with an HO arbitration process for extreme cases.
I would institute a penalty for anyone who falsely or maliciously called out the Police emergency service simply based on sighting a man with a gun in Rural situations without any justification, determined after the fact.
I would create a firearms group with mandatory membership by all sides of shooting and make ALL the minutes available. This meeting would discuss all relevant issues make recommendations by majority and cover all aspects of shooting in the UK - there would be an obligation to evaluate and develop future policy for onward transmission to Politicians. Disagreements would be by exception reporting,

I would remove the ability of Chief Constables to refuse to grant or confiscate firearms or shotgun certificates without providing an arbitration service to test the decision, the finding of which would not cost the applicant (for either grant or renewal or retention) anything and occur within 2 weeks of failure or confiscation. The findings would amount to a 'free court' the decision of which would be binding on all parties.

I would institute a national scheme of shooting insurance - monitored by the Group above and as part of the grant/renewal fee only if the applicants undertake the training mentioned above. Insurance would however still be required but paid for by the applicant to a national standard.

I would then institute a 7 year certificate and an annual check with doctors records - at no cost to the shooter - i.e. a doctor would be REQUIRED to inform The relevant force annually that all was well medically with the applicant - following a 'normal' visit by the shooter to the doctors surgery (paid for under the NHS as per a normal visit.

There are many other things which can remove the unreasonable controls and provide additional measures to ensure public safety - I just dont think anyone has re -thought the process from fisrtly public safety and what would be reasonable to the shooting community.
The reasons why I would do as suggested should be obvious but happy to expand/elucidate where required - if anyone can bother to read this.

Added later, I would institute a new system of gun crime reporting stratified by sufficient detail to determine legally/illegally held firearms/ shotguns, circumstances of use, force area, manning levels and performance scores. I would give badly performing Police forces no-where to hide if they are failing but allow additional funding if they are performing well across several such key stats.

 

[mealiejimmy]

Beat officer - they have been an extinct species for years

Cheers

Bruce

 

[kes]

For the less than wise person above - beat officer equates to 'officer with local knowledge' or, as I said in the post Officer with local knowledge how difficult is that to understand or maybe the falling over laughing emoji is more accurate.

 

[finnbear270]

Kes, Mealie is correct, you might find you have a PCSO for longer than three months, forget a full constable.

 

[Jeff8861]

No beat officers all now response you may get a cop from a neighbourhood team (rural) but I doubt it very much. All have remits applicable to their role and licensing isn't one of them.

 

[enfieldspares]

When I applied for my first grant of an FAC in 1976 aged nineteen our RBO...PC 414 Downham did indeed do my interview and submitted his report. A true RBO his funeral was at our village church and he rests in our village cemetery.

Nowadays I have no direct knowledge of anyone is who supposedly "polices," the village just as they likely have no direct knowledge of me.

They could pass by me out of uniform and not even know who they were. The village's last true beat officer PC Staniforth had his "office" in the village castle with its moat.

That was near twenty years ago. Have no idea whoever it ever was since he retired. As said here today gone in weeks. Local knowledge KES? You're having a laugh!

 

[Dan Newcombe]

I’m not convinced what I would have different if there were different rules - I’d like it to be a bit more streamlined in many ways but ultimately I’ve never been turned down for something I’ve asked for