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

[Dalua]

Any further fundamental changes to statute would certainly make things worse for shooters - perhaps with the exception of categorising moderators for S1 firearms the same as those for s2 firearms and sub-12ftlb airguns.

The best we should hope for is that the current law be administered fairly and efficiently. Under 'efficiently' I'd include dropping all 'discretionary conditions' except where they're doing something useful (such keeping target-only shooters on proper ranges).

I'm not sure there's anything in current statute that would prevent variations for groups of chamberings, rather than pointlessly-specific single ones.

 

[25 Sharps]

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

How high do you think fees would have to be to cover travel and accommodation for home visits?

 

[Dalua]

Linking the statutory fees payable for grant, renewal and variation to the standard of service is another thing we need to stop doing.

Ownership of firearms, despite what the HO and police seem to think, remains a right - albeit subject to certification as fit. It should not additionally be contingent on having enough money to pay for it - other than the statutory fees, which were set at a reasonable level, presumably to discourage vexatious applicants and as a contribution towards the costs - the costs initially, before the whole edifice of visits, inspections, ridiculous 'discretionary conditions' and so on was invented. We need to keep in mind that all this stuff is for the public benefit, not the certificate-holders', and therefore we have really already paid our part as we are members of the public.

'Full cost recovery' is an unjust concept whose purpose is to reduce FAC/SGC numbers; as is the requirement to pay for reports from medical practitioners.

 

[Lateral]

May have already been mentioned, but a system closer to owning shotguns.

Scrap the current "variation" system. FAC issued with a maximum calibre, and maximum number of firearms that can be owned.

FAC holder can buy/sell, firearms within their FAC allowance, only needing to notify the FLD of any change, just like a shotgun.

A variation is only required, if you want a calibre bigger than on your license, or over the number you're allowed.


It seems sensible, but, would it create more, rather than less admin' ? When FAC holders start buying, & selling firearms at will, and the FLD have to keep up with all of the FAC changes ??

 

[mealiejimmy]

As a bit of an aside to this thread, where does the legal justification come from for a one for one variation in which a certificate holder has to dispose of a rifle and then get a variation before acquiring another rifle chambered in the same cartridge
Having read the Firearms Act (again!), I can see nothing at all obvious that such a system is legally required
I'm sure better minds than mine can come up with a rational and legally consistent explanation of something which we all agree is a complete joke.

Cheers

Bruce