Renewal application rejected

[25 Sharps]

I doubt there is anyone in the country who thinks that Firearms Licensing Departments are not failing. Cuts have consequences, and if you cut staffing levels you are setting departments up to fail.

Really?

My renewal was done in weeks and a couple of months before my old ticket ran out in January. Last variation was done in less than an hour, previous one a month before in less than 24 hrs. (Wilts)

My buddy in Cirencester so Gloucestershire was late getting his SGC in, like really late, they phoned him to tell him he needed to get it in before midnight for renewal. He did, he had his new SGC in less than 3 weeks.

So there’s 2 people! But everyone under those FLDs will be getting good service, for the fees as currently charged.

 

[ColinJ]

Really?

My renewal was done in weeks and a couple of months before my old ticket ran out in January. Last variation was done in less than an hour, previous one a month before in less than 24 hrs. (Wilts)

My buddy in Cirencester so Gloucestershire was late getting his SGC in, like really late, they phoned him to tell him he needed to get it in before midnight for renewal. He did, he had his new SGC in less than 3 weeks.

So there’s 2 people! But everyone under those FLDs will be getting good service, for the fees as currently charged.

That’s good to hear.

 

[25 Sharps]

That’s good to hear.

Do you get the point though? That’s 2 forces, both areas with lots of certificate holders, giving very good service based on the current fees.

So, if other areas are not, then it is not the fees that are to blame.

 

[sikamalc]

Whether its true or not, but I heard that some are changing over to a different computer system It has been enough struggle over the years to get the present one correct in my opinion.

The trouble with the Firearms system is that there is no level playing field across the constabularies. Each Chief Constable can apply guidelines from the Home Office as he/she see's fit.
If you get lucky, on a renewal or application, and receive your FAC in good time, count yourself lucky, because many are not. I have just had a phone call from a good friend who is with the Met. Its been weeks to receive his renewal. In fact he had to put his rifles into an RFD. I would be claiming the money back from the Met if I was him.

Personally the cost per application should be higher, in my opinion. Renewals or additions No. It does take some considerable research on an application to make sure the candidate is suitable to own a weapon. Therefore the cost should cover the Lions share of this. But if you are already in the system, and are just renewing, and there have been no issues in the past 5 years, there is really no reason why any renewal should not be straight forward.

 

[nun_hunter]

Whether its true or not, but I heard that some are changing over to a different computer system It has been enough struggle over the years to get the present one correct in my opinion.

The trouble with the Firearms system is that there is no level playing field across the constabularies. Each Chief Constable can apply guidelines from the Home Office as he/she see's fit.
If you get lucky, on a renewal or application, and receive your FAC in good time, count yourself lucky, because many are not. I have just had a phone call from a good friend who is with the Met. Its been weeks to receive his renewal. In fact he had to put his rifles into an RFD. I would be claiming the money back from the Met if I was him.

Personally the cost per application should be higher, in my opinion. Renewals or additions No. It does take some considerable research on an application to make sure the candidate is suitable to own a weapon. Therefore the cost should cover the Lions share of this. But if you are already in the system, and are just renewing, and there have been no issues in the past 5 years, there is really no reason why any renewal should not be straight forward.

The irony is that if you apply and aren't suitable (because the police checks worked and identified issues) then you get your money back.

If anything the people causing the most work and where the money needs to be spent, stopping them getting a certificate don't end up paying anything. Those that are deemed safe and suitable to have a certificate do end up paying and then pay more for a safe, renewals, variations etc.

The very premise of the certificate system is for public safety and yet those deemed most safe and trustworthy currently pay the most while those with certain criminal records and who pose a threat to public safety don't contribute at all. That makes no sense to me, from a public safety perspective.

 

[DVS1]

I agree with the above why is there not a system that is, as a whole, a standard across the board no matter which area you reside in. Yes there will be occasions where there's an exception but there should be 1 standard system across the board.

I would happily pay a higher cost for a FAC grant but like above if your in the system then renewal costs should drop in following years as your a 'known' in that system. Unless there's mitigating circumstances then it shouldn't take long at all. The system is in place to protect public saftey and suitability of the applicant but the system is not trusted.....why not??

We pay for a service, much like any service, so we should expect, in fact demand a good service! Having to put firearms into storage due to inability of departments is not our fault.

There's been accounts of FEO's not having any experience in the world of shooting/firearms? So how can this be deemed acceptable?

 

[Dalua]

We pay for a service, much like any service, so we should expect, in fact demand a good service!

This point might bear repeating:
Firearms 'licensing' is a not for the benefit of firearms users - a point that must be clear to all of us who have to go through the processes etc. It is for the benefit of the general public (which includes the shooters, of course), who therefore are reasonably expected to pay for it.
A statutory fee is paid by applicants - presumably to reduce vexatious applications, but I think it is dangerous for FAC/SGC-holder to think of this fee as being in any way 'payment for a service'.
It is a service for the benefit of the public - and as such it is reasonable to expect it both to be funded by the public, and to work properly so that the public and the peace are protected, and the people seeking to exercise their right in law to own and use firearms are not disproportionately inconvenienced financially or otherwise.

 

[sikamalc]

I am not saying its acceptable under the current system. I myself, with many years of owning firearms, and being responsible in the past for a very large collection, many working section 5 handguns and having sat briefly on a Police panel, was subject to a long wait on my last renewal. In the end I approached my police force and asked to make an official complaint, due to them telling me they would send a letter out to cover my forth coming lapsed FAC. Even though I had put the renewal in to them some 3 months in advance.
I refused to accept this as many clients use my rifles under the estate rifle system, and therefore I requested a full licence as per the last time I renewed. After a brief phone call from the manager I received a phone call from my new FEO, who went through all my rifles.

Why I do not know, but after 30 years of owning and using my 375HH he questioned why I had it, and that it was too larger calibre for the UK. I politely told him that I use it abroad, and since owning the weapon it has always been on my FAC with AOLQ. So what was the issue now?
He said its too big for deer in the UK. I then told him that if he could find anything in the deer act or the FA laws that stated there was a maximum calibre for shooting deer or quarry in the UK, he could have my rifle today.

It went quiet for a second on the phone, and then he said, Ok I think its ok we will leave it.

Sometimes I think they have to question something just to justify their being an FEO. But many are retired Police Officers, and poorly trained in Firearm recognition, the deer act and firearm laws, in my opinion.

 

[DVS1]

This point might bear repeating:
Firearms 'licensing' is a not for the benefit of firearms users - a point that must be clear to all of us who have to go through the processes etc. It is for the benefit of the general public (which includes the shooters, of course), who therefore are reasonably expected to pay for it.
A statutory fee is paid by applicants - presumably to reduce vexatious applications, but I think it is dangerous for FAC/SGC-holder to think of this fee as being in any way 'payment for a service'.
It is a service for the benefit of the public - and as such it is reasonable to expect it both to be funded by the public, and to work properly so that the public and the peace are protected, and the people seeking to exercise their right in law to own and use firearms are not disproportionately inconvenienced financially or otherwise.

Is this literature from an official source or your interpretation mate?

 

[sikamalc]

Is this literature from an official source or your interpretation mate?

Are you referring to my post above?

 

[DVS1]

Are you referring to my post above?

No mate apologies, I've edited my post, referring to Dalua's post

 

[sikamalc]

ok.

 

[25 Sharps]

Whether its true or not, but I heard that some are changing over to a different computer system It has been enough struggle over the years to get the present one correct in my opinion.

The trouble with the Firearms system is that there is no level playing field across the constabularies. Each Chief Constable can apply guidelines from the Home Office as he/she see's fit.
If you get lucky, on a renewal or application, and receive your FAC in good time, count yourself lucky, because many are not. I have just had a phone call from a good friend who is with the Met. Its been weeks to receive his renewal. In fact he had to put his rifles into an RFD. I would be claiming the money back from the Met if I was him.

Personally the cost per application should be higher, in my opinion. Renewals or additions No. It does take some considerable research on an application to make sure the candidate is suitable to own a weapon. Therefore the cost should cover the Lions share of this. But if you are already in the system, and are just renewing, and there have been no issues in the past 5 years, there is really no reason why any renewal should not be straight forward.

I think the system will be changing nationally as apparently out to there at the moment.

I did casually mention to my lot of renewal was late I’d be charging the £10/week/gun that my RFD charges for storage and I have more than a couple.

My biggest issue with grants being higher is it becomes a barrier to some and the more people we have in this sport, all arms of it, the safer the future is for all of us.

 

[Greenmist]

Having to put firearms into storage due to inability of departments is not our fault.

While I agree with your entire post, I don't believe the above to be accurate, if you have submitted everything needed in the time required, you will not be liable for storage costs, you will first be given an extension and if needed a sect7 cert after that. The only time I've heard of firearms being put into the storage either with the police of with an rfd at the cost of the owner, is when the paperwork has gone in late

 

[south-nofolk-stalker]

Not going to have this debate with you Lee, you’re just here looking for arguments and getting threads closed again. Hopefully @sikamalc sacks you off soon.

Not at all, I’m sharing my opinion like every one else does on here, just because you don’t like what I’m saying no need to get narky over it.

 

[DVS1]

While I agree with your entire post, I don't believe the above to be accurate, if you have submitted everything needed in the time required, you will not be liable for storage costs, you will first be given an extension and if needed a sect7 cert after that. The only time I've heard of firearms being put into the storage either with the police of with an rfd at the cost of the owner, is when the paperwork has gone in late

No I agree if the applicant has dilly dallied then yes the costs should rightly be covered by themselves.

A friend had to out his guns into storage as his area were not as efficient as they could've been despite his request for an extension to be issued they refused and he had his paperwork in in plenty of time.

 

[Dalua]

Is this literature from an official source or your interpretation?

You're asking whether it's my interpretation, or that of someone else - but the answer, I guess, is that it is a mixture.

 

[Tazz]

All this tells me is that your Dr can't read. They aren't asked for their opinion, or a recommendation. The form simply asks whether you have been diagnosed or treated for a specific list of medical conditions.
This is why Medcert and Shootcert exist, because numerous Dr's don't appear to be able to read and understand a very simple form.

Classis bloke issue, male GP’s won’t read the instructions

 

[Shootgun]

Classis bloke issue, male GP’s won’t read the instructions

Absolutely !

My GP plastered the back of proforma with all sorts even though nothing have anything to do with any relevant conditions.

 

[Tazz]

Absolutely !

My GP plastered the back of proforma with all sorts even though nothing have anything to do with any relevant conditions.

In terms of the form it could not be much simpler for GP’s it is literally a tick box Yes/No and in the event of a Yes a brief description, it’s not a character evaluation to go with your CV. Joy of dealing with GP’s you get the Good the Bad and the Other. The other issue is that if you are fit and healthy they don’t even know who you are