South Yorkshire
- Thread starter Waz77
- Start date
No?
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
I wonder which orgs they’ve consulted with ....
Looks like the majority of wording in the letter has been lifted from 2.18 & 2.1 (for some reason between 2.20 & 2.21 - obviously cocked up the numbering) of this document....
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
Shouldn’t count against you though mate just because you have a pistol ?
Jimboblincs2
Well-Known Member
I've not received anything but had an alarm, when FEO visited for renewal.
As far as I am aware, this is beyond reasonable requirements or have you had a premises survey and been so advised - from the letter itseems a policy change and in contradiction of the Firearms Security Handbook?
Quote
2.1 For these purposes, a “substantial” number of firearms should be considered with regard to the type of firearms, their potential danger if misused and their likely attractiveness to criminals. At the lower end the number might vary between six and ten, depending on the type of firearm concerned, whilst anything over ten would rarely be lower than level 2. It must be stressed, however, that it is not enough to base an assessment on the number of firearms alone – all factors mentioned above and in paragraph 2.20 should be taken into account. Sound moderators, spare barrels, spare cylinders and component parts should not be considered as part of the total.
End quote
A humane condition would make that level 2 without necessarily reaching 6 firearms.
The security handbook is quoted on here and you should perhaps send them a copy and explain why you find their requirements unreasonable.
You could always try BASC and hope they were not one of the orgs consulted, who sold you out. Maybe they will take your case, then again maybe not and since your only hope of insurance is your household policy - I'd read that after having read the above and decided.
Clearly burglary isnt as important as you having to pay to prevent the police from failing in their duty to protect the public - from burglars.
Quote
2.1 For these purposes, a “substantial” number of firearms should be considered with regard to the type of firearms, their potential danger if misused and their likely attractiveness to criminals. At the lower end the number might vary between six and ten, depending on the type of firearm concerned, whilst anything over ten would rarely be lower than level 2. It must be stressed, however, that it is not enough to base an assessment on the number of firearms alone – all factors mentioned above and in paragraph 2.20 should be taken into account. Sound moderators, spare barrels, spare cylinders and component parts should not be considered as part of the total.
End quote
A humane condition would make that level 2 without necessarily reaching 6 firearms.
The security handbook is quoted on here and you should perhaps send them a copy and explain why you find their requirements unreasonable.
You could always try BASC and hope they were not one of the orgs consulted, who sold you out. Maybe they will take your case, then again maybe not and since your only hope of insurance is your household policy - I'd read that after having read the above and decided.
Clearly burglary isnt as important as you having to pay to prevent the police from failing in their duty to protect the public - from burglars.
So perhaps they have no justification - worth asking them to justify the change as it will cost you money I presume - windows etc.
If it was BASC they probably said “yeah, crack on, maybe make them dance a jig too?”
Such an unreasonable approach by the police.
The true cost of crime is not the event, but the fear of the threat, and the cost of trying to prevent it occurring is out of all proportion to the risk. We, the potential victims, lose out even without any crime being committed.
Let alone the issue of anyone's ability to guarantee security. If it is impossible to keep villains out of bank vaults with all their spending power for security, what chance has Mr Bloggs of Acacia Avenue got?
It is only the opportunist thief that might be delayed and thus prevented...but if a villain wants your guns he will point one at your head until you disarm the alarms and give him the keys.
Alan
The true cost of crime is not the event, but the fear of the threat, and the cost of trying to prevent it occurring is out of all proportion to the risk. We, the potential victims, lose out even without any crime being committed.
Let alone the issue of anyone's ability to guarantee security. If it is impossible to keep villains out of bank vaults with all their spending power for security, what chance has Mr Bloggs of Acacia Avenue got?
It is only the opportunist thief that might be delayed and thus prevented...but if a villain wants your guns he will point one at your head until you disarm the alarms and give him the keys.
Alan
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
Ridiculous
Talk to your shooting org - everything like this rubbish needs to be challenged.
Similar threads
