ACPO: Firearms licence holders are no cash cow

[Christel]

License people who want to kit their cars out to the extent that they can't control the power anymore and potentially kill someone.
License people who play ball, any type of ball, all lethal if misused and if you take the football fans into account, double lethal.

I am not aware of any other tool than a rifle that can get you out to 1200, so why punish us for our chosen sport?

[Chuck]

License people who want to kit their cars out to the extent that they can't control the power anymore and potentially kill someone.

They already do, it's called (OTT) Car Insurance....

[Christel]

License people who want to kit their cars out to the extent that they can't control the power anymore and potentially kill someone.

They already do, it's called (OTT) Car Insurance....

Not good enough, a separate license should be issued to identify the dangerous drivers. I am of course saying this in light of shooters being licensed and vetted at great cost.

[Chuck]

There is, it's called seriously expensive insurance (more than the car) or driving without Insurance..
Then again we are blaming the tools not the fools!

Agree that the current test is hogwash and based on 90 year old nonsense and a highway code that's often at odds with the current fashion of idiotic road markings.

Why no night driving, motorway driving, adverse weather (not as if we don't have any) - all should be compulsory EXTRA modules, not this farce of learning a route. Oh and not trusting electronic gizmos to save you when you do get it wrong - too many people think it's like the computer game.

[Christel]

Chuck,

I know the young drivers pay a lot for their insurance...

If we as shooters are to pay a license fee and insurance for our sport, range fees and club fees, consumables on top, why are reckless drivers not licensed separately as well as paying their insurance?

[Maggot]

Hmmmm

This is an awkward one for me, Andy Marsh being my boss and all that, He's allright as it goes.

Personally I would ask yourself who is writing the ACPO guidance that makes the whole machine so ruddy cumbersome.

The reason it costs so much is that over the years, many forces have not simply applied the laws, but sought to inject all sorts of local customs, interpretations and dare I say it, stupidity.

They have bogged themselves down in all sorts of rubbish (like the pointless .308/7.62x51 argument, licensing a specific slot rather than simply by calibre (Think about it, we tell them what we have anway, why get the damned slot to be so specific, a .30 cal hole is just that, license by calibre and centre/rimfire)).

And I know of quite a few occasions where, quite simply, Mr Firearms has woken up in a foul mood, got personal, and has got bitten because like it or not, it is a right to hold if you have good reason and satisfy the rules, and not a bloody priviledge tesnews

I am currently creating totally uneccessary strain on the system (in Hants...dont worry, I told them it was an as and when job) by asking for a collectors slot so I can keep inert sec 5 ammo (Expanding, AP etc).

Totally and utterly unneccessary, but there you go.

But if I am honest, I dont think we do ourselves many favours sometimes.

I still have to run with this, and my boss has suggested that he may not do it as it may be a conflict of interest, but I intend approching Andrew Mercer with a view to giving the Boss a mornings F/TR shooting (at my expense) because I really dont think they ever get to see the sensible, controlled, sporting side of shooting.

You can apply this to any branch, I just happen to shoot F/TR, I see various BASC regions running days for FEOs etc, but how often do they get to see the target sports side, just quietly enjoying our sport.....well, a bit quietly.

I just dont think they know what it means to most of us.

The idea was to absoloutely not even mention licensing, just to let him exprience what we do (hopefully in the dry).

Good idea or bad?

[Mikaveli]

The licence slots should be updated to use your "good reason" instead of calibre. For example:

You want to shoot Gallery Rifle, ideally with a .44 mag. After searching, only a good .357 comes up. In goes a variation...

Where if you could just apply for a "Gallery Rifle" slot, job done. The same example could be applied again and again.

Also, they need to get rid of the need for a variation when you're doing a direct replacement - i.e. old or broken .223 binned for newer, shinier, working .223

[Maggot]

The licence slots should be updated to use your "good reason" instead of calibre. For example:

You want to shoot Gallery Rifle, ideally with a .44 mag. After searching, only a good .357 comes up. In goes a variation...

Where if you could just apply for a "Gallery Rifle" slot, job done. The same example could be applied again and again.

Also, they need to get rid of the need for a variation when you're doing a direct replacement - i.e. old or broken .223 binned for newer, shinier, working .223

My point was that they are already supposed to license by calibre......

the .223 example was exactly what should happen.

After all, the details need to be sent within 7 days, they don't actually have to see the thing and this info is backed up by the seller, so they know well what you have.

As my FEO says, "a .30 cal hole is a .30 cal hole"....mind you he applies that logic to my wanting to collect inert ammo as well, cant see the point but has processed the request.

Funny how there are so many different view points. Not really the point of a statute.

This is what the problem is with guidelines, it allows too much lateral for us to be tied up in.

In reality they would be better off actually working with shooters/shooting organisations and paring away all the rubbish.

Dealing with what matters, the facts, get rid of the trip wires and obscure "Lawyer friendly" little nasties, and licensing the shooter and not the tools.

.....Smoke on......run starts.....oink oink oink....on target....engage.

Splash one flying porcine tesnews

[Gaz]

Cut out the whole variation nonsense and move everything to section 2. License the person and concentrate on them, not on inanimate objects that can do no harm without a person being involved.

The coroner in the Michael Atherton case heavily criticised Durham's FLD because they were too fixated on paperwork rather than people. It is clear the current system puts the public at risk and needs simplifying.

[Christel]

Cut out the whole variation nonsense and move everything to section 2. License the person and concentrate on them, not on inanimate objects that can do no harm without a person being involved.

The coroner in the Michael Atherton case heavily criticised Durham's FLD because they were too fixated on paperwork rather than people. It is clear the current system puts the public at risk and needs simplifying.

Well said Gaz
I hope someone somewhere pays attention.