A national body.... (not the same old thread)

[Chuck]

Badgering's a criminal offence is it not????????????? Oh wait, no wrong animal, I was thinking of worrying them....

Yes badger them, worry them.

[meles meles]

You have sheep on your mind, ooman? Or doggin', perhaps?

[M1Charles1M]

My two penneth:

The certification sytem should concentrate on the person, they being the real source of any potential problem, a gun without a person is just another object. If, after a system of vetting to determine if I am of sound mind and good character the issue of a certificate to own should be a unequivocal right the right of rejection to issue should be based solely on a recorded history of violence or known, adverse medical condition. Other than that we should restore the long lost default of innicence till proved guilty!

Anyone looking into our history surrounding firearms legislation will soon realise that it is deliberately fragmented and difficult to understand and administer, the HO want it that way and said as much in 2010 when they passed on the opportunity to review same, divide and rule. Additionally, much of our firearms ruling is not enshrined in law, it is implemented by that private company called ACPO as a matter of policy and procedure disguised and portrayed as law, then adopted by Forces whose CC holds the reigns of power determined by concensus at the behest of that private company.

The pricing regime is fine. It does not need increasing. If the duped 'Public' insist that there is a 'Public safety' issue, then the public should damn well pay the lions share of administering it. The issue of risk management is far too long to discuss here.

On the certification issue I am mindful of a book I have read called "The Trigger does not Pull the Finger". It proposes that many things, mostly very good but it does suggest that the certificate issue should be with the Security Industry Authority (SIA) with withdrawal and, or confiscation of equipment by Police BUT only after the issue of a warrant by a court following an appropriate conviction. Seems a much fairer system to me but I am sure there will be those who will tell me how flawed the system is and how it is not prescriptive enough, etc, etc.

If I am deemed acceptable to have certification issued, what I then CHOOSE to own and use is utterly irrelevant. The responsibility for that ownership and use is MINE, and if I abuse, or misuse that responsibility the law is already sufficient to the end.

The biggest single barrier to changes in the law and any monitoring regime imposed in the misgiven notion of public safety is OURSELVES, and the divisive stupidity and snobbery that is endemic in the shooting communities, whilst there are those who will sacrifice fellow shooters at the altar of expediency, little will change, and never for the better!

[Chuck]

Sendit: excellent post, last paragraph sums it up. It's a problem not just confined to the UK as I am sure Blu and Co can confirm.


As for the SIA, they don't appear to be all that popular in the Industry. PLUS, you'd be bogged down in jargon speak academics forever: Just look at say the Maritime Firearms Competency Certificate: a one day sham course that appears to teach very little but it is an earner for the powers that be. Of course when the skinnies try to hijack your ship that cert will be handy for wiping the skitters away as it sure as hell ain't bullet proof. The Door Security notes are a laugh too.

Badger: I am saying nothing, it wasn't me, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything - a bad boy did it and ran away

[huntervixen]

"Maritime Firearms Competency Certificate: a one day sham course that appears to teach very little but it is an earner for the powers that be"

Having discussed the above "course" with a business contact, a former Royal Marine and enthusiastic Somali coast boater..... He was somewhat bemused/amused by it!

Every greedy sod has his fingers in the pie....its always been the same!

[Gaz]

Apparently some of those firms are using the section 11(4) exemption to train with .22s on miniature gallery ranges without the faff of needing FACs etc, if the ACPO firearms restriction group is to be believed.

[huntervixen]

I think it takes a very brave man to stand up in front of and attempt to "teach" ex Royal Marines and SBS, Maritime Firearms Competency!!!

The green beret is certificate enough me thinks!

[Chuck]

One would think so - but I know a former green beret t*@t who should not have a picture of a gun never mind a real one. The point of the course is not to really teach as there's no where near enough time for that on a one day course but to CONFIRM that a certain level of competency has been achieved on a set academic basis that can be measured. Maybe that's why they are one day courses .

The Cert (IMO) is just a money maker so that people can get worthless bits of paper that are of no use. Our US contacts think they're a joke but if it makes money then fine. All being well we'll do them abroad next year - but with real guns and a decent content.

You're right Gaz, some ARE using "pretend" .22RF courses on the mainland, the Home Office assures me this is ILLEGAL and such courses should be avoided at all costs! Believe it or not, I saw someone offering certification in Walther CP99 CO2 pistols at £90 - for WHAT exactly??

[breacher]

I do a little Maritime security work from time to time.

Had to do one of those certification courses / evaluations.

I have no idea how they get around the law ( apparently the HO are aware ) unless they are using the estate rifle clause which I believe would be tenuous !

[Chuck]

Breacher: official letter from home office - ILLEGAL!