A firearms certificate costs £50 and lasts for five years. The anti-shooting lobby contend that this is far too small a sum and that rich toffs – as they wrongly perceive the licensed firearms community to be – should be paying more. Senior police officers even claimed the cost of administering the grant of a firearm or shotgun certificate was just under £200...
What's to be done? Happily, technology promises a solution that should reduce the amount of money needed to operate the licensing system while not affecting public safety one jot.
Going over old ground here but the simple fact is there is too much paper going backwards and forwards with little to no benefit to public safety. Several processes could be streamlined or removed altogether IMHO.
Like drivers there should be a photo-ID and counterpart paper licence.
The photo-ID like a driving licence should be unified for SG and FAC (they would still be separate when it comes to the paper licences), I don't carry separate cards because I have a motorbike and car licence so why should it be the same for guns? My driving licence shows each class of vehicle I am allowed to drive it should be the same for guns. The front of that card should have:
Photo
Full Name
FAC number + Expire date
SGC number + Expire date
RFD number (if needed)
Signature (Mine only - the Chief constables would be on the paper counterpart)
Classes of guns allowed to be owned for example ... S1, S2 and S7.3 etc
The rear of the card:
List of calibers permitted with total allowance number and expanding noted if so entitled. (If you are one of those lucky people who is allowed a thousand different calibre's then a second card is issued)
Looking at a driving licence there is plenty of space for all that information. The card licence would be used for daily carry in your wallet whilst out and about with your guns and when you are buying ammunition. The requirement to record how much ammunition is sold then recorded onto the paper certificate should be dropped as it doesn't actually give a proper pattern of ammunition consumption or illicit hoarding.
The paper certificates should be pretty much what we have now but with the table to record ammunition purchase removed. It should have the same details as the card but include the Chief constable signature. It should record the guns you have already purchased and what calibers you are entitled to buy plus moderators. It should be only taken out and have information recorded on it when you are buying a new gun or moderator. The sale as is currently done should be sent to police via an e-portal or via paper means if not available on the current forms. The paper counterpart should only be sent back if you are:
a) Making a variation
b) Renewing your licences
c) Leaving the sport
If a variation is made then a new card licence is issued along with the counterpart and the old card is posted back to a central police clearing office like a passport is currently done when the replacement arrives.
All that would remove massive hassle and stop the crazy paper trail that is currently wasting huge amounts of tax payers money for virtually no public safety return.
errr.............. can you remember what happened the last time the police tried to computerise everything.
MY FEO had to come to my house to ask me what guns I had and their serial numbers...............because his PC had gorn tits-up and lost everything. :roll: :roll: :roll:
G.M.
Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
The South Wales figures £197k and 3000 grants/renewals. Say 5 members of staff - 600 grants each, or 2 to 2.5 per day each. A reasonable figure for their workload.
What is missing is the number of variations ... potentially 1000 at £26 each.
So, 3000 at £50 is £150k, variations another £26k meaning the gap is narrower. Or just £57 per grant.
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to discern whether or not they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
God loves stupid people, that is why he made so many of them.
Tommygunn wrote:Plus of course visits etc in relation to explosives licensing...
Was just about to put together a list of other areas where they get an income, of which explosives licences are one:
Visitor Permits - £12 or £60 for a group
Registered Firearms Dealer - £150
RFD temporary certificates for Game Fairs and shows - £12 each
Club Approval - ranges or clays - £84
Explosives Certificates - variable costs
Replacement of FAC or SGC £9 or £8
So, they provide all of these additional services and have in income stream from them and that goes even further towards pushing the cost of an SGC/FAC down towards the £50 for a grant and £40 for a renewal.
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to discern whether or not they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
God loves stupid people, that is why he made so many of them.
Having had close up inside look at the process, inefficient is not a word that goes far enough to cover it, Why should I pay more to cover police incompetence in getting the job done effieiently ?
It is not our job to disprove ACPO Ltd's figures. ACPO Ltd (or successor, if they have truly gone) must prove them.
BASC et al. have repeatedly asked them to substantiate the figures whilst saying they are not opposed to a fair increase in fees to cover costs. ACPO Ltd have instead repeatedly gone on the media offensive with some tame no hope politicians (Libdems mostly IIRC) bleating on about "the powerful shooting lobby opposing any increase in fees".
The Police and Home Office have over decades created a pumped-up bureaucracy with layers of excessive controls designed to hinder firearms ownership, and are now caught out (as with all arms of our decreasingly competent civil service) by not having thought through the long term costs - unless, of course, rising fees were all along seen as another tool to discourage firearms ownership.
I doubt that there is any political or Police (if there is a difference...) will to make firearms licensing easier or more efficient - this is simply about budget gap and the difficulty of increasing fees for a service that is so bad that even the media notice.
In a fair world the solution would be, of course, to simplify licensing.
E.g. why do I (not only a vetted shooter, but with a string of other HMG vettings) have to have FOUR separate certificates to go about my shooting activities? (SGC, FAC, RFD, RFD alternative place of business, etc). Why does each of the three main ones require separate application processes, separate renewals, separate fees and even separate qualification requirements? Why is the system administered by people who usually have derisory knowledge of firearms, and most certainly usually do not have the empathy or understanding that comes from having an interest in shooting sports?
To cap it all, why should these certificates require short-term renewals periods and re-application procedures, unless I have come to the notice of the authorities for having done something naughty?
In our ideal world, it would be simpler and vastly more cost effective to say "here is Mr X, who has been involved with firearms for 10, 20, 30, 40 years. He has no criminal record or other record of causing any danger to the public. Lets give him a general form of certificate that covers all of his declared activities, and leave it to run for ten years - with occasional inspection - unless we hear of a problem."
We all know that the "real world" destiny is: more bureaucratic requirements on shooters + more fees/tax = worse and worse service.
