Multiple FAC and/or SGC holders in the same house

[Ian]

My wife and I have mirrored FAC and SGCs. Easy to administer and understand, what is on one is on the other.

The only downside is that the police count the guns twice on their statistics. I wonder how many 'ghost' guns exist in the UK gun totals like half of ours.

[Activ8]

I have an FAC/SGC & my wife does too, however... My FAC allows me to buy what's on my certificate, but my wife's only allows her to use what's on mine. She can however buy her own ammunition & has fully access to the cabinate.
So I guess A. We're under GMP.

[gordocar]

My wife and I both have FACs and share a safe
We have 2 rifles each one small bore and one full bore and look after a club full bore
My wife has the club rifle on her certificate
There is no mirroring or conditions on either certificate
Lancashire

[Christel]

If both have the same rifles on their FAC then surely that is a hassle when a variation is submitted?

[Activ8]

If both have the same rifles on their FAC then surely that is a hassle when a variation is submitted?

Funnily enough, we were discussing this last night. By my thinking if I want to add a variation then I'll have to send my wife's in also, but does that mean I'll have to pay £40 rather than £20? I'm assuming so, but something I need to check up on.

[Christel]

Yes, double expense.

Why is it that some police areas decide to do this? No wonder they are behind with paperwork

[Mattnall]

It is so much easier to have a condition that states;
.

That way any of the FAC holders can vary or acquire as they wish and everyone else in the chain is automatically covered.

[Christel]

It is so much easier to have a condition that states;
.

That way any of the FAC holders can vary or acquire as they wish and everyone else in the chain is automatically covered.

Which is the way it is in Beds/Herts...however I am just wondering what is accomplished by doing it the mirrored way?

Are our FEOs/decision makers really that insecure in the way they deal with FAC/SGC holders (perhaps due to public perception and that most of the official blurb is guidance and not law) that they invent these archaic rules that will only add to the work load and the paper pile.

Honestly

[kennyc]

It is so much easier to have a condition that states;
.

That way any of the FAC holders can vary or acquire as they wish and everyone else in the chain is automatically covered.

Which is the way it is in Beds/Herts...however I am just wondering what is accomplished by doing it the mirrored way?

Are our FEOs/decision makers really that insecure in the way they deal with FAC/SGC holders (perhaps due to public perception and that most of the official blurb is guidance and not law) that they invent these archaic rules that will only add to the work load and the paper pile.

Honestly

patently the answer is YES!

[Mattnall]

Which is the way it is in Beds/Herts...however I am just wondering what is accomplished by doing it the mirrored way?

Yes, I'm in Beds and Herts, and they have always been a very understanding force, both when it was Herts only and now the two have combined. Hope it stays a great department when Cambs come onboard.