FAC expired

[20series]

When mine was late being reissued I was told to carry on as normal as it wasn't my fault, I only insisted on a temporary as I needed to sell my 223.

Alan

[Polchraine]

When mine was late being reissued I was told to carry on as normal as it wasn't my fault, I only insisted on a temporary as I needed to sell my 223.

Alan

That would put you on dangerous ground - and if the police were encouraging you to break the law then they would be party to the crime. The BASC article I refer to earlier spells it all out very clearly.

[SloeginBill]

Possession of any firearm without holdings valid certificate is an absolute offence and any FEO or policeman who says otherwise is incorrect. The police are there to uphold the law and they cannot choose to vary its terms as they see fit to suit their own inefficiencies. If they cannot provide your renewal on time they must issue a section 7 temporary certificate to avoid you breaking the law. Staying in your own county, carrying photo ID or just "carrying on" doesn't make you legal without your certificate. If your FEO tells you any of the above is ok then they will be breaking the law by aiding and abetting you in your lawbreaking.
Best advice is to contact your sports representative body for professional advice and assistance and then formally request a section 7 temporary. Then if all else fails, make a formal complaint in writing to the chief constable. Mr plod has to uphold the law, it's um... the law.

[ovenpaa]

We got back to late to be able to contact them as they seem to work early shifts. It would also appear the information I have received was misleading..

Too late to do anything now until Monday.

[Hauptman]

This has been mentioned before.......here's a paragraph from the letter sent to me by Hampshire FO in January this year, acknowledging my renewal application and fee:

"Please note that if you are applying to renew a certificate, that as long as your application has been received prior to the expiry of your certificate, you are not required to lodge your firearm(s) shotgun(s) with a firearms dealer or take any other action should your renewed certificate not be received by you before it's expiry date. No action will be taken by the Police where an application has been received prior to the expiry date and the certificate has not been renewed as a result of backlogs in the renewal process".

The cert. arrived a couple of days before the deadline in mid March. A variation last month took just 10 days to come back.
I think they're doing rather well under the circumstances.

Hauptman

[Polchraine]

This has been mentioned before.......here's a paragraph from the letter sent to me by Hampshire FO in January this year, acknowledging my renewal application and fee:

"Please note that if you are applying to renew a certificate, that as long as your application has been received prior to the expiry of your certificate, you are not required to lodge your firearm(s) shotgun(s) with a firearms dealer or take any other action should your renewed certificate not be received by you before it's expiry date. No action will be taken by the Police where an application has been received prior to the expiry date and the certificate has not been renewed as a result of backlogs in the renewal process".

The cert. arrived a couple of days before the deadline in mid March. A variation last month took just 10 days to come back.
I think they're doing rather well under the circumstances.

Hauptman

That is still unacceptable ...

If you still have a copy of the letter, I am sure Bill Harriman at BASC would like to see a copy.

[Hauptman]

What do you mean "not acceptable"? Are you suggesting that the FAO are breaking the law?
Surely the office is just showing some common sense and flexibility in their approach to handling FAC processing when they're short of staff.
All the records are on file anyway.

Hauptman

[SloeginBill]

What do you mean "not acceptable"? Are you suggesting that the FAO are breaking the law?

The law is the law. You cannot posses firearms without a valid certificate. What makes you think that the licensing department is able to interpret the law to suit their own needs? If you were charged with possession without a valid certificate because you had guns but no current ticket the magistrate would have no option but to find you guilty- because , in law, you are. All of the fluff and excuses from the licensing office does not change the facts. Mr plod may choose to use common sense and turn a blind eye and logically the law should allow for delays to be handled this way but at the end of the day it currently doesn't and legally they can't.

[saddler]

What do you mean "not acceptable"? Are you suggesting that the FAO are breaking the law?
...All the records are on file anyway...

YES

By them stating that "it will be ok, we will not do anything..." they ARE breaking the law; they MUST issue a Section 7 permit - it's stated as such in the Firearms Act.

Put it another way:
IF the delay meant that the FAC/SGC was delayed by a day or two past expirey of the existing one - most sensible/reasonable folk would not think much of it & not see any big problem.
How about if the delay was a week, or a month, or six months - someone left without the LEGAL documents required to possess firearms...
Whether it is 1 day or 6 months = the same offence has been committed - and it is AN ABSOLUTE OFFENCE

As for having "All the records on file..." - otherwise known as evidence for the prosecution.

The local FLO is there to offer a service that is not of our choosing - yet when they fail to meet the standards required due to departmental cost cutting WE are the ones that not only have to suffer a loss to the supposed service provided, and loss of opportunity to pursue our legitimate & legal sport, but are put at risk of breaking the law & being prosecuted; possibly at the loss not only of our sport but our livelihood too in some cases!

There's also the minor issue of an FAC/SGC being valid for 5 years...if you end up being made to wait past the expirey date of your current paperwork, do they add the same amount of time onto the new documents? Nope, because they HAVE to show no gap in the dates, or questions will be asked. Even if, at a worse case scanario - you waited a year for the new paperwork it would only be valid for another 4 years when it landed on your doormat.
By masking the problem it is allowed to not only continue but grow worse.

[Sim G]

In some situations, a defendant who has taken all reasonably practicable steps to avoid liability may not be guilty of an offence. Strict liability can be unjust and contrary to principles of fairness. [Smedleys Ltd v Breed (1974)].

On top of that, the Chief Constable has the authority to issue permits under S.7, only if an FAC/SGC or RFD is not appropriate, ie the guns held are only being held for a specified, limited period. A permit is not a temp certificate. And, you can't hold expanding ammunition on a permit. I'm also led to believe that a permit under S7 takes as long to issue as an FAC/SGC. So, if they had the time to do that, they'd have the time to get your proper certs done....

And I suppose here's the biggy. Where does it say in legislation that the police have to have your renewal done on time, to avoid you not having a valid cert? I've just had a cursory glance through the Act and the 2002 Guidance and it doesn't stipulate a time frame for the police. It does in Chapter 10 of the guidance say that reminders should be sent early enough to allow the renewal process, but this process isn't time bound.

So what if the Old Bill really wanted to get pedantic? This is a time of austrerity, there are staff cuts galore but still have to maintain front line services, there's just not the facility to get renewals done in as timely a fashion as they would wish. On top of that, they have irate shooters demanding permits that perhaps cannot be issued or indeed are making complaints. All of which, requires man power to deal with.......

What's to stop them from saying; "Sorry, but we're strapped. Strapped for people, starapped for cash. We'll get round to this when we can. Oh, and as it's likely you won't have a valid certificate, make sure you lodge your guns with someone with the required authority as we wouldn't wish for you to break the law. Any costs incurred will have to be met by the certificate holder....."

Now that wouldn't go down well!!

But instead, they've gone with the approach they have.

Which is more acceptable?