The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

I’m fundamentally against full cost recovery for the firearms certification system*, as it’s supposedly there for the protection of the public. That being the case, the public should pay the lion share as the beneficiaries of the service.

The next issue is that the report does not state how the present costing was done. Was it lenient/reasonable/or excessive (future proofed) AT THE TIME? Without that inform it is not possible to make a reasoned decision as to whether the increase is reasonable/justified.

That said, assuming that the current pricing is reasonable, I personally think the increase is reasonable, adjusted for 13 years. Further, as variations are due for a £6 decrease, given the number of variations I put in over the life of my FAC I will probably end up paying about the same, if not a little bit less overall

*it isn't licencing as they don't issue licences

Blackstuff wrote:I personally think the increase is reasonable, adjusted for 13 years. Further, as variations are due for a £6 decrease, given the number of variations I put in over the life of my FAC I will probably end up paying about the same, if not a little bit less overall

*it isn't licencing as they don't issue licences

I don't think the increase is a good thing for the longterm future of the sport. Try convincing a student to shell out £88; it's hard enough making the case for £50, or less for an SGC.

Shooters don't benefit from the licensing, the general public do. Its costs should therefore be borne from general taxation, unless the fees go to providing more ranges and so forth. You get TV for your TV licencing fee, river maintenance for your angling licence and so on. Why should our sport differ?

Gaz wrote:

Blackstuff wrote:I personally think the increase is reasonable, adjusted for 13 years. Further, as variations are due for a £6 decrease, given the number of variations I put in over the life of my FAC I will probably end up paying about the same, if not a little bit less overall

*it isn't licencing as they don't issue licences

I don't think the increase is a good thing for the longterm future of the sport. Try convincing a student to shell out £88; it's hard enough making the case for £50, or less for an SGC.

Again personally i don't think £88 is a lot of money for something that lasts for 5 years. When i was a student that would've been the equivalent of about 2 nights out, maybe 3 if i stayed in the union. Further with the introduction of eCommerce there's no reason why they couldn't introduce multiple payments for the fee (BASC have done this with theirs).

My argument against the proposal is the principle that the public, being the primary beneficaries of firearms certification, should share at least some of the cost

I'm with my subterranean friend on this one, but fee free FAC/SGC are never going to happen. That said I don't see why we should all capitulate and allow them to raise the existing cost.
Real reform is needed, starting with the '68 act and leading to the management and administration of FACs & SGCs.
I'm really annoyed at BASC for doing this and as a member I did not get any prior info other than the press release I picked up today on twitter. I cannot understand why as a community we don't push for reform rather than constantly making do with the least worst option? I genuinely thought after the recent turn round by the ACPO on the 'Shop a shooter' hotline because of the pressure brought to bear by the shooting organisations and social media reaction we'd had a watershed moment, then a few weeks later BASC sell us down the river with the fees.

Gaz wrote: Try convincing a student to shell out £88; it's hard enough making the case for £50, or less for an SGC.

50 quid or 88 quid won't dissuade someone who is determined - the cost of the cabinet, guns, club fees and ammunition will do that just fine :)

It's entirely possible to get into the sport at very low cost - you don't even need your own rifle/shotgun for a start, until you know the sport is for you.

Looks like the shooting "community" has the early-onset of prostrate cancer...

According to this clever website,http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill ... -1900.html the adjusted price with inflation should be about £74. Where's the rest of it come from?

That said, 100 rounds of match ammunition isn't far off the figures that are being quoted, personally I can't see what the problem with the hike is given that there hasn't been an increase for so long.

Charlotte the flyer wrote:According to this clever website,http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill ... -1900.html the adjusted price with inflation should be about £74. Where's the rest of it come from?

That said, 100 rounds of match ammunition isn't far off the figures that are being quoted, personally I can't see what the problem with the hike is given that there hasn't been an increase for so long.

It's not cost its the principle. Give them an inch and they'll take a handgun.

The whole cumbersome system of firearms registration, needs to be simplified before the easy route of price hikes is implemented.

The shooting fraternity is by definition, the most law abiding section of the community.

I can think of no other sport/pastime that requires individuals to be positively vetted before they can pursue their chosen recreational pursuit.

In other words, it amounts to TRUST backed up by background checks.

The granting of a firearms/shotgun certificate is an acknowledgment of this trust and as such, we should be trusted to comply with the law relating to the ownership of firearms.

Let us not forget, `Laws only affect the law abiding` and by definition, we as vetted certificate holders, are law abiding citizens who can be trusted.

I can see no reason why individual certificate holders once vetted, can't be issued with `X` number of blank slots on their certificates, so that they can buy and sell firearms within that limitation and be trusted not to go over their allotted number. AS LONG AS, they inform the relevant licensing authority of each transaction within the allotted time frame.

This would remove a substantial portion of the cumbersome procedures at present required. No more waiting for weeks/months for a variation, just a simple call to your local firearms department informing them of your latest transaction which they duly note on your file.

ukrifleman