Page 14 of 14
Re: Unprofessional behaviour of Met FET
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:04 pm
by Fedaykin
lapua338 wrote:"here is a long list get on with it"
All of the donkey work was done by others.
I see, well that presumes those who have done the "Donkey work" as you put it have come to the right conclusions.
I know you don't like hearing this but take it from a fellow sports shooter your club is really making an unnecessary rod for its own back!
No skin off my nose I suppose but there are better ways to go about things, there is no problem with a club having a preferred shooting program I really can't criticise that but you have got yourselves into a fairly absurd situation and I feel a fair amount of sympathy for your local Firearms licensing (an odd situation for me) considering the fuss made and green ink spent over this matter.
I don't think there should be a fix limit on first application but I do think that probationers should be given a reasonable goal. Asking them to buy 7+ different rifles right up is a pretty big stretch.
If that is how you club rolls ... well your funeral but I would think some reflection is needed by your committee about how the club operates.
Re: Unprofessional behaviour of Met FET
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:48 pm
by lapua338
The correct answer is that it is not appropriate for an applicant to be coerced to accept an unlawful edict by a mere functionary.
"We'll let you have one of these but not one of those" and "He said to choose three, otherwise he might choose three for you" and "we may accept a variation in three to six months time" (and waste more of the applicants time with their unhurried administration and/or an individual's private domestic arrangements), blah, blah, blah.
If you don't challenge those statements it won't be too long before the above becomes the established mindset of authority.
If the individuals had to be thrown under a bus to achieve a desirable outcome then too bad but that's the way it is. It's remarkable how they can issue a FAC with a sense of urgency when required.
Surrey Police licensing authority on the other hand have always treated applicants equally without favouritism or discrimination and are very equitable.
Provided the applicant has the authority to purchase a lever action, .22LR semi-auto and bolt gun means he/she can participate in club activities. The handguns and anything else are adjuncts. Having the authority allows a degree of flexibility and personal freedom for purchasing. There's no rush for members to acquire all the firearms.
Re: Unprofessional behaviour of Met FET
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:39 pm
by andy1979
Re: Unprofessional behaviour of Met FET
Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:12 am
by Maggot
You can collect as much as you like. Most people have learned over the years that if you cooperate with your licensing team, they will generally look after you.
Licensing is about risk assessment, and this is aimed not only at the applicants suitability, but also at the likelihood of said firearms falling into the wrong hands. One gun in the wrong hands is less of a risk than 7...
The laws are open to interpretation, as is the management of said Grant's, so if they have local concerns they will apply them.
Be patient, polite, comply... It will work out in the end.
Re: Unprofessional behaviour of Met FET
Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:03 pm
by Geek
Maggot wrote:You can collect as much as you like. Most people have learned over the years that if you cooperate with your licensing team, they will generally look after you.
Licensing is about risk assessment, and this is aimed not only at the applicants suitability, but also at the likelihood of said firearms falling into the wrong hands. One gun in the wrong hands is less of a risk than 7...
The laws are open to interpretation, as is the management of said Grant's, so if they have local concerns they will apply them.
Be patient, polite, comply... It will work out in the end.
Good advice (in my opinion).
I had a similar situation to the OP when I applied for my FAC (GMP), too many, lose one (so omitted the .308). Just requested moderators for 3x .22LRs and .223, then did a one for one variation for what I wanted when I was ready to purchase. From memory my first FAC was: 3x.22LRs + moderator for each, .223 straight pull+ moderator, .38/.357 underlever.
Re: Unprofessional behaviour of Met FET
Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:28 am
by Lancs Lad
TattooedGun wrote:I too had the same with West Mids on my initial application.
I wanted 5 rifles, I think and I was advised to go for 3 for my initial grant.
From their point of view, It's risk management. They need to see you're not a liability before issuing many guns and its mitigating the risk on a first time applicant.
I don't see why you/the person you've posted on behalf of see it as such a big issue, unless you've got mountains of cash buying 7 rifles in 3 months is going to be quite the challenge in the first place, so getting 3 and shooting them in the first 3 months before applying for a variation and proving that you're actually using the rifles by buying ammunition for them and attending the club is not a lot to ask.
Ultimately if your Chief of Police wants to limit you on your first application because in his mind it is in the interests of public safety, then he is entitled to:
Section 27(2) of the 1968 Act gives the chief officer of police powers to attach conditions
to firearm certificates where necessary. In the case of 'R v Wakefield Crown Court ex
parte Oldfield (1978)' the court gave expression to the common law requirement that a
person must exercise individual judgement in all cases. Section 29(1) of the 1968 Act
gives the chief officer power to vary, by a notice in writing, any such condition not
prescribed by the rules made by the Secretary of State. The notice may require the
holder to deliver the certificate to the chief officer within twenty-one days for the purpose
of amending the conditions. The certificate may be revoked if the holder fails to comply
with such a requirement.
This doesn't sound like a written condition on the certificate, but more of a condition of the grant of the certificate, ultimately if you refuse the Chief Of Polices request to lower the number, they could very well refuse your application - not that they'd want to, but you have to ask whats reasonable- sure you can challenge it, or appeal, but whats cheaper, sticking in for a variation, or time and money to go through courts...?
Is 7 firearms on an initial grant reasonable - I don't think I've ever seen someone on an initial grant get more than 4 at my club, everyone talks about how they asked for more and got talked into having a lower amount.
I realise that a certificate lasts 5 years, but I genuinely think having the number lower, until you have proven that you can keep firearms safe and secure, if even for only 3 months before applying for a variation is not unreasonable.
Can't help but agree
LL
Re: Unprofessional behaviour of Met FET
Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:50 am
by Hunter87
Work with them not against them I’ve never had any issues with the met before actually they have turned around variations within 2 weeks consistently.
