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

Sensible words there from ukrifleman. It's the principle that matters, not the actual number of groats extorted.

Yup. Licence the person, not the firearm.

One gun or one thousand. One hundred rounds or one million. Semi-auto shotgun or handgun. What difference does it make? It's the person who pulls the trigger.

Or is it really guns that kill people? That's the train of thought the current sytem of licensing is reinforcing.

Give me semi-auto centrefire back (and maybe handguns too) and I'll gladly pay even Labour's "£200" every five years.

Paw the lot over to the DVLA to administer - they can turn a car tax around in 5 days and they have over 23 million of them to keep a beady eye on - including medical referrals, insurance and MoT checks, criminal checks...

meles meles wrote:Sensible words there from ukrifleman. It's the principle that matters, not the actual number of groats extorted.

A principle that has existed since 1870 when 'gun licences' were introduced.... (according to Wikiwatsit anyway )

I would say don't ignore, take part in the consultation. If nothing more, than for the question;

"The fees and costs for firearms licences administered by the police have to be reviewed annually. Do you have any comments on how the review process should be taken forward?"

Have your say.

I emailed the Home Office press office inviting them to explain WTF they were thinking with the biased wording, suggesting that full cost recovery is an option even though the police dropped it after having some sense knocked into them by BASC, the CA and so on. The HO ignored my (moderately worded!) invitation; I'm writing exactly what I think of them now, for publication on Sunday.