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

Regardless of how daft it is once a slot on an FAC is filled then it cannot be re-used if the rifle is subsequently sold, the FAC needs to be sent in for sold rifle to be taken of your FAC and new slot giving you authority to acquire put on, this is usually free and is known as a one for one variation. This is no doubt done so that your FAC reflects what firearms you have and that which you have permission to acquire. There is nowhere on your FAC that would track the disposal of a firearm that is done by you notifying plod and they updating your FAC when next submitted. If you sold a gun and then bought another one by your way of thinking then your FAC would show that you still had the old one plus the new one which you have no authority to possess.

Anyway no RFD would sell you a firearm without a vacant slot on your FAC.

Just scrap this stupid veration requirements! Make everything on section two style fac ! If one is deemed safe to have an fac then it doesn't matter what or how many guns he has ! This would would free a lot time and money for forces !
And for the yardleys among us, the SGC system hasn't caused blood on the streets !

In once case I know of, an F.A.C. holder was swapping "Item A" for "Item B" with another F.A.C. holder.

The F.A.C. holder was given a free one-for-one variation, that allowed him to STILL have "Item A" on his F.A.C., but he also had a permission to buy slot - to add "Item B" ONLY ON DISPOSAL of "Item A": so, a pre-pre-approved free one-for-one...

While it DID make sense, knowledge of the Northern Ireland method makes a LOT more sense from both a time saving & cost cutting perspective!

joe wrote: And for the yardleys among us, the SGC system hasn't caused blood on the streets !

To whom are you referring as "yardleys"?

joe wrote:Just scrap this stupid veration requirements! Make everything on section two style fac ! If one is deemed safe to have an fac then it doesn't matter what or how many guns he has ! This would would free a lot time and money for forces !
And for the yardleys among us, the SGC system hasn't caused blood on the streets !

I made this point in my submission to the Law Commission. An FAC should entitle the holder to a specified number of firearms appropriate to their good reason and a variation would only be required if that number were to be exceeded. It's not rocket science.

Been saying this for years.
Works in New Zealand without any problems & makes for a more streamlined paperwork/admin. side of the process & a better end-user experience: something we ARE allegedly already paying for!

I am not alone in having had several deals lost as a result of the current inefficient system.

Racalman wrote:

joe wrote:Just scrap this stupid veration requirements! Make everything on section two style fac ! If one is deemed safe to have an fac then it doesn't matter what or how many guns he has ! This would would free a lot time and money for forces !
And for the yardleys among us, the SGC system hasn't caused blood on the streets !

I made this point in my submission to the Law Commission. An FAC should entitle the holder to a specified number of firearms appropriate to their good reason and a variation would only be required if that number were to be exceeded. It's not rocket science.

I would say no limit ! Just like a section 2 SGC ! If you have a big enough safe then buy what you want
There are some SGC holders that have atleast 10 shotguns ! Doesn't cause any problems

dromia wrote:

joe wrote: And for the yardleys among us, the SGC system hasn't caused blood on the streets !

To whom are you referring as "yardleys"?

No one in particular!

I know someone with 34 shotguns.

I have always wondered why you would send paper or email notification of sale/purchase if you need to send the FAC in anyway, but there you go.

It does seem an antiquated and rather slow system that could easily be speeded up and streamlined for everyone's benefit.

I dont see why (after some research and consultation obviously) they dont spread the grants and renewals out according to surnames. Obviously they would need to publish parameters but if they suggested A&Bs for instance renew in Jan, etc etc......

I know it would be difficult to implement but once the dust settles it may spread their load and stop the silly 5 year hump.