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

Ask them why they are issuing licenses when they should be issuing certificates, and what extra benefit their licensing system provides to the licensee. It would appear to us that they haven't really grasped their responsibilities, nor firearms law, at all...

nickb834 wrote:Do away with variations, give me a certificate that lets me purchase what I want when I want, with whatever ammo I deem necessary (with todays prices that's self policing anyway) - by all means keep notification of transfers - et voila, a fit for purpose licensing system that reduces the administration overhead.

This. Exactly this.

If I'm deemed fit to be trusted with one firearm why not 5, 10, whatever. Provided I can keep them securely etc. and 'make use' of them in accordance with the conditions of my certificate I don't see the issue. All that time and money administering a pretty useless part of the current licensing system wiped away at a stroke. Crucially it still would work within the current system and could be implemented pretty well overnight with no effect, perceived or real, to public safety.

ooman: grasp this. You don't have a licence. Mr Plod simply certifies that you are not unsuitable to hold a firearm and then issues a certificate to that effect. If he gave you licence he would provide you with benefits, perhaps somewhere to shoot, targets to shoot at and so forth. Think of a television licence where you pay your cash and receive television programmes, a fishing licence where the NRA maintain and stock rivers for you, a driving licence where the HA provide you with roads. Got it ?

Precisely.

Why, therefore, should plod need to certify that I'm not unsuitable to possess every. single. firearm?

The current system of variations just seems a collossal waste of time and resources

meles meles wrote:ooman: grasp this. You don't have a licence. Mr Plod simply certifies that you are not unsuitable to hold a firearm and then issues a certificate to that effect. If he gave you licence he would provide you with benefits, perhaps somewhere to shoot, targets to shoot at and so forth. Think of a television licence where you pay your cash and receive television programmes, a fishing licence where the NRA maintain and stock rivers for you, a driving licence where the HA provide you with roads. Got it ?

Don't get hung up on license vs certificate - it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things what it's called it's how the system is operated that matters. I do however see what you're getting at between the two.

Just that in this context I don't think it matters.

Oh it does, ooman, it does. A licence has a strict legal definition. If you start to accept the Government / police can license firearms, you give away your right to own one.

A liance is a privillage ! The last time Ive check under our common law holding firearms is a right ! Hence cerftication . Saying that though the courts have made it easier to revoke certificates ??

Yes ooman, it's that very important distinction between a right and privilege. The law states categorically that if Mr Plod is satisfied that you are not unfit to hold a firearm, a "certificate SHALL be granted" No ifs, no buts. Despite what the ministerial eejit who wrote the foreword to a recent edition of guidance said, it is a right and not a privilege to own a firearm if you are of no danger to the public.

I concur with the "learned" Mustelidae the distinction is important and in the unlikely event that we ever got a decent national organisation that championed legal gun ownership in the UK then this distinction would be very helpful in making the case and setting the context in which the case would be made.

I tried Dorset Police's press office back when I first broke this one. I'm still waiting for a substantive response, though I managed to wind up the chief mouthpiece enough that he took to sending me pages and pages explaining why it was perfectly OK for them to mess me around in the hope I'd go away. (I didn't)