Maybe it'd be a lot easier if the police just did their jobs properly in the first place. It'd cut down on a lot of the tragedies. I know that's not as headlining as new legislation for them to get bogged down with / ignore, just boring old practical.
I'm actually going to say something shocking... I don't disagree with a lot of what is in this article. They are suggesting it will now be an offence to possess component parts with the intent of producing illegally held ammo. I.e. no changes to how we buy it, and no problem with inert keyrings and other displays / art. But for the local crim to have component parts with the intent of making ammo will be illegal. Makes sense to me. The fact that they have recognised the impossibility of licensing bullets and cases means they at least have some part of their head screwed on I guess.
The other part about making an FAC mandatory for mini-rifle clubs, although it may make things difficult for some, I think we all agree that the bellends that ran that one on the M1 was not a good look for the shooting community and stopping that kind of thing is unfortunately necessary.
davidh195 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:11 am
The problem is the use of the word Quantities.
David
Yeah I saw that but didn't read too much into it. Again they are stating "intent to manufacture". For a licensed shooter, that means they would have to prove you intend to manufacture more than your allowance.... virtually impossible to prove, unless you actually do it of course.
davidh195 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:11 am
The problem is the use of the word Quantities.
David
Yeah I saw that but didn't read too much into it. Again they are stating "intent to manufacture". For a licensed shooter, that means they would have to prove you intend to manufacture more than your allowance.... virtually impossible to prove, unless you actually do it of course.
Or... to avoid having to prove your intention, they simply limit you to only being able to hold X amount of components.
davidh195 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:11 am
The problem is the use of the word Quantities.
David
Yeah I saw that but didn't read too much into it. Again they are stating "intent to manufacture". For a licensed shooter, that means they would have to prove you intend to manufacture more than your allowance.... virtually impossible to prove, unless you actually do it of course.
Or... to avoid having to prove your intention, they simply limit you to only being able to hold X amount of components.
I think you missed the point that I highlighted earlier. They have already accepted that they cannot enforce a restriction on buying component parts such as bullets or cases. They have, seemingly, already ruled that out as a possibility. Hence my comment above.
Buying components??..........chance'd be a fine thing these days......
Pete
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum" Lucretius
You're offended? Please explain why your inability to control your emotions translates into me having to censor my opinions....
Re the costs of certificates, Devon & Cornwall police Commissioner is griping about the costs of processing them saying that it costs 1.25 million pa to issue, but they get only £446.000 in fees, apparently the national shortfall is 18.6 million.
I have a co-terminus FAC & SG certificates which expire at the same time, so as the application form is basically the same surely it would be easier if they issued just one certificate to cover both, with the usual restrictions but preferably with an automatic one for one variation on the FAC part included. As the Home Office is likely to tighten up on applications anyway, showing ‘Good reason’ and having two referees to a SG certificate should not prove to be much of problem.
As for fees, although I would be reluctant for them to increase as the costs are already high for shooters now we have doctors charging for processing their bit, I wonder if an increase to £100 for a combined certificate lasting for perhaps 10 years would be acceptable?
What would be your thoughts on this?
The reality is that there should be no charge for a certificate.
It is a public safety issue just like crowd control. The certificate benefits not the shooter. it is for the benefit of the community as a whole and as such should be paid for out of general taxation and plods precept.
If there is a shortage of money then the reason is due directly to tory austerity and their dogmatic desire to remove all public services from the country.
The financial argument is just another anti legal gun ownership tack seeking to add more pressure to ban legal firearms altogether as the police don't think it is worth the perceived grief of running the system. Just throw in the we can't be arsed bin.
Come on Bambi get some
Imperial Good Metric Bad
Analogue Good Digital Bad
Until the police can be trusted to all be singing from the same sheet this would just be another way to shaft us. From this recent survey it shows Humberside have about 10 staff for FAC/SC processing for 13,000 certificates at an average cost of £42 per certificate - Durham have 14 staff for 8,000 certificates at an average cost of £520 each.
Which end of the scale do you think we would be charged?
