rogcal

Regarding ACPO I have a prime example of how their guidelines became a piece of quasi-law back in the 90's. I used to work closely with the police in the unenviable task of removing travellers who were illegally encamped using the legislation available to the police. Then ACPO drew up some guidelines which required them (the police) to check if any of the travellers had any medical, housing, education, etc, etc issues before they moved them on. You can imagine the amount of time that took given the various agencies involved and in most cases I would end up using the legislation available to me in Local Government to shift the encampment. So in one fell swoop ACPO via their "guidelines" removed the cost in resources from the police forces in England and Wales and dumped them on the shoulders of the local Councils. It didn't cross the minds of anyone in ACPO that the longer an encampment of travellers were allowed to remain in any location the crime rate would inexplicably rise and in doing so increase the resource burden on the local police. So in a nutshell ACPO are doing what they do best, looking at where they can relieve police forces of burdensome resource costs!

I had it made quite clear to me during a recent telephone conversation with a member of the G4S staff working in the Lincolnshire Firearms Department that they would continue to request applicants provide medical references from their GP at their cost if one was required. I asked why the deviation from Home Office guidelines and was told "they were taking the lead from other forces that are already doing it and they (Lincs Police) would continue to do so until it is tested in a court of law". With many tens of thousands of shooters being represented by several shooting organisations in England, surely it makes sense for those organisations to jointly fund the expense of taking a test case to court and by doing so send a message out to those police forces who seem intent in ignoring HO "rules".

No unfortunately, lengthy timescales have become the norm since with Lincolnshire Police since G4S took over the firearms licencing function. Last year's FAC and SGC renewal took almost 5 months, hence the letter to the PCC requesting an explanation for the continuing situation when I learnt that a variation was going to take 2 months. As for any unusual circumstances being causative of the lengthy timescale, there was no FEO visit or phone call, nor any other form of contact between my posting the application and receiving my FAC back yesterday. The other thing that surprised me about the process of granting this variation is that the gun club I attend was not contacted to confirm my membership particularly as my stated need for the guns was for the purpose of target shooting and the existing "need" on my FAC was for pest control purposes. Perhaps they (Lincs Police) see me as an upstanding member of the community who poses no risk to the public and can be trusted to follow the conditions appended to the FAC. Perhaps I should become a saint or politician. Nah, I'm not corrupt enough for politician and my knees hurt when I'm kneeling down to pray!

An update on my variation application with Lincs Police (or should I say G4S). When I first enquired what the timescale would be I was told 60 days and today it dropped through the letterbox 57 days after the application was received. Got everything I asked for with the conditions I expected, so well pleased at the outcome. Now just a case of waiting for the right guns to come up for sale! Oh and just for the record and apart from an acknowledgement, I didn't get a reply to my letter to the Lincolnshire PCC Alan Hardwick in which I asked for an explanation as to why the lengthy timescales involved in turning around applications, renewals and variations were still being encountered despite his office stating last year that they had got on top of the situation. Politicians (and ex Yorkshire TV presenters), don't you just love 'em!

I reckon that with Nottingham being the gun crime capital of the UK, the FEO is afraid to step outside of the copshop!

You make some very valid points Mark and well structured individual letters will carry more weight than the mass produced template letters often used by many campaign organisers. Given my lack of faith in Nicholas Boles (my MP) I have written directly to the Sec State at the Dept of Culture, Media and Sport.

From what I've just read on the "Cannon and Mortar" forum of the MLAGB (Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain), it will be a Sec 1 Firearm. http://www.mlagb.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.pl?board=cannon

As Wymberley says it may not be a bad idea to write to our MPs and ask them for their view on the subject but I hazard a guess that those views will be tempered by their own personal feelings and also how their constituents may view his/her attitude to gun control and the potential for lost votes at the next General Election. I personally shall be writing directly to the new Sec of State for Culture, Media and Sport and so avoid the need for dealing with my MP (Nicholas Boles) who is one of the most cr*p MPs I have had ever had the misfortune to deal with, due to his love of only those issues that will promote him to the top of the tree and sod any constituent who has an issue that doesn't fit in with his plan to scale the ladder of political success!

The Government's response: As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The Government continues to monitor all aspects of the current controls on firearms. There are, however, no plans to re-categorise any weapons within the Firearms Acts or to repeal any of the existing bans. The Government recognises that people who compete at international level in any sport need to train on a regular and intensive basis. The special arrangements that permitted British pistol squad members to have to access to secure facilities in the UK to enable them to carry out their training in advance of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London will continue for squad members in preparation for the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and the 2016 Olympic and Paralympics Games in Rio. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold. It beggars the question that if the Government believes the "special arrangements" for the Olympic pistol squad were adequate prior to the 2012 games and shall be deemed as adequate for the 2014 Commonwealth Games and the 2016 Olympic Games, I would like to know where pistol shooters who are not in the pistol squad gain sufficient skills to be considered for the squad. Only those with deep pockets who can afford to gain the necessary skills on overseas pistol ranges would stand any chance of being selected for the Great Britain pistol squad which would mean that the less well off pistol shooters that may have the aptitude and natural talents to achieve greatness in this particular sport will be deprived of the opportunity of representing their country and increasing the medal tally. The decision certainly shows no forward thinking by those decision makers in Government who obviously assume that pistol shooters of the calibre needed (excuse the pun) just appear from nowhere!

The Government's response: As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The Government continues to monitor all aspects of the current controls on firearms. There are, however, no plans to re-categorise any weapons within the Firearms Acts or to repeal any of the existing bans. The Government recognises that people who compete at international level in any sport need to train on a regular and intensive basis. The special arrangements that permitted British pistol squad members to have to access to secure facilities in the UK to enable them to carry out their training in advance of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London will continue for squad members in preparation for the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and the 2016 Olympic and Paralympics Games in Rio. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold. It beggars the question that if the Government believes the "special arrangements" for the Olympic pistol squad were adequate prior to the 2012 games and shall be deemed as adequate for the 2014 Commonwealth Games and the 2016 Olympic Games, I would like to know where pistol shooters who are not in the pistol squad gain sufficient skills to be considered for the squad. Only those with deep pockets who can afford to gain the necessary skills on overseas pistol ranges would stand any chance of being selected for the Great Britain pistol squad which would mean that the less well off pistol shooters that may have the aptitude and natural talents to achieve greatness in this particular sport will be deprived of the opportunity of representing their country and increasing the medal tally. The decision certainly shows no forward thinking by those decision makers in Government who obviously assume that pistol shooters of the calibre needed (excuse the pun) just appear from nowhere! p.s. apologies for initially posting on this thread when the main discussion is here: http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/278788-e-petition-22-rf-pistols-coordinated-by-shooting-organisations/

Try the Yorkshire Trading Company. They have a good line in tweed jackets, waistcoats and trousers (plus fours) in their stores but if you look at their website under Rydale Clothing you won't find any which means you have no alternative other than drop into your nearest store. They have two in East Yorks. Brid and Driffield.

Scully, all the shooting organisations can do is object and hope that something gets done about it through negotiation but from what I was told today nothing will change until a ruling is made in a court and that will only happen when someone, somewhere mounts a challenge. Far be it from me to say but with the combined funds available from all the shooting organisations it wouldn't be difficult to mount a challenge using just one member as a test case and once precedent is set then the Forces following the guidelines would have to stop doing so but I'm sure some or all of the Forces concerned would mount a joint appeal which could go either way. The bottom line is that the cabinet minister responsible at the Home Office should be issuing instructions based on current legislation requiring all the Forces to follow it but the matter has most probably become a political football which none of the politicians involved wants to touch!

I think I owe Deershooter a thank you for raising this matter on here. Not that he was correct with his assumption that the reference in the document to "request Doctor's letter" was inferring that the applicant would be paying for it, as this document was published in 2013 and is purely a reference document used by Lincs Firearms Licensing to ensure procedures are followed in a particular sequence and who is responsible for carrying it out. No, the thank you is for prompting me to ring Lincs Firearms Licensing for confirmation that the document was just as I have described above i.e. a procedural flow and responsibility document which was confirmed but was then told that the "Force" were in the process of implementing the ACPO guidelines which came about following a meeting in June of last year which recommend that the cost of a Doctor's letter be met by the applicant. So there it is, Lincolnshire Firearms Licensing are now expecting an applicant to pay the cost of a Doctor's letter. To further clarify the situation, I was informed that where no changes had occurred in a persons medical history between renewals and variations, no Doctor's letter would be requested but if an additional medical condition had been stated on the application form or an existing condition had worsened a Doctor's letter would be requested and the applicant would be liable for its cost. The person I spoke with also said that a degree of common sense would be used and if informed of new medical condition that was clearly not going to the affect applicant's ability to safely use a firearm, a Doctor's letter would not be required. So, Deershooter was right to express his concern but his basis for doing so was a misinterpretation of a document still in use but which I expect will shortly be amended to show an additional procedure relating to cost of Doctor's letters, who pays for them and if they are required. As to the cost of the Doctor's letter, I was informed that the lowest cost invoiced to Lincs Firearms Licensing was £25 plus VAT and the highest £168. So the cost comes down to whether you have a greedy Doctor or not! What I find unacceptable is that like many Police Forces, Lincolnshire Police have opted to follow ACPO guidelines which are not enshrined in legislation and it is Lincolnshire's intention to use these guidelines as a basis for implementing changes to firearms licensing until challenged in the Courts or until sometime as another Force is challenged and the ACPO Guidelines on this matter are no longer followed.

I read the document when it was produced last year and didn't see anything that indicated anything on the lines of which Deershooter was inferring and when I reread it again three weeks ago for clarification on procedures for the granting of a variation, I still didn't see anything that gave cause for concern about applicants either supplying a Doctor's reference or paying an additional fee. As DNS says in his response, page 36 of the document relates to a request for a Doctor's letter and on page 38 under the heading "Activities for Medical Referrals" refers to "pay invoice in relation to Doctor's letter" with G4S being shown as the party responsible for this action. No where in the procedure does it state the applicant is responsible for obtaining the Doctor's letter or for paying the Doctor's fee! I do believe we have to be on our guard and be ready to express our views very strongly to our MPs and Government ministers if it looks as though paying for medical references becomes a serious possibility but as it stands at present we are very lucky not too, particularly when one considers how the DVLA for instance put the onus on us to supply medical references at our cost when medical evidence is required by them.

I've just got into BP pistol and I'm thoroughly enjoying this new shooting discipline. The chap that's taken me under his wing so to speak at the gun club has a .44. BP Remington and one of Alan Westlakes .38 nitro Armscor conversions, both of which are fine guns to shoot and the Armscor in particular which is the match model with comp sights fitted. I find the whole process of loading, aiming and firing these types of gun an interesting experience and although I was told that "getting in the zone" was something that would improve your accuracy, I must say that it worked for me and getting all my shots within the black was the clincher for me! I've put my variation in for two calibres of pistol (.44 and .38/357) which will allow me to fire BP and smokeless plus an additional cylinder for the .38 to allow me to indulge in Police Pistol comps where 12 shots in a given short timescale are a requirement and the need for two preloaded cylinders are a necessity. I keep asking myself why has it taken me so long to discover BP pistols!

Yes, I can understand where they might argue that because you haven't acquired the weapon after a lengthy period, you don't have good enough reason but I suspect they would have to allow a reasonable amount of time, if a particular gun were not be readily available through scarcity/rarity or the waiting list the manufacturer has for revolvers such as these: http://westlakeengineering.com/15105.html

I'm shortly going to apply for a variation for two muzzle loading revolvers and was wondering how long I can take to purchase the weapons after I receive my FAC back with the authority to acquire/purchase on it. I suspect I shall be able to find a black powder revolver relatively quickly but the nitro revolver may take some time. I'm under the impression I can take as long as I need and the authority to purchase/acquire a weapon remains valid until either I purchase the weapon or the FAC expires. Am I right?

Well, it looks as though the matter's closed then and no matter what factors need to be taken into account if and when delays occur, we should accept it and not ask why!

When that day comes I'll be the first to come on here and praise them but since G4S became the service provider the timescales have been consistently longer than previously experienced and continue to be so. As for timing and busy periods, I never experienced such under the previous administration nor heard of others experiencing delays due to seasonal or otherwise increases in workload. Anyway, the current longer timescales have been experienced for over a year now and if busy periods were to blame, I would have expected to see those timescales varying in line with workloads and this has not happened!

May I make one thing clear in respect of my concerns at the length of time taken for renewals, applications and variations at Lincolnshire firearms licensing department. I do not believe that any of the staff employed at any level in the department are responsible for the increase in timescales following the introduction of outside resourcing by G4S. In fact I'm pretty certain that many of them would have been flagging up the issues that brought about the delays in service as soon as they became aware of them. However, like all private sector organisations providing outside resourcing to public authorities, the senior managers would have been keen to stick to the planned policy and procedures initiated when they took over the service. To do anything other than that would upset the corporate goals they set themselves when they tendered their successful bid for providing services a couple of years ago! The fault IMHO, lies entirely with those responsible for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of the service provided, when set against the requirements of the SLAs and their failure to act appropriately in a timely manner. To put it bluntly G4S were allowed to drop the ball and no one in the PCC's office told them to pick it up until it was too late!

Thanks Deershooter. You have a PM

Just found this interesting statement in a report published by the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commisioner's Office entitled: THE G4S LINCOLNSHIRE POLICE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP – ONE YEAR ON ANNUAL REPORT JUNE 2013 Firearms Licensing This area is responsible for the efficient operation and management of the legal ownership of firearms, shotguns and explosives within the county. This includes processing all applications for shotgun and firearms licences; the renewals of shotgun and firearms licences and amendments to licences, such as change of addresses. Prior to April 2012 the Firearms Licensing service area had 15.48 full time equivalent staff. All bar two staff transferred across to G4S under TUPE arrangements. Those who remained employed by Lincolnshire Police did so to ensure that applications could continue to be signed by a representative of the Chief Constable. The service maintains more than 20,000 firearm and shotgun certificates, covering approximately 50,000 legally held guns, a high figure reflecting the predominantly rural nature of the county. The planned service improvements were: Digitalise the management of the applications to create a paperless environment, this includes: The completion of a back record scanning of all historic files, which is searchable. The introduction of an intelligent document management system that will enable officers to receive accurate live information, providing them with more intelligence when responding to incidents. New processes have been introduced to the service area leading to a reduction in time of the processing of the applications. This has ensured that all applications for the last eight months are being completed, with a decision made within 60 days - an improvement on previous performance. The main success of the last year has been the partnership working between Crime Management Bureau (CMB) and Firearms Licensing. This has resulted in the sharing and utilising of skill sets across the service areas enabling staff to be omni-competent and share supervisory capability. The new working practices have enabled the backlogged files of renewals and grants of shotguns to be cleared, which was approximately four months . This backlog has effectively been reversed, with the team now able to proactively prepare files up to two months in advance . The greatest challenge has been identifying a document management system that will enable the reduction of double keying, by interfacing directly with the crime management system and with the National Firearms Licensing Management System (NFLMS). Now, forgive me for being a sceptic but a report published in June of last year would have taken a reasonable amount of time to compile and given that I sent in my renewal in April two months before my co-terminous licences were due to expire and if I had read this statement at the time I would have expected my renewal to have been completed in the 60 days quoted above and not the 140 days it actually took. Someone, somewhere is being very economical with the true facts and given that the PCC's office was happy to publish this report in their name, the buck stops with Mr Hardwick and it's no surprise his office is keeping quiet by not responding to my enquiry. Oh well, I don't expect any kind of honest clarity from his office, as a man who decides to sack a Chief Constable on what appears to be a whim, is then instructed to reinstate him and finally instructed to apologise to that Chief Constable, has little going for him in my book!

Just an update on the situation here in Lincolnshire. I did write (email) the PCC Alan Hardwick on the subject (see below) and I'm still awaiting a response. Sir, I am becoming increasingly concerned with the length of time taken to administer renewals and variations of firearm and shotgun licences. Prior to G4S administering this function on behalf of Lincolnshire police renewals and applications were taking between 3 to 6 weeks to turnaround. Last year my co-terminous licence renewal took 22 weeks to complete. I might add there were no complicating issues with my application. On speaking to the firearms licensing office today I was informed that a variation would take up to 60 days or longer if workloads were heavy at the time of application. When one considers that variations I had applied for prior to the change of service provider, I could expect a turnaround time of 2 to 3 weeks at most! After the lengthy delays I experienced last year I would have thought matters would have improved however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Can you please provide me with an explanation as to why timescales changed so drastically following the change to G4S providing the administration of firearms licensing and why this situation is apparently being allowed to continue? Thank you. What worries me is the fact that when any contract is put out to tender for the supply of services such as would have been when Lincolnshire Police Authority sought tenders for the administration of firearms licensing, there would have been set out clearly in the specification of the contract, the SLAs (service level agreements) that would need to be achieved by the successful bidder for the contract, in this case G4S. Perhaps I should start making enquiries under the FOI Act, as to what timescales were set out under the SLA for applications, renewals and variations but something tells me I'll be flogging a dead horse, as I wouldn't be surprised if I'm told that the information is withheld due to the nature of it being commercially sensitive!

Pity their colleagues across the border in Lincolnshire can't perform as well. Oops sorry, not the fault of the force rather those who decided to award the contract to G4S!

If it does affect accuracy badly, there'll be no results to see Seriously, I'll post the results later next week (assuming the flooding on the Nene doesn't get worse and stops me getting to the range).