Jump to content

Cost of grant or renewals and your shooting


apache
 Share

If the renewal fee increased 400% what effect would it have on YOUR shooting?  

104 members have voted

  1. 1. If the renewal fee increased 400% what effect would it have on YOUR shooting?

    • I would continue as things are
      68
    • I would pay, but shoot less/save the money on another area of my shooting
      23
    • I would give up my firearms
      6
    • Other - specify
      7


Recommended Posts

I'd buy you and Mark a pint if we ever meet! :beer:

 

David

 

Well get yer butt up here then. Mark doesn't drink but he can watch me drink his.

 

Another one for West Yorks. mate of mine even offered to give up his .223 for a .243 on an open ticket (as is his .223). He was turned down on the grounds that he would be stepping up SUBSTANTIALLY in calibre. I've never heard so much bull in my life considering that this open/closed business is about safety and not calibre. A C/F rifle is a C/F rifle. In fact a .308 bullet will drop quicker than either a .223 or .243 and, no doubt a 22/250, ballistically, probably has a flatter trajectory than a .243. I'm sure they just look at numbers on paper and can't get to grips with the minimal difference in bullet size of .223 and ..243 (or to make it easier for them, 5.56 and 6mm (.44mm)).

 

Oh BTW, he's one of your lot I believe so warning of incoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well get yer butt up here then. Mark doesn't drink but he can watch me drink pi ss.

would love to

 

Another one for West Yorks. mate of mine even offered to give up his .223 for a .243 on an open ticket (as is his .223). He was turned down on the grounds that he would be stepping up SUBSTANTIALLY in calibre. I've never heard so much bull in my life considering that this open/closed business is about safety and not calibre. A C/F rifle is a C/F rifle. In fact a .308 bullet will drop quicker than either a .223 or .243 and, no doubt a 22/250, ballistically, probably has a flatter trajectory than a .243. I'm sure they just look at numbers on paper and can't get to grips with the minimal difference in bullet size of .223 and ..243 (or to make it easier for them, 5.56 and 6mm (.44mm)).

 

Oh BTW, he's one of your lot I believe so warning of incoming.

 

So do you think a substantial increase in cost will change owt please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that the police rate a centerfires ability on it's muzzle energy rather than how flat it shoots.I would also suggest that a .243 has a much greater ME than a .223 and again a .308 would be potentially greater than a .243.

 

No wonder you call yourself OCD. :lol::P

 

The police that we tend to deal with know jack about it. Muzzle energy to them is how hard a dog can bite. Just listen to them trying to out-justify a knowledgeable shooter on why they shouldn't grant a request. And nine times out of ten here in West Yorks, you don't get past the admins who are very nice ladies following orders from the faceless muppets who are hiding behind them. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever happens with it David, good luck with it.

 

Careful Mark, we've both been nice to David within the space of an hour. :o :lol:

 

He'll be checking his back for knives in it if we're not careful. :oops:

 

David, one thing that doesn't help is that even ACPO recommendations can be ignored and I'm sure in some cased Chief Constables are unaware of what their licensing departments are doing or the pseudo empires that exist. Maybe instead of tackling FLO's when issues arise, they likes of BASC, SACS, NGO, etc should try to deal further UP the foodchain and make the most senior officers directly answerable. It might make them wonder why they're being pestered when they have staff to do it for them. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A copy of which adorns one of my bookshelves and has done since it was published. :yes:

 

What you watching?

Edited by DaveK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask, as someone else has done, why, apparently, it takes a change of this potential magnitude to electrify the shooting community reps to seek as a priority, reasonable consistency in the interpretation of the ACPO firearm guidelines and why not effectively before this?

 

In my humble opinion, allowing the complexity and wildly differing interpretations that have developed and then suggesting we need to resolve this and MAY accept a 'cost related' increase in the Licence fees to see this happen, is a simple abrogation of responsibility.

 

'Reacting' is not good enough and not worth the faith invested by the shooting community.

Proactive reprentation is not, definately not, accepting the bleating entreaty of the police that 'if we could charge what it costs we could manage approach'.

If the police cannot manage this function effectively, give it to the private sector and MAKE them accept the guidelines via the ability to challenge their interpretation in court and claim damages.

How much of the internal police overheads are incorrectly charged to Firearms licensing?

How much CC or ACC time is charged to this and results in extra(unjustified costs), has anyone challenged the police costings, based on 'best value accounting'? This information can be requested under the FOI Act, for many years.

The police, as with other organisations, thrive on 'the status quo'. What we shooters need is some body which will challenge the status quo and not be part of it !

 

David, I have no argument with you. Basc, thats a bit different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If having the monopoly means 'they get away with it',then what assurances can we be given that they wont 'get away with it' again David.Whatever happens,they'll still have the monopoly.

I don't understand this downer people have on FEO's either,they're don't have any say in what you can and can't do,they're just representatives of those above them.It isn't FEO's that impose 'conditions' on applications,it's the chief officer.If you're not happy about 'conditions' get in touch with your shooting organisation. :lol: .

Stopping shooting is not an option for me,it's not a hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2002 the guidance was updated, it was a perfect time for the shooting organisations to have some input into it.

but nothing, the acpo mob know of the problems and issued there views a couple of years back, but the shooting organisations did zilch.

these problems are nothing new, and should have been sorted before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't understand this downer people have on FEO's either,they're don't have any say in what you can and can't do,they're just representatives of those above them.It isn't FEO's that impose 'conditions' on applications,it's the chief officer.

 

Do you ACTUALLY believe that Scully? Is your FEO in the room with you? :oops:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kes, I believe that all best value assessment reports are supposed to be public domain but trying to sort out which KLOE to check may be all but impossible.

 

OCD SNAP mate. That ginger bint's fit if I may say so.

 

I have to say I don't watch it for it's thrilling plot lines more for the skirt :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...