Livefast123 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Doesn't really matter what you shoot or how often as long as you enjoy it. Edited March 15, 2012 by Livefast123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Doesn't really matter what you shoot or how often as long as you enjoy it. Ok, I'm simple, please explain, what the **** has that statement got to do with the Price of a FAC potentially heading skywards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Marty Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Really not sure thought I had missed something... :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweedledee Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 i heard a while back it was to be charged on each gun you owned.if that is the case i`ll let some go lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I just wonder if some of those, who seem to be looking forward too or at least just accepting prices going up, see it as away of getting poorer shooters out of the way. Less people at the shooting ground stands in front of them, less competition for shooting rights, just a thought I have to say that may well be the case, many shooters are 'well off' and making it £100 per year wouldn't be a major issue for many. I can accept the prices going up, I am aware that it costs a lot when all the checks have been carried out, a visit etc, but the service should improve and there is no doubt that it could be done much more efficiently. Why do we end up paying more for something that'll still be wasting the money due to not doing things in a modern, sensible way? I'm still not convinced though that we should have to pay anything, I have no gain from holding a FAC/SGC, I'm not a danger to myself! It's supposedly there to protect others (the public), so why do I pay? Saying that compared to the cost of owning guns the license fee is small, well we don't all have guns because we want them. I had a shotgun for a couple of years because I lived somewhere I needed it (livestock), in that time I probably fired under 10 shots, but I had to have one, it wasn't for a hobby. I can see that the prices will rise, and once it's considered OK then they'll continue to rise steadily until nobody poor can afford to shoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) In the same way that you have no choice in getting a driving licence if you wish to drive. I trust you agree that, whilst a more obvious test is in place for vehicles, it is still imperative that only those deemed to have met a certain standard are allowed unsupervised access to cars. Why should it be any different with guns? No it isn't and never has been. Anyone can own any number of vehicles as they please. They can be bought and used at any age regardless of any training you may or may not have had. You need a licence to operate or be in charge of a vehicle in public. Of course there is an importnant public safety element in there but it is also very closely tied to the revenue-raising side if things too. So, then, why can't I own a firearm if I only want to use it in private? The problem with firearms licensing is that loads of it has got sod-all at all to do with public safety or very little at best. We are paying for all this rubbish under the guise of public safety when it could be down away with. It isn't even raising revenue for the country. It's there because sucessive govenments simply don't like you and me owning firarms - for whatever reason. So, rather than us paying for some sort of public safety reason, we are actually funding government prejudice. J. Edited March 15, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 When you consider how much we spend once we have our SGC/FAC I think £30.00 a year (£150.00 for the 5) is negligable really. Most of the complaints on this forum are about time it takes process an application, variation, address change etc. It does need centralising/standardising, much of the process could be out sourced with just the home visits for security checks etc done by a local police officer. I have no problem if it's armed response coppers who do the security checks/serial number checks at least they will know one end of a gun from the other. Also it might help the situation when they get that call from someone about you when you are out enjoying a lawful activity. You're right, it's nowt. I don't think that's the way we should look at it though. We aren't paying for five years work from the police. We are paying for them to do a few hours work (if that) and issue a certificate. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 i heard a while back it was to be charged on each gun you owned.if that is the case i`ll let some go lol. Hope to God that's not true lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 You're right, it's nowt. I don't think that's the way we should look at it though. We aren't paying for five years work from the police. We are paying for them to do a few hours work (if that) and issue a certificate. J. To speak to references and your doctor, drive to the land to check it ) potentially more than one place and come to your house that's going to take the best part of half a day I recon. Then there's the fuel for the car, the office, the admin staff. £150 isn't a lot and that's assuming you don't do any free one for ones in your five year term. I charge that for a days gardening with travel and I don't have an office! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloke Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I just wonder if some of those, who seem to be looking forward too or at least just accepting prices going up, see it as away of getting poorer shooters out of the way. Less people at the shooting ground stands in front of them, less competition for shooting rights, just a thought I am one of the ones saying that if the price goes up it will still be fair for what you get, and I am a pensioner as well. £150 over 5 years is only 60 pence a week :o (approx), as opposed to the 19 pence we pay now, which, although I would rather pay less, is a similar cost to a packet of crisps, or a can of cheap pop, about as much for twelve months as many people spend on cigs in a week. I have to decide what my money goes on and yes, every penny counts, But if it does go up that much, all I have to do not go to the clay ground for a couple of days over the course of the year, and I am almost in pocket, if the system is faster and better it will be worth it. As far as getting poorer shooters out of the way, well I AM one of the poorer shooters, I just decide not to smoke or drink and that pays for my shooting, as my dad used to say "Nowt worth having comes free". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 To speak to references and your doctor, drive to the land to check it ) potentially more than one place and come to your house that's going to take the best part of half a day I recon. Then there's the fuel for the car, the office, the admin staff. £150 isn't a lot and that's assuming you don't do any free one for ones in your five year term. I charge that for a days gardening with travel and I don't have an office! Enquiries are not routinely made of references or doctors and land checks only apply to first grants not renewals. All enquiries can now be made via computer searches, so, all in all, JonathanL was fairly near the mark with his couple of hour estimation. The police would like to see full cost recovery which, even if granted, does not mean that the inefficient forces will improve. Now, if strides were made to improve the service and fees were ring fenced together with penalties for sloppy service I may be persuaded that a small increase in fees could perhaps be justified. However, full cost recovery is a complete reversal of the concept of firearms licensing fees and should be opposed by our shooting organisations. Certification provides no benefit whatsoever for the shooting man and I see no advantage in the present system over the one where I purchased mine from the Post Office or for that matter when the police issued my fac without ever seeing me and I kept my rifle in the wardrobe. As it's the politicians who have the love affair with red tape, it is only fair and just the public purse picks up the costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 No it isn't and never has been. Anyone can own any number of vehicles as they please. They can be bought and used at any age regardless of any training you may or may not have had. You need a licence to operate or be in charge of a vehicle in public. Of course there is an importnant public safety element in there but it is also very closely tied to the revenue-raising side if things too. So, then, why can't I own a firearm if I only want to use it in private? The problem with firearms licensing is that loads of it has got sod-all at all to do with public safety or very little at best. We are paying for all this rubbish under the guise of public safety when it could be down away with. It isn't even raising revenue for the country. It's there because sucessive govenments simply don't like you and me owning firarms - for whatever reason. So, rather than us paying for some sort of public safety reason, we are actually funding government prejudice. J. Ok how about if air rifles are the car in my analogy and shotguns more akin to an HGV Actually maybe owning an air rifle is like owning a bicycle -anyone can. With a shotgun like a moped, essentially the same skill set but must hold a certificate? Actually it's Friday, I'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 To speak to references and your doctor, drive to the land to check it ) potentially more than one place and come to your house that's going to take the best part of half a day I recon. Then there's the fuel for the car, the office, the admin staff. £150 isn't a lot and that's assuming you don't do any free one for ones in your five year term. I charge that for a days gardening with travel and I don't have an office! My understanding is that you could also, for your £50/ £150, phone them every day with a problem or question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I wrote to my MP again recently about this, and he passed my letter to Nick Herbert, Minister of State for policing and criminal justice. Mr H wrote back saying: ‘We (the Ministry) need to consider the quality of service licence holders receive from the police, the scope for making the current process more efficient and the appropriate management of risk and ensuring public protection’ So I think this is a clear message in my opinion, no one is rushing about in Government looking to increase prices. The priority is to make sure licence holders get a quality service, and the police run an efficient system. A good start for the police licensing managers would be for them ALL to follow the Home Office Guidance and the ACPO best practice and not muck about making up their own ‘rules’! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 The police would like to see full cost recovery Is this not fair enough? If tomorrow golf was deemed a sport requiring certification and police charged a nominal fee for issuing these I would be ****** that my tax (funding police forces) was being used to fund a golf certificate. Why should non shooters be funding the sport? /devils advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyD Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Is this not fair enough? If tomorrow golf was deemed a sport requiring certification and police charged a nominal fee for issuing these I would be ****** that my tax (funding police forces) was being used to fund a golf certificate. If you were paying for it through taxation, you might question the need for a golf certificate. Why should non shooters be funding the sport? /devils advocate If people want to control a sport that they do not participate in, then the least they can do is bear some of the cost of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lxtav Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 One of the major problems with this subject is that there is so much uncertainty surrounding what is happening with the police especially in England and Wales. The government seems Hell bent on destroying the service the police do for a political agenda. This is putting the chief constables in an impossible position. I fail to understand how they can cut 20% out the budget and get the same level of service, it just can't happen. The chiefs have to find a way to bridge the gap and one of the easiest ways is to raise the cost of FAC/SGC's and who is going to argue against it even if the service is shocking in some forces. As most of the country don't own guns and a lot don't see any need for them in private hands it's hardly going to be a hard sell for the government is it. It's the same principle as the go their having at the police pay and conditions as they know the police can't strike (unlike teachers, firemen etc) so their an easy target just as law abiding gun owners are. I do agree that all the forces should stick to the same set of rules and this may be achieved by taking licencing out of the hands of the police and into a seperate agency (similar to the passport agency) for the whole country. £150 is not a lot of money when spread out over the 5 years and I would probably pay it just as I know I have to pay nearly £80 for a passport but make it a level playing field with the same rules throughout the country. But then who knows what will happen up here in Scotland if Alex Salmond wins the referendum and Scotland becomes an independent country as he wants to ban airguns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 If you were paying for it through taxation, you might question the need for a golf certificate. If people want to control a sport that they do not participate in, then the least they can do is bear some of the cost of control. The first was merely an example of a popular sport I take your point on second issue, hadn't thought of that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.