F.A.C cert renewal

[rec-baller]

i had my interview three weeks ago for my renewal, during the interview my f.e.o said that " i did not need to keep 1500 rounds of HMR and 1500 .22lr rounds and that he would reduce them "SLIGHTLY", :unsure: , just got my cert back today and he has dropped them both to 600 rounds !!!!

I CANNOT BLOODY BELIVE IT ! ! :o !!!

i also asked for an F.A.C shotty and by the look of it i havent been granted it- but there is no explanation why, has anybody else experienced this on a renewal ??

shaun

[Scully]

Did you not query what figure he had in mind at the time of your renewal interview?An FEO tried this on me some years ago and I said I wanted my 'allowance' to remain unchanged,and it was.

You may struggle to get it changed now as they will claim you complied with your FEO's suggestion if you didn't query it at the time.Ask for the reason your S1 shotgun application has been refused;my second was refused and the reason given,so I readjusted my 'good reason'with the help of licensing,and it was granted.

[shaun4860]

Have they not gone off usage of ammo,

 

If you only buy say 500-1000 a year then they might wonder why you need so many?

 

[apache]

A reduction in ammo holding is technically a partial revocation of the certificate.

 

10.40 The amount of ammunition entered at

(a) will not of course be smaller than (B).

The amount may be the same in both cases

but no doubt chief officers of police will

consider that as a rule the entry at (a) should

be slightly larger than at (B) in order that the

holder of a certificate may purchase a fresh

supply of ammunition before their existing

supply is exhausted. Any reduction in the

amount of ammunition to be possessed or

purchased would count as a partial revocation

of the certificate or partial refusal of the

application, and would require service of the

appropriate notices and may need justification

on appeal. See also broad guidelines on

ammunition amounts in Chapter 13.

[blackbird]

How many rounds a year did you fire?? For him to drop your allowance he must have had good reason

Edited July 25, 2012 by blackbird

[cleaner4hire]

not necessarily, we all know that licensing departments do pretty much whatever they want.

[Breastman]

A reduction in ammo holding is technically a partial revocation of the certificate.

 

10.40 The amount of ammunition entered at

(a) will not of course be smaller than (B).

The amount may be the same in both cases

but no doubt chief officers of police will

consider that as a rule the entry at (a) should

be slightly larger than at (B) in order that the

holder of a certificate may purchase a fresh

supply of ammunition before their existing

supply is exhausted. Any reduction in the

amount of ammunition to be possessed or

purchased would count as a partial revocation

of the certificate or partial refusal of the

application, and would require service of the

appropriate notices and may need justification

on appeal. See also broad guidelines on

ammunition amounts in Chapter 13.

 

Which makes this potentially REALLY bad news :unsure: I'd be getting onto which ever shooting organisation you're a member of (hopefully) ASAP!

[CharlieT]

 

Which makes this potentially REALLY bad news :unsure: I'd be getting onto which ever shooting organisation you're a member of (hopefully) ASAP!

 

Actually it's good news. Means they have to justify it and more importantly, it's appealable.

[Breastman]

Actually it's good news. Means they have to justify it and more importantly, it's appealable.

From that point of view yes. However, having a partial revocation on your record is never a good thing, no matter how innocuous the reason. Its guaranteed to cause problems in the future, at the least delays at renewal time

[apache]

From that point of view yes. However, having a partial revocation on your record is never a good thing, no matter how innocuous the reason. Its guaranteed to cause problems in the future, at the least delays at renewal time

 

Question 26 on the application form (101) states:

 

26 If you have

at any time

had an application for the grant or renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate refused in writing or a certificate revoked or partially revoked, give details

 

For ever more you would have to answer 'yes' and explain. Every renewal, every variation.

[al4x]

That makes it one of the more stupid things I've heard of, the only thing I can think of is that he changed your application after the discussion you had. So in effect if you have technically asked for a lower holding amount via application it surely wouldn't count as a partial revoke.

 

Whether this was due to you not using enough for him to justify your hold amounts may be the clue, he would have to justify it on the application and rather than reduce it via a partial revoke if it looks like you have asked for the lower amount then there is no issue.

[JonathanL]

From that point of view yes. However, having a partial revocation on your record is never a good thing, no matter how innocuous the reason. Its guaranteed to cause problems in the future, at the least delays at renewal time

 

It's a partial refusal, not a revocation. It won't go on their records as such though as they dona't want you to realise that it's a partical refusal which is why they haven't served the proper notice.

 

J.

 

Question 26 on the application form (101) states:

 

26 If you have

at any time

had an application for the grant or renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate

refused in writing

or a certificate revoked or partially revoked, give details

 

For ever more you would have to answer 'yes' and explain. Every renewal, every variation.

 

They haven't refused in writing.

 

J.

[apache]

It's a partial refusal, not a revocation. It won't go on their records as such though as they dona't want you to realise that it's a partical refusal which is why they haven't served the proper notice.

 

They haven't refused in writing.

 

J.

 

If you read:

 

Any reduction in the amount of ammunition to be possessed or purchased would count as a partial revocation of the certificate or partial refusal of the application,

 

Copied directly from the Police guidence

 

 

Question 26 on the application form (101) states:

 

26 If you have at any time had an application for the grant or renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate refused in writing

or a certificate revoked or partially revoked

, give details

 

For ever more you would have to answer 'yes' and explain. Every renewal, every variation.

 

So it doesn't have to be in writing, the part about 'revoked or partially revoked' comes after that phrase.

 

The OP can roll over and take it, but I wouldn't.

[HDAV]

OK but if you have .22LR and .243 and 500 rounds for each 1000 total, then add a .17HMR and have 500 rounds for it as well that's 1500 total and then decide to sell the .22LR and replace with FAC air. On renewal they take off the .22LR and ammo you go to 1000 rounds of ammo, so is that partial revocation?

[JonathanL]

If you read:

 

 

 

Copied directly from the Police guidence

 

 

 

 

So it doesn't have to be in writing, the part about 'revoked or partially revoked' comes after that phrase.

 

The OP can roll over and take it, but I wouldn't.

 

He hasn't had it revoked or partially revoked though. A revocation can only happen during the life of the current certificate. He has had it partially refused to be renewed (that is what the topic is about) but not in writing because they are trying to slide one under the bar, as it were. So, it has not been refused in writing therefore does not need to be declared.

 

J.

Edited July 26, 2012 by JonathanL

[apache]

OK but if you have .22LR and .243 and 500 rounds for each 1000 total, then add a .17HMR and have 500 rounds for it as well that's 1500 total and then decide to sell the .22LR and replace with FAC air. On renewal they take off the .22LR and ammo you go to 1000 rounds of ammo, so is that partial revocation?

No, without the .22rf you do not need ammo for it. The ammo (usually) goes with a rifle.

 

(I still don't agree with Jonathan's reading of things!)

[JonathanL]

OK but if you have .22LR and .243 and 500 rounds for each 1000 total, then add a .17HMR and have 500 rounds for it as well that's 1500 total and then decide to sell the .22LR and replace with FAC air. On renewal they take off the .22LR and ammo you go to 1000 rounds of ammo, so is that partial revocation?

 

No, because when you apply for the variation for FAC air you won't be asking to be allowed to purchase/possess .22 ammo any more. If you included .22 ammo on the variation form it would be refused as you have no good reason to have it as you no longer possess a .22 rifle. You have every right to appeal as it is a refusal to very to cert but you would lose.

 

J.

[al4x]

I'd still lay money on the application form being changed during the discussion on reducing amounts obviously the FEO chose a lower amount than anticipated but it happens, I know on my forms he increased amounts after talking about reloading etc so I can't see why it can't happen in reverse. Hence its not a revocation he technically applied for a lower holding.

[Scully]

I'd still lay money on the application form being changed during the discussion on reducing amounts obviously the FEO chose a lower amount than anticipated but it happens, I know on my forms he increased amounts after talking about reloading etc so I can't see why it can't happen in reverse. Hence its not a revocation he technically applied for a lower holding.

To be honest that's how I see it.The fact OP's failure to challenge FEO's decision to reduce amounts;state a figure or agree on an alternative amount, means it could be argued he has(unwittingly perhaps)condoned the FEO's actions.

[JonathanL]

I'd still lay money on the application form being changed during the discussion on reducing amounts obviously the FEO chose a lower amount than anticipated but it happens, I know on my forms he increased amounts after talking about reloading etc so I can't see why it can't happen in reverse. Hence its not a revocation he technically applied for a lower holding.

 

From what the poster said the firearms manager said he 'might' have to lower his amounts. That doesn't sound like it's anything you agreed to, to be honest. If he'd said 'I'm going to lower it to X, do you agree' then fair enough but that isn't what heppened.

 

Unless the applicant had specifically agreed to the lower amount then it's a partial refusal to renew the cert and shoudl have been don in the proper manner.

 

J.

[markbivvy]

during the interview my f.e.o said that " i did not need to keep 1500 rounds of HMR and 1500 .22lr rounds and that he would reduce them

The feo had made his mind up before he got there, rac should have been on to him like a shot.

now the feo will say it was a decision made by both of them during the interview.

still leaves the question of the shotty.

[JonathanL]

during the interview my f.e.o said that " i did not need to keep 1500 rounds of HMR and 1500 .22lr rounds and that he would reduce them

The feo had made his mind up before he got there, rac should have been on to him like a shot.

now the feo will say it was a decision made by both of them during the interview.

still leaves the question of the shotty.

 

Agreed. If this is said then the applicant should insist that it is done via the proper procedure -ie; in writing.

 

J.

[Gordon R]

My first reaction would be to speak to the FEO, but if this doesn't resolve it, I have to agree with JonathanL.

 

He is a stickler for the law and proper process :) , but I believe he is correct. :good:

[Northamptonclay]

Don't really see the need for ammo limits , if your safe enough to own the gun then why should there be restrictions on ammo qty ?

[bedwards1966]

Don't really see the need for ammo limits , if your safe enough to own the gun then why should there be restrictions on ammo qty ?

 

There is no need for them, but the government and police like to limit what us civilians can have.

So far, none of the nuts who have gone out on shooting sprees have used anywhere near the quantity of ammo they were allowed to have, it serves no purpose.