DaveK Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 It is an utter liberty and it never hapens in any other public authority - J. Council tax? Even the installments are paid in advance - 10 installments for a 12 month period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) I am sure you could make a song and dance and exchange the money for certificate at point of completion. I bet it would take a lot of extra time though. When I paid my cheque I did so in the knowledge that they would hold the money on my behalf until the point of grant, at which point it became theirs. You have no evidence that money held prior to grant of certificates is used to subsidise budgets. If you can come back to me we with proof that the balance of any relevant accounts fell below the amount held for grant/renewal, I might think again. The interest that would be receivable on a current account over the average period for the grant of a certificate would be 1/25 pence. This is nothing to do with abuse, it is achieving a more efficient system that reduces the time taken and number of actions required to get from start to finish in the process. p.s. it is not particularly respectful to try and discredit me by laughing and then concede that in fact I am entirely correct about the legal status of the monies involved. It's everyting to do with abuse. The fact that the abuse is quite small is not really the point. The fact remains that the police have decided to demand property of you that no one has given them a right to demand simply because it suits them. The fact that no one complains I would suggest is entirely due to it being a small amount. If it were £1,500 that you had to give them months in advance then questions would be asked. Besides all of that, it doesn't change the fact that the law has ben specifically worded that way. If Parliament wanted the police to be able demand the money up front it would have given them that power. It didn't though and the police can't just set about doing it of their own volition. You are not correct about the legal status of the moneys involved; at least you aren't if you are trying to suggest that the fact that they are being held on trust for you excuses the illegal demand in the first place. Yes they would be in trust for you but that would be a Constructive Trust which is a type of trust which occurs due to a persons dishonesy or improper behavior. Of course it's being used to subsidise their budget because they are getting it early. You are paying for the certificate in advance so they don't have to find the money frm elsewhere in order to run the system. If it's put into a non interest bearing clients trust account and not touched until such time as your cert is ganted then you may have a point but I think we all know the answer to that. It may well be a very much more efficient system - or it may not. That's not the point of the matter though because it is most certainly not the police's decision to make. The police have decided to make an illegal demand for money because it suits them. They have decided to allow people to illegally possess firearms without certificates because it suits them. No other department or public authority would stand a cat in hells chance of getting away with simply ignoring the law and doing stuf just because it suited them. In truth, no other department even within the police would get away with it but firearms licensing departments seem to be able to. J.. Edited November 20, 2012 by JonathanL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Council tax? Even the installments are paid in advance - 10 installments for a 12 month period? But they have a right in law to ask for that. The police do not have a right in law to demand, or even to receive, any money from you until they grant your cert. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) . Edited November 21, 2012 by guest1957 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Ok, scrub the bit about paying for the certificate later. Further digging has found the authority for them taking the money up front: Section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968 authorises the Secretary of State powers to pass statutory instruments relating to the implementation of the Act. The Firearms Rules 1998 SI 1998/No.1941prescribe the form the application must take (ss.3(1) and 5(1) as being as set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the instrument. These Schedules include both the forms themselves and the accompanying notes, thus the notes themselves are prescribed by law. Notes on both forms requires that the form be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Therefore, the procedure as it stands is not an elaborate misappropriation of money but instead prescribed by a combination of primary and secondary legislation. Edited November 21, 2012 by guest1957 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Ok, scrub the bit about paying for the certificate later. Further digging has found the authority for them taking the money up front: Section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968 authorises the Secretary of State powers to pass statutory instruments relating to the implementation of the Act. The Firearms Rules 1998 SI 1998/No.1941prescribe the form the application must take (ss.3(1) and 5(1) as being as set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the instrument. These Schedules include both the forms themselves and the accompanying notes, thus the notes themselves are prescribed by law. Notes on both forms requires that the form be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Therefore, the procedure as it stands is not an elaborate misappropriation of money but instead prescribed by a combination of primary and secondary legislation. The notes do not constitute part of the the official form. The application form ends after the declaration hence, why it says 'Page 4 of 4' after the declaration and before the notes begin. The fact that they are on the same piece of paper is irrelavant. Even it they were part of the form then I still don't think it would make it lawful. The Act allows the Secretary of state to make rules for the implimentation of the Act but he can't change the effect of the Act or make or amend the law. Delegated legislation can't be used to alter primary legislation and the primary legislation says that the fee is payable upon the grant, not at any other point. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 And if JonathanL says so it must be true. He's my hero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 I'm just glad he's not a copper, Mr do it by the book, every prison would be overflowing ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 I'm just glad he's not a copper, Mr do it by the book, every prison would be overflowing ...... you reckon, I feel he would be too tied up with whether an offence had been committed and meeting all criteria in the rule book to be able to make a decision whether to prosecute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 The notes do not constitute part of the the official form. The application form ends after the declaration hence, why it says 'Page 4 of 4' after the declaration and before the notes begin. The fact that they are on the same piece of paper is irrelavant. Even it they were part of the form then I still don't think it would make it lawful. The Act allows the Secretary of state to make rules for the implimentation of the Act but he can't change the effect of the Act or make or amend the law. Delegated legislation can't be used to alter primary legislation and the primary legislation says that the fee is payable upon the grant, not at any other point. J. Te firearms rules are a statutory instrument. The notes are prescribed by that statutory instrument. They lay below the declaration on the prescribed form. Check it out of you don't believe me, it is all in the schedules. So we have now shifted from the police abusing their public position to a suggestion of parliamentary ultra vires in the production of the statutory instrument. The plot thickens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 you reckon, I feel he would be too tied up with whether an offence had been committed and meeting all criteria in the rule book to be able to make a decision whether to prosecute Rule book ....... The man knows it ALL off by heart ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Rule book ....... The man knows it ALL off by heart ... Rewrote it in fact. Just for PW members benefit. Legend or was it leg end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Te firearms rules are a statutory instrument. The notes are prescribed by that statutory instrument. They lay below the declaration on the prescribed form. Check it out of you don't believe me, it is all in the schedules. Yes, I know that. It does not change the fact though that the guidance notes do not form part of the actual form. The legally binding bit ends at the declaration. As I said, do a bit of research on primary and subordinate legislation; the latter cannot be used to superseed the former. If it could then the form could say 'A Firearm Certificate cannot be granted in respect of a magazine-fed rifle'. That is directly to section.1 and would have the effect of banning magazine-fed rifles. The secretary of state cannot include that on the form as it exceeds the power given to him by Parliement. He has power to create rules for administering the Act and nothing else. So we have now shifted from the police abusing their public position to a suggestion of parliamentary ultra vires in the production of the statutory instrument. The plot thickens No, this is the same thing I have been saying from the outset. The power to demand the fee in advance does not exist. Hence, the fact that they do it is not lawful. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Yes, I know that. It does not change the fact though that the guidance notes do not form part of the actual form. The legally binding bit ends at the declaration. As I said, do a bit of research on primary and subordinate legislation; the latter cannot be used to superseed the former. If it could then the form could say 'A Firearm Certificate cannot be granted in respect of a magazine-fed rifle'. That is directly to section.1 and would have the effect of banning magazine-fed rifles. The secretary of state cannot include that on the form as it exceeds the power given to him by Parliement. He has power to create rules for administering the Act and nothing else. No, this is the same thing I have been saying from the outset. The power to demand the fee in advance does not exist. Hence, the fact that they do it is not lawful. J. The entire form is prescribed. Otherwise the note would not form part of the instrument. This is a fact. There is no substantial departure from the Act in the enabling legislation, therefore there is no ultra vires. Until you can come back with a judicial review in your favour we'll have to accept you are wrong on this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 The entire form is prescribed. Otherwise the note would not form part of the instrument. This is a fact. The instrument prescribes what may be put on the form and how it is to be set out. The legal part of the form ends at the declaration. Please don't try and tell me that someone can be bound by something on a form which comes after their signature. The notes are at the bottom of the page for convenience but they need not be. The form actually ends before them. The form would still be a valid application if the notes were not there or unreadable. There is no substantial departure from the Act in the enabling legislation, therefore there is no ultra vires. Until you can come back with a judicial review in your favour we'll have to accept you are wrong on this point. Yes there is. The Act stipulates that the fee does not become due until the application is granted. You can deny that all you like but that is what the Act says. The secretary of state does not have any power to alter that. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 The instrument prescribes what may be put on the form and how it is to be set out. The legal part of the form ends at the declaration. Please don't try and tell me that someone can be bound by something on a form which comes after their signature. The notes are at the bottom of the page for convenience but they need not be. The form actually ends before them. The form would still be a valid application if the notes were not there or unreadable. Yes there is. The Act stipulates that the fee does not become due until the application is granted. You can deny that all you like but that is what the Act says. The secretary of state does not have any power to alter that. J. The whole form is prescribed by the instrument. This is fact. And unless you can produce a judgment that accompanying the form with a fee is ultra vires then I've stopped listening. You are wrong on this point and I simply can't see why it is something to worry about. The only reason I've responded to the ever increasing number of posts is so people dot take what you write as given. Just imagine the arguments: 'some bloke online told me not sunset the form until they granted the certificate' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Fair enough. I've made my point, you've made yours. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Fair enough. I've made my point, you've made yours. J. And back to the original question, you are quite correct. It is illegal to possess guns without an in date certificate even if the police say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Well my shotgun licence has ran out, as i said in an earlier thread it was all posted off 10 weeks before. B A S C have told me to ask for a temporary permit under section 7 of the firearms act 1968, apparently these are as rare as seeing a bobby walk down your street. What is the real hold up here ? are they having to much tea and biscuits when they do finally get to you or is it our good old red tape system. I have renewed my licence many times over the years and never been put in this position before. I think we should be able to fine them for this, after all if we were to drive around with no car tax for instance and when stopped i said sorry , there's going to be a delay in that, i would soon be for the high jump. .Very poor service. Chrs. For those who've perhaps not yet read it, there's an excellent article in the Nov/Dec 2012 edition of Pull! magazine which covers this very aspect - written by the CPSA's own lawyer, Laura Saunsbury - on how to stay legal and what other steps you can take so as to avoid falling foul of the law when your SGC expires - it's on page 23, entitled, Testing Your Patience. Hope that helps. Edited November 21, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 For those who've perhaps not yet read it, there's an excellent article in the Nov/Dec 2012 edition of Pull! magazine which covers this very aspect - written by the CPSA's own lawyer, Laura Saunsbury - on how to stay legal and what other steps you can take so as to avoid falling foul of the law when your SGC expires - it's on page 23, entitled, Testing Your Patience. Hope that helps. Already been linked to on this thread. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I find it strange just how many people think that shooting insurance is a must, yet so many are happy to then invalidate it If you are with BASC you wouldn't be invalidating it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 If you are with BASC you wouldn't be invalidating it So BASC insurance covers illegally held firearms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 So BASC insurance covers illegally held firearms? It covers you in the case of police delays in re issue yes assuming you have an application in on time and its the polices fault http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/228935-shooting-insurancewho-do-you-use-and-ever-needed-to-use-them/page__st__20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) It covers you in the case of police delays in re issue yes assuming you have an application in on time and its the polices fault http://forums.pigeon...em/page__st__20 I must say I'm surprised they will cover something involving illegally held firearms. I wonder if any other shooting insurance covers it? I doubt many will. Edited November 30, 2012 by bedwards1966 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts