BBC News - Call to increase cost of firearms licences

[manchesterpete]

Not too sure if you guys have seen this today or whether its already posted up on here but thought i'd put it up just in case.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22831522

 

[Salop Matt]

I would say its only fair to increase the costs, we can see what the current cost is doing to the service we are getting, all the cost saving and corner cutting and understaffing and lack of staff training. So I would happily pay £150 every 5 years but only on the condition that things improved as a result of the extra money, quicker turn around times, more staff and better training for them, but if we arent going to get these improvements then the price should remain.

[JonathanL]

I would say its only fair to increase the costs, we can see what the current cost is doing to the service we are getting, all the cost saving and corner cutting and understaffing and lack of staff training. So I would happily pay £150 every 5 years but only on the condition that things improved as a result of the extra money, quicker turn around times, more staff and better training for them, but if we arent going to get these improvements then the price should remain.

 

Firearms licensing, we are told, is carried out purely for reasons of public safety. It is not a 'service', in the proper sense of the word, provided to shooters as we do not have a choice as to whether to use it. Things done by the state for the purposes of public safety/benefit should be paid for by the state. If there is anything else which is carried out which does not serve a legitimate public safety purpose then there is an argument for charging for it but it should be optional.

 

I think that it is dangerous line of thinking to pursue in saying things along the lines of "well, £150 every five years isn't a big deal" because where do you draw the line; £200, £500 - £1K a year? Also, it's a kind of acceptance that as long as they want to include something in the licensing process they can do and just jack the price up to cover the cost even if that thing may be totally irrelevant to the job.

 

If the job isn't being done efficiently enough then things which don't serve a purpose should be done away with. The obvious one is ammunition limits. There is absolutely no public benefit to ammunition limits because they cannot be enforced in any meaningful way. From a public safety point of view they don't actually serve any purpose as if the idea is to prevent someone from going on a rampage they won't work as you don't actually need a great deal of ammo for that. Moreover, there are no limits to sec.2 ammo holdings so what is the point of havng section 1 limits?

 

J.

[Asa Bear]

 

Firearms licensing, we are told, is carried out purely for reasons of public safety. It is not a 'service', in the proper sense of the word, provided to shooters as we do not have a choice as to whether to use it. Things done by the state for the purposes of public safety/benefit should be paid for by the state. If there is anything else which is carried out which does not serve a legitimate public safety purpose then there is an argument for charging for it but it should be optional.

 

I think that it is dangerous line of thinking to pursue in saying things along the lines of "well, £150 every five years isn't a big deal" because where do you draw the line; £200, £500 - £1K a year? Also, it's a kind of acceptance that as long as they want to include something in the licensing process they can do and just jack the price up to cover the cost even if that thing may be totally irrelevant to the job.

 

If the job isn't being done efficiently enough then things which don't serve a purpose should be done away with. The obvious one is ammunition limits. There is absolutely no public benefit to ammunition limits because they cannot be enforced in any meaningful way. From a public safety point of view they don't actually serve any purpose as if the idea is to prevent someone from going on a rampage they won't work as you don't actually need a great deal of ammo for that. Moreover, there are no limits to sec.2 ammo holdings so what is the point of havng section 1 limits?

 

J.

 

[CharlieT]

Thank you Jonathan, saved me typing a similar post.

 

What others must remember is that what we have is a certificate, not a license. Both are completely different beasts and therefore relating the cost of SGC/FAC with such things as rod licenses and other such licenses is not a true comparison.

 

As far as the shooter is concerned he gains no benefit whatsoever from being issued a certificate, the only arguable benefit is to public safety, therefore it would seem only right that the public pay, which is why full cost recovery has not and should never be implemented.

[David BASC]

BASC’s line remains that we should not pay for inefficiency and there is room for improvement on the police side – and we also wish to see a consistent approach to licensing across the different forces.

 

David

 

[Asa Bear]

Good to hear David. Something like a national licensing agency similar to the DVLA has been suggested. Why don't the BASC tender for the contract?

[David BASC]

Lovely thought - but i can see the BASC critics queuing up to slam us for even thinking about it!

 

Independent or within the police matters not - provided its efficient and consistent

 

David

[Beardo]

being discussed over here....

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/250756-news-flash-double-the-licence-fees/