Expired certificates and remaining in possession of your firearms: the

[JonathanL]

 

 

You obviously know something the police don't J as every peoson I know including myself who has had a "technical" gap has had a certificate dated from the expiry of the previous one. Mine was 2 months many moons back and I hadn't had the interview by the time it expired so that would suggest you are just making that conclusion up.

 

From the current guidance.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229867/Guide_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_2012-13_chapter_10_Final.pdf

 

10.54........... Section 28A(1) of the same Act states that the certificate shall continue in force for 5 years from the date when it was granted or last renewed. Thus, the wording of section 28A(1) means that the 5 years start to run from the date when the certificate was granted or renewed, not from the date when the previous certificate elapsed.

 

I await your apology.

 

J.

[al4x]

I'd lay money on them not following that and making sure the paperwork says you were never in illegal posession when it is their fault for not completing it on time. Its pointless discussing it though as while they go down a practical route you will go down your they can't do that. The only issue is they are and no one is being charged and there the argument ends.

[Dirty Harry]

 

From the current guidance.

 

J.

If its guidance does that not imply that its just that and not hard and fast rules or law.

[JonathanL]

I'd lay money on them not following that and making sure the paperwork says you were never in illegal posession when it is their fault for not completing it on time. Its pointless discussing it though as while they go down a practical route you will go down your they can't do that. The only issue is they are and no one is being charged and there the argument ends.

 

And I'd lay money on them not doing that any more now the revised guidance has come out. It's one thing to do and it plead ignorance when the wheel comes off but quite another to do something which the HO has pointed out as being not lawful.

 

I still await your apology for your statement saying that I was making things up (ie; lying).

 

J.

[JonathanL]

If its guidance does that not imply that its just that and not hard and fast rules or law.

 

The HO quote the specific point of law in that paragraph. That is most certainly a hard and fast rule.

 

We've debated this word 'guidance' before. Yes, it's called guidance to the police, but that doesn't mean that everything in it is merely suggestion. It contains statements of law as well. In fact, the word isn't used in the title of the curent document. It's called 'Guide on Firearms Licensing Law'. It's a document telling police licensing departments what the law is.

 

J.

[CharlieT]

I'd lay money on them not following that and making sure the paperwork says you were never in illegal posession when it is their fault for not completing it on time. Its pointless discussing it though as while they go down a practical route you will go down your they can't do that. The only issue is they are and no one is being charged and there the argument ends.

Exactly.

 

I've just looked back on all my old ones. All except 1 have an issue date prior to the start date, the start date being the expiry date of its predecessor. On the other, when they had a backlog and were behind, 1 has an issue date some weeks after the start date, the start being the expiry date of its predecessor.

 

This I would suggest is sensible, good practice and I would hope such a practice continues. I would suggest that the only time it would not be is when a certificate holder fails to submit his paperwork on time and in those circumstances I can see that the new guidance may apply.