Firearms Fees update

[David BASC]

The Home Office has begun a co-operative process with the shooting community to assess the correct proportion payable by shooters for licensing services provided by police under the Firearms Act.

 

BASC’s Bill Harriman, Director of Firearms, and Christopher Graffius, Director of Communications, attended the first meeting with civil servants and other members of the shooting community at the Home Office yesterday.

 

Civil servants confirmed that the current position was that there would be no change in licensing fees in the short term with the expectation that the group would make recommendations to inform any changes. The group is expected to meet throughout next year – when a full inspection of firearms licensing may be conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary - and into 2015.

 

The group will deconstruct and examine the processes involved in issuing and renewing licenses and attribute costs to each step. These can then be allocated to the shooting community or the public purse according to Treasury guidelines. The group will also discuss improvements in the efficiency and delivery of the licensing system.

 

Bill Harriman said: “BASC welcomes the approach outlined by the Home Office. This promises to be the most thorough examination of the system which should produce a fair and just outcome on fees. We gave the Home Office an assurance that we will put the work in to achieve this and will engage constructively in the process.”

[RossEM]

Thanks for the info David. I wonder how much money could be saved by cutting down on administration - for instance if the process of informing the police of the transfer of a gun could be done securely online or by phone? Just an idea...

[David BASC]

Certainly and you can let them know about additions to your SGC by e-mail for example, but on line is a good idea

[Blunderbuss]

Get rid of the need for one for one variations perhaps? If you sell a rifle, why can't you replace it with another of the same caliber without the nausea, hassle, delays and expense of a variation? A waste of everyone's time with no benefits to anyone that I can see.

 

Edit: To clarify 'expense', I mean in the wider sense that it adds to the costs of administration. I know one for one variations are free, just IMO unnecessary.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Blunderbuss

[kyska]

Get rid of the need for one for one variations perhaps? If you sell a rifle, why can't you replace it with another of the same caliber without the nausea, hassle, delays and expense of a variation? A waste of everyone's time with no benefits to anyone that I can see.

 

Edit: To clarify 'expense', I mean in the wider sense that it adds to the costs of administration. I know one for one variations are free, just IMO unnecessary.

What he said, yep ^^^^

[steve_b_wales]

Thanks for the info David. I wonder how much money could be saved by cutting down on administration - for instance if the process of informing the police of the transfer of a gun could be done securely online or by phone? Just an idea...

South Wales police will accept details of any transfer/purchase via email.

[Sprackles]

South Wales police will accept details of any transfer/purchase via email.

Humberside have done the same for me.

[clakk]

thats the problem they dont all have the same standards or common practice.there should be 1 system for the whole of the country so where u live doesnt mean a licensing and renewal lottery.i cringe when people say they,ve waited 3 to 6 months for renewal and others like me waited a couple of weeks

[Disco Stu]

So if ACPO Ltd et al get their way and yet another thing that was funded out of the tax take now has to be paid even more for. Will we get some form of Service Level Agreement, agreement on how long things should take? Can we claim part of the increased fee back for police cock ups, **** poor service and leaving people waiting months and months for variations or for upto a year and more for the intital FAC?

 

If I am paying more I bloody well expect a much improved service NATIONWIDE!

[Nikk]

Well I would like to know why it should cost more than a driving license when the FAC/SGC needs to be reviewed every 5 years, realistically what does the renewal process really do? Either we pay more for a license but they extend the license length to at least 10 years or they keep the cost as it is. It cannot be rocket science doing the admin for the FAC/SGC.

 

My expectations are that we end up paying more and getting nothing in return.

[rimmie]

Bloody right blunderbuss !!! What a pain in the bum 1 for 1 is.

[delburt0]

My cheque got cashed last week so that's me not worrying for the next 5 years

[Disco Stu]

My cheque got cashed last week so that's me saving up for the next 5 years

FTFY.

[Blunderbust]

Get rid of the need for one for one variations perhaps? If you sell a rifle, why can't you replace it with another of the same caliber without the nausea, hassle, delays and expense of a variation? A waste of everyone's time with no benefits to anyone that I can see.

 

Edit: To clarify 'expense', I mean in the wider sense that it adds to the costs of administration. I know one for one variations are free, just IMO unnecessary.

a big +1 on this comment.

[JonathanL]

Well, the whole thing should start from the basic first principle that firearms licensing exists purely and solely for the purpose of public safety. It is a legal entitlement that anyone who meets the criteria set out in the Act may exercise and it is most certainly not a priviledge in the gift of the licensing authority.

 

The above being the case the cost should to the certificate holder should be zero or a nominal payment at best. If society in general wants these processes then they should be paid for out of general taxation.

 

Secondly, firearms licensing should not be undertaken by the police. Leaving aside discussions as to whether the police do a good job or not, the basic premiss should be that petty bureaucracy is not part of the police remit in this country. It is not a police job. The police do not administer the system of driving licenses, pub & gambling licenses and they do not issue passports. Why do they need to undertake firearms licensing?

 

A national firearms licensing agency would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

Further to what other have mentioned; the system could be massively streamlined. One for one variations have been mentioned but what is even the point of going into such great detail regarding calibres or types of guns which can be acquired? If you are granted a FAC for deer stalking then I see no reason as to why you should need to specify a particular calibre or chambering. An authorisation to acquire any suitable deer shooting rifle would be sufficient and would have no detriment to public safety. Whetever deer rifle you ended up buying you would have been given authority for if you had to state the calibre so what is the point of having to state it in the first place? This could be done now, without any change in the law.

 

Also, ammunition holdings. What is the point? As long as you keep it all locked up then why bother restricting it to precise numbers?

 

J.

Edited October 10, 2013 by JonathanL

[ROBLATCH]

Humberside have done the same for me.

 

 

South Wales police will accept details of any transfer/purchase via email.

you have been able to do this with Durham for a while

[Scully]

Well, the whole thing should start from the basic first principle that firearms licensing exists purely and solely for the purpose of public safety. It is a legal entitlement that anyone who meets the criteria set out in the Act may exercise and it is most certainly not a priviledge in the gift of the licensing authority.

 

The above being the case the cost should to the certificate holder should be zero or a nominal payment at best. If society in general wants these processes then they should be paid for out of general taxation.

 

Secondly, firearms licensing should not be undertaken by the police. Leaving aside discussions as to whether the police do a good job or not, the basic premiss should be that petty bureaucracy is not part of the police remit in this country. It is not a police job. The police do not administer the system of driving licenses, pub & gambling licenses and they do not issue passports. Why do they need to undertake firearms licensing?

 

A national firearms licensing agency would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

Further to what other have mentioned; the system could be massively streamlined. One for one variations have been mentioned but what is even the point of going into such great detail regarding calibres or types of guns which can be acquired? If you are granted a FAC for deer stalking then I see no reason as to why you should need to specify a particular calibre or chambering. An authorisation to acquire any suitable deer shooting rifle would be sufficient and would have no detriment to public safety. Whetever deer rifle you ended up buying you would have been given authority for if you had to state the calibre so what is the point of having to state it in the first place? This could be done now, without any change in the law.

 

Also, ammunition holdings. What is the point? As long as you keep it all locked up then why bother restricting it to precise numbers?

 

J.

Bang on....I've mentioned the ludicrous need to specify a particular CF calibre for deer many times in the past;even my FEO agreed,but the first time I mentioned it on here the bed wetting brigade jumped all over the suggestion.We're either deemed suitable or we're not,and if deer float your boat why not simply be granted ANY deer legal calibre?The need to inform licensing would still apply so where is the problem,never mind the risk? It would go a long way to sort out the 1 for 1 farce also.

I'm all for letting the tax payer foot the bill also.Firearms legislation is of no benefit to the shooter whatsoever;it is for the benefit of the general public.Have our shooting organisations lost sight of this fact?

I know of a bloke who has just passed DSC1 as condition of his grant(couldn't find a mentor),he also forked out for two paid accompanied stalks and two trips to Devon to take the exam.I have no idea of the cost of DSC1 nor the stalks,but all this is to add to the cost of his license before he's even bought a gun! He isn't complaining as he can afford it,but an increase in license fees will be a big obstacle for some.

[rogcal]

I do hope there is a consultation process that includes individual licensed gun owners.

 

I say licensed gun owners because if the consultation process was open to all and sundry the anti gun lobby would soon jump on the bandwagon and derail the process.

 

Opening any consultation process to individual gun owners rather than relying solely on the views of the major bodies representing our sport/pastime/work, is the only fair an equitable way of gaining the best and comprehensive view of the opinions held by all who will be affected by the proposals under consultation.

 

Even the CAA and EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) allow individual private pilots to be involved in consultations on matters concerning my other pastime and there are far, far fewer private pilots in the UK than there are licensed gun owners, so in all fairness we should be able to give our own individual views on the future of firearms licencing fees.

[Katzenjammer]

I used to work in a DTI National Licensing organisation covering textile import licences but there were other thing we licenced besides textiles - dangerous chemicals, etc etc and something that still exists - the delegated authority from the Home Office to examine applications for the import of firearms and issue those licences accordingly.

 

We had an excellent reputation as a licensing office for that and all the other stuff we did. The legislation behind much of it was more complicated than that relating to guns to be honest as it involved liaising with the EU and the WTO and the application of laws or regulations those organisations issued. No legislation is difficult to administer given good staff, good training, good policy and access to lawyers etc. I've dealt with some hefty legislation and the intimate need to understand and administer that legislation in my working life.

 

The big advantage of a centralised body is consistency - all singing from the same hymn sheets re policy and ethos.

[fortune]

Well, the whole thing should start from the basic first principle that firearms licensing exists purely and solely for the purpose of public safety. It is a legal entitlement that anyone who meets the criteria set out in the Act may exercise and it is most certainly not a priviledge in the gift of the licensing authority.

 

The above being the case the cost should to the certificate holder should be zero or a nominal payment at best. If society in general wants these processes then they should be paid for out of general taxation.

 

Secondly, firearms licensing should not be undertaken by the police. Leaving aside discussions as to whether the police do a good job or not, the basic premiss should be that petty bureaucracy is not part of the police remit in this country. It is not a police job. The police do not administer the system of driving licenses, pub & gambling licenses and they do not issue passports. Why do they need to undertake firearms licensing?

 

A national firearms licensing agency would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

Further to what other have mentioned; the system could be massively streamlined. One for one variations have been mentioned but what is even the point of going into such great detail regarding calibres or types of guns which can be acquired? If you are granted a FAC for deer stalking then I see no reason as to why you should need to specify a particular calibre or chambering. An authorisation to acquire any suitable deer shooting rifle would be sufficient and would have no detriment to public safety. Whetever deer rifle you ended up buying you would have been given authority for if you had to state the calibre so what is the point of having to state it in the first place? This could be done now, without any change in the law.

 

Also, ammunition holdings. What is the point? As long as you keep it all locked up then why bother restricting it to precise numbers?

 

J.

 

 

Bang on....I've mentioned the ludicrous need to specify a particular CF calibre for deer many times in the past;even my FEO agreed,but the first time I mentioned it on here the bed wetting brigade jumped all over the suggestion.We're either deemed suitable or we're not,and if deer float your boat why not simply be granted ANY deer legal calibre?The need to inform licensing would still apply so where is the problem,never mind the risk? It would go a long way to sort out the 1 for 1 farce also.

I'm all for letting the tax payer foot the bill also.Firearms legislation is of no benefit to the shooter whatsoever;it is for the benefit of the general public.Have our shooting organisations lost sight of this fact?

I know of a bloke who has just passed DSC1 as condition of his grant(couldn't find a mentor),he also forked out for two paid accompanied stalks and two trips to Devon to take the exam.I have no idea of the cost of DSC1 nor the stalks,but all this is to add to the cost of his license before he's even bought a gun! He isn't complaining as he can afford it,but an increase in license fees will be a big obstacle for some.

 

 

I do hope there is a consultation process that includes individual licensed gun owners.

 

I say licensed gun owners because if the consultation process was open to all and sundry the anti gun lobby would soon jump on the bandwagon and derail the process.

 

Opening any consultation process to individual gun owners rather than relying solely on the views of the major bodies representing our sport/pastime/work, is the only fair an equitable way of gaining the best and comprehensive view of the opinions held by all who will be affected by the proposals under consultation.

 

Even the CAA and EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) allow individual private pilots to be involved in consultations on matters concerning my other pastime and there are far, far fewer private pilots in the UK than there are licensed gun owners, so in all fairness we should be able to give our own individual views on the future of firearms licencing fees.

 

 

I used to work in a DTI National Licensing organisation covering textile import licences but there were other thing we licenced besides textiles - dangerous chemicals, etc etc and something that still exists - the delegated authority from the Home Office to examine applications for the import of firearms and issue those licences accordingly.

 

We had an excellent reputation as a licensing office for that and all the other stuff we did. The legislation behind much of it was more complicated than that relating to guns to be honest as it involved liaising with the EU and the WTO and the application of laws or regulations those organisations issued. No legislation is difficult to administer given good staff, good training, good policy and access to lawyers etc. I've dealt with some hefty legislation and the intimate need to understand and administer that legislation in my working life.

 

The big advantage of a centralised body is consistency - all singing from the same hymn sheets re policy and ethos.

These posts should be the core of our case. Freedom from bureaucracy such as unnecessary conditions and costs such as DSC’s and mentors. And a trimming of the power of chief constables. Why are there so many county forces with so much waste? The country doesn’t have county armies and air forces. All they are doing is to try to grab money from any source to bolster the reduction in government funding.

 

This link below is to a recent thread that I think illustrates the total nonsense of how they operate and the muddle headed thinking of those on here who are only to willing to appease the police and the nonsense that they come out with. Instead of writing a letter of congratulation to the chief constable it should have been one of why is an feo telling an applicant completely different things to which the head of firearms is giving the go ahead on and making up off the cuff rules

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/256176-finally-a-bit-of-sense-from-kent-police/

[Dekers]

Well that didn't take 2 years plus of big, fat, expense account meetings.....

 

The PW massive have solved the problem.

 

All application/variations/renewals on line. No charge for Certificates and choice of gun and quarry on grant.