A £200 ticket

[techguy]

Our firearms laws and amendments weren't made by people who shoot! Hence why they make little sense to most of us!

I would *love* to see some of the improvements suggested here and elsewhere, but I just don't see it happening. Would gladly be proven wrong though! :)

[Polchraine]

Why should we have to pay anything?

I already pay tax and council tax and that funds the police service. The police do not charge for investigating a burglary, or taking a lost property report, ... or many other services. Why should gun owners be any different? Or will they start to charge for other services to?

The nominal £50 is reasonable for 5 years ... so why not double it to £100 and increase the time to 8 or 10 years. Double the revenue and maybe 60% of the work - that would almost be effectively quadrupling the revenue per owner/year and leave us with the same per year fee.

[lapua338]

I also agree with dave_303 on this one.

In fact, it's been my opinion for a considerable time.

It's perfectly logical.

You're granted the authority for a Section 1 FAC therefore no other restrictions apply. No restrictions on calibre, moderators, ammunition or number of firearms possessed (as long as you have appropriate storage and security arrangements).

There is no justification to have the current rules. Am I more dangerous with 17 or x amount of firearms? 5,000 or 28,000 rounds of ammunition?

But since we're dealing with bureaucracy, an instilled fear of civilian ownership and anti-gun dogma, all logic and judicious laws do not apply.

[Charlotte the flyer]

Laws have not been updated in over a decade either. Let's hope they address that while they're at it.

Realistically the only thing that they would do is ban LBRs and Lever Release rifles! Neither are in the 'spirit' of the intended draconian law but get around on technicalities. Section 58 could also go given Mr Adebolajo's recent alleged antics.

[Thomas Turner]

I also agree with dave_303 on this one.

In fact, it's been my opinion for a considerable time.

It's perfectly logical.

You're granted the authority for a Section 1 FAC therefore no other restrictions apply. No restrictions on calibre, moderators, ammunition or number of firearms possessed (as long as you have appropriate storage and security arrangements).

There is no justification to have the current rules. Am I more dangerous with 17 or x amount of firearms? 5,000 or 28,000 rounds of ammunition?

But since we're dealing with bureaucracy, an instilled fear of civilian ownership and anti-gun dogma, all logic and judicious laws do not apply.

Indeed I'm not going to waffle any more just agree

[LeighC]

Sportsman's Association did a study on this a year or so ago (I'm frantically trying to find it now)... I don't remember the ins and outs of it now, but it was a fairly scientific exercise, involving analysis of data received under FOI etc. Anyway, what I do remember was that the area covered by the Met cost over £100 for an FAC grant, whereas Wiltshire could do it for £15 + change.

I agree with Sim on this, it's up to the Chief Constable of a given area to manage his reduced budget, not just to shove the onus onto a minority group. Sadly. we all know that we will swallow whatever increase is imposed, just to keep our sport.

[Gaz]

I'm thinking the best solution would be a shift towards licensing based on Section 2 principles (person, not the objects) and restrictions eased solely to take into account the quantity of storage physically available to the certificate holder.

[alextwogun]

Laws have not been updated in over a decade either. Let's hope they address that while they're at it.

Realistically the only thing that they would do is ban LBRs and Lever Release rifles! Neither are in the 'spirit' of the intended draconian law but get around on technicalities. Section 58 could also go given Mr Adebolajo's recent alleged antics.

I wasn't suggesting updating the law to ban things! :cool2: Glass half full please.