The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

As most of us know, ACPO want to raise FAC fees to some stupidly high level, on the grounds that they say it costs more to administer FACs and SGCs than they receive in fees. Home Office minister Damian Green rejected ACPO's bid to raise fees from (either this month or next month, I forget which) - a solid victory for the CA and BASC ... and Chf Con Marsh, not happy at being thwarted, seems to be trying to get a campaign going to raise FAC/SGC fees.

He's due to appear on BBC Newcastle later today to publicly call for fees to be raised, and I've watched him engaging with MPs on Twitter urging them to support his campaign. I'm not (yet) monitoring other senior police firearms licensing people, but it looks very much to me that Marsh, denied his cosy backroom deal to stitch us up, is determined to get his way and isn't above trying to drum up a public lobby to increase fees.

His main line seems to be that firearms licensing receives a "huge subsidy" and that fees are "overdue" to be raised. I'm sure that BASC and the CA have a plan to counter Marsh ... but what can we, ordinary shooters, do to counter this? If ACPO manage to get a public campaign going against us, what else are they going to start publicly shouting for - moving everything to Section 1? More restrictions?

Lets be honest here though, what fee hasn't increased for 11-12 years? I think we've just been very lucky (depending on how you see it) that no one has bothered to address this in so long. The problem is now its been so long since it has increased that the proposed increase is going to seem far more disproportionate than had it been gradually raised a few £ every couple of years.

I don't support in any way shape or form full cost recovery though. Firearms licensing is supposedly to protect the general public from us rampant gun maniacs :roll: As they're the ones 'reaping the benefits' they should be paying the lion share.

I think the whole fees issue is an absolute con, it is a safety measure required by the populace and part of the policing of this country so why should shooter pay for it. We are suffering an imposition from government.

I never asked for the UK firearms licensing to evolve the way it has, it was the UK taxpayer who wanted it this way through the decisions of their elected members of parliament and the tax payer should be the ones to pay for it, not the licensee it has been imposed upon.

if a more thought through, coherent and streamlined system that licensed the individual rather that the firearm was introduced I'm sure costs could be brought down.

If you want some fun you can troll Professor Peter Squires' twitter feed regarding the issue

(He's the lying t*@t of an "academic" who is from the GNC, openly told a parliamentary committee that every year police officers died in visits to gun owners homes)

I saw on the news this morning that Alcohol fuelled violence costs the UK over £11 billion to police each year. That's about £175 per person, per year.

Firearms licencing costs around £20 million per year, even without us paying for our FAC's, that's less than a quid per person.

I'd like to see some improvements in the system. For example, what's the point in them having to process a "1 for 1" variation when I want to replacing an ageing / broken .22LR with another?

Mikaveli wrote:I saw on the news this morning that Alcohol fuelled violence costs the UK over £11 billion to police each year. That's about £175 per person, per year.

Firearms licencing costs around £20 million per year, even without us paying for our FAC's, that's less than a quid per person.

I'd like to see some improvements in the system. For example, what's the point in them having to process a "1 for 1" variation when I want to replacing an ageing / broken .22LR with another?

If I recall BASC and the NRA put forward to Parliament that FACs should be run in the same style as SGCs, however, you still applied for a caliber but once you were ok with the caliber you could own as many guns in that cal as you could securely store

@HantsChiefAndy: About to do interview for BBC Newcastle about gun licensing fees. No increase since January 2001 - long overdue for a review"

He can p*** right off!! 22 weeks mine took! Get it down to 7 or 8 and I'll gladly pay more. But you don't agree to pay more in a restaurant after they've just served you a massive s*** in a bun.

If improvements were made with turnaround times, online registration/transfer/disposal and have FAC's treated more like SGC's then I would happily pay more.

Alas, they will do whatever they feel is 'in the public interest' and likely screw us over. Again.

I nearly fell off my chair this afternoon when I got an email back from my licensing team saying I could email purchase notifications. But on the web site it says that it has to be by post.

If they embraced modern technology more then the cost could drop because they wouldn't need so many administrators (although the state current public sector computing projects maybe modernising the process isn't such a bright idea).

They would also have saved money if they hadn't posted my certificate out unsigned and had to resend it

dave_303 wrote:If you want some fun you can troll Professor Peter Squires' twitter feed regarding the issue

(He's the lying t*at of an "academic" who is from the GNC, openly told a parliamentary committee that every year police officers died in visits to gun owners homes)

Presumably from the sudden and massive ingestion of tea and choccy biccies while on the premises