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

ArcofZen wrote:

Ovenpaa wrote:I have completed the survey and would urge all other shooters to do the same, it takes seconds and every comment counts.

Done

just done it again.

The NRA should be lobbying against the whole concept of full cost recovery for all groups/bodies mentioned in the consultation paper .

Any increase in fees or more restrictive regulations on any part of the shooting community should be treated as an attack on the entire shooting community .

The NRA rolled over and said almost nothing when the self loading rifle ban was discussed , mainly because they didnt like them .

BASC , GTA and the NRA once again did almost nothing when the handgun ban was being discussed , maianly because they didnt like handguns , in fact at one point both the GTA and NRA said we should take the £150.00 compensation for any handgun and be grateful ! .

I think many of us are well aware that some police forces claim it costs well in excess of £100.00 to issue an FAC , so if this small attempt by the Home Office / Anti -gun brigade gets through , you can bet your entire gun collection that the Home Office will be back very quickly with new FAC/SGC charges .

Why should the NRA lobby on behalf of dealers in Section 5 weapons or maritime security companies even if it could? (Which it can't anyway as a charity).

Even the Olympic shooters referred to are primarily the responsibility of the NSRA not the NRA, due to being smallbore shooters.

Doubtless the NRA will submit a response re. museums as it has it's own Museum at Bisley.

StanDeasy wrote:Why should the NRA lobby on behalf of dealers in Section 5 weapons or maritime security companies even if it could? (Which it can't anyway as a charity).

Even the Olympic shooters referred to are primarily the responsibility of the NSRA not the NRA, due to being smallbore shooters.

Doubtless the NRA will submit a response re. museums as it has it's own Museum at Bisley.

maybe because they have sec 7 shooters based at Bisley, and sec7 pistols are sec5 until they get classed as sec7 on peoples FAC's

Do clubs, museums, S5 dealers etc actually get issued with licenses and not certificates?? Serious question to those who actually know...

Blackstuff wrote:Do clubs, museums, S5 dealers etc actually get issued with licenses and not certificates?? Serious question to those who actually know...

Clubs get Approval (of the Secretary of State), museums get Licenses, S5 dealers get Authority.

StanDeasy wrote:Why should the NRA lobby on behalf of dealers in Section 5 weapons or maritime security companies even if it could? (Which it can't anyway as a charity).

Even the Olympic shooters referred to are primarily the responsibility of the NSRA not the NRA, due to being smallbore shooters.

Doubtless the NRA will submit a response re. museums as it has it's own Museum at Bisley.

The NRA has already addressed this a few days ago. As they say, they have something like 500 HO approved clubs affiliated to them and they see that HO approved status is key to bringing new people in to the hobby because it allows people to take up shooting without already having their own FAC.

IainWR wrote:

Blackstuff wrote:Do clubs, museums, S5 dealers etc actually get issued with licenses and not certificates?? Serious question to those who actually know...

Clubs get Approval (of the Secretary of State), museums get Licenses, S5 dealers get Authority.

Ovenpaa wrote:I have completed the survey and would urge all other shooters to do the same, it takes seconds and every comment counts.

Done!

I have responded three times to the survey, as a HO approved club Chairman, as an individual FAC holder and as an RFD.

Maybe if the re-located the section outside of that sh!te hole london their costs would dramatically fall.