bradaz11 wrote:see, this is why people are calling you a troll - you are given an explanation, which someone took the time to reference for you, but you don't agree, and so just dismiss it
No - I get called a troll because people refuse to accept what I say about that as being the truth. Or they invent things I've not written, and then when they find they don't like what they've invented, decide that must be my fault. Or they are the sort of people to whom the idea comes naturally that people could be so pathetic and dishonest that they would make posts on a forum deliberately designed to cause trouble.
One of the saddest things about this is that I know it will do no good to point out that if people read what I have actually written, nowhere will they find that I have dismissed, disagreed with or argued about what the law says.
Nowhere have I disagreed with, or argued about, what the 'D' in 'RFD' stands for.
Nowhere have I disagreed with, or argued about, what people have told me about police procedures.
My point was, and remains, that I cannot see what risks or harms are created by someone becoming an RFD but not actually profiting as one.
I can't see how, if two people are examined and vetted and whatevered, and at that point are identical in every single respect apart from their business plan, not having a "credible" plan then makes Fred more of a risk than Bill. In fact, one might think that if someone did want to become an RFD for nefarious reasons they'd do as much as they could to avoid any increased scrutiny.
So, I asked these questions:
TRG-22 wrote:That guidance still makes me wonder why. As long as someone is personally OK to be an RFD, and has all the physical security needed, and (if it's required) can show that he knows the law, what business is it of the police to vet his business plan?
In other words if someone would be allowed to register as a dealer if they had a business plan that the police liked, what justifiable concerns would the police have about the guy registering if the only box not ticked was an acceptable BP?
TRG-22 wrote:Again - why do they care?
For sure I think that the requirements for becoming an RFD should be stringent regarding things that matter, but why does a business plan matter?
What am I missing?
And after Sim G answered:
Sim G wrote:A dealer is defined at Section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 as a person or a corporate body who, by way of trade or business: manufactures, sells, transfers, repairs, tests or proves firearms or ammunition to which section 1 of the Act applies, or shotguns; or sells or transfers air weapons. So if you no “business” you essentially do not meet the criteria as laid down in legislation.
I stopped asking, because my
genuine question had been answered.
To then be accused of dismissing the answer beggars belief.
It does indeed explain why the police have an interest in whether someone's business plan looks sound.
But it does not show that there is a risk created by not having such a plan, which is all that I went on to say.
Does that matter? No.
Does it mean that the police can be challenged if they want someone to have a proper business plan? No.
Am I suggesting that, or telling people that they are wrong? No.
But the same things can be observed about the police being required by law to take an interest in a person's medical fitness to hold an FAC, which means that they have to seek a report from that person's doctor, and none of that stops Christel from moaning about it, saying it is pointless and calling the police snowflakes for doing it.
bradaz11 wrote:now leave this thread alone
I may well leave the entire forum alone.
I need to have a think about whether it is worth putting up with the aggression and accusations of dishonesty from people who cannot or will not read what I actually write.
