Yoe were warned

[Harnser]

Since being a member of this forum I have learnt lots of new things about shooting . Although I have over 50 years of shooting experiance , ( which must count for something ) I do not pretend to know everything .

 

I have never been against people wanting to take courses to expand their knowledge on any subject including shooting .What I am bitterly against is the police insisting on people taking certain courses before they will issue a firearms certificate . This is wrong and not required in law . Any body meeting the criteria for firearms ownership would win the day in court if they appealed against the polices decision to refuse an application for a ticket because they had not taken a deer course or did not want to be mentored .

 

I wonder what the BASC stance is on compusory testing and mentoring ?. David please .

 

Harnser .

[mikee]

Harnser we had several long conversations about rifle shooting when i was applying for my FAC and you offered to mentor me if the FEO had made it a condition of the grant, I'm with you on the issue that the police forces shouldnt be making up conditions to suite themselves, following the letter of the law an applicant should be granted the ticket if he/she and the land are deemed suitable. The police are here to administer the laws of the land not make them up as they see fit.

 

I did the DSC1 cause because I thought it would be interesting and helpful as i knew very little about deer not because i was imposed on me and i would recommend it to anybody, I love shooting and always want to learn more about it, its part of the sport, i'm 44 and have been shooting shotguns since i was 11, i know my way round a pigeon hide, clay ground and marsh, but until last year i knew very little about rifle shooting so set about learning what i could and the DSC1 was a way i found to get more knowledge.

 

I do feel that some kind of safety test should be part of the grant process for a FAC, if you fail the test you dont get the ticket, pass and you do, much like a driving test, JMHO

 

mikee

[Harnser]

Harnser we had several long conversations about rifle shooting when i was applying for my FAC and you offered to mentor me if the FEO had made it a condition of the grant, I'm with you on the issue that the police forces shouldnt be making up conditions to suite themselves, following the letter of the law an applicant should be granted the ticket if he/she and the land are deemed suitable. The police are here to administer the laws of the land not make them up as they see fit.

 

I did the DSC1 cause because I thought it would be interesting and helpful as i knew very little about deer not because i was imposed on me and i would recommend it to anybody, I love shooting and always want to learn more about it, its part of the sport, i'm 44 and have been shooting shotguns since i was 11, i know my way round a pigeon hide, clay ground and marsh, but until last year i knew very little about rifle shooting so set about learning what i could and the DSC1 was a way i found to get more knowledge.

 

I do feel that some kind of safety test should be part of the grant process for a FAC, if you fail the test you dont get the ticket, pass and you do, much like a driving test, JMHO

 

mikee

Mikee , The last paragraph of your post is proberbly the most sense that I have seen on here for a while .

 

Harnser .

[abiteachuck]

if you went on this course would you be tought to shoot charlie with a.22 at 132ydrs and 2mile with a .17

ps while out lamping

Edited April 14, 2010 by abiteachuck

[Breastman]

I do feel that some kind of safety test should be part of the grant process for a FAC, if you fail the test you dont get the ticket, pass and you do, much like a driving test, JMHO

 

mikee

 

Like for example, 3-6 months instruction and supervised rifle use by experienced shooters, club officials and/or RCO's . . . . .

 

I've said it before, and i'll say it again, imo, its always best to start your firearms career in a M.O.D. target club. Apart from providing basic safety instruction, supervision of newbies, contacts to other forms of shooting, it boosts our 'official' numbers. The bigger we are, the more politicians take notice when we speak.

 

Unfortunately there are parts of the country where you have a 40 mile round trip to the nearest range. And then there are some people who appear allergic to them even when they're on their doorstep.

 

Mark

[David BASC]

Good morning all,

 

It is important to understand that BASC is absolutely opposed to compulsory testing as a condition of firearm or shotgun ownership. However people who are new to the sport must accept that the onus is on them to develop the knowledge and skill to use a shotgun or firearm safely, this could be through being ‘mentored’ by a more experienced shooter for a while to ‘show you the ropes’ or if this is not possible through a training course.

 

Best wishes

 

David

[Frenchieboy]

Good morning all,

 

It is important to understand that BASC is absolutely opposed to compulsory testing as a condition of firearm or shotgun ownership. However people who are new to the sport must accept that the onus is on them to develop the knowledge and skill to use a shotgun or firearm safely, this could be through being ‘mentored’ by a more experienced shooter for a while to ‘show you the ropes’ or if this is not possible through a training course.

 

Best wishes

 

David

 

I personally think that David has put the case quite clearly here as long as the BASC stand by the policy of not allowing the compulsory testing as a condition on a FAC or SGC! The important thing is that we all agree that as long as these courses are kept as optional and not made compulsory there is no problem, and in fact they could be a possible benefit to (some) new shooters!

With regards to a "mentoring" condition for new shooters, especially those with no experience of centre fire rifles, I am in favour of this, even if it is only to ensure that you know enough about "Gun Safety" and identifying "Safe or Unsafe Shots"!

[CharlieT]

Like for example, 3-6 months instruction and supervised rifle use by experienced shooters, club officials and/or RCO's . . . . .

 

I've said it before, and i'll say it again, imo, its always best to start your firearms career in a M.O.D. target club. Apart from providing basic safety instruction, supervision of newbies, contacts to other forms of shooting, it boosts our 'official' numbers. The bigger we are, the more politicians take notice when we speak.

 

Unfortunately there are parts of the country where you have a 40 mile round trip to the nearest range. And then there are some people who appear allergic to them even when they're on their doorstep. :(

 

Mark

 

 

Mark

 

Whilst I appreciate your sentiments as far as a target shooter is concerned there are some of us who have no interest in target/range shooting.

 

In the 50 years I have been shooting I have only been to a range once and that was a couple of years ago when a neighbour took me. I have no interest in target shooting, it bores the pants off me, and seems to me to attract people who just like firing guns. I only have and fire a gun because I enjoy "hunting", to be quite honest it would matter little if my tool was a bow and arrow or a slingshot.

 

There are I suspect many country boys like me and if club membership and target shooting became mandatory for training and supervision prior to fac grant it could well put some people off. It certainly would have me.

 

There is a world of difference between "hunting" and "range" gun handling and safety and in my view no amount of range supervision and instruction will equip someone for the scenarios they will meet in the field.

 

Those of us who grew up with a father or keeper taking us under their wing were indeed very fortunate. For those who do not have such a mentor I feel that some police forces have got it just about right. They sum up the applicant as an individual and apply conditions, if necessary, based on that applicants circumstances, attitude and maturity. If that sometimes means adding a mentoring condition to their certificate then so be it.

 

What I do not agree with is blanket policy based on the one size fits all syndrome. Across the board Mentoring, testing, DSC's or the passing of a course serve no purpose and should be resisted most vigorously. Everyone is an individual and should be treated as such.

 

Charlie

[activeviii]

IF i had the money to fund all these courses and IF i could sit to drive for long enough to get to them then i would quite happily take them, yes it might give one a better understanding but as I'm a disabled shooter, living on a disability living allowance, I just can not do them so it could be a win for the police and antis and a lost for me and my chosen passion. Is this fair? for me NO! but then I'm just one in a fair few thousand.

 

Phil.

[Frenchieboy]

IF i had the money to fund all these courses and IF i could sit to drive for long enough to get to them then i would quite happily take them, yes it might give one a better understanding but as I'm a disabled shooter, living on a disability living allowance, I just can not do them so it could be a win for the police and antis and a lost for me and my chosen passion. Is this fair? for me NO! but then I'm just one in a fair few thousand.

 

Phil.

 

I have to agree with you wholeheartedly here Phil as I am in a similar boat as you and I echo your thoughts 100%!

Yes it would be good to get "professional" tuition so as to improve yourself, your skills and your abilities as well as broadening your mind and knowledge of something that you have a passion for, but for some of us that is just not financially possible. This is why I stress that these "courses" should remain optional (Maybe even advisable) but not compulsory!

[David BASC]

Personally I think the 'one size fits all' works well for some things like the Army basic training or the driving test for example, as it brings people to a common standard regardless of their original knowledge / skill base!

 

David

[Frenchieboy]

That may well be the case in some situations David but when we are talking about something like this it can become a different matter. Some of us have been shooting long enough to class ourselves as "responsible and very safe shots" without having even more rules, regulations and courses thrust on us, some of which might well be so expensive that it could force some of us out of doing something that we love doing and something that we do very well and safely. Please think about that before you start with your "One size fits all" attitude!

You might well be fortunate enough to afford to go on every course that becomes available whatever the cost but some of us are not as fortunate or financially comfortable as you!

[Harnser]

Mark

 

Whilst I appreciate your sentiments as far as a target shooter is concerned there are some of us who have no interest in target/range shooting.

 

In the 50 years I have been shooting I have only been to a range once and that was a couple of years ago when a neighbour took me. I have no interest in target shooting, it bores the pants off me, and seems to me to attract people who just like firing guns. I only have and fire a gun because I enjoy "hunting", to be quite honest it would matter little if my tool was a bow and arrow or a slingshot.

 

There are I suspect many country boys like me and if club membership and target shooting became mandatory for training and supervision prior to fac grant it could well put some people off. It certainly would have me.

 

There is a world of difference between "hunting" and "range" gun handling and safety and in my view no amount of range supervision and instruction will equip someone for the scenarios they will meet in the field.

 

Those of us who grew up with a father or keeper taking us under their wing were indeed very fortunate. For those who do not have such a mentor I feel that some police forces have got it just about right. They sum up the applicant as an individual and apply conditions, if necessary, based on that applicants circumstances, attitude and maturity. If that sometimes means adding a mentoring condition to their certificate then so be it.

 

What I do not agree with is blanket policy based on the one size fits all syndrome. Across the board Mentoring, testing, DSC's or the passing of a course serve no purpose and should be resisted most vigorously. Everyone is an individual and should be treated as such.

 

Charlie

Charlie ,

I agree with all you have said . We are indeed our own worst enemys . We Should be resisting al this malarky about compulsory testing . But unfortunately no body wants to listen to two old codgers with a hundred years of shooting experiance between us . We live in a society that wants to see paper certificates for every thing .

 

Harnser .

[Ozzy Fudd]

Charlie ,

I agree with all you have said . We are indeed our own worst enemys . We Should be resisting al this malarky about compulsory testing . But unfortunately no body wants to listen to two old codgers with a hundred years of shooting experiance between us . We live in a society that wants to see paper certificates for every thing .

 

Harnser .

 

but thats the thing harnser, you have a hundred years experience between you, but i thought this was really about people with no experience??

[Breastman]

Mark

 

Whilst I appreciate your sentiments as far as a target shooter is concerned there are some of us who have no interest in target/range shooting.

 

In the 50 years I have been shooting I have only been to a range once and that was a couple of years ago when a neighbour took me. I have no interest in target shooting, it bores the pants off me, and seems to me to attract people who just like firing guns. I only have and fire a gun because I enjoy "hunting", to be quite honest it would matter little if my tool was a bow and arrow or a slingshot.

 

There are I suspect many country boys like me and if club membership and target shooting became mandatory for training and supervision prior to fac grant it could well put some people off. It certainly would have me.

 

There is a world of difference between "hunting" and "range" gun handling and safety and in my view no amount of range supervision and instruction will equip someone for the scenarios they will meet in the field.

 

Those of us who grew up with a father or keeper taking us under their wing were indeed very fortunate. For those who do not have such a mentor I feel that some police forces have got it just about right. They sum up the applicant as an individual and apply conditions, if necessary, based on that applicants circumstances, attitude and maturity. If that sometimes means adding a mentoring condition to their certificate then so be it.

 

What I do not agree with is blanket policy based on the one size fits all syndrome. Across the board Mentoring, testing, DSC's or the passing of a course serve no purpose and should be resisted most vigorously. Everyone is an individual and should be treated as such.

 

Charlie

 

Charlie,

 

You therefore had the MASSIVE benefit of belonging to a family with a history of shooting with somewhere to practice! You are an overwhelming minority. Most people (i know at least) in the shooting game may have one or the other but very few have both. The probation period served at a gun club, again imo, is an excellent way to learn the basics for the majority of people. Obviously its not going to teach you everything you need to know about shooting in the field but it should at least get newbies holding the gun by the right end!

 

Mark

[Harnser]

but thats the thing harnser, you have a hundred years experience between you, but i thought this was really about people with no experience??

You miss my point ossy , the inexperianced should be listening to the experianced for advice . I have become aware over the years that practical experiance no longer counts for very much in this world of meaningless paper qualifications . One of the most sort after qualifications when I was a young man was a city and guilds pass in a trade . This was really worth having and I have a city and guilds in a craft trade of which I am still proud of . Now I can see courses for plumming ,bricklaying , carpentry ect advertised as a two week course ,what a load of nonsense , and I bet that if you took one of these courses you will get your mandatory paper certificate . Seen on tv last night ,ther are more university degrees out there than ther are jobs ,what does this tell you ?

 

Harnser .

[harv]

Charlie ,

I agree with all you have said . We are indeed our own worst enemys . We Should be resisting al this malarky about compulsory testing . But unfortunately no body wants to listen to two old codgers with a hundred years of shooting experiance between us . We live in a society that wants to see paper certificates for every thing .

 

Harnser .

 

totally agree, i think lantra and these companys have found a way of making a few quid between them period.

[CharlieT]

Harv,

 

What I regret most in life is that you, me and Harnser did not come up with the Lantra idea. It's a license to print money and we would have made a fortune.

 

Charlie

[Harnser]

Harv,

 

What I regret most in life is that you, me and Harnser did not come up with the Lantra idea. It's a license to print money and we would have made a fortune.

 

Charlie

 

And we certinly have the now how between the three of us to put on a course and make a few bob .

 

Harnser .

[CharlieT]

I copy below a minuet from the ACPO FELWG meeting of the 31.10.07

 

 

Accompanied conditions.

BASC would like a procedure put in place to allow automatic review and removal by the police.

Members agreed that Chief Officers reserve the right to impose conditions in appropriate circumstances, with each being considered on it’s own merits. These are useful where the alternative would be to refuse and the onus should be on the certificate holder to request conditions be reviewed.

 

 

The wording of this minuet clearly demonstrates that a "mentoring" (read accompanied) condition should only be applied in particular circumstances and not across the board as seems to happen. It also shows how BASC are working, on our behalf, behind the scenes to lobby the police into sensible firearms licensing protocols.

 

charlie

[Graham M]

Unfortunately gentlemen many of you are missing the point entirely.

It isn’t about mentoring, or whether the courses are voluntary, or even if our shooting organisations are telling us that they are opposed to them.

The fact remains that once ACPO see that these courses are available, then they will go down the same road as DSC1, and they will start to demand that they are completed by any prospective shooter. This will then start to include renewals for older, more experienced shooters, until it becomes mandatory to take the course before a grant of a new FAC or the renewal of an existing one.

And that is when the price will start to escalate, and that is when our shooting organisations will be falling over each other to offer them to us………at very reasonable cost of course.

 

The trouble is we now have many inexperienced shooters who have taken these course, and who genuinely believe that they are now more knowledgeable than more experienced shooters. This has now led them to believe that because THEY have taken the course, EVERYONE should do so. But in doing so they are planting the seeds of our own demise, because before long we will be so entrenched in this line of thinking that we will start to actually ENCOURAGE future governments to impose more and more courses for almost every type of shooting.

After all, why should Joe Bloggs get his shooting for free when Fred Bloggs has just paid hundreds of £££s for his courses, and therefore Joe Bloggs must be made to pay as well…….mustn’t he?

 

I see this all the time where one man has paid a small fortune to get his DSC 1 & 2 and therefore doesn’t see why someone who hasn’t been on one of these courses should be allowed to shoot. because they haven’t paid the same sort of money.

Some of them are so annoyed to think that people are shooting deer without having a bit of paper that they are even starting to demand that these tests are made compulsory.

And so it continues…….until someone in HMG will eventually agree.

 

G.M.

[Harnser]

graham m , you talk a lot of sense . Why is it that some people on this sight carnt see any further than the end of their noses and think that practical experiance is less valuable than micky mouse paper certificates . In the overall picture these courses are part of the demise of sporting shooting in this country . These courses are the beginning of the total ban on centre fire rifles . The restriction of the grant for centre fire rifles has been going on for a long time and the police licencing depts throught the country has moved into another gear by insisting on courses before the grant of a rifle ticket and the mentoring of shooters after the grant . It wont be long before it will be very difficult to own a sporting rifle . Then my friends they will start on the shotguns . All very clever really . Call me an fool or what ever you want but I can assure you that it is happening . Slowly ,slowly , catch the monkey .

 

Harnser .

[David BASC]

Although I understand what you say Graham, indeed you have been consistent on your line, there is nothing in the Home Office Guidance or ACPO Best Practice to support what you say, there is certainly no nation wide Home Office or ACPO strategy to introduce testing for all grant / renewal.

 

However, the guidance and best practice certainly suggest a course or mentoring are only offered as a condition to grant, IF the alternative would be a refusal to grant

 

However, we both know of a few constabularies that do go over the top!

 

If the stratergy has been to reduce firearm ownership it has not worked:

 

Home Office figures recently released, which relate to 2008/2009, show the highest year-on-year rises in certificates on issue for both shotguns and firearms since records began in 1968.

 

Shotgun certificates reversed a declining trend, with a five per cent rise on the previous year. In 2008/9 there were 574,956 shotgun certificates on issue – an increase of 25,739 from 2007/8. Firearm certificates also showed their highest rise, of eight per cent; an increase of 10,200 to 138,728. In total there were 453,383 firearms and 1,366,082 shotguns registered on police-issued certificates in March 2009.

 

 

David

Edited April 15, 2010 by David BASC

[DaveK]

Although I understand what you say Graham, indeed you have been consistent on your line, there is nothing in the Home Office Guidance or ACPO Best Practice to support what you say, there is certainly no nation wide Home Office or ACPO strategy to introduce testing for all grant / renewal.

 

However, the guidance and best practice certainly suggest a course or mentoring are only offered as a condition to grant, IF the alternative would be a refusal to grant

 

 

David

 

Unfortunately David What you've said above is exactly why we should be wary. There are no HO or ACPO strategies but whilst individual FLO's have discretionary powers to condition grant and renewal, this will increasingly become a problem. the powers of discretion need tightening up somewhat and maybe new guidance issues that restricts their almost autonomous discretion to do as they please.

 

Then we'd all know where we stand. I find it almost criminal that something as dangerous and contentious as firearms and their ownership should be subject to such ambiguity.

[Ozzy Fudd]

You miss my point ossy , the inexperianced should be listening to the experianced for advice . I have become aware over the years that practical experiance no longer counts for very much in this world of meaningless paper qualifications . One of the most sort after qualifications when I was a young man was a city and guilds pass in a trade . This was really worth having and I have a city and guilds in a craft trade of which I am still proud of . Now I can see courses for plumming ,bricklaying , carpentry ect advertised as a two week course ,what a load of nonsense , and I bet that if you took one of these courses you will get your mandatory paper certificate . Seen on tv last night ,ther are more university degrees out there than ther are jobs ,what does this tell you ?

 

Harnser .

 

understand you now

 

tbh im still in two minds over it. i dont think these sort of courses should be seen as a "if you dont have it you know nothing and wont get a gun" situation, but i believe they could be useful for new and inexperienced shooters to show they know the basics if they dont have access to a mentor. i count myself lucky that i had firearms experience before i got my own licence (and even then i had alot to learn, and still do), but some people ive met have left me shuddering that they got a gun. i would see these courses like the weapons handling training i went through (and then taught) when i was a cadet - the basic do's and dont's for people with no experience. its not going to turn you into an expert hunter/marksman/tracker but itll give you a basic knowledge to work on