Who's Got The Vermin Condition On There FAC ?

[wymberley]

I hope they don't change the existing set-up; we'd have nothing to talk about!

They won't of course unless there's something absolutely amazing produced following the current review.

The only surefire way to get it sorted is that if someone whose bottle is matched only by the size of his wallet and who has a 24 carat, rock solid and cast iron case takes a chief constable to court and having won and proved that the officer had acted outside of the law, then with the aid of his accountant, solicitor and barrister claims expenses for everything that they figure that they can legitimately get away with. The next ACPO's meeting following such an event would be interesting.

Having said that, perhaps I'll just add that it remains essential that the FEOs and FLOs do actually do their job albeit within the restrictions that the law specifies.

Cheers

 

PS Good luck, Joe.

[grasshopper]

I know when BASC got involved in my recent renewal issues this matter got cleared up quickly and i was granted the condition 'the shooting of vermin or, in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife' - (i have this condition on all my centerfires, .223, 6.5, 308)

 

As ever if your having issues then use your BASC membership, it is worth your time giving them a call at the very least, they can recommend to you how you might proceed without their input.

 

This is heartening,as i too,will be applying for the vermin condition on my renewal with Durham next year.

 

I have a feeling i will have to involve BASC somewhere along the line...unless BJ is succesful of course in the meantime.

 

Was just wondering if wording it "any legal quarry" would make any difference to Durham Constabulary,as it seems more defined than just Vemin in general,but as we know,it would cover them just the same :blink:

[harv]

Not wanting to go off thread but can anybody clarify the last condition on mine?

The shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.

Is this for example a mad dog / bull on the loose etc?

[kdubya]

Not wanting to go off thread but can anybody clarify the last condition on mine?

The shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.

Is this for example a mad dog / bull on the loose etc?

 

 

funnily enough I have that on my recently renewed ticket, ( it had never been on before) no doubt its aimed at all the big cat sightings ? the truth is out there?

 

KW

[malkiserow]

Not wanting to go off thread but can anybody clarify the last condition on mine?

The shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.

Is this for example a mad dog / bull on the loose etc?

 

I have this as well

[njc110381]

where does it say you can shoot vermin with your 6.5? your addtional conditions only state that the guns listed on your cert cover deer, fox, and vermin, not that they should be used for all?

 

KW

 

 

Please forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, but has this still not been agreed on? I'm a bit lost amongst all the different views!

 

That FAC states that the firearms on it may be used for pest control, Fox control and Deer stalking. So they can all be used for all the quarry listed as long as there isn't a law somewhere else that states otherwise (ie Deer with a calibre forbidden by the Deer acts).... It's quite simple really?!

[kdubya]

Please forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, but has this still not been agreed on? I'm a bit lost amongst all the different views!

 

That FAC states that the firearms on it may be used for pest control, Fox control and Deer stalking. So they can all be used for all the quarry listed as long as there isn't a law somewhere else that states otherwise (ie Deer with a calibre forbidden by the Deer acts).... It's quite simple really?!

 

 

it simply states that is the PURPOSE!! of the listed guns it does not mean they are all suitable quite simple really? it assumes that the guns are used within the suitability to quarry guidelines, wonder if that's why some police authorities actually declare each gun against quarry , it certainly save's all the ambiguity and misreading.

 

KW

[magman]

Not wanting to go off thread but can anybody clarify the last condition on mine?

The shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.

Is this for example a mad dog / bull on the loose etc?

 

 

That sounds great well you see sir i shot that fox with the 22l/r as it was going to eat the frog

 

ps, i wonder how that would go down with the winged variety

Edited September 14, 2010 by magman

[Bazooka Joe]

The only surefire way to get it sorted is that if someone whose bottle is matched only by the size of his wallet and who has a 24 carat, rock solid and cast iron case takes a chief constable to court and having won and proved that the officer had acted outside of the law, then with the aid of his accountant, solicitor and barrister claims expenses for everything that they figure that they can legitimately get away with.

 

Hi W, I'm game if the outfit representing me is aswell, I think that it's about time these issues came to ahead, & sorted once & for all. FLO's quote the guidelines to suit themselves, & write them in stone, but when Joe Bloggs quotes it, it's guidelines only & should be taken as that.

 

BJ.

[kdubya]

That sounds great well you see sir i shot that fox with the 22l/r as it was going to eat the frog

 

ps, i wonder how that would go down with the winged variety

 

 

tis a good one ? bet we still dont see any of those common as muck big cats get taken out

 

KW

[markbivvy]

Hi W, I'm game if the outfit representing me is aswell, I think that it's about time these issues came to ahead, & sorted once & for all. FLO's quote the guidelines to suit themselves, & write them in stone, but when Joe Bloggs quotes it, it's guidelines only & should be taken as that.

 

BJ.

 

Durham wont want to go to a court to sort this out.

if they do they will loose and then they have to give it to all centre fire users in the county.

[magman]

Funny a post like this and no David from BASC input

[kdubya]

Durham wont want to go to a court to sort this out.

if they do they will loose and then they have to give it to all centre fire users in the county.

 

 

Its time it was sorted nationally. as this thread readily demonstrates the present system allows for the er how shall we say deliberate and not so deliberate misunderstanding of a ticket, one day someone somewhere will be taken to task over a caliber issue and when they say "but i thought" the man with the grey wig will say "you know what thought did"

 

KW

[Bazooka Joe]

Durham wont want to go to a court to sort this out.

if they do they will loose and then they have to give it to all centre fire users in the county.

 

Never thought of it that way Mark, nice one

 

Email, & Recorded Letter off today, apparently you have 21 days to query your FAC ?

 

BJ

[Mr_Logic]

Its time it was sorted nationally. as this thread readily demonstrates the present system allows for the er how shall we say deliberate and not so deliberate misunderstanding of a ticket, one day someone somewhere will be taken to task over a caliber issue and when they say "but i thought" the man with the grey wig will say "you know what thought did"

 

KW

KW, it appears you have a very warped view of firearms licensing laws.

 

First point, Durham by allowing one person vermin on a CF rifle do not have to open it to anyone else. The firearms laws are very clear that the application of an individual is just that - an individual application, judged on its own merits and not by policy. Yes, there are policies which are readily applied, but, for example, say I am shooting rabbits on a hill, and I cannot get close, and the hill in question is incredibly windy. The safest and most practical rifle is something like a .243 since the windage is reduced markedly. However, if I shoot rabbits in a horse paddock, even a large one, then a 243 is not the tool of choice, obviously! Therefore, each case must be looked at individually.

 

My problem with firearms departments is that they do not do this half the damn time, and someone needs to remind them that they have to adhere to legislation which says they must do this.

 

Second point, the FAC which was being argued over. You said to NJC about the suitability of firearms for a particular purpose - this is not the job of the Police! The firearms acts mean they have to administer a system which is designed to limit those firearms in circulation, and make sure all firearms have a Good Reason for ownership - ultimately this is due to one reason alone - public safety. This is the sole reason for firearms laws, in the eyes of the law. Therefore, so long as you (a) have a good reason and ( there is no other law preventing the use of a certain firearm, you may use what you like. This is not down to the Police. They are simply allowed to verify that you have the good reason, and that you have the land for it.

 

Ultimately, if it is legal for me to use a firearm, then I may do. NJC was quite right with what he said - the firearms on the FAC are all allowed to do vermin and fox, since they have no other laws, and the firearms are licensed for deer also. Their use is prevented by the Deer Act - nothing in either act contravenes the other. It's quite logical, quite simple, and tbh a good FAC!

[kdubya]

KW, it appears you have a very warped view of firearms licensing laws.

 

First point, Durham by allowing one person vermin on a CF rifle do not have to open it to anyone else. The firearms laws are very clear that the application of an individual is just that - an individual application, judged on its own merits and not by policy. Yes, there are policies which are readily applied, but, for example, say I am shooting rabbits on a hill, and I cannot get close, and the hill in question is incredibly windy. The safest and most practical rifle is something like a .243 since the windage is reduced markedly. However, if I shoot rabbits in a horse paddock, even a large one, then a 243 is not the tool of choice, obviously! Therefore, each case must be looked at individually.

 

My problem with firearms departments is that they do not do this half the damn time, and someone needs to remind them that they have to adhere to legislation which says they must do this.

 

Second point, the FAC which was being argued over. You said to NJC about the suitability of firearms for a particular purpose - this is not the job of the Police! The firearms acts mean they have to administer a system which is designed to limit those firearms in circulation, and make sure all firearms have a Good Reason for ownership - ultimately this is due to one reason alone - public safety. This is the sole reason for firearms laws, in the eyes of the law. Therefore, so long as you (a) have a good reason and ( there is no other law preventing the use of a certain firearm, you may use what you like. This is not down to the Police. They are simply allowed to verify that you have the good reason, and that you have the land for it.

 

Ultimately, if it is legal for me to use a firearm, then I may do. NJC was quite right with what he said - the firearms on the FAC are all allowed to do vermin and fox, since they have no other laws, and the firearms are licensed for deer also. Their use is prevented by the Deer Act - nothing in either act contravenes the other. It's quite logical, quite simple, and tbh a good FAC!

 

 

First off I never mentioned Durham so aim that one in the right direction please

 

now my warped view IE one taken from my issuing force firstly they do make the decision I may not like it but i know what they will say if i said i want to shoot rabbit with my .243 as its windy sometimes safer or it may be the only gun i am carrying. yeah right they will say bog off, but i will say Mr logic (he knows more than you) has got that condition and he has amate who got an open fac for CF without any land checks ( he must have nice FAO people not nasty like you) again bog off would be the reply, anyway nice to know there are some people who know better eh? must duck another curly tailed pink thing just went over.

 

KW

[Mr_Logic]

Are you capable of comprehending English?!?!?!?!?

 

My entire point was that (I will use large letters to help you) IT IS, IN LAW, DOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL CASE. If your firearms department are incapable of correctly interpreting the law, then that conversation is something you need to have with them. Unfortunately for them, it seems I DO know the law better than them. Perhaps it is because I've read it? Your firearms department really aren't the be-all-and-end-all - it is important that you realise this. People have a right to the correct use of law - Police cannot change laws, and they cannot make them up as they go along. If they don't follow the law, then you have the right to ask them nicely to make them do their job right.

 

As with all things, there's a right and a wrong way of doing this. I don't suggest anyone gets arsey with their FEO or FLO, but they can be firm and insistent while being polite.

 

The flip side, is that this doesn't mean the Police have to say yes to everything. They are within their rights to say No to an application for any calibre or use, but what isn't right is for them to say "We don't issue X for Y" - i.e. a blanket policy. Things like rimfire for fox, 243 for vermin - all these things are not in the guidelines as a standard grant, so if you want them you'll have to argue, but if you can prove good reason for something, then you can have it. Where there is a dispute about the Police's interpretation, you have the right of appeal. If you choose to bend over and take it, then that's down to you. Me, if I want something I am legally entitled to, then I shall fight for it. Always nicely and politely, but always firmly.

 

Regarding Durham, I was explaining the situation to you, you queried it earlier, that's all.

[njc110381]

At the end of the day the ACPO recommend that the "Any other lawful quarry" condition is applied if requested. Thank god someone in this group has seen that it's not the target that dictates whether a shot is safe or not, rather the layout of the ground. Whether you shoot a Red Stag or a Mouse you need a good safe backstop for the shot and as long as it's humane, what's the problem?

 

Why is it some forces seem to think that they are above this recommendation? I for one don't know, but the heads of these departments should be disciplined for letting their own personal opinions cloud their judgement. Guidelines are set to be followed, not ignored because an individual doesn't like them. It shouldn't matter a bit what the chief thinks, he's there to do a job the same as the rest of us!

 

I can only suggest kdubya that your chief is a numpty. What he says (and what you in turn have grown to accept) is utter nonsense. If someone wants to shoot a Rabbit in a safe area with a .300 Win Mag then so be it. It's a waste of money and powder but that's no business of the officer. The shooter should be able to do as he pleases as long as he poses no threat to public safety.

[kdubya]

Why is it some forces seem to think that they are above this recommendation? I for one don't know, but the heads of these departments should be disciplined for letting their own personal opinions cloud their judgement. Guidelines are set to be followed, not ignored because an individual doesn't like them. It shouldn't matter a bit what the chief thinks, he's there to do a job the same as the rest of us!

 

I can only suggest kdubya that your chief is a numpty. What he says (and what you in turn have grown to accept) is utter nonsense. If someone wants to shoot a Rabbit in a safe area with a .300 Win Mag then so be it. It's a waste of money and powder but that's no business of the officer. The shooter should be able to do as he pleases as long as he poses no threat to public safety.

 

NJC its not a case of what I have grown to accept, it is unfortunately just the way it is, yes I may have quarry restrictions on my ticket, but I get to have a gun for each specific need and then again we don't need (yet) mentors or have problems with deer caliber and dsc1 etc so swings and roundabouts,I agree the shooter should be able to use what he feels right at the time if its within the law, but the point I tried to make on this thread is that we should not be in position whereby we can interpret the terms of our tickets differently hence I feel we should have a standard issuing policy throughout the country, I accept your point its put over well and respectfully unlike our resident know all, I would love to see him point out the error of our FLD managers ways, his ears would bleed.

 

KW

[Mr_Logic]

KW, I give in, I really do. You spend a whole thread arguing with people and saying your Firearms guys are gospel when they're not. All I've done is say you're wrong, and you are.

 

You just did it again - that's just the way it is, you say. If you actually show good reason why you want to do something different, you can argue with them, so clearly you do just accept it.

 

And sorry, but don't be calling me a know-all, I get your context and I find it offensive. Fact is on this particular point I've spent a lot of time looking at the legislation over the years because I AM prepared to make a reasoned argument with firearms people! If you can prove me wrong then I am quite prepared to accept it.

[jay222]

i have fox and vermin on my .223 in north wales

[wymberley]

Funny a post like this and no David from BASC input

That crossed my mind too: But then I thought what can he say? He doesn't need to tell us the situation as we already know it. The Home Affairs Select Committee is looking into it and nothing will happen until that and the subsequent work is complete and guest 1957 has updated us on it at, Off Topic, Badly Written Article. As repeating what has already been said and stating the obvious are both a waste of time, have a coffee and put your feet up, David; we'll find something else for you shortly for certain!

Cheers

[ST3V3]

sent mine in for ammo increasecame back

have vermin and ground game on my .22rf (same as original)

fox and and any lawfull quarry on my .222 (original was fox only) I assume this covers muntjac and chinese water deer if I ever see them

then something about humane dispatch and to protect livestock and humans (wasnt on original at all)

but its still closed

Edited September 25, 2010 by ST3V3

[Bazooka Joe]

Update

 

Well.....one happy bunny

 

Received an email yesterday from Durham concerning the conditions highlighted in my first post, all granted

 

243--Deer/Fox/Vermin

223--Deer/Fox/Vermin

Ammo to hold/buy increased.

 

So well done Durham.

 

One thing I have to add is the input that Ian Clark (SACS) has put into this, which was greatly appreciated.

 

I phoned Ian the day that I received my FAC back outlining the conditions which hadn't being added to my Cert. We talked in detail about it, & he said that he himself would phone Durham direct to point them in the right direction which he did on a few occasions.

 

So, to the organization who wear skirts that represented me in my time of need....Another Well Done

 

Well worth the £30 membership fee.

[magman]

Good man well done to both you and SACS