Enough evidence of Deer to ask for deer calibre

[JonathanL]

Redgum, Kes,

 

I don't follow the logic of the argument here. In one instance the police are saying that you cannot have the required 'good reason' if you want to acquire a .243 for fox but you do if you want it for deer as well! That's ludicrous in the extreme. It's stupidly, mind-numbingly dunb, in fact.

 

Look at it from the point of view of a court; the police are effectively going to have to argue that there is no good reason to use a .243 for fox (presumably because they will argue that it's unsafe) yet when asked whether they will grant the cert for deer and fox will admit that they will happily do so. They do not have a cogent argument.

 

If you live in force A area and you have a .243 that you use for fox and nothing else. You then move the a house in force B's area - is force B then going to revoke your authority for the .243? They'd have no chance if you appealed it.

 

I do sometimes wonder; when the police 'refuse' these things do they always do it oficially, in writing or is it often the case they they talk you into withdrawing the application? If the latter then this is a very strong indication that they know they won't win an appeal by the applicant. If you just drop the application then there is no refusal to appeal.

 

Yes, you have to spend a bit of cash on the appeal but that is life, unfortunately. An appeal isn't ludicrously expensive like a libel trial and is probably not that much at all when compared to the money's worth of guns and equipment a lot of shooters own.

 

J.

[Redgum]

Redgum, Kes,

 

I don't follow the logic of the argument here. In one instance the police are saying that you cannot have the required 'good reason' if you want to acquire a .243 for fox but you do if you want it for deer as well! That's ludicrous in the extreme. It's stupidly, mind-numbingly dunb, in fact.

 

Look at it from the point of view of a court; the police are effectively going to have to argue that there is no good reason to use a .243 for fox (presumably because they will argue that it's unsafe) yet when asked whether they will grant the cert for deer and fox will admit that they will happily do so. They do not have a cogent argument.

 

If you live in force A area and you have a .243 that you use for fox and nothing else. You then move the a house in force B's area - is force B then going to revoke your authority for the .243? They'd have no chance if you appealed it.

 

I do sometimes wonder; when the police 'refuse' these things do they always do it oficially, in writing or is it often the case they they talk you into withdrawing the application? If the latter then this is a very strong indication that they know they won't win an appeal by the applicant. If you just drop the application then there is no refusal to appeal.

 

Yes, you have to spend a bit of cash on the appeal but that is life, unfortunately. An appeal isn't ludicrously expensive like a libel trial and is probably not that much at all when compared to the money's worth of guns and equipment a lot of shooters own.

 

J.

So whats to appeal, are you being a little niave here or know something many of us don't. Gloucestershire police force insist that variations for 243 just for fox will be rejected,the FEO tells you that you can try it if you want but he knows the answer. A mate tried it, the variation was processed and it arrived on the main mans desk, rejected, no charge. Yes a 243 is no more dangerous than a 223 really, got a bit more whack but you will be firing into a backstop so does it matter. There is no law to say you cannot shoot fox with 243's, the Government guidelines even suggests its suitable in areas that experience windy conditions.Its all down to good reason to possess and to stop calibre climbing without good reason, 223,22.250 and many .22 centrefires are much more suited to fox shooting, fast light bullets kill things dead and as your not eating your fox it doesnt matter the guts slops around in the skin.

If you do have to shoot deer as well then 243 is much more versitile being able to shoot 100 plus grain bullets and giving the legal muzzle velocity to shoot deer legally. Ideally the best combo would be a 223 for small deer and 308 for Roe and upward. I found my police force hard work when I moved up to centrefire, I had to do my DSC1( ok don't start,we know its not a legal requirement ) etc but since have found them nothing but helpful,even suggesting that 308 was the better deer round. I know a few that have done their DSC1 in a rush to get the mighty 243 :o when a displace young roe buck had been pushed out and appeared in field for 2 minutes, once the reality had set in deer stalking can be expensive and frustrating if you don't have deer to shoot they had traded back to a more siuted calibre.

[kent]

I rest my case if you can not get within 300 yards of a fox you are doing it wrong

 

Deershooter

 

It all depends on were you live and how important it is to take that shot. I live on open moorland one minute you see it the next you dont. No opertunity can be turned down if it doable we have Lambs, grouse and other game birds to protect as well as some of the rarest ground nesting birds in the UK.

Explain what i am doing wrong? i am well capable of getting real close and take great pride in it when hobby stalking deer etc. But in my case its very much like the guidelines say for foxing

[JonathanL]

So whats to appeal, are you being a little niave here or know something many of us don't. Gloucestershire police force insist that variations for 243 just for fox will be rejected,

 

Then they are operating an unlawful policy. The police (nor any state body, may operate a policy that they enforce as if it were law. Put simply the logical extreme would be that

There is no law to say you cannot shoot fox with 243's,

 

This is the whole point. If Parliament says that are not allowed to shoot fox with a .243 then you aren't. At least the people who want to shoot fox with a .243 get to voice their displeasure ever 4 or 5 years. You don't get to elect your local police chief or licensing team though.

 

The law requires that you have 'good reason'. If you satisfy that criteria then the police MUST issue the cert or variation. They have no choice. That is the law because that is what Parliament has said it is.

 

J.

 

So whats to appeal, are you being a little niave here or know something many of us don't. Gloucestershire police force insist that variations for 243 just for fox will be rejected,

 

Then they are operating an unlawful policy. The police (nor any state body, may operate a policy that they enforce as if it were law. Put simply the logical extreme would be that

There is no law to say you cannot shoot fox with 243's,

 

This is the whole point. If Parliament says that are not allowed to shoot fox with a .243 then you aren't. At least the people who want to shoot fox with a .243 get to voice their displeasure ever 4 or 5 years. You don't get to elect your local police chief or licensing team though.

 

The law requires that you have 'good reason'. If you satisfy that criteria then the police MUST issue the cert or variation. They have no choice. That is the law because that is what Parliament has said it is.

 

J.

[al4x]

Good reason to aquire a .243 though is to shoot deer and foxes, obviously you can talk ballistics and safety all you like but to shoot foxes .22cf is perfectly adequate so licensing should have no problem defending their decision if you only want to shoot foxes. One way of wording it is to drop in wanting to shoot deer in the future so wanting a gun capable etc

 

The issue with jumping into court action are obviously a finacial one but also winding up the authorities that you rely on to administer timely renewals etc. My force are great talk to them and they are reasonable, with the situation here there really is no issue. The op wants a .243 for foxes and has a deer permission so has a requirement for a suitable caliber job done. Variation forms in and go from there.

[kent]

Good reason to aquire a .243 though is to shoot deer and foxes, obviously you can talk ballistics and safety all you like but to shoot foxes .22cf is perfectly adequate so licensing should have no problem defending their decision if you only want to shoot foxes. One way of wording it is to drop in wanting to shoot deer in the future so wanting a gun capable etc

 

The issue with jumping into court action are obviously a finacial one but also winding up the authorities that you rely on to administer timely renewals etc. My force are great talk to them and they are reasonable, with the situation here there really is no issue. The op wants a .243 for foxes and has a deer permission so has a requirement for a suitable caliber job done. Variation forms in and go from there.

 

talking balistics, is good reason FOR SOME but not all shooters. There is a big difference in locations and needs. Anyone who thinks a .243 is any tangible improvement for 200 yds flat lowland foxing over say a .223 is very deluded though IMO

 

On many occasions i need no more than the little Hornet but when the wind is ripping through the fells and 2-300yds is the norm and 100yds is a very lucky event of chance..........

 

fools who want to just shoot a bigger gun under the guise of stalking are easy for the cops to handle via "may be used for fox while deerstalking". No use at night, no use out of season and no use on ground were the applicant aint got the stalking or deer.

[CharlieT]

Kent

 

Alex is normally spot on with his comments and assessment but on this occasion his soft home counties upbringing is clouding his view.

 

The vast majority who post on here have no idea what it's like to control foxes in high moorland sheep country. It is quite frankly a different world and I suspect, because of this, our licensing managers reflect this situation and are not opposed to granting .243's to those who need on in such areas. It is for this very reason that, round here, one never sees a .223. However 22/250 & .243 are common as muck.

 

Something that Alex and the soft, pampered, home counties foxers must realise

[al4x]

we're just spoiled Charlie

though here its rare to be able to shoot that far without a house, walker or horse in the way. Or my particular favourite mountain bike with HID lights they really make you wonder WT F it is

To be fair though ours will grant .243 if you simply mention you may want to shoot deer at a later stage and don't want to have to add another gun.

[Redgum]

Then they are operating an unlawful policy. The police (nor any state body, may operate a policy that they enforce as if it were law. Put simply the logical extreme would be that

 

 

This is the whole point. If Parliament says that are not allowed to shoot fox with a .243 then you aren't. At least the people who want to shoot fox with a .243 get to voice their displeasure ever 4 or 5 years. You don't get to elect your local police chief or licensing team though.

 

The law requires that you have 'good reason'. If you satisfy that criteria then the police MUST issue the cert or variation. They have no choice. That is the law because that is what Parliament has said it is.

 

J.

 

 

 

Then they are operating an unlawful policy. The police (nor any state body, may operate a policy that they enforce as if it were law. Put simply the logical extreme would be that

 

 

This is the whole point. If Parliament says that are not allowed to shoot fox with a .243 then you aren't. At least the people who want to shoot fox with a .243 get to voice their displeasure ever 4 or 5 years. You don't get to elect your local police chief or licensing team though.

 

The law requires that you have 'good reason'. If you satisfy that criteria then the police MUST issue the cert or variation. They have no choice. That is the law because that is what Parliament has said it is.

 

J.

I don't think there is a law that says you can't shoot fox with a .22lr,308win, 375h&h,416,50bmag, who do you think decides on these issues.

[al4x]

the same logic would apply Jonathan if you applied for a 308 to shoot rabbits, nothing says you can't but you can be sure you wll get an application refused

[JonathanL]

Good reason to aquire a .243 though is to shoot deer and foxes, obviously you can talk ballistics and safety all you like but to shoot foxes .22cf is perfectly adequate so licensing should have no problem defending their decision if you only want to shoot foxes.

 

That's not what the licensing job is about. The concept of 'good reason' is not synonymous with 'The absolute minimum diameter of bullet you can get away with' or anything along those lines. The licensing department is not there to restrict everything as much as possible on the ground that restriction is always good.

 

The police are not there to tell you what you can or cannot use to do a particular job, that decision is up to the shooter. I think that similar words are even used in the HO guidance. There may be many reasons that a person may want to use a particular calibre/chambering; he may have experience of it, he may feel more confident with it, he may personally feel that it is better for the job. No sensible shooter makes such a decision based purely on what the smallest calibre he can get away with using.

 

The issue with jumping into court action are obviously a finacial one but also winding up the authorities that you rely on to administer timely renewals etc.

 

That's veering dangerously close to the 'don't rock the boat chaps' argument. Seen that used on numerous occasions and it always works out badly. Also, it's partially paranoia. Licensing departments aren't going to be out to get you just because you dare to appeal a decision.

 

To be frank, I think you'll have fewer problems if they know from the outset that you will challenge them if you think they are wrong. I know, and know of, several people who have recently applied for humane dispatch pistols. Every single one of them were told in no uncertain terms that it's pointless applying because they would not get them. A few withdrew their applications and a few didn't - one chap even pointed out (nicely) that he would appeal it at court if he was refused. All those who didn't withdraw their applications got what they applied for. I'll wager good money that will not be told things like that in future but the ones who withdrew will be continue to be walked over.

 

My force are great talk to them and they are reasonable,...

 

So are mine. Most are, they are just people doing their jobs who have no inclination to start challenging their boss on the finer points of firearms licensing law. If you are reasonable and talk sense to them you almost always get what you want. They don't necessarily want a reason to knock you back, they only want something to write on your file as to why they came to the decision they did.

 

J.

[CharlieT]

J

 

Not wishing to sound argumentative but even for you some of your last comments are, how do I put it, a little naive.

 

You will agree that the firearms act does not contain the fine detail of caliber/species suitability. The act specifically delegates that responsibility to CC's. Caliber/species suitability is contained in the HO Guidelines, which you so often dismiss as irrelevant citing it has no standing in law.

 

CC's as per their Firearms Act remit grant/refuse applications based on the good reason for acquisition put forward by applicants, again as prescribed by the firearms act. Now whilst I agree that CC's should and indeed do permit some flexibility as far as the applicants choice of caliber is concerned, it is within the CC's legal remit for him and him alone to decide on how far he is prepared to stretch this flexibility and policy.

 

You are incorrect to suggest that the police are acting unlawfully when they refuse to grant deer caliber rifles for an applicant who's good reason is fox. Such a policy/decision may be daft and unhelpful but it sure ain't unlawful.

[JonathanL]

the same logic would apply Jonathan if you applied for a 308 to shoot rabbits, nothing says you can't but you can be sure you wll get an application refused

 

This is what the 'good reason' part is about though. The reason you wouldn't get it (probably wouldn't, anyway) is that it is a wholly inappropriate tool for the job. It's characteristics make it most unsuited to the point that you could rarely take a safe shot. Therefore, you will be hard pressed to show the required 'good reason' and that is why you will be refused. Not because the licensing department has simply decided that they won't give you it no matter what.

 

Even considering the above, the police should still not be going about issuing non-discretionary policies even if it would appear unlikely that they would evber consent to a particular request. There may be situations where a .308 may be appropriate for rabbit. A light load with a lead bullet, a saboted 'Accelerator' type round, etc, etc. I have an adapter cartridge to fire .32 ACP rounds in a .308 which would make an excellent short range small game round very similar to Rook & Rabbit rifles of years gone by. This is why the law stipulates that you have 'good reason' and does not place definite restrictions on to what you can do with certain types of firearm.

 

You aren't comparing like with like though. The .243 is perfectly well suited to shooting foxes. Yes, you can do it with a smaller, less powerful round but that doesn't mean that a .243 is not appropriate to the task if that is what you want to use. A full charge .308 probably isn't a sensible round for rabbits but a .243 is a sensible round for foxes so you are comparing apples with oranges.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

J

 

Not wishing to sound argumentative but even for you some of your last comments are, how do I put it, a little naive.

 

You will agree that the firearms act does not contain the fine detail of caliber/species suitability. The act specifically delegates that responsibility to CC's.

 

No, it doesn't. Can you point me to the relevant section which contains this delegation?

 

Caliber/species suitability is contained in the HO Guidelines, which you so often dismiss as irrelevant citing it has no standing in law.

 

I have done no such thing, nor would I as I know full well that some of it does indeed have legal standing. The guidance (not guidelines) contains a lot of factual legal statements and a lot of stuff the Home Office would like to think has legal force but which doesn't.

 

You are incorrect to suggest that the police are acting unlawfully when they refuse to grant deer caliber rifles for an applicant who's good reason is fox. Such a policy/decision may be daft and unhelpful but it sure ain't unlawful.

 

I stated no such thing. You are either misreading or misunderstanding what I have written.

 

The thing which is unlawful is the implementation of a blanket policy with no discretion ever being given. Someone stated that a particular force had a policy of never issuing .243 for fox regardless of the merits of the case you put forward. That is unlawful, you can argue it all you want but it is unlawful. It means that a department of the state is effectively making law on its own volition and making law is reserved to Parliament, not the police, Home Office, HMRC, DVLA or the local refuse department at the council.

 

If a force can apply a policy that no one will ever get X calibre for fox then you have to agree that they are entitled to have a policy that no one will ever get any calibre for fox! They could say that target shooting is never good reason or that they will never issue anyone more than 20 rounds to hold at any one time.

 

Blanket, non-variable policies are unlawful and are unlawful for the very good reasons described above.

 

J.

Edited July 4, 2012 by JonathanL

[Redgum]

JonathanL, theres flogging a dead horse and flogging a dead horse,you have your views and good luck dealing with your Firearms dept and on the subject of dead horses, wouldnt you be much happier moving to the West, the wild west US of A.

[JonathanL]

JonathanL, theres flogging a dead horse and flogging a dead horse,you have your views and good luck dealing with your Firearms dept and on the subject of dead horses, wouldnt you be much happier moving to the West, the wild west US of A.

 

Are you saying that I'm wrong?

 

J.

[Redgum]

Are you saying that I'm wrong?

 

J.

Wrong? its a hypthetical subject really isnt it, whats your answer to the question that I asked earlier, can I get a variation for a 308,375h&h,416,50bmag just for fox, theres no law saying I can't. If I asked for a variation for a 375mag double barrelled rifle for fox and it was refuse could I appeal, after all its not illigal.

[JonathanL]

Wrong? its a hypthetical subject really isnt it,

 

Well, you said that I should stop 'flogging a dead horse'. That suggests that you think that my arguments are wrong. I can't see what else it could mean.

 

And, no, this isn't a hypothetical subject. This is bourne ouut of real world facts, not one's which may or may not come to pass. A police force has definitely said that it will not issue a particular calibre for a certain purpose. That is not hypothetical. It is actual fact.

 

whats your answer to the question that I asked earlier, can I get a variation for a 308,375h&h,416,50bmag just for fox, theres no law saying I can't. If I asked for a variation for a 375mag double barrelled rifle for fox and it was refuse could I appeal, after all its not illigal.

 

Of course you could appeal, Sec.44 gives you that right. Do you seriously think that the police can deny youy a right to challenge them?

 

J.

Edited July 4, 2012 by JonathanL

[Redgum]

Thats great then, always wanted a .375 H&H just didnt think I would have 'good reason to possess', now its all explained I will just apply for a variation for one for fox, if they just dare refuse it I will ave em in court.

[JonathanL]

Thats great then, always wanted a .375 H&H just didnt think I would have 'good reason to possess', now its all explained I will just apply for a variation for one for fox, if they just dare refuse it I will ave em in court.

 

Did you actually understand any of the points made in this thread?

 

Clearly not!

 

J.

[Redgum]

Did you actually understand any of the points made in this thread?

 

Clearly not!

 

J.

No, I get you loud and clear, fully understand ya mate, I added to the 375 H&H, may as well get the 416 for long range pest control,checked and its not against the law so should get the green light on that one two or straight to the high court.

 

Ps and its me who's not getting the point.

[JonathanL]

Clearly you haven't understood a word I've said. Try reading it all again.

 

J.