2 police land checks per person rule ?

[Peskyfoxs]

Just playing devils advocate, although allowing only two checks per licence holder on a a closed ticket is restrictive it kind of makes sense.

 

If a few shooter in an area were lucky enough to earn multiple permissions then all that licencing officer would be doing is traipsing around checking land all day, they just wouldn't have enough time what with all the applications and revocations they have to deal with.

 

I do think though that if multiple land requests were put in it would add weight to getting an open ticket sooner providing the feo is happy the shooter is sensible.

 

The problem is I included 3 per permissions to shoot on, one is already cleared for .22lr and they will not check for my 17. hmr or .243 and its in another force area

 

One is cleared up to .243 ... great

 

one was only half checked and will not be checked again and was not passed for anything.

 

If the one for .243 was 3 acres should I be only allowed to shoot 2 of my 3 calibres there ? I'm not trying to get 10 permissions passed just the 2 I applied for orginally at the moment.

[bedwards1966]

Kick up a fuss, not checking more than 2 pieces of land is stupid. If they don't like it they could just issue open certificates, the choice is theirs - but it works well for North Yorkshire. Perhaps BASC should be involved, they might be able to point out that they're being stupid.

As to granting open certificates, West Yorkshire require you to have that caliber for 18 months before they'll open it. I can't see how they can refuse to check land though, they can't do that.

[kent]

That being the case I will hold my hands up and appologise, I misunderstood what you meant Billy! I see what you mean now and I can see the logic and sense in it!

I still say that it is rediculous to only be allowed two land checks per shooter while on closed conditions! How about new shooters that may have been offered let's say half a dozen permissions, none of which had not been checked in the past? Surely that would restrict them to just the two permissions and be seen as the Firearms Office being far too restrictive towards the shooter, especially if it were permissions where there were specific requests for vermin control to be done by that specific shooter?

 

ah, you would be getting the words Force and service all mixed up being basically a reasonable chap you though it was a service the public paid for didn't you?

[njc110381]

I could see this coming.

 

I would hate to say how many times I have read people advising others to put in for as many land checks as possible, in an attempt to make firearms licensing so fed up with doing land checks that they will open their certificate.

 

Little wonder one firearms licensing manager has dug his heels in.

 

If this stance helps speed up grants, renewals and variations then I'm all for it.

 

No doubt you're an open FAC holder then?! What a rediculous thing to say! No offence intended but that's quite harsh for new shooters and I'm surprised you feel that way.

 

If the police insist on restricting people to shooting on cleared land then they must expect to be dragged around the countryside. It's not us making their lives hard, they're bringing it upon themselves by applying the restrictions in the first place.

[CharlieT]

No doubt you're an open FAC holder then?! What a rediculous thing to say! No offence intended but that's quite harsh for new shooters and I'm surprised you feel that way.

 

If the police insist on restricting people to shooting on cleared land then they must expect to be dragged around the countryside. It's not us making their lives hard, they're bringing it upon themselves by applying the restrictions in the first place.

 

Whilst I do sympathise with those who need to have land checks done and I agree that if the police/Home Office stipulate that land must be completed for that class of shooter, then they are obliged to complete the checks.

 

However, like everyone , I am acutely aware that the police have had their budgets cut and as a result firearms licensing staff numbers are reduced with little chance of staffing increases in the foreseeable future. Because of this I feel priority must go to grants, renewals and variations, not multiple land checks for people who see this as a way to obtain an open certificate.

 

Now, I do not for one second think the OP falls into this category and I sympathise with him and everyone else who falls foul of this policy but I do feel that this 2 checks per year policy has been introduced for the reasons I stated and as rotten as I sound, if that speeds up the paperwork side, then so be it.

 

We all complain about the extended times firearms departments take with renewals/grants/variations. Little wonder if their staff spend all day doing land checks. If we are not careful the old named land condition may be reintroduced for new shooters, where for the first few years the shooter was restricted to only shooting on the farm named on his certificate. Now that was restricting. When they introduced the current closed condition it was viewed as "christmas" by new shooters.

[Peskyfoxs]

Can I add though that as its for centre fire I believe a firearms officer as in armed response are the ones doing the checks not the office staff.

[bedwards1966]

CharlieT, while I understand your reasoning I can't agree with it. What your saying leaves people unable to shoot on their land!

The way North Yorkshire get round the issue is to grant open certificates from day 1 - personally I think this is great, as the safety of a shot is down to the shooter, not the land. Other forces give in to people who have enough land to tie up the department, the choice to do so lies with that department. If they can't cope with all the land requests, then they can issue open certificates. Simple.

[Pheasant Feeder]

Can I add though that as its for centre fire I believe a firearms officer as in armed response are the ones doing the checks not the office staff.

You are correct, when I got my land passed for centrefire it was indeed a rifle trained AFO that did the land check and came to have a chat about footpaths and boundary's etc. (West Yorks)

[Dave-G]

The problem is I included 3 per permissions to shoot on, one is already cleared for .22lr and they will not check for my 17. hmr or .243 and its in another force area

One is cleared up to .243 ... great

 

one was only half checked and will not be checked again and was not passed for anything.

 

If the one for .243 was 3 acres should I be only allowed to shoot 2 of my 3 calibres there ? I'm not trying to get 10 permissions passed just the 2 I applied for orginally at the moment.

 

As the 17HMR rimfire is a smaller caliber than the .22lr rimfire, the land already surpasses 17 HMR clearance.

[Fisheruk]

So does everyone get firearms cert, and then not get any more land checked till they can get an open cert ?

If the land has been checked by another force it doesn't need to be checked again by your force area.

I have an open ticket but before that my home force simply checked with the other forces registry that the land had been checked for the right calibre. It sure is easier when the ticket is opened.

[Peskyfoxs]

As the 17HMR rimfire is a smaller caliber than the .22lr rimfire, the land already surpasses 17 HMR clearance.

I was told I may be able to shoot the 17hmr on the land, I will double check as that's good if it's the case.

 

If the land has been checked by another force it doesn't need to be checked again by your force area.

I have an open ticket but before that my home force simply checked with the other forces registry that the land had been checked for the right calibre. It sure is easier when the ticket is opened.

 

West yorks were able to tell what my land in lancs had been cleared up to, I have at least another 2 farms to add to my permissions but one is cleared to .22 hornet so no foxs for me with .243

 

The other land us about 300-400 acres and I was told by farmer hadn't been checked so that's shotgun only

[HDAV]

Of course the whole land check is nonesense to start with so at least they are limiting the stupidity why is a land check no charged for like a variation? If you want 50 checks done you pay for them? Seems reasonable

 

I would live to know how a land check is carried out and what criteria are applied

[JonathanL]

Of course the whole land check is nonesense to start with so at least they are limiting the stupidity why is a land check no charged for like a variation? If you want 50 checks done you pay for them? Seems reasonable

 

I would live to know how a land check is carried out and what criteria are applied

 

Land checks are not charged for because they are not allowed to charge for them. The only things which they are allowed to charge for are a grant, a variation which increases the number of firearms possessed, a replacement cert where it has been lost and a renewal. All of which they illegally demand up front, by the way.

 

The reason that it is not on the list of what is chargeable is because it is something that the police have simply invented. I'm sure it started out as being rather sensible as part of the pubic safety provisions in that the police may reasonably want to satisfy themselves that an applicant knows where and where not to take a shot and the consequenses of a miss, etc.

 

However, the land check has now taken on a sort of pseudo-legal status much like the notion of 'open' and 'closed' certificates both of which have no legal status and are also a case of the police trying to make up a system where none exists and where they have dubious legal ability to do so.

 

J.

[al4x]

The bigger issue that could come up is if the cost gets bundled in with the costings when they look at covering the cost of grants and variations through the licensing charge. Lots of land checks will sure push the bill up fast.

[JonathanL]

I've always been very against compulsary training but I think it could be suggested that is an organisation like BASC ran an accredited course then successful completion of such should obviate the need for checks by the police as the applicant would be qualified to judge land for them selves.

 

J.

[HDAV]

When they do a land check do they clear land for a particular requested calibre? Or for the max calibre on that land?

 

I'm still not sure what the check actually entails. Anyone seen any guidance on this?

[al4x]

When they do a land check do they clear land for a particular requested calibre? Or for the max calibre on that land?

 

I'm still not sure what the check actually entails. Anyone seen any guidance on this?

 

 

depends how they feel, round here they can tend to clear for what you ask rather than doing the job properly and clearing for the max.

[Frenchieboy]

When they do a land check do they clear land for a particular requested calibre? Or for the max calibre on that land?

 

I'm still not sure what the check actually entails. Anyone seen any guidance on this?

 

Once again I think this varies from one area to another. Lancashire cleared all of mine for the maximum calibre rather than just what calibre I asked for.

[Peskyfoxs]

Once again I think this varies from one area to another. Lancashire cleared all of mine for the maximum calibre rather than just what calibre I asked for.

 

 

The one of mine cleared for 22lr was cleared only for 22lr as that was the calibre requested by the other shooter.. and thats North Yorks.

 

Edit to add I think and FEO can clear for rimfires but armed response guys clear for centre fire so I guess it depends who goes

Edited July 10, 2012 by Peskyfoxs

[CharlieT]

The bigger issue that could come up is if the cost gets bundled in with the costings when they look at covering the cost of grants and variations through the licensing charge. Lots of land checks will sure push the bill up fast.

 

A very valid point, when calculating true costs of firearms licensing in order to achieve the holy grail of "full cost recovery" such costs will be included.

 

As the HO are looking at licensing charges and the act itself perhaps now is the time to implement HDAV's sensible idea of making land checks, over a set number, a chargeable item.

 

With the ever increasing micro management of firearms licensing I can not see land checks ever going away, so perhaps it would be beneficial to the shooter to have land checks put on a proper footing and make the whole process more transparent.

 

Following on from Jonathan's comments about training, a point worth remembering is that requests for land checks are quite a good gauge of a new shooters perspective and grasp of safe shooting. All to often one reads posts from new shooters asking if such and such land would be passed when it is quite obvious that the land is totally unsuitable.

 

As an example, there is a thread on another forum where the poster asks " I am a new cert holder and am trying to get some land passed at home, I have a window that is just over 5.5 meteres high overlooking one of my fields that is flat, what would be a sensible range for a .243 with soft ground?" and goes on to say "there is oly about 250 yrds where I would be happy for a round to go so guess this may not be a good idea."

 

Now, I really think that to ask for land clearence for a .243 where the safety zone is a mere 250 yds long is wasting police time and little wonder they are introducing a 2 checks and your out policy.

[rapid12]

i have had 4 land clearances in the last year and not a thing said,

one of the permissions is split into 3 sections, they cleared all 3 sections for there max calibre, one section was cleared for .22lr but i dont shoot it as i dont think its safe enough for my liking im even quite shocked they past it..

 

so im not sure on there routine for checking land.

 

i now have an open ticket anyway so it dont effect me no more.

 

Also, i was told by my flo that .17hmr is regarded the next calibre up from .22lr for reasons of power output and not calibre size even though the hmr is a more fragile round and much less chance of ricocats

 

s.yorks.