A (former) FEO's view

[bedwards1966]

The FEO who dealt with my FAC application is a top bloke, a keen shooter (I now regularly see him when clay shooting), he shoots shotguns and rifles, reloads, and actually knows which end of the gun does what. He was very helpful on my FAC application and has good advice.

 

In my view this is how then need to be - if your applying for a certificate and know little about the sport your trying to get into then the FEO's advice could be the first most important thing you hear. This can't happen unless they actually have an interest in the sport, and regularly participate in it. How can they advise you whether your better with a .223 or a .22-250 on foxes unless they've actually shot foxes themselves?

Sadly it seems that many FEO's don't shoot, and sometimes you even hear of them saying that they don't see why anybody should have a gun at home and so on, these people are completely unsuitable for the job. The same can be said for some of the managers of the firearms departments.

 

Even if the FEO's are good, I don't think they should always be the first port of call for every inquiry. They can have enough on their plate (as we know due to the vast waiting times for new applications and renewals), and I think that while they should give advice when asked, shooters ought to go to their shooting organisations with most of the questions. Just having a read on the BASC website can probably answer over 90% of questions, and a phone call to them will clarify the remaining questions.

Shooters should a least do some basic research into the sport for themselves, rather than relying on firearms departments and FEO's providing them with every bit of information they might need.

[fruitloop]

I had a visit from our Firearms lad last night - licence renewal. Works for Greater Manchester, who are top drawer.

 

He is knowledgeable and helpful. I have not come across one member of staff who wasn't helpful. You can phone them, e-mail them or write - results are the same.

 

I downloaded my own copy of the Guidance Notes some time ago, so that I would know what exactly is expected of licence holders.

 

 

 

I have to say this is a legitimate thread - whereas the other one - referred to - is a wind up, unless I am sadly mistaken.

sorry Gordon r this is not a wind up .

there is another Friend he was 4 months out of date his was rushed thorough as he was sending them the bills from lodging his guns lost stalking and other paid shoots.

now there on about .do you need a .243 and a .308 as they think there to close of caliber!!!!

don't get me wrong the people at the firearms are nice to talk to but just to much work on there plate and not enough of them with the knowledge(training).

Edited August 15, 2012 by fruitloop

[Gordon R]

Fruitloop - I think you misunderstand my post. The wind up I referred to is another thread, where someone didn't know the law and blithely assumed that no-one else did either.

[JBS]

 

 

After once getting a phonecall at 23:00 on a saturday night (asking my opinion on replacing a .223 with a .22-250), I stopped giving my mobile number and steered more people towards my (work) email address

 

When my FEO called to arrange my SGC interview he called on his work mobile to arrange the visit, I saved the number and have used it when I have a question. When I applied for my FAC a different FEO called to arrange an interview so I saved his number and have since used it to ask questions and also passed these numbers on to friends in the application process to ask questions of their own. This saves mistakes being made on forms including things like suitability of referees etc.

Also the great thing about their work mobiles is if they're not at work and don't want to be bothered at midnight they TURN THEM OFF!!!

[HDAV]

 

 

The guidance notes are readily available and can be downloaded

I'll see of I can find em ( nicely side stepped)

 

I have to say I was given FEO's card with mobile at interview, and he took an interesting call while he was with me. I haven't needed to call him recently and have no issue with the service I have received but then I am very straightforward, I have SGC I don't buy and sell like some and don't need land checks variations or all the other guff.

[Dunkield]

I'll see of I can find em

Try looking at the top of this section of the forum.

 

Interesting thread, we have often hinted that FEO's and senior police offices are active on these forums, but it still doesn't make some members think before they post.

[Thunderbird]

I always had a great relationshop with my FEO and would not hesitate to ring him on his mobile with the odd query. Very helpful as always.

[Frenchieboy]

It's actually a very good and welcomed change to hear from a (Retired) FEO and to see their take on various issues! Well done Pastiebap for sticking your head up and speaking out, I raise my hat to you!

I have had 3 different FEOs sinci I started some 4 years ago. My first was a wonderfully knowledgable and helpful man, the second one was not the most pleasant of men and acted as if he was the be all and end all of shooting, and the third have only met the once when he came round to check a new gun cabinet I had fitted - As I have only met him once and that was for a very short visit so we didn't have time to sit down and chat I will reserve judgment on him but he seems an OK kind of chap.

I should add at this stage that I don't think it would be right to name any of these FEOs on an "Open Forum"!

My first FEO has now retired but still works in the Firearms Office and, should I have any questions or queeries "no matter how small or basic/stupid they might seem to be) he is happy to have me phone him up directly on his office nymber and will go out of his way to find the correct and legal answer and "advise" me and to put his answer/advice in an a way that any half intelligent person can understand without using words or "technical phrases or legal quotations" that could leave Einstien confused.

It is service like that we would all like to see throughout all Firearms Departments but I fear that due to the cutbacks that some departments are facing a service that is going to decline in many areas.

I personally can not speak highly enough of Lancashire Firearms Department (In general)

 

Just out of interest Pastiebap, can I ask if you were a shooter at the time when you were an FEO, do you still shoot now and if so what are your thoughts on your current FEO?

[MiLisCer]

I guess I am one of the lucky ones too then. Just off the phone to mine, all my questions answered and suitable and accurate advice give - no qualms, no issues, nice and straight forward answers to what was a difficult (I thought!!) question.

 

Mike

[scobydog]

Got to say that mine has been great, recently joined a stalking club who sent him notice, he then rang me to ask if i was going to get a fac1. He then suggested a meeting to let me know what he required of me before i applied for 1, he too is also a shooting man and has just started deer stalking himself. I have rang 4 times up to now and all questions answered straight away, top bloke.

[guest1957]

 

The police are not only applying the law, but as public servants they are providing a service to the public (in this case firearms licensing), if they are failing to provide that service then something needs done.

 

 

Herein lies much of the problem. Police shouldn't be applying the law i.e. there should be very limited room for discretion between forces. As things stand different firearms departments are allowed far too much choice in restricting calibers, restricting FACs etc with very little the applicant can do about it.

[flynny]

One thing you do notice about shooters is that whilst we have our chancers (as all communities do), by a country mile shooters are more "law abiding" than the average joe.

 

Never a truer word spoken mate,

 

ATB Flynny

[Muddy Funker]

My FEO is also an absolute gem.

 

Always happy to accept a call when working to answer any queries I might have.

 

It probably wouldn't matter to name him as his details are on the website but I'll just say I live in the Horsham area of W Sussex and leave it there.

 

Top bloke

[Pastiebap]

Just out of interest Pastiebap, can I ask if you were a shooter at the time when you were an FEO, do you still shoot now and if so what are your thoughts on your current FEO?

 

Not quite retired just yet, moved to a supervisory job , but if someone were to offer me an FEO post local to me I would bite their arm off. As an FEO you meet some wonderful and interesting people and get out in the fresh country air.

 

I grew up with guns around me but never got around to buying my own. Although I always had a strong interest in the right to own firearms. It was becoming an FEO which got me to pull my finger out. Still shoot although don't get out as often as I would like.

 

My FEO is really nice and would occasionally ask me for advoxe, not a shooter although I have promised to take them out when we can get the time. The big bonus for my FEO is that they are not afraid to ask shooters questions on aspects of the sport that they (my FEO) don't know about.

[Bloke]

The OP makes some good points, unfortunately the standard is not universal. I live at the very to of Lincolnshire and my FEO is a cracking good bloke- always available for advice etc, firm but fair & all that, but just over the border in North Lincolnshire, it is usually an ordinary PC and occasionally a PCSO. When they visited my mate, they had to ask him what it was all about and they didn't seem to be aware they had to check his cabinet etc, very worrying....

[HDAV]

Try looking at the top of this section of the forum.

 

Interesting thread, we have often hinted that FEO's and senior police offices are active on these forums, but it still doesn't make some members think before they post.

http://forums.pigeon...es/#entry932234

 

Link is dead.....

 

This ones seems to work http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/firearms/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf?view=Binary

Edited August 15, 2012 by HDAV

[Dunkield]

I was just about to post that, took all of 15 seconds to find it

 

I'll fix the sticky.

[Dunkield]

The sticky didn't need fixing it works fine

 

http://forums.pigeon...guidance-notes/

 

 

[insert "no one ever reads stickies anyway" comment here]

[JonathanL]

After reading the thread regarding "lack of knowledge" I decided to raise my head above the parapet and put my tuppence worth in, thought I would create a new thread as the other one was losing way (apologies to admin/mod team if this is uncorrect).

 

Now.....

 

As a former FEO, I can see where the opinion comes that there is a perception of lack of knowledge within the shooting community (certainly from the Firearms Legislation angle). The problem I found is that the majority of people (although not all) don't read or know the legislation, but rely on experience of others, views of self confessed experts and the application pack guidance notes. And when people do read the legislation they have a tendency to "cherry pick", it's only human nature but people do tend to seize on an article to prove a point but don't take into account that there are usually other articles that impact on the view they have. Also, what many people are not aware of, and Police Forces have to bear some responsibility for not publicising the fact, is that the Guidance Notes also contain items of legislation not in the Firearms orders, these are pieces of law that are covered by the all encompassing FAC condition of "And any other conditions that the Chief Constable deems appropriate".

 

I would guess that the vast majority of shooters don't have a copy of the guidance notes, either electronic or hard copy. Which is a shame as the guidance notes are a good practical and (more) plain english way to explain the Orders.

 

When I first started as an FEO, the one thing that I found astounding was the reluctance of many shooters to contact their FEO and to ask questions. Whilst the FEO is part of the application and legaslative process, he/she is also the public face of the Police firearms team and is ultimately a public servant. Shooters (new/old and prospective) SHOULD be able to contact the FEO and ask questions, and, if the FEO doesn't know the answer they are best placed to find out or point you in the right direction. The only stupid question is the one that wasn't asked.

 

Your FEO is not out to get you (or shouldn't be anyway), your FEO should be applying the law in an even handed and fair way, regardless of their personal opinions and views. And, your FEO is a vastly under-used resource of information, a quick phonecall or an email is all it should take to get your questions answered.

 

 

Many of these issues around knowledge seem to be historical/cultural and could be solved really easily by a bit of outreach from the Police, a wee bit of engagement between Police and shooting public would go along way.

 

I tend to agree with most of what you say. The main problem seems to be though that firearms law is so ridiculously complicated, spread over numerous Acts, rules and case-law and in many parts seems utterly irrational to many people. Trying, for example, to explain to a total new starter why you can't have a pistol because they are deemed so dangerous yet you can if you want to dispatch wounded animals, or if it's over a certain length, or if it's a muzzle-loader or a 9mm shot pistol or a Sec.7, or if you live in NI, etc, etc, is quite franky brain scrambling for all concerned.

 

You are quite correct that people rarely (sometimes never) read the legislation or guidance but it is probably not reasonable to expect them to do so as it will probably serve very little purpose for them - that is most true of the actual legislation. As you rightly say, people tend to 'cherry pick' the bits they like when reading stuff like that but that is only human nature. The classic case in point is the bit in the Bill of Rights that gives 'the subjects who are protestants' the right to bear arms. People read that and consider it to be a holy text giving all protestants the right to walk the streets with guns and preventing Parliament from ever changing it. That, naturally, is not the case.

 

I hear what you are saying about phoning your licensing officer if you have a query. That is all very well for the run-of-the-mill stuff but there is still lots that they do not know and the office staff even less. That's not necessarily a criticism just a statement of fact. Firearms law - and the subject of firearms in a more general context - is fantastically complicated. It is not reasonable to expect people to be able to answer technical questions unless they have been specifically trained in the subject.

 

On that subject, actually; are you able to tell me what training licensing department staff get on 'clearing' land for use with certain firearms? In what way are people in the department qualified to decide whether I can use a .308 on my land or, conversely, not use a .338 Lapua? A licensing manager need never have had a firearm in his hands in his life yet could still be tasked with this issue.

 

Anyway, the only real way to instill some rationality into the law is to have a total over-hall of everything firearms related with a consolidation Act. Apart from being hugely expensive and complicated I (and most shooters) would worry about either what might get inadvertently screwed up in the process or, worse, intentionally screwed up. I have to say though that the biggext 'fix' to the system which could be done relatively inexpensivey, and which would almost certainly be more cost effective, is to remove firearms licensing from the hands of the police entirely and put it under the control of a national agency. I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

 

J.

[lxtav]

Why do people think a national agency for firearms will solve all the problems. Its most likely to be full of badly trained low paid FEOs with little experience as the gov will try to save money as well as jacking up the fee. They would use the creation of the agency as the excuse for this. Any good FEOs will probably become so hacked off they will leave.

[JonathanL]

Because the benefit would be that the law would be implimented the same throughout the country. The situation we have now is that we have over 40 different licensing agencies all doing things differently. For instance, we are still seeing court cases where people are having to challenge the police for refusing to issue pistols for humane dispatch. These cases have been cropping up for years because different forces keep refusing the first few applications they get until they loose a few on the trott. If there were a national agency then the issue would have been put to bed years ago.

 

That wouldn't be the only benefit though because we would end up with professional, trained, firearms licensing officials who were in it for a carreer and not as people who were using the licesning dpeartment as a rung on the ladder of a carreer in working for the police.

 

I can't see the problem. DVLA and VOSA have a central office and regional centres so why can't a firearms licensing agency? Also, lets be reasonable here, petty licensing operations are not something that a professional police force should have to spend their time doing. There is nothing else (apart from explosives) that the police actually licence. They don't licence cars, lorries, fishing or televisions. Why on earth should they be spending their time licensing guns?

 

J.

[Pastiebap]

I would agree with you regarding the legislation, first time sitting reading it is quite daunting, it's only after you've spent a bit of time going through it that you start to get in the swing of it, the big issue is the use of double negatives, this is something that the law makers in parliament really need to have a look at. Although I am always reluctant to have politicians fettling with firearms law as it never seems to end well for the shooting community.

 

Regarding lack in knowledge of some areas, the forte of an FEO should be the firearms law, however shooting touches on so many other acts that as you rightly say you will get questions you don't know. However (as an FEO) there is no shame in speaking to someone that does know, in the past I have spoke to shooting organisations, the gun trade guild and game keepers to get an answer to a question that I couldn't answer.

 

Regarding clearing of land, I don't know what way it works in mainland UK, but in Northern Ireland we do not say that land is suitable. This changed after a child was shot in the head from land that had been passed as suitable. Instead Police in NI say (and here's those double negatives again) that the land is "Not Unsuitable" which really means that there are no obvious risks (footpaths across the middle, picnic areas, no backstops, primary school in the middle, large bodies of water etc etc). However, it's always best to meet the shooter at the land so they can show you where they intend to shoot from etc.

 

As for the calibres, the guidance notes give guides on what calibres are deemed "suitable" however there are always exceptions. I personally do not stalk and know little about deer breeds, if someone asked me about calibres for certain breeds my first port of call would have been to have a chat with an experienced stalker. And yes you are quite correct a Senior Licensing Manager need never have even seen a firearm to do his job.

 

The idea of a national agency outside of any Law enforcement sits uneasily with me, although it is ridiculous how it would appear the same Firearms Act in England is administered in such a varied way between different forces. Would a national "force" able to operate across boundries (similar to the American ATF) be a better option? I think it would be a better "home" for firearms.

[lxtav]

Because the benefit would be that the law would be implimented the same throughout the country. The situation we have now is that we have over 40 different licensing agencies all doing things differently.

 

 

I'm not saying it couldn't work but you don't have home visits, consent to release medical details and checks of the security of where your car will be parked to get registered to have and drive one and you still have different examiners with different ideas how you should drive either passing or failing you on your driving test. VOSA is an enforcement agency applying a set of laws and regulations that are set in stone not the vauge quidelines there are for firearms. There is also a presumtion that the rules, although applied the same throughout the country, would benefit shooters. Whats to stop them taking all the worst conditions and rules the police do and use them across the board. If you stay in a bad area nothing changes but if you are in a good area you've just shot yourself in the foot (pardon the pun).

 

The first thing that needs to be done is all the Firearms acts have to be scrapped and one act put in place that clearly states what you can have when and how it should be applied.

[bedwards1966]

While I do agree that the legislation covering firearms can be confusing at times, in most cases it's not a problem.

It can all be very easily summed up into what you can and can't do, and it's only when your after something unusual that it becomes an issue.

E.g. If you want to shoot deer, fox, boar, rabbits, pigeons, crows, clays, practical shotgunning, game and target shooting with any normal variety of firearms, you hardly need to know any of the laws. You only need to know what seasons for what, what caliber is required for what, and then fill out a few forms, notify the police when you transfer a firearms, keep them slipped when in public and your good to go.

A short amount of time reading the information on the BASC website is all you need.

 

It's only when you start to look at shooting pigeons in an unusual place, or look at the legalities of taking a rifle in public without a slip, shooting a certain type of pistol etc that you need to look at the fine print, and then it can become slightly confusing at times.

 

 

With regard to having all firearms licencing under one central authority, I have very mixed views about this.

On the positive side, it would be very good if the law and guidance was applied uniformly so that everyone could be allowed the same calibers for a certain job, instead of what we currently have where one force says a .22 hornet is all you need (North Yorkshire), and another allows a .308 for foxes (West Yorkshire).

Mentoring is another thing that would be standardized, as some forces don't require it, some before granting a certificate, some for so long after etc.

It would also be good from a land clearance point of view, and regarding open certificates, as again it varies with some forces issuing open certificates on the initial grant, some after 18 months, some after proving you really need it, some after 5 years etc.

Application processing times could all be uniform - yes this might be good for some and bad for others as things currently stand, but overall it could be better. It seems we have some forces that are over-efficient and deal with grants within days, while others take several months. If all the resources were piled together it would probably be better.

It is true that challenging things legally (such as the issuing of pistols for humane dispatch, as already mentioned) would be much more effective.

 

On the negative side, if someone high up decides that everyone should be mentored before they can shoot alone, that a .22 hornet is enough for fox, that the number of guns per certificate holder should be low, that security requirements should be higher, that application times should be as long as possible and whatever else they might deliberately put in our way (and they frequently seem to make things deliberately difficult for us, which would be far easier if everything was under one central system) then basically we could all be knackered.

While appealing against things could be more effective under one organisation, that can work both ways too.

 

I can see the good points, but looking at how the government seems to view us shooters, I have concerns that it would make it easier for the noose round our neck to be tightened, making the whole country suffer, not just small areas. Even if they don't deliberately target us, it does not means things would end well.

Edited August 15, 2012 by bedwards1966

[Gordon R]

Whatever your view of the Police doing the licensing - passing it over to another body would solve nothing. Just another "Agency" at the expense of the taxpayer, with no guarantee of consistency whatsoever..

 

Worse still - it could be privatised. We all know what a success story privatisation is. :lol:

 

Whilst it might not be perfect, I am more than happy with the service the Police provide.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Gordon R