Livefast123 Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) I've recently recieved my variation for a .223 , 9mm and a .44 muzzle loader and having looked at the condition there is a certain element of the target shooting one that either is new or has eluded me before!. It states:- "The firearms and ammunition shall be used for target shooting and only whilst a member of ************ club or any other home office approved club on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim. Sounds like you either have to be loaded or have an insurance policy in place or you are in breach of your conditions. How could you quantify 'adequate' when you could never guesstimate the value of a claim or damage? I don't fall out with it as I think everyone should have insurance but this is a step towards the compusory and the price hikes which are known to occur. Edited September 11, 2012 by Livefast123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SakoQuad Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 This has been standard wording in Glos. for some years for club target shooting. 3rd Party liability cover of £10,000,000 either through the club insurance or via your own insurance from BASC, NSRA, or Country Alliance seems to meet the general understanding of "adequate" (in my world anyway!!). The interpretation in clubs I know about is that if you only shoot in club sessions the club insurance provides the cover. If you have access to the range to shoot outside of club sessions, possibly solo as well, you need your own cover in order to comply with this condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 Its another example of them making up the rules as they go along. I would refer it to NRA, or whoever you belong to. It also shows a degree of ignorance since any club has insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 This has been standard wording in Glos. for some years for club target shooting. 3rd Party liability cover of £10,000,000 either through the club insurance or via your own insurance from BASC, NSRA, or Country Alliance seems to meet the general understanding of "adequate" (in my world anyway!!). The interpretation in clubs I know about is that if you only shoot in club sessions the club insurance provides the cover. If you have access to the range to shoot outside of club sessions, possibly solo as well, you need your own cover in order to comply with this condition. Unless the club has a source of insurance that I am not aware of the standard range insurance does not cover solo shooting as you say, but it is still the club's liability irrespective of what insurance the individual may have because the range is licenced to the club and the certification is in the clubs name. So they never stop being responsible. Therefore, it can be argued, a solo shooter can only shoot if they have an open ticket which is not likely for a target shooter. The same applies to shooters who used to sneak onto the Short Siberia ranges at Bisley and shoot without booking in at the office first. This shooting stuff is a nightmare of red tape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 That is requiring the club to have insurance, as all HO clubs will have. It's not saying the shooter must have any financial arrangements in place. While shooting insurance is often a good thing, I personally can't see much point to it for a target shooter - as any accident with a firearm can only happen when it's being shot at a club which will have it's own insurance in place for such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim. Cambs use this to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted September 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 I always have insurance anyway as I hunt as well as target shoot but surely the conditions on the FAC relate to the shooter. If I went to a private range such as Severnside then my club's insurance wouldn't cover me and I would be in breach if I didn't have it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 I've recently recieved my variation for a .223 , 9mm and a .44 muzzle loader and having looked at the condition there is a certain element of the target shooting one that either is new or has eluded me before!. It states:- "The firearms and ammunition shall be used for target shooting and only whilst a member of ************ club or any other home office approved club on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim. Sounds like you either have to be loaded or have an insurance policy in place or you are in breach of your conditions. How could you quantify 'adequate' when you could never guesstimate the value of a claim or damage? I don't fall out with it as I think everyone should have insurance but this is a step towards the compusory and the price hikes which are known to occur. I don't like this wording as, technically, you can never adhere to it as it is impossible to be able to meet 'any' injury or damage claim. The standard insurance limits that clubs carry are only to about £10,000,000. The condition never used to mention insurance limits, that only came about after the MoD stopped certifying civilian ranges. Essentially, the police could be sure that an MoD certified range had been built properly so was unlikely to pose a danger. Given that there is now no certification system for non-MoD ranges the insurance wording was thought a good alternative The wording should be changed to something like 'reasonably foreseeable' claims for injury or damage. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 Unless the club has a source of insurance that I am not aware of the standard range insurance does not cover solo shooting as you say, but it is still the club's liability irrespective of what insurance the individual may have because the range is licenced to the club and the certification is in the clubs name. So they never stop being responsible. Therefore, it can be argued, a solo shooter can only shoot if they have an open ticket which is not likely for a target shooter. The same applies to shooters who used to sneak onto the Short Siberia ranges at Bisley and shoot without booking in at the office first. This shooting stuff is a nightmare of red tape I don't see why a club's insurance would not cover a single individual shooting. If the club owns its own range then why wouldn't it? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) I don't see why a club's insurance would not cover a single individual shooting. If the club owns its own range then why wouldn't it? J. It goes into the murky grey area of a RCO not being present to supervise all matters pertaining to safety. In every way except the most pedantic I would agree with you. It goes on all the time, of course. Whether the club is insured or not would only be found out if it came to be tested. Edited September 11, 2012 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SakoQuad Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 Unless the club has a source of insurance that I am not aware of the standard range insurance does not cover solo shooting as you say, but it is still the club's liability irrespective of what insurance the individual may have because the range is licenced to the club and the certification is in the clubs name. So they never stop being responsible. Therefore, it can be argued, a solo shooter can only shoot if they have an open ticket which is not likely for a target shooter. The same applies to shooters who used to sneak onto the Short Siberia ranges at Bisley and shoot without booking in at the office first. This shooting stuff is a nightmare of red tape You may well be right, I certainly wouldn't argue with what you say. I can only repeat that I know of several clubs where members have access to their ranges outside of club sessions on condition they have their own public liability insurance. At those clubs the Officers believe this covers the condition imposed by Glos Firearms Dept (amongst others) upon target shooters to have "adequate financial arrangements in place". Just goes to show what a mares nest the whole thing really is!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) You are certainly right about it being a mares nest and its a jobsworth's paradise. I still don't understand what business it is of the police what financial provisions you have in place?. Their job is to administer the terms of the relative acts of parliament and I am pretty sure none of them mention insurance. What next? No Man Utd supporters or Coldplay fans? You can only shoot if you have a job with a pension? Edited September 11, 2012 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I tend to agree. It really isn't the business of the licensing authority. I think though that it all stems from the 'good reason' requirment in some convoluted sort of way. Your good reason is target shooting for which you must be in a HO approved club and to be HO approved the club must be affiliated to one of the national bodies all of which require insurance when doing the things they are affiliated for. If you read the condition carefully it doesn't actually specify what you are allowed to do (which people think it does) it specifies what you must do. It says 'The firearms SHALL be used for target shooting, etc' not 'The firearms MAY be used for target shooting' If you don't do it you are lacking good reason. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 standard wording as far as I am aware.. my target codition states the same in Cleveland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.