hunters_return Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 I received my long awaited variation through the post yesterday. .223 Vermin, ground game, Fox, Chinese water deer and Muntjac .243 Deer and Fox Both closed, as expected. Happy face did not last long when I read the rest of the conditions. “WHILST ACCOMPANIED BY AN EXPERIENCED SHOT” Along with a cover letter: You will note that the .223 and .243 rifles have been conditioned to be used only whilst accompanied by an experienced shot, This is due to you having limited experience with full bore rifles and brings the condition into line with firearms law: guidance to Police 13:30. Once experience has been gained in the use of the rifles, application can be made for removal of this restriction. A letter from the experienced shot, specific to the quarry your firearm certificate has been conditioned for, advising that you can shoot unaccompanied or the completion of a recognised course will suffice. Now the questions are: 1: Who is an experienced shot, in the eyes of the law? 2: Is the experienced shot, then responsible for your future actions, once he/she has written the letter? 3: Do you have to demonstrate that you have shot each quarry specified on you conditions, with each rifle? (taking some responsibility away from the enforcing agency) 4: Or are they just trying to push courses like DSC1 or similar? ATB Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 It's a reasonably fair either or letter so sounds like you could do dsc1 and get it lifted or go down the letter route. It's been left fairly open with regard to an experienced shooter so you can almost interpret that as you like but generally someone with an open ticket with no conditions should be the minimum requirement, if you have someone you shoot with who will help that's fine or get some paid stalking or do the course. They won't have any responsibility for your actions after a letter to say they are happy with what they have seen you do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 It's just an **** covering exercise by the Police.There is absolutely nothing to stop you going out unaccompanied,nor is there anything to stop your mate signing a letter to the effect of your condition in say,six months time, whether he's accompanied you or not,which makes a mockery of the entire mentoring condition,regardless of conditions.The onus for your own safety,and that of others,has effectively been passed to you and your(until the condition is removed) mentor,but isn't that always the case? Saying that,if you're stopped by a copper who actually knows about these things,unaccompanied,then you will be up the proverbial canal without a paddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Essex Hunter Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 As Alex has pointed out it is fair and quite open, I had such a letter and was just as disappointed as you, However I just knuckled down and spent 3 months with a friend who has deer and fox on his .243 cert. Your land must be cleared for .243 so it will be a case of getting used to both rifles tuning the scopes and finding the rounds that best suit your guns. Your questions are a bit loaded as you have written them because you are ****** off with the letter you have received! Is the person who taught you to drive responsible if you run some one over? No. Surely you are aware of how all the different firearms departments work as there have been loads of posts on similar subjects. Find a rifle shooter with deer and fox on his cert and ask the firearms department if he can accompany you as they are the ones who with be removing your condition!! This part is useful to read when writing your letter…. (The words in italics may be omitted once the certificate holder has demonstrated competence. There is no set time for this and each case should be considered on its individual merits.) TEH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) All 3 replies to the original post are spot on in my opinion - This is no more than an a**e covering exercise by the licensing authorities. I have been asked several times lately to accompany shooters with this condition, which seems to be coming up at much more frequest intervals recently. I have a fully open ticket for Deer and Fox for calibres up to .243 with no restrictions and my permissions have all been aproaved for a minimum of .243 from when I was on closed conditions. Lancashire, West Yorkshire and GMP are all happy with this once I have accompanied the shooter a few times and I am happy that there are no safety issues that need to be adressed and give a letter to that effect. There is no time limit and it can be dealt with fairly quickly if both you and the "Experienced Shooter" both have the time to spare together. Edited January 7, 2013 by Frenchieboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Para 13.30 of the guidance says no such thing. It says that the applicant should generally have experience of firearms. What I have a problem with is, how do they define 'experienced shot'? Even then, 'experienced' is not the same as 'competant' or 'safe'. The guy may have been shooting for 40 years but may have only gone out once every couple of years and may be so dangerous as to have not had an accident by pure luck. On the other hand, he may have been shooting for 18 months and expended thousands of rounds of ammo in that time, perfectly safely. These kinds of things are dangerous because they can be the thin end of the wedge. The consensus is that it's perfectly reasonable as it stands. That may or may not be the case but it is not the point. In future it will change from 'experienced shot' to someone who has been shooting X number of years; then, to someone who has been shooting X number of years and has shot Y numer of deer; then, someone who has been shooting X numer of years, has shot Y numer of deer and has a DSC2. Eventually it will become SOP that you must have a DSC2 for a year and shot X many deer before they will grant you what you want. J. Edited January 7, 2013 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 I received my long awaited variation through the post yesterday. .223 Vermin, ground game, Fox, Chinese water deer and Muntjac .243 Deer and Fox Both closed, as expected. Happy face did not last long when I read the rest of the conditions. “WHILST ACCOMPANIED BY AN EXPERIENCED SHOT” Along with a cover letter: You will note that the .223 and .243 rifles have been conditioned to be used only whilst accompanied by an experienced shot, This is due to you having limited experience with full bore rifles and brings the condition into line with firearms law: guidance to Police 13:30. Once experience has been gained in the use of the rifles, application can be made for removal of this restriction. A letter from the experienced shot, specific to the quarry your firearm certificate has been conditioned for, advising that you can shoot unaccompanied or the completion of a recognised course will suffice. Now the questions are: 1: Who is an experienced shot, in the eyes of the law? Someone without the conditions you have and calibres for the Quarry! 2: Is the experienced shot, then responsible for your future actions, once he/she has written the letter? No! 3: Do you have to demonstrate that you have shot each quarry specified on you conditions, with each rifle? (taking some responsibility away from the enforcing agency) No! 4: Or are they just trying to push courses like DSC1 or similar? Basically yes, as others have said they are covering their ****! ATB Paul Suggested responses above, for a definitive answer you will need to ask your region! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunters_return Posted January 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Thank you all, I was not actually ****** off with having the conditions added, I was just not expecting them. The only reason for posting, was to inform members that it does seem to be a more and more common condition, and that it is not very well explained by the issuing force. I called the Office today, and the lady explained, that the conditions only relate to deer. Who is regarded as an experienced shot. And that "YES" they would rather receive a DSC1 course certificate. I don't think this is an unreasonable condition, I just wish they would explain things better in their original correspondence. Atb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 In which case I would have said it was unreasonable. It is nothing to do with it being fullbore if you are only restricted on one quarry!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 I had exactly that with Herts a .243 I could use for foxes but not deer. Absolute nonsense but it appears to make sense to someone in licensing land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 I had exactly that with Herts a .243 I could use for foxes but not deer. Absolute nonsense but it appears to make sense to someone in licensing land Another example of 'nonsense'.I've just been talking to a mate whose licensing authority is Durham.He has been shooting for many years and is undergoing renewal,and his FEO( a keen shooter) called round today for the visit and to clear up one or two things,and asked him why he's never applied for FAC,and told him if he wanted it co-terminous to let him know within the week and he could have it with 'no conditions'.The one or two items to clear up were as follows:Licensing had told his FEO that he owned a double barrelled pump-action shotgun,yet he hadn't stated it as such on his renewal application,and also they wanted to know what the magazine capacity was on his 45cal single-barrelled muzzle-loading musket!FEO had tried to put them straight but was over-ruled apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 We can expect more restrictions but slowly as the end game seems to be to remove all privately held section 1 firearms, It may be a reasonable condition to some but how many people shot dangerously before this type of condition was imposed? When I started with CF the cert was closed initially but no silly 'must be accompanied' was attached. When I applied for a deer rifle, I was given the same condition - reasonably in my view for one reason apparently - the field dressing of deer. When was this a safety issue or a concern of the police? It is still an imperfect response however because the number of stalks was not conditioned or its link to field dressing specified. The only aspect of the condition I did not like was experience and safety in use of centrefire rifles, which, after a good number of years with the .223 seems irrelevant. A friend recently was given a .223 on an open cert from scratch - he had been an FAC holder for nearly 20 years but with a ..22 rimfire calibre. I am hoping that 'all lawful quarry' makes an appearance as an accepted species specification on all certs - that would go some way to redressing the creeping restrictions. I read someone post recently that now is the time to gain experience with larger calibres as you will have that experience whenever you apply in future. I very much agree. I fear many who apply in the future wont be given the 'luxury' we have now. It was ever thus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 I had exactly that with Herts a .243 I could use for foxes but not deer. Absolute nonsense but it appears to make sense to someone in licensing land I never get hold of that on the safety side either, there is only a thin argument on the hygiene side as well. I too have had to mentor a member of this forum who had held various CF including .243 for some years on an Open FAC for fox, but when he wanted Deer added the region insisted on a mentor. :hmm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) Its utter bullpoop from the police remit and I had safety mentioned a couple of times having done DSC1 and them not removing the condition they still wanted a letter from someone I'd been stalking with. Over the period I'd shot 100 plus foxes same rifle mostly under the lamp, now if i was going to be a danger to public safety it sure wouldn't be shooting deer in daylight. Thats excluding the number I'd had with a .223 before, they are still at it though a mate has just got his first .223 for foxes no conditions and another wants to shoot deer and needs a mentor or DSC1 its just adding hoops because of a lack of education and knowledge but also probably pushed on by various Deer organisations who think it should be somewhat of an elite side to the sport. When you look at facts gralloching a deer isn't much different to doing a rabbit just larger and thats apart from the police having nothing to do with any form of food safety Edited January 8, 2013 by al4x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 It is frustrating. Also indefensible. Was having a very good chat with some guys yesterday while at work. We got onto the problems one of them had with FAC conditions. It was exactly this issue. Doesn't look good when you are trying not to lay into another department!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 It would make more sense if it was any centerfire with Herts but its not, a shame really as they are top notch in most respects and certainly renewals and variations they seem to be processing very fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Agree with you there. Have been impressed with the service so far. Much better than the last area I had to deal with!! 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.