BASC welcomes police intent to remove unnecessary FAC conditions

[Simon Clarke]

New guidance to police forces to remove unnecessary conditions on the use of lawful firearms has been welcomed by the UK's largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC).

Andy Marsh, Chief Constable of Hampshire and the lead in firearms licensing issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has sent new guidance to English & Welsh police forces about the use of conditions on firearm certificates.

Currently some police forces in England and Wales restrict licensed firearms to specific quarry. Under these conditions someone authorised to use a large calibre rifle for shooting deer could break the law if they shoot a fox. Chief Constable Marsh has suggested that forces allow certificate holders to shoot any lawful quarry on land where they are authorised to shoot.

Chief Constable Marsh has also advised police forces to re-examine conditions which can require a certificate holder to be accompanied by a mentor during shooting trips. He recommends that training courses offered by organisations such as BASC would be a better solution if an applicant needs more experience.

Mike Eveleigh, senior firearms officer at BASC said: “One of the most common complaints that we deal with on behalf of our members is difficulties with conditions on firearm certificates. We have been negotiating for years to get unnecessary, bureaucratic and unenforceable conditions removed. This is a common-sense and helpful move by Chief Constable Marsh and his staff."

BASC members who believe they have unnecessary conditions on their firearm certificate are advised to contact the BASC firearms department on 01244 573010 for advice.

To see this press release on the BASC website: http://bit.ly/16Okv8M

 

[al4x]

and the odds on most forces complying are about as high as pigs tend to fly, be nice to see it but its not the first time AOLQ has been suggested and most forces simply ignored the advice. Nice for business though plugging the training

[Scully]

If they're 'unnecessary' , 'bureaucratic' and 'unenforcable' why not just dispense with them altogether?

I suppose the various shooting organisations vying for revenue will help keep the cost of training courses down, but an organisation which fails to question mentoring has now an even bigger disincentive to question training,so there will no doubt be no intention of opposing compulsory training when it is inevitably mooted down the line.

Cynic? Moi?

[David BASC]

We believe this is a big step in the right direction.

 

BASC remains all for self-regulation and against mandatory testing as does her majesty’s government and BASC’s elected Council have made their decision on this and I see no prospect of change on this stance, and I trust all the shooting community will join us in that position.

 

Should any BASC member applicants be directed to training courses without justification or where other suitable evidence of experience is being ignored by chief officers; we will continue to work with Mr Marsh’s office to ensure this behaviour is nipped in the bud.

 

In essence there should only be a need to undertake further training (formal or otherwise) where the applicant lacks any experience in handling a rifle that the chief officer is minded to refuse the certificate or variation because of the perceived risk to public safety.

 

David

 

 

[al4x]

Thats not what it says David It is asking them to rethink the mentor condition and rely more on training courses. Personally this to me is a step backwards training doesn't put you in a field situation it can only teach in a class room with limited range time, rather than on live quarry when if anyone is going to make incorrect decisions it will be the heat of the moment.

 

"Chief Constable Marsh has also advised police forces to re-examine conditions which can require a certificate holder to be accompanied by a mentor during shooting trips. He recommends that training courses offered by organisations such as BASC would be a better solution"

[David BASC]

The message from ACPO is very clear. ACPO Firearms & Explosives Licensing Working Group observes; relevant experience is not calibre or ammunition type exclusive. It may include the shooting of any quarry species. The aspect that police are looking to be satisfied about is the competency of the applicant to take a safe shot every time. The shooting of any quarry requires a safe backstop for the shot, and such experience is translatable between quarry species.

 

This has typically been the rubbing point in the past; for example an experienced fox shooter is granted a variation for deer on the same land with the same rifle ONLY under the condition he goes on a course or gets mentored! This is the silly and is exactly the sort of issue we want to get rid of and ACPO are on side as this latest development shows

 

How is that a step backwards?

 

David

 

 

 

[al4x]

The backwards step is going from a learning in the field scenario AKA mentoring to learning purely in a classroom and obviously paying for the privilege to yourselves or another provider. That is how your press release reads it doesn't mention any of the above situations

Edited May 22, 2013 by al4x

[David BASC]

The situation is not quite as ‘black and white’ as perhaps you seem to be painting it.

 

There is nothing to stop a newcomer learning the ropes from a more experienced shooter before applying for their licence. Many of us have had this sort of informal training in the past and many will continue to be introduced to shooting in this way in the future.

 

Having gained this experience do they need to be mentored further or go on a training course? .

 

If someone is experienced with a say 22.250 and wants a 240 – do they need mentoring or to go onto a training course? .

 

But there are some who can’t get informal training and with no experience the police are minded to refuse grant, it’s those who will then benefit from access to a training course surely?

[al4x]

How do I make this very simple read this

 

"Chief Constable Marsh has also advised police forces to re-examine conditions which can require a certificate holder to be accompanied by a mentor during shooting trips. He recommends that training courses offered by organisations such as BASC would be a better solution"

 

 

now as a normal English speaker it reads that rather than mentoring training courses would be a better solution, when they obviously aren't in all situations. Lots of forces at the moment offer either mentoring or training as options which works well and mentoring has to be the best as it is real life and learning from an experienced person rather than trying to cram it all in over a day or two with little or no live firing. The DSC safety course is total horse poop you learn to pass it and forget everything the moment you are out, the way your release is written it suggests you have convinced ACPO to try and change that status quo in favour of training which isn't a good thing

[David BASC]

For a start you don’t have to be patronising!

 

I know what the press release reads; I have also seen the text of letter from ACPO to the licencing teams.

 

Mentoring and training are certainly viable options for people to get experience in the first before they apply as i say, and nothing is going to stop that is it? But not as a condition on a licence! After all what does it actually achieve – who monitors these mentors? What standards to they mentor to…

 

Training should only be an option if the person has no experience, can show no evidence of having handled firearms and has no access to informal training- so the only option the licencing team would have would be to refuse to grant

 

Trust me we will be far better off across the board without these mentoring conditions

 

No we have not convinced ACPO to try and change that status quo in favour of training , I have always maintianed that BASC is opposed tocompulsory testing, as are the government...I made this very clear in post 4

 

 

David

[Cannon]

Received an email today from BASC containing a link to this-

 

 

Lengthy delays in firearms licensing in Northern Ireland are unacceptable and must be dealt with according to the UK's largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC).

BASC NI is aware of cases which have taken more than a year before a decision is made and others which have taken several months. Delays are affecting both first-time applicants and those who have held a firearm certificate for a number of years. One gamekeeper with forty years’ experience waited for more than seven months to hear if he would be granted a different calibre rifle for fox control.

Tommy Mayne, director of BASC Northern Ireland, said: “Licence checks must be thorough and must protect public safety, but these lengthy and systematic delays are totally unacceptable. Police-approved firearm certificates must be renewed every five years. People are being put in a position where their legal authority to own firearms expires before a decision is made.

“During our investigation, BASC NI has been informed by Firearms and Explosives Branch staff at the Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI) that the delays are a result of ‘further checks’ which are outside their control. BASC will continue to campaign to ensure that our members receive fair treatment and an acceptable level of service.”

BASC has raised the issue of these delays with senior firearms licensing officers, with the NI Assembly Committee for Justice, with the Justice Minister and members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. “

BASC asks anybody who is experiencing firearms licensing delays in Northern Ireland to contact the BASC NI office on 028 9260 5050 or email nire@basc.org.uk

Can this be elaborated on at all David? Just curious why the FEB palm individual applicants off with excuses like staff shortages, holidays and department relocation whereas they tell the BASC that further checks are being carried out. Further checks by who? Are the FEB refusing to take responsibility by claiming to be middle men? And are the BASC going to campaign for the truth? Or call it quits when licencing temporarily speeds up again?

[wymberley]

If they're 'unnecessary' , 'bureaucratic' and 'unenforcable' why not just dispense with them altogether?

I suppose the various shooting organisations vying for revenue will help keep the cost of training courses down, but an organisation which fails to question mentoring has now an even bigger disincentive to question training,so there will no doubt be no intention of opposing compulsory training when it is inevitably mooted down the line.

Cynic? Moi?

Nah, mate. The voice of reason.

[David BASC]

Dan

First and most importantly we want the system to speed up and for shooters to be treated well - as to uncovering what is going on I am sure Tommy will keep on the case!

 

Back to this side of the water...As to opposing conditions - BASC has been campaigning against these daft conditions for many years and in many cases have got them removed, not all I grant you, and the campaign goes on as we say.Any member who thinks they have unfair conditions on their licence ley Mike in the firearms team know.

 

Others such as the NGO have been on the case too and at long last it seems that ACPO are taking a more direct approach towards greater consistency in firearms licencing, frankly this should be applauded by the shooting community and not taken with a 'glass half empty' view, on the contrary!

 

And for those who think this will lead to compulsory testing, I am sorry to disappoint you, but as I said ACPO don't want it, the government don't want it and none of the shooting organisations want it, but keep talking it up....

[jamiedenny]

I'm just glad to see BASC sticking the boot in and making some waves.

[HDAV]

Here comes the R&RSC 1,2,3 (Rabbit and Rodent shooting certificate) followed by FSC,1,2,3 (FOx shooting certificate) perhaps an additional "At night" version all at a "reasonable fee"

[jamiedenny]

Here comes the R&RSC 1,2,3 (Rabbit and Rodent shooting certificate) followed by FSC,1,2,3 (FOx shooting certificate) perhaps an additional "At night" version all at a "reasonable fee"

did i mention that im going to launch a training academy :-).

[xxx.Morph.xxx]

My favourite FAC contition being discussed on another forum at the moment is:-

"can only be carried when proceeding to or returning from a port of embarkation, it shall not be fired in the UK"

It is a S1 firearm so I assume the firearm is for large game abroad, but how exactly is the owner supposed to collect his new purchase from the RFD

[spanj]

this is irony in itself.......... who introduced these unneccessary restrictions / condition ?. Doing us a big favour by removing them (which they wont)......... not. BASC making a lot of noise ( & before you start, I am a member) but will do nothing about a challenge when these suggestions / recommendations are ignored by the majority of forces.

Edited May 22, 2013 by spanj

[David BASC]

As you may know, thanks in no small part to one person wanting to ‘have their day in court’ several years ago, against expert advice I may add, there is no legal right of appeal against conditions on a certificate (unless of course it’s totally daft and unreasonable) and the licencing teams know this full well.

 

So in the past it has been very difficult indeed in some cases to get conditions removed or changed.

 

I am far more optimistic that you that there will be a significant shift towards removing the ‘automatic’ mentoring condition that several forces implement in many cases just because a person wants to shoot a deer rather than a fox…

 

I am also confident we will see a significant shift towards AOLQ as a standard condition on Sec 1, which will be a significant benefit to shooters.

 

David

[Paul223]

Here comes the R&RSC 1,2,3 (Rabbit and Rodent shooting certificate) followed by FSC,1,2,3 (FOx shooting certificate) perhaps an additional "At night" version all at a "reasonable fee"

yeah you can smell it coming, just laying the foundations

[al4x]

 

 

I am far more optimistic that you that there will be a significant shift towards removing the ‘automatic’ mentoring condition that several forces implement in many cases just because a person wants to shoot a deer rather than a fox…

 

 

 

yup removing and replacing with automatic requirement for training as the Chief constable says in his quote, ok you can get that done in a day or two and it ticks a box but I can't see what the big move forward is.

[David BASC]

There are, and will be plenty of training courses out there and why not if someone wants to learn more about some aspect of shooting or another?

 

But I am also sure they will not become compulsory or 'automatic' as Al4x suggests. ACPO have made clear training should only be a condition IF the applicant cannot demonstrate any experience of shooting...and consequently the only alternative would be to refuse grant.

 

David

Edited May 23, 2013 by David BASC

[al4x]

David I'm probably at complete cross purposes but your press release and what you know of the meeting are different, can you say that if the person has no experience that mentoring will still be an option as it is currently, versus training or as your press release says are they going to push for formal training only

[Penelope]

My reading of the release is the same as yours.

 

David I'm probably at complete cross purposes but your press release and what you know of the meeting are different, can you say that if the person has no experience that mentoring will still be an option as it is currently, versus training or as your press release says are they going to push for formal training only

[David BASC]

Yes I see no reason why mentoring is not an option, and compulsory testing is certainly off the table - but still there as an option if there is no alternative when the licencing staff are faced with a new applicant with zero shooting experience.

 

Nothing here takes away the need for newcomers to shooting to have some form of training to learn the ropes; I think we can all agree that this is important. This training can be by informal mentoring or going on courses or a combination of both.

 

I would agree that mentoring is a great way of learning a new skill, but if you have not got a mentor, what can you do? Go on a course.

 

The big issue, that some may not be aware of, is that in many cases people who are experienced shooters have been hit with a compulsory training or mentoring or other conditions just because they want their certificate conditioned for deer.

 

This is pointless, the person has already been deemed to be safe by the licencing team, to have ‘good reason’; for that rifle and access to shooting – they have ticked the boxes – why ask them to apply for a variation just because they want to shoot a different quarry? Why then hit them with restrictive conditions because they now want to shoot a Munty for example as well as a fox with the same rifle on the same land?

 

Taking away these restrictions will save money and make life easier for the more experienced shooters.

 

David