BASC welcomes police intent to remove unnecessary FAC conditions

[wymberley]

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....

For many years we have seen what the ACPO (I'll just point out that this isn't there decision to make anyway, like the rest of us subjects, as individual officers they're there to do as they're told), the government, et al, want. You say that BASC, NGO, et al, have been attempting to get what it is that they want changed and as yet have not succeeded. Consequently, a slack handful of Englishmen exercising their right to free speech are not going to have any more success in changing their viewpoint than those sporting organisations any time soon are they?

 

Now, I'm not quite sure what would be best and am open to persuasion on the matter. What I do know is that remarks such as your last phrase are going to annoy me and possibly cause your whole (and probably valid) point of view to be ignored.

Edited May 23, 2013 by wymberley

[al4x]

I hope the police and you aren't on cross purposes David as however I read that statement I can't obtain that it is for experienced shooters being asked for mentoring. I've been in that situation and it makes no sense having a rifle you can use day and night on foxes and not on deer and had to go both accompanied and training, what I will say is DSC1 doesn't prepare you for shooting a deer it certainly isn't enough to make you proficient at gralloching and what to look for it is only practice that does that and an experienced person showing you the ropes. However I would class that as being out of the remit of licensing and more down to the individual. For the life of me from that statement and your posts I can't see anything has changed at all

[wymberley]

 

mentoring condition that several forces implement in many cases just because a person wants to shoot a deer rather than a fox…

 

David

Several? I was under the impression that 'mentoring' for any given reason was now pretty much nationwide - or has this been exaggerated by whoever for whatever?

[David BASC]

Its certainly not my intent to annoy, but I get similarly vexed when ‘compulsory testing’ hares are set running.

 

I see no merit or benefit at all in compulsory testing, just as I see no benefit in NOT granting AOLQ and no benefit is forcing experienced shooters to be ‘mentored’.

 

There was no evidence of people being injured by rifle shooters, there was and is no evidence of a risk to public safety, in other words there was no problem to fix. But restrictive conditions were being put on experienced shooters anyway!

 

Making shooters apply to add a new quarry to their licence is just costly in time and money and befits no one at all.

 

This is exactly what BASC and the NGO for example have been campaigning on for several years. Some forces have certainly ‘seen the light’ but there are a few that refuse to budge – creating animosity among shooters and creating a costly administrative burden too.

 

You recall the many licencing teams are calling for an increase in fees – BASC’s position on this is clear, get your house in order, get an efficient fair and consistent system in place and then and only then let’s look at costs.

 

So getting ALOQ as ‘standard’ will make a significant difference, and stopping the police putting unnecessary conditions on licences will make a difference to shooters, that is why it is a step forward.

Edited May 23, 2013 by David BASC

[Pole Star]

In a United Kingdom that seems to have an ever growing population & development one must ask do we need compulsory training ? do we need more state interference ? or can we leave it as it is ? .

I have often taken young lads out with my rifle & as soon as the quarry is seen they are getting excited & say there's one ! & I say no too risky & then they look at me like I have 2 heads & say why & then I will point out the cattle close by or some other risk ! then they say but your not shooting at them ! then I have to give them a lecture on the things that could go wrong , as much as they don't like it !! . If some of these young chaps were left on their own with a rifle with who know what could go wrong ? .

In the press not to long ago it was reported that a family were driving along a major road or motor way minding their own business in a southern English county only to have a 243 bullet come through the passenger window & thank God no one was hurt & I know of 2 other cases where people have had a 22 bullet come through their windows , do we need some sort of compulsory training ?? . Any way aside from that it would a good thing to see some of these conditions removed or changed .

 

ps I farmer in Norfolk told me that he noticed one of his cows limping & on examination it turned out that the cow had 22 bullet just lodged just at the top of its hoof , thankfully all that was needed was a pair of nips to pull it out .

 

Another case some years ago when a tourist was walking along the main street in Sligo town in Ireland when she said to her husband that she thought a bee had stung her in the back of her head ! turned out again it was a 22 bullet that had come from a far off distance ! .Training ? .

Edited May 23, 2013 by Pole Star

[wymberley]

Its certainly not my intent to annoy, but I get similarly vexed when ‘compulsory testing’ hares are set running.

 

I see no merit or benefit at all in compulsory testing, just as I see no benefit in NOT granting AOLQ and no benefit is forcing experienced shooters to be ‘mentored’.

 

 

I'm confused now.

 

"at all" with regard to compulsory testing, is not what you said in the first paragraph at Post #25.

 

My problem remains that whatever happens, those who have influence over us in these matters have an 'out' when it all goes wrong. Consequently, they can do/say what they like with impunity as the decision will not be made in the UK but will float ashore from Europe on a spring tide some time in the future.

[David BASC]

Interesting points and we should all take note, but speaking with my insurance hat on, ‘accidents happen’. You may not be surprised to hear that I see many claims each year where someone has shot at a fox or rabbit and not taken into account what’s behind it – cow, sheep, horse, caravan, greenhouse… we have even had members shoot their own cars!

 

Dogs, fellow guns, walkers, stops and beaters have been shot on game shoots. Odd we may think as generally pheasants and partridges are in the air and beaters and dogs are not known for their flying prowess…

 

All joking apart, given the millions of shots that are fired every year the number of accidents are tiny, and to be frank compulsory training for example is unlikely make any difference.

 

Learning the ropes from a more experienced shooter is great as I have said and most of us I suggest cut our shooting teeth with an older and more experienced friend or relative, and long may this continue.

 

Wymberley .

What I wrote in #25 was : 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.

 

What I wrote in # 29 was : I see no merit or benefit at all in compulsory testing, just as I see no benefit in NOT granting AOLQ and no benefit in forcing experienced shooters to be ‘mentored’.

 

That’s the issue – I am not for one moment suggesting that someone new to shooting should not get some experience first before they shoot live quarry, be that being taught by an experienced shooter or if that is not an option a training course.

 

However, the current situation is that some experienced shooters are currently being faced with having to undertake compulsory mentoring and or training when they apply for a variation to shoot deer. This is a waste of time and delivers nothing in terms of public safety, and this is why we welcome the call to remove these unnecessary conditions and open up certificate to AOLQ.

 

David

[wymberley]

 

Wymberley .

What I wrote in #25 was : 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.

 

What I wrote in # 29 was : I see no merit or benefit at all in compulsory testing, just as I see no benefit in NOT granting AOLQ and no benefit in forcing experienced shooters to be ‘mentored’.

 

 

David

If I don't pack this in and get some paint on the kitchen walls, I'll be in deep pooh, so one last try.

 

Now I'm even more confused.

 

David, as can be seen, you clearly state that compulsory testing remains on the table as an option - it's written above in black and white. However, you see "no merit of benefit at all in compulsory testing". Again, this is clearly stated above.

 

Consequently, why would you consider something, which in your opinion has no merit or benefit, to be an option in some circumstances as the way forward.

[al4x]

you're wasted in BASC David you would make a cracking politician with these replies

[Piebob]

I'm reading it as - David sees compulsory testing as an option for applicants with no shooting experience, however there is no merit at all in compulsory testing (or mentoring conditions) for experienced shots.

[David BASC]

Wymberley,

 

I will try again too, look at the posts in context - sorry for the confusion...

 

Compulsory training will remain on the table for those who are applying for FAC but have no experience, and where the only option could be to refuse to grant.

 

However, there is no need or merit in forcing compulsory testing or mentoring on experienced shooters. Unnecessary conditions on experienced shooters cost money, waste time and do nothing to improve safety. This is the point BASC and NGO have been making for ages, and at last ACPO agree and have written to all senior officers in that context.

 

So opening up certificates to AOLQ and dropping unnecessary conditions for experienced shooters is a big step forward.

 

Good luck with the painting!

 

Al4x I don’t know what you are implying with your last comment– I have been consistent in all I have posted.

 

David

Edited May 23, 2013 by David BASC

[Scully]

 

 

 

 

There was no evidence of people being injured by rifle shooters, there was and is no evidence of a risk to public safety, in other words there was no problem to fix.

This was the reason for my cynicism.

There has never been a problem,but now,rather than just admitting their actions are a little bit illogical,they have come up with a solution to a problem which never existed until they created it! And that solution is training!

Is it me?

[David BASC]

Only training for those with no experience where there is no other option - the problem they created was putting daft and restrictive conditions on experienced shooters, in the name of 'public safety' just because they want to shoot deer for example!

 

David

[Scully]

There are many lads out there who have been shooting their Dads rifles for years,but in the eyes of the law they are inexperienced,and therefore require mentoring when first applying for FAC,a fact which put off my nephew from going through with his application,even though he has many years of shooting experience with both rifles and shotguns and has attended many Young Shots days.He knows what is good practise and what isn't,but in the eyes of the law is inexperienced.Illogical in my opinion.BASC were of the opinion it was something he would have to put up with.

'Only trainig for those with no experience where there is no other option'...so mentoring hasn't been done away with then,if it's still an option.Unenforceable,but still an option.So moving forward,as you put it,we still have mentoring,and now also compulsory training for those with no experience and no-one to mentor for them?Is this correct? It is made compulsory by the fact that if it isn't undertaken,then no ticket.

Those who have centre-fire and the desire to shoot quarry which would otherwise be legal if not for the fact their licenses are not conditioned to do so,will continue to do so,in my experience.I don't know many farmers on spotting a fox within range,and only armed with his humble .22 who would return to his house for his fox conditioned calibre in preference to having a pop with the rimmie.Illegal ? Yes.But much like speeding,only a problem if anything untoward occurs as a result.

Forgive my continued cynicism,but I tend to live in the real world.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Scully

[David BASC]

It is unfortunate, and not simply a ‘put up with it’ position, that thanks to one person who wanted to have their day in court, initial conditions on a licence cannot be challenged or appealed in court in almost all cases– our hands are tied by the law

 

Mentoring is still an option for inexperienced people to get to know the ropes.

 

Training is still an option for inexperienced people to get to know the ropes if mentoring are not an option.

 

We have moved forward, significantly, as unnecessary conditions such as mentoring are to be dropped for experienced shooters licences as I have said, and Sec 1 certificates should start to be granted on a AOLQ basis so you don’t have to spend time and money adding different species to your licence, or risk being revoked if caught shooting a rabbit with your 22 CF which is only conditioned for fox…

 

David

[JonathanL]

There are many lads out there who have been shooting their Dads rifles for years,but in the eyes of the law they are inexperienced,and therefore require mentoring when first applying for FAC,a fact which put off my nephew from going through with his application,even though he has many years of shooting experience with both rifles and shotguns and has attended many Young Shots days.He knows what is good practise and what isn't,but in the eyes of the law is inexperienced.Illogical in my opinion.BASC were of the opinion it was something he would have to put up with.

'Only trainig for those with no experience where there is no other option'...so mentoring hasn't been done away with then,if it's still an option.Unenforceable,but still an option.So moving forward,as you put it,we still have mentoring,and now also compulsory training for those with no experience and no-one to mentor for them?Is this correct? It is made compulsory by the fact that if it isn't undertaken,then no ticket.

Those who have centre-fire and the desire to shoot quarry which would otherwise be legal if not for the fact their licenses are not conditioned to do so,will continue to do so,in my experience.I don't know many farmers on spotting a fox within range,and only armed with his humble .22 who would return to his house for his fox conditioned calibre in preference to having a pop with the rimmie.Illegal ? Yes.But much like speeding,only a problem if anything untoward occurs as a result.

Forgive my continued cynicism,but I tend to live in the real world.

 

I can see it from the position of the person deciding on the outcome of the application though. He has to be satisifed that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm and does not present a danger to the public safety or the peace. How can he be satisifed of those things if a person making an application to acquire a .308 rifle for deer stalking has never even touched a firearm before and has no one to show him how it works and how to be safe? The simple answer is that he can't. He only has one option and that is to refuse the application.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

It is unfortunate, and not simply a ‘put up with it’ position, that thanks to one person who wanted to have their day in court, initial conditions on a licence cannot be challenged or appealed in court in almost all cases– our hands are tied by the law

 

Mentoring is still an option for inexperienced people to get to know the ropes.

 

Training is still an option for inexperienced people to get to know the ropes if mentoring are not an option.

 

We have moved forward, significantly, as unnecessary conditions such as mentoring are to be dropped for experienced shooters licences as I have said, and Sec 1 certificates should start to be granted on a AOLQ basis so you don’t have to spend time and money adding different species to your licence, or risk being revoked if caught shooting a rabbit with your 22 CF which is only conditioned for fox…

 

David

 

That's a tad unfair. Whether the case had merit to it or not (in the sense of whether the condition was reasonable or not) is not really the point. The fact is that there is no procedure in law to appeal a condition as the Firearms Act did not create one as it did with appeals against refusals to grant or vary or against revocations. Any case which came before the court relating to any condition applied to a FAC would have had the same result.

 

J.

[David BASC]

Thank you Jonathan, I take your point, but let’s remember unreasonable conditions cannot be enforced and can be overturned.

However the fact remains that the courts have held (R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland, 1998) that there is no right of appeal against the imposition of (reasonable) conditions as opposed to a refusal to grant or renew a certificate.

In his Judgement on the Buckland case, His Honour Judge J Haworth said: “That upon a grant the Chief Constable shall specify any conditions, subject to the test of Wednesbury reasonableness.”

This was over and above what it read within the Act and from that point onwards , as many shooters know to their cost, this left the door wide open for forces to apply what amount to pointless conditions on experienced shooters – such as mentoring for deer but not for fox or rabbit for example, or only shooting from a high seat. When challenged the licencing teams only have to have claimed ‘public safety’ as the reason knowing that it’s almost impossible for any judge to rule against them as 'unreasonable' on that basis.

This has caused and continues to cause angst within the shooting community, and this is not surprising.

Now there is pressure from ACPO to stop this, and thank goodness!

 

 

 

 

[beretta682]

Great Result.

[Scully]

 

I can see it from the position of the person deciding on the outcome of the application though. He has to be satisifed that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm and does not present a danger to the public safety or the peace. How can he be satisifed of those things if a person making an application to acquire a .308 rifle for deer stalking has never even touched a firearm before and has no one to show him how it works and how to be safe? The simple answer is that he can't. He only has one option and that is to refuse the application.

 

J.

I can see it from 'the position of the person deciding on the outcome of the application' also,but that isn't the point I'm trying to make.There was a time when mentoring didn't occur( I wasn't mentored,nor any other shooters I know),so what problems have occurred which didn't exist back then but now require mentoring to address? Its use has come about primarily as an ***** covering exercise it would seem(which I can understand given the bad press they receive following their record for failure to revoke unsuitable applicants) to combat a problem which didn't (and still doesn't) exist.

Refusal by our shooting organisations to oppose mentoring or DSC qualifications imposed on applicants isn't in the interest of those organisations which have a vested interest in revenue yielding shooting qualification courses,which has possibly helped mentoring become almost the norm nowadays,which is nothing more than passing the buck on a perceived problem,again,where one didn't exist until the Police created one.How do you enforce mentoring? You can't.The responsibility is placed squarely on the mentor,who may have experience but no qualifications whatsoever;which begs the question how did they get to this level without either mentoring or qualifications?If mentoring is unenforceable it's blatantly logical the only option available to satisfy both the non-existant problem of the inexperienced shooter and for the FEO to satisfy him/herself that an applicant is safe is to propose compulsory training.

It's a small leap from what has now been proposed,and despite what BASC say,if Police advocate it,and make a concerted effort to push for it,I really can't see our organisations putting up much of a fight.Can you?

It has always been the case that the Police have had to satisfy themselves that an applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm and does not present a danger to the public or the peace,but mentoring hasn't always been the case, regardless of experience,but it is now.Why?Now,not only is mentoring becoming the norm,but also compulsory training for those whom mentoring isn't an option is being proposed.'Compulsory' isn't the word which has been used,but it is compulsory by the fact that refusal to undertake it will result in refusal of the application.Is it also now up to the Police to recommend what level of training an applicant should undergo?It would appear so,which is unfortunate as some FEO's don't know the first thing about firearms or shooting.Perhaps they should be trained also.

Here's a few made-up newspaper headlines to ponder on,just to raise my point;the first of which follows a shooting accident:

'Untrained Gun owner kills friend in shooting accident-

During our investigations into how the accident occurred it transpired the man who shot his friend had undergone no firearms training whatsoever!'.No doubt the newspaper will fail to mention the fact the 'man' had been an owner of firearms for decades without incident, and that sporting shootings safety record is second to none compared to sports such as swimming and rugby.

Here's another on the press becoming aware of compulsory firearms training for all applicants:

'Gun applicants to receive deadly marksmanship training'.

Quite farcical really,but even us cynics enjoy a laugh now and then.

For the record I am both a BASC and NGO member,and have nothing against training....if there is a genuine need.I am still of the opinion that compulsory membership of a shooting organisation would be preferable.This way each applicant could receive information regarding good practise,they would be insured,and our numbers would grow.There are still many many shooters out there who aren't members of any organisation,and therefore uninsured.But that's another topic.

[David BASC]

As I say, there is no appeal in law against conditions, so to say shooting organisations refuse to oppose mentoring or training conditions is not fair. We can and do oppose it at operational level, but the police know damn well there is little we can do in most cases.

 

Remember the courts have held (R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland, 1998) that there is no right of appeal against the imposition of (reasonable) conditions as opposed to a refusal to grant or renew a certificate.

 

Shooting organisations, and in my view especially BASC and NGO have been fighting these daft conditions placed on experienced shooters for years, not just by making the case at operational level but also by lobbying the Home Office and ACPO and now at long last, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

I agree, that there is no excuse what so ever for any shooter not to be a member of one of the shooting organisations, its not a matter of cost, it costs from £2.50 per month to £5.50 per month to be a member,no one is going to tell me they cant afford that but can still afford to go shooting.

 

David

[wymberley]

What a cracking post (#45) from Scully. Just as well he's on our side. His logic is inescapable.

 

Many years ago during a discussion I suggested that all shooters should be a member of one of the organisations but was told by a BASC staff member that they were against anything of a compulsory nature. Oops! However, a change of mind is sometimes justified and, providing David is reflecting BASC policy, he (them) and Scully in this instance would appear to be in agreement. For my money, rightly so.

 

If we were to stop the clock, then Scully's logic would remain valid. Unfortunately, we can't and change, like evolution, is unavoidable. Many years ago the students attending a BASC run course seemed to me to be the people most unlikely to need it because of their responsible attitude. Now, I'm not quite so sure that that attitude still prevails - we know full well that in many areas that risk assessment has been taken out of the hands of maturing youngsters. Consequently, I think that the solution offered in Scully's final paragraph is the correct one. With the total involvement of all shooters, any future need for additional action, compulsory or not, would be recognised and could then be addressed at that time.

[Amazed]

It was allways coming the mentoring condition is too easy to get round and if so wish ignored compleatly only to get signd off in a short time when a helpfull friend is willing to write a short letter.

The chances of being cought being so slim. Why would someone sit with the new toy in the cubard and not go out. And what are the chances of the standard boby knowing how the rediculaslay worded conditions work ?

The qualification approach is more easily policed and bring the emphasises to the shooter to be qualified not to be held to conditions. why wouldn't they do it.

[Sheldon Cooper]

Hi David I have a question? I have been told in the past by lancashire police that I could have a .222/.223 to shoot fox but would not have Vermin ( rabbit, crows ect) condition on my licence. I do not see how I would be safe to shoot a fox but not a rabbit on the same land. I was also told that i could not have Fox condition on my rimfire rifles as they where not sutible. Is it now possible to change these conditions? I hope this makes sense thanks

[David BASC]

Yes it certainly should be, it’s this silly inconsistency that ACPO, BASC, NGO want wiped out, it’s pointless, does nothing to improve public safety and costs time & money. So drop a line to your FEO asking for the conditions to be removed and changed to AOLQ

 

 

David