Sheldon Cooper Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Hi all. Quick question I have heard that fac have been relaxed so that "all other leagle quarry" will now be standard. Is this correct? And does this mean that I could send in my ticket and get these conditions put on for my .22 and .17 hmr?? Any other info would be very helpfull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Cooper Posted May 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 Just seen other post on this topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 And what other quarry do you wish to shoot with your rimfire that is not on your FAC already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyb79 Posted May 28, 2013 Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) It does mean that, providing your force signs up to the Guidelines- which they should but may not. Personally I wouldn't bother unless say you specifically wanted to shoot fox with the hmr and it wasn't already on there. Otherwise I'd wait until next variation or renewal and get it changed then. Mine is currently in for variation and I've asked for it to be changed whilst its in. Edited May 28, 2013 by jimmyb79 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Cooper Posted May 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2013 I have vermin and ground game for my .22 and hmr and would like the option to use them for fox where appropriate. I do hope lancashire take notice of these new guidelines. After all there is no minimum callibre for fox and I know other people are demed fit to use rimfires for fox. But until now I have not been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 AOLQ has been standard and agreed by ACPO several years ago, the fact is a number of regions then decided NOT to use it, whats changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 AOLQ has been standard and agreed by ACPO several years ago, the fact is a number of regions then decided NOT to use it, whats changed? ACPO have said it again and BASC have made a press release about it so basically nothing bet people still find some areas grant it to everyone and some won't use it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Cooper Posted May 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 So frustrating it should be one set of rules for all. Imagine the fuss if the police applyd this bull rule making to other parts of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 So frustrating it should be one set of rules for all. Imagine the fuss if the police applyd this bull rule making to other parts of the law. Why don't you buy a proper tool for the job then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 In some situations they are the perfect gun for the job, with vermin on ticket I'd just crack on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Cooper Posted May 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Why don't you buy a proper tool for the job then. In some situations they are the perfect gun for the job, with vermin on ticket I'd just crack on. Yes agreed a Center fire like a 222 is the better tool for the job and this is what I am aiming for. I just want it to be fair. I would like to be able to shoot a fox with my rimfires leagley and crows and magpies leagley if and when I need to is there anything wrong with this. I think this more than enought covers my "need" to have such conditions after all many other people do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 you can currently shoot all of them legally with a vermin condition. They all fit the definition of vermin your force may argue the definition of the word vermin but none have so far and there has been no test case. BASC are quite happy that foxes meet the dictionary definition and have even printed in their magazine saying crack on and go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Just a quick question. How long have you had your fac. The reason I ask is that, not knowing your licensing department's stance on such things, perhaps they may issue AOLQ when you have earned your spurs so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) Yes agreed a Center fire like a 222 is the better tool for the job and this is what I am aiming for. I just want it to be fair. I would like to be able to shoot a fox with my rimfires leagley and crows and magpies leagley if and when I need to is there anything wrong with this. I think this more than enought covers my "need" to have such conditions after all many other people do. This comes round and round BS, the BEST and RIGHT tool for the job is the one that works in the SPECIFIC situation. Why do people keep spouting off this trash that you need a centrefire for Fox, you don't, you need the right gun. So, your fox is 350 yards away, .222 is the better tool for the job?... So your fox is outside your kitchen door and .222 is the better tool for the job? ....... So your fox is in the Hay Barn between the full stables and Farm house and its 2.00am .222 is the better tool for the job?....... So the fox is after your clients chickens in their turn of the Century terraced house back yard and .222 is the better tool for the job? etc etc etc Sometimes a centrefire is the tool, other times a rimfire or shotgun may be the tool, sometimes a snare or trap etc may be the tool! Edited May 31, 2013 by Dekers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 thats the issue Charliet BASC are suggesting issuing it to new FAC holders which opens the door for them to shoot anything including Deer and I think you will agree most departments aren't going to do that as they are very hung up on deer being mythically hard and complicated to shoot. We shall see how much notice anyone makes of the ACPO suggestion but its most likely to be the same old same old, some who currently listen to them will do so and others who seem to ignore and make the rules up won't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 thats the issue Charliet BASC are suggesting issuing it to new FAC holders which opens the door for them to shoot anything including Deer and I think you will agree most departments aren't going to do that as they are very hung up on deer being mythically hard and complicated to shoot. We shall see how much notice anyone makes of the ACPO suggestion but its most likely to be the same old same old, some who currently listen to them will do so and others who seem to ignore and make the rules up won't This is what I was steering round to Alex. Although it's the most sensible and practical condition we could hope for I fear that for some licensing managers, it is a step too far. Hence the reluctance of some areas to implement it. If we look back at the history of this condition, which, as you know, was introduced following representation by, I think it was, the NGO. We will see that the initial move was to allow deer caliber rifles to be used to shoot foxes and vermin. Thus doing away with the "fox whilst stalking" daftness. When the draft came into being, the powers that be had done a good job and AOLQ had been born. Initially they were speaking of the condition to be worded as Deer and AOLQ. Then they spoke of Fox and AOLQ. The idea being that the, shall we call it, largest species the fac was conditioned for be followed by AOLQ thus allowing the shooting of lesser species. If we accept the above, it would seem pointless to condition a firearm for vermin and AOLQ because there are no lesser species than vermin as far as condition wording is concerned. Now the above doesn't matter a jot and I for one welcome AOLQ, I have it. Much the same as I have always had fox on my rimfires. However, what does concern me, is, that if the above was indeed the intention and that the currently worded AOLQ condition issued leads people to assume, in my view correctly, that AOLQ means they can shoot whatever they want, firearms licensing will soon get a grip of the wording and we will all be the losers. Particularly from those licensing managers who like to micromanage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 However, what does concern me, is, that if the above was indeed the intention and that the currently worded AOLQ condition issued leads people to assume, in my view correctly, that AOLQ means they can shoot whatever they want, firearms licensing will soon get a grip of the wording and we will all be the losers. Particularly from those licensing managers who like to micromanage. Precisely on one hand we have tables of what calibers should be issued for specific purposes and then we have the push for AOLQ on any gun I do get it but in a way if that is the intention we could do away with conditions completely. As lets face it if you can shoot anything its the same as no conditions, I thing deer and boar in particular are the stumbling block as lets face it you could go and shoot small boar with your HMR with an AOLQ condition....... its one thing experienced shooters working up to it and once they have deer getting it but its almost too general. Obviously common sense rules but on one hand there is the requirement for training / experience being pushed and on the other letting you go at anything. There has to be middle ground where you learn and progress to AOLQ much as you currently do with getting Deer added I just can't see how they are going to manage the two requirements if AOLQ is being pushed at initial grant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Precisely on one hand we have tables of what calibers should be issued for specific purposes and then we have the push for AOLQ on any gun I do get it but in a way if that is the intention we could do away with conditions completely. As lets face it if you can shoot anything its the same as no conditions, I thing deer and boar in particular are the stumbling block as lets face it you could go and shoot small boar with your HMR with an AOLQ condition....... its one thing experienced shooters working up to it and once they have deer getting it but its almost too general. Obviously common sense rules but on one hand there is the requirement for training / experience being pushed and on the other letting you go at anything. There has to be middle ground where you learn and progress to AOLQ much as you currently do with getting Deer added I just can't see how they are going to manage the two requirements if AOLQ is being pushed at initial grant Alex I couldn't agree more. I should have ended my previous post with............. seems to me there is no need for anything else to be written other than "The firearms and ammunition shall be used for any legal quarry". But of course, we all know that was not their intention. What I think will eventually happen is that their initial intention will be reinforced, that is the primary (or largest, call it what you will) species one is permitted to shoot will be listed followed by AOLQ, as in any other lesser quarry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 But of course, we all know that was not their intention. that is my whole issue are the two sides of the table simply not understanding each other, at the moment there are forces where it works. Ours issue vermin or pest control conditions on rimfire and centerfires, if you want to shoot Deer you then have to show you have ground and experience or recognised training. That makes sense it gives leeway to shoot anything other than deer with your rifles, boar is simply a curve ball and irrelevant for most but i guess in theory they are pests, however deer have plenty of legislation attached to their control and I don't think you should be let loose on them with an AOLQ condition immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Charlie, al4x, Good dialogue, worth the read, thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnleydave Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 So frustrating it should be one set of rules for all. Imagine the fuss if the police applyd this bull rule making to other parts of the law. They do, I knew of a copper who got stopped off duty by another doing 65 in a 30 zone, needless to say he let him off, bit off topic but in my opinion the police have never enforced the law fairly so why would they start now 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.