Acting as a FAC Mentor... Advice/comments appreciated!

[Ferret Master]

Hello All,

I have been asked by a friends FLO to act as a mentor for him. He applied for a .17hmr and .22lr but was told he needed more experience before being granted an FAC. Without going into too much detail, he has a genuine reason and is a safe shot who I trust completely. A point of interest may be that his licencing department falls under a different area to mine.

I have held my certificate for 16 months but have only filled the .17hmr and mod. slots so far. with .22lr & mod still empty.

 

My understanding of acting as a mentor is to take him out shooting with me and explain everything I do. This will include gun handling and explaining why a shot is safe to take or why it should be passed up. This is in addition to the usual regarding backstops which includes taking into account the potential for richochet off both the ground and the bullet passing through the quarry.

I have asked the FLO on the phone if he will be permitted to shoot my rifle under my direct supervision and the answer was yes.

I would appreciate any further advice or experiences you may have regarding mentoring someone.

Thanks,

FM

[al4x]

As long as its legal to use yours then the rest is about it, it's about giving him experience under supervision till you would be happy to let him loose on his own

[JimLondon]

Hi mate

 

I've recently received my FAC and these are some of the hoops I had to jump through,

 

1 before issue I had to go out with an experienced gun and he had to e-mail my FLO with a report on how I got on ie accuracy,safety and so on.

 

2 I needed a mentor ( luckily I had 2 guys prepared to do this)

 

Once my FAC arrived one of my mentors was absent from the licence so I phoned my FLO and was told that the association of chief constables had recently agreed that the whole mentoring issue was an unnesscesary condition and should not be applied to new licence applications.

I was then asked to send my licence back to have mentoring condition removed. (I'd only had it a week)

 

ATB

 

Jim

[JimLondon]

As long as its legal to use yours then the rest is about it, it's about giving him experience under supervision till you would be happy to let him loose on his own

I think that's part of the whole mentoring debate why should a licence holder be the one who decides someone is safe. Surely that should be the licensing depts job.

[Dekers]

I think that's part of the whole mentoring debate why should a licence holder be the one who decides someone is safe. Surely that should be the licensing depts job.

 

So...how would they go about it?

 

Make you take courses, sit exams, accompany you themselves............(how long would that take and how much would that cost YOU).............. or perhaps insist on a Mentor?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole malarkey is flawed, and although I have mentored several people I don't like the system.

[al4x]

I think that's part of the whole mentoring debate why should a licence holder be the one who decides someone is safe. Surely that should be the licensing depts job.

 

 

because the licensing dept don't shoot, to me if someone has no experience then it makes perfect sense to get them accompanied and taught in the field.

 

The other option is what the ACPO have recommended after talking to BASC etc which is to get rid of mentoring but where you have no experience replace it with more formal training such as DSC1 which to me is a step backwards.

[Davyo]

Mentors named on conditions of cert, would this not put a mentor at risk of being called before a court/coronor in an unfortunate event like the Atherton case,as they where part of the licencing procedure.Id stay well away from this area & personaly feel it should only be done by qualified mentors & if theres a cost involved then so be it.

What i find even more alarming is that FA are asking FAC holders with on 1- 2yrs experience to be mentors.I would expect that you would have to at least go through 1 renewal period first.Obviously have their ticket checked for rounds used,as no good if someone has held cert for 5yrs but only used a few hundred rounds.?

Edited July 23, 2013 by Davyo

[tedster]

Imagine that the trainee shoots something that shouldn't be shot, whilst under supervision. I don't like the potential for some sort of civil claim against the mentor.

 

It opens up a whole can of worms that I wouldn't want to be involved with. Not in our ambulance chasing, claim crazy society!

[David BASC]

A valid point tedster, and one where anyone acting as a mentor needs to check that their insurance through their shooting org is valid for such an activity.

 

 

The fact you have trained or mentored someone and they subsequently go on to commit a criminal offence is hardly likely to bounce back on you - if it did then we would soon run out of driving instructors for example...

[al4x]

how does the insurance side stack up? presumably if they have insurance in their own right that covers them rather than the person being the mentor. as its the only one you can answer David assume insurance is with BASC is there anything we need to know?

 

Personally I talk through each shot for a fair while with anyone I have had out so would hope we didn't have an accident but in the heat of the moment people can get exciteable

[kyska]

Am I right in thinking that some forces won't even dish out a cert? That's how I read the op.

 

What happens if there is no one in the right position to allow the estate rifle clause to be exploited?

[CharlieT]

A valid point tedster, and one where anyone acting as a mentor needs to check that their insurance through their shooting org is valid for such an activity.

 

 

The fact you have trained or mentored someone and they subsequently go on to commit a criminal offence is hardly likely to bounce back on you - if it did then we would soon run out of driving instructors for example...

Also David is the legality of letting someone use your rifle whilst shooting on your permission.

 

I note that this very subject cropped up at the last ACPO FELWG meeting.

 

The word "occupier" is always bandied about and it's definition is somewhat suspect, particularly in such cases where the police have insisted on an applicant gaining experience with a mentor prior to grant.

 

As an example, I as a farmer/landowner do not consider someone whom I have given permission to shoot a few rabbits on my land an occupier. An occupier is someone who has legal rights over the land something those I give permission to shoot rabbits most certainly do not have.

 

I do wonder if the police realise they are requiring a mentor to act outside the law.

[kyska]

Also David is the legality of letting someone use your rifle whilst shooting on your permission.

 

I note that this very subject cropped up at the last ACPO FELWG meeting.

 

The word "occupier" is always bandied about and it's definition is somewhat suspect, particularly in such cases where the police have insisted on an applicant gaining experience with a mentor prior to grant.

 

As an example, I as a farmer/landowner do not consider someone whom I have given permission to shoot a few rabbits on my land an occupier. An occupier is someone who has legal rights over the land something those I give permission to shoot rabbits most certainly do not have.

 

I do wonder if the police realise they are requiring a mentor to act outside the law.

 

Absolutely 100% in agreement.

[David BASC]

I agree both parties should have insurance that covers them for shooting, and being a member of a shooting origination will cover this. However, given that about half of the shooters out there have no insurance at all as they are not members of any shooting organisation…

 

When an incident happens it’s possible that the third party lawyers could go after both parties, especially if the mentor was seen to be the controlling hand. Indeed I am dealing with such a case now where someone giving another person basic instruction in clay shooting is being held liable for the trainee causing an accident.

 

Although the activity is covered under the BASC policy, my point is for those acting as mentors, for their own peace of mind, is to check with their own shooting organisation to make sure its covered also, that’s all.

 

Additional conditions should only be applied if the alternative would be to refuse grant. Forces are not allowed in law to have blanket policies on conditions

 

David

 

PS I take your point about 'occupier'

 

The term “occupier” is not defined in the Firearms Acts, nor has a Court clarified its meaning. However, the Firearms Consultative Committee in their 5th Annual report recommended that the provisions of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted. This states that ‘“occupier” in relation to any land, other than the foreshore, includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish’. In the absence of any firm definition for firearms purposes, it is suggested that each chief officer of police may wish to make use of this definition'

 

D

Edited July 23, 2013 by David BASC

[kyska]

I agree both parties should have insurance that covers them for shooting, and being a member of a shooting origination will cover this. However, given that about half of the shooters out there have no insurance at all as they are not members of any shooting organisation…

 

When an incident happens it’s possible that the third party lawyers could go after both parties, especially if the mentor was seen to be the controlling hand. Indeed I am dealing with such a case now where someone giving another person basic instruction in clay shooting is being held liable for the trainee causing an accident.

 

Although the activity is covered under the BASC policy, my point is for those acting as mentors, for their own peace of mind, is to check with their own shooting organisation to make sure its covered also, that’s all.

 

Additional conditions should only be applied if the alternative would be to refuse grant. Forces are not allowed in law to have blanket policies on conditions

 

David

 

PS I take your point about 'occupier'

 

The term “occupier” is not defined in the Firearms Acts, nor has a Court clarified its meaning. However, the Firearms Consultative Committee in their 5th Annual report recommended that the provisions of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted. This states that ‘“occupier” in relation to any land, other than the foreshore, includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish’. In the absence of any firm definition for firearms purposes, it is suggested that each chief officer of police may wish to make use of this definition'

 

D

 

David,

 

As you know I've had issues with this from my local force, it doesn't seem prudent for the Police to be suggesting that someone should do something based on an individuals discretion, when the real crunch could be a barrister ripping a FAC holder to pieces in court.

 

See, I'm with Charlie, if I allow someone to shoot on my land, IMO they are getting permission to shoot, not the right.

 

IE I can take that permission away, anytime I see fit, for any reason. Not the same as having the right to shoot which would infer shooting rights.

[al4x]

Sporting rifle has a piece on this and the best quote in it is

 

"don't expect the police have the right answers, they find it as difficult to interpret as anyone"

 

says it all really. ACPO suggests one thing, the firearms act suggests another it is a minefield and really ought to be sorted out. However no one has been prosecuted for it and that says as much as anything, were you to end up in court over teaching someone to use a rifle before they were granted a certificate I can only suggest that the fact the police asked people to do it would be part of the mitigation leading to it being thrown out fast. Much as you suggest a prosecution barrister ripping a fac holder apart Kyska this one would have serious mileage for a defence barrister to make a mockery of the whole thing.

[David BASC]

I take both points above, and we hope that the new guidance being issues now will help, especially on conditions...but it will take a while to filter through.

 

As you know NGO is puttimng on a massive meeting, supported by BASC, with ACPO andl icnecing temas from all over the UK in Spetember to hammer many of thesei ssues out

[JimLondon]

So...how would they go about it?

 

Make you take courses, sit exams, accompany you themselves............(how long would that take and how much would that cost YOU).............. or perhaps insist on a Mentor?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole malarkey is flawed, and although I have mentored several people I don't like the system.

I really don't know what the answer is maybe each force can have a list of accredited mentors. And yes the cost/ex's is met by the applicant.

[steve_b_wales]

I've mentored quite a few people over the past 5-7 years without any issues, apart from the last two. Would I mentor someone again, if asked? -No.

[njc110381]

PS I take your point about 'occupier'

 

The term “occupier” is not defined in the Firearms Acts, nor has a Court clarified its meaning. However, the Firearms Consultative Committee in their 5th Annual report recommended that the provisions of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted. This states that ‘“occupier” in relation to any land, other than the foreshore, includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish’. In the absence of any firm definition for firearms purposes, it is suggested that each chief officer of police may wish to make use of this definition'

 

D

The question is, do you have a right to shoot on someones land when given permission? Yes you have the permission, but it's not exactly a right as such? You've just been allowed to do it by the person with those rights. If you have rights they are in a contract and are not easy to remove?

[David BASC]

Written permission would be sufficient in my experience.

 

Contracts / formal leases are useful as I have said on other threads, but not always wanted or accepted as needed by one or other party- and often the value of a written agreement is only found when you loose the shooting rights you held under a handshake and a bottle of scotch to someone else who comes along and nicks your permission.However, in reality this will not happen if you have a good relationship with your landlord and you are delivering what they want or need.

 

At the end of the day the best bet would be for the mentor to check with their FLO, as some authorities may well have a different view on 'occupier'

 

David

[CharlieT]

NJC

 

It seems that when the new "guidance" is written this problem will be addressed and clarified. My own gut feeling is that it will not apply to those who merely have permission to shoot but only to those who have a tangible "right" in law. As I said in an earlier post, I as a landowner when giving "permission" do not give that person any rights whatsoever and should the HO rule that the giving of permission confers a right, I would be very wary of giving such permission in the future as I suspect would other farmers.

 

These are extracts from recently published ACPO FELWG minutes.

 

13. DEFINITION OF ‘OCCUPIER’

13.1 Clarification was sought as to the definition ‘occupier’ in respect of a certificate holders

authority to shoot over land and their ability to invite a non-certificate holder(s) to shoot

on that land, in their presence and using their gun.

13.2 Current guidance only provides a broad definition in that it states an ‘occupier

includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting or fishing’. Members agreed

that the word ‘right’ was ambiguous therefore following discussions, DCC Marsh

proposed that a distinction be drawn between the word ‘right’, which could be argued

makes an individual an occupier, versus ‘permission’. He asked Mr Widdecombe to

draw out the distinction more explicitly in the new guidance.

Action: Mr Widdecombe to explicitly define the distinction between ‘right’ and

‘permission’ within the new Home Office guidance in relation to the term

‘occupier’.

 

And at the following meeting........................................

 

17. SECTION 11(5) EXEMPTION

17.1 Helen Rees asked for some concensus on the definition of “Occupier” for the purposes

of S11(5) of the Firearms Act. BASC, NGO and Gamekeepers Association interpret it to

mean the individual has a right to shoot which means they effecitvely have permission

from the landowner. Helen’s view on 11(5) is that a person can benefit from non

exemption if they have a shooting right (a binding contract with the landowner).

17.2 Graham Wididcome to address this in the Guidance in the near future. Ministers are

looking as changing the terminology of “occupier”.

17.3 Barry Collacott concluded by reading a quote with regards to the definition of “occupier”

from the BASC website “Issues arising from S11(5). No definition of occupier in the

Firearms Act but generally means someone with an interest in the land that is

enforceable at law”.

17.4 All agreed this was a good definition

Edited July 23, 2013 by CharlieT

[Guest]

Hello All,

I have been asked by a friends FLO to act as a mentor for him. He applied for a .17hmr and .22lr but was told he needed more experience before being granted an FAC. Without going into too much detail, he has a genuine reason and is a safe shot who I trust completely. A point of interest may be that his licencing department falls under a different area to mine.

I have held my certificate for 16 months but have only filled the .17hmr and mod. slots so far. with .22lr & mod still empty.

 

My understanding of acting as a mentor is to take him out shooting with me and explain everything I do. This will include gun handling and explaining why a shot is safe to take or why it should be passed up. This is in addition to the usual regarding backstops which includes taking into account the potential for richochet off both the ground and the bullet passing through the quarry.

I have asked the FLO on the phone if he will be permitted to shoot my rifle under my direct supervision and the answer was yes.

I would appreciate any further advice or experiences you may have regarding mentoring someone.

Thanks,

FM

What county is your mate from? I just had a similar discussion with West Yorkshire FAD.

[kyska]

Written permission would be sufficient in my experience.

 

Contracts / formal leases are useful as I have said on other threads, but not always wanted or accepted as needed by one or other party- and often the value of a written agreement is only found when you loose the shooting rights you held under a handshake and a bottle of scotch to someone else who comes along and nicks your permission.However, in reality this will not happen if you have a good relationship with your landlord and you are delivering what they want or need.

 

At the end of the day the best bet would be for the mentor to check with their FLO, as some authorities may well have a different view on 'occupier'

 

David

 

I'm sorry David but that's ridiculous, a civilian liaison officer making a judgment call on a non tested bit of legislation?

 

I'm almost certain if the **** hit the fan they wouldn't be so bold to stand up and be counted.

 

I'm not arguing any other point, but I find it strange to think that someone with written permission on my land, would have carte blanch rights to allow someone to shoot their firearms without me knowing. If they need to ask, then that infers its not their right surely?

 

What a mess.

Edited July 23, 2013 by kyska

[jasons gold]

 

 

because the licensing dept don't shoot, to me if someone has no experience then it makes perfect sense to get them accompanied and taught in the field.

 

The other option is what the ACPO have recommended after talking to BASC etc which is to get rid of mentoring but where you have no experience replace it with more formal training such as DSC1 which to me is a step backwards.

 

This is what Essex are starting to do so I am told by my feo