Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Thank-you for all of the replies so far. I will address some of the points I have quoted below in a moment... There have been developments today!

The licensing department called the applicant saying that a .22 had been granted but not a .17. I find this pretty odd because the application was effectively refused on the ground of a lack of FAC experience, hence why I was supposed to be mentoring. The other reason I find this odd is the notion that a .22 is acceptable yet a .17 is not!?

I will be meeting with the FLO and the applicant early tomorrow morning as part of a land check where I will be making these points. It seems like the goal posts are constantly changing and to refuse someone an FAC but then phone up saying they are allowed a calibre which is prone to richochet and not the prefered choice out of the two for close range fox baffles me!

 

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?

Correct. Until the phone call today...

 

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.

It is a horrendously messy situation and I think I will get it in writing that they consider it legal for the applicant to shoot my rifles under my direct supervision on his land.

 

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

Gloucestershire, although my licensing department is Wiltshire.

FM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

I think you are making this into something it isn't, you giving permission to an individual via a written slip saying you give xyz permission to shoot doesn't let them bring anyone along to shoot. I know many would ask for the paper back if they turned up with others unannounced. However if they asked you first if they could bring someone to teach I see no real issue with it being a problem, that's basic politeness if nothing else. It's rubbish that you should be more competent to mentor if you own the land than if you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are making this into something it isn't, you giving permission to an individual via a written slip saying you give xyz permission to shoot doesn't let them bring anyone along to shoot. I know many would ask for the paper back if they turned up with others unannounced. However if they asked you first if they could bring someone to teach I see no real issue with it being a problem, that's basic politeness if nothing else. It's rubbish that you should be more competent to mentor if you own the land than if you don't.

 

Al4x, thats not my point, I'm saying that by being given written permission, by default doesn't give the permission holder the 'rights' as he or she won't have fulfilled the requirements for the estate rifle clause.

 

I also am not questioning competence, merely the fact that the estate rifle clause is there for whatever reason (I don't really understand why), but is being exploited by the Police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there is some confusion here? What I was referring to is how a person may be defined as an occupier. A person with verbal permission may well not be, but a person with a written agreement / lease almost certainly would be, depending on the terms of the agreement of course.

 

However, in the context of allowing someone to use your rifle for example on land you occupy, my point is that as there is currently no firm legal definition of occupier within the Firearms Act it would be sensible to contact the relevant licencing team to check with them what they would consider ‘occupation of land’ in the context of the Firearms Act that would allow you to lend you rifle to a third party.

 

I perhaps should have added to get the reply in writing of course!

 

David

Edited by David BASC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Al4x, thats not my point, I'm saying that by being given written permission, by default doesn't give the permission holder the 'rights' as he or she won't have fulfilled the requirements for the estate rifle clause.

 

I also am not questioning competence, merely the fact that the estate rifle clause is there for whatever reason (I don't really understand why), but is being exploited by the Police.

 

 

the estate rifle clause is to allow people to go out stalking and try full bore rifle shooting without their own license, that also encompasses gamekeepers etc in this case its purely occupier for the purposes of shooting and whether it was changed to anyone with a right is pretty much technicalities. Not many landowners would think giving you permission to shoot inferred anything other than permission but it is right that you should be able to teach someone without owning land and not right that you have to go up to individual FEO's and ask for "THEIR" interpretation of the law. In this case the law is a horses backside as no one on either side can say conclusively what the situation is. As we have seen ACPO can publish what they like and it doesn't mean anyone has to take any notice. The member on here refused AOLQ by the licensing dept run by the head of it shows its just there to make appropriate noises and consume tea and biscuits.

 

However were you ever to run into issues it would be pretty unenforceable by the time the police haven't a clue what they are doing and people having to refer to minutes of meetings to check whether things have changed in their eyes isn't a proper way to go about things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...