Adding a .243

[tonker]

Hi Chaps

Need a bit of enlightenment please. I've been shooting from the year dot, and hold both SGC and FAC

I have a 22lf and a .222 . I have been asked to clear some problem Roe. Went to Newavon arms today to get some 50grn vMax heads for the foxes,and Avon and Somerset police reps were there!

So I asked what I had to do to get a.243 on my cert seeing as i have had a centrefire on my licence for 10+ years. The lady told me The only way I could get a deer calibre rifle was to have proof of stalking or attend a Deer stalking course Is this correct! or is it one of their stipulations that they are trying to add on.

Attending a course is no bad thing mind you but is an added expense I could do without.

After all a safe shot with any centrefire is just that!

If this is correct could someone let me know please, as it would be easier to invite someone with an open ticket of a suitable calibre.

[Bitfitter]

You already own a deer legal calibre so why should they insist on a course to get another?

[steve_b_wales]

You do not have to do a deer stalking course, nor should you have to show that you have proof of any stalking. You should be able to have a .243 for fox control, and then for deer, if you decide to shoot these in the future. I had this trouble many years ago with South Wales police. Despite the fact that I had held a FAC for 20 years, and had shot centrefire rifles, when I asked for a .243 for fox and deer, they stated that I could only have this caliber for fox control. I pointed out that, at that time, I did'nt have any stalking lined up, but would like deer to be added in case I decided to stalk in the future. They refused at first, but after I contacted BASC, and they spoke to the police, I was granted the .243 for both species. They did 'suggest' that I go with an experienced stalker to 'learn the ropes'.

If you are a member of BASC, contact them and tell them what you've been told.

[magnum]

i went down the road of a 243 1st for fox then later for deer (i booked a days stalking) just to keep the fao happy my son has just put in for his 1st c/fire (well 3) 204 for fox, 243 for fox and deer, and a 308 for the big stuff, he had his vist of fao told no to 204 !!! yes to 243 FOX and DEER he has been out with us foxing and deer stalking and they have given him it open after the two letters we put in and no to 308 i can under stand the no to 308 but not the 204 but thats the way it goes did ask why its was no to 204 they have not back to him yet!!! IAN

[CharlieT]

When applying for a rifle for deer it is a requirement that, to substantiate your "good reason", you supply the details of land holding deer that you have authority to shoot on.

 

A&S have for some while had a policy of insisting/telling applicants that they need a DSC1 for a deer rifle.

 

However, if you submit your application and they tell you this politely refuse to accept their policy and request that everything they say is done/confirmed in writing and get your shooting organisation involved.

 

Percevere and you will get what you want.

[Full Pelt]

As you already have your stalking ground simply put in your variation for your 243 for fox and AOLQ., they cannot reasonably refuse you.

 

Alternatively if you can do without your triple, a tough call, chop the slot for a 243 again for fox and AOLQ. Just make it work for you.

[kent]

You already own a deer legal calibre so why should they insist on a course to get another?

 

Because .222 rem aint legal for Roe in England perhaps?

[r1steele]

i went down the road of a 243 1st for fox then later for deer (i booked a days stalking) just to keep the fao happy my son has just put in for his 1st c/fire (well 3) 204 for fox, 243 for fox and deer, and a 308 for the big stuff, he had his vist of fao told no to 204 !!! yes to 243 FOX and DEER he has been out with us foxing and deer stalking and they have given him it open after the two letters we put in and no to 308 i can under stand the no to 308 but not the 204 but thats the way it goes did ask why its was no to 204 they have not back to him yet!!! IAN

If they try fobbing you off that he has the .243 for fox and doesn't require the .204 tell them that he wants the .204 as a dedicated rifle with night vision and it isn't viable or reasonable to keep swapping scopes on the .243. Legally, they cannot refuse the .204 as he does have a legitimate use for it but it is easier to tell them it will be a dedicated nv gun.

 

Because .222 rem aint legal for Roe in England perhaps?

But it is deer legal in England as you can use it on muntjac and CWD

Edited September 2, 2013 by r1steele

[Frenchieboy]

When applying for a rifle for deer it is a requirement that, to substantiate your "good reason", you supply the details of land holding deer that you have authority to shoot on.

 

A&S have for some while had a policy of insisting/telling applicants that they need a DSC1 for a deer rifle.

 

However, if you submit your application and they tell you this politely refuse to accept their policy and request that everything they say is done/confirmed in writing and get your shooting organisation involved.

 

Percevere and you will get what you want.

Just a little clarification and not trying to find fault with what Charlie T has said - Basically he is quite right! - Section 30.30 of the HO Guidelines says that to justify your "good reason" you need to give one permission which has the LIKELYHOOD OF THE APPROPRIATE DEER SPECIES BEING PRESENT etc etc, - The way I read this is that there does not necessarily need deer to be present at the time of applying. This may be "nit picking" but that is what the HO say!

 

13.30 An applicant who wishes to shoot deer

should name land which has the likelihood of

the appropriate deer species being present,

and an invitation, booking or authority to

shoot. Many deer stalkers will rely on

invitations to shoot on payment rather than

be hired or paid to do so and may not be

able to shoot regularly or frequently, though

others may be permanently employed, for

example Forestry Commission staff. Hunting

large animals with powerful rifles requires

particular skill, and applicants should generally

have experience of firearms.

[CharlieT]

Just a little clarification and not trying to find fault with what Charlie T has said - Basically he is quite right! - Section 30.30 of the HO Guidelines says that to justify your "good reason" you need to give one permission which has the LIKELYHOOD OF THE APPROPRIATE DEER SPECIES BEING PRESENT etc etc, - The way I read this is that there does not necessarily need deer to be present at the time of applying. This may be "nit picking" but that is what the HO say!

 

13.30 An applicant who wishes to shoot deer

should name land which has the likelihood of

the appropriate deer species being present,

and an invitation, booking or authority to

shoot. Many deer stalkers will rely on

invitations to shoot on payment rather than

be hired or paid to do so and may not be

able to shoot regularly or frequently, though

others may be permanently employed, for

example Forestry Commission staff. Hunting

large animals with powerful rifles requires

particular skill, and applicants should generally

have experience of firearms.

 

Frenchieboy

 

You are correct. I just couldn't be bothered to type all that gibberish so used the words "holding deer" which I reckoned amounted to the same thing.

[wymberley]

You already own a deer legal calibre so why should they insist on a course to get another?

Having read Post #8, had to come back and read this again, this time more carefully.

 

That's a very good question. If the only problem proviso given for having a 243 for deer is the need for the DSC then asking how come you didn't need it when the 222 was granted is going to be difficult to answer unless, of course, there were restrictions placed on its use, eg, fox only.

[malkiserow]

I was asked to confirm I was booked on a DSC1 course when I got my firearms licence. I was booked on BUT that course then got cancelled and when they gave new dates I was unable to take it as we were overseas on booked holiday ....... The police noted (formerly in my file ) my course and I am a bit concerned now about how this will be viewed as I've not actually done it.

 

I know they cannot insist on DSC1 but it is a bit tricky.

 

In the mean time (3 years on) I shoot deer and fox with my .243 and signed up to the DCS Best Practice Guidance which I do read.

 

I was also asked to walk the land and show signs of different deer species on the permission, which we did. I had to explain what might be safe and unsafe shots. All this went well.

 

I guess for the OP the police need confidence in firearms safety then the deer being handled properly as they do not want reports from the public that bits of deer with legs hacked off are found on their patch (I've been told this latter part is a significant concern).

 

I suppose the police want to say "we did all we could" to make sure he was safe and shooting with sufficient knowledge for this calibre.

[CharlieT]

Living in Somerset It is highly unlikely that his .222 is conditioned for small deer, unless of course he has specifically requested it for stalking trips up country.

[CharlieT]

 

 

I guess for the OP the police need confidence in firearms safety then the deer being handled properly as they do not want reports from the public that bits of deer with legs hacked off are found on their patch (I've been told this latter part is a significant concern).

 

 

With respect deer handling has nothing to do with the police.

Their only remit is public safety, adhering to the firearms act and the law. What they want has nothing to do with it.

[magnum]

If they try fobbing you off that he has the .243 for fox and doesn't require the .204 tell them that he wants the .204 as a dedicated rifle with night vision and it isn't viable or reasonable to keep swapping scopes on the .243. Legally, they cannot refuse the .204 as he does have a legitimate use for it but it is easier to tell them it will be a dedicated nv gun.

But it is deer legal in England as you can use it on muntjac and CWD

my 204 is set up with nv and is just a foxing set up the lad is going to do the same told them that when he came to see him !! but he went away and gave him a call saying no to 204 and 308 still waiting for them to get back to him about the 204 he is off this week when the lad called back to find out why ??

[malkiserow]

With respect deer handling has nothing to do with the police.

Their only remit is public safety, adhering to the firearms act and the law. What they want has nothing to do with it.

 

I think it is to do with bad press rather than the law

[r1steele]

Legally, they cannot refuse the .204 as it is your right to pursue your legitimate sport and you have proved that you NEED this rifle. In the home office guidelines (which they are supposed to use) you have to have somewhere to use your firearm and prove that you actually need your stated firearm, end of story. It is not up to the FEO to say what you do or don't need and he is stopping you from doing your chosen sport in doing so. Don't roll over on this, ask to speak to the head of firearms licencing and explain your case.

[tonker]

Hi Chaps'

Thanks for all the replies, Took on board what some have said and phoned BASC.

They said there was no truth in what I was told by the lady!! So I am going to proceed, If I get grief I'll get them on the case for me.

Mind you I'll have to join first as at the moment I'm only in the CA .

Edited September 5, 2013 by tonker

[CharlieT]

Did you not phone the CA and ask for their assistance ? As a member myself I would be rather peeved if they could not offer the same help as BASC.

[tonker]

Hi Charlie T, Believe it or not, no I didn't. When I joined the CA it was at the North Somerset show and realizing that returning to shooting I needed insurance took out membership there. Stupid of me really not to think of them but everyone was on about BASC so that's the way I went. You are absolutely correct I'm a member and should use the membership and all it's advantages. Thanks for the (head bashing) sense and all that.

[wymberley]

Living in Somerset It is highly unlikely that his .222 is conditioned for small deer, unless of course he has specifically requested it for stalking trips up country.

You're right, of course. Must confess I was really thinking out loud. Down here I've only once seen muntjac and that was a pair which I saw coming form 350 yards. I sat down, kept still and watched. They passed by me at less than 20 yards - cracking sight for a summer's evening - that was some 25 years ago and nothing since and I reckon they were going home after a 24 hour pass from the local country life park which was only some 1000 yards away as the crow flies in the direction that they were heading.

 

No, my train of thought was if, under the AOLQ heading, you have a 222 for, say, fox and.........there is nothing to stop you shooting small deer provided the AOLQ does not have an, 'except deer' exclusion. Should you then want a 243............you can see where I'm going with this and as said, just thinking out loud.

 

Edit: Critical missing word added.

Edited September 6, 2013 by wymberley

[CharlieT]

 

No, my train of thought was if, under the AOLQ heading, you have a 222 for, say, fox and.........there is nothing to stop you shooting small deer provided the AOLQ does not have an, 'except deer' exclusion. Should you then want a 243............you can see where I'm going with this and as said, just thinking out loud.

 

 

 

I think you're right, particularly bearing in mind the wording of the new guidance. The last sentence sums it up nicely.

 

13.9 A certificate holder may shoot any quarry that is lawful, (where they are authorised to

shoot). Whilst guidance is provided, it is the responsibility of the shooter and the shooting

community to know what calibre is suitable for which quarry, and when certain quarry is

lawful. Once initial “good reason” has been established for the possession of a firearm,

there is no requirement for “good reason” to be demonstrated for additional quarry species

or amendments providing the firearms are not underpowered for the species (see also

paragraph 13.17). A cartridge should be capable of achieving a humane kill, and it is the

responsibility of the shooter to ensure that any excess energy will be absorbed by the

backstop. The “any other lawful quarry” condition should be applied. If an applicant is

suitable to hold a firearm certificate and is deemed safe to do so, there is no requirement

to restrict the quarry they shoot by the use of conditions.

[wymberley]

 

 

I think you're right, particularly bearing in mind the wording of the new guidance. The last sentence sums it up nicely.

 

13.9 A certificate holder may shoot any quarry that is lawful, (where they are authorised to

shoot). Whilst guidance is provided, it is the responsibility of the shooter and the shooting

community to know what calibre is suitable for which quarry, and when certain quarry is

lawful. Once initial “good reason” has been established for the possession of a firearm,

there is no requirement for “good reason” to be demonstrated for additional quarry species

or amendments providing the firearms are not underpowered for the species (see also

paragraph 13.17). A cartridge should be capable of achieving a humane kill, and it is the

responsibility of the shooter to ensure that any excess energy will be absorbed by the

backstop. The “any other lawful quarry” condition should be applied. If an applicant is

suitable to hold a firearm certificate and is deemed safe to do so, there is no requirement

to restrict the quarry they shoot by the use of conditions.

 

That's handy 'arry. BUT I wouldn't be at all surprised if some organisations turn out not to be too happy with that. I make no comment.

 

Thank you for posting that, Charlie, I'm sure many other people will also appreciate it.