Luckyshot Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Oh no you don't, some forces try and push that but basc even stuck their head up and said crack on if you have a vermin or pest control condition, feo's don't make the law but they do add their interpretation and in this case it's impossible to defend in court. As an aside I've had them listed on mine then just had deer and pest control as a blanket condition on all rifles. The only thing you can say is they aren't on the list of calibers as dedicated reasons to obtain a caliber but to shoot close foxes they work very well Oh yes you do, when under certain forces like mine for instance. Durham do not class fox as vermin and they never have. If I shot 1 with my rimfire do you think basc would pay for my court case if it went that far and say that breaking my conditions on my fac would be ok and also pay to argue that in court ? I don't think so. Durham are now issuing AOLQ so it doesn't matter any more but people should check whether there force class fox as vermin as not all of them do and a few years ago I asked this exact question to my firearms manager and she said very bluntly, if you break your conditions and we can prove it we will take it further. Dadioles has summed up the situation just about right. I would urge everyone to read the guidelines, particularly sections 13.19, 13.20 & 13.25. Also, for those who don't have AOLQ, it would be prudent to find out if their force policy on fox. Remembering that some forces consider fox vermin and some don't I personally don't subscribe to the view "that fox is vermin and I'll argue it in court" theory. One may win such a case but I doubt it will do ones relationship with firearms licensing a lot of good. Far better to get what you want written clearly on your FAC and in doing so build up a relationship with your licensing dept. If you have problems getting the conditions you require it is far better dealing directly with your licensing manager rather than your FEO and insist everything is confirmed in writing. The situation described by the OP sums this up nicely, his FEO is just being abrasive and I personally would not enter into a dialogue with him. Far better to go directly to the horse's mouth with clear and concise reasons for ones request and above all, refused to be fobbed off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 I have AOLQ for my .17hmr and AOLQ isn't used for a higher condition allowing you to take smaller quarry. It is what it says it is, Any Other Lawful Quarry. try it this way.....any OTHER lawful quarry........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1steele Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 try it this way.....any OTHER lawful quarry........ Why? My point was for the quarry being lawful not other. As I said, the condition is not about smaller quarry but about it being lawful which a fox would be with a .17hmr but a deer would not be so other would be incorrect. Deer is other quarry but not Lawful in the case I was pointing out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 AOLQ is to be used in conjunction with a higher condition i.e. deer or fox.It allows you to take smaller quarry than your main reason for having the rifle. I have AOLQ for my .17hmr and AOLQ isn't used for a higher condition allowing you to take smaller quarry. It is what it says it is, Any Other Lawful Quarry. try it this way.....any OTHER lawful quarry........ Why? My point was for the quarry being lawful not other. As I said, the condition is not about smaller quarry but about it being lawful which a fox would be with a .17hmr but a deer would not be so other would be incorrect. Deer is other quarry but not Lawful in the case I was pointing out. mr smith AOLQ tends to be used in conjunction with your MAIN quarry, which may or may not be your biggest quarry, Boar disappeared from my centrefires when AOLQ was first introduced and they were basically simply conditioned with Deer and AOLQ, this must have been 5-6 years ago and at the time I had no idea about the AOLQ condition. I immediately questioned the lack of certain species on my centrefires and rimfires, the situation was explained to me, it is an excellent condition. The condition reads any other, it does not read any smaller! If they wanted it to mean any smaller then the wording would be ANY SMALLER LAWFUL QUARRY, it isn't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 NEW from 2012 Deputy Chief Constable Andy Marsh of the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group (FELWG) or The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has re-issued advice of his predecessor that supports Chapter 13.14 & 13.22 of the Home Office guidance. It advised police forces to allow larger calibre rifles to be used to take “any lawful quarry”. In November 2012 ACPO FELWG again advised forces of a new condition that can be used in place of the standard condition in Appendix 3 of the Home Office guidance. - The (rifle/sound moderator/firearms/ammunition) shall be used for shooting (Named Principal Quarry Species) and any other lawful quarry, on land deemed suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated, and for zeroing on ranges, over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot. This identifies the primary reason for use e.g. deer/fox control, then allows “other lawful quarry”. Certificate holders are invited to apply for this condition from their local licensing departments. If you experience any objection over this condition or feel that the police are not applying conditions fairly to cater for your individual requirements please contact BASC’s firearms team using the following contact details. We need to know which forces are objecting to sensible, tested advice and the reasons for their objections. Its basically saying that although the primary species is deer/boar/goat or whatever, you can still shoot rabbit, birds etc. A more open condition. Why? My point was for the quarry being lawful not other. As I said, the condition is not about smaller quarry but about it being lawful which a fox would be with a .17hmr but a deer would not be so other would be incorrect. Deer is other quarry but not Lawful in the case I was pointing out. Okay perhaps not for the first a firearms licensing dept aren't spot on regarding the law and H.O. guidance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 mr smith AOLQ tends to be used in conjunction with your MAIN quarry, which may or may not be your biggest quarry, Boar disappeared from my centrefires when AOLQ was first introduced and they were basically simply conditioned with Deer and AOLQ, this must have been 5-6 years ago and at the time I had no idea about the AOLQ condition. I immediately questioned the lack of certain species on my centrefires and rimfires, the situation was explained to me, it is an excellent condition. The condition reads any other, it does not read any smaller! If they wanted it to mean any smaller then the wording would be ANY SMALLER LAWFUL QUARRY, it isn't! Okay okay...the jist i was trying to give was that AOLQ isn't a condition on it's own,it's intended to be used to allow someone out deer shooting with thier deer rifle to take on other generally smaller quarry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1steele Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) mr smith AOLQ tends to be used in conjunction with your MAIN quarry, which may or may not be your biggest quarry, Boar disappeared from my centrefires when AOLQ was first introduced and they were basically simply conditioned with Deer and AOLQ, this must have been 5-6 years ago and at the time I had no idea about the AOLQ condition. I immediately questioned the lack of certain species on my centrefires and rimfires, the situation was explained to me, it is an excellent condition. The condition reads any other, it does not read any smaller! If they wanted it to mean any smaller then the wording would be ANY SMALLER LAWFUL QUARRY, it isn't! Thanks Dekers I think that was roughly what I was trying to say Edited October 1, 2013 by r1steele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Really chaps its not a topic we should have to argue about/discuss, clarity is what is needed and in any court a judge would not stand by a Chief Constables right to exercise his own controls when there are other Chief Constables (plural)who have a different view. It amazes me that ACPO (not Chief Constables but their delegates meeting)dont have this stupidity and incongruous legal situation pointed out to them by a respected member of the legal profession acting on behalf of shooters in general, as an expert. Perhaps shooting organisations dont wish to risk being told to walk away in an unusual manner, never to return to the 'top table'. Such a confrontation is now becoming overdue. The benefits from AOLQ is hardly a sea change just something sensible and long overdue so lets stop believing we are 'getting there' with firearms licensing. Just to add insult to injury, I have been told that one force does not ever, nor has it ever, prosecuted anyone over a breach of the conditions on an FAC. Yet we run scared of foxes as 'vermin' with HMR's and yet pheasant shooters blast the poor things with 32 gram 6's at 30 yds. It does not make sense and progress must be made - I dont see enough being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1steele Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Okay okay...the jist i was trying to give was that AOLQ isn't a condition on it's own,it's intended to be used to allow someone out deer shooting with thier deer rifle to take on other generally smaller quarry. Yes it is generally but I remember having my .222 for fox and AOLQ which covered me for Roe deer when I lived in Scotland so it does work the other way around also. The biggest problem is the way differing forces issue and write certificates which can vary greatly. Every force should be the same but it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) r1steele i posted in relation to you saying you have AOLQ condition against your 17HMR,does it have anything else i.e. fox.As far as i can the 'OTHER' part means it's an add on to your lets call it your 'main' quarry condition and not to be used alone. Edited October 1, 2013 by mr smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 and in Cambs I asked for Fox for my .22wmr but was told it would have to be CF minimum for Fox as a dedicated rifle but that I had AOLQ so that covered it, they said. Really? A friend of mine was told the complete opposite and uses HMR on fox with Camb's blessing. And i have AOLQ on my 22lr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1steele Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) r1steele i posted in relation to you saying you have AOLQ condition against your 17HMR,does it have anything else i.e. fox.As far as i can the 'OTHER' part means it's an add on to your lets call your 'main' quarry condition and not to be used alone. Sorry Mr Smith. For the hmr it says VERMIN AND ANY OTHER LAWFULL QUARRY(AOLQ). So I can shoot hares under the lawful (or other) part as opposed to the vermin part. As I said though, deer is other quarry but not lawful with the hmr which was the reason for highlighting lawful. Edited October 1, 2013 by r1steele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Sorry Mr Smith. For the hmr it says VERMIN AND ANY OTHER LAWFULL QUARRY(AOLQ). So I can shoot hares under the lawful (or other) part as opposed to the vermin part. As I said though, deer is other quarry but not lawful with the hmr which was the reason for highlighting lawful. Okay ta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1steele Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Okay ta. No wonder everything is so confusing when the licencing departments can't even read off the same page. Out of interest, does your force allow the AOLQ condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 No wonder everything is so confusing when the licencing departments can't even read off the same page. Out of interest, does your force allow the AOLQ condition. To be honest i don't know,i only have vermin on mine which the then Tayside police regarded fox as vermin(i have this in writing) so i was covered for anything i wish/need to shoot. I may e-mail them to ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 No wonder everything is so confusing when the licencing departments can't even read off the same page. Out of interest, does your force allow the AOLQ condition. The AOLQ condition is being applied with ever more daft and confusing wording. Mr Smith is correct in his assessment of how AOLQ should be applied and your .17 hmr and hares is spot on. However, when we look at the copy of Sprackles fac in post 37 AOLQ takes on a whole new definition of the word "other". Confusing is hardly strong enough to describe this fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malkiserow Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 on mine, it says .22 is for vermin and ground game the .17hmr is for vermin, ground game and fox The intent is for the .22 not to be conditioned for fox, but fox is vermin right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 on mine, it says .22 is for vermin and ground game the .17hmr is for vermin, ground game and fox The intent is for the .22 not to be conditioned for fox, but fox is vermin right? Your force don't seem to think so as they've used fox along side your 17HMR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 .22RF and .17HMR for Vermin/Fox/Ground Game (Derbyshire) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 The AOLQ condition is being applied with ever more daft and confusing wording. Mr Smith is correct in his assessment of how AOLQ should be applied and your .17 hmr and hares is spot on. However, when we look at the copy of Sprackles fac in post 37 AOLQ takes on a whole new definition of the word "other". Confusing is hardly strong enough to describe this fiasco. Looking at some of these other posts it would seem I have done OK with my conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Looking at some of these other posts it would seem I have done OK with my conditions. You have the most unrestricted condition I have ever seen. As deer are the only species to have a legally enforceable caliber applied to them it would seem that you can shoot anything else from a wild boar to a mouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 You have the most unrestricted condition I have ever seen. As deer are the only species to have a legally enforceable caliber applied to them it would seem that you can shoot anything else from a wild boar to a mouse. Whilst much less common for the average shooter, there are also Badger and seals with a specified minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse James Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 vFox listed on mine for .17hmr have had it on license for year , under MET Police. Reads .17hmr for Fox and other lawful quarry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Oh yes you do, when under certain forces like mine for instance. Durham do not class fox as vermin and they never have. If I shot 1 with my rimfire do you think basc would pay for my court case if it went that far and say that breaking my conditions on my fac would be ok and also pay to argue that in court ? I don't think so. d: After publishing the advice in their magazine I sure would expect them to fight it. Not that the police would go to court and expect to win an argument that foxes don't meet the dictionary definition of vermin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 2, 2013 Report Share Posted October 2, 2013 You have the most unrestricted condition I have ever seen. As deer are the only species to have a legally enforceable caliber applied to them it would seem that you can shoot anything else from a wild boar to a mouse. Don't you just love forums ..... Perhaps open to further debate, I have a main group or animal listed on mine and then AOLQ, but NO wording, suitable for that calibre. He has "ALQ SUITABLE FOR THAT CALIBRE". So my FAC AIR Rifle is legal for Boar etc! 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.