A O L Q

[Scully]

Thanks again David.While AOLQ is a logical solution to an illogical condition,you appear to be have lost track of the fact that mentoring or compulsory training STILL exists for first time applicants with no experience.It is therefore now for all intents and purposes a CONDITION OF GRANT,whereas in the past it never was! It is a restriction towards grant that previously NEVER EXISTED;for a problem which has NEVER EXISTED!I am sorry to keep repeating this and in capital letters,but we obviously have totally different views of progress!

With BASC favouring this condition it must be safe to say they wont be fighting it.

[David BASC]

You are correct it never was an issue before 'Buckland', and after that point some, not all by any means,police authorities handed out mentoring / training conditions almost as standard. Thankfully this has now changed, and indeed there are threads on this very forum, as well as others that show this change IS happening.

 

BUT , and this is the point that perhaps I have failed to get over so I will have another go, it has and remains within the remit of a chief officer to apply an additional condition such as training or mentoring IF the only alternative is to refuse.

 

It certainly does not mean, nor has it been common practice across all licencing teams that everyone without experience will have such a condition added.

 

The only way a condition could possibly be contested in Court would be if the condition was 'unreasonable'. Going to Court to try and convince the Court that the Chief officers decision to add a simple training or mentoring condition to someone who otherwise would have been refused grant is all but impossible.

 

Had your nephew taken our advice in the first place he would by now have his FAC and in all probability the mentoring condition would already have been removed from his certificate as Mike advised.

 

Progress certainly has been made with the addition of AOLQ and the dropping of 'automatic' conditions, and there is more to do, and we will keep on doing all we can to deliver and I am very pleased the NGO are also fighting hard on this issue too.

 

David

[Scully]

Ok,let's try taking my nephew out of the equation as I only mentioned him as an example of the condition and BASC's advice regarding mentoring.Had he taken BASC's advice 'in the first place' would as you point out have seen him unmentored by now,but I think he was expecting more from BASC given his experience.

I understand perfectly that it remains within the remit of a CO to apply an additional condition such as training if the only alternative is to refuse,what I am saying is that this condition,even if it has always been available,has never been applied until relatively recently,so in the face of no evidence to suggest it has ever been needed,why does it exist now?

I was never mentored,nor was anyone I know,and the subject of training was never even suggested.But now not only does it exist,but it has developed into a condition of grant. A condition endorsed by BASC! This is NOT a step forward.Why does this condition now exist? Has BASC at any point made an issue of the fact that there has never in the past been a need for this condition,but now there appears to be,and demanded to know why?

I'm not asking BASC to contest the condition in court,what I wanted to know was what is BASC doing to fight this condition,but you've already answered that question by 'favouring' it.If you're in favour you wont be fighting it will you?The fact it has never been needed doesn't even seem to niggle! This is what I find astonishing.Are you happy that BASC is not only doing nothing to fight this totally needless condition but has actually endorsed it?

[paul2012]

Personally i feel that if someone has no experience of centerfire then they should be mentored,

 

lets face it anybody who has a genuine interest in shooting wont have a problem with this. Understandably I don't think it should be applied to rimfire calibres not because they are any safer but because they can be more forgiving where a centerfire wouldn't be in terms of over penetration and the various other safety aspects concerned.

 

And just so you know I'm facing the mentoring condition for a .223 and i have no mentor but still stand by my above statement.

 

Paul

If it saves just one life due to inexperience then its worth it.

[njc110381]

It's easy to get defensive over our rights but in some cases, do the more experienced among us not find it a bit worrying that there's a chance someone can be allowed out on their own with no previous experience?

 

I was mentored and I found it a great help. I think at the very least people with no experience should have to join a club and pass the probationary period. That will at least train safe handling and what to do in the case of a misfire etc.

[Scully]

If it saves just one life due to inexperience then its worth it.

Where have I heard this comment before?

Shall we apply the same logic to all firearms?After all,if it saves just one life........

Despite everything that has been said.

We truly deserve all we get....I give up.

[Kes]

Well, I have a .243 with mentoring - actually, stalking experience with an experienced stalker - the FEO said he wanted to be convinced I could gralloch a deer. He knows I can shoot safely as I have had a .223 for 4/5 years 'open'. Can anyone tell me why he asked for that since anything I shoot will be for my food and I told him I had watched the gralloch on DVD's etc ?

I have applied very recently for AOLQ for the .223 as a means to stalk munjac - with a stalker. 10 gets you one I get no change in the .243 condition, the stalking criteria will be maintained and I wont get AOLQ to shoot munjac. So David, I'll be on to you when I get the reply.

[Vipa]

Well, I have a .243 with mentoring - actually, stalking experience with an experienced stalker - the FEO said he wanted to be convinced I could gralloch a deer. He knows I can shoot safely as I have had a .223 for 4/5 years 'open'. Can anyone tell me why he asked for that since anything I shoot will be for my food and I told him I had watched the gralloch on DVD's etc ?

I have applied very recently for AOLQ for the .223 as a means to stalk munjac - with a stalker. 10 gets you one I get no change in the .243 condition, the stalking criteria will be maintained and I wont get AOLQ to shoot munjac. So David, I'll be on to you when I get the reply.

Whether you can gralloch a deer or not is absulutely nothing to do with the police! the only thing they need be concerned with is whether or not you are safe to be let out with a firearm unsupervised!! I would be writing to the CC and involving my shooting organisation on that one as it is stepping waaaaayyy over the line!!!

[Vipa]

It's easy to get defensive over our rights but in some cases, do the more experienced among us not find it a bit worrying that there's a chance someone can be allowed out on their own with no previous experience?

 

I was mentored and I found it a great help. I think at the very least people with no experience should have to join a club and pass the probationary period. That will at least train safe handling and what to do in the case of a misfire etc.

 

I am one of those who feel some sort of base line experience/training with firearms should be mandatory.. whether there is a recorded issue or not the way it stands is that someone who has never handled a firearm in their life can apply for and be granded a FAC, purchase a powerful CF rifle and go and blast away somewhere with no supervision.

 

I know that will bring criticism from those that feel otherwise but lets face it, no one would want untrained inexperienced drivers on the road, why would we want untrained inexperienced shooters oout in public?

 

If formal training via HM Forces, Police, gun club etc cannot be shown then there should be a requirement for a recognised training course having been undertaken before grant!

Edited October 6, 2013 by Vipa

[David BASC]

I say yet again, that BASC DO NOT ENDORSE NOR HAVE WE EVER ENDORSED automatic conditions of training or mentoring for new shooters, I can’t imagine why on earth you keep saying we do?

 

As I said before, and I will say it again because evidently it has not sunk in with you, in the case of your nephew, there was nothing at all we could have done to have the temporary condition removed at the time of his application because the law did not allow it! We gave the best advice we could to allow him to get his certificate granted, but he chose not to take it.

 

Section 27(2) of the 1968 Act gives the chief officer of police powers to attach conditions to firearm certificates where necessary. In the case of 'R v Wakefield Crown Court ex parte Oldfield (1978)' the court gave expression to the common law requirement that a person must exercise individual judgement in all cases.

 

In recent years some police authorities have become more ‘risk averse’ hence the proliferation in some areas of these additional conditions, something BASC and others have been fighting against. However, more recently in the context of proposed licence fee increases, it has been made clear to ACPO that many of the costs associated with licencing have been created by the daft application of additional conditions.

 

Yes we have repeatedly pointed out to ACPO et al, and we could clearly demonstrate through many hundreds of insurance claims post ‘Buckland’, that new shooters were of no increased risk what so ever. Consequently as I said ACPO have again written in the strongest terms asking for these conditions to be dropped as a matter of course, and as we can see police authorities have taken note and are changing their practices back towards how it was in the past before the proliferation of conditions.

 

What you do with a deer once its shot has nothing at all to do with licencing, and this is a classic example of the police making up work for themselves and wasting time and money. If you would be kind enough to send us a copy of the letter where the police told you this we will gladly show it to ACPO as another prime example of a pointless waste of time and money.

 

I would be very interested to hear if you get granted AOLQ too!

 

David

[Scully]

I keep saying BASC endorse compulsory training when the only alternative is a refusal because it is a fact! You stated on here that BASC are in favour of training when the alternative is a refusal, so therefore if training is the ONLY alternative to a refusal then that,by definition makes it compulsory, and this makes it a condition of grant, and by your own admission BASC are in favour of this condition.It couldn't be simpler.

[Scully]

 

the way it stands is that someone who has never handled a firearm in their life can apply for and be granded a FAC, purchase a powerful CF rifle and go and blast away somewhere with no supervision.

 

!

But that's wrong, and just the point I'm making VIPA; no one can.There once was a time when someone could, but not anymore.

The accidents occur with experienced shooters,not beginners, so if the authorities are so concerned with risk aversion perhaps they need to be looking elsewhere.at this rate there will come a time when all the experienced shooters will have no formal training and the beginners have. Now that's more in line with firearms licensing logic eh?

[David BASC]

Yes we accept that IF the ONLY alternative is to refuse then training or mentoring is a viable condition to ALLOW the grant. It DOES NOT mean that BASC endorses that every new shooter is so conditioned, or that it is by default a compulsory condition for all new shooters and that is a matter of fact.

 

 

So Scully, please tell me you alternative to refusing a grant in such circumstances if the Chief Officers risk assesses the applicant and views that refusal is on the cards?

 

Do you suggest that BASC lobbies ACPO and the Home Office to insist that all such applicants are flat refused?

 

And are you simply refusing to acknowledge that things are changing and these conditions will diminish significantly?

 

David

[Vipa]

But that's wrong, and just the point I'm making VIPA; no one can.There once was a time when someone could, but not anymore.

The accidents occur with experienced shooters,not beginners, so if the authorities are so concerned with risk aversion perhaps they need to be looking elsewhere.at this rate there will come a time when all the experienced shooters will have no formal training and the beginners have. Now that's more in line with firearms licensing logic eh?

 

I think you are applying a very blinkered view of the conditions applied by forces other than your own.. as far as I am aware Cleveland do not use the mentoring or traing conditions, nor do lots of other forces throughout the country

 

As for there being no evidence that beginners are a safety issue... that may well be so but in this day and age of media sensationalism and anti gun sentiment, it will only take 1 incident where an inexperienced untrained person kills either themselves or someone else and the shooting community as a whole will get dumped on from a great height.. at least if a minimum standard of training/education were a requirement the chances of said 'event' are minimised and if it does occur we, the shooting community' could stand up with head held high and show that we took steps to minimise the risk.. with no requirement in place and an apparent vehement rejection of training or education we are leaving ourselves wide open to the worst kind of criticism and villification!

 

I do think you are being a tad pedantic with your attack on David and BASC... you are playing the semantics game to get over your point which, frankly from what IO have read in your posts is completely invalid!

Edited October 6, 2013 by Vipa

[paul2012]

Where have I heard this comment before?

Shall we apply the same logic to all firearms?After all,if it saves just one life........

Despite everything that has been said.

We truly deserve all we get....I give up.

 

I'm not agreeing with unreasonable restriction where people who know what they are doing with a centerfire calibre. But what i am saying is those who don't have much or any real world experience with them need some form of experience with them prior to being able to use them in any given situation where only experience will prevent an accident or injury.

 

After all a firearm is only as safe as the user and if it takes somebody with real world experience to show them so be it.

 

I know of people that have served within the forces who have been given mentoring conditions,

 

because 'shooting 5.56 nato in a controlled and supervised environment in comparison to that of your average farm may differ' (or something of similar nature)

 

I cant understand why you could possibly be unhappy with restrictions in these sort of circumstances as not everybody has had an upbringing around firearms, me included. I am however safe enough to have past my matts this year even if it took two attempts at mag loading.

Edited October 6, 2013 by paul2012

[paul2012]

.

Edited October 6, 2013 by paul2012

[Vipa]

It DOES NOT mean that BASC endorses that every new shooter is so conditioned, or that it is by default a compulsory condition for all new shooters and that is a matter of fact.

David

 

Perhaps BASC should David... after all.. the role of BASC is to ensure shooting is seen in a good and responsible light by the authorities and the non shooting public at large who, lets face it, outnumber shooters by what... 100,000 to 1? pandering to those in the shooting community who spit their dummies out when the word 'training' and 'education' are mentioned does not achieve much other than to placate those that want to spit thier dummies out!

 

We are already seen as a lawless bunch of wannabe rambos in some quarters... why do we insist, as a bunch of intelligent, law abiding citizenz, in doing everything we can to enforce that view!?

[Vipa]

I am however safe enough to have past my matts this year even if it took two attempts at mag loading.

 

Hahaha... I think it took me 2 goes too lol... ahhh memories... that and the gas chamber at Strensall Barracks

[Scully]

Yes we accept that IF the ONLY alternative is to refuse then training or mentoring is a viable condition to ALLOW the grant. It DOES NOT mean that BASC endorses that every new shooter is so conditioned, or that it is by default a compulsory condition for all new shooters and that is a matter of fact.

But you've already stated that by law, conditions cannot be appealed,so it cannot be anything else but a condition of grant when there is no alternative but to refuse.You can't have it both ways.

 

 

So Scully, please tell me you alternative to refusing a grant in such circumstances if the Chief Officers risk assesses the applicant and views that refusal is on the cards?

The only alternative to refusing a grant is training,which by default,makes it compulosry if you wish to attain grant.

 

Do you suggest that BASC lobbies ACPO and the Home Office to insist that all such applicants are flat refused?

Eh? They may as well if they are powerless to do otherwise,which by your own admission,they are.But to be honest do you not think that would be a bit silly?

 

And are you simply refusing to acknowledge that things are changing and these conditions will diminish significantly?

All that has changed David is the AOLQ condition,apart from that we now appear to have a condition of grant condition also.

 

David

[Scully]

 

I think you are applying a very blinkered view of the conditions applied by forces other than your own.. as far as I am aware Cleveland do not use the mentoring or traing conditions, nor do lots of other forces throughout the country

If that's the case then what is all the fuss about?

 

As for there being no evidence that beginners are a safety issue... that may well be so but in this day and age of media sensationalism and anti gun sentiment, it will only take 1 incident where an inexperienced untrained person kills either themselves or someone else and the shooting community as a whole will get dumped on from a great height.. at least if a minimum standard of training/education were a requirement the chances of said 'event' are minimised and if it does occur we, the shooting community' could stand up with head held high and show that we took steps to minimise the risk.. with no requirement in place and an apparent vehement rejection of training or education we are leaving ourselves wide open to the worst kind of criticism and villification!

In this age of media sensationalism and anti gun sentiment don't you think that the media would have latched on to the fact that the vast,vast majority of shooters in this country have no formal training whatsoever if it was in fact an issue,which is isn't?There have been many reported instances of experienced but untrained shooters being involved in accidents and even fatalities,but the anti gun press have never latched on to this for some reason,and demanded that training be compulsory as far as I'm aware.Why they would suddenly make an issue of beginners puzzles me.

The shooting community can already stand with head held high as our safety record when compared to other disciplines is outstanding and there for all to see,and this despite a lack of obligatory formal training.As I've said before,I'm not against training so long as its voluntary....compulsory and as a condition of grant is NOT acceptable.We don't deserve it nor is it justified.

 

 

I do think you are being a tad pedantic with your attack on David and BASC... you are playing the semantics game to get over your point which, frankly from what IO have read in your posts is completely invalid!

I'm attacking David and BASC as a fully paid up member and because he and they are the only shooting organisation which posts on here,but if you can get the NGO,the CA and others to do so I'll have a pop at them also.I'll admit BASC do more than most but none are regarded as a force to be reckoned with never mind feared in those circles which determine influences on firearms legislation,which is lamentable,but there again that is probably down to each ones members.Most of us are just happy to tootle along and accept whatever **** we are dished out by those in positions of authorities.I am naturally suspicious and resentful of those who seek to place themselves in positions of authority over others,and then use that authority to inhibit or impose their will on others for no justifiable reason.

[Scully]

 

It DOES NOT mean that BASC endorses that every new shooter is so conditioned, or that it is by default a compulsory condition for all new shooters and that is a matter of fact.

 

David

 

Perhaps BASC should David... after all.. the role of BASC is to ensure shooting is seen in a good and responsible light by the authorities and the non shooting public at large who, lets face it, outnumber shooters by what... 100,000 to 1? pandering to those in the shooting community who spit their dummies out when the word 'training' and 'education' are mentioned does not achieve much other than to placate those that want to spit thier dummies out!

 

We are already seen as a lawless bunch of wannabe rambos in some quarters... why do we insist, as a bunch of intelligent, law abiding citizenz, in doing everything we can to enforce that view!?

 

If BASC's role is to ensure shooting is seen in a good and responsible light by 'pandering' to the authorities and non-shooting public,or anyone else for that matter,then we may as well turn over now!

I couldn't give a monkies chuff about those who regard us as wannabe rambos (and some are fellow shooters!) as nothing we do will ever change that particular group of their opinion.If you regard those who want to dispute what they regard as needless,unjustifiable and unwarranted legislation as damaging to shooting then good luck with your pandering.Spitting out my dummy is preferable to bed wetting when it is suggested the boat gets rocked.

[paul2012]

 

Hahaha... I think it took me 2 goes too lol... ahhh memories... that and the gas chamber at Strensall Barracks

 

Sgt. Thought i was sick because i enjoyed the chamber

[Vipa]

Sgt. Thought i was sick because i enjoyed the chamber

I'm inclined to agree with him! Lol. Although I did not get what all the fuss and panic was about as displayed by some of my colleagues at the time!

[David BASC]

There is certainly not a standard condition for grant for Section 1 for the applicant to go on a training course or be mentored.

 

BASC is certainly not pandering to anyone which is why we have been pushing at the highest level to get the daft application of conditions such as mentoring and training being applied to experienced shooters and those who have been seen to be fully fit to possess Section 1, which unfortunately have been rife in the minority of licencing authorities, stopped. And I repeat, as others have said on others threads on this forum this IS changing for the better, but we need to keep up the pressure if some authorities don't comply and we need to hear of examples going forward, please.

 

The vast majority of applicants for the grant of Section 1 are not being forced into mandatory training or mandatory mentoring but I think that we can all agree, cant we, that IF the only alternative is to refuse, then its far better in the rare occasions that this is the case, that the applicant is given a life line rather than a flat refusal. Lobbying for a flat refusal would indeed be silly.

 

It has long been BASC's view that shooters should abide by written codes of practice, adhere to high standards, comply with the law and take part in training to increase their knowledge and skills on a voluntary basis if they want to take up shooting or take up a new discipline in shooting. That does not have to be a course, but informal mentoring is, and has long been, custom and practice within the shooting community, and as a result shooting sports in this country are safe and well run, and long may that continue.

 

But for those who do not have anyone to mentor them then yes there are a range of courses of offer to help.

 

I agree 100% that needless unwarranted and unjustifiable practices by the licencing teams must stop , it serves no purpose what so ever and does nothing at all to support the prime objective of firearms licencing which is to protect public safety.

 

David

Edited October 7, 2013 by David BASC

[Fisheruk]

 

I am not convinced that a dog worrying stock could, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed quarry and be shot under the AOLQ condition.

I had my ticket changed to ALQ specifically in response to my request for dogs worrying sheep. Farmer lost 19 sheep to a dog. .223 sorts a dog just as easily as a fox. The ticket was changed the same day. Really good service.