A O L Q

[Scully]

 

Conditions such as training or experience can be added, sensibly I suggest, if the only alternative would be to refuse the grant.

 

 

 

ACPO have written again to all firearms teams senior officers pointing out the AOLQ should be applied and mentoring dropped - unless of course the applicant has no experience.

 

 

 

So is this official;BASC are in favour of compulsory training where an applicant has no experience?

Assuming this is explained away by ACPO as in the interest of safety,and or the protection of the general public,can anyone explain to me what threat/risk/danger mentoring now seeks to address which wasn't addressed in the countless years prior to its introduction and has become so serious that mentoring is now required?

My nephew has been mentored by me since he was 8,he is now 19,yet licensing say he may require mentoring prior to FAC grant.Is someone taking the ****?

If I was a cynic I would suspect the fact that most of our representative shooting organisations cater for training courses...at a cost of course.I can only be thankful I'm not a cynic.

[la bala]

So is this official;BASC are in favour of compulsory training where an applicant has no experience?

Assuming this is explained away by ACPO as in the interest of safety,and or the protection of the general public,can anyone explain to me what threat/risk/danger mentoring now seeks to address which wasn't addressed in the countless years prior to its introduction and has become so serious that mentoring is now required?

My nephew has been mentored by me since he was 8,he is now 19,yet licensing say he may require mentoring prior to FAC grant.Is someone taking the ****?

If I was a cynic I would suspect the fact that most of our representative shooting organisations cater for training courses...at a cost of course.I can only be thankful I'm not a cynic.

[Dekers]

Shooting forum Shock news, Stop Press, Hold the front page...

 

In a shock announcement from the BASC today they have confirmed to PW forum that ANY means ANY.

 

PW members dumbfounded!!

 

[delburt0]

Did delburt0 get mentioned for asking the question and starting the thread . . Result !!!!!!

Edited October 3, 2013 by delburt0

[la bala]

Did delburt0 get mentioned for asking the question and starting the thread . . Result !!!!!!

[dadioles]

So is this official;BASC are in favour of compulsory training where an applicant has no experience?

Assuming this is explained away by ACPO as in the interest of safety,and or the protection of the general public,can anyone explain to me what threat/risk/danger mentoring now seeks to address which wasn't addressed in the countless years prior to its introduction and has become so serious that mentoring is now required?

My nephew has been mentored by me since he was 8,he is now 19,yet licensing say he may require mentoring prior to FAC grant.Is someone taking the ****?

If I was a cynic I would suspect the fact that most of our representative shooting organisations cater for training courses...at a cost of course.I can only be thankful I'm not a cynic.

 

I have long held the view, and is re-enforced almost daily when I read some of the posts in shooting forums, that some form of "training" (I use the term loosely) should be required before a licence is granted unless the applicant can demonstrate satisfactorily that they already have appropriate shooting experience and knowledge of the law.

 

A mate of mine who just happens to be very wealthy and owns a lot of land has just been granted a firearms certificate as he has a rabbit problem and failed to hit any with his .22 springer. He now has a shiny new .17hmr. He does not have a clue and although he may not be dangerous (??) his knowledge and ability is about zero. He does not even know what the turrets on the scope are for (the caps covering them have confused him!). If anyone needs mentoring it is him. Unfortunately, it is probable that mentoring would tend only to be required with centrefire and rimfire is just not taken seriously enough.

 

The weakness here is the interview with the feo. All too often the feo does not seem to have any useful first hand knowledge and experience of firearms and I cannot help but wonder if the wealth and social standing of the applicant plays a role. Perhaps compulsory attendance on a 1 day course at which applicants are better assessed is the way forward prior to first grant of a firearms certificate. I shall now take cover.....

[delburt0]

Shooting forum Shock news, Stop Press, Hold the front page...

 

In a shock announcement from the BASC today they have confirmed to PW forum that ANY means ANY.

 

PW members dumbfounded!!

 

 

where did you see this dekers Is it just what David said on Here ..... Edited October 3, 2013 by delburt0

[Scully]

 

I have long held the view, and is re-enforced almost daily when I read some of the posts in shooting forums, that some form of "training" (I use the term loosely) should be required before a licence is granted unless the applicant can demonstrate satisfactorily that they already have appropriate shooting experience and knowledge of the law.

 

A mate of mine who just happens to be very wealthy and owns a lot of land has just been granted a firearms certificate as he has a rabbit problem and failed to hit any with his .22 springer. He now has a shiny new .17hmr. He does not have a clue and although he may not be dangerous (??) his knowledge and ability is about zero. He does not even know what the turrets on the scope are for (the caps covering them have confused him!). If anyone needs mentoring it is him. Unfortunately, it is probable that mentoring would tend only to be required with centrefire and rimfire is just not taken seriously enough.

 

The weakness here is the interview with the feo. All too often the feo does not seem to have any useful first hand knowledge and experience of firearms and I cannot help but wonder if the wealth and social standing of the applicant plays a role. Perhaps compulsory attendance on a 1 day course at which applicants are better assessed is the way forward prior to first grant of a firearms certificate. I shall now take cover.....

So as his 'mate' no doubt you will be showing him the ropes,(this is how it has been done for generations) even though by your own admission he 'may not be dangerous'.Show me the evidence of accidents and or fatalities to shooters or members of the general public due to inexperience.If it's as much of a problem as ACPO seem to be suggesting and therefore requires mentoring then there must be some statistics somewhere that this condition means to address.

[CharlieT]

dadioles

 

I'll bite.

 

Can you direct me to the figures that show the number of firearm accidents are such that such compulsory training is needed to protect public safety.

 

As an aside, when I bought my first "telescopic sight" I hadn't a clue how these new fangled things worked and what all the little knobs did. Heck, I couldn't even work out how to fit it on my rifle, the shop didn't tell me I needed mounts.

Did my not knowing make me a danger to the public ?

 

Lack of technical knowledge does not make a man a fool.

[David BASC]

If a person such as your nephew Scully can demonstrate they have experience then no they should not be subject to a mentoring or training condition.

 

But this is exactly what HAS been happening as you well know typically when someone mentions 'deer'. This is why we have been lobbying ACPO to ask forces to drop the almost 'automatic' mentoring condition that some forces introduced as soon as 'deer' was mentioned on an application or variation.

 

The AOLQ condition also helps overcoming the again almost automatic condition of passing a DSC1 that some forces asked for as soon as someone mentions 'deer'

 

But would you not agree that if a person wants section 1 and can demonstrate no experience at all, and consequently the option could be to refuse to grant, then the better option surely would be for that person to BE granted but with the condition that they are supervised for a period of time, or if they are not lucky enough to have a friend or relation that is willing and able to help show them the ropes go on an course?

 

David

[Dekers]

I no what it stands for but what what are the advantages,

Excuse me for this but for yrs I have put the calibre I need in car ie

foxing tonight 22/250

Bunnies .22

Close fox ,hornet

I have just put my renewal in and wonder if I should be asking for it, as there seems to be a lot of confusion over it in my previous thread ( my fao won't allow hmr for fox )

A explanation in layman terms greatly appreciated,

Thx in advance atb......

In layman's terms it means..... ANY OTHER LAWFUL QUARRY I would have thought the advantages were quite obvious!

 

this has been passed over to basc to get a final answer on this as everyone as similar but different perceptions on this matter ..

?? I don't think the final answer actually rests with the BASC.

 

i have been intouch with south yorks david and they cannot see a problem with aolq , even though she did not understand what i meant till i explained she said any other quarry and i agreed,

she said said should be fine.

still very hazy about foxes been vermin or not some say they are classed alone on certain sited others say they are vermin, but cannot find a decision from any authority.

cannot find any information from defra or the home office to confirm that foxes are vermin or are in a class of there own even though the home office do have a calibre graph where foxes are not permitted with anything less than a .17 remmington (not hmr) and 22 hornet...

i think there should be blanket rules over the country not forces,

not only for calibres but a list of quarry for that calibre.

i find this aolq quite useless and confusing and untill there are test cases i think it will be down to shooter and the police force in question own discretion..

So, S Yorks are fine with it, the BASC are fine with it, ANY means ANY, so what the **** does it matter if you think fox is vermin or fox, it is certainly any lawful quarry, as again confirmed by David BASC #41 on this thread.

You crack on with your contention AOLQ is useless, I think there are a LOT here that would give you an argument about that, especially on the deer front!

 

 

where did you see this dekers Is it just what David said on Here .....

 

It was a tongue in cheek remark but #24 refers, I find it astonishing that some do not understand the meaning of the word ALL, are confused by the condition AOLQ, find it quite useless, and are incapable of looking up the dictionary definition of vermin......despite being shown it in #17 and #27.

 

But hey, I'm just a grumpy old man with time on his hands tonight.

 

Just so long as you are happy now the BASC has passed judgement!

 

ATB!

Edited October 3, 2013 by Dekers

[delburt0]

I mentored my freind a couple of years ago, I enjoyed showing and educating him also drilling safety into him as to be honest even though he was a sg holder had not shot a rifle and was very green, and he needed a lot of tips and education even on back stops and safety,

I think everyone needs mentoring to a certain degree to get or maintain a section 1,

But most people will go out with other section 1 holders after all that I think is how most of us got into the sport

[Scully]

You've replied to my question with a question David,but you still haven't answered mine,so I'll have another go. Are BASC in favour of compulsory training (whether this takes the form of mentoring or DSC or otherwise) where an applicant has no experience? And if so,can you tell me what problem exists to either the shooter or the general public which compulsory training means to address?

As for my nephew,I contacted BASC at the time regarding his FEO's mentoring condition and spoke to none other than Mike Eveleigh who reassured me it would be short term and to get back in touch if it hadn't been removed within six months.Nephew didn't bother to go through with the application.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Scully

[delburt0]

In layman's terms it means..... ANY OTHER LAWFUL QUARRY I would have thought the advantages were quite obvious!

 

 

?? I don't think the final answer actually rests with the BASC.

 

 

So, S Yorks are fine with it, the BASC are fine with it, ANY means ANY, so what the **** does it matter if you think fox is vermin or fox, it is certainly any lawful quarry, as again confirmed by David BASC #41 on this thread.

You crack on with your contention AOLQ is useless, I think there are a LOT here that would give you an argument about that, especially on the deer front!if you look deters you will note deer did not get mentioned it was hmr for fox,

When did I mention deer

As David will confirm with our pms this morning I am in noway concerned about 222 and deer ,

Sorry and I hope this has cleared your criticism up ??

Kind regard dekers

Atb delburt0 x

 

 

 

 

It was a tongue in cheek remark but #24 refers, I find it astonishing that some do not understand the meaning of the word ALL, are confused by the condition AOLQ, find it quite useless, and are incapable of looking up the dictionary definition of vermin......

 

But hey, I'm just a grumpy old man with time on his hands tonight

 

Just so long as you are happy now the BASC has passed judgement!

 

ATB!

i used to do the tongue in cheek stuff when I was a nipper I'm all grown up now though sarcasm is the lowest form of wit mr dekers if you don't have any grown up remarks to make please don't bother.

Kind regards

Delburt0

Edited October 3, 2013 by delburt0

[Dekers]

i used to do the tongue in cheek stuff when I was a nipper I'm all grown up now though sarcasm is the lowest form of wit mr dekers if you don't have any grown up remarks to make please don't bother.

Kind regards

Delburt0

 

You had all the grown up answers earlier but chose to ignore them until the BASC confirmed them!

 

You also asked for the advantages of AOLQ in your OP, you never made any qualification you didn't have an interest in deer, that is part of the advantage which no doubt does interest you, but if not certainly others.

 

If you had no interest in help or advice why bother even posting the OP, confine your discussion to the BASC and then let everyone know it is a brilliant condition when you are satisfied with their response!

Edited October 3, 2013 by Dekers

[tigger]

Wether we like it or not I would say in the next five years it will probably compulsory to have some kind of compulsory training to acquire an fac, and whilst I'm against it in principle I think to myself do I want joe bloggs shooting a .308 on neighbouring land who has never owned or fired a rifle before, would it have been sensible for joe to have done a basic one day firearms course to show him the basics of handling a rifle ensuring a safe backstop is used basic firearms law etc etc??

[delburt0]

You had all the grown up answers earlier but chose to ignore them until the BASC told you otherwise!

 

You also asked for the advantages of AOLQ in your OP, you never made any qualification you didn't have an interest in deer, that is part of the advantage which no doubt does interest you, but if not certainly others.

 

If you had no interest in help or advice why bother even posting the OP, confine your discussion to the BASC and then let everyone know it is a brilliant condition when you are satisfied with their response!

I did have interest in help and advice on the subject of dispatching foxes with hmr that's why I pmed David

And I never made any qualification about having a interest in deer because I don't

Hope this has cleared it up Chris

Thanks again delburt0 x

[Scully]

Wether we like it or not I would say in the next five years it will probably compulsory to have some kind of compulsory training to acquire an fac, and whilst I'm against it in principle I think to myself do I want joe bloggs shooting a .308 on neighbouring land who has never owned or fired a rifle before, would it have been sensible for joe to have done a basic one day firearms course to show him the basics of handling a rifle ensuring a safe backstop is used basic firearms law etc etc??

Ok,so what if retrospective training is then mooted?After all,the vast majority of shooters out there who are doing the mentoring have no formal training whatsoever.How are these people qualified to mentor anyone? If a formal and recognised qualification is required what is to prevent ACPO insisting ALL shooters must now undergo formal training to satisfy a non-existant threat? All at a cost (and thereby another hurdle) to the shooter of course.What if 'refreshers' are mooted with each renewal on the premise of health and safety,as yet again,when all's said and done it would appear it is the 'experienced' shot who is more prone to accidents and not the beginner.

Again,show me the statistics of incidences regarding 'joe bloggs' shooting accidents.

I personally know of a man with decades of experience who put two rounds of .270 through the wing of his own Range Rover,and another who pinged a .22rf off someones static caravan.I know of two fatalities locally also,neither of which concerned beginners.

[tigger]

Ok,so what if retrospective training is then mooted?After all,the vast majority of shooters out there who are doing the mentoring have no formal training whatsoever.How are these people qualified to mentor anyone? If a formal and recognised qualification is required what is to prevent ACPO insisting ALL shooters must now undergo formal training to satisfy a non-existant threat? All at a cost (and thereby another hurdle) to the shooter of course.What if 'refreshers' are mooted with each renewal on the premise of health and safety,as yet again,when all's said and done it would appear it is the 'experienced' shot who is more prone to accidents and not the beginner.

Again,show me the statistics of incidences regarding 'joe bloggs' shooting accidents.

I personally know of a man with decades of experience who put two rounds of .270 through the wing of his own Range Rover,and another who pinged a .22rf off someones static caravan.I know of two fatalities locally also,neither of which concerned beginners.

I know exactly what your saying and the trouble is once it starts where does it stop, better to stop it happening in the first place, and with regards to joe bloggs one would like to think one would be sensible enough to get a little bit of experience before getting your own rifle which is probably the case in 98% of cases, I know of the incidents you speak of I believe I've seen the photographs of one of them also shocking! I think some people become complacent and are probably more of a danger than the beginner who is probably more careful and hesitant than the more experienced shot.....

[delburt0]

Happy that the question I originally asked has been answered

Edited October 3, 2013 by delburt0

[David BASC]

Scully,

BASC have never been in favour of and are still opposed to compulsory training. I hope that is a clear answer for you.

 

BASC have always been opposed to and continue to oppose mentoring and training conditions being applied to certificates of people who have experience of shooting and simply now want to shoot deer. This is exactly why we welcomed the dropping of mentoring and DSC1 conditions being applied to certificates and why we have continued to lobby ACPO on this issue for years. I hope that is a very clear summary of our position on conditions.

 

Given that ACPO's letter to firearms licencing teams only went out a couple of months ago, I can only assume you spoke to Mike on this issue before our lobbying of ACPO bore fruit, as prior to ACPOs letter unfortunately over zealous application of mentoring conditions were rife in some sectors of the licencing system, and as you well know could not be appealed at the time of grant - but can be appealed afterwards of course. Consequently, if the licencing team insisted on a mentoring condition for example there was little that could be done.

 

Should a person with no experience of shooting what so ever be granted a Sec 1 for shooting live quarry such as deer for example? Well they certainly have in the past by many licencing teams. Some may have strong views on this, but I agree there is no evidence that they are any greater risk to public safety. As I said earlier, once a person has been passed for section 1 they have demonstrated, when the licencing officer visited them, that despite their lack of experience they are safe and consequently no danger to the public, and thus AOLQ should apply to their certificate, and there is no need for mentoring and that's what we have been pushing for.

 

But the guidance does allow for the police to apply a condition of mentoring or training IF the alternative would be to refuse grant, this suggests there is a degree of doubt in the eye of the licencing manager, the applicant may be 'woolly' over safe back stops, and may be 'woolly' over points of law for example but instead of an outright refusal to grant they DO grant with condition. I would say that this would be the exception rather than the rule of course and yes I would say that's a good practical solution as opposed to an outright refusal as I said earlier. You may disagree.

 

As to shooting accidents, something I have 18 years experience of due to my day to day management of the BASC liability policy, yes the majority are by more experienced shooters, and there is no evidence that training reduces the risk of accident in this context; unfortunately no degree of training will ensure an accident due to a momentary lapse of care will not happen.

 

David

[Scully]

Thank you, your answer is very clear. Despite there being no history of inexperienced newbies posing a threat to themselves or others BASC favour compulsory training if the only alternative is a refusal of applicant.
I cant help but wonder why BASC is reluctant to press this matter.Does BASC lack the will or the clout ( or both) to confront the relevant bodies regarding this matter?
Considering how resentful the police are of the general public being in possession of firearms
I find it surprising that the lack of any formal training as a prerequisite of ownership hasn't come to the attention of the media, given the latters voracious appetite to seize on any opportunity to spread the word about the evil influence guns have over those who are interested in them,or could it be that the police would then have to admit that despite a lack of any formal training incidences regarding
new applicants are negligible?
My nephew will be reassured to hear that his more than ten years of shooting experience will stand him in good stead when he reapplies for his first FAC..... Won't he?

Edited October 4, 2013 by Scully

[David BASC]

We are not reluctant in fighting mentoring or compulsory training conditions, and this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that we have continued to lobby ACPO on this issue and why we are pleased to see ACPO are pushing for these 'automatic' conditions to be dropped. We are also keeping a close eye on all licencing teams and if we find any that are being daft we are sending the information to ACPO.

 

As I said, on the rare occasion a person is genuinely totally inexperienced and may have not come totally up to scratch at interview, do you think they should be refused, or do you think its better that person is allowed a certificate with a temporary mentoring condition or a request to get some more knowledge / experience through a course?

 

The fact remains, and can be clearly demonstrated that shooting is safe and well run and new applicants pose no danger once they have gone through the tough application process, been interviewed and granted. Shooting accidents are very rare. That's why the media have little or no interest in that fact that formal training is not standard. Its a non story, and long may this continue.

 

In my view your nephew should apply for his FAC and if his licencing team try it on with mentoring / training conditions in spite of his considerable experience, point out the recent edict from ACPO on this very issue!

 

David

[Scully]

Sorry David,but BASC's past record regarding their attitude towards mentoring conditions leaves me unconvinced as to their effectiveness towards this issue and their part in its proposed demise,and as I've stated,I speak from experience. If ACPO themselves weren't 'pushing' for change I doubt BASC's attitude towards mentoring would have changed and would have made any progress at all, so I find it a bit rich for BASC now to be claiming any credit for their role in this issue.BASC's advice regarding mentoring conditions over the past few years speaks for itself.

Why would ACPO need to be 'pushing' anyway? Why not simply state to their licensing authorities that the issue no longer exists? It was only HO guidance anyhow.Wasn't that guidance left to the discretion of the licensing authorities themselves as to whether they imposed it ? ACPO themselves have said it serves no purpose,and it clearly has never been a health and safety issue so the only conclusion anyone can arrive at as the condition is totally unenforceable, is that it was imposed as either yet another obstacle for the would be applicant to overcome or a cynical **** covering exercise.Or both.

It has gone on for years,and BASC's advice up until ACPO have recently decided it serves no purpose has been to 'put up with it'. BASC may have been lobbying against the illogical condition when applied to AOLQ,but the condition STILL EXISTS for first time newbies DESPITE there being no evidence whatsoever that these new applicants have EVER been a problem.

I'm not against formal training at all,and it could even be suggested to new applicants that training would be extremely sensible and very advisable,but to make it a CONDITION of grant is not acceptable.Once it becomes acceptable then the practise will spread and it is only a short skip and a jump from compulsory training at yet again,cost to the shooter,for all applicants,including shotgun.

You're correct,my nephew should again apply for his FAC,and if faced with the mentoring condition then I'll try and oppose it on my own,we've already tried BASC.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Scully

[David BASC]

I and BASC have always said that mentoring / training conditions should not be automatically added to new shooters certificates. We have also said that it was totally pointless to add the same conditions to existing experienced FAC holders just because that want to shoot deer for example. That is a matter of fact.

 

You are of course free to have you own views, but the facts of the matter are clear. It was BASC that has kept pushing for the changes in the application of conditions for several years and that has at last prompted ACPO to again push for what we want - if we had not done this then I have no doubt we would still be in the position that we have been for years. But we have stuck to our guns and this has bourn fruit.

 

You also know as well as I do that under current law in this country conditions on grant / variation cannot be challenged in Court, so when in the past we have pointed out to you / your nephew that the mentoring condition the police were suggesting was something we could do little about was not as you suggest a weakness on BASC's part it was simply a matter of law! Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. The case that created this status in law was R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland, 1998 where it was held that there is no right of appeal against the imposition of conditions. This gave the 'green light' to licencing teams in some areas to get over zealous with conditions, knowing that there was little if anything anyone could do to oppose them.

 

Why have they changed now? Well yet again its because BASC have been fighting against the proposed change in licence fees right up to Home Office level, because we contend that its because of bad practice, including inappropriate and pointless use of conditions and lack of AOLQ that cause many of the issues the take time and money to resolve.

 

If you bothered to look around you would also see that in some areas new licence holders are getting AOLQ, and this will spread.

 

I wish your nephew every success with his application, and with this change in attitude from ACPO we are now in a far better and stronger position to assist than in the past.

 

David

Edited October 5, 2013 by David BASC