FAC Magic answers?

[walshie]

 

That paragraph is in reference to the previous mentioned calibres for shooting foxes and Deer. Everything from .220 swift upwards. The fact is you DO need to prove experience in the field to have any of those calibres. It's not like I haven't been through this with the very guy from BASC who co wrote the guidance! My argument was I had been shooting .22lr in the field for two years and so I met the requirements. And after threatening West Mercia with legal action and reporting them to the PCC I won and I now have a .243 with a 500 round limit.

 

So all of you saying you don't need experience for a centrefire you are wrong and the guidance is as plain as day.

 

Nope sorry. It's definitely not unlawful to grant centrefire on first application or how do you explain all these people granted centrefire on their first grant? It is desirable that new applicants have experience. Obviously it is. But it isn't law.

[srspower]

 

Nope sorry. It's definitely not unlawful to grant centrefire on first application or how do you explain all these people granted centrefire on their first grant? It is desirable that new applicants have experience. Obviously it is. But it isn't law.

 

It's not a question of the 'law' it is the home office guidance and yes a lot of forces don't follow it correctly due to ignorance mostly. Those that don't risk all losing their jobs if something goes wrong.

Edited October 7, 2017 by srspower

[neutron619]

 

It's not a question of the 'law' it is the home office guidance and yes a lot of forces don't follow it correctly due to ignorance mostly. Those that don't risk all losing their jobs if something goes wrong.

 

I had a .308 on first application from Cambs with DSC1, no land and a booking for stalking. It fulfilled a) the law; b) the guidelines; c) the licensing manager's explicit instructions about what hoops he wanted me to jump through before he'd grant. I duly jumped through the hoops and, had I been home to receive said FAC, would have had it 3 days from the arrival of the application at licensing HQ. Absolutely first class service.

 

To the OP: ask and ye shall receive.

Edited October 7, 2017 by neutron619

[walshie]

 

It's not a question of the 'law' it is the home office guidance and yes a lot of forces don't follow it correctly due to ignorance mostly. Those that don't risk all losing their jobs if something goes wrong.

 

With the greatest respect, your interpretation of this matter is not correct.

 

It is definitely, positively, 100% NOT unlawful to grant centrefire on the first application. I doubt all these people have been granted centrefire by mistake or the ignorance of their FEOs.

 

P.S. Apologies for labouring a point.

[Whitebridges]

Hang on a minute srspower did you or did you not say:

 

It is unlawful for a centrefire calibre to be granted on a first application without mentoring or a DSC1 in England and Wales. It states it quite clearly in the home office guidelines.

 

This is utter rubbish which you ought to know.

 

You sir leave posts with a lot of unsavory language about the approval process and your police authority. With respect I think you should wind your neck in.

[CharlieT]

Desirable = advantageous, advisable, wise, sensible, prudent, recommendable.

 

It does NOT mean obligatory, if it was the guidance would have said exactly that.

[srspower]

 

I had a .308 on first application from Cambs with DSC1, no land and a booking for stalking. It fulfilled a) the law; b) the guidelines; c) the licensing manager's explicit instructions about what hoops he wanted me to jump through before he'd grant. I duly jumped through the hoops and, had I been home to receive said FAC, would have had it 3 days from the arrival of the application at licensing HQ. Absolutely first class service.

 

To the OP: ask and ye shall receive.

 

Yes you could prove you had experience ...

 

 

With the greatest respect, your interpretation of this matter is not correct.

 

It is definitely, positively, 100% NOT unlawful to grant centrefire on the first application. I doubt all these people have been granted centrefire by mistake or the ignorance of their FEOs.

 

P.S. Apologies for labouring a point.

 

I never said it was unlawful? I said it was against the home office guidelines. This means if there is a problem with the person who gets the ticket the licensing department are screwed and most jurisdictions know this.

[walshie]

 

I never said it was unlawful? I said it was against the home office guidelines. This means if there is a problem with the person who gets the ticket the licensing department are screwed and most jurisdictions know this.

 

See post #9 where you said exactly that.

[Me matt]

Id still like to hear from the OP as to where he is currently shooting....

[Hendrix's rifle]

 

Yes you could prove you had experience ...

 

 

I never said it was unlawful? I said it was against the home office guidelines. This means if there is a problem with the person who gets the ticket the licensing department are screwed and most jurisdictions know this.

You've been proved wrong pipe down and chill... there's been a few people who have proved it so take a step back, 're read it and you shall see it doesn't mention that. Yes they may want you to do this and that and blahdy blah but if you need a rifle for a job and you can show good reason and land to shoot over that's all that should be needed.

[R1nut]

 

 

 

It is unlawful for a centrefire calibre to be granted on a first application without mentoring or a DSC1 in England and Wales. It states it quite clearly in the home office guidelines. I suggest you check section 13.26 of the home office guidance ...

 

 

 

 

I was granted a centre fire on my first application!! No questions to speak of!!

[Hendrix's rifle]

 

 

It is unlawful for a centrefire calibre to be granted on a first application without mentoring or a DSC1 in England and Wales. It states it quite clearly in the home office guidelines. I suggest you check section 13.26 of the home office guidance ...

 

 

 

 

I was granted a centre fire on my first application!! No questions to speak of!!

 

Sorry but your are breaking the law... along with your firearms dept... :lol:

[Savhmr]

 

Yes you could prove you had experience ...

 

 

I never said it was unlawful? I said it was against the home office guidelines. This means if there is a problem with the person who gets the ticket the licensing department are screwed and most jurisdictions know this.

 

 

Yes....you did. By the way, you don't need the question mark after your statement. They're reserved for questions. If it was a question you're asking, then refer to your own post #9 as has already been pointed out.

 

Home office guidelines are not law. By definition, they cannot be breached, only taken into account as guidance for licensing authorities.

 

You must be really popular with your local licensing department having threatened them on your first CF application and everything....good luck with your next variation ;-)

 

Posting utter rubbish about what's lawful or not added to the likelihood that your licensing team had to deal with that lack of knowledge and attitude won't win you any friends or favours in the long run and wasn't a particularly helpful response for the OP.

 

Back to the OP...you can get a CF on first application without land if you belong to a H/O approved club who's range(s) are passed for CF within the energy limits imposed by the club's range approval but I'm afraid it's highly unlikely that you'll be successful until you have completed your probationary period and been a member for at least a year. If you can find land to shoot on in the meantime and gain some experience of stalking and shooting quarry even with a non FAC air rifle, it'd do you more help than harm. As already said, there's no shortcuts as the police have a duty of care to the general public for their safety and rightly so. What many don't seem to grasp, is that FAC's are not a right and do need to be sufficiently evidenced. It is not down to police authorities to defend their positions (they will if they have to) but for the applicants to provide sufficient evidence and good reason so that their application can be favourably viewed on merit and not unreasonably refused. Also, it's always more productive and conducive longer term to foster trust and good relations with your local FA licensing teams.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Savhmr

[R1nut]

I was granted a centre fire on my first application!! No questions to speak of!!

Sorry but your are breaking the law... along with your firearms dept... :lol:

 

 

Lol!!!

A song just popped into my head when I read that, Judas Priest if my memory serves me correctly!

[spandit]

I got a CF on initial grant (.223) but I'd met face to face with the licensing officer at a game fair. Because I kept things polite and didn't threaten them within 2 years I had a .308 on an open ticket which came back in under a week after posting the variation

[neutron619]

What many don't seem to grasp, is that FAC's are not a right and do need to be sufficiently evidenced.

 

Sorry to jump on you here, as I was mostly with you in rebutting some of the nonsense being spouted above, but this isn't correct.

 

It is absolutely your right to own and use firearms and shotguns lawfully and that is why the process always starts with the presumption that the certificate should be granted, SGC or FAC. This dates back (indirectly) to the Bill of Rights 1689 and perhaps earlier - arguably to Magna Carta.

 

It is however, because of the various Firearms Acts (1937 and 1968 most significantly) a qualified right.

 

Since those Acts, the law has specified a short list of legally-permitted reasons in the case of an SGC which the state can use as justification for preventing you from exercising your right to own and use a shotgun. That is, the onus falls upon the state to show why you should not be permitted, not upon the individual to show that they should.

 

This is the case with both firearm certificates and shotgun certificates.

 

The only difference in the case of an FAC is that the state (i.e. the police) are permitted to use the reason for refusal of "no good reason for owning the firearm" in the case of firearms. This gives them a very broad discretion to refuse FAC applications and variations where, for example, suitable land to shoot over is not available. However, because it is worded this way, it does not impinge upon the right itself - only the degree to which you can exercise it in practice. This is the mechanism by which the respective governments avoided a legal challenge over the 1937 / 1968 Acts, on the basis that the right had been removed. It had not (and has not) been removed and therefore there is nothing in prior law, to form the basis of such a challenge.

 

Furthermore, it would be theoretically possible for the police not to exercise the power invested in the "no good reason for owning the firearm" reason for refusal. It would undoubtedly be challenged in court, but they are not obliged - except by the guidance - to exercise any of the available reasons for refusal in the case of any application. In fact, in the case of certain individuals, the "no good reason" is broad enough to permit the use of pistols, on a section 1 certificate for personal protection (e.g. informants who worked for Britain during The Troubles). There is nothing in law which prohibits this - they've just made it impossible for most of us in practice.

 

This is why it's possible to send a receipt for a stalking booking deposit, a DSC1 certificate and all the rest of the bumpf off and get a .300 Win Mag on first request. They can't refuse you if their short list of allowed reasons for refusal doesn't include something applicable to your circumstances.

Edited October 8, 2017 by neutron619

[Savhmr]

Yes, I see where you're coming from and whilst I do agree with you, my point was that there's not the same automatic right to be GRANTED a certificate, without good reason. The right is only afforded to those of good character who qualify by dint of good reason being evidenced.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Savhmr

[Hendrix's rifle]

I was under the impression that a shotgun is a right a firearm is a privilege? Could very well be wrong however

[Dekers]

srspower

What are you talking about?

You INVENTED a quote from the Home Office guidance and now you are wriggling suggesting you were right anyway.

YOU DO NOT NEED EXPERIENCE TO BE GRANTED A CENTREFIRE FAC, and the Home Office guidance does not say you do. I suggest many thousands of people were granted centrefire on first application, I was one, and by all accounts it is common in Scotland

Whatever you think may be a good idea, and whatever the Home Office guide suggests may be a good idea is GUIDANCE and NOT legislation.

 

So please stop misquoting or inventing legislation.

[Dekers]

I was under the impression that a shotgun is a right a firearm is a privilege? Could very well be wrong however

 

That is the case, but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it still isn't quite that black and white!

 

[neutron619]

 

That is the case, but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it still isn't quite that black and white!

 

 

No, it's a right.

 

Sorry - I'm not sure how I could have been more clear. You chaps all seem to be confusing the fact that the police are given broader scope to refuse FAC applications with the idea that it's a privilege - a favorite lie of politicians who don't appreciate shooting.

 

We have to get this right, otherwise this myth that it's a privilege will persist and go unchallenged.

 

Let me try explaining it this way:

 

If - in any situation - you are required to apply to the state or its apparatus for permission to do / have something, providing justification for your request and it is granted, you are privileged.

 

If - in any situation - you inform the state that you intend to acquire a legal "something" which the state has legislated to control (e.g. via licensing), but where the onus is on the state to justify refusing you that legal "something", it is a right.

 

The former case is almost unheard of in English Common law because generally, everything is legal unless it is specifically prohibited. This is unlike the continental legal systems derived from Roman / German Basic law where something is only legal if the law explicitly allows it.

 

All firearms licensing operates as a qualified right.

 

I am sure that the reason for the confusion is down to land clearance but it's important not to confuse a bureaucratic shortcut with the state of the law.

 

The FAC application asks you to name a piece of land suitable for the firearm in question. This is a sensible time-saving measure which addresses one of the permitted reasons for which the police may refuse an application, but it should in fact be addressed after the application has been made, along with all the other inquiries, rather than at the time, if you're operating in a pedantic, legalistic way.

 

Strictly speaking, the police have to start from the position of "this person has justification for a firearm and we should grant". Because they're not minded to do so, generally wanting fewer civilians with guns, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll always investigate whether the claim of having land is kosher or not. However, this investigation falls into the same category as background checks, family members with criminal records, etc. It's answering the question "can we find a legal excuse not to grant?" rather than "has this person justified their application sufficiently?" which falls completely outside the law. Providing "good reason" is actually a bit of a nonsense, because it's for them to show you don't have one, not for you to prove it.

 

Just to be clear - let's pretend that, due to a paperwork mix-up at the Land Registry Office, you cannot obtain the deed which shows you own the shooting rights to a bit of stalking land you might own. If no further evidence could be collected by the police to show that you didn't have permission to shoot (and none would exist because the deed had vanished), they would have to err on the presumption of your telling the truth and grant your certificate. Your right to a firearm will always trump their attempts to prove unsuitability, if they cannot provide evidence of it to a Crown Court standard of proof.

 

Let's say the aforementioned situation arose but firearms ownership were a privilege: in that case the police would not grant, because the onus would have been on you to prove that you had suitable land. In the absence of the deed, you could not provide this, and they would therefore be legally justified in refusing you. However, this isn't the case in this country.

Edited October 8, 2017 by neutron619

[Scully]

Have to admit Im with Neutron on this.

Many moons ago when I was concerned that my application for a FAC to obtain pistols would be refused due to past indiscretions, I contacted a firearms lawyer for advice.

He informed me that I had an automatic right to obtain firearms for legitimate purpose, unless the same laws could prove I was unsuitable.

[CharlieT]

It's quite simple really and is there for all to read in the Firearms Act. Note the use of the word SHALL.

 

 

1)

A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—

 

(a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;

(b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and

©that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace

Edited October 8, 2017 by CharlieT

[Dekers]

 

No, it's a right.

 

Sorry - I'm not sure how I could have been more clear. You chaps all seem to be confusing the fact that the police are given broader scope to refuse FAC applications with the idea that it's a privilege - a favorite lie of politicians who don't appreciate shooting.

 

We have to get this right, otherwise this myth that it's a privilege will persist and go unchallenged.

 

Let me try explaining it this way:

 

If - in any situation - you are required to apply to the state or its apparatus for permission to do / have something, providing justification for your request and it is granted, you are privileged.

 

If - in any situation - you inform the state that you intend to acquire a legal "something" which the state has legislated to control (e.g. via licensing), but where the onus is on the state to justify refusing you that legal "something", it is a right.

 

The former case is almost unheard of in English Common law because generally, everything is legal unless it is specifically prohibited. This is unlike the continental legal systems derived from Roman / German Basic law where something is only legal if the law explicitly allows it.

 

All firearms licensing operates as a qualified right.

 

I am sure that the reason for the confusion is down to land clearance but it's important not to confuse a bureaucratic shortcut with the state of the law.

 

The FAC application asks you to name a piece of land suitable for the firearm in question. This is a sensible time-saving measure which addresses one of the permitted reasons for which the police may refuse an application, but it should in fact be addressed after the application has been made, along with all the other inquiries, rather than at the time, if you're operating in a pedantic, legalistic way.

 

Strictly speaking, the police have to start from the position of "this person has justification for a firearm and we should grant". Because they're not minded to do so, generally wanting fewer civilians with guns, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll always investigate whether the claim of having land is kosher or not. However, this investigation falls into the same category as background checks, family members with criminal records, etc. It's answering the question "can we find a legal excuse not to grant?" rather than "has this person justified their application sufficiently?" which falls completely outside the law. Providing "good reason" is actually a bit of a nonsense, because it's for them to show you don't have one, not for you to prove it.

 

Just to be clear - let's pretend that, due to a paperwork mix-up at the Land Registry Office, you cannot obtain the deed which shows you own the shooting rights to a bit of stalking land you might own. If no further evidence could be collected by the police to show that you didn't have permission to shoot (and none would exist because the deed had vanished), they would have to err on the presumption of your telling the truth and grant your certificate. Your right to a firearm will always trump their attempts to prove unsuitability, if they cannot provide evidence of it to a Crown Court standard of proof.

 

Let's say the aforementioned situation arose but firearms ownership were a privilege: in that case the police would not grant, because the onus would have been on you to prove that you had suitable land. In the absence of the deed, you could not provide this, and they would therefore be legally justified in refusing you. However, this isn't the case in this country.

 

It is a right with CONDITIONS, and if you don't satisfy those conditions you don't get either a SGC or a FAC, that's why I said.......

 

That is the case, but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it still isn't quite that black and white!

[Dekers]

It's quite simple really and is there for all to read in the Firearms Act. Note the use of the word SHALL.

 

 

1)

A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—

 

(a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;

(b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and

©that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace