Jump to content

FIrst time fac holders


brushy
 Share

Recommended Posts

What’s people’s views on first time fac holders 

 

what guns should you be allowed?

i believe some county firearms departments are becoming a joke 

chap on a shot today has just been granted an fac for 17 , 22 ,243 

its his first fac 

he was told 4 weeks ago by the firearms department he wouldn’t get a 17 , or 243 but would get a .22 by the FAO 

 

then the head keeper wrote a letter on his behalf 

quote saying “how safe he was “

The head keeper  has never seen him shoot

I have and it’s not good 

shouldn’t the FAO need more proof 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said by Walshie, the FEO has to use his own judgement but there is nothing to stop him making his own local enquiries.  In the old days when the local rural bobby (I was one) signed off the applications , he knew everybody on his patch, but those days have gone.    The applicant can only shoot one rifle at a time and to be honest the 22RF is probably the most dangerous and every likelyhood that would be the one they would approve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said in a separate thread, I have taken out supposed 'educated' stalkers, who couldn't wait to tell me they had a DSC2 and it didn't take me long to come to the conclusion they shouldn't have a rifle either. Had one take a shot at a deer through a gap in a slingy wood into broad daylight the nearest background probably two miles away and running alongside the wood was a footpath.  Unfortunately even within the firearms/shotgun fraternity there are the good the bad and the ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brushy said:

What’s people’s views on first time fac holders 

 

what guns should you be allowed?

i believe some county firearms departments are becoming a joke 

chap on a shot today has just been granted an fac for 17 , 22 ,243 

its his first fac 

he was told 4 weeks ago by the firearms department he wouldn’t get a 17 , or 243 but would get a .22 by the FAO 

 

then the head keeper wrote a letter on his behalf 

quote saying “how safe he was “

The head keeper  has never seen him shoot

I have and it’s not good 

shouldn’t the FAO need more proof 

 

 

Anything untoward that may happen then it will backlash onto the keeper as acting as a referee

I was talking to a keeper in Scotland on one of our shoot days and this cropped up in conversation  whereby he had signed  persons applications as referee judging them as capable persons

But one or two turned bad  not sure if domestic or confrontation in public but he ended up with the police at his door late at night which he managed to sort out But he now says that is the finnish and will no longer endorse anyone and i would'nt care he is a lovely bloke and easy going and good at his job

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I applied for FAC after having SGC for 18 months (during which time I hadn’t endangered anyone) and was granted 22rf/17hmr(at fao suggestion) and 243 with Fox + aolq straight away due to having good reason.  If people are negligent and dangerous then they don’t need a FAC to cause problems, I think that the FAO can suss the situation out by the interview (my char lasted about an hour) and their DD in speaking to landowners etc.

Having no previous experience of firearms doesn’t make people dangerous as having experience doesn’t make muppets safe.

However, it could be a good idea for any new shooter of FAC, SGC or air (when that is licenced) to need to pass a cerficate of general competancy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair if you have good reason and the FEO is happy why shouldn't you get a .243 on initial grant. If for example you thing is deer stalking and you have been out either on paid stalks or you stalk with another stalker getting a .22lr or .17HMR isn't really going to do you a lot of good.

As has been pointed out above having experience/ qualifications is no guarantee of safety in any walk of life. Sometimes shooting can be a bit "I had to do my time before I got X so you should too"!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from the vagaries of the current system, and the arbitrary treatment of applicants it seems to work. Despite the perceived risks we do not have many, if any incidents of people getting shot. We have to separate possibility with probability. There are many possible risks but the probability based on reported cases is negligible. 

System is hard enough now let's not put any more hurdles in the way of our sport.

Edited by oowee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

If he has good reason to own a centrefire then he has the legal right to do so, as long as he is not a disqualified person. 

 

Mind your own business. 

My feelings exactly.

The FAC vetting process has never been more stringent, if an applicant has passed these checks, including an interview and has demonstrated good reason why on earth shouldn't he get the rifles he needs.

However, if the OP is so fearful of how dangerous this chap is, I presume he has brought his fears to the attention of his Chief Constable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, brushy said:

What’s people’s views on first time fac holders 

 

what guns should you be allowed?

i believe some county firearms departments are becoming a joke 

chap on a shot today has just been granted an fac for 17 , 22 ,243 

its his first fac 

he was told 4 weeks ago by the firearms department he wouldn’t get a 17 , or 243 but would get a .22 by the FAO 

 

then the head keeper wrote a letter on his behalf 

quote saying “how safe he was “

The head keeper  has never seen him shoot

I have and it’s not good 

shouldn’t the FAO need more proof 

 

 

I assume that you have raised your concerns with the licensing department then? Or is complaining on an internet forum about the apparent injustice of him being granted sufficient to allay any fears you have about public safety?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing how some seem to deem it necessary for others to pass a competency test, not having done one themselves. My FEO hadn't seen my nephew shoot, nor any of his mates ( nor me come to that )  before deeming them safe to hold S1. Despite shooting having one of the best safety records of UK sports one can indulge in, it never fails to amaze me when tighter regulations are called for from shooters themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference between a.22 and a 243 when it comes to safety none what so ever.  Its the same when land gets cleared for a 223 but not for a 243 a load of ballcocks if he got Deer to shoot and the keeper is happy no problem he got  good reason to have them

Edited by Rim Fire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎13‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 08:47, oowee said:

Apart from the vagaries of the current system, and the arbitrary treatment of applicants it seems to work. Despite the perceived risks we do not have many, if any incidents of people getting shot. We have to separate possibility with probability. There are many possible risks but the probability based on reported cases is negligible. 

System is hard enough now let's not put any more hurdles in the way of our sport.

Couldn't agree more. I have been a risk manager my whole career. Managing risk is about understanding the probability of a risk actually crystalizing. Evidence suggests - as stated by oowee - that there are very few incidents involving fac holders. Unless FAO's go out with an applicant and observe applicant's skills (impractical), I don't see how the current system can be improved or indeed whether there's a need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/01/2019 at 22:29, Scully said:

Each case should be evaluated on the merits of each applicant in my opinion, and the only criteria they have to satisfy is 'good reason'. 

I agree. What if the person applying was a Police Firearms instructor. Or been in the army for some years.

I do agree that some are taken on face value when they shouldn't be. A friend of mine had no experience at all when he applied. By the time the FEO visited, I had taken him out quite a few times, teaching him safe handling, Safety regarding everything, Back-stops, type of soil and all that. He was granted .17HMR and .223, and an SGC. The Police never even took my details, let alone speak to me! Thankfully he was a very quick learner, and very safe, so it made things easier.

I also tried to teach my cousin with the safe use of shotguns, decoying, that sort of shooting. He just wasn't grasping the safety side of it. And several times he pulled his gun from the slip, and i found myself looking down the wrong end. I tried to get him to grasp the "Only point a gun at something you want to destroy" But he kept saying "But it's not loaded" He just couldn't grasp the idea of always treat a gun as loaded.

He applied for his SGC and got it! I went shooting with him 2 or 3 times, but i was strung out after every one. So i've ducked and dived every request to go since!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jam1e said:

I agree. What if the person applying was a Police Firearms instructor. Or been in the army for some years.

I do agree that some are taken on face value when they shouldn't be. A friend of mine had no experience at all when he applied. By the time the FEO visited, I had taken him out quite a few times, teaching him safe handling, Safety regarding everything, Back-stops, type of soil and all that. He was granted .17HMR and .223, and an SGC. The Police never even took my details, let alone speak to me! Thankfully he was a very quick learner, and very safe, so it made things easier.

I also tried to teach my cousin with the safe use of shotguns, decoying, that sort of shooting. He just wasn't grasping the safety side of it. And several times he pulled his gun from the slip, and i found myself looking down the wrong end. I tried to get him to grasp the "Only point a gun at something you want to destroy" But he kept saying "But it's not loaded" He just couldn't grasp the idea of always treat a gun as loaded.

He applied for his SGC and got it! I went shooting with him 2 or 3 times, but i was strung out after every one. So i've ducked and dived every request to go since!

Would it not be a better way and more responsible to explain to him why you do not want to shoot with him. Ducking and diving only leaves him to maybe hurt someone who does not know him. Or pass your concern onto the police. Surely a fall out is better than a funeral. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bostonmick said:

Would it not be a better way and more responsible to explain to him why you do not want to shoot with him. Ducking and diving only leaves him to maybe hurt someone who does not know him. Or pass your concern onto the police. Surely a fall out is better than a funeral. 

I agree. But in this world there are people who think they know better. He still has his shotgun, but only ever had permission to shoot when with me on mine. He hasn't shot for a long time, (Should have been more clear about that) and he doesn't intend on renewing it due to no land, no doubt he'll sell it. Probably a "cop-out" but at least no harm has been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...