Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've just received my renewal today. In the column for 'Additional conditions' it says ' The firearms and ammunition to which this certificate relates shall be used for Target Shooting and only whilst a member of ( the club I joined) on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet injury or damage claim.'

Yet, on the next page all my firearms I own, and the one I'm purchasing (.308) are 'open' and AOLQ

It appears that the police are contradicting themselves,or have I read this wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s the issue of concern? Firearms have to be conditioned for their use so it looks like yours can be used for target shooting whilst a member of said club and AOLQ on land you have permission to shoot on. 
AOLQ would not allow for target shooting, and target shooting would not allow for AOLQ.  
or at least that’s how I understand it to be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

What’s the issue of concern? Firearms have to be conditioned for their use so it looks like yours can be used for target shooting whilst a member of said club and AOLQ on land you have permission to shoot on. 
AOLQ would not allow for target shooting, and target shooting would not allow for AOLQ.  
or at least that’s how I understand it to be.

 

It's not an issue of concern, it just looks like they have contradicted themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'adequate financial arrangements' piece seems weird and made up on the hoof.. it also gives you an exposure that you have to ensure the club is properly capitalised and insured (as no clubs would wear a big liability loss).. as this a condition on your FAC and as such you could inadvertently breach it (with all of the fun and games that would bring(, I would ask the FEO to reconsider this condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PPP said:

The 'adequate financial arrangements' piece seems weird and made up on the hoof.. it also gives you an exposure that you have to ensure the club is properly capitalised and insured (as no clubs would wear a big liability loss).. as this a condition on your FAC and as such you could inadvertently breach it (with all of the fun and games that would bring(, I would ask the FEO to reconsider this condition.

Good point regarding the financial arrangements. I know that the club is a Bona Fide one. I wonder if my BASC membership would cover me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, steve_b_wales said:

Good point regarding the financial arrangements. I know that the club is a Bona Fide one. I wonder if my BASC membership would cover me.

BASC membership covers insurance while out and about.

Your club should have NRA type minimum insurance, otherwise it doesnt meet HO approval/conditions.

Thats all financial arrangements covered.

The part about target shooting is a separate condition to shooting over land, and could cover firearms that are not suitable for land use , like LBP or black powder, although this probably doesnt apply to you, it may to others (Like me )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rewulf said:

BASC membership covers insurance while out and about.

Your club should have NRA type minimum insurance, otherwise it doesnt meet HO approval/conditions.

Thats all financial arrangements covered.

The part about target shooting is a separate condition to shooting over land, and could cover firearms that are not suitable for land use , like LBP or black powder, although this probably doesnt apply to you, it may to others (Like me )

:good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, steve_b_wales said:

:good:

Steve, I would ask for that to be taken off, the onus of vetting of the strength of financials or management practice to mitigate risk should not be on you, this is an FEO screw up and could leave you in breach of the conditions of your licence.  If you are a BASC member then you could ask their view but it is an reasonable condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, PPP said:

Steve, I would ask for that to be taken off, the onus of vetting of the strength of financials or management practice to mitigate risk should not be on you, this is an FEO screw up and could leave you in breach of the conditions of your licence.  If you are a BASC member then you could ask their view but it is an reasonable condition.

I have emailed BASC and sent them details of the conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PPP said:

Steve, I would ask for that to be taken off, the onus of vetting of the strength of financials or management practice to mitigate risk should not be on you, this is an FEO screw up and could leave you in breach of the conditions of your licence.  If you are a BASC member then you could ask their view but it is an reasonable condition.

Vetting ? 
Its a condition of grant/renewal that if you accidentally injure or kill someone whilst using your firearms, that there is insurance present to cover legal/compensation claims.
Is it not on your ticket ?

Its the same situation with your car, you cant drive it legally without adequate cover for 3rd parties at a minimum.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Vetting ? 
Its a condition of grant/renewal that if you accidentally injure or kill someone whilst using your firearms, that there is insurance present to cover legal/compensation claims.
Is it not on your ticket ?

Its the same situation with your car, you cant drive it legally without adequate cover for 3rd parties at a minimum.

 

It's not on either my SGC or FAC.  Is this a fairly recent addition, as I thought adequate insurance ought to be common sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Boristhedog said:

It's not on either my SGC or FAC.  Is this a fairly recent addition, as I thought adequate insurance ought to be common sense. 

Im sure its on mine , it could be force specific.
Ill check when I get home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Boristhedog said:

It's not on either my SGC or FAC.  Is this a fairly recent addition, as I thought adequate insurance ought to be common sense. 

Can see anything complicated about the original post, self explanatory. 

I haven't the financial wording on my certs either, but you would have to be really rather dim not to  have adequate insurance in place at all times. It should be a condition of holding a license imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, steve_b_wales said:

 'The firearms and ammunition to which this certificate relates shall be used for Target Shooting and only whilst a member of ( the club I joined) on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet injury or damage claim.'

 

 

 

Its a standard disclaimer that all Police firearms licensing counties use for target shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Vetting ? 
Its a condition of grant/renewal that if you accidentally injure or kill someone whilst using your firearms, that there is insurance present to cover legal/compensation claims.
Is it not on your ticket ?

Its the same situation with your car, you cant drive it legally without adequate cover for 3rd parties at a minimum.

 

Nope, nothing of that sort on my ticket, of course as a prudent person i am insured (sadly more than once due to defacto BASC) for MY negligence and ensuing liability whether firearms, motor vehicle, defective property and so forth....

 I would NEVER accept any condition which expected me to assume responsibility for vetting the financial risk management of a range, that is THEIR responsibility solely and any condition on my licence would be removed as it is not a legal requirement and i would not wish accidentally breach it and accept the ensuing outcome.  To accept responsibility for someones else's liability is a terrible, terrible idea (as anyone who signed up to 'amigo loans' will find out ... the next ppi ...)

This is the FAO trying to discharge their responsibilities of vetting the range on the customer and end user and is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable and just laziness..

I'm sure that BASC are on the case though and challenging this condition rather than sitting round enjoying entertainment from various advertisers.... Oh look a flying pig delivering rocking horse ****...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PPP said:

Nope, nothing of that sort on my ticket, of course as a prudent person i am insured (sadly more than once due to defacto BASC) for MY negligence and ensuing liability whether firearms, motor vehicle, defective property and so forth....

 I would NEVER accept any condition which expected me to assume responsibility for vetting the financial risk management of a range, that is THEIR responsibility solely and any condition on my licence would be removed as it is not a legal requirement and i would not wish accidentally breach it and accept the ensuing outcome.  To accept responsibility for someones else's liability is a terrible, terrible idea (as anyone who signed up to 'amigo loans' will find out ... the next ppi ...)

This is the FAO trying to discharge their responsibilities of vetting the range on the customer and end user and is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable and just laziness..

I'm sure that BASC are on the case though and challenging this condition rather than sitting round enjoying entertainment from various advertisers.... Oh look a flying pig delivering rocking horse ****...

 

Checked , and its on mine , and Im pretty sure it always has been.

But you keep coming back to vetting.
They are not asking you to check the range has insurance, the range HAS to have insurance, or it cant operate as a HO approved range (with all of the privileges that comes with)
If its not HO approved, then it still needs to operate on fairground type licence, which is normally a temporary issue, and where the point of insurance becomes a little dodgy...

When it comes to shooting over land/pest control , you dont HAVE to have cover, but like you say its highly advisable, or you could end up having the pants sued off you.

Its all moot whether you accept the conditions or not, I assumed everyone had it on their ticket, so it made no odds to me anyway.
But asking for a condition to be removed , when its a stipulation of that force area, could end up with you finding yourself ticket-less.
Its not something I would fancy challenging, especially when I cant see what difference it makes.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...