Should police land checks be scrapped?

[Conor O'Gorman]

In BASC's follow-up meetings with PCCs we are making the point that scrapping land checks will be a welcome move for their force and shooters in their constituency. 

Full article in this week's Shooting Times here:

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/should-police-land-checks-be-scrapped-148162/
 

[oowee]

This would be very welcome. At one point I had two police forces checking around 30 areas of land. One force cleared to calibre requested one to maximum calibre permissible. Farms change names and land holdings so the records kept by the police were clearly inadequate. I bought additional rifles that had to then be cleared. I had a 4 acre field cleared for .243 and yet they insisted on checking a 200 acre farm for .17hmr. A total waste of time and effort. 

[jall25]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

In BASC's follow-up meetings with PCCs we are making the point that scrapping land checks will be a welcome move for their force and shooters in their constituency. 

Full article in this week's Shooting Times here:

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/should-police-land-checks-be-scrapped-148162/
 

 

Great 

Our land is passed for 243 but i need to have my 270 "registered" somewhere else - madness really 

[udderlyoffroad]

Now there's a campaign that we should be able to get behind.

That and removing the requirement for moderators to be on an FAC.

Neither do anything for public safety and place unnecessary administrative burden on police staff.

I'm not aware of any other country in the world having similar requirements for the former either.

[Smudger687]

3 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

In BASC's follow-up meetings with PCCs we are making the point that scrapping land checks will be a welcome move for their force and shooters in their constituency. 

Full article in this week's Shooting Times here:

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/should-police-land-checks-be-scrapped-148162/
 

Nice. Get them to scrap the good reason requirement next.

[Zoli 12 guage]

7 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Nice. Get them to scrap the good reason requirement next.

OR just get the government to stick a "second amendment" type clause in their policy list.🙄

[Smudger687]

2 hours ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

OR just get the government to stick a "second amendment" type clause in their policy list.🙄

Sounds like a great idea.

Edited May 31 by Smudger687

[Old farrier]

13 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

In BASC's follow-up meetings with PCCs we are making the point that scrapping land checks will be a welcome move for their force and shooters in their constituency. 

Full article in this week's Shooting Times here:

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/should-police-land-checks-be-scrapped-148162/
 

Seems like a good idea 

until someone applies for a rifle that hasn’t actually got any land permission or thinks a 243 is ok to shoot deer in the garden or allotment 

appreciate that it’s a pain getting it done but it does give you some contact with the flo and him you this interaction should be a good thing 

[Plink all day]

Presumably it’s a move to make all tickets open from initial grant - Scotland already does this and doesn’t seem to be an issue so seems reasonable to me. The renewal process every 5 years is an opportunity for the feo to evaluate usage and continuing good reason for the certificate. Would be great if target shooters were also given the freedom to use a rifle to take quarry if appropriate without having to jump through more hoops etc to get the exact wording changed on their certificate. 

[Zoli 12 guage]

6 minutes ago, Plink all day said:

Presumably it’s a move to make all tickets open from initial grant - Scotland already does this and doesn't seem to be an issue 

and the population density of Scotland is......................................................

 

 

 

[wymberley]

13 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

In BASC's follow-up meetings with PCCs we are making the point that scrapping land checks will be a welcome move for their force and shooters in their constituency. 

Full article in this week's Shooting Times here:

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/should-police-land-checks-be-scrapped-148162/
 

Recently down here BASC have been helping train the firearms folk in this matter

25 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Seems like a good idea 

until someone applies for a rifle that hasn’t actually got any land permission or thinks a 243 is ok to shoot deer in the garden or allotment 

appreciate that it’s a pain getting it done but it does give you some contact with the flo and him you this interaction should be a good thing 

Irrespective of the 'open/closed' situation will it still be a requirement to specify which land you have permission to shoot over when applying for a FAC?

I'm not quite sure what to think other than I certainly don't believe that Chief Constables (CC) should be permitted to cancel this requirement simply on the grounds that they could be held liable in the event of an accident and as mentioned in the quoted article. Yep, I'll be your CC but I will not be held responsible if I screw up. Similarly, I will not be held liable to any driver speeding offence. Fat chance!

[Smudger687]

May I enquire why so many people are in favour of authoritarianism? That is what land checks are - asking the state for permission to use "your" rifle (that they can take from you at any time, incidentally).

I don't get it. We all own guns, why are some so keen to stop others owning and enjoying guns? 

Bizarre

Edited May 31 by Smudger687

[Zoli 12 guage]

40 minutes ago, Smudger687 said:

May I enquire why so many people are in favour of authoritarianism? That is what land checks are - asking the state for permission to use "your" rifle (that they can take from you at any time, incidentally).

I don't get it. We all own guns, why are some so keen to stop others owning and enjoying guns? 

Bizarre

land checks are not "a permission" they are a safety backstop,done by (supposedly) qualified personal to assess the safety aspect/backstop/calibre suitability of shooting over a specific area to stop unqualified clowns letting rip with a .308 in the back garden.

it takes a lot of time and effort to learn what's safe and what's not otherwise you get 🔔ends like the geezer on the deer stalking thread from last couple of weeks that's clearly slipped through the net and consequently put shooting in a bad light.

oh,and,they cannot "take your rifle off you at any time" UNLESS you contravene the terms of your FAC or you cease to be a "fit and proper person" by engaging in some illegal actions.

Edited May 31 by Zoli 12 guage

[Smudger687]

14 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

land checks are not "a permission" they are a safety backstop,done by (supposedly) qualified personal to assess the safety aspect/backstop/calibre suitability of shooting over a specific area to stop unqualified clowns letting rip with a .308 in the back garden.

it takes a lot of time and effort to learn what's safe and what's not otherwise you get 🔔ends like the geezer on the deer stalking thread from last couple of weeks that's clearly slipped through the net and consequently put shooting in a bad light.

Ok, so what if the police say no? Oh that's right, guess you're not shooting there then. Sounds like permission to me. Just like when the police decide what gun you can have, what type of ammunition you can use, what you can shoot, where you can shoot, who you can sell your gun to, where you have to keep your gun, how much ammunition you can have, and so on. 

Put shooting in a bad light? Not being funny bud but that kind of attitude hasn't gotten us very far over the last hundred years has it?

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

Seems like a good idea 

until someone applies for a rifle that hasn’t actually got any land permission or thinks a 243 is ok to shoot deer in the garden or allotment 

appreciate that it’s a pain getting it done but it does give you some contact with the flo and him you this interaction should be a good thing 

But people with shotgun certificates CAN just buy a shotgun and go blasting in their garden or allotment, yet curiously it never seems to happen AFAIK. It's not Police land inspections that prevents this happening, it's common sense of the shooter. 

Edited May 31 by Smudger687

[Smudger687]

23 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

oh,and,they cannot "take your rifle off you at any time" UNLESS you contravene the terms of your FAC or you cease to be a "fit and proper person" by engaging in some illegal actions.

Firearms ownership is considered a privilege in law and not a right. Your ability to own a firearm can thus be revoked at any point and the Police are well within their rights to do it.

So what about all the shooters in Devon and Cornwall that have had their guns taken off them in the recent past? They all engaged in illegal activity did they? Pull the other one. 

Edited May 31 by Smudger687

[Zoli 12 guage]

7 minutes ago, Smudger687 said:

Ok, so what if the police say no? Oh that's right, guess you're not shooting there then. Sounds like permission to me. Just like when the police decide what gun you can have, what type of ammunition you can use, what you can shoot, where you can shoot, who you can sell your gun to, where you have to keep your gun, how much ammunition you can have, and so on. 

Put shooting in a bad light? Not being funny bud but that kind of attitude hasn't gotten us very far over the last hundred years has it?

i'm not even gonna get into answering ALL the nonsensical points raised in your first paragraph but in response to your last paragraph,my handguns were away in the wind after Dunblane which was a knee jerk reaction by the government which hasn't stopped ANY subsequent murders by handguns or for that matter semi/fully automatic CF rifles/machine pistols.

however,in the nearly 40 years  that i've been shooting shotguns/rifles i've never had ANY problems acquiring or shooting any firearm i've requested to possess when showing good reason.

[Wymondley]

9 minutes ago, Smudger687 said:

But people with shotgun certificates CAN just buy a shotgun and go blasting in their garden or allotment, yet curiously it never seems to happen AFAIK. It's not Police land inspections that prevents this happening, it's common sense of the shooter. 

Exactly this.

Having land permission doesn't make a safe shooter, training and experience do, so anything that makes either of those easier to gain has to be a step forward.

[tonyshooter]

This would be great as it is the cause of some " friction " between the police and shooters, however we need to keep an eye on things so that a mentoring condition or a deer management qualification do not sneak in side ways !

[Smudger687]

34 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

i'm not even gonna get into answering ALL the nonsensical points raised in your first paragraph but in response to your last paragraph,my handguns were away in the wind after Dunblane which was a knee jerk reaction by the government which hasn't stopped ANY subsequent murders by handguns or for that matter semi/fully automatic CF rifles/machine pistols.

however,in the nearly 40 years  that i've been shooting shotguns/rifles i've never had ANY problems acquiring or shooting any firearm i've requested to possess when showing good reason.

Nonsensical? Everything I said was factually correct, the police do decide and give/withhold permission for everything on that list. Not sure why you're calling it nonsensical, maybe for rhetorical impact but you're not addressing the actual points. 

Your handguns were taken because someone else did something (collective punishment), and yet you still defend the system that did it to you? 

[udderlyoffroad]

2 hours ago, wymberley said:

Irrespective of the 'open/closed' situation will it still be a requirement to specify which land you have permission to shoot over when applying for a FAC?

2 hours ago, Old farrier said:

until someone applies for a rifle that hasn’t actually got any land permission or thinks a 243 is ok to shoot deer in the garden or allotment 

The idea here is to remove the requirement for the police to 'check' the land, as the process is so variable as to provide zero benefit to anyone, much less do anything for public safety.  You will still need to tell the police about your land.

 

1 hour ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

It takes a lot of time and effort to learn what's safe and what's not otherwise you get 🔔ends like the geezer on the deer stalking thread from last couple of weeks that's clearly slipped through the net and consequently put shooting in a bad light.

How is that relevant?   The land was presumably cleared for that calibre*  - yet still the cigar chomping plonker let a supposedly experienced stalker convince him to take a clearly unsafe shot**.  How, exactly, would a land check have helped in this situation?

What you appear to be making an argument for is compulsory hunter exams and training.  Not land checks.

1 hour ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

oh,and,they cannot "take your rifle off you at any time" UNLESS you contravene the terms of your FAC or you cease to be a "fit and proper person" by engaging in some illegal actions.

Demonstrably not the case.

Having an argument with your wife and going for a walk to calm down is not illegal.  Putting a post on social media saying you were struggling with your mental health but are better now is not illegal.  Yet still both these actions resulted in the full police reception committee and having rifles confiscated.

 

2 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

May I enquire why so many people are in favour of authoritarianism? That is what land checks are - asking the state for permission to use "your" rifle (that they can take from you at any time, incidentally).

I don't get it. We all own guns, why are some so keen to stop others owning and enjoying guns? 

Bizarre

In my experience, people find comfort within rules and following them.  Look at lockdowns, endless questions to police of 'are we allowed to'?  Or the GLs; a few members on here seemingly love inventing rules barring them from, say stubble shooting, on the basis of a deliberately vaguely worded document.

 

*Yes, In know, guide might've had an open ticket....

**Normally it's a mistake to judge safe shots on the basis of Youtube videos, but in this case, the more of the video you watched, the worse it got...

[Zoli 12 guage]

5 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

 

Demonstrably not the case.

Having an argument with your wife and going for a walk to calm down is not illegal.  Putting a post on social media saying you were struggling with your mental health but are better now is not illegal.  Yet still both these actions resulted in the full police reception committee and having rifles confiscated 

i agree totally with your first analogy HOWEVER (if the second one is real) what kind of idiot firearms owner puts a post up ANYWHERE, stating there's "something wrong with his noggin" and then retracts it, deserved all he got.👍

what is the old bill supposed to do?

wait till a self proclaimed, possible nutcase shoots his wife and kids and if you actually know this guy,maybe yourself AND THEN go and take his guns?

F.F.S buddy,do we as shooters want another possible Plymouth (Keyham) where Jake Davison got his gun back from the old bill before having another "strop" and killing 5 people.

Edited May 31 by Zoli 12 guage

[London Best]

5 hours ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

in the nearly 40 years  that i've been shooting shotguns/rifles i've never had ANY problems acquiring or shooting any firearm i've requested to possess when showing good reason.

This, but over 60 years.

[Smudger687]

2 hours ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

i agree totally with your first analogy HOWEVER (if the second one is real) what kind of idiot firearms owner puts a post up ANYWHERE, stating there's "something wrong with his noggin" and then retracts it, deserved all he got.👍

what is the old bill supposed to do?

wait till a self proclaimed, possible nutcase shoots his wife and kids and if you actually know this guy,maybe yourself AND THEN go and take his guns?

F.F.S buddy,do we as shooters want another possible Plymouth (Keyham) where Jake Davison got his gun back from the old bill before having another "strop" and killing 5 people.

It is mathematically certain that for as long as people have access to guns, at least one of them will use those guns to kill someone. Even if the probability of a gun owner using those guns to kill someone else was 1 in a million, we'd have more shootings in the UK using legal guns than we currently do. 

If your criteria is "we need to be controlled because we don't want people getting shot" then I'm afraid there is no limit to the amount of control that is needed to meet that criteria - all guns will need to be taken, from everyone, legally held or not. 

Most people don't kill other people because they don't want to, not because they don't have the means to. I'm disappointed that other gun owners still subscribe to the nonsensical rhetoric that the anti-gunners spout. 

[wymberley]

2 hours ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

F.F.S buddy,do we as shooters want another possible Plymouth (Keyham) where Jake Davison got his gun back from the old bill before having another "strop" and killing 5 people.

I can't help but wonder if as I've been reliably informed the fact that the firearms department had had no training in place for some 20 years had anything to do with this terrible incident. I find that lack hard to believe but should it be correct then the buck stops at the CC and the P&CC. I just wish that as both - and one having just been re-elected - are still in post I was able to have the faith/confidence to know that the information given must be incorrect.

[udderlyoffroad]

3 hours ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

F.F.S buddy,do we as shooters want another possible Plymouth (Keyham) where Jake Davison got his gun back from the old bill before having another "strop" and killing 5 people.

What does you raising all this have to do with the point of this thread, that is the removal of land checks?

Yes it's my fault, I attempted to point out your factually incorrect statements, such as you have to do something illegal before the police will confiscate your firearms. Like the fule I am.

Again, how would land checks help in any of the examples you cite?