no experiance

[bignoel]

a friend of mine has applied for the above 22 rimmi and a 17hmr and a 222 .he has never fired not alone been out with any of the above guns .and was turned down on the 17 hmr but got the 22 and the 222 rifle with semi open ticket no mentor or supervision .how the law changes in 600 yards the distance from him to me . ?

[duckduck1]

How did it get the .22 & .222 & not the 17HMR what reason did they give for the HMR :o?? what do you mean by semi open ticket ?

Edited August 24, 2008 by duckduck1

[bignoel]

this is what mean refused the 17hmr but got the 22 and 222 no mentor or supevision .semi open ticket as long as land is cleared its ok to use the land not just one farm any farm as long as you check it wiht police and obtain written permissionno need for clearance .he is unexperianced with rim fire or centre fire and only got them for pastime shooting . where as i applied for the 17hmr and 222 and got them but the 222 under supervision i own a 22 rimmi althou i have only put throu 2000 rounds throu it and will use all for work. fulltime pestcontrol i am not qualified as my mate the painter decorator ?

[steve_b_wales]

The law is totally stupid. Different police forces seem fit to add their own conditions.

Edited August 24, 2008 by steve_b_wales

[bullet boy]

Double standards or what.

[bignoel]

yeah lad told me today he going to ring his fao tomorrow and asking for a 243 to be added .this will be interesting ?

[tulkyuk]

It happens - get over it and move on

 

Also FAO obviously thinks the lad has a bit of nowse and there for he don't not need a mentor - all depends how the lad came across in his interview

Edited August 26, 2008 by Axe
Swearing

[bignoel]

i think your not reading it right how can some one with no fac experiance at all get a 22 + 222 first time round with no mentor or supervision now yiou get over it jack off or else if you have nothing intelligent to say about it stay out of it jack

[Ice]

i think your not reading it right how can some one with no fac experiance at all get a 22 + 222 first time round with no mentor or supervision now yiou get over it jack off or else if you have nothing intelligent to say about it stay out of it jack

 

 

that was a bit harsh!!!

 

A 22 rimfire is (correct me if im wrong) the smallest calibre avaliable on FAC other that FAC air rifles, so not sure where your coming from on this one, the 222 however is a serious round and im suprised he got this with no questions asked, does he have thousands of acres to shoot?

 

My question on this one, why would a .17HMR be refused and a .222 be ok? seems a bit daft to me that one as it is a bigger calibre faster bullet???

Edited August 25, 2008 by Ice

[bignoel]

this is what i was asking from no experiance with fac to a 222 striaght away and a 22 but refused a 17hmr ? he has 400 acres dairy farm and woodland is his permission.

[CharlieT]

This mentoring and supervision thing is something that some firearm licensing managers are introducing via the back door. There is no mention of it in the HO guidance and no reason for it to be foisted on applicants. It is something that should be vigorously opposed. Anyone who has this condition for a vermin caliber rifle for vermin shooting should refuse to accept it and get BASC or their own particular shooting organisation involved

Anyone who is a decent, sane, law abiding person who can show good reason to own a firearm should and will be granted one.

In this particular case Tulkyuk has hit the nail on the head, the chap in question obviously came across as a very well adjusted and responsible individual and his licensing manager who is obviously a fan of mentoring in some circumstances with some applicants, quite rightly, saw no need to impose such restrictions on him.

[CharlieT]

this is what i was asking from no experiance with fac to a 222 striaght away and a 22 but refused a 17hmr ? he has 400 acres dairy farm and woodland is his permission.

 

 

We shall never know but my guess would be that it was thought that the two calibers granted would cover all his bases as a first time applicant.

[Evilv]

i think your not reading it right how can some one with no fac experiance at all get a 22 + 222 first time round with no mentor or supervision now yiou get over it jack off or else if you have nothing intelligent to say about it stay out of it jack

 

Nice......

 

 

 

Sounds to me like the officers involved thought that one fellow needed supervision and the other didn't. Maybe it could be to do with the maturity (age or otherwise) of the people involved. Stuff like whether they seemed calm or irascible and ill tempered maybe?

[tulkyuk]

i think your not reading it right how can some one with no fac experiance at all get a 22 + 222 first time round with no mentor or supervision now yiou get over it jack off or else if you have nothing intelligent to say about it stay out of it jack

 

This attitude is probably why you have a mentor ( reason i said your fao gives someone a mentor and another not, he can read people - and well by the looks of it) -you want hope your FAO does not read these boards, because your license will be gone

[bignoel]

now you realy are being a jack

[Evilv]

i think your not reading it right how can some one with no fac experiance at all get a 22 + 222 first time round with no mentor or supervision now yiou get over it jack off or else if you have nothing intelligent to say about it stay out of it jack

 

 

that was a bit harsh!!!

 

A 22 rimfire is (correct me if im wrong) the smallest calibre avaliable on FAC other that FAC air rifles, so not sure where your coming from on this one, the 222 however is a serious round and im suprised he got this with no questions asked, does he have thousands of acres to shoot?

 

My question on this one, why would a .17HMR be refused and a .222 be ok? seems a bit daft to me that one as it is a bigger calibre faster bullet???

 

If a case was made for .22 LR for vermin and for a more powerful centre fire rifle for fox or long range vermin, the HMR would perhaps be seen as falling between the two and could be regarded as unnecessary since the other two would be appropriate for the jobs described on the application. It has always been my experience that the officers making these decisions are experienced and able to make judgments about whether they can trust the character involved to behave properly. If a sensible man of impeccable record presented himself with a good reason to use a .222 such as the destruction of foxes, and property suitable for its use, the police would be duty bound to grant the request. If they had concerns about him, they would be entitled to impose conditions. Applicants don't all get the same treatment, generally because they are not all the same in age, maturity, wisdom, and experience. Any one of the above could influence the way things go.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Evilv

[rocksaplenty]

I have heard that the Guildford area police force are a bit relaxed.

 

To add to the previous comments. I was issued a .270 "open ticket" on my first interview while the person who taught me deer stalking still has a closed ticket.

 

Just depends on how well you come accross in the interview.

[plinker]

if he asked for hmr for fox as well as 222 it might be why they said no to hmr as he has been granted 222 (fox) and 22 (rabbit),maybe you should ask him.

btw whats a jack ?

[Cushat]

Maybe they only issue closed tickets to people who brag about shooting foxes at extreme ranges with shotguns??

 

Just a thought??

 

I'd agree that the .17 was probably seen as unecessary for a first application when .22 and .222 were being granted. He'd probably get a .17 added in a few months if he could show reason for needing it.

[Ice]

i think your not reading it right how can some one with no fac experiance at all get a 22 + 222 first time round with no mentor or supervision now yiou get over it jack off or else if you have nothing intelligent to say about it stay out of it jack

 

 

that was a bit harsh!!!

 

A 22 rimfire is (correct me if im wrong) the smallest calibre avaliable on FAC other that FAC air rifles, so not sure where your coming from on this one, the 222 however is a serious round and im suprised he got this with no questions asked, does he have thousands of acres to shoot?

 

My question on this one, why would a .17HMR be refused and a .222 be ok? seems a bit daft to me that one as it is a bigger calibre faster bullet???

 

If a case was made for .22 LR for vermin and for a more powerful centre fire rifle for fox or long range vermin, the HMR would perhaps be seen as falling between the two and could be regarded as unnecessary since the other two would be appropriate for the jobs described on the application. It has always been my experience that the officers making these decisions are experienced and able to make judgments about whether they can trust the character involved to behave properly. If a sensible man of impeccable record presented himself with a good reason to use a .222 such as the destruction of foxes, and property suitable for its use, the police would be duty bound to grant the request. If they had concerns about him, they would be entitled to impose conditions. Applicants don't all get the same treatment, generally because they are not all the same in age, maturity, wisdom, and experience. Any one of the above could influence the way things go.

 

[tulkyuk]

now you realy are being a jack

 

 

B)

[al4x]

to me a lot centres round chinese whispers,

[Highlander]

to me a lot centres round chinese whispers,

 

and my two penny worth...if no experience then a mentor should be an absolute requirement (by law if necessary) as no FAO can catagorically say a person is reasonably competent (Dunblane springs to mind) and IMO no one should be allowed an FAC without first getting experience and NOT on live quarry. It can be useful if different FAOs have different views and interpret things differently but it's also b***** confusing for us mere mortals.

 

Mind you BN I think you're a bit confused about open/semi-open tickets as they're either open or not otherwise the land has to be cleared by an FAO BEFORE being shot over.

[Evilv]

to me a lot centres round chinese whispers,

 

and my two penny worth...if no experience then a mentor should be an absolute requirement (by law if necessary) as no FAO can catagorically say a person is reasonably competent (Dunblane springs to mind) and IMO no one should be allowed an FAC without first getting experience and NOT on live quarry. It can be useful if different FAOs have different views and interpret things differently but it's also b***** confusing for us mere mortals.

 

Mind you BN I think you're a bit confused about open/semi-open tickets as they're either open or not otherwise the land has to be cleared by an FAO BEFORE being shot over.

 

I completely disagree with you I'm afraid.

 

Hamilton the Dunblane killer had held firearms for years so he was experienced. Using his horrible shooting spree as a means of controlling the rest of us till further is quite frankly a stupid argument for a shooter to bring up. I cant imagine why you would want to do that.

 

On of the biggest faults of this country is the tendency to look at the action of some negligent or criminal and then say - 'Oh look. That's what these kind of people do. We need to control everybody just in case they turn out like them.' The whole relationship between the individual and the state is the wrong way around. The presumption should be that men and women are free and not that they must be controlled.

 

The problem here is that negligent and criminal fools will always be a menace, but MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT NEGLIGENT FOOLS OR CRIMINALS. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN JUST STUPID. That is why grown ups should by and large be able to acquire firearms if they like and should be told to use them sensibly. I'm in favour of control of firearms this far and no further, that shooters should be obliged to show themselves to be sane adults of good character and not of subnormal intelligence. Such people are all capable of handling firearms properly and of behaving responsibly. Why should such a person be obliged by narrow minded suspicious fools to have a mentor? It's rubbish and a dangerous trend that shooters should be resisting and not advocating. This country is far too restricted anyway. Has it helped? I don't think so. Always remember that it is criminals, fools and the immature that cause problems with firearms and not the rest of us.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Axe
SWEARING

[Axe]

to me a lot centres round chinese whispers,

 

and my two penny worth...if no experience then a mentor should be an absolute requirement (by law if necessary) as no FAO can catagorically say a person is reasonably competent (Dunblane springs to mind) and IMO no one should be allowed an FAC without first getting experience and NOT on live quarry. It can be useful if different FAOs have different views and interpret things differently but it's also b***** confusing for us mere mortals.

 

Mind you BN I think you're a bit confused about open/semi-open tickets as they're either open or not otherwise the land has to be cleared by an FAO BEFORE being shot over.

 

I completely disagree with you I'm afraid.

 

Hamilton the Dunblane killer had held firearms for years so he was experienced. Using his horrible shooting spree as a means of controlling the rest of us till further is quite frankly a stupid argument for a shooter to bring up. I cant imagine why you would want to do that.

 

On of the biggest faults of this country is the tendency to look at the action of some negligent or criminal and then say - 'Oh look. That's what these kind of people do. We need to control everybody just in case they turn out like them.' The whole relationship between the individual and the state is the wrong way around. The presumption should be that men and women are free and not that they must be controlled.

 

The problem here is that negligent and criminal fools will always be a menace, but MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT NEGLIGENT FOOLS OR CRIMINALS. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN JUST STUPID. That is why grown ups should by and large be able to acquire firearms if they like and should be told to use them sensibly. I'm in favour of control of firearms this far and no further, that shooters should be obliged to show themselves to be sane adults of good character and not of subnormal intelligence. Such people are all capable of handling firearms properly and of behaving responsibly. Why should such a person be obliged by narrow minded suspicious fools to have a mentor? It's rubbish and a dangerous trend that shooters should be resisting and not advocating. This country is far too restricted anyway. Has it helped? I don't think so. Always remember that it is criminals, fools and the immature that cause problems with firearms and not the rest of us.

 

 

What are you waffling on about.