rec-baller Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) a friend of mine has recently been granted a .17HMR, BUT --he was refused a slot for a .22LR !! he only lives 3 miles away from me, so we are both under Lancashire constabulary ( Preston), he was told that they did,nt like to allow them on first applications because ot the ricochets !! i was granted TWO ( bolt & semi) on my application two years ago so i can,t understand why my mate has been refused his !!! i have told him to apeal but he doe,snt want to rock the boat so early on in his licensce anybody else been refused a .22 and why were you refused it ?? shaun Edited January 18, 2009 by rec-baller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 It makes sence, what can you claim that you are going to do differently with a .17 than you are a .22? You'll be using it on the same quarry under the same conditions? It's kind of like saying you want .222, .223, .243, .270 all for Charlie, you can use all 4 to different levels of effectiveness, but it doesn’t mean you will be given all four as you only have use for one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsportshooter Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 It makes sence, what can you claim that you are going to do differently with a .17 than you are a .22? You'll be using it on the same quarry under the same conditions? It's kind of like saying you want .222, .223, .243, .270 all for Charlie, you can use all 4 to different levels of effectiveness, but it doesn’t mean you will be given all four as you only have use for one. He may wish to shoot vermin (at range .17HMR) or with respect to nearby residential property or with livestock in mind (ie quietly = .22lr sub + mod) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LXX73 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbeaver Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 i don't think you can shoot fox with a .17 hmr in lancashire. that would be my reason for 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rec-baller Posted January 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 yes -you are right, he wanted a .22 lr + mod for "quiet" shooting and also at night,also for the difference in shooting ranges i still don,t understand why they allowed me 2 and him none ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Has your friend been in touch with his shooting organisation to ask them to speak with the Lancs FLD? David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 my mate who is as old as god and he,s been shooting for more years than i can remember packet his open ticket in for 2 years. then he reapplied for it back and he wanted .17 hmr and.22 rimmie, the feo phoned him and said "its one or the other take your pick but you cant have both" he chose the 17 hmr. 6 months later his son applied for .17,.22rf,.223 cf and got the lot no questions asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Has it got anything to do with his permission? If it's quite flat maybe they see the .22lr to be a bit dangerous in inexperienced hands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsportshooter Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 i don't think you can shoot fox with a .17 hmr in lancashire. that would be my reason for 1. Er - read the original thread you wally - 1.He was offered .17HMR 2.he didnt mention Fox that was someone else and three you can shoot fox with whatever you like (dependant on circumstances) you may not however be able to get it as a condition on your FAC in such circumstances (county dependant)..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Er - read the original thread you wally - 1.He was offered .17HMR 2.he didnt mention Fox that was someone else and three you can shoot fox with whatever you like (dependant on circumstances) you may not however be able to get it as a condition on your FAC in such circumstances (county dependant)..... NSS - are you saying that Fox is not allowed as a good reason to acquire - but that you are legally permitted to shoot fox with it, even though the ticket stipulates the conditions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsportshooter Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) NSS - are you saying that Fox is not allowed as a good reason to acquire - but that you are legally permitted to shoot fox with it, even though the ticket stipulates the conditions? What I'm saying (I can't believe I'm qualifying this point as it has nothing to do with the original post) is that contrary to the literal part of jpbeaver's post 'i don't think you can shoot fox with a .17 hmr in Lancashire.' obviously you can, that is, shoot a fox with a .17HMR in Lancashire or anywhere else for that matter. LEGALLY you could only do so if the animal was injured and you were doing so to reduce its suffering or for instance if the fox was killing livestock in a pen close by (as per the rules) - So in reality you could shoot a fox with a .17HMR in Lancashire (you could also actually do it all day long, illegally, if you were that way inclined....) With regard to whether fox is a 'good reason' to acquire .17HMR that really depends on how your local FEO has interpreted the law/guidelines in relation to this matter. As you will find from several previous posts on this forum - some FEOs will allow fox as a condition on .17HMR others (most) will not. However this does not change the fact that you could still shoot a fox with a .17HMR in Lancashire. AND AGAIN - I am well aware that this has nothing to do with the original question Edited January 18, 2009 by Newsportshooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 i don't think you can shoot fox with a .17 hmr in lancashire. that would be my reason for 1. Er - read the original thread you wally - 1.He was offered .17HMR 2.he didnt mention Fox that was someone else and three you can shoot fox with whatever you like (dependant on circumstances) you may not however be able to get it as a condition on your FAC in such circumstances (county dependant)..... i think what jpbeaver is saying is "i don't think you can shoot fox with a .17 hmr in lancashire." that would be my reason to ask for a .22rf. still a wrong reason but there you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsportshooter Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) I see now - that old reverse whatever it is..... But as you've said not a 'good reason' to aquire .22lr - To the contrary in fact you are more likely to get .17HMR for Fox over .22lr Edited January 18, 2009 by Newsportshooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbald Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Which area of Lancs are you, I am north Lancs and was granted 17hmr and 22lr just before xmas and was adviced to apply for both, 17 for range and 22 for closer also the option using nv on one. As said I would ring feo and if no joy get in touch with BASC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) I see now - that old reverse whatever it is..... But as you've said not a 'good reason' to aquire .22lr - To the contrary in fact you are more likely to get .17HMR for Fox over .22lr i agree mate, still marginal though. tis hard work at times, but giving in wont help jpbeaver who thinks .22 rimmie is ok for fox. Edited January 18, 2009 by markbivvy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 i have told him to apeal but he doe,snt want to rock the boat so early on in his licensce no one can help him then. if people are prepared to have what they are given instead of what they should have, then firearms departments will carry on getting away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rec-baller Posted January 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 you are right on both points 1- you Can,T shoot fox ( legally) with a .17 HMR 2- i can,t make him apeal- if he want,s to it,s up to him, i can.t understand it either, my FEO has always been obliging, he even allowed me to double up my allowance on ammo after only six months , my mate is just going to have to wait and put in for a variation in six months we are based near to Preston so both come under Hutton firearms shaun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-munsters Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 is your FLM Michael Sykes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cushat Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Has your friend been in touch with his shooting organisation to ask them to speak with the Lancs FLD? David On the basis of my recent experiences of contacting "my shooting organisation" to ask them to speak to Thames Valley about an unreasonable condition, I'd suggest rec-baller may be pishing in the wind. Lots of strong opinions for me to question the condition myself, but as I continue to get nowhere their orignal strong stance seems to be weakening somewhat and there is a reluctance to get directly involved with Thames Valley firearms dept themselves. David - I hope I am in aposition to withdraw this post in a couple of days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Cushat, You situation with TV is still on going, and you have had three / 4 e-mails from Matt detailing what you should do and what information Matt needs to take this forward. All, Here is some general guidance for all who have issued with their FLD about conditions on certificates etc. The way forward is for you to negotiate the condition with FLD / FLO. Remember, if the condition is 'reasonable' then there is little if any legal right of appeal. . You should ask for the basis of that condition – i.e. why has it been applied and also ask what could be done to have said condition removed. At this stage again you can discuss with the FLO the terms of the condition and see if they are willing to budge. But remember negotiation is a two way street, sometimes both sides need to give a little! However, if you feel you have explored all reasonable steps but the FLO / FLD insist on including unreasonable conditions then let us know and we will discuss with you the best way forward, including us contacting the FLD on your behalf. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cushat Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Cushat, You situation with TV is still on going, and you have had three / 4 e-mails from Matt detailing what you should do and what information Matt needs to take this forward. David - you appear to suggest that I am being unreasonable? As I was unable to contact Matt or anyone else in Firearms and no one returned my voicemail, I emailed Matt and asked him to gave me a quick call back so I could chat through options before an impending discussion with Thames Valley. Not too much to ask surely? You are correct though, I have had four emails from Matt since Friday afternoon; all fobbing me off and ignoring my continued requests for someone to give me a call back. However, despite finding time to email, Matt could not find the time to actually call me. A frustrating situation, I'm sure you can appreciate? This is not meant as another BASC-bashing post - I have always been supportive of BASC, but I felt I needed to set the record straight following your comments above. Matt was not awaiting any info from me nor was I actualliy asking him to take anything forward - I just wanted a chat!! I was about 2 minutes from cancelling our joint BASC membership all over the sake of someone picking the phone up and returning my call. However, after some effort, I managed to get through to Matt earlier and I hope our quick chat wasn't too much effort? It certainly provided the reassurance I sought and I now feel I am in a much stronger position to argue my case with Thames Valley. It's a shame we couldn't have had the chat in the first instance and avoided any bad feeling on either side. Apologies to original poster for hijacking the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Sorry if you thought I was suggesting you were being unreasonable - this was not what I meant at all. Nor was Matt trying to fob you off- sometimes when there is a flurry of activity things have to be prioritised, and Matt was most probably working on another case that was higher up the priority level than yours - hence the e-mails, including his phone number, saying that he / you would speak on Monday (today) which I am led to believe has happened. Frustrating, yes, and I think the lesson here is one of communication from our side perhaps. Had Matt told you that he had a more urgent case to deal with on Friday then perhaps you would have understood why he wanted to defer your telephone ‘meeting’ until today. But going back to the original point of the thread- the issue remains the same- negotiate, ask why restrictions etc have been entered and what needs to happen to have them taken off – and if this fails then let your organisation know with all the details. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cushat Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Frustrating, yes, and I think the lesson here is one of communication from our side perhaps. Had Matt told you that he had a more urgent case to deal with on Friday then perhaps you would have understood why he wanted to defer your telephone ‘meeting’ until today. I wouldn't have been so bothered if Matt had either not replied immediately or briefly replied and said he was really busy but would get back to me. What wound me up was him finding the time to send lengthy emails but not being willing to ring - I can't see the logic in that :blink: Perhaps it's also worth noting that not everyone who rings BASC actually wants anything other than advice. There appeared to be some assumption that I was asking for BASC to step in and wasn't willing to do anything for myself. I'm not sure if this is the norm for callers to the dept but, as I kept repeating, I just wanted to talk to someone so I could be better informed! I do support your comments on talking to FEO's and Firearms dept though. Whilst some of the opinions I've come across have been wildly off the mark, the staff have always been polite and helpful and have not been concerned by me calling for updates etc. You gets lots of opinions on Forums, but ultimately it's the FEO/firearms depts who make the decisions - give them a call, they don't bite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 To play devils advocate here for a minute, what do you class as an unreasonable condition? Unreasonable in who's eyes? The Cheif Constable can and does impose restrictions on certain certificates, normally for good reason. I am not looking for an argument, I am just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.