It was going to happen that those coming into the sport should be mentored in a correct and proper manner
There is no legislation 'for those coming into the sport'. We're talking about grant of FAC under UK firearms law, which seems to be mutating into some kind of surrogate Teutonic-style 'hunting training' by the abuse of FLD's powers of condition-setting.
One can be perfectly safe with a firearm wthout being a competant stalker; the reverse is not true, of course.
I think all the accomplished stalkers on here did have a mentor IE being put with a forest ranger or purchased days with a professional stalker or with someone of similar standing and thats how we learned the trade as it was.
I'm sure that this is true in most cases. The fact that it is true should probably be taken to suggest that further restriction is
not needed.
The Chief Officer of Police in my view has a duty to protect the public from any idiotic behaviour that may be seen as a negligent act to the best of his ability
Your view notwithstanding, this is what the current law says:
A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—.
(a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;.
(b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and.
(c)that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.
It seems that since 1920, the CC has been able to discharge his duty as defined above by the normal methods of enquiry. As far as I'm aware, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the law or practice needs to be changed in this regard: and if there is no need for further restriction, I think we should see it as our duty to resist such change.
...and what better vehicle for him than trained experts in the field such as ourselves
What evidence is there of the need either for this 'mentoring', or the need to embrace of the tyrrany of 'trained experts'?
Inparticular the latter is something I feel we would do well to avoid unless we want an expensive and cliquey set-up as seen, say, in Germany. There are clearly many who would benefit in terms of money and self-esteem from such an arrangement, but that doesn't make it right.
if I was in his position i would most certainly do exactly has he is doing by imposing this mentoring condition and anyone with a modecum of sense can see it as the way forward in the grant and use of a Firearm that is being used.
Few will be surprised to find that I clearly don't have a 'modecum of sense'
Such Action is in the interest of the public safety
It should be customary when suggesting further restrictions on the law-abiding to produce some evidence beyond 'honest opinions' in support.
While not questioning your personal integrity, I have to question the use of the word 'honest' in conjuction with suggestions for further restrictions on law-abiding FAC-holders whent here appears to be no evidence that public safety would be even remotely improved thereby. If it were a politician making such a suggestion, I think the word 'disingenuous' would be the the kindest adjective most of us would use.
We have been over 'conditioned mentoring' at length here
http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/showthread.php?6111 and elsewhere, and the notion that a FAC should be granted where the CC has not satisfied himself
before grant as to the conditions in italics above is simply preposterous. That being the case, what on earth is the point of 'conditioned mentoring'?