Minimum Acreage to get cleared for centrefire?

270Buck

Well-Known Member
Hi,

I have just got permission from a landowner to shoot deer in his very small wood, this is connected to a large woods of approximately 100 acres.

It is a bluebell wood, so as you would imagine in the South has plenty of muntjac present, as well as some fallow and roe.

The land is flat so the only real prospect is to use highseats anyway. I am waiting for confirmation of the exact size of the woods before I then go to the local FEO to get the land cleared. My estimate would be 15 acres, no footpaths in or around the woods.

I am currently in discussions with my firearms licensing department to get an open ticket. But until then I will need to get the land checked, does anyone know what the deemed minimum acreage would be to allow me to use a .222 .243 and .270?

Cheers

Ross
 
There isn't a minimum Ross, it will all rest on the opinion of the FEO on the day.

I had a similar situation when I tried to get 30acres cleared, it was refused for centrefire at the time and now that I have open ticket I can (legally) shoot there but I often wonder whether I should?.... knowing that it has been deemed unsuitable.
 
What I will do is ear mark some suitable trees that I can put a highseat up, so when I meet the FEO I will show him that I have identified some areas that would give best visibility for a safe shot etc.

I think I should be OK as I spoke to the FEO and he was a nice guy and seemed very reasonable so lets hope he got out of bed the right side on the day I meet him.

Any more pointers/advice?

Cheers

Ross
 
I had a similar situation when I tried to get 30acres cleared, it was refused for centrefire at the time and now that I have open ticket I can (legally) shoot there but I often wonder whether I should?.... knowing that it has been deemed unsuitable.

Si, sorry but............................. :doh::doh::doh:

You have an open FAC and can make decisions about the suitability of land based on your own judgement. Who's to say if the FEO who made that original decision didn't make it because the land didn't look or seem right to his way of thinking at the time? Was he even qualified to make the call and given your recent tales of woe with your FLD, did he do it to discourage you rather than from any actual safety aspect?
 
That's exactly why I need an open ticket.

Generally when shooting from a highseat you will be safe in the knowledge that you will have a safe backdrop. If the FEO takes one look at the woods and says "too small for a CF" how will he make that decision? Could they say as a condition "CF only to be used from a highseat" ?

What I need to do is concentrate my efforts on getting my Firearms licensing to agree to an open ticket sooner rather than later!!

Cheers

Ross
 
Si, sorry but............................. :doh::doh::doh:

You have an open FAC and can make decisions about the suitability of land based on your own judgement. Who's to say if the FEO who made that original decision didn't make it because the land didn't look or seem right to his way of thinking at the time? Was he even qualified to make the call and given your recent tales of woe with your FLD, did he do it to discourage you rather than from any actual safety aspect?
You could be right about trying to discourage me. My FEO's reputation comes before him. :-|
The land was deemed unsuitable for 2 reasons... one being a canal nearby and the other a row of cottages. I never challenged the decision because I knew that it wouldn't be long before I got ticket opened for .223.
I know I can legally shoot there.... and I do, but if something where to go wrong, for example if I frightened a dog walker and they reported me. Would there be any ramifications?... as by choosing to shoot on that land I would be going against the recommendation of the FEO.
 
Last edited:
Please excuse my ignorance in these matters - perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Where did this condition/requirement inserted on FACs that land be 'cleared by the Chief Officer of Police' come from? This causes concern and indeed amusement when looking at FACs of prospective joint lessors this far north from the notion that you will get the Chief Constable or his minions out trudging the policies (several thousand square miles of them) to deem a particular parcel of land as 'suitable' for the use of a rifle.

What gives them both the right to insert this and the qualification to be able to judge the suitability or otherwise?

Does the Home Office Guidance support this?
 
Please excuse my ignorance in these matters - perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Where did this condition/requirement inserted on FACs that land be 'cleared by the Chief Officer of Police' come from? This causes concern and indeed amusement when looking at FACs of prospective joint lessors this far north from the notion that you will get the Chief Constable or his minions out trudging the policies (several thousand square miles of them) to deem a particular parcel of land as 'suitable' for the use of a rifle.

Unfortunately south of the wall some police FLDs with rather more limited horizons, (physical and mental ;)), than exist in Jockland thrive on imposing these territorial conditions.

What gives them both the right to insert this and the qualification to be able to judge the suitability or otherwise?

The right stems from the ability of any Chief Constable to impose any condition he/she may deem neccessary to preserve public safety. The fact that some use it to unneccessarily inconvenience some FAC holders is a foregone conclusion, but there is maybe a case to be made with complete novices. The qualification of FEOs to to judge the suitability of land? Your guess is as good as mine.:confused:

Does the Home Office Guidance support this?

Yes, but it quotes there being 'standardisation of practice among forces' - fat chance:

10.35 Chief officers of police are empowered
to impose conditions if they think that the
circumstances of the individual case mean
that the condition is necessary to ensure the
effective operation of the firearms controls
and to minimise the risk to public safety.
Forces should note that those conditions
relating to otherwise prohibited firearms and
ammunition such as expanding ammunition
are statutory. The chief officer does not have
discretion to grant a certificate for such
firearms and ammunition beyond the terms
of the statutory exemptions for these items.
a) Territorial Conditions on use
A territorial condition restricts the areas
where the firearm may be used by a person
who holds a firearm for sporting purposes or
for the shooting of vermin. It is important
that there should be standardisation of
practice amongst forces and for this purpose
it is recommended that new certificate
holders should be limited to land considered
suitable by the chief officer. When a chief
officer is satisfied that a certificate holder has
gained sufficient experience with a particular
calibre or class of firearm the less restrictive
condition may be considered appropriate
(see Appendix 3).
 
the notion that you will get the Chief Constable or his minions out trudging the policies (several thousand square miles of them) to deem a particular parcel of land as 'suitable'

Indeed they do... our man keeps a pair of wellies in the boot of his car :cuckoo:

BTW, Kuwinda.... coffee came out of my nose when I read your post :lol:
I'd never really thought of it like that, it sounds rather ridiculous when you put it like that.
 
Last edited:
Ross, i was in the same situation i have an open ticket and part of my shooting was is a small 11 acre wood next to a much larger wood.
When i applied for a .30 cal i put this down as an area i would be using it, more for peace of mind than anything as it is near a reserve and the public , i could have given other areas to get the .30 the but i wanted the land checked anyway for other reasons.
Two firearms officers came out and inspected it,it passed with flying colours and now been put on the police database as suitable for 308. DF
 





10.35 Chief officers of police are empowered
to impose conditions if they think that the
circumstances of the individual case mean
that the condition is necessary to ensure the
effective operation of the firearms controls
and to minimise the risk to public safety.
Forces should note that those conditions
relating to otherwise prohibited firearms and
ammunition such as expanding ammunition
are statutory. The chief officer does not have
discretion to grant a certificate for such
firearms and ammunition beyond the terms
of the statutory exemptions for these items.
a) Territorial Conditions on use
A territorial condition restricts the areas
where the firearm may be used by a person
who holds a firearm for sporting purposes or
for the shooting of vermin. It is important
that there should be standardisation of
practice amongst forces and for this purpose
it is recommended that new certificate
holders should be limited to land considered
suitable by the chief officer. When a chief
officer is satisfied that a certificate holder has
gained sufficient experience with a particular
calibre or class of firearm the less restrictive
condition may be considered appropriate
(see Appendix 3).




progress.gif
What moronic twaddle - the whole thing has been dreamed up with a suburban housing estate in Surrey in mind. Just shows if anything how parochial our law makers are. Fortunately Northern Constabulary are a great deal more sensible and efficient than the idiots who brought this into being.

The thing is that those with such conditions on their FACs are strictly breaking their conditions when stalking on land whcih has not been 'cleared' - but will never and can never be cleared - catch 22?
 
Indeed they do... our man keeps a pair of wellies in the boot of his car :cuckoo:

BTW, Kuwinda.... coffee came out of my nose when I read your post :lol:
I'd never really thought of it like that, it sounds rather ridiculous when you put it like that.

Northern Constabulary covers an area from Ardnamurchan to the Northern Isles and from Nairn :))) to the Hebrides - all from one small office in Inversnecky. There is NO WAY that even a small proportion of this land could be 'cleared'.
 
progress.gif
What moronic twaddle.................

The thing is that those with such conditions on their FACs are strictly breaking their conditions when stalking on land whcih has not been 'cleared' - but will never and can never be cleared - catch 22?

Yes, they are very much in breach of the condition if they do that - and may be dealt with accordingly if discoved.

Catch-22

1)
a) A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions.

b) The rules or conditions that create such a situation.

2)
A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness.


Yup, that about sums up some of the more bizarre aspects of firearms licensing. :cuckoo:

The thing about a 'territorial database' is that I've had an FEO in the past that got all snotty because I was called in to do a job with a .308, (fully moderated but that's another story), on land 'only' passed for .22RF. He insisted that I shouldn't have been using the firearm there as it wasn't authorised for that calibre and would be taking the appropriate action. I suggested he speak with his manager regarding the status of open certificate holders - never did hear back from him!


 
Back
Top