Orion
Well-Known Member
See reply above - if it's the standard 'expanding ammo' condition, then unless you also have the firearms conditioned for x, y, z species or AOLQ, then the answer is no.
Any Legal Quarry ACPO reccomendations?
- Thread starter FrenchieBoy
- Start date
See reply above - if it's the standard 'expanding ammo' condition, then unless you also have the firearms conditioned for x, y, z species or AOLQ, then the answer is no.
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
Interesting. I would be keen to learn on what legal grounds they have stated that though.
Do you have a statement from them saying this? Is it a blaket statement or does it specifically include mice and house flies as well?!
thing I dont get is that the firearms law is so fluffy and grey in areas and bizarrely the police seem to have such a limited grasp of the very law they uphold. The home office writes the law, not the police.
The Police control the issuance of Firearms Certificates and the "Possession" of firearms held under them.
They can limit the possession of a particular calibre if the applicant does not have "good reason" to hold it. This itself is at their discretion.
However:
13.7
With the exception of the limits set by
the Deer Acts and similar legislation, the
suggested calibres for different quarry species
are intended as examples of the typical range
of calibres used rather than prescriptive
limits. In most cases there will be a range of
broadly similar commercial calibres suitable
for different quarry (see paragraph 13.8 for
definition of this term for the purposes of
this guidance).
the Deer Acts and similar legislation, the
suggested calibres for different quarry species
are intended as examples of the typical range
of calibres used rather than prescriptive
limits. In most cases there will be a range of
broadly similar commercial calibres suitable
for different quarry (see paragraph 13.8 for
definition of this term for the purposes of
this guidance).
Quarry shooting, including shooting
pest species (vermin) and other
shooting over land
pest species (vermin) and other
shooting over land
13.8
“Quarry” is the general term for live
animals (including birds) shot over land. In this
context, “land” means an area to be shot over,
for example a woodland, moorland, heath,
wetland, foreshore, open water or field.
Firearm certificate holders may wish to use
firearms to shoot at deer, game, pest or other
quarry species. Calibres authorised should be
powerful enough to ensure a clean kill of the
quarry species concerned.
animals (including birds) shot over land. In this
context, “land” means an area to be shot over,
for example a woodland, moorland, heath,
wetland, foreshore, open water or field.
Firearm certificate holders may wish to use
firearms to shoot at deer, game, pest or other
quarry species. Calibres authorised should be
powerful enough to ensure a clean kill of the
quarry species concerned.
I cant see how without a major revision to the law they enforce that they can tell you you categorically CAN't shoot a Hoodie crow with a centre fire rifle you have for deer.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure they may try, I am just not sure on what legal ground they can do it.
My brother in law once shot a mouse with a 12 bore. overkill I grant you, but definitely humane!
Mannlicher_Stu
Well-Known Member
But it states I can also shoot VERMIN as far as I am aware vermin covers a large wildlife area
flytie
Well-Known Member
Interesting. I would be keen to learn on what legal grounds they have stated that though. Do you have a statement from them saying this? Is it a blaket statement or does it specifically include mice and house flies as well?!
Chief Constables are empowered in law (the firearms Act) to apply any conditions that they see fit on any Firearms Certificate, it is all the empowerment that they need. Sadly it is something that they abuse.
The home office writes the law, not the police. Not FAC conditions, they are written by the police! There is no appeal in law against such an imposition, just a Judicial Review.
![/SIZE][/FONT]
ft
Ade 30-06
Well-Known Member
Hello Prolif,
Still cannot see the logic mate. I see what you mean but, I would NOT make any decisions differently using the larger calibre based on the fact it is larger against the .243. The bullet can still exit and allowances are made ! They could have imposed other restrictions such as mentoring, but chose not to. To me it's like saying you can drive the blue car anywhere, but not the red one ??????? It is still essentially, the same car/controlled risk !
Let you all know what my FLO says later.
Cheers
Ade
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
flytie. do you have acondition on your FAC that states "not for use on crows"? (not disputing they have said this to you but I am now intrigued as to how they are justifying this).
I see what you mean when it comes to them writing the conditions, but they are bound within the (albeit loose) guidelines of the revised 2002 edition of UK Firearms Law. If they had to detail all quarries you werent allowed to shoot with a rifle of a particular calibre the FAC would be ring bound.
They can restrict you from owning a rifle for a particular primary use as they deem fit but I outside of the "Deer Acts and similar legislation" they still need to have a written statute or Home Office approval to any conditions they apply
Otherwise there would be no need for the guidance to be there in the first place and you would get completely different rules.
It often helps if you can highlight the restrictions or lack of in other forces.
I had the conversation with my FEO about my .17MHR and .22WMR and their inclusion on my FAC under a 1B (ground game AND FOX as opposed to 1A ground game only).
They initially didn't want to give it to me, I drew their attention to the guidelines which are created around muzzle energy as per deer.
Despite the .17HMR having a significantly lower ME than the .22WMR (225 vs 350 ftlbs) it was the WMR they had a problem with.
How can they say yes to one calibre on the grounds that it "does not have enough ME" and then say "yes" to one that is LOWER and not expect to be challenged?It is the same when you come up with a calibre that is not listed in their guidance list. If you dont expalin what it is, does and can do, how the hell are they expected to list it on your FAC
unfortunately it is a sad state of affairs when the people administering and enforcing this particular aspect of the law often know less about the practical applications of it than those operating within it.
But I have found that if you approach it from a sensible perspective rather than "you" the shooter educating "Them", the police, and demanding/telling them what you want and they dont have any reason to have concerns about your level of experience or knowledge of shooting rifles then there is little reason for them to restrict things for the hell of it.
13.22 Chief officers of police will wish to be
mindful that quarry species are mobile and
applicants may not be able to always predict
their presence on land on a consistent basis.
Certificate conditions should therefore allow
the applicant flexibility in dealing with quarry
species. However, where a particular quarry
forms the basis of the applicant’s “good
reason” its likely presence will need to be
confirmed (see paragraph 13.13 for guidance).
thats the Home Office explaining that the Police can't just restrict away unless it is for the primary reason
I see what you mean when it comes to them writing the conditions, but they are bound within the (albeit loose) guidelines of the revised 2002 edition of UK Firearms Law. If they had to detail all quarries you werent allowed to shoot with a rifle of a particular calibre the FAC would be ring bound.
They can restrict you from owning a rifle for a particular primary use as they deem fit but I outside of the "Deer Acts and similar legislation" they still need to have a written statute or Home Office approval to any conditions they apply
Otherwise there would be no need for the guidance to be there in the first place and you would get completely different rules.
It often helps if you can highlight the restrictions or lack of in other forces.
I had the conversation with my FEO about my .17MHR and .22WMR and their inclusion on my FAC under a 1B (ground game AND FOX as opposed to 1A ground game only).
They initially didn't want to give it to me, I drew their attention to the guidelines which are created around muzzle energy as per deer.
Despite the .17HMR having a significantly lower ME than the .22WMR (225 vs 350 ftlbs) it was the WMR they had a problem with.
How can they say yes to one calibre on the grounds that it "does not have enough ME" and then say "yes" to one that is LOWER and not expect to be challenged?It is the same when you come up with a calibre that is not listed in their guidance list. If you dont expalin what it is, does and can do, how the hell are they expected to list it on your FAC
unfortunately it is a sad state of affairs when the people administering and enforcing this particular aspect of the law often know less about the practical applications of it than those operating within it.
But I have found that if you approach it from a sensible perspective rather than "you" the shooter educating "Them", the police, and demanding/telling them what you want and they dont have any reason to have concerns about your level of experience or knowledge of shooting rifles then there is little reason for them to restrict things for the hell of it.
13.22 Chief officers of police will wish to be
mindful that quarry species are mobile and
applicants may not be able to always predict
their presence on land on a consistent basis.
Certificate conditions should therefore allow
the applicant flexibility in dealing with quarry
species. However, where a particular quarry
forms the basis of the applicant’s “good
reason” its likely presence will need to be
confirmed (see paragraph 13.13 for guidance).
thats the Home Office explaining that the Police can't just restrict away unless it is for the primary reason
Orion
Well-Known Member
But it states I can also shoot VERMIN as far as I am aware vermin covers a large wildlife area
Then you might be in for a bit of a surprise, because according to Ch 13.16 of the HO Guidance it doesn't cover too wide a category - unless you think that grey squirrel and crow are something special to shoot?
Orion
Well-Known Member
You're very much preaching to the converted here.
If you have a scroll back through the pages in this Legal Issues section, you'll see that much of this and more has been brought to the attention of FAC applicants who are having problems in getting their issuing Police FD to apply the law and Guidance fairly. Some choose to take the easy route and accept whatever conditions are applied locally because they don't think they will have the FAC issued otherwise, others such as ft are actively fighting the imposition of unworkable and unreasonable conditions.
Shame that the shooting organisations aren't a bit more proactive like that.Sorry, but that's not the case. The CC can apply any conditions he sees fit. However, they must meet certain criteria - i.e. be competent in law and ‘Wednesbury reasonable’. There's a good write up on it from this link on the BASC website: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/04DDFD91-A9AA-45E4-9344064E62F3689D
Last edited:
Ade 30-06
Well-Known Member
My FLO is a common sense type, he shoots and knows his stuff too. Really personable . The arguments he has with his seniors in the force frustrate the hell out of him. For instance, he accepts that a well placed .17 HMR round can (and does) effectively kill a fox at a "reasonable range", especially when using a 20gn hollow point. He knows this !
When he attempts to 'educate' those around him at HQ to this and similar issues he gets negative responses more often than not. For example, my restrictive condition on the 30-06 was not recommended by him, it was imposed by the powers that be, because they can !!!!! For me it is pure bloody mindedness that many decisions are made with restrictions for their own sake. They have little to do with actual LAW, and even less with common sense !
When he attempts to 'educate' those around him at HQ to this and similar issues he gets negative responses more often than not. For example, my restrictive condition on the 30-06 was not recommended by him, it was imposed by the powers that be, because they can !!!!! For me it is pure bloody mindedness that many decisions are made with restrictions for their own sake. They have little to do with actual LAW, and even less with common sense !
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
interesting reading but that kind of backs up my arguement.
The CC cant exercise restrictions without a basis in law or one that he can prove has the critieria mentioned as "Wednesbury Reasonable" (I shudder to think how many civil service lawyers it took to come up with that crap!), most of which are fairly plain legal statement on unambiguity, fairness, lawfullness etc.
be….
o LAWFUL
o UNAMBIGUOUS
o WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH
o REASONABLE
o PROPORTIONATE
o NON-CONTRADICTORY
o DEMONSTRABLY BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
o PROPERLY NOTIFIED
o EVIDENCED
They still need to answer the question "why", when they action a restriction
Orion
Well-Known Member
It might add weight to your point that some of the conditions that are being applied are none of the above, but it makes no mention of CCs having to adhere to, "a written statute or Home Office approval to any conditions they apply", and therein lies the problem.
As there is no appeal process available against unwarranted conditions once accepted, the only avenue then open is via Judicial Revue - although they may well cave in before that point is reached. So, IMHO, if faced with this situation it is far better to refuse the issue of the conditioned FAC in the first place and take the matter straight to the CC & the Force Professional Standards Dept to try and get it sorted.
ft is well down this route already, with some excellent legal advice by all accounts, and I hope he will provide a full report on his experiences if/when he reaches a satisfactory conclusion. There will then no doubt be egg on some faces, but whether or not the shooting orgs follow up on it is another matter.
Last edited:
From ACPO ADMINISTRATION OF FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES
LICENSING WORKING GROUP
Meeting 01/2008
Date: Thursday, 14 February 2008
Page 9
http://www.dorset.police.uk/pdf/Felwg_Minutes_14February2008.pdf
08/01/15
Deer stalkers, shooting lesser species
15.1 Members considered a previously circulated letter received by
the National Gamekeeper’ Organisation requesting
consideration be given to agree it would not be in the public
interest to prosecute firearm certificate holders for legally
shooting species smaller than those to which his FAC conditions
apply.
15.2 Members agreed those with authority and good reason should
be able to shoot to lesser species as well as deer, and the Chair
will draft a suitable condition for the taking of deer, fox and
vermin and circulate to members of the group for their
agreement/observations.
And the following meeting on 5th June 2008
Page 4
http://www.dorset.police.uk/pdf/Felwg_Minutes_5June2008.pdf
Action Point 15 – Deer Stalkers shooting lesser species (letter to
Chair of NGO)
Action complete.
ACPO Administration of Firearms and Explosives Licensing
The Chair noted a number of concerns with regard to this matter
but reiterated the policy opinion and resultant guidance from
FELWG remains. The experience in Scotland has highlighted no
issues with regard to public safety and, although it is a local
decision whether or not to follow the guidance, evidence of a
good reason not to may ultimately be necessary.
LICENSING WORKING GROUP
Meeting 01/2008
Date: Thursday, 14 February 2008
Page 9
http://www.dorset.police.uk/pdf/Felwg_Minutes_14February2008.pdf
08/01/15
Deer stalkers, shooting lesser species
15.1 Members considered a previously circulated letter received by
the National Gamekeeper’ Organisation requesting
consideration be given to agree it would not be in the public
interest to prosecute firearm certificate holders for legally
shooting species smaller than those to which his FAC conditions
apply.
15.2 Members agreed those with authority and good reason should
be able to shoot to lesser species as well as deer, and the Chair
will draft a suitable condition for the taking of deer, fox and
vermin and circulate to members of the group for their
agreement/observations.
And the following meeting on 5th June 2008
Page 4
http://www.dorset.police.uk/pdf/Felwg_Minutes_5June2008.pdf
Action Point 15 – Deer Stalkers shooting lesser species (letter to
Chair of NGO)
Action complete.
ACPO Administration of Firearms and Explosives Licensing
The Chair noted a number of concerns with regard to this matter
but reiterated the policy opinion and resultant guidance from
FELWG remains. The experience in Scotland has highlighted no
issues with regard to public safety and, although it is a local
decision whether or not to follow the guidance, evidence of a
good reason not to may ultimately be necessary.
Last edited:
FrenchieBoy
Well-Known Member
OK Guys, so after carefully reading points 15:1 and 15:2 several times are they saying that they will circulate a letter saying that if someone "shoots a lesser species" (a smaller quarry than his rifle is conditioned for i.e. If he has Deer on his conditions and shoots a fox or a rabbit) then he will not get prosecuted. If this is the case then surely this is going to replace the original "Any legal quarry" isn't it and the way that it is worded it is a directive rather than just a recommendation?
Is this a fairly reasonable interpretation of these points?
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
has anyone ever been prosecuted for shooting a species outside of the restriction on their FAC?
I cant find an example anywhere.
TBH I have never given it much concern when a fox presents itself.
I cant find an example anywhere.
TBH I have never given it much concern when a fox presents itself.
flytie
Well-Known Member
There are a lot of people on this thread, obviously coming to it fresh, not having read the previous discussions in this forum. You are expecting common sense from a bureaucracy!
While I agree with almost all of you, and am using arguments similar to the ones you propose, it does not mean that the police adhere to "Wednesbury Reasonableness". Yes they should, but they do not! And there is no recourse in law, other than a judicial review.
Fot those who have not bothered to research this topic, I have already been in contact with, The Firearms Licensing Manager, The Chief Constable's staff officer, my MP, the Home Office Minister of State (James Brokenshire MP) and West Mercia Constabulary's Professional Standards Office.
I am awaiting a response from the Home Office, to my last letter to my MP, in which I asked why the Government continue to fund the ACPO Firearms Committee if Police forces are free to ignore their "guidance"? And I also asked why West Mercia's Chief Constable would condition against something which is unenforceable, reasonable, proportionate and that is no threat to public safety?
My MP has already apologised in writing for the delay in response to my question!
For those interested here is the Chief Constable's reply, it has been posted before, so I apologise to those who have read it before!
ft
Edit; I forgot to add this, "There is also the fact that the Firearms Law is (in this respect) non-compliant with the Human Rights Act in that there is no legal appeal against the imposition (or otherwise) of conditions on a Firearm Certificate"! This is from a barrister!
While I agree with almost all of you, and am using arguments similar to the ones you propose, it does not mean that the police adhere to "Wednesbury Reasonableness". Yes they should, but they do not! And there is no recourse in law, other than a judicial review.
Fot those who have not bothered to research this topic, I have already been in contact with, The Firearms Licensing Manager, The Chief Constable's staff officer, my MP, the Home Office Minister of State (James Brokenshire MP) and West Mercia Constabulary's Professional Standards Office.
I am awaiting a response from the Home Office, to my last letter to my MP, in which I asked why the Government continue to fund the ACPO Firearms Committee if Police forces are free to ignore their "guidance"? And I also asked why West Mercia's Chief Constable would condition against something which is unenforceable, reasonable, proportionate and that is no threat to public safety?
My MP has already apologised in writing for the delay in response to my question!
For those interested here is the Chief Constable's reply, it has been posted before, so I apologise to those who have read it before!
ft
Edit; I forgot to add this, "There is also the fact that the Firearms Law is (in this respect) non-compliant with the Human Rights Act in that there is no legal appeal against the imposition (or otherwise) of conditions on a Firearm Certificate"! This is from a barrister!
Last edited:
Gazza
Well-Known Member
A mate recently had a renewal granted and at this point noted that his new certificate only covered deer (.243). He questioned this with the FLO (Lothians and Borders) and was assured that the shooting of deer was the primary reason for him being granted his FAC for .243 but in no way restricted him from shooting a lesser species. Seems sensible to me but does this mean you can only shoot the lesser species if you come across it while out stalking deer or does it mean that you can shoot any lawful quarry lesser to deer at any time. FLO states that you can shoot any lawful species lesser than deer at any time.
Orion
Well-Known Member
Scroll forward to the ACPO FELWG Meeting of 3rd February 2010 and you'll find this gem:
10/01/14 Firearm Certificate Conditions Wording – Quarry Shooting with Rifles
14.1 Members considered the paper submitted by Les Spice on behalf of the SW Region and although accepting some of the issues raised decided that no changes would be made to current guidance or wording of certificates.
All clear then?
This of course followed the point raised at the Meeting on 13th May 2009:
09/02/15 Quarry Shooting Conditions
15.1 Members discussed the paper submitted by Mick Fidgeon on
behalf of Suffolk Constabulary and agreed Option 3.
15.2 A FELWG Circulation will be prepared to indicate that the
suggested condition may be used as an alternative where FLMs
consider it pragmatic to do so.
One can only assume that this led to the notification of the AOLQ condition being acceptable made by ACPO FELWG to police licensing depts in June 2009, as reported in the BASC Guidance sheet linked from here: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/3D001190-BA52-43B5-91F72349FD5C6B90
The May 2009 meeting obviously post dates the previous ones referred to in the above posts, so AOLQ was the definitive condition that was circulated to FLDs.
ft, did you pick up on this part?
"The experience in Scotland has highlighted no
issues with regard to public safety and, although it is a local
decision whether or not to follow the guidance, evidence of a
good reason not to may ultimately be necessary."
Wonder how West Mercia are going to approach that one?
Last edited:
Orion
Well-Known Member
Sounds as if he might need to have the points you've raised confirmed in writing by the FLD. Are Lothian & Borders one of the more sensible FLDs anyway?
Gazza
Well-Known Member
In my dealings with L&B a very sensible approach seems to be the norm. If you have reasonable reason to obtain the firearm you get it. They listen to what's happening in the shooting community, appreciate views of stalkers and take on board our requirements to meet our needs.
Long may it continue.
Long may it continue.
Similar threads
