Develop and maintain specialist working knowledge on the legal possession, security and safe shooting of firearms and ammunition, sounds like learning on the job to me.
Interesting positon from Police on FAC Conditions
- Thread starter Vulpes
- Start date
8x57
Distinguished Member
Or simply CPD (Continuing Professional Development).
Odders
Well-Known Member
Looking up the ballistics of both is hardly a difficult task.
Thankfully Cumbria's Firearms Licensing team (& especially their FEO) are knowledgable, competent & realistic. The only downside is they're understaffed for the job they do (more guns per head here than in 90% of the UK).
Sonicdmb73
Well-Known Member
There are to the best of my knowledge no formal qualifications relating to the job of FEO.
I believe there was a course some years ago iirc it was reported in Shooting Times I believe BASC were involved in some of the content.
edit to add I believe only one or two Forces were involved.
Last edited:
Did you get a reply to your email?
For many years i had a very knowledgable FEO not only in firearms but law as well, he also knew what he could get away with with me, when he retired i got an ex tactical firearms cop who of course was a self proclaimed expert, he was terrible and did not last long, not had many dealings with my new guy but he seems fair, knolwedgable and unbiased
Northamptonshire were involved
Loler UK
Well-Known Member
People moan about consistency but the consistency in the pipeline is that no tickets will have the land restriction removed until the applicant has held their fac for 5 years AND the holder requests it; unless it is required for the applicants job / profession.
Some forces will happily come out to do land checks, they'd much rather do lots of checks than 'open' a ticket, you could have 20 bits of land checked in the 1st year and ask 3 years later to have the land condition removed but without good reason it'll be refused. Unless people can demonstrate they need to shoot on new land at short notice more tickets will remain 'closed' in the future
Some forces will happily come out to do land checks, they'd much rather do lots of checks than 'open' a ticket, you could have 20 bits of land checked in the 1st year and ask 3 years later to have the land condition removed but without good reason it'll be refused. Unless people can demonstrate they need to shoot on new land at short notice more tickets will remain 'closed' in the future
And then you get a variation for another calibre after twenty years of culling / foxing / shooting this & that ............. with a closed condition on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! plonkers!.
The whole shebang wants bulldozing & starting from scratch with some people / staff that know which end Mr bullet comes out of.
Loler UK
Well-Known Member
This was a meeting with multiple forces (not all) & other agencies with regards to agreeing a consistent approach. The impetus to do so was regarding another matter regarding an operation over multiple force boundaries which i cannot discuss further. There was a surprising amount of agreement reached in a very short time
That said i think that there will always be exceptions made and this digression is in fact very important. There are more issues at play than most people realise when it comes to licencing, much of it feo's / forces unable to disclose. Discretion is a great tool when used correctly, there are individuals with sizeable police files without having been arrested let alone charged.
What is a good reason for requiring an open ticket? Is removing the condition proportionate considering public safety? every individual is just that, an individual, allot of permissions neither makes someone a safe shot, an experienced shot or someone that needs to shoot anywhere different in a hurry. There's plenty of professionals that can be called on to carry out control at short notice, is the convenience of a 3rd party saving a few bob constitute good reason?
A loss of income for someone that can demonstrate to a reasonable degree that they are a safe shot is a strong argument IMO for having a condition lifted sooner than would usually be the case. An audited qualification would certainly go some way to demonstrating this, as would experience references from other professional / experienced shooters. At said meeting it was suggested & agreed that 18 months since initial grant would be considered the minimum in any case.
Providing feo's are getting land checks processed in a reasonable amount of time does that sound so unreasonable to people?
It is the person not the land which is critical to safety, all land has boundaries and anyone can go and shoot across their boundaries unless they are safe.
I do not believe 'safe' can be trained. You either think safety and what is now called as muzzle awareness or not. When we all first started, we used our common sense and NONE of us shot anyone. It is the person who does not think a shot through from start to finish who has 'accidents' . Once having seen the power of a .22, most people can estimate the power of calibres up to deer calibres - they never have had, nor should they need 'training'; mentoring by dad or a relative or a complete stranger who shoots informally but effectively.
I would trade 'training' for less bureaucracy and public acceptance but nothing less.
Land checks are irrelevant in this context as is 5 years probationary control. I admire Yorkshire who open certificates from first grant . I havent heard of major incidents accidents or bodies in Yorkshire.
Some Police forces have failed in the assessment of individuals which led to deaths and the controls we now see, are reactions to turn the focus outwards to the people who hunt and shoot and not the lackadaisical approach of some Police forces and their management. Durham e.g.
I do not believe 'safe' can be trained. You either think safety and what is now called as muzzle awareness or not. When we all first started, we used our common sense and NONE of us shot anyone. It is the person who does not think a shot through from start to finish who has 'accidents' . Once having seen the power of a .22, most people can estimate the power of calibres up to deer calibres - they never have had, nor should they need 'training'; mentoring by dad or a relative or a complete stranger who shoots informally but effectively.
I would trade 'training' for less bureaucracy and public acceptance but nothing less.
Land checks are irrelevant in this context as is 5 years probationary control. I admire Yorkshire who open certificates from first grant . I havent heard of major incidents accidents or bodies in Yorkshire.
Some Police forces have failed in the assessment of individuals which led to deaths and the controls we now see, are reactions to turn the focus outwards to the people who hunt and shoot and not the lackadaisical approach of some Police forces and their management. Durham e.g.
The police do not make the law they only police by consent of the public and should follow hog2016 so let them have their meetings. I actually heard a while back that they were making it easier to get an open ticket as it puts total accountability on the person pulling the trigger. A closed ticket with ground approved by the FEO possibly has mutual accountability which was why they were opening tickets sooner.
Edited to add their is also very few accidents involving rifles in this country most are with shotgun again hence opening certificates sooner.
Edited to add their is also very few accidents involving rifles in this country most are with shotgun again hence opening certificates sooner.
Actually the police are making the law, it is blatantly obvious that HOG is being ignored or worked to fit what a particular fiefdom chief requires, are you all blind?.
I think we all know that and with a government like we have is it not surprising that they continue to do so at will with no checks and balances in place from the home office who appear unable or unwilling to control the chief Constables.
Muntybuck5803
Well-Known Member
I’ve personally never really understood the whole relevance of the open and closed ticket system. In my experience it doesn’t seem to serve much purpose when an FEO comes to view a piece of land because not all of them had a sound understanding of the shooting you may be undertaking there (Not all mind as some FEOs I have met were also very knowledgeable)
It always struck me as bizarre that a piece of land could be ‘cleared’ for say a .243 maximum but not for anything ‘larger’ when a .22 can be just as dangerous as a .308 if pointed in the wrong direction?!
My personal view is that the full accountability should always remain with the person pulling the trigger and that it potentially puts an FEO in a compromising position to ‘clear’ a piece of land without a thorough knowledge of the kind of shooting being undertaken. If an FEO was to ‘share’ accountability by signing off a piece of land surely a certain amount of training and understanding on their part should be mandatory otherwise they are in no better position to comment on safety than the individual. I digress. I agree with the way Yorkshire grant their certificates.
It always struck me as bizarre that a piece of land could be ‘cleared’ for say a .243 maximum but not for anything ‘larger’ when a .22 can be just as dangerous as a .308 if pointed in the wrong direction?!
My personal view is that the full accountability should always remain with the person pulling the trigger and that it potentially puts an FEO in a compromising position to ‘clear’ a piece of land without a thorough knowledge of the kind of shooting being undertaken. If an FEO was to ‘share’ accountability by signing off a piece of land surely a certain amount of training and understanding on their part should be mandatory otherwise they are in no better position to comment on safety than the individual. I digress. I agree with the way Yorkshire grant their certificates.
Being a Police Officer used to evoke respect due to training and diligence in the execution of duty. In the world of Firearms, training is not undertaken and a lot of reliance is placed by unqualified FEO's on respect for the Police - they may not even be police officers.
Challenge is the logical way forward - judicial or local to expose the obvious and damaging weakness. I wonder who should do that ?
Then again, is it 70% of crime does not result in a prosecution in some areas and no one complains.
In my view the Police SERVICE needs a thorough internal review involving the 'users' of the SERVICE i.e. the victims of poor or maladministration. The presumption should be that each Police 'Service' has to be justified to remain where it currently is.
Too much power and desire for 'control'- too little thought and diligence.
Challenge is the logical way forward - judicial or local to expose the obvious and damaging weakness. I wonder who should do that ?
Then again, is it 70% of crime does not result in a prosecution in some areas and no one complains.
In my view the Police SERVICE needs a thorough internal review involving the 'users' of the SERVICE i.e. the victims of poor or maladministration. The presumption should be that each Police 'Service' has to be justified to remain where it currently is.
Too much power and desire for 'control'- too little thought and diligence.
Similar threads
