Should police land checks be scrapped?

[Conor O'Gorman]

In BASC's follow-up meetings with PCCs we are making the point that scrapping land checks will be a welcome move for their force and shooters in their constituency.

Full article in this week's Shooting Times here:

Should police land checks be scrapped? - ShootingUK

ShootingUK News - Should police land checks be scrapped?

www.shootinguk.co.uk

 

[HonestJohn]

Yes they should!

 

[dillieboy]

No I feel the open ticket system works well

 

[VSS]

Do police land checks actually happen? I mean, in person, walking around the fields?
Nearest thing I've ever had to a police land check was at the time of my first FAC grant, when I showed the FEO an OS map, pointed out the bit where I shoot, and he said "looks fine to me".

 

[purdeydog]

No

 

[DVS1]

Get them trained up on the proper legislation over deer calibres and required qualifications first!

 

[HonestJohn]

Police land checks are a waste of public resources that could be better allocated. If you can be entrusted to be a FAC holder, surely you can be trusted in its application.

 

[timbrayford]

No I feel the open ticket system works well

I can't agree, I once had the experience of a FLD insisting that some land that I had permission over was unsafe for using a 22 rimfire on. After much discussion and involvement of helpful third parties it became apparent that the landowner himself had a 22 rf on his FAC for use on the very same land!

 

[Robinson]

Ohh my... I would have loved having the police check our land. " You missed those two mountain peaks over yonder officer. You might still make it before dark if you hurry a bit."

 

[Eric the Red]

In a world where FEO's understood calibres, fields of fire, ballistics and bullet construction - and actually went to look at land promptly using that knowledge and were able to give new shooters guidance, then the 'open/closed' condition has a place especially in their risk assessment based world. However, the lack of knowledge - and a complete lack of efficacy in being able to process land checks in their simplest form means sadly the process is nugatory. And when pressure is applied they seem to think handing out an unrestricted license is the best way to remove the noise created. On top of variations taking an unnecessary amount of time, it is one piece of the jigsaw that could be removed.

 

[paul o']

If you provide them with a Goggle earth screen shot they can see or find all the info they need .
Open cert well thats another matter .

 

[cjm1066]

If they must do land checks at least pass the land for all deer calibres. Taking a friend out, the land is passed for 243, he has a 6.5 CM so can't use it.

I therefore lend him my 308 via the estate rifle criteria.

 

[nun_hunter]

“Land checks do nothing to ensure public safety. The single most important thing is the risk-assessing capability of the shooter themselves. If a shooter cannot be trusted to judge a safe shot, they should not have a certificate. It can become unsafe to shoot in an instant, depending on environmental factors, others present and so on. This begs the question that if the applicant can be trusted to hold a certificate, what additional safety does a land check provide?”

Whilst I fully agree with this statement from the article I also believe that the police (after being persuaded by those in charge of legislation) would simply use this as an excuse not to grant certificates to people who couldn't 'prove' they were safe or competent. I also dont have an issue with some form of safety and competence system like many other countries but I have zero faith in the British government and police to implement this, mainly because it will cost them money to agree or make something standardised across the whole of the UK. What will most likely happen is just what's happened with some forces demanding DSC1 before issuing a CF rifle while others require something else or nothing at all. It'll be a total cluster with one county demanding some course while next door want something different, leading to a slew of unofficial safety courses springing up costing those who want an FAC, on top of all the other additional pointless costs such as GP reports.

 

[kenbro]

Ohh my... I would have loved having the police check our land. " You missed those two mountain peaks over yonder officer. You might still make it before dark if you hurry a bit."

I had that once.
Police lady arrived at farm, farmer and I went to meet her in yard…she set off down the lane and the farmer said ‘this way’ and set off up hill. after 50 metres she’d seen enough to clear the land.
Ken.

 

[ContinShots]

No I feel the open ticket system works well

It only works well if you have sensible and pragmatic FEOs. There are people who can't get perfectly suitable land signed off due to an FEO, whole other's have to wait months and months, totally delaying activity. A set of clear guidance on how land meets safety criteria should allow Shooters to operate safely on land they judge to be suitable. People are already trusted to own and use firearms safely. There's an element of treating people like children in all of this; if people are trusted to possess firearms for these purposes, expecting them to use them safely and follow set criteria for that is surely not a big jump?

 

[Dalua]

I think perhaps the question misses the point.
The territorial restrictions are part of a range of additional conditions which the FLDs are allowed to apply at their discretion.
A better question might be 'Should FLDs stop applying additional conditions to FACs where these neither improve public safety nor protect the peace?'
In my view, that would mean most (sporting, at least) FAC-holders would have no additional conditions at all - thereby getting rid at a single stroke of one of the commonest sources of disgreement and clerical error in the issuing of FACs.

The FLDs would (and, arguably should, as they've had that right since 1920) retain the right to apply conditions if these were indicated: for example, folk who undertake only target-shooting might be restricted to shooting at clubs/ranges without inconveniencing them at all - but on the whole, the less faffing about they have to do with inventing conditions about using this rifle here for this quarry, and that one at a range for targets, and so on, the more time they'll have for proper checks on the suitability of the actual applicant: which really is the main thing to keep the public safe.

 

[NullMac]

We seem to manage just fine without it north of the border. Why on earth would anyone want to retain it

 

[SussexSteve]

Had my renewal visit Tuesday was told they no longer are doing land checks in Sussex

 

[Pedro]

In theory it's not a bad idea. Having someone check that land is safe to shoot on for a new certificate holder that has no, or limited experience.

But in practice, the cops don't have the time to do it and in any case many FEOs aren't shooters themselves and have about the same experience shooting as the new cert holder. What's more, this isn't a thing that can be standardised. One person will think a particular scrap of land is fine, whereas the next will see all sorts of issues.

And what's more, if you have a .22LR and ask for land to be cleared then they'll clear it for .22LR and nothing else, despite it being suitable for any big centrefire.

And what's more, they might clear it for, say .243 but say it's not suitable for .308. Crazy!

So it's patently a flawed system. And in the end, probably not necessary. As our friends over the border will tell us, they just don't do it in Scotland. In the end, if you've made as many enquiries into a potential candidate for a firearms certificate as they do these days, then surely they have satisfied themselves that the applicant is safe and responsible enough to use the firearms you are letting him/her acquire.

 

[Shrike]

The land check system is a peculiar one.

I’m on a closed ticket.

I’ve had two different people from the police check land for me.

One said the land was checked against an objective standard of a “novice shooter”. The idea being that they deem the land safe per caliber for any closed ticket holder.

The second took the approach of asking me all about backstops and the power of my calibers nearby footpaths etc and based the check on how I would operate on the land.

To be honest the first approach seems more appropriate due to the fact other closed ticket holders can shoot on that land with no further checks.

Untill you realise that the responsibility of a safe shot is always on the shooter, regardless of the caliber of the land they are shooting on and the fact that if you are incompetent it is possible for something to go seriously wrong on land approved for the largest caliber possible while using the smallest one.

So the whole thing is strange. I like the idea of a two tier system for new people, I just don’t know of a practical way of implementing one.

The land check system is just a bit strange. Honestly I would prefer a written and practical exam in order to get a licence and only have open tickets exist.

Edit: to add another comment, in my area the police only rate one to two calibers. Rimfire and up to .308. Or so I’ve been told (by them).