Should police land checks be scrapped?
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
To add another comment, the second police person that did a land check for me was going to approve a field of mine for up to 22-250 until I explained to them that it is not the same as a .22RF
(You might say I metaphorically shot myself in the foot there and should have kept my mouth shot but I’m far too honest for that).
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Did they elaborate on how that will work? Obviously not an issue for open FACs but if you have a closed one and want to shoot somewhere that hasn't been cleared what then happens?
I’ve met more than one that can’t!
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Yeah that’s that, but perhaps we need to more towards more of a European style system where the FAC is a hunting license based on testing, theory and practical. It’s controversial of course! And I see both sides. But for police to come and evaluate your land, and deem it suitable for say a .243, but not a 7x57, is ridiculous quite frankly, as I’m sure you will
agree
No, we shouldn’t, there are already enough barriers to getting new people into shooting and the more people shooting the safer the future of the sport.
Land clearance does make sense, some land is more safe than other land, so better for a new shooter to cut their teeth. Not everyone who gets a licence is ready to make the decision on safety. Say someone who only has air rifle experience for example.
But if it can’t be resourced and administered efficiently it should probably be scrapped, was never an issue for me as I always had land cleared quickly (including physical visits @VSS ) and had an open ticket within 18 months.
ContinShots
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that I agree restricting target shooters to specific ranges or even ranges is warranted at all. There's no more issue with a target shooter using an informal range on land they own or have use of, so long as it's safe, than there is any sporting or land management shooter. If it's safe, it's safe. Why should it be OK for a sports shooter with only two firearms in their ticket to practice on land they seem suitable, but a target Shooters with a dozen rifles cannot make the same call and can only use a club range or the like? We really do not need to encourage the creation of different classes if FAC holder. We need closer knit shooting communities and more cohesion, not more divisions.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
From a Scottish perspective we are not used to having land being checked, but understand that it’s something that happens within a number of English Forces jurisdictions.
Fundamentally it is the shooter that is safe, not the land. It shouldn’t matter whether the deer being shot are in the middle of Hyde Park in London or on a remote hillside in Scotland, any FAC should be able to determine what is and what is not a safe shot and act accordingly.
It does take education, time and experience. And for most new stalkers, the idea of Mentor or a good teacher is a very valid condition.
One thing that experience teaches is that the more experienced you get the less you really know.
Trouble with a firearm is that if things do go wrong, then it could be a tragic accident.
But in any walk of life, it’s the novices that have a large proportion of the accidents and unforeseen incidents.
Fundamentally it is the shooter that is safe, not the land. It shouldn’t matter whether the deer being shot are in the middle of Hyde Park in London or on a remote hillside in Scotland, any FAC should be able to determine what is and what is not a safe shot and act accordingly.
It does take education, time and experience. And for most new stalkers, the idea of Mentor or a good teacher is a very valid condition.
One thing that experience teaches is that the more experienced you get the less you really know.
Trouble with a firearm is that if things do go wrong, then it could be a tragic accident.
But in any walk of life, it’s the novices that have a large proportion of the accidents and unforeseen incidents.
Ratsbadboy
Well-Known Member
Yes they should be scrapped. They achieve nothing and are a complete and utter waste of time and resources. A shooter has to decide whether a shot if is safe or not regardless to any conditions on his/her licence. Apart from that, I shoot many farms that are cleared for fullbore, BUT there are many places within those areas of land where it wouldn't be safe to shoot a peashooter let alone a firearm. The shooter always has to decide for each and every shot regardless if he's on a conditioned or open licence.
"You here for a land check"?, "Where are your wellies"?
Jon P
Well-Known Member
Years ago I had a home inspection by the FEO then we had to drive in convoy 1 hrs to some land- 400 acres farm . FEO walked 200 yds and said ground is good- total waste of time and effort- then more recently I had an FEO tell me I could not use my centre fire on some land because 20 yrs ago it was only passed for .22 Rf. I have had open ticket for 20 plus years. After I put a complaint in, he admitted he was wrong.
It is an uncharacteristically illiberal point for me to have made, but I think it's because the FLD would expect a sporting shooter to be able to understand backstop selection, ricochet risk, identification of risk associated with footpaths, livestock and so on, and to shoot safely under circumstances where these factors need to be considered.
For someone shooting solely on formal ranges, that stuff's largely taken care of.
I can't see it has anything to do with the number of rifles owned: nor can I see the benefit in insisting that an FAC applicant intending to shoot only indoor miniature-rifle competitions demonstrate to the FLD that he can also safely use a firearm under field conditions, when he has no intention of ever doing so.
I agree entirely about cohesion in the shooting community - but I'm not sure that this would be well-served by expecting an unnecessarily-broad understanding of the field use of rifles among those who don't need it: and if it is indeed correct that they don't need it, then it seems reasonable to condition their certificates such that they are prohibited from shooting under circumstances where their lack of knowledge might put the public at risk.
Because target shooters with zero field experience will not always know what a safe backstop is, though the same could be said for some field shooters!
Ultimately it comes down to good reason, if you are a target only shooter you must be a member of an approved club. To be approved that club must have access to a suitable range, therefore there is no issue tying that person’s use to that club and to only being shot on a suitable range (not necessarily a names range though as that would make travelling for competition impossible). There is also the question of 3rd party insurance of that range, which is currently required for all target shooting and wouldn’t be in place on an informal range.
If target shooters are confined to range use then there is no reason for them to be out in the countryside with their firearms which means it will also make it easier to catch or prosecute them for using their target rifles for poaching.
As some have said the whole process and legislation is mad..... "We will trust you to hold a .243 centre fire rifle, a safe full of ammo, but then we dont think you are safe to shoot on a bit of land you own or know, without ticking a box first....." Bearing in mind that most of the restrictive 'interpretation' of the law is based around the potential of someone doing something bad with the firearm, surely they realise the horse has already bolted.......
Trust to shoot the thing safely should equal trust to hold it. If that means doing a course, or prove the point through reference, then so be it, but the current policy if barking mad.
Trust to shoot the thing safely should equal trust to hold it. If that means doing a course, or prove the point through reference, then so be it, but the current policy if barking mad.
I don't understand the purpose of a 'land check'.....nor restricting what rifle owners can use them for,any legitimate activity should be OK.Just because you brought a rifle for target shooting does not mean you should not be able to hunt with it also....of course you should be able to do so.
And if they cannot then should not have a certificate . No need for closed and open. Just saw gun handling
We need to be careful not to confound the three things you've mentioned: legislation, process and policy.
The legislation seems to me to be fine: certainly, we're better off regarding it as so, since any attempt to 'improve' it is likely to make it much worse for us.
The policy of applying what are meant to be 'discretionary' additional conditions to everyones' FAC certainly seems preposterous, and has created a great deal of pointless (from a public safely point of view) extra work for FLDs and inconvenience for shooters. These conditions include territorial restrictions, which themselves seem entirely pointless, given that there is no ground in the UK (or in the world, in fact) on which an unsafe shot is impossible, if applied to FAC-holders who are considered safe to shoot in the field.
The process of checking ground with respect to territorial conditions stems from the policy above. Which returns us to the question of whether it is the land-checks that need scrapping, or the policy which leads to the 'over-conditioning' of everyone in all regards - since if that were rationalised, the land-checks, and much other pointless and inconvenient FLD-activity, would also cease.
Certainly right IMO for sporting shooters, but must we also have a means by which the FLD can satisfy itself that someone whose only contact with shooting is going to be membership of an indoor miniature-rifle club would also be safe using a rifle in the field, just so they can spend the rest of their shooting career on the range?
Certainly - but if your sole shooting experience was on ranges, and you never intended to shoot anywhere else..?
The FLD need to satisfy themselves that the FAC-holder can possess and use the firearms without danger to the public or the peace. My feeling is that this is easier to demonstrate within the boundaries and rules of a formal range - and that therefore expecting someone whose shooting will be only on ranges to demonstrate competence outside such environments seems unnecessarily restrictive.
That said, their might well be some benefit in expecting all FAC-holders to understand properly how to handle firearms and to shoot safely both on ranges and in the field, regardless of their intended principle activity?
Last edited:
Similar threads
