Should police land checks be scrapped?

[Rusty Gate]

Some of the most dangerous shots i have seen taken are often taken by older so called more experienced shooters . Remember i am saying that as a life long shooting man
Complacency being the bug in the system !

Should of known better vs should of been shown

 

[Spear Chucker]

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

Interesting point...what is a "Deer Calibre"? If you asked me I would say any deer-legal calibre. You may have a different view.
What qualifications are required? I had no idea that there was a legal requirement for "qualifications". I do not believe that the police have any business demanding qualifications under HO guidance. I may be wrong and I think sitting a qualification is no bad thing, but qualifications should not be thought of as a requirement by police or firearms users.
Especially as one of my former FEOs demanded I attain DSC1 before issuing me a ticket for a centrefire. He wasn't too impressed when I asked him how he, a holder of MANY centrefire rifles, had managed that when he had failed DSC1 three (Yes,3!) times. I made a complaint to the team leader who was renowned as a sensible arbiter (and much missed) and I was issued an open ticket.
Some (not all) police forces see it as an easy obstacle to throw in the path of an applicant to discourage them. We must not allow this. I know a couple of people who couldn't pass a DSC 1 if their life depended upon it, but I would freely admit that they are probably better stalkers than I will ever be.

 

[Spear Chucker]

“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.

excellent post.

 

[Spear Chucker]

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!

I had a former FEO saying I couldn't nominate a piece of land I had permission on, because "too many others have got the same piece of land". Of course, we all wanted to turn up unannounced and let fly at the same time.
In terms of .22LR, there is a case some would advance that as a ricochet prone round, certain land (flinty soils as an example) .22LR would pose a far greater threat than a centrefire round would.

 

[Spear Chucker]

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

Scrap the checks. They serve only to complicate, obstruct and confuse. With police forces under financial pressure they cannot seriously afford physical checks and Google earth gives no idea of topography, footpaths etc.
I reckon it would be far better to take it out of the hands of the police forces and have regionally based expert panels properly funded by firearms user levies. By "expert" I mean people who use firearms...not the Gun Control Network!
That'll set the cat amongst the pigeons!

 

[DVS1]

Interesting point...what is a "Deer Calibre"? If you asked me I would say any deer-legal calibre. You may have a different view.
What qualifications are required? I had no idea that there was a legal requirement for "qualifications". I do not believe that the police have any business demanding qualifications under HO guidance. I may be wrong and I think sitting a qualification is no bad thing, but qualifications should not be thought of as a requirement by police or firearms users.
Especially as one of my former FEOs demanded I attain DSC1 before issuing me a ticket for a centrefire. He wasn't too impressed when I asked him how he, a holder of MANY centrefire rifles, had managed that when he had failed DSC1 three (Yes,3!) times. I made a complaint to the team leader who was renowned as a sensible arbiter (and much missed) and I was issued an open ticket.
Some (not all) police forces see it as an easy obstacle to throw in the path of an applicant to discourage them. We must not allow this. I know a couple of people who couldn't pass a DSC 1 if their life depended upon it, but I would freely admit that they are probably better stalkers than I will ever be.

I totally concur with your points and yes I am aware there is ZERO legislation that states you need a DSC1 prior to being granted a 'deer legal calibre' or deer calibre CF and training is never a bad thing to receive, every day is a school day after all.

Hence why, after being told by the Supervisor of the Licensing Dept that my variation for .243 for deer was being granted and if my ticket wasn't with me before the BSS then to go along so they could sort out my ticket at the Shooting Show. Only to be told months later by the new FEO that "I was expected" to complete a DSC1 prior to my variation being granted. So a complete reversal on what her superior had stated!

Being 99% sure there was no legislation that had this requirement I contacted BASC who confirmed there was no legislation to this requirement and to send a letter stating such a fact and that my experience with CF and knowledge of deer/stalking was adequate to continue with my application process and to contact BASC again if I experienced any resistance.

My letter sent by recorded delivery was received and ignored. Approx 8 weeks later I contacted BASC again and a different member of staff contacted the Licensing Dept and was told by the supervisor that until a DSC1 was completed no variation would be granted. BASC accepted that on the spot and then gave me details of DSC1 courses with them.

Obviously the above is just a shortened version but it has left me being peeved at having began to collect parts for a .243 build and a deposit on a rifle which I now have to fight to get back.

I would've thought that organisations like BASC would be fighting our corner for the types of decisions made especially when there is zero legislation that states as such but they were quick to supply course dates and details for extra ££'s coming in.

Sounds like you had a good result with your FEO and Licensing Dept and common sense prevailed.

 

[Spear Chucker]

I totally concur with your points and yes I am aware there is ZERO legislation that states you need a DSC1 prior to being granted a 'deer legal calibre' or deer calibre CF and training is never a bad thing to receive, every day is a school day after all.

Hence why, after being told by the Supervisor of the Licensing Dept that my variation for .243 for deer was being granted and if my ticket wasn't with me before the BSS then to go along so they could sort out my ticket at the Shooting Show. Only to be told months later by the new FEO that "I was expected" to complete a DSC1 prior to my variation being granted. So a complete reversal on what her superior had stated!

Being 99% sure there was no legislation that had this requirement I contacted BASC who confirmed there was no legislation to this requirement and to send a letter stating such a fact and that my experience with CF and knowledge of deer/stalking was adequate to continue with my application process and to contact BASC again if I experienced any resistance.

My letter sent by recorded delivery was received and ignored. Approx 8 weeks later I contacted BASC again and a different member of staff contacted the Licensing Dept and was told by the supervisor that until a DSC1 was completed no variation would be granted. BASC accepted that on the spot and then gave me details of DSC1 courses with them.

Obviously the above is just a shortened version but it has left me being peeved at having began to collect parts for a .243 build and a deposit on a rifle which I now have to fight to get back.

I would've thought that organisations like BASC would be fighting our corner for the types of decisions made especially when there is zero legislation that states as such but they were quick to supply course dates and details for extra ££'s coming in.

Sounds like you had a good result with your FEO and Licensing Dept and common sense prevailed.

Good points but galling you had to go through all of this. In my area we have generally been very lucky. This includes my new FEO who just made me realise how lucky I am. Variation for 2 new mods and a new additional .308 rifle. Application to ticket in my hand, 9 working days.
It can be done, if the forces want it done.

 

[DVS1]

Good points but galling you had to go through all of this. In my area we have generally been very lucky. This includes my new FEO who just made me realise how lucky I am. Variation for 2 new mods and a new additional .308 rifle. Application to ticket in my hand, 9 working days.
It can be done, if the forces want it done.

Tell me about it mate...Great service you received! 9 days!

 

[25 Sharps]

Just out of curiosity do you perceive a similar issue with clay pigeon shooters going out game or wood pigeon shooting?

Yes but not to the same extent, no 6 shot is dangerous to about 350 yards. Deer rifles about 3-5 km. so there’s a bit of a difference.

I am a club shooter with 2 clubs, I have nothing against target shooters but it does nothing to prepare you for making the right choices, often in a split second, in the field.

 

[AlexD]

Good points but galling you had to go through all of this. In my area we have generally been very lucky. This includes my new FEO who just made me realise how lucky I am. Variation for 2 new mods and a new additional .308 rifle. Application to ticket in my hand, 9 working days.
It can be done, if the forces want it done.

Credit where it is due. Some Forces are doing well.

I used to look with envy on how fast Glasgow process variations, but Glenrothes just processed three variations for me all in one go for one fee, in under a week! Variation involved adding two new rifles (22-250 for deer and another modular 0.284 with a couple of spare barrels for target), and changing the conditions on a Section 1 shotgun to include ALQ and pigeons under the general licence, all in less than a week!

And being in Scotland, there was no discussion about land checks. Everywhere I shoot has severely restricted safe lines of fire. It does not matter if someone has one gun or 20, if they cannot stick to the the rules on backdrop and hazard assessment, that person is the hazard, not the land they use. Asking someone to use a ricochet special (aka .22LR) instead of a 22-250 just because if he points the pipe in the wrong direction on a piece of land then the bullet does not go as far, detracts from safety rather than adds to it.

 

[W1LL]

I’ve been waiting 12 months for 3 sets of land to be cleared that I’ve had permission on for 25 years with shotguns, lamping etc. Spoke to the FLD and they said I’m looking at possibly another 6 months at least until an FEO can get out. The one farm borders estate land, which is cleared and the other side another farm which I’ve checked and is cleared to 243. The two farms share a piece of forestry fairly large with a boundary fence through the middle. One side of the fence in the same wood is cleared the other side not. Absolute daftness. I gave a full explanation of the situation, the land, the deer damage and I’m looking at possibly losing these permissions (probably won’t but they don’t need to know that) One of their answers for me was “ Just get someone with an open ticket to go there and shoot instead of you”.
The land check system is a waste of time, if you can’t judge a safe shot by the time you’ve been granted an FAC you shouldn’t have been granted it. When you have the FEO interview there should be an aspect of Q&A in regards to safe shots/ backstops. Wouldn’t take long to knock up a simple powerpoint of pictures to test an applicants safety and shot RA perspective before even being granted, if they fail make it mandatory they receive some form of safety training/testing before they can get a grant.

 

[Spear Chucker]

I’ve been waiting 12 months for 3 sets of land to be cleared that I’ve had permission on for 25 years with shotguns, lamping etc. Spoke to the FLD and they said I’m looking at possibly another 6 months at least until an FEO can get out. The one farm borders estate land, which is cleared and the other side another farm which I’ve checked and is cleared to 243. The two farms share a piece of forestry fairly large with a boundary fence through the middle. One side of the fence in the same wood is cleared the other side not. Absolute daftness. I gave a full explanation of the situation, the land, the deer damage and I’m looking at possibly losing these permissions (probably won’t but they don’t need to know that) One of their answers for me was “ Just get someone with an open ticket to go there and shoot instead of you”.
The land check system is a waste of time, if you can’t judge a safe shot by the time you’ve been granted an FAC you shouldn’t have been granted it. When you have the FEO interview there should be an aspect of Q&A in regards to safe shots/ backstops. Wouldn’t take long to knock up a simple powerpoint of pictures to test an applicants safety and shot RA perspective before even being granted, if they fail make it mandatory they receive some form of safety training/testing before they can get a grant.

Sounds completely bonkers. If you have an open ticket, surely you are allowed to shoot on any land you choose, where you have the land owner's permission / invitation?

 

[Sonicdmb73]

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

The reality is that lands checks are not done in the manner that they were when I first got my license 30ish years ago. Even then it was based on looking at the OS map and the PCs local knowledge. But that doesn’t work with the FEO’s doing land checks as they simply don’t have enough local knowledge. Working from OS maps and or Google earth etc is not ideal by any means. The difference between safe shot and unsafe shot is a matter of many variables that are not easily quantified by looking at 2D maps.
I had an argument over land at my last renewal. I was told that I needed a land check for .270 on a bit in another police area. It was the same land I had previously got a variation for with the same cartridge. The FEO insisted that a land check was done every renewal. Not my experience by any means.
When I challenged that comment as to when and how I was not given a satisfactory answer. When I pointed out that I would just provide a different piece of land and shot there anyway having any open ticket. The land check went out of the window and I got my renewal processed on time. So what exactly is the point? Especially if the system is already working with time constraints due to a lack of staff as it is. I would rather they didn’t bother and spent the time on making sure the people are suitable. Than do a half arsed job without proper training or experience in firearms and their capabilities.

 

[Sonicdmb73]

Total waste of time

Your talking about people who wanted written ( separate) permission to use thermal !!

Land being passed makes no issue whatsoever, it’s the trigger pullers final decision to shoot that makes a shot safe or not
I’ve quite happily shot a .243 in a back garden, quite safely as well. I imaging some feo’s would faint at the thought.

Thank god for the open ticket system up here mind

I could safely shoot my 30-06 in the back garden. The fact my permission starts over the fence makes no difference. It’s possible but not conducive to neighbourly harmony. I can list endless examples of “safe” land where I have given up shooting because it wasn’t at that point safe. People, livestock the weather any amount of reason it is not a quantifiable thing too many variables.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Exactly
I’m shooting a farm just now and bloody hell the thought that has to go into every shot , even to the point of getting google maps out

 

[VSS]

Sounds completely bonkers. If you have an open ticket, surely you are allowed to shoot on any land you choose, where you have the land owner's permission / invitation?

It's not quite that simple. The "open ticket" doesn't necessarily relate to all of the firearms that you own. For example, you may have had open conditions for .22lr for years, and then be granted a deer legal calibre with closed conditions. So, two rifles on ticket, one open, one closed.

 

[BenBhoy]

It's not quite that simple. The "open ticket" doesn't necessarily relate to all of the firearms that you own. For example, you may have had open conditions for .22lr for years, and then be granted a deer legal calibre with closed conditions. So, two rifles on ticket, one open, one closed.

You're completely correct of course my friend, but it's still a bloody daft going on when that happens.

 

[Reddish]

Sounds completely bonkers. If you have an open ticket, surely you are allowed to shoot on any land you choose, where you have the land owner's permission / invitation?

Thats how it is in NZ....handguns can only be fired on approved ranges here but rifles and shotguns of any caliber can be used on any rural land where the owner says you can.And also quite a bit of public land where hunting is allowed.Its up to the shooter to decide where its safe to shoot or otherwise and that is the most logical way to handle it.

 

[paul dillon]

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".

Yes twice with a mate of mine they check the profile of the land spoke to the farmer then cleared them to .30 cal including magnum

 

[Spear Chucker]

You're completely correct of course my friend, but it's still a bloody daft going on when that happens.

Silly system, protecting no-one and confusing and obstructihg everyone.