Should police land checks be scrapped?

[Bowland blades]

firstly, what the heck does a none hunter know about safe shot assessment ? secondly there are no safe venues! Only a safe or unsafe shot assessment by the given shooter ! if they want a higher standard insist on compulsory training and be done with it
Stop wasting time and money looking for what does not actually exist

 

[timbrayford]

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.

But what about at very close range, surely a shotgun is considerably more dangerous?

 

[25 Sharps]

But what about at very close range, surely a shotgun is considerably more dangerous?

How is a shotgun considerably more dangerous at close range than a 3000 ft-lb rifle?

 

[AlexD]

But what about at very close range, surely a shotgun is considerably more dangerous?

The shotgun pellets will stop in the first person they encounter, a bullet from a deer rifle can go through several people, and a bullet from a fullbore target rifle can go through a piece of a tree then half a dozen regardless of whether they are at short range or long range.
it is. appropriate therefore that we are protected from fools and fruit cakes getting possession of full bore rifles. Land checks are a wasteful distraction, to the core job of checking the shooter.

 

[Selous]

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

I agree that the land checks offer little protection to the general public and are a drain in resources for the authorities. After all there are very few if any pieces of land that are truly safe in the UK if you draw a 7 mile radius of a proposed firing point.
What I would hope that you are pushing for very strongly is that the home office guidance is much more strongly adhered to between constabularies. Is there any likelihood of there being a centralised body for licensing rather than it occurring piecemeal across the country?

 

[VSS]

How is a shotgun considerably more dangerous at close range than a 3000 ft-lb rifle?

Because it's more likely to hit what it's pointed at (if used as a weapon, that is).

 

[timbrayford]

How is a shotgun considerably more dangerous at close range than a 3000 ft-lb rifle?

Because a rifle bullet may pass through without necessarily causing an immediate fatality, at close range a shotgun will cause massive tissue damage almost certainly resulting in a fatal haemorrhage.

 

[timbrayford]

Because a rifle bullet may pass through without necessarily causing an immediate fatality, at close range a shotgun will cause massive tissue damage almost certainly resulting in a fatal haemorrhage.

ME 12 bore shotgun 2400 ft lbs+

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I agree that the land checks offer little protection to the general public and are a drain in resources for the authorities. After all there are very few if any pieces of land that are truly safe in the UK if you draw a 7 mile radius of a proposed firing point.
What I would hope that you are pushing for very strongly is that the home office guidance is much more strongly adhered to between constabularies. Is there any likelihood of there being a centralised body for licensing rather than it occurring piecemeal across the country?

A summary of key points from BASC's response to last year's Home Office firearms licensing consultation were as follows:

• BASC reminds the Minister that he has undertaken to remove sound moderators from the licensing system and suggests that any change in legislation arising from this consultation would be an ideal opportunity to undertake that .
  
  
• BASC recommends that those Chief Officers who do not run efficient FELUs should be subject to financial penalties. This should be tied into mandatory service level agreements. BASC defines an efficient force as one that completes all renewal applications received eight weeks prior to expire before the certificate expires. Also, more than 95% of grant applications would be processed within sixteen weeks.
  
  
• BASC endorses the remarks made by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Andy Cooke QPM DL, that the Chief Inspector should have the ability to give directions, rather than recommendations, to police forces where an inspection identifies a failing that poses a significant risk to public safety (Page 32 of “State of Policing in England and Wales 2022, published June 2023). This is particularly apposite where firearms licensing is concerned.
  
  
• BASC believes that there should be a Firearms Licensing Regulator, akin to the Forensic Science Regulator, with statutory powers to compel Chief Officers to adopt best practice and correct any failings in their FELUs.
  
  
• BASC reminds the Minister of the Law Commission’s recommendation (December 2015) that firearms legislation should be codified in order to bring clarity and to facilitate understanding. BASC endorses this.
  
  
• Currently, there is no legal avenue to challenge the conditions placed on a Firearm Certificate by a Chief Officer. This leads to some forces imposing their own arbitrarily derived conditions to limit or effectively prohibit the use of a certificated firearm. There should be an explicit legal right to appeal these discretionary conditions by a person aggrieved by them.

We still await a government response to the consultation (and the recent moderators consultation). Meanwhile BASC has been meeting with newly elected PCCs to follow-up on BASC's PCC election campaign.

 

[GBR66]

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".

Same here

 

[GlosChris]

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

I agree that it would be better to not have this and that some forces have led the way, presumably without problem as they have gone back if there were, then other forces should follow suit. As others have said, the shot is going to be the shooters call in either case and effective risk assessment by the shooter the key factor.

Question for everyone…
I have a restricted FAC, I am a member a syndicate with land dispersed across the country… if the force for the land to be shot does not inspect land, does that mean it is deemed suitable by the chief constable (in effect by exemption) and so I am compliant, or I cannot show it is deemed suitable and so would not be compliant?

(Nb. I’ve requested and had rejected a request for open certificate - “lack of relevant experience” so don’t just suggest that!!)

 

[25 Sharps]

Because a rifle bullet may pass through without necessarily causing an immediate fatality, at close range a shotgun will cause massive tissue damage almost certainly resulting in a fatal haemorrhage.

How is that different to a soft point / hollow point?

I wouldn’t want to get hit by either at close range but give me the choice at 200 yards and I’d take the shotgun with no 6 shot every time.

 

[25 Sharps]

Because it's more likely to hit what it's pointed at (if used as a weapon, that is).

You must be better at shotgunning than me! I’m pretty much guaranteed to hit what I am mum at with a rifle m, not so much with a Shotty.

But we’re not talking about using it intentionally as a weapon, we’re talking about someone who takes a shot that isn’t safe and shoots someone down the field or through the hedge.

 

[AlexD]

Question for everyone…
I have a restricted FAC, I am a member a syndicate with land dispersed across the country… if the force for the land to be shot does not inspect land, does that mean it is deemed suitable by the chief constable (in effect by exemption) and so I am compliant, or I cannot show it is deemed suitable and so would not be compliant?

That is a good question.

So, if someone from England has a FAC that states the land has to be approved for the calibre as a condition, comes to Scotland where land is not approved, can he shoot legally on his own (i.e. not using the Estate Rifle route)?

 

[VSS]

That is a good question.

So, if someone from England has a FAC that states the land has to be approved for the calibre as a condition, comes to Scotland where land is not approved, can he shoot legally on his own (i.e. not using the Estate Rifle route)?

I believe so, on the basis that all land is automatically "cleared" in Scotland.

 

[VSS]

You must be better at shotgunning than me! I’m pretty much guaranteed to hit what I am mum at with a rifle m, not so much with a Shotty.

No. I'm a crap shot with a shotgun. But even so, if I had to blast something at 5 yds I'd be reaching for a shotgun, not a rifle. At that range the rifle bullet would either miss completely, or pass through without causing fatal damage.
I'm sure I've read that a pump-action shotgun is the tool of choice for defence in the case of close-quarters bear attacks, and I guess that's why.

 

[south-nofolk-stalker]

I’ve met more than one that can’t!

100%

Some of those were on a L2 stalk when I was an AW

 

[Dalua]

That is a good question.

So, if someone from England has a FAC that states the land has to be approved for the calibre as a condition, comes to Scotland where land is not approved, can he shoot legally on his own (i.e. not using the Estate Rifle route)?

It sounds as though you're asking whether someone whose FAC is conditioned such that they may shoot only on land deemed suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated may shoot on land that has in fact not been deemed suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated?

On the face of it, the question answers itself.

I suppose some might argue that by issuing no territorial conditions, the chief officer of police for Scotland has tacitly approved all ground in Scotland? On the other hand, the absence of territiorial restrictions in Scotanld is probably better seen as proof that no ground has been 'deemed suitable'.

The 'estate rifle' provisions would not apply, I think, if the FAC-holder were using his own rifle - accompanied or not.

 

[25 Sharps]

No. I'm a crap shot with a shotgun. But even so, if I had to blast something at 5 yds I'd be reaching for a shotgun, not a rifle. At that range the rifle bullet would either miss completely, or pass through without causing fatal damage.
I'm sure I've read that a pump-action shotgun is the tool of choice for defence in the case of close-quarters bear attacks, and I guess that's why.

Fair enough, but as I say we’re not talking about having or wanting to blast something 5 yards away, we’re talking about someone inexperienced loosing off a shot without a safe backstop or in the case of the shotgun back box.

 

[Donkey Basher]

To answer the OP’s question - Yes!

Based on my recent renewal experience some of those that do the approving haven’t got a clue about what they’re doing!