Should police land checks be scrapped?

[Jon P]

On my last renewal - have had open ticket for over 20 yrs- FEO wanted one parcel of land checked for centre fire use as in the distant pass it was passed for a .22rf. Land owner who does not have a FAC had to request land check. - after a few email from me and land owner the FEO dropped the idea. Some of the ideas they think up are unbelievable.

 

[Bowland blades]

My force decided they will only do land checks with the land owner present and not the shooter.

Makes the idea of land checks even more crazy , the only good bit was being able to ask the shooter about backstops , footpaths and backdrops . ( not that most FEOs are that clued up themselves )

 

[Labrat]

Call me cynical… but could the reason that police are stopping land checks be that in the event someone did get shot, they could be held vicariously liable, having signed off the land as safe.

Because I doubt they’re doing it for our benefit

 

[Tazz]

I do wonder with land checks once you are in CF territory the Calibre “Maximum” decision/rulings seem at best arbitrary. I used to shoot on a farm that had been checked and maximum calibre was 243. So when would a “Safe” shot not be a safe shot if the calibre was bigger ie 308. I get why they limit smaller area to rim only but lots of it is very subjective

 

[Sonicdmb73]

I do wonder with land checks once you are in CF territory the Calibre “Maximum” decision/rulings seem at best arbitrary. I used to shoot on a farm that had been checked and maximum calibre was 243. So when would a “Safe” shot not be a safe shot if the calibre was bigger ie 308. I get why they limit smaller area to rim only but lots of it is very subjective

put bluntly it's a load of bollocks. I could safely fire my 30-06 in my back garden (not that I would). One issue is the confusion most FLD staff seem to have that calibre equates to power, whereas those who are better informed know it's cartridge not calibre that makes the difference. Many years ago when it was a local Bobby who did the land check I had a conversation along the lines of PC "there's a lot of footpaths up there" Me "If I can't tell the difference between a Cragrat and a Deer I should give up now". Followed be Me "if I stand here it's safe to shoot there, but not there or there." etc etc. He laughed and said it was passed.
Subjective definitely, an excuse to not give you a requested cartridge that too, an essential part of public safety only if used to test the FAC holders judge of safe unsafe use of their choice of firearm (by someone with the experience to know themselves).

 

[Eddie P]

I do wonder with land checks once you are in CF territory the Calibre “Maximum” decision/rulings seem at best arbitrary. I used to shoot on a farm that had been checked and maximum calibre was 243. So when would a “Safe” shot not be a safe shot if the calibre was bigger ie 308. I get why they limit smaller area to rim only but lots of it is very subjective

Exactly.
If cleared for 308, would my 270 be safe as it's smaller, but it flies flatter and faster (sounds easier to mess up) but my 375 isn't allowed, despite it dropping quicker and therefore less likely to overshoot a boundry if I mess up... the whole thing is a mess.

If it's cleared for 300wm is 308 allowed, because 308 is a bigger number than 300 (I know it'svthe same bullet). What about 303 vs 308? Smaller number, but actually a bigger bullet.

 

[Sonicdmb73]

Exactly.
If cleared for 308, would my 270 be safe as it's smaller, but it flies flatter and faster (sounds easier to mess up) but my 375 isn't allowed, despite it dropping quicker and therefore less likely to overshoot a boundry if I mess up... the whole thing is a mess.

If it's cleared for 300wm is 308 allowed, because 308 is a bigger number than 300 (I know it'svthe same bullet). What about 303 vs 308? Smaller number, but actually a bigger bullet.

That's exactly where it gets messy. I have been told you can't have X (I don't recall exact cartridge) but you can have Y. Which was ballistically more powerful. I have had numerous arguments with Firearms licencing over the years and most were down to their lack of knowledge on cartridges vs calibre.

 

[nf-fuse]

That's exactly where it gets messy. I have been told you can't have X (I don't recall exact cartridge) but you can have Y. Which was ballistically more powerful. I have had numerous arguments with Firearms licencing over the years and most were down to their lack of knowledge on cartridges vs calibre.

Which is very basic knowledge

 

[Sonicdmb73]

Which is very basic knowledge

Yes true, but the lack of formal standardised training is a problem with most FLD’s (according to BASC data iirc). Until they bring in a professional standard and the training to achieve it. Along with a legal requirement to use HOG not make up your own rules and we might see some improvement. I wouldn’t hold your breath though.

 

[baguio]

Make DSC1 or PDS1 compulsory and there would be no need for land checks as people would have been taught what a safe shot is.

 

[Jh1986]

Make DSC1 or PDS1 compulsory and there would be no need for land checks as people would have been taught what a safe shot is.

My FEO called it a pointless box ticking exercise that proved zero real world experience.

I'm now 4 months and waiting for my variation and land to be ok'd so I wish they would have given some credence to it

 

[Jon P]

Make DSC1 or PDS1 compulsory and there would be no need for land checks as people would have been taught what a safe shot is.

When I completed my level 1 in 2007 I posted a copy of my level 1 off with my FAC renewal, they made a point of posting it back to me saying it was irrelevant to them. Not sure if they value the qualifications now.

 

[baguio]

When I completed my level 1 in 2007 I posted a copy of my level 1 off with my FAC renewal, they made a point of posting it back to me saying it was irrelevant to them. Not sure if they value the qualifications now.

I’m not sure that what the police thought in 2007 is particularly relevant?
It certainly carries weight to a lot of them now.

 

[Jon P]

I’m not sure that what the police thought in 2007 is particularly relevant?
It certainly carries weight to a lot of them now.

Do you know how many of the 45 different police forces that it does carry weight with?.

 

[nun_hunter]

Make DSC1 or PDS1 compulsory and there would be no need for land checks as people would have been taught what a safe shot is.

While I sort of agree it is an expensive course that a lot of people don't need either because they're not shooting deer or altlready know enough about deer.

The shooting element of DSC1, both the practical and what constitutes a safe shot is basic/inadequate to say the least and not something I'd put any faith in to judge someone as safe.

 

[Twodogs]

Maybe of interest, or not.

Guide on firearms licensing law.

12.11 It is accepted that land is not intrinsically “safe” or “unsafe” and that any shooter will have to exercise a strong measure of discretion in deciding whether to shoot in particular circumstances. However, the police will wish to be satisfied as part of “good reason” that the land nominated is not clearly unsuitable for the types of firearms or ammunition to be used. The land inspection is intended only as part of the process of verifying that a “good reason” exists. It should not normally be extended to other areas of land on which the applicant intends to shoot unless there is to be a condition restricting a new shooter to specified land only. An inspection, where it is required, may provide a good opportunity to confirm that the applicant understands the characteristics of the land and the best places to shoot safely on it.

 

[Steve Q]

Under the mantle of the BSSC a new training course for FEO's has been launched. Hopefully the opportunity will be used to reinforce the pointlessness of Land Checks. If enough FOR go back to their Forces questioning the practice, all Forces will drop them and use the resources to improve service levels.

 

[old keeper]

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".

They certainly did in Devon a few years back, not too sure about now though.

 

[CookM]

When l moved to Devon the very good FEO,brought out a ring binder book of OS land maps with countours and field boundaries on.
He asked me to point out where l had been given permission to shoot.
Checked it against some notes and said to me it was passed for bigger if l wanted so he knew his patch well.
This knowledge has now long gone.

 

[DVS1]

When I completed my level 1 in 2007 I posted a copy of my level 1 off with my FAC renewal, they made a point of posting it back to me saying it was irrelevant to them. Not sure if they value the qualifications now.

I know of 1 individual that it is relevant as she firmly believes a DSC1 should be undertaken prior to a variation for .243 for deer! If completed and sent in then my variation would be granted. She even got the Supervisor to do a 180 on his decision! Strange how the legislation states you are 'expected' to obtain a DSC1 prior to being granted a calibre for deer. I've struggled to find such legislation! BASC even bent over without lube!