Should police land checks be scrapped?

[Steve Q]

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!

Did you have some previous experience in stalking deer, to demonstrate that you knew how to gralloch, identify species, and judge a safe shot?
If so, then you are right to be annoyed!

 

[Jon P]

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!

So are they using the DSC1 instead of a land check , or still doing land checks and adding the additional hurdle of obtaining DSC1 , or has land already been checked for previous users of land?

 

[DVS1]

Sure do! That was never asked though

 

[DVS1]

So are they using the DSC1 instead of a land check , or still doing land checks and adding the additional hurdle of obtaining DSC1 , or has land already been checked for previous users of land?

Nope, I've had an open ticket for approx 7 plus years and when applied for 223 I had 1x FEO & 1x FEO Supervisor attend with me on the land and they asked saftey questions all went smoothly and open ticket for 223 granted

 

[Jon P]

Nope, I've had an open ticket for approx 7 plus years and when applied for 223 I had 1x FEO & 1x FEO Supervisor attend with me on the land and they asked saftey questions all went smoothly and open ticket for 223 granted

Sorry - been a long day so I may not be following so well - in relation to DSC 1 ? - you would need to complete it to obtain a .243 ? Would a land check also be required? Or have they said ground is suitable up to a specific calibre already?

 

[Sonicdmb73]

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.

Yet another case of overstepping. The legislation doesn't actually say that every new FAC holder has to have a closed ticket, just that land needs checking if they have one.

 

[DVS1]

Sorry - been a long day so I may not be following so well - in relation to DSC 1 ? - you would need to complete it to obtain a .243 ? Would a land check also be required? Or have they said ground is suitable up to a specific calibre already?

Could be me mate I've been up since 2.30 lol

Yes mate it would need to be completed prior to obtain a .243.

This was despite being told on 2 separate occasions by the Supervisor there's no problem with the variation, (on one occasion my granted variation should be with me prior to NEC Shooting Show, if not it could be sorted at the Show) a new FEO came onboard and then made her ruling stating a DSC1 'is expected' prior to the granting of a .243 for deer. I know there is no legislation for this and BASC confirmed this also so I challenged the decision though BASC guidance with no joy.

No mention of land checks as I have an open ticket and a new piece of land is where the deer would need keeping numbers in check. I have high seats in situ on all my permissions to provide the highest level of safety as I can. Specific arcs of fire, bait stations, etc etc

 

[Sonicdmb73]

Could be me mate I've been up since 2.30 lol

Yes mate it would need to be completed prior to obtain a .243.

This was despite being told on 2 separate occasions by the Supervisor there's no problem with the variation, (on one occasion my granted variation should be with me prior to NEC Shooting Show, if not it could be sorted at the Show) a new FEO came onboard and then made her ruling stating a DSC1 'is expected' prior to the granting of a .243 for deer. I know there is no legislation for this and BASC confirmed this also so I challenged the decision though BASC guidance with no joy.

No mention of land checks as I have an open ticket and a new piece of land is where the deer would need keeping numbers in check. I have high seats in situ on all my permissions to provide the highest level of safety as I can. Specific arcs of fire, bait stations, etc etc

I would have sent a complaint in to the Chief Constable, PCC and the FLD manager. Asking where exactly in Law there was a legal requirement over and above "Good Reason". That the change in staff should have no bearing on the already agreed in principle variation.
I used to think you had to be careful not to upset the FLD staff. Now I am quite happy that they are not doing me a favour, but should be applying the Law correctly. As such I would be a pain in the arse to the CC & PCC, filling the email boxes with complaints till I got somewhere. Amazing some of the software that will automate the process of sending said mail.

 

[Loki]

Hi Sonicdmb73

PCC are 'toothless' leastways the one in TVP was - washed his hands of TVP Licensing Team not knowing what they were/are doing and running their own Cabal - stating 'operational matter' so will not engage. A formal complaint brought back some 'common sense', but took 15mths.

L

 

[Sonicdmb73]

Hi Sonicdmb73

PCC are 'toothless' leastways the one in TVP was - washed his hands of TVP Licensing Team not knowing what they were/are doing and running their own Cabal - stating 'operational matter' so will not engage. A formal complaint brought back some 'common sense', but took 15mths.

L

I tend to get pain in the arse when faced with this stuff.
Years ago I pandered to FLD as most did/do for fear of loosing x y z. But a mate pointed out that they are not doing me any favours, especially after the then FEO tried to stitch me up over a firearm failure.
So I have a take no bollocks attitude with them now. I have had robust discussions re various subjects and have so far always won so far. The HOG comes in useful as does being able to point out when onus is on me not them safety wise (seems to work well re land checks etc).
I have found (not just with FL) that lots of emails tend to get action. People just don't want the hassle.

 

[bigtone]

I tend to get pain in the arse when faced with this stuff.
Years ago I pandered to FLD as most did/do for fear of loosing x y z. But a mate pointed out that they are not doing me any favours, especially after the then FEO tried to stitch me up over a firearm failure.
So I have a take no bollocks attitude with them now. I have had robust discussions re various subjects and have so far always won so far. The HOG comes in useful as does being able to point out when onus is on me not them safety wise (seems to work well re land checks etc).
I have found (not just with FL) that lots of emails tend to get action. People just don't want the hassle.

Completely agree.l always say about firearms licensing that ' l don't mind cleaning boots but I'm not licking them '.

 

[baguio]

I tend to get pain in the arse when faced with this stuff.
Years ago I pandered to FLD as most did/do for fear of loosing x y z. But a mate pointed out that they are not doing me any favours, especially after the then FEO tried to stitch me up over a firearm failure.
So I have a take no bollocks attitude with them now. I have had robust discussions re various subjects and have so far always won so far. The HOG comes in useful as does being able to point out when onus is on me not them safety wise (seems to work well re land checks etc).
I have found (not just with FL) that lots of emails tend to get action. People just don't want the hassle.

When I first joined the army there were a few lads who thought that they could beat the system. After a few weekends spent on guard duty and parades they realised that they couldn’t and the path of least resistance was the better choice.

 

[Scottb123]

I had them ring me for my renewal to say the land checks expired on your ground (I have had open ticket for years) and asked for another piece of ground they said that’s fine but it not been checked but it will do I asked what’s the crack with land with expired check to be told you’ve got a open ticket so can shoot anywhere bloody madness

 

[Sonicdmb73]

I had them ring me for my renewal to say the land checks expired on your ground (I have had open ticket for years) and asked for another piece of ground they said that’s fine but it not been checked but it will do I asked what’s the crack with land with expired check to be told you’ve got a open ticket so can shoot anywhere bloody madness

Your mistake here is trying to apply common sense to a system that is devoid of any.
It’s more likely to upset your blood pressure than work out the answer to why

 

[Stalker62]

I had them ring me for my renewal to say the land checks expired on your ground (I have had open ticket for years)...

Really?

Notwithstanding that 'Land checks' are a nonsense - how is it possible for one to 'expire"?





Either you have misunderstood the communication, or they are nuts...



Speak to the individual again, ask them to 'clarify' their position and your previous communication (you may have misunderstood).
Ask them to check (peer review) that clarification with a colleague.
Ask for that clarification in writing.
Submit (if it arrives - it won't) that writing to the FLM for their attention, and adjudication.

Sanity should be restored.

If it isn't, then you have the evidence for an appeal/complaint.


Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I haven't even had my coffee this morning, and already I am annoyed...






Apropos miscommunication.

I went into the surgery yesterday, to book a Typhoid Booster, in readiness for the next trip to Africa.


They phoned me back later that day, with the Nurse asking me why I wanted a "Thyroid booster?"

 

[Jh1986]

Sent in my land permission slip months ago. Asked for confirmation it's already cleared (landowner said it is, but I want that confirmed). Haven't actually been able to get them to confirm, or action the permission.

We are now months down the line and all I've been able to do with my new permission, is apologise to the land owner for not being there.

Got basc involved in the delays only to be told that they've told him I've never sent a permission to them. Well, good job I have it in writing that it's been received and being processed.

I too have given up with the boot licking approach. It's not my fault they're underfunded, underpaid and understaffed, in the same way it's not my wife's fault her school is underfunded. Doesn't mean we should be happy with the service though.

 

[Jon P]

All my correspondence are by email, if I get a phone call , I email them back confirming what was said in that conversation, makes life so much easier .

 

[Sonicdmb73]

All my correspondence are by email, if I get a phone call , I email them back confirming what was said in that conversation, makes life so much easier .

I do this too, not just with Firearms Licencing. It comes in handy with many organisations that may not have my interests at heart.

 

[Loki]

jh1986 @ #176

Wondering if '..... and undertrained'......had slipped?

L

 

[njc110381]

None of my land checks have achieved anything for me really, even right back in the early days. I think they're a waste of time. We're the ones pulling the trigger, we should either be regarded as safe or not be allowed out on our own until we are. My experience goes pretty much as follows;

First ever land check, 120 acres of flat ground next to the M5. A roe deer jumped out of the hedge in front of us and ran for a bit, stopping about 150m away between us and the motorway. "Look at that, perfect presentation" said the copper. I looked at him, raised an eyebrow and suggested that I'd probably leave it!

Second visit, checking land for .223. Two trainees out with the same officer. "When a shooter shows this level of experience we can quite often just note their request and go with it". That was about 3 months after my initial grant and I still had a mentoring condition on my centrefires.

Third and I think final visit, many years later and a different officer. "We don't usually clear land for anything bigger than .30. What is it you have exactly?" I showed her a .338 Win Mag cartridge. "Ooh, that's hefty. This is a good piece of ground though so I'll clear it for that. Whilst we're on the subject of large calibres my next visit is for a chap asking for 9.3x74R to be cleared for deer, what do you think I should do?"