Has a DSC1/2 ever been used in court as example of competance?

[andibrains]

Just a quick question on this one without wanting to "hijack" this thread - Would the situation and the legal standing of the DSC 1 and 2 change if the police have their way in something I have heard from several forums?
I have heard several "rumours" that at some time in the future the police will require DSC level 1 before authorising a "Deer Shooting Rifle" on a FAC. If this does come to pass then surely the police will be giving some legal weight to the DSC by recognising it as a !qualification"!
I have to say that I think this is unlikely to happen and if it does it will be a sad day for shooters, but if it were ever to happen what would your thoughts be on it?

Why do you feel this would be a sad day for shooters? Why shouldnt people have to pass a competency based, rifle safety course before being allowed a certificate to purchase firearms? I dont understand why the majority of people see this as a major problem. I understand the issues with cost and agree maybe there should be a rifle safety only course option but personally I would much rather this than be in the situation (like USA) where anyone has the right to bear arms. Ive seen some people bad enough at rifle handling/muzzle awareness etc even after completing the level 1.

 

[bewsher500]

Why do you feel this would be a sad day for shooters? Why shouldnt people have to pass a competency based, rifle safety course before being allowed a certificate to purchase firearms? I dont understand why the majority of people see this as a major problem. I understand the issues with cost and agree maybe there should be a rifle safety only course option but personally I would much rather this than be in the situation (like USA) where anyone has the right to bear arms. Ive seen some people bad enough at rifle handling/muzzle awareness etc even after completing the level 1.

you have just answered your own question.
forced competency certification does not necessarily raise the safety levels.
continued mentoring, supervision and self regulation is the way forward.

I object the wholesale introduction of any certification of "competancy" when the test itself may or may not apply to the shooter.

what is deemed "safe" or "appropriate" in one arena is deemed "unsafe" and "inappropriate" in another.

what are the grounds for this sudden introduction of certificate requirement and competancy based testing?

have the number of firearm accidents in teh field increased dramatically in recent years?
Have the number of cases of contaminated (wild) meat entering the food chain increased?
has the number of firearms end users (rather than bodies that wish to control) expressing a need for regulation increased?

unless someone can demonstrate to me that the need for mandatory certification is not driven by :
A) the police wanting to make the job of screening easier (arse covering exercise)
B) the industry bodies (BDS, BASC, SNH, etc etc) wanting to control who does what where from a H&S perspective with similar approach to making screening easier (arse covering exercise)

..then I am unconvinced of the benefits to the overall firearms holding community or the sport in general.

Without a certificate of some description those that have to evaluate and screen potential participants in a lease, contract, syndicate etc etc have to do an awful lot more homework and personal checking than they do currently. That means the buck stops with the person doing the checking, not being passed by saying "well I checked he has DSC2 so I have done my job and his susequent flagrant abuse of firearms safety/meat hygiene etc is no longer MY responsibility"

certification is not the be all and end all.

 

[andibrains]

I dont claim it is but the majority of people, will whole heartedly complain when under a mentoring condition too. So given the limited resources, in terms of firearms officers and the area/number of shooters they cover which makes more sense. Your arguement holds no water as mentoring only works if the mentor has 'good' habits/competency to pass onto the person being trained. While the shooting test may not be ideal at least there is a defined 'standard'. I also understand that these issues dont apply to the majority of shooters but any safeguards have to apply to people in general, including all the kn*bs!

 

[andibrains]

Also this idea that there needs to be an increase in incidents/problem/fatalities before risk control measures are used is b*****ks too. Most major industrial catastrophes/desasters/incidents had no precursors or indications/trends of major problems

 

[RichardP]

Why do you feel this would be a sad day for shooters? Why shouldnt people have to pass a competency based, rifle safety course before being allowed a certificate to purchase firearms? I dont understand why the majority of people see this as a major problem. I understand the issues with cost and agree maybe there should be a rifle safety only course option but personally I would much rather this than be in the situation (like USA) where anyone has the right to bear arms. Ive seen some people bad enough at rifle handling/muzzle awareness etc even after completing the level 1.

10 years ago almost to the day Thames Valley told me if i didnt do my DSC 1 then they wouldnt autorise me a deer caliber...

So yes they used to insist on it here.......

Rich

 

[photopro]

The often quoted "a piece of paper proves nothing" strictly speaking is true however we all trust "pieces of paper" every day of our lives the alternative would be to personally witness the competency or otherwise of the person in question. You couldn't ask a dentist to drill a few test teeth for you, or a bus driver to take it for a spin round the block while you watch etc etc. We all trust the people involved have completed some form of training and that their paperwork has been checked before they got the job. We might not all agree the training is intensive enough or that they should have trained for longer, comments sometimes directed at the DMQ awards but we are in a far better position than we were before they existed.
As for "I can't see the Police ever making DSC1 compulsory before a Deer calibre grant" I'm amazed it hasn't already happened !!! Don't get me wrong I don't like the Police dictating this sort of condition but in our litigation fearing, "all guns are bad" society and especially after incidents of mass shootings - it is coming. I would bet this happens in the next 10 years and other European contries already have similar pre application conditions.

 

[andibrains]

The often quoted "a piece of paper proves nothing" strictly speaking is true however we all trust "pieces of paper" every day of our lives the alternative would be to personally witness the competentcy or otherwise of the person in question. You couldn't ask a dentist to drill a few test teeth for you, or a bus driver to take it for a spin round the block while you watch etc etc. We all trust the people involved have completed some form of training and that their paperwork has been checked before they got the job. We might not all agree the training is intensive enough or that they should have trained for longer, comments sometimes directed at the DMQ awards but we are in a far better position than we were before they existed.
As for "I can't see the Police ever making DSC1 compulsory before a Deer calibre grant" I'm amazed it hasn't already happened !!! Don't get me wrong I don't like the Police dictating this sort of condition but in our litigation fearing, "all guns are bad" society and especially after incidents of mass shootings - it is coming. I would bet this happens in the next 10 years and other European contries already have similar pre application conditions.

I agree and why not you cant go out in a car on your own without proving competency (driving test) so why should you be able to go out with a gun. In theory as things stand anyone with a clean record could apply for an be awarded a firearms, take the rifle out and start shooting. I admit the system, as it is, is flawed but I honestly feel there does need to be some level of control.

 

[Taff]

Richard they may have asked you to ,but had no right to demand you do it, as they have no right to do so today. Perhaps ower man from basc can check this out as it seems a infringement of the firearms act. Hampshire asked my son to do one, he had just returned from Wicklow where he was a keeper culling sika deer. I asked to see where it was in the firearms act, and we heard no more of it.
Andi having a general test for safety before purchasing a gun sounds a good idea, and before you learn to drive you could take your driving test, a far more dangerous weapon.
As to h&s law most is brought in after incidents have happened, some can be generic to certain types of actions but originally incidents high lighted the problem, as in the Titanic enough life craft were availably for everyone but were on both sides of the ship,in a situation of a ship listing 50% were of no use now we have enough on each side, so yes we do learn by our mistakes it's called the D arwin effect

 

[RichardP]

Richard they may have asked you to ,but had no right to demand you do it, as they have no right to do so today. Perhaps ower man from basc can check this out as it seems a infringement of the firearms act. Hampshire asked my son to do one, he had just returned from Wicklow where he was a keeper culling sika deer. I asked to see where it was in the firearms act, and we heard no more of it.Andi having a general test for safety before purchasing a gun sounds a good idea, and before you learn to drive you could take your driving test, a far more dangerous weapon.As to h&s law most is brought in after incidents have happened, some can be generic to certain types of actions but originally incidents high lighted the problem, as in the Titanic enough life craft were availably for everyone but were on both sides of the ship,in a situation of a ship listing 50% were of no use now we have enough on each side, so yes we do learn by our mistakes it's called the D arwin effect

Hi TaffI agree, i had held a Firearms 10 years previous to that with using a .22-250 and remember today like it was yesterday arguing with my RFO and in the end i rang his boss and wastold the same answer, just another phase they were going thro to stop people.Rich

 

[Chanty Wrassler]

The landowner can wash their hands of all responsibilty

Gazza,

I think your phrasing is a wee bit harsh.

The landowner typically checks the stalkers FAC - confirms the police have checked the stalker

The landowner typically checks the stalker has insurance - shows the stalker is prudent, insurance cover is in place in case of an accident/incident, may well be a condition of the landowner's own public liability insurance

The landowner checks for DSC1 - shows the stalker has demonstrated safety awareness

Isn't that more a case of taking reasonable precautions rather than "wash their hands"?

 

[DL]

DMQ 1-2 is a second teir cop-out not a first teir proof of compitence. Police and Forestry companies would use it as a proof of due diligence in assessing a situation for H&S or granting a FAC. It is used without proof of compitence to have your name inserted of SNH fit and comp register without further evidence. It is used by FSA as compitence in meat hygeine.
Those groups now have a legal cop out if you go wrong. It is not a paper to pass the buck as much as a paper to make sure the buck stops with you. The only way that piece of paper will be used is to hang you. Jim

Jim, if that's really how you feel then you should hand back your deer stalking certificate to DMQ with an explanation why you don't want to be a part of it.

 

[jimbo123p]

When others are pointing out the standard is v ery low maybe in view of your comment you would like to explain another reason it is demanded. I know a lot of competent stalkers, even professionals who do not have it. Short of opening up the whole ins and outs of the DMQ what other piupose does it serve than put the onus of responsibility on the holder. Nowhere did I say I do not want to be part of it. My stalking is derived through the fact I hold level two. I appriciate my responsibilities and accept holding L2 if things go wrong the buck stops with me. If things did go wrong the first thing the FC or A N Other will hold up is a copy of that document and say "We checked out his qualifications." It is the people that fail to accept that responsibility that should hand in their FAC. Jim

 

[Gazza]

Gazza,

I think your phrasing is a wee bit harsh.

The landowner typically checks the stalkers FAC - confirms the police have checked the stalker

The landowner typically checks the stalker has insurance - shows the stalker is prudent, insurance cover is in place in case of an accident/incident, may well be a condition of the landowner's own public liability insurance

The landowner checks for DSC1 - shows the stalker has demonstrated safety awareness

Isn't that more a case of taking reasonable precautions rather than "wash their hands"?

CW, If a stalker was out and by accident or negligence they just happened to shoot somebody the first item the landowner would be looking for is the contract which states that you have a FAC,level 1/2 and insurance so that he can indeed say that he took all reasonable precautions in allowing somebody on his land to stalk deer who was competent and insured. There after, harsh as it may seem he/she would wash their hands of all responsibility.

 

[timbrayford]

CW, If a stalker was out and by accident or negligence they just happened to shoot somebody the first item the landowner would be looking for is the contract which states that you have a FAC,level 1/2 and insurance so that he can indeed say that he took all reasonable precautions in allowing somebody on his land to stalk deer who was competent and insured. There after, harsh as it may seem he/she would wash their hands of all responsibility.

Surely this would be a matter of the landowner reasonably discharging their duty of care rather than "washing their hands".atb Tim

 

[Cut+Squirt]

The often quoted "a piece of paper proves nothing" strictly speaking is true however we all trust "pieces of paper" every day of our lives the alternative would be to personally witness the competency or otherwise of the person in question. You couldn't ask a dentist to drill a few test teeth for you, or a bus driver to take it for a spin round the block while you watch etc etc. We all trust the people involved have completed some form of training and that their paperwork has been checked before they got the job. We might not all agree the training is intensive enough or that they should have trained for longer, comments sometimes directed at the DMQ awards but we are in a far better position than we were before they existed.
As for "I can't see the Police ever making DSC1 compulsory before a Deer calibre grant" I'm amazed it hasn't already happened !!! Don't get me wrong I don't like the Police dictating this sort of condition but in our litigation fearing, "all guns are bad" society and especially after incidents of mass shootings - it is coming. I would bet this happens in the next 10 years and other European contries already have similar pre application conditions.

I couldn't agree more.