Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Inconsistency

  1. #1

    Thumbs down Inconsistency

    Having held a shotgun licence for the last 32 years without incident and not unreasonably thinking that applying for my FAC would be fairly straightforward, how wrong was I!I have a muntjac deer problem on my land(who doesn't) and also foxes that need controlling. When my SGC came up for renewal I thought it logical, and on the advice from the local police FAD, decided to apply for my FAC for the purpose of controlling the above. I expalined that although I've not held an FAC before I've done plenty of rifle shooting with other people - they said you can have a restricted certificate for the first 5 years - that I can understand unless you have vast amounts of friends land to shoot on. I put on my application, guided by the FAD person, an application for a .22RF and a .243. Then two of them came to inspect the land - one of them was fine with it initially and the other spent the entire time looking grim. We agreed where the safe shot could be taken for all quarry but all the time I was aware of the grim looking no. 2. Went back to home and all seemed well. Next thing I know they're back and now both are looking grim. Suddenly everything is wrong with where I'd be shooting due to issues with public rights of way. However, they agree that a .22 is still ok.

    Issues aside of the obvious power differences between a .22RF and a .243 how can you grant one on the same land and not the other? Any calibre rifle in the wrong hands is dangerous, yet there was talk of the different killing distances of between 2 and 3 miles...sorry but this just doesn't wash or ring true. I feel like just telling them to forget it as the whole point was to have a weapon capable of taking out small deer and foxes humanely and safely.

  2. #2
    What I would do is separate out your application into the two issues- you and the land, as both are assessed but they should be assessed independently of each other.

    Taking the "you"- did they have any problems with you having the .243? Ie. if you had suitable land would you have had it granted?

    Looking at the "land"- different land will be cleared up to a given calibre, so it is quite possible (whether one agrees or not) for a piece of land to be cleared for a .22RF and not a .243.

    I would ring up your FLO/FEO and ask them about your application. If the problem is with the land all you can do is ask them to explicitly state what the problems are and argue your case, perhaps with the promise of using a high seat. If the problem is with your experience, ask them what they want to see in order for your application to be granted. Once you've done that I would ring BASC and explain it all to them.

  3. #3
    Thanks for you suggestions Caveman - personally, emotions aside, with safe application of a .243 in a high seat I believe the land and arc of fire is perfectly safe. We've had rifle shooting throughout this region and, specifically, land for generations without mishap. Now suddenly they say 'no'. They're saying I could reapply in time and then with an open licence shoot where I want when my FAC is renewed - how would that make it safe to use a .243 then and not now?

  4. #4
    Arse covering excercise.
    (The Unspeakable In Pursuit Of The Uneatable.) " If I can help, I will help!." Former S.A.C.S. member!

  5. #5
    Finnbears probabley right there,they do like you to have rimfire first,i know it aint right but you could have the .22rf first then apply again in a while for the .243.
    ATB Neil.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by finnbear270 View Post
    Arse covering excercise.
    Quite - how things have changed since I first picked up a shotgun and then rifle...

    Sound advice Dawnraider - thanks.

    Also, maybe if I asked for a .222, the minimum for muntjac, they might move a bit - what do you think?
    Last edited by Tricky; 01-04-2010 at 09:34.

  7. #7
    A definate example of numpties running the asylum, why recommend a person starts his F.A.C. off with the worlds worst ricochet hazard round? ..........22LR & wet grass combined with a missed target on the part of the shooter
    (The Unspeakable In Pursuit Of The Uneatable.) " If I can help, I will help!." Former S.A.C.S. member!

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by finnbear270 View Post
    A definate example of numpties running the asylum, why recommend a person starts his F.A.C. off with the worlds worst ricochet hazard round? ..........22LR & wet grass combined with a missed target on the part of the shooter
    Totallay agree Steve nothing worse for ricochet could always get .17hmr though,Tricky you could try for .222 but its the whole centrefire thing that always seems to be the issue i'm afraid,you could try the DSC1 route but its not going to help you get the land cleared for anything bigger at the minute by the sounds of it,at the end of the day you'll have to either do DSC1 or get a mentor to guide you but i would go for the rimmfire then at least your on the ladder so to speak.

  9. #9
    Finnbear270 and Dawnraider - that's what I always understood but you can't tell them otherwise it seems - they were also going on about fragmentation of centre fire rounds which again doesn't add up to me - surely a CFs punch and superior stability in flight will always triumph over a .22? In fact everything they said was basically bad news with the CF - I honestly think they're told to 'scare' people off having one initially. Anyway after being patronised for over an hour of my time I'd had more than enough - they treat you like you're a bloody idiot! The only reson I held my tongue was I felt it might go against me otherwise. I not going to take this lying down.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricky View Post

    Also, maybe if I asked for a .222, the minimum for muntjac, they might move a bit - what do you think?
    If they did then it would really highlight how unknowledgeable they were about ballistics and the safe use of sporting firearms. I wonder what qualifications they had in either of those disciplines in order to make a valid assesment of the situation? You could always ask if you don't mind stirring it up a bit.

    As has been suggested, ask them to provide you with details of their objections to the use of .243 on the land. If you are aware that others have shot over it in the past with similar calibres them put that forward. If all else fails, and you are sure of your position, get it all in writing and tell them it may constitute a constructive refusal to issue a certificate as required under the Firearms Act(s):

    A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of
    police is satisfied-
    (a) that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to
    which section 1 of this Act applies and is not person
    prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;
    (b) that he has good reason for having in his possession, or for
    purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect
    of which the application is made; and
    (c) that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to
    have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without
    danger to the public safety or to the peace.
    Section 38
    F(A)Act 1997

    The last part is what you appear to be having difficulty in achieving.
    Last edited by Orion; 01-04-2010 at 12:52.

Similar Threads

  1. Rifle inconsistency
    By NickJ in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 17-11-2009, 13:44

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •