Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Is it necessary

  1. #1

    Is it necessary

    Dear all,
    Is it a legal requirement to complete the dsc courses. If I was to find myself some nice person to mentor me ,would this be acceptable in the eyes of the law regarding the eventual application for a firearm.
    I just think and its only my opinion that I would benefit from a long term tutoring compared to trying to squish it all in a week .

  2. #2
    Distinguished Member tartinjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nairn, Inverness-shire
    Posts
    2,610
    It's not a legal requirment but lots of FLO's are putting conditions on tickets requiring DSC to be taken by ticket holders, they are also putting down that persons can only stalk while being mentored. Best thing to do is talk to your licencing office.

    There is lots of info regarding this stuff in the Legal Section on this forum. Her is one of the biggest discussions.

    http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.u...opic.php?t=819

    Contact Swampy direct via PM, he is "On the ball" with this stuff.

    Cheers

    TJ

  3. #3
    Brough

    TJ is right. There is no legal requirement for you to complete the DSC 1 course before a firearms certificate is granted.

    There is also no legal requirement for you to be mentored.

    These are facts in law.

    Therefore a FEO cannot, even when acting as an agent for the Chief Con have these unlawful restrictions imposed on you firearm certificate.

    Join BASC/NGO/BDS and speak with them for advice, they will know a good lawyer.

    RF

  4. #4
    I read, in the last BASC mag I think, that the Chief of Police can only issue a FAC if they are satisfied you are safe.

    By imposing conditions, they are in effect saying you are not safe and need to be supervised.

    So if you have a FAC it cannot have restrictive conditions otherwise it has been issued under the premise that in some cases you are not safe.

    And yet, FACs still have such conditions attached.

  5. #5
    Snowstorm

    You are correct however "conditions" cannot be challenged but it is interesting to note the "creep" from a "normal" issue certificate of named land so as to restrict the indivdual and so they can get experience and then move to an "open" ticket to what we have today in some areas. Whilst you can argue "for" anything, I would ask to see where the imperical evidence is to suggest there is a need for such draconian illegal restrictions? The simple fact is there isnt any to support their arguement but we in our ignorance have set a very dangerous precent by accepting such BS.

    Of course, what has yet to be explored in a court, is the issue of an individual being a mentor when a "novice" makes an error [sufficient in magnitude to involve the police] I wonder what the police would say then? or indeed do? I suspect there might be a duty of care issue on part of the mentor, could he be held liable? Who knows?

    As it has not happened yet [to my knowledge] it is untested and NO one can say either way with any realistic certainty/evidence what the outcome would be however to provide an example of my experience of this albeit a slightly different set of circumstances. On one occassion when pressed, the police wanted us to turn out with rifles to despatch RTA's. We asked for immunity or protection under the law if we shot a beast that had crawled onto private land following an RTA, this was at their [police] behest as to do so would be clearly breaking the law had we not obtained permission first.

    It never came, so be aware if the friendly boby says just shoot it mate... be warned the next sentence might start with "Iam arresting you....."

    Would this ever happen? I don't know but I sure aint gonna test it to see.

    As they say in the procurement world.... Caveat Emptor!!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Rangefinder
    Snowstorm

    You are correct however "conditions" cannot be challenged but it is interesting to note the "creep" from a "normal" issue certificate of named land so as to restrict the indivdual and so they can get experience and then move to an "open" ticket to what we have today in some areas. Whilst you can argue "for" anything, I would ask to see where the imperical evidence is to suggest there is a need for such draconian illegal restrictions? The simple fact is there isnt any to support their arguement but we in our ignorance have set a very dangerous precent by accepting such BS.
    Quite right, and with no formal/independent appeal mechanism you are left with nothing more than direct appeals to people who made the decision in the first place, or getting one of the shooter orgs to get involved on a case by case basis.

    It doesn't affect me, but it's looking harder and harder for people to get a FAC from scratch. I really have sympathy for them.

    Interesting to note they dangled getting DSC in front of me at my interview, and if I'd blinked then it would have been a condition, but I knew that one was coming. I just said 'gimme', it's costing me money not to have one', and they did.

  7. #7
    Rangefinder

    Just aside of the DSC for a moment.

    As you seem well up on the legal issues I would value your and others opinions.

    Like a lot of people on this site I attend RTA's and have done for 10 years or more.
    I have been asked by the police to enter land without the owners permission to find and disspatch an injured deer.
    I have always refussed unless the police get that permission for me there and then, otherwise I belive I could be prosecuted for armed trespass.
    I know it would probably be an extreme case but I dont wish to be that one or even test it.

    Also I will not attend an RTA without a police presance as I belive it is an offence to disscharge a firearm/shotgun within 50m of a public highway.
    The police refer to this as a GREY area but I am not up for testing it in court either

    Max

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member tartinjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nairn, Inverness-shire
    Posts
    2,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Max
    I have been asked by the police to enter land without the owners permission to find and disspatch an injured deer.
    I have always refussed unless the police get that permission for me there and then, otherwise I belive I could be prosecuted for armed trespass.
    Your right, you can still get prosecuted, the police are not the "LAW" and therefor can't re-write it, they enforce the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Max
    Also I will not attend an RTA without a police presance as I belive it is an offence to disscharge a firearm/shotgun within 50m of a public highway.
    Max
    Only if it causes nusence/disturbance to others (I also think that only stands for a Centrefire rifle) I believe you can discharge a shotgun legaly though. I also believe it's it's 50m from the centre of the highway.

    That's how I have interpreted the law, if I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrcted.

    Cheers

    TJ

  9. #9
    In response to the query from Max I may be wrong but I seem to recall that the permission or instruction to do so has to come from the Chief Constable in writing. If this is the case then obviously this is not practical. I myself had to shy away from a similar situation some twenty years ago when I was requested to do so by the Duty Sergeant who was the most senior person on duty within the division on the day in question. To avoid a similar situation arising I never put myself in the position again and indeed in this Region The Police only use the nearest Vet to dispatch an animal.

    Remmy7

  10. #10
    Just a thought!
    If you had no intention of shooting deer the FLO could not insist on dsc1, but would you be able to own a large calibre rifle for anything other than punching holes in paper?

    griff

Posting Permissions

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