any lawfull quarry

No offence meant or taken.

I have said I know it's contentious but for the reasons above I'm not keen.

I love my HMR but Foxing is Foxing and wabbit whacking is wabbit wacking.

Airguns for Branchers in April no contest. Training my kids no contest. Otherwise, well that's what FAC is for.
 
Sure, I do agree with what you say and was not intending to offend.

I do feel though that there is a important difference between personal choice and police forces making those choices for us at the detriment to our sports.

anyway, all that aside..... Happy Hunting! (regardless of calibre!)

No offence meant or taken.

I have said I know it's contentious but for the reasons above I'm not keen.

I love my HMR but Foxing is Foxing and wabbit whacking is wabbit wacking.

Airguns for Branchers in April no contest. Training my kids no contest. Otherwise, well that's what FAC is for.
 
Well I've just requested my .243 to be open (don't know why it wasn't already seeing as all other cals are open) I thought I may as well ask for AOLQ... nothing lost, nothing gained and all that. He said send your ticket in and I'll sort it :thumb:

I suppose it's kind of like the Holy Grail.... sort of "We trust you to make your own judgement now"
 
Well I've just requested my .243 to be open (don't know why it wasn't already seeing as all other cals are open) I thought I may as well ask for AOLQ... nothing lost, nothing gained and all that. He said send your ticket in and I'll sort it :thumb:

I suppose it's kind of like the Holy Grail.... sort of "We trust you to make your own judgement now"

That's good news.

We must bear in mind, though, that the Holy Grail is a relic of almost mythical status that no-one has yet found and most people have stopped looking for, whereas AOLQ is straightforward and risk-free way of reducing the administrative burden on the police and, more importantly, cutting down pointless on infringements of the freedom of FAC-holders. So perhaps AOLQ and the Holy Grail are not that similar?

Besides which you'd think that they would decide whether someone's judgement was sound before issuing an FAC.
:)
 
Ian, this might just be a gormless question, but when would I possibly need "ground game" on my ticket along side "vermin"?

Personally I cant see why you even need "fox" listed if you have "vermin" as surly fox fall under this category!?!


Hun,
Northants do not regard fox as vermin and as such it had to be listed by name.
I had ground game added in order to shoot hares, this was again a requirement from Northants licensing

Ian.

Due to a 100+ year old piece of legislation, rabbits are also ground game, not vermin :)
 
Last edited:
Ticket landed on the mat this morning with AOLQ all calibres... in just over a week turnaround :D

Thank you GMP FLD
 
Yes, i understand this, it will be interesting to see if my 22-250 will be conditioned for small deer and AOLQ, as previously i had Fox, ground game and vermin and a seperate condition regarding my 22-250 and small deer.
It will also be interesting to see how the requested 17HMR condition is worded i have asked for fox, ground game and vermin.

Ian.

Well, i finally picked up my licence today and the new conditions read as such:
257......deer and any other lawful quarry
22-250.....Fox and any other lawful quarry
17HMR.....Vermin and any other lawful quarry.
Now the 257 is quite straightforward but i queried the 22.250 regarding Muntjac and CWD and was told that the AOLQ includes small deer.
I also said that i had asked for fox on the 17HMR and was again told that its included in AOLQ.
So for all you guys out there who somehow believe that AOLQ means any other "lesser" species, not according to my licensing office manager does it

Ian.
 
Your right mate. AOLQ is exactly what is says, "Any" other quarry which is legal to take with the firearm it is applied too.

Sent mine off over a week ago. Fingers crossed!
 
Well, i finally picked up my licence today and the new conditions read as such:
257......deer and any other lawful quarry He's done this according to guidelines :cool:
22-250.....Fox and any other lawful quarry And this one too :)
17HMR.....Vermin and any other lawful quarry. He's lost the plot here :eek:
Now the 257 is quite straightforward but i queried the 22.250 regarding Muntjac and CWD and was told that the AOLQ includes small deer. And definitely lost the plot here :rolleyes:
I also said that i had asked for fox on the 17HMR and was again told that its included in AOLQ. Now he has totally gone off the rails :(
So for all you guys out there who somehow believe that AOLQ means any other "lesser" species, not according to my licensing office manager does it

Ian.

He's bonkers, get it in writing :D
 
Last edited:
Your right mate. AOLQ is exactly what is says, "Any" other quarry which is legal to take with the firearm it is applied too.

Sent mine off over a week ago. Fingers crossed!

If you are with Warwickshire I dont think you've got a hope in hell. I asked for AOLQ or a condition that allowed me to shoot Canadas with my .243 as I'd been asked to by a couple of farmers who are having problems with them. I sent in what I thought was a very compelling letter explining that a body shot with a .243 was far less likely to cause suffering than trying to head shoot with my HMR and princepals of backstops etc.
I had a letter saying the HMR was suitable but if I wished to apply for a "more suitable" centerfire like .222 or .22 hornet it would be granted!
 
David. The terminology is "any OTHER lawful quarry". It is not "any LESSER lawful quarry", or "any SMALLER lawful quarry". Unless it is unlawful to shoot that type of animal with that specific round (for example because of the deer act, or some other protection in law) then I would say it is perfectly clear that CWD and Muntjac are lawful quarry for the 22-250, and so are covered by the AOLQ condition. Ditto foxes for the .17HMR.

Just because a quarry type might not be listed as providing a good reason to possess a specific chambering in the table in the HO guidance, it does not make it unlawful to use that round on that type of quarry.
 
David. The terminology is "any OTHER lawful quarry". It is not "any LESSER lawful quarry", or "any SMALLER lawful quarry". Unless it is unlawful to shoot that type of animal with that specific round (for example because of the deer act, or some other protection in law) then I would say it is perfectly clear that CWD and Muntjac are lawful quarry for the 22-250, and so are covered by the AOLQ condition. Ditto foxes for the .17HMR.

Just because a quarry type might not be listed as providing a good reason to possess a specific chambering in the table in the HO guidance, it does not make it unlawful to use that round on that type of quarry.

That's how I understand it
 
David. The terminology is "any OTHER lawful quarry". It is not "any LESSER lawful quarry", or "any SMALLER lawful quarry". Unless it is unlawful to shoot that type of animal with that specific round (for example because of the deer act, or some other protection in law) then I would say it is perfectly clear that CWD and Muntjac are lawful quarry for the 22-250, and so are covered by the AOLQ condition. Ditto foxes for the .17HMR.

Just because a quarry type might not be listed as providing a good reason to possess a specific chambering in the table in the HO guidance, it does not make it unlawful to use that round on that type of quarry.

That's how I understand it

Matt/Si

Then in that case, BASC have got it totally wrong, as per the specimen wording on page 3:

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/3D001190-BA52-43B5-91F72349FD5C6B90
 
Last edited:
Matt/Si

Then in that case, BASC have got it totally wrong, as per the specimin wording on page 3

I'm not sure I understand. If the 'good reason' species named is deer, then it does allow the shooting of lesser species.

The bit that seems to cause confusion, and which in no way contradicts the BASC advice referenced, is that 'any other lawful quarry' means what it says.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry David but I don't understand how you can draw the inference that only smaller or lesser species/categories of quarry can be taken on an AOLQ condition from the wording in the document you've pointed out.

The wording of conditions must be in plain English. In plain English, "Any other lawful quarry" can have only one meaning. To argue otherwise is nonsensical. How can any implication other than the fact that ANY OTHER means all and any species which can legally be taken are covered? There is no logical, or legal, argument. It is not ambiguous in any way. Even trying to read some kind of "intent" other than the obvious meaning in to the wording won't get you anywhere. The plain fact is AOLQ covers you to shoot ANY species or category of animal that it is lawful for you to shoot. If you can provide some logical reason why this should not be so, then I would be interested to hear it.

The BASC document does not imply in any way that the primary reason is a "maximum" that can be shot. It is purely the animal/class of animal that satisfies the "good reason to hold" requirement for issue of an FAC. Once that has been established, then there is nothing that states, in any guidance, settled law or any other document, that AOLQ means anything other than the plain English meaning of the phrase.
 
Luckly I am on the Worcester side of the boarder so my force is west mercia. I guess only time will tell! Ill let you know how it goes!

If you are with Warwickshire I dont think you've got a hope in hell. I asked for AOLQ or a condition that allowed me to shoot Canadas with my .243 as I'd been asked to by a couple of farmers who are having problems with them. I sent in what I thought was a very compelling letter explining that a body shot with a .243 was far less likely to cause suffering than trying to head shoot with my HMR and princepals of backstops etc.
I had a letter saying the HMR was suitable but if I wished to apply for a "more suitable" centerfire like .222 or .22 hornet it would be granted!
 
I have had an email exchange with BASC on this today. They say that until all forces accept AOLQ, and the ones that do use it apply it evenly, they have to advise on all the conditioning options that might be applied.

They also say that really the condition should just say AOLQ without any other quarry, or better still no quarry condition whatsoever, and just be guided by the appropriate wildlife legislation.

Certainly the AOLQ condition has been applied completely differently on Whitebeard's certificate to mine, and until the Home Office Firearms guidance manual is rewritten to include a clearer definition of quarry and AOLQ, we are stuck with the ambiguity.

Until then, we'd better agree to differ ;)
 
...we are stuck with the ambiguity...

If a rifle were conditioned 'fox and any other lawful quarry' or 'rats and any other lawful quarry', is it even remotely conceivable, given what the words 'any other lawful quarry' mean in English, that the FAC-holder could end up in trouble for breach of FAC conditions by his using a rifle so conditioned to shoot any other lawful quarry?

I still don't see where the abiguity lies, as the wording itself is entirely unambiguous. There is certainly no ambiguity in the BASC guidance, as far as I can tell.
 
Take my .17hmr as an example... It is worded "The .17hmr rifle and sound moderator that this certificate relates to shall be used for the control of vermin and ground game and for any other legal quarry over land and on ranges which the the holder has authority to shoot"

If I were to shoot a fox (within a sensible range) using my .17hmr the above condition would cover it, as there is no legal specification of a minimum calibre to shoot foxes.
Should I ever find myself in the situation where I stand infront of a magistrate charged with breach of certificate conditions, I would feel confident that the outcome would be in my favour. Which is why I requested the AOLQ wording to be added.

Same applies to my .223 which is conditioned for fox and any other legal quarry (muntjac would come under AOLQ)
 
Back
Top