Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: A 'condition' wording clarification please

  1. #1

    A 'condition' wording clarification please

    Hello all, I've had my FAC back and initially was very impressed with the turn around, bit irritated with the mentoring but all seemed workable.

    Having had another conversation with FEO re the mentoring condition and the goalposts being moved from initial conversation I'm just going over a few things so all can be addressed, if needed, in our next conversation.

    I put in for a .223 for fox, muntjak and all other legal quarry. The wording on the FAC is "for shooting foxes and any other lawful quarry". I specifically asked at the time if that would allow for muntjak as they are legal for the calibre (with appropriate ammunition). His response was it covers all lawful quarry and they found it more sensible to state AOLQ than putting a whole list. So going by the conversation I thought "yes, that's fine".

    With a couple of other points now not being as clear as they certainly seemed at the time I just want to check your wider experience of wordings and actual meanings. So, am I allowed to shoot munty with the .223 under "any other lawful quarry" or do I need to speak further and look to getting it named ?

    Also, nitpicking now, does 'zeroing' cover 'practice' as in more than the few shots taken to check zero ? Thinking more of the .22lr.

    Thanks in advance, Duncan

  2. #2
    Sounds O.K. to me.
    With regard to practice, reasonable practice is allowed and is mentioned in the guidance to police document. They do not however define what reasonable practice is.
    It's the calibre of the shooter that counts not the calibre of the rifle.

  3. #3
    AOLQ means that you can shoot anything that can be legally shot with that calibre ie Muntjac. Hell, you can shoot boar with it if you want, as there's no legal definition of a boar legal calibre, just a Home Office Guideline of .270, but I think you'd need to justify why you'd put any quarry through that, so please don't...

    Enjoy getting onto some Munties though!

    Cheers
    iain
    Sako 75 6.5x55mm-Z6i 3-18x50. MauserM12 .308-SIII 6-24x50. Beretta 690 III Field 12b.
    "You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."
    Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965)

  4. #4
    RDG,

    Personally I would not choose to shoot a Deer without that being stated on my FAC.
    What your Force considers AOLQ may not be the same as another's, when you have a carcass in the back


    Deer Act = Deer on my FAC in my book. Deer + AOLQ means you can't shoot big deer with that calibre, and I would be happy with that.

    ​Stan

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by RDG View Post
    Also, nitpicking now, does 'zeroing' cover 'practice' as in more than the few shots taken to check zero ? Thinking more of the .22lr.

    Thanks in advance, Duncan

    1. Section 10(2)(b) of the 1997 Act amends section 5A(4)(b) of the 1968 Act so that the
      use of expanding ammunition is in connection with the various exempted purposes. Thisallows, for example, a deer stalker or vermin shooter to zero with their rifle on a range orother suitable land and to do sufficient training and testing with the expanding ammunition.It does not allow them to take part in target shooting or any competitions using expandingammunition.







    from the 2013 expanding ammo guidance

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ing_ammo_4.pdf

  6. #6
    Are Muntjac lawful quarry for a .223?
    Yes.
    QED!


    I don't think it particularly matters what any different constabularies think 'any other lawful quarry' means, because what they think has no effect at all on its actual meaning: which, unsurprisingly, is exactly what it says.

    Therefore, RDG would be acting within the restrictions on his FAC if he shot a Muntjac with his .223. In RDG's case, this fact has been (quite unneccessarily) verified by the FEO.

    I'm not sure which part of the Deer Act mandates a specific 'deer condition' on a stalker's FAC, though if I shared Stan's worry asking for 'deer and AOLQ' rather than 'fox and AOLQ' would sort it out very easily.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dalua View Post
    Are Muntjac lawful quarry for a .223?
    Yes.
    QED!


    I don't think it particularly matters what any different constabularies think 'any other lawful quarry' means, because what they think has no effect at all on its actual meaning: which, unsurprisingly, is exactly what it says.

    Therefore, RDG would be acting within the restrictions on his FAC if he shot a Muntjac with his .223. In RDG's case, this fact has been (quite unneccessarily) verified by the FEO.

    I'm not sure which part of the Deer Act mandates a specific 'deer condition' on a stalker's FAC, though if I shared Stan's worry asking for 'deer and AOLQ' rather than 'fox and AOLQ' would sort it out very easily.

    Dalua,

    Maybe, but the current situation of Deer plus expanding ammunition is the norm. AOLQ is supposed to ride on top of that to cover "other" species like goat, boar, fox, mink, badger etc.

    Fox only does not allow purchase of expanding ammo. I doubt if Fox + AOLQ as you suggest allows expanding ammo.

    Does the OP have authority for expanding ammo? Might give an indication as the the FLO's intent.

    I personally would seek guidance from BASC etc. on this if Deer and expanding ammo not on my FAC

    Stan

  8. #8
    The thing that allows the acquisition, possession and use of S5 ammuntion is as far as I'm aware the separate condition which starts 'The certificate holder may possess, purchase or acquire expanding ammuniton...', and as far as I'm aware this S5 ammunition authority should be given to all FAC-holders who shoot live quarry of any kind.

    As the OP's FEO has already told him that 'fox and AOLQ' includes Munjac, it seems likely that he has S5 ammunition authority already - but if not, then he should make sure he gets it smartish!

  9. #9
    You can happily shoot rabbits,fox and anything you want with FMJ but not deer as they are covered by the deer act.
    So you only legally have to shoot deer with expanding ammunition if you choose to shoot other quarry with them that is an ethical choice not a legal one.
    So it is possible that the OP doesn't have authority to purchase S5 ammunition but his FAC will clarify it.


  10. #10
    Thanks for the responses and queries. It helps to have others views. I do have permission for "expanding ammunition, or missiles of such ammunition, in the calibres authorised by this certificate and use only in connection with the shooting of vermin or, in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife."
    As I said, after first interview / conversation I was quite happy munty were included. However some other things, stated verbally, which seemed very clear at the time are now apparently different. Seems most would so far agree with my original interpretation, which is reassuring.
    I will cover it again in conversation with FEO next time we speak before sending in the next mentors letter to lift that condition.
    thanks, Duncan

Similar Threads

  1. Wording
    By jase kaye in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-07-2012, 15:10
  2. variation wording
    By bongo in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22-04-2012, 10:01
  3. Help with variation wording please
    By Blackdog in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 19-02-2012, 08:39
  4. Double wording
    By Mannlicher_Stu in forum Site Help/Problems
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 22-09-2010, 21:05
  5. PH 'standard issue' BRNO? Clarification please
    By AI perfector in forum Big Game Hunting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-05-2010, 15:07

Posting Permissions

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