A tale of two FAC applications

Orion

Well-Known Member
I'll add to this topic as the story progresses - it might turn out to be quite an interesting and enlightening experience.

Application no.1

Me, I'm a returnee to shooting and deer. Here's the biog:

I've been rough shooting, small/fullbore rifle & pistol since 1976 and stalking from 1987. Several certificates in small/fullbore rifle and pistol safety and use, BDS National Stalker's Cert, Advanced Stalker Cert & Range Conducting Officer Cert. Worked for a period of about 11 years in a full-time professional deer mangement/stalking capacity until 2001.

Also completed the BDFA certification in field slaughter and have held various English Nature and Home Office licences to 'take wild deer alive' by S.5 tranquilising rifle/dart etc. Was a S.5 RFD until 2001. Since then until now I have not held an FAC etc.

I have now applied for a new FAC & SGC - .22, 22-250, 6.5x57, .308, usual ammo + 12 gauge slug - requesting open certificate with no conditions attached to where or on what the firearms are used. Should cover the usual vermin, fox and deer, plus boar, goats and any other culling - similar to my last open FAC. I have land signed up etc.

Application no.2

My brother-in-law, (let's call him Nimrod), with no previous experience but will be instructed by myself.

Applying to the same force for FAC & SGC - .22, 22-250, .308 for use on vermin, fox & deer where appropriate. He is in a civilian professional occupation with high level security clearance and can hold his own in discussions of a legal nature. ;)

He has his own smallholding and has had problems with foxes and rabbits. Deer are present from time to time.

Both applications are being made to the same constabulary so it might be interesting to see how we are handled - I'm advising him regarding the nuances of the application process. ;)
 
i have just sat down and written a letter for the supervision order to be
removed from my sons certificate who is 17 old
should all be ok keep you posted
pete .
 
75 said:
Which force out of interest?

Are you directing the question at me or to Roedinator?

I'm not going to reveal the identity of the Firearms Licensing Department for a little while yet, just in case it prejudices my bro-in-laws application. I've personally had good dealings with them in the past although they did get a bit self-contradictory with some conditions that were going to be put on regarding darting in public places, culling of exotic species etc., but we arrived at a workable solution in the end.

We'll see if things have changed!
 
cant remember if its A /S
or S and M :eek: but thats another story :lol:
must admit ive had no problems in the past with them
and my F E O is one of the best .
fingers crossed pete .
 
Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

Well, the FEO came a calling and after getting the nuts'n bolts of the security inspection out of the way and declaring that I have no mental health and alcohol problems, we settled down to the nitty gritty.

First the good news: because I have previously held an FAC for CF rifles I do not need to be mentored, which is normally a requirement apparently - wooo hooo - but that's the end of the good news! :cry:

I was informed I should plan to take DSC1 'soon', (I have BDS NSCC & Advanced Certs plus a few other things), but when is soon? Next up, the land I have 'nominated' is currently only cleared for .243 so it would need a re-inspection. I queried whether the re-inspection would be needed as I was applying for an 'open' FAC, (as the FEO referred to it). Yes, because it must be done. But why?. Because that is what happens and anyway I would be very unlikely to obtain an open FAC until the first renewal. I was also informed that apparently, even if the land is cleared, I would be restricted to only shooting over that named piece of land - but with the outside possibility that I might be allowed to shoot elsewhere but only if I submitted details on the standard form and had it cleared beforehand. :eek:

The first major point of contention was the number of rifles and my choice of calibres. It was suggested that instead of a 22-250 for fox, (no vermin with that you know!), and a 6.5x57 for 'small deer only' ( :confused: ), I should instead have a .243 which would be suitable for both. After patiently explaining that I wanted the sweet recoiling 6.5x57 in a light Stutzen for woodland stalking and the .308 for more open terrain etc., (plus the odd bit of range work), I thought I was getting somewhere - then bang! Did I realise of course that the .308 would be conditioned only for Red deer and the 6.5x57 for 'small deer', (I should have picked up on that 'small deer' phrase earlier!).

Okay, so realising that this was likely to be a bit of a long haul. I innocently questioned why any calibre that satisfied the requirements of the Deer Act (.240/1700ft/lb) should be conditioned for some species of deer but not others? Apparently, dear reader, and hopefully you will now be as enlightened as I am, it's because that's the way it is here! After asking for the reasoning behind it and getting nowhere, and finally agreeing to disagree, I requested that my application remain as requested and be dealt with on that basis.

Next up was that old chestnut of fox with a stalking rifle. Apparently it's a no-no, although I couldn't quite understand the reasoning behind the 'fact' that apparently it's because they make too much of a mess of Charlie! I half-heartedly tried to get to the bottom of the thinking behind it, but gave up when I couldn't get beyond the 'overkill' and 'because they are not suitable' replies after a couple of attempts. Again I requested that my application go forward as it stood.

Ammo was an interesting subject and at least I seemed to get somewhere with it. (Hooray) 500x.22RF presented no problems but I could see my 500 of each CF calibre had already been 'X'd on the form. Apparently half the amount would be allowed. Hmmm..... so how do I list the 200 or more expanding heads I'll need to order in because I handload? Oh, you handload do you? Some internal head scratching later and we appeared to reach some kind of agreement that the amount would stand, as it would be inclusive of heads and rounds. Apparently, if I want to justify a renewal in 5 years I will have to have some ammo entered on the cert, otherwise how will they know I have been using any? I tactfully suggested that as I wouldn't be 'selling' the complete rounds to myself I didn't have to enter them on the FAC - and obviously I didn't want to fall into the implied nonsense of informing the FA Dept when I did so - it seemed to meet with approval provided I retained 'some' receipts for heads purchased. I fully expect this one to come back again once it hasn't been explained to the 'office'. :rolleyes:

At about this time the penny started to drop that despite listing my last FAC and SGC on the application, the FEO had absolutely no idea of my previous experience and qualifications in firearms and wildlife/deer, (and hadn't asked or established anything!). :eek: Some innocent questioning elicted the information that all Force FA Dept records were computerised a couple of years ago, and although my previous hardcopy FAC information and personal file would be archived 'somewhere', it would probably be too difficult to retrieve easily - my file was about 3" thick last time I saw it!

Hmmmmmm.......... time to produce copies of all my certificates, licences and previous S5 RFD cert, FAC & SGC, which I did whilst resisting the urge to make a modest flourish with them. Bearing in mind our previous 'discussions' regarding calibres and suitablility here's an extract from my last fully open cert, (any species, anytime, anywhere - sounds like a vintage Cinzano advert), so you get the idea:

Possessed:
.22RF + mod
22-250 + mod
3 x .308 + mod
16/7mm Drilling
9mm pistol
S.5: 1x pistol, 2 x rifle, 3 x barrels, 1 x blowpipe

Authorised:
.22 Pistol
.223
6.5x55
S5: 4x additional barrel

After digesting the info presented and getting the rundown on my recent professional involvement with firearms and wildlife, I detected a slight softening of attitude but no change in what had already been said, (and not agreed!). I did however manage to get an understanding that everything I had presented would be pushed up the chain of command for further consideration.

After this first venture into the parallel universe of current FA administration, where logic and reasoning appear to have been reversed, I'll await the next 'phone call with unbaited breath.

Next chapter soon! :)
 
Did you indicate to the numpty that you would not be wanting to eat your fox?, had some thing similar with merseyside flo for a mates ticket with .223 for geese, while cheshire just rolled over when I mentioned central science laboratory's recommendations. :eek:
 
Yes I did - but it just went over the head and the 'overkill' and 'because they are not suitable' mantra resumed.

I'm quite relaxed about it all at the moment as I want them to put it all in writing if they persist with this rubbish. 8)

BTW: I've all the ACPO FELWG meeting minutes downloaded and can trace the path, from conception to implimentation, of the latest recommendation regarding the calibre/quarry condition that was issued to constabularies in June of this year.

Here's the detail courtesy of one of our shooting organisations:

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group (FELWG) has issued advice that supports Chapter 13.14 & 13.22 of the Home Office guidance. It advised police forces to allow larger calibre rifles to be used to take lesser species i.e. where the primary reason for possession e.g. deer stalking was established, all lesser species such as foxes and pests could then be shot.

This practice has been commonplace in Scotland for some time, and has not endangered public safety in any way. In June 2009 ACPO FELWG again advised forces of a new condition that can be used in place of the standard condition in Appendix 3 of the Home Office guidance. -

The (rifle/sound moderator/firearms/ammunition) shall be used for shooting (Named Principal Quarry Species) and any other lawful quarry, on land deemed suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated, and for zeroing on ranges, over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot. (Delete italics where appropriate)

This identifies the primary reason for use e.g. deer/fox control, then allows “other lawful quarry”. Certificate holders are invited to apply for this condition from their local licensing departments.


Sounds pretty self-explanatory to me, but then again, I don't live in Firearms Department Bizarro World! :rolleyes:
 
I get really angry when I hear of FLOs doing this sort of thing. Nothing in the Home Office guidelines requires mentoring, limiting a deer legal calibre to certain species of deer (excepting the smaller calibres on muntjac etc), possession of DCS1 or most of the other rubbish that you mentioned.

I wish we could get one central firearms administration run by people who know what they are doing and just implementing the law not making it up.

I was told off the record by my FLO that the CPS are most unlikely to what to pursue any breach of Chief Constable's conditions, which is what most of this is, however he didn't say how much more difficult your next application for renewal would be if you did breach them!
 
The business of fancifully restricting the use of calibre for which you have demonstrated 'good reason to possess' is simply beyond preposterous. It's the first time I've come across the small/large deer thing.

Perhaps you should ask for the 6.5mm for small large deer as well as small deer, and the .308 for large small deer as well as large deer.

It seems odd given the remarkably sensible 'other lawful quarry' bit that you quote.

Something to bear in mind (if you haven't got it in mind already) is that according to the magic Guidelines (13.6), the Police are meant to consider applications “from the standpoint of the applicant rather than from that of a possible objector”.
 
I have recently had the same thing... have held an NZ FAC since 88, I am a farm boy and was shooting small game for yrs before that, but I apparently need a supervisor to shoot over here...
300win mag approved but not allowed for use in UK (as it is too much for UK large game), dead is dead to me. I advised the FLO how IMO it did not work like that and I have used the 300 on Chamois and Thar as it is very flat shooting and accurate out at long distance, I also explained managed recoil loads and how you can use 1 rifle and load it down and use it on a 2nd smaller species so you can effectively get two rifles for the price of 1.
The FLO bloke was a nice guy and I would imagine it was out of his hands but as I put in an other post, I certainly have more firearms experience than at least one of my supervisors, seems a bit crazy to me

Nick Fahey
 
Nick,

I appreciate that you are new to the UK FAC game - or maybe it should be more rightly called a lottery? But you would do well to read up on all the information available in this neck of the forum and also on the advice and .pdf downloads from the BASC Firearms Dept http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/firearms/guidance-and-fact-sheets.cfm.

The law relating to firearms in the UK, although generally restrictive compared to other countries, should really be pretty straightforward to administer. It's only the unending meddling and desire to exercise control by the various police forces around the country that is causing these problems and friction with law abiding shooters.

My advice would be to get that .300Win Mag fully useable for the UK, request that the supervision order be lifted by reason of your previous experience, and also request the 'new' June 2009 calibre/quarry condition as detailed above, (as should any UK sport shooter who has the older more restrictive conditions). If they baulk at your requests, then ask them to put their reasons in writing and you will be helped to take it from there.

I'm biding my time but I'm sure I'm looking at a big face-off with my FA Dept. I'm not willing to accept a certificate that has any unwarranted restrictions on it, and will go all the way on this. If my bro-in-law (Nimrod) gets the same treatment - he probably will because as far as they are concerned he's a rank novice - then there's going to be a second front opened up.
 
Dalua said:
Perhaps you should ask for the 6.5mm for small large deer as well as small deer, and the .308 for large small deer as well as large deer.

Perhaps I should have included a 270 for small medium deer and a 7mm for large medium deer, (both calibres would of course be suitable for standard 'medium' deer). :lol:

It seems odd given the remarkably sensible 'other lawful quarry' bit that you quote.

That new June 2009 condition is the one that police forces have now been advised to use by ACPO FELWG instead of those contained in the Home Office Guidance Appendix 3 - it wasn't even mentioned in my meeting with the FEO, and I suspect it hasn't yet even been considered by the majority of forces in England & Wales.

Any shooter with more restrictive calibre/quarry conditions should request that the new condition is substituted and if refused, get it in writing and take it from there.

Something to bear in mind (if you haven't got it in mind already) is that according to the magic Guidelines (13.6), the Police are meant to consider applications “from the standpoint of the applicant rather than from that of a possible objector”.

Thanks, I've already got most (if not all) points covered, but I'm grateful for being reminded of any that might come to mind with anyone out there. I might even put a PowerPoint presentation together for the FA Dept with all the 'bullet' points (groan :oops: ) shown!
 
While I'm waiting for the next phase of my FAC saga to start, my thoughts have turned to the 'mentoring' condition that was mentioned by the FEO at our meeting.

My bro-in-law, Nimrod, is likely to be sending his own application off next week and, as a relatively new shooter is likely to be clobbered with this 'mentoring' condition, which according to the FEO is placed on all new CF FACs.

To get in front of the game, we are considering the counters to this unwarranted condition, and have come up with those listed below. Any other input from forum members will be welcomed.

1) There is absolutely no mention of a requirement for supervision or 'mentoring' in the Home Office Guidance.

2) A decision on 'Good Reason' or suitability to possess is to be made by the police as part of the application process - not by some other, (possibly unqualified), third party.

3) What criteria are the force applying to those nominated as mentors? Is it; a) Current CF FAC holder? b) Holder of DSC1 or DSC2? c) 'Experienced' shooter/stalker?

The counters to the above I can think of might run to; a) Might have zero experience of shooting live quarry or deer. b) DSC1 is a 'classroom' based qualification. A cert holder might never have shot in the field and indeed might never have fired a rifle except on the course itself. A DSC2 holder might be a relative novice himself and only shot and dealt with the minimum number of beasts required under very close supervision. c) 'Experienced' means nothing on it's own - he might be the most unsafe person in the woods.

4) Would the force FA dept be willing to reimburse the 'mentor' for expenses while authorising the applicant for them? ;)

5) Would the police be willing to indemnify the 'mentor' against any claims arising either now or in the future because of any recommendation made about the applicant?

6) If the force FA department are unwilling to make a decision regarding an applicant's suitability to possess a firearm under all circumstances, why are they attempting to pass that responsibility on to a third party?

7) If an applicant is severely restricted in the use of his rifle because of the 'mentoring' condition e.g. he cannot use an otherwise legally possessed firearm because of the unavailability of the supervisor when he wants to go shooting. In Nimrod's case this would prevent him shooting deer on his own land if deer were present and he couldn't arrange a 'mentor' to come along at short notice to supervise him. Could this therefore be construed as a constructive refusal to issue the certificate by the police?

The last point may be quite important as there is no right of appeal against conditions other than seeking a Judicial Review - they should satisfy the Wednesbury Reasonable criteria. However there is an appeals procedure against refusal to issue an FAC.

Thinking caps on - all responses welcomed
 
I think if I were in this unenviable position, I think I would initially ask them exactly what they imagined the role of the 'mentor' to be with respect to the 'mentored' person.

As I understand it, they would be applying a conditon to an FAC which essentially means that the FAC-holder may shoot if a 'mentor' is present; that's it.
The condition being on the 'mentored' person's FAC can as far as I can see have no bearing on the role or behaviour of the 'mentor'.

It presuambly therefore means only that the 'mentored' person has to make sure the 'mentor' is present when he's shooting.

I think you are correct, and that the Police have to decide that someone is suitable to use firearms before granting the FAC. I do not believe that the police can transfer that responsibility to any extent to another party (e.g. to the 'mentor'); although they can take the opinions of other parties into account when making their decision.

The 'mentoring' condition means essentially that someone whom the police have decided is fit to use rifles may use them only in the presence of a (named?) other person who has no authority over or, responsibility in law for, the 'mentored' FAC-holder's behaviour or actions.

It might be worth thinking about naming some reputable FAC-holders of long-standing who are happy to show Nimrod the ropes, but only if there is no 'mentoring' condition on his FAC, since none of them is happy with the odd distortion of personal responsibility caused by those conditions; namely, that the 'mentored' FAC-holder is an adult accountable at all time for his own actions.

It might even be that some evidence that Nimrod has made trips out with such people before grant of FAC , along with letters from them suggesting that he might have grasped the astonishingly tricky concept that you must only shoot where there's an adequate backstop, will deflect this nonsense.

This principal is, I htink, that the police are anxious to keep the Public from harm that might arise from the misbehaviour of an incompetent novice FAC-holder in the field.

To deflect tham from applying the mentoring condition therefore, it is probably necessary first to ask them to say how the 'mentoring' condition achieves this. Then one would need to explain how that end can be achieved without the 'mentoring' condition.

It might be possible to do this without having to take apart the whole 'mentoring' concept before their eyes; and if so, so much the better, because that process might upset them and make them ill-disposed towards you altogether!
 
Dalua said:
I think if I were in this unenviable position, I think I would initially ask them exactly what they imagined the role of the 'mentor' to be with respect to the 'mentored' person.

Absolutely - that is the intention from the off. I was thinking out loud with my other points and wanted to try and cover all eventualities should it come to a full blown challenge.

The 'mentoring' condition means essentially that someone whom the police have decided is fit to use rifles may use them only in the presence of a (named?) other person who has no authority over or, responsibility in law for, the 'mentored' FAC-holder's behaviour or actions.

I'm being Devil's Advocate here, but how can they issue the FAC in the first place if there is any doubt about a person's safety with a firearm?

It might be worth thinking about naming some reputable FAC-holders of long-standing who are happy to show Nimrod the ropes, but only if there is no 'mentoring' condition on his FAC, since none of them is happy with the odd distortion of personal responsibility caused by those conditions; namely, that the 'mentored' FAC-holder is an adult accountable at all time for his own actions.

Good thinking. That might allow them a get out without having to expose the concept of mentoring as the nonsense it is.

It might even be that some evidence that Nimrod has made trips out with such people before grant of FAC , along with letters from them suggesting that he might have grasped the astonishingly tricky concept that you must only shoot where there's an adequate backstop, will deflect this nonsense.

We could really throw a curve ball with that one, if they are looking for an 'experienced' stalker to act as a mentor! Although I don't (yet) have a current FAC I'm sure I could take him out on 'dry' stalks and instruct him in the safe use of the intended firearms, and also get him to demonstrate his appreciation of safe shooting situations and the potential dangers. I could them 'sign him off' even while my own application was being dealt with. :lol: Do you think they would appreciate the irony in that?

This principal is, I htink, that the police are anxious to keep the Public from harm that might arise from the misbehaviour of an incompetent novice FAC-holder in the field.

Fully understood, but they are exceeding their remit with this one. As discussed above, if there is any doubt about an applicant's ability to possess a firearm, or a danger to public safety, then they should refuse to issue the certificate and be able to give the reasons for the refusal. I see this mentoring condition/restriction as a their way of shirking responsibility for making those decisions, whilst at the same time making life difficult for the FAC holder. I read elsewhere that some Forces are allowing the same .243 rifle to be used unrestricted for foxing (including lamping at night), yet have a 'mentoring' condition on it for deer! Where's the logic in that? :eek:

To deflect tham from applying the mentoring condition therefore, it is probably necessary first to ask them to say how the 'mentoring' condition achieves this. Then one would need to explain how that end can be achieved without the 'mentoring' condition.

It might be possible to do this without having to take apart the whole 'mentoring' concept before their eyes; and if so, so much the better, because that process might upset them and make them ill-disposed towards you altogether!

Totally agree with your sentiments above. We fully intend to get their side of the story first and then look at the rationale behind it (if any!). I've found in the past that it's always better to be able to give them a way out from bad decisions by negotiation, so that they can back down without losing face. But, when it comes to making law rather than administering it, and making blanket unreasonable or unworkable conditions in the hope that no-one will challenge them, I tend to dig my heels in.

Good to bat this kind of thing around - I'm sure it will assist others as well.
 
Back
Top