Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Aolq

  1. #1

    Aolq

    Hi chaps, apologies if this has been covered before somewhere.

    After requesting Kent to condition all my rifles AOLQ they have come back with "you will need to prove there are Boar on your land for the .270" I asked how I might do this and the reply was "use cameras" now this isn't a problem provided they accept that the photos I show them are in fact on my land.
    How far do I go with this and what if I had no cameras or indeed could not afford that sort of gear in the first place?
    When I initially asked for a .270 together with a .38 revolver for Deer they made me take and pass DSC1 which I have since been told by BASC is outside their remit.
    I have no objection to sensible precautions being taken by firearms depts but I have held a ticket for a good many years (40plus) now and it gets a tad tiresome to be treated like an inexperienced newcomer to the sport, I have been out for approx 2 dozen stalks for Boar,a few paid but mostly with friends so I really do not see why it is necessary to prove anything, what difference does the presence of Boar make to the granting of AOLQ?

    ATB WB

  2. #2
    Some years ago, before AOLQ was invented, I used to stalk as a guest on an estate that had occasional boar and therefore asked for boar to be added to my stalking rifles.

    The FLD asked for proof from the stalker/estate owners that boar were present, but I wasn't keen to bother them with such BS. I told the FLD that I was happy to compromise, and that if he added a boar condition to my stalking rifles without any proof of there presence on the estate, then I would promise not to shoot any if there were none there.

  3. #3
    AOLQ usually follows the primary quarry.... i.e "The .270 rifle and ammunition shall be used for the control of boar and any other legal quarry"
    so it's not unreasonable to have to provide good reason. However a letter from a land owner, or in my case the FEO telephoned the landowner to ask what species were present on the land. The use of trail cams proves nothing, I have loads of trail cam footage of boar, you can send him some if you want.
    "It's halfway down the hill, directly below that tree next to a rock that looks like a bell-end"

    Good deals with ~ deako ~ sakowsm ~ dryan ~ 2734neil ~ mo ~ riggers ~ mmbeatle ~ seanct ~ an du ru fox

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Si View Post
    so it's not unreasonable to have to provide good reason.
    I might have misunderstood, but my interpretation is that the OP's good reason is established as deer.

  5. #5
    In that case just ask for "deer and AOLQ" and don't mention boar...

    and don't take "no" for an answer
    "It's halfway down the hill, directly below that tree next to a rock that looks like a bell-end"

    Good deals with ~ deako ~ sakowsm ~ dryan ~ 2734neil ~ mo ~ riggers ~ mmbeatle ~ seanct ~ an du ru fox

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by willowbank View Post
    what difference does the presence of Boar make to the granting of AOLQ?
    It doesn't make any difference... i got .270 for deer and AOLQ whitout a question... AOLQ includes fox, boar etc...
    Some forces are taking the mick...

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by willowbank View Post
    After requesting Kent to condition all my rifles AOLQ they have come back with "you will need to prove there are Boar on your land for the .270"
    Was that in writing from them? In your position I would write/email them pointing out the relevant section(s) of the HO Guidance, (I've quoted one below but read through Chapter 13 for further info), and asking why they are not complying with the Guidance in applying AOLQ in addition to your primary quarry of deer for the .270, and whether they have informed ACPO FELWEG of the fact that they are deviating from it as per the directive - ask for a copy. If they still want to ignore the Guidance then a letter to the Chief Constable and PCC might be in order.

    13.9 A certificate holder may shoot any quarry that is lawful (where they are authorised to shoot). Whilst guidance is provided, it is the responsibility of the shooter and the shooting community to know what calibre is suitable for which quarry, and when certain quarry is lawful (including the need to obtain or rely upon a licence from the relevant licensing authority to permit the shooting of protected species). Once initial “good reason” has been established for the possession of a firearm, there is no requirement for “good reason” to be demonstrated for additional quarry species or amendments providing the firearms are not underpowered for the species (see also paragraph 13.17). A cartridge should be capable of achieving a humane kill, and it is the responsibility of the shooter to ensure that any excess energy will be absorbed by the backstop. The “any other lawful quarry” condition (which also covers protected species that the certificate holder is licensed to shoot) should be applied. If an applicant is suitable to hold a firearm certificate and is deemed safe to do so, there is no requirement to restrict the quarry they shoot by the use of conditions.

    Here's the link to the College of Policing blurb on firearms licensing: https://www.app.college.police.uk/ap...ng/#priorities

    Includes this gem!

    Forces that choose not to align their activities with the Home Office Guide are required to notify the national policing lead of the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group (FELWG) and provide a rationale for their decision.
    Last edited by Orion; 02-10-2014 at 08:12.

  8. #8
    Despite being a rozzer for most of my working life, I do not understand why forces take liberties like this. This sort of behaviour is exactly why the Home Office guidance exists. These unnecessary enquiries are very expensive in terms of police time and will inflate the cost of certificates; it is the intention of a future Labour government to charge the 'cost price' of renewals and grants. The only way to prevent this sort of thing is to hold them to account at every opportunity....complain loudly!!

  9. #9
    When I first got granted my .243 it was for "Fox and AOLQ" and was told I can not shoot deer with it unless I have deer written on my cert and to get that I must have DSC1. Being young and not knowing any different I went along with it. When I then got a 308 with "deer and aolq " the same FEO said I couldn't shoot boar without proof of boar and them written on my cert. I disagreed with him and spike to another FEO in the same force and he said boar was fine under aolq and I also should have been able to shoot deer under aolq as the .243 was granted for Fox so that was the good reason and so I should have been ok to shoot deer too.

    I just wish I had been a member on here with all the knowledge and help it has given me back then when I was advised incorrectly by my first FEO.

  10. #10
    My thanks for the replies especially Orion, I intend to show these replies to the Feo next Thursday, in the meantime I think it would be worth contacting BASC for their views.
    I have to agree that some forces appear to be making life difficult for the sake of it but rely on ignorance of the law to avoid accountability.

    regards WB

Similar Threads

  1. aolq
    By AN DU RU FOX in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 23-06-2014, 17:24
  2. Aolq
    By jonty h in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-05-2014, 16:01
  3. Aolq
    By Erik Hamburger in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 26-02-2014, 20:23
  4. AOLQ - Its official
    By BASC Firearms Dept in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 20-08-2013, 15:51
  5. Aolq
    By limulus in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17-06-2013, 11:57

Posting Permissions

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