BASC Mistake?

Ronin

Distinguished Member
Im using the word mistake, because I don't want to type the descriptive I really want to..


I hope I'm not right, but the change from "zeroing on ranges or land deemed suitable"


to the BASC recommended


"Zeroing on ranges ON land deemed suitable" will affect everyone who hasn't access to a home office approved range or land that has been checked for zeroing use on their FAC


Who in their right mind recommended or suggested the alteration…….


Anyone from BASC wish to comment?




 
Last edited:
Andy will this mean all land will need to be clear personally suitable to the Chief .Will this small change in wording have any effect on those with open certificates.?
 
I take to mean, you cant just set up a range to practice, as a way of getting round the land not being passed,

an open ticket holder wouldnt have a problem.
 
My whole point is that the previous wording said zeroing on ranges or land deemed suitable.


For an open ticket holder, thats a decision you may take, "is the land suitable, yes"


Now the wording

"Zeroing on ranges on land deemed suitable"

This, in my interpretation means that the land used needs to be passed for use as a range, taking away the discretion of the open ticket holder...



While it really is a matter of sending off written permission from the landowner and waiting to get the land approved for "zeroing range" use by you local FEO, I really think this is a backwards step.


I may (hope I am) be interpreting this entirely the wrong way though…?
 
Surly the cops would not be so silly some chaps round here can have 20 - 30 separate ground. Cant imagine my FLO wanting to pay all my ground a visit. :scared:
 
Im using the word mistake, because I don't want to type the descriptive I really want to..


I hope I'm not right, but the change from "zeroing on ranges or land deemed suitable"


to the BASC recommended


"Zeroing on ranges ON land deemed suitable" will affect everyone who hasn't access to a home office approved range or land that has been checked for zeroing use on their FAC


Who in their right mind recommended or suggested the alteration…….


Anyone from BASC wish to comment?




Absolute stupidity on the part of BASC. I can only presume and hope it was an unintentional mistake. Suggest those of us who are BASC members raise the point with them.
 
I see your interpretation and agree it could be looked at in this way. However since it does not stipulate who has to determine if the land or range is suitable it makes little difference. If I choose to make up a little test range and deem it suitable I can quite rightly shoot on that land on which the range is on. Now if you haven't an open ticket you will require the land to be passed as normal.
 
I see your interpretation and agree it could be looked at in this way. However since it does not stipulate who has to determine if the land or range is suitable it makes little difference. If I choose to make up a little test range and deem it suitable I can quite rightly shoot on that land on which the range is on. Now if you haven't an open ticket you will require the land to be passed as normal.

thats how I read it.
 
If you are concerned why ask BASC?

They suggested the amendments, assuming it was a mistake on their part they can take the matter up again with the police association so as to ensure they don't start using this wording on conditions.
 
If you are concerned why ask BASC?


Im not a member,


I once was,



The starting post was to ask if I had interpreted the whole thing the wrong way.

I hope I have.


Noteworthy that BASC have looked at the post a number of times, but no comment as yet,


Its also very important to me as I do spend a fair proportion of my time practicing, checking zero, call it what u like, but if this puts me outside the regs, I need to know.



As does everyone else.
 
Last edited:
This might be a BASC mistake.

However, looking at the HO's June 2014 'Guide on Firearms Licensing Law', the quarry-shooting condition in Appendix 3 says in its current form

1. Quarry Shooting (for vermin, fox or deer)
• The *calibre RIFLE/COMBINATION/SMOOTH-BORE GUN/SOUND MODERATOR and
ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin including fox, and ground game/ deer (delete as
appropriate) and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing on ranges, on land deemed suitable by
the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated and
over which the holder has
lawful authority to shoot.

(The words underlined may be omitted once the certificate holder has demonstrated competence.
There is no set time for this and each case should be considered on its individual merits).


So, first it seems unlikely that BASC would be asking for it to say 'on' instead of 'or' - as it clearly currently says 'on'. I suspect it is more likely that they were asking for it to say 'or' instead of 'on': it would be an easy error for the minute-taker at the meeting to make.

The other thing they might usefully draw the HO's attention to is that the 'on land' which I've put in bold in the quotation above should not only read 'or land', but should probably not be included in the underlined bit, which is the bit to be omitted from territorially unrestricted ('open') FACs.

This would make it look like the the condition for roe in Scotland found later in the appendix, which reads entirely sensibly:

3. Quarry Shooting – Roe Deer in Scotland
• The *calibre RIFLE and ammunition/SOUND MODERATOR shall be used for SHOOTING ROE
DEER as prescribed under the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985 on land in Scotland,
and zeroing on ranges or any land in Great Britain deemed suitable by the chief officer of police
for the area where the land is situated and
over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot.

(The words underlined may be omitted once the certificate holder has demonstrated competence.
There is no set time for this and each case should be considered on its individual merits).


Does that make sense of it, I wonder?

Edit: No, it doesn't - please see my second post.
 
Last edited:
Im not a member,


I once was,



The starting post was to ask if I had interpreted the whole thing the wrong way.

I hope I have.


Noteworthy that BASC have looked at the post a number of times, but no comment as yet,


Its also very important to me as I do spend a fair proportion of my time practicing, checking zero, call it what u like, but if this puts me outside the regs, I need to know.



As does everyone else.


I think your interpretation is entirely correct. The prior wording allowed zeroing on ranges (in ordinary English terms that's likely to be interpretated as a formal approved range) the "or" provides the option on other land deemed suitable. The revised wording removes that option.
 
Andy I think it is note worthy to a lot of people my deer group spends quite a few hours on a home made ranges as part of our CPD.
 
I suspect it is more likely that they were asking for it to say 'or' instead of 'on': it would be an easy error for the minute-taker at the meeting to make.

Except my FAC for the last 10+ years has stated 'or' and currently still does - something which I hope will remain so...
 
Redmist have you thought about just calling FEO?

I think it means :-
You must deem the land suitable to set up a range for zeroing. = "Zeroing on ranges ON land deemed suitable

The old wording could be set up a range anywhere even if the land is not suitable and use it.
zeroing on ranges or land deemed suitable

Personally I think the old wording is better as in it must be an mod range or range marked on a map with danger area.


The answer would be for it to be worded as "Zeroing on Approved range or land cleared buy chief constable" closed FAC holders...

"Zeroing on Approved range or land deemed suitable" Open FAC holders.


Be interesting to see what BASC come back with.
 
Except my FAC for the last 10+ years has stated 'or' and currently still does - something which I hope will remain so...

Post #12 is very interesting and insightful but you have to read it all, carefully, to get the benefit.
:)

...and yet...
I fear the OP is right, since the November 2013 version of the HO Guide (which I've just found, and was presumably the subject of this late November FELWG meeting) has
1. Quarry Shooting (for vermin, fox or deer)
• The *calibre RIFLE/COMBINATION/SMOOTH-BORE GUN/SOUND MODERATOR and ammunition shall only be used for shooting vermin including fox, and ground game/ deer (delete as appropriate) and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing on ranges, or land deemed suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated and over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot.

(The words underlined may be omitted once the certificate holder has demonstrated competence. There is no set time for this and each case should be considered on its individual merits).


This version seems correct apart from the underlining of 'or land'.
In the June 2014 version, this has indeed changed to '...ranges on land...', whereas what needed doing was simply the removal of the underlining from the words 'or land', so that the removal of the remaining underlined bit leaves it 'open' territorially.

Compare with the 'roe in Scotland' condition, which remains the same in both Nov and June versions, and has the wording that appears on my FAC, and the wording I would expect.

3. Quarry Shooting – Roe Deer in Scotland
• The *calibre RIFLE and ammunition/SOUND MODERATOR shall be used for SHOOTING ROE DEER as prescribed under the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985 on land in Scotland, and zeroing on ranges or any land in Great Britain deemed suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated and over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot.

(The words underlined may be omitted once the certificate holder has demonstrated competence. There is no set time for this and each case should be considered on its individual merits).

I therefore revise my view - it seems that BASC have indeed two questions to answer:
1. Why did they suggest the change from 'or' to 'on', and
2. Why did they not just suggest the change in the underlining to match the 'roe in Scotland' condition?
 
Last edited:
Hi gunsmith. I see your sentiment but think your suggestion is actually worse than the supposed mistake. It appears to suggest that you think zeroing should only be done on a approved range whether an open or closed fac holder. Also to that end you suggest with the wording used that for the purpose of zeroing land should be deemed suitable (presumably by the chief officer) for both open and restricted fac holders. Hence why just a few simple words can alter the meaning of a sentence or at the very least give room for misinterpretation. Why the writers of these things have to try and use more complex English than they master is beyond me.
 
I think your interpretation is entirely correct. The prior wording allowed zeroing on ranges (in ordinary English terms that's likely to be interpretated as a formal approved range) the "or" provides the option on other land deemed suitable. The revised wording removes that option.





Exactly
 
Back
Top