243 with named mentor

shudadunityonksago

Well-Known Member
I have an open experienced ticket with .17hmr my higest , i have sent in a variation for 243 and its come back with a named mentor who has to be with me at all times whilst using the 243 , lancashire refuse to lift it untill he lets them know im a safe shot etc . The mentor that is named is the manager of a syndicate that im a member . Is this the norm or are lancashire having me over ?
George wallace from the ngo has offered to take my case on but lancashire today refuse to put in writting there reasons , saying it was the only way and i have no rites for appeal .
 
They do it here in Suffolk also I've been a mentor for a few times now and for one guy I had to write two letters to the police, one for a .222 and one for a .243 even thou he was ex mod and is still involved with the cadets and has more shooting qualifications you could shake a stick at including being a qualified range officer.
Never could understand why I was asked to mentor him twice especially with his C.V.
 
It is becoming increasingly common across the constabularies. A load of 'cover my backside' going on, but it's not worth fighting it. The other way I have seen people get around it is to complete DSCL1 as that has a shooting and safety competency element.
 
hi ,i,ve done dsc1 and passed and still had to have someone and i also had a letter from someone that i,d been shooting 308's and 22/250's for 20 yr.stav
 
17hmr 243 two very different calibres of rifles .even if your 17hmr is open. i had to mentor a firearms responce officer for a 243. i myself was mentoured for 222 and again on a 243 but not on my 308 ? 4 mths off of the mentouring all where opend and had my 22lr added for close quarter urban fox shooting . and surrey is not a easy place to get anything .mentouring can be as short as 6 weeks it depends on your mentor . as for doing your DSC1 for help i asked my fao about this his reply was if you dont mind wasteing money and gave out a giggle .i never did it or have i been requested for it .noel
 
George wallace from the ngo has offered to take my case on but lancashire today refuse to put in writting there reasons , saying it was the only way and i have no rites for appeal .

With respect, if George has offered to pursue the matter for you then what are you waiting for? You need to write to Lancs FLD Manager asking for the reasons for the mentoring as applied to you - not some blanket policy they operate - and give them a time limit for a written reply because, "I wish to consult with my shooting organisation". Send it by recorded delivery and if you don't get a reply back, or they try and fob you off with a verbal response, then write a letter of complaint to the Chief Constable.

It's up to you to take the initiative to get something done. If you accept it without question, as others appear to be more than willing to, then nothing will change. You are not asking for anything exceptional, just a reason for the condition and they must give you a reply - it's already been established that conditions must be:

o LAWFUL
o UNAMBIGUOUS
o WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH
o REASONABLE
o PROPORTIONATE
o NON-CONTRADICTORY
o DEMONSTRABLY BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
o PROPERLY NOTIFIED
o EVIDENCED

Looks as if at least the one in bold above hasn't been complied with.

You can download further details on the BASC Fact Sheet from here: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/04DDFD91-A9AA-45E4-9344064E62F3689D

Good luck with it.
 
Last edited:
Orion, where did that list of tests for conditions? I'd say that number 7 would be hard to prove as well. Is that in the ACPO guidance?
 
Orion, where did that list of tests for conditions? I'd say that number 7 would be hard to prove as well. Is that in the ACPO guidance?

Matt, it's within the BASC document 'Additional Conditions on Firearms Certificates - (Advice for Licensing Staff)'. You can link to from here: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/04DDFD91-A9AA-45E4-9344064E62F3689D

It contains details of R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland, 1998, which established the priciple of 'Wednesbury Reasonable' being applied to conditions imposed on FAC holders. Intesresting reading.
 
Matt, it's within the BASC document 'Additional Conditions on Firearms Certificates - (Advice for Licensing Staff)'. You can link to from here: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/04DDFD91-A9AA-45E4-9344064E62F3689D

It contains details of R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland, 1998, which established the priciple of 'Wednesbury Reasonable' being applied to conditions imposed on FAC holders. Intesresting reading.

That link is not working ?
 
Cut and paste R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland, 1998 into search on the BASC site and it will arrive as a pdf document.

David.
 
I am sorry but it doesnt matter if you are plinking with an air rifle in your back garden or blasting deer with a 243.
if he is able to have an open 17HMR ticket then please tell me when all of a sudden he is going to forget about back stops, safe rifle use, trajectory etc etc.

a 20gn HMR bullet has infinitely more chance of ricocheting off wet soil than a 243!
 
even though you have open ticket on hmr this 243 is your 1st cf ? this is more then likely why. i would just grit your teeth and do a couple of months on mentoring. and then get your mentor to send you a letter in. they will lift it then.

I got a feeling if your new to deer shooting they use this mentoring so your not only shooting the deer but your getting showed from your mentor how to prep it properly.

i have 22lr 17fb and 22/250 on open and have had open ticket for a couple of years now. i was going to get a 243 for deer and fox and sell 22/250.
i told the flo that it must be open as alot of land i shoot on with the 22/250 foxing. isn't cleared. he said yes that's fine it will be on open.

but since i have kept the 22/250 and gone for a 25/06 which isnt mentored but is on closed ticket. i have now swapped the 25/06 slot for a 270
he said give it 4 months and a couple of 100 rounds and it will be opened like my other rifles. what a pointless thing for them to do. and more paper work for them. when there already snowed under.

i just grit my teeth and get on with it. let them think they always know best


half of them that work in the office's don't shoot or have any interest in firearms. this is why some shooters get rubbed up the wrong way
 
Last edited:
Hi Shuda
Don't cut your nose off to spite your face!
You have a variation showing you can have a 243 & go stalking with it with your mentor. So in the immediate short term, go ahead & use it as authorised.
Get your mentor too write (glowing) reports on your behaviour each time you go out (or write them for him & get him to sign them to save him time). Do this for a few outings & during this time take George Wallace up on his offer of help / to challenge the condition with your local chief of police.
With George's help, you may get lucky & the police will remove the condition - but don't hold your breath! At least you will not be wasting time and will be applying appropriate pressure to get common sense to prevail both for yourself and others like you.
If you don't get a result in say 8 weeks & maybe 4 outings, then apply to plod for the mentor condition to be removed including the mentor reports with your letter - It would be good if your mentor could write separately to plod too to re-enforce your arguments.
I personally think that mentoring is a good thing - It is important that nutters are weeded out, and some people need mentoring /training/ ongoing advice much more than others. BUT the police should be applying common sense and consistent application of the rules to the issue and we should "help" them to do that by rational constructive input.
Remember getting confrontational with Mr Plod at the outset won't do you any favours.
HTH

Ian
 
I got a feeling if your new to deer shooting they use this mentoring so your not only shooting the deer but your getting showed from your mentor how to prep it properly.

And what does that have to do with adminstration of the Firearms Act or public safety? More than just a bit beyond their remit isn't it?
 
It Would appear that Lancashire Police are trying to re-write the Home office guidlines on Firearms Law. In this months NGO magazine George Wallace has written an artical Conditions on Firearm Certifiates. Mr Wallace Quotes Section 1.4 of the guidance says its purpose is to ensure consistent application of the legislation across the Country and Sect. 1.6 tells the police that the Secretary of State attaches great importance to that. Section 10.28 case law which makes it a legal requirement for the police to consider an application from the standpoint of the applicant rather than the objector. 10.35. Chief officers of police are empowered to impose conditions if they think that the circumstances of the individual case mean that the condition is necessary to ensure the effective operation of the firearms control and to minimise the risk to public safety. Forces should note that these conditions relating to otherwise prohibited firearms and ammunition. for the firearms manager to refuse to put into writing the reasons for the these unnecessary named mentor conditions as this person holds other firearms where he can and does shoot other live quarry either with friends or alone. It is time that the shooting organisations got behind their members and took the police forces of this country to task over imposing unnecessary restrictive conditions on firearms certificates and the Government should impose on All Police forces to comply with the same rules of law throughout the country.(a level playing field for all) We have in this country some of the most stringent firearms laws throughout the World so why should the police restrict an experianced shooter the right to shoot a 243 cal gun This man must be an experienced shot to hold an open ticket.
 
Iy was the attitude of the fa manager that got my back up , very smug and when he refused to put it in writing saying the reasons are on my licence , i decided to make a stand . George has all the details now so im just waiting for round 2 .
 
BUT the police should be applying common sense and consistent application of the rules to the issue and we should "help" them to do that by rational constructive input.
Remember getting confrontational with Mr Plod at the outset won't do you any favours.

It would help if some of the police FLDs started by following the HO Guidance instead of making it up as they go along. Is asking for them to do something which is within the law 'confrontational'? They are public servants and should be able to account for their actions, particularly when they deviate from accepted and lawful practice. My attitude to my own FLD is that they are not my friends nor my enemies, I want them to be unbiased and to do a professional job in administering the Firearms Act correctly - I'm glad to say that they do. Others patently do not.
 
Back
Top