ACPO suggest dropping "Mentoring"?

FrenchieBoy

Well-Known Member
I heard a rumour recently about the ACPO saying that the Mentoring condition for new FAC holders should be dropped. I don't know if this is right or not so has anyone else heard anything about it and if so do they have any details. (I've done a search on Google but can not find anything relating to it)
Further to that, if they do drop the mentoring condition will the firearms departments quite simply get round it by adding on an "Accompanied by an experienced shooter" condition which (In my opinion) is basically Mentoring under a different label.
 
Talk about a mixed bag! ACPO launch their campaign against shooters (all the stuff about unannounced visits, the "crime hotline" for firearms issues), and then they suggest something eminently sensible.

If this is the case, then it's a good thing. The police should not be using conditions like that to limit a firearms users lawful use of their firearm. If they believe someone is unsafe to have a firearm then don't issue an FAC. If they believe you are safe then a mentoring condition is un-necessary and in many cases effectively obstructive!
 
It has been mentioned on the forum before, but you can get it straight from the horses mouth if you go on the ACPO FELWEG webpage.

The document you want is titled, "The Use of Conditions on Firearm Certificates Letter 30th April 2013"

http://www.acpo.police.uk/ProfessionalPractice/FirearmsandExplosivesLicensingWorkingGroup.aspx

Lots of other interesting stuff on there as well.

Thanks for that information Orion - "The Use of Conditions on Firearm Certificates Letter 30th April 2013"

It is quite interesting reading and seems that someone at last is thinking things through and has started talking sense!
 
In Sussex when I applied I was granted a .243 for fox with no previous experience but now they won't grant a calibre as large as this unless the applicant has "suitable experience" of full bore rifles. DSC1 on its own is not considered "suitable experience" so short of going out with a mentor or accompanied stalks and using the estate rifle how would one gain the "suitable experience"?
 
Its not a good thing. They drop mentoring but insist you need experience.......but dont have any approves methods of gaining/proving experience!!
Just another bit tighter on that noose!
 
In Sussex when I applied I was granted a .243 for fox with no previous experience but now they won't grant a calibre as large as this unless the applicant has "suitable experience" of full bore rifles. DSC1 on its own is not considered "suitable experience" so short of going out with a mentor or accompanied stalks and using the estate rifle how would one gain the "suitable experience"?


you shoot rimfire rifles for a while then, small centerfire, then deer cal

HO Guidelines says Experience isnt cal specific

as your asking for Fox with a deer legal cal try asking for a 17 centerfire

unless you want deer then ask for Deer
 
I have been told mentors or DSC1 is a minimum usually for Cheshire on initial grant even though I have recently shot many thousands of CF rounds in my job.

I think they should keep the mentoring section in place for areas but maybe ensure the mentors of up to standard before they get used?

I would quite happily mentor to help people out in the future but I have competencies etc from work to prove I'm at minimum standard for fire arms safety etc.
 
I have been told mentors or DSC1 is a minimum usually for Cheshire on initial grant even though I have recently shot many thousands of CF rounds in my job.

I think they should keep the mentoring section in place for areas but maybe ensure the mentors of up to standard before they get used?

I would quite happily mentor to help people out in the future but I have competencies etc from work to prove I'm at minimum standard for fire arms safety etc.


trouble is who Sets the std and who is liable when a mentored shot goes wrong the shooter, the mentor, the police for approving the mentor.

as the Letter above says the Mentor condition was NEVER intended for blanket use but for occasional use on borderline cases. It was never In place

nore should DSC1 Dan should write to the CPO of the Fire arms licencing COmmitee ( who wrote teh above linked letter and ask for clarification to His FEO)
 
I have been told mentors or DSC1 is a minimum usually for Cheshire on initial grant

Is that current information that you have personal knowledge of, or heresay? If they are applying those criteria then they are not operating under the current HO Guidance or the explicit instructions of ACPO FELWEG or the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice and should have complied with this one:

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.

http://www.app.college.police.uk/ap...ion-and-public-protection/firearms-licensing/

Worth challenging quoting the above or the previously linked document if it is the case.
 
trouble is who Sets the std and who is liable when a mentored shot goes wrong the shooter, the mentor, the police for approving the mentor.

as the Letter above says the Mentor condition was NEVER intended for blanket use but for occasional use on borderline cases. It was never In place

nore should DSC1 Dan should write to the CPO of the Fire arms licencing COmmitee ( who wrote teh above linked letter and ask for clarification to His FEO)

Well I think on a mentored shot that goes wrong you should still have the shooter as liable other wise your asking for trouble, the mentor is usually in place to stop people using a weapon on their own without being seen as using it to a bare minimum standard hence why they usually give you a closed certificate once the deem you have finished with a mentor etc
 
hence why they usually give you a closed certificate once the deem you have finished with a mentor etc

Not the case everywhere though. In some areas first grant FAC holders can get open tickets.
 
Is that current information that you have personal knowledge of, or heresay? If they are applying those criteria then they are not operating under the current HO Guidance or the explicit instructions of ACPO FELWEG or the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice and should have complied with this one:

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.

http://www.app.college.police.uk/ap...ion-and-public-protection/firearms-licensing/

Worth challenging quoting the above or the previously linked document if it is the case.

Sorry I forgot to add in CF rounds they seem fine to grant .22RF and .17hmr on initial grant
 
Not the case everywhere though. In some areas first grant FAC holders can get open tickets.

Which that would be perfect for me as I have lots of permissions but have potential to find more in different parts of country in the near future, but I'm not sure if Cheshire do this?
 
you shoot rimfire rifles for a while then, small centerfire, then deer cal

HO Guidelines says Experience isnt cal specific

as your asking for Fox with a deer legal cal try asking for a 17 centerfire


unless you want deer then ask for Deer

I agree that your suggestion makes sense but how do you 'prove' experience? Come back in a year after proof of buying x amount of rimfire rounds and say you now have experience? That doesn't prove safety or competence just you have bought a lot of ammo and assuming you haven't been reported for doing anything unsafe.

An aquaintence recently applied and was told he couldn't have a deer legal calibre (he does have access to deer) until he could prove he was safe but could get a .204 and some rf calibres. He had completed a game keepers course and had his DSC1 but was told that wasn't enough so an option was to go out with a mentor or to go out on numerous paid stalks and get the stalker to 'sign' him off to say he was safe. While maybe this was good experience it was also another cost
 
Anyone who comes up against this problem of proving or demonstrating suitable 'experience' to obtain authority for CFs, despite having previous RF or shotgun usage, and meets resistance from the FLD could do worse than quote this section of the HO Guidance:

13.26 It is desirable that new applicants should have some previous experience of the safe use of firearms before using such rifles. Experience is neither cartridge nor ammunition type exclusive. It may include the shooting of any quarry species. The aspect that police are looking to be satisfied about is the competency of the applicant to take a safe shot every time. The shooting of any quarry requires a safe backstop for the shot, and such experience is transferable between quarry species.
 
Back
Top