AOLQ Query

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
So my FAC finally arrived and despite discussing with my FEO that it would read AOLQ it say's the following which I cant quite get my head round. How would I go about raising this query correctly ? Contact the FEO direct as tbh I have a connection to shoot goats and boar and also cant quite fathom why I cant level a fox with my 270 either. But as its just arrived and I have been quite harassive up until this point to get it but would like to do it right so I dont want **** them off. Just seems weird I can buy ammo for shooting anything ( as I read it) but I cant shot anything bar fox and deer.

5. Expanding Ammunition - ( a&B)
The certificate holder may possess, purchase or acquire expanding ammunition, or the missiles of such ammunition, in calibre .270 and 22/250 ammunition authorised by this certificate and used only in connection with : -
(a) the lawful shooting of deer & )b) the shooting of vermin, or in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife.

6. Quarry - Fox - (Novice-Closed)
The 22.250 Rifle and .22/250 Sound Moderator and ammunition shall be used for the shooting fox 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.

7) Quarry - Deer - (Novice - Closed)
The .270 Rifle and .270 Sound Moderator and ammunition shall be used for the shooting deer 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.
 

Orion

Well-Known Member
That's what you get when police FLDs feck around with things and start making up their own conditions.

Why not just quote the condition as stated in the HO Guidance appendix 3 and ask them to include AOLQ as per?

Also have a look at 13.9 in there - it states that no further 'good reason' is required for additional quarry species and therefore AOLQ should be applied.
 
Last edited:

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
That's what you get when police FLDs feck around with things and start making up their own conditions.

Why not just quote the condition as stated in the HO Guidance appendix 3 and ask them to include AOLQ as per?

Also have a look at 13.9 in there - it states that no further 'good reason' is required for additional quarry species and therefore AOLQ should be applied.
Its totally bizarre. I just called up to query it and they said and I quote " We do not issue AOLQ under Lancashire for Novice conditions". TBC
 
Last edited:

stubear

Well-Known Member
Yeah, speak to BASC about it.

There is a whole load of stuff in the HO guidance about conditions, setting unnecessary conditions that are tantamount to constructive refusal and all sorts.

Basically it boils down to they should give you the generic primary species good reason (deer/fox in this case) plus AOLQ, on land deemed suitable and where you have permission, unless they have a good public safety reason not to give you that condition!

I'm on my first FAC and got .308 plus mod, expanding ammo, deer/fox and AOLQ plus the usual closed certificate. Cant see any reason to deviate from the HO guidance unless there is a valid public safety concern!
 

Orion

Well-Known Member
Its totally bizarre. I just called up to query it and they said and I quote " We do not issue AOLQ under Lancashire for Novice conditions". TBC
Let's hope they will be in a position to justify that particular piece of nonsense when the Policing and Crime Bill receives Royal Assent!

107 Guidance to police officers in respect of firearms
(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 55 insert—
“55A Guidance as to exercise of police functions
(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to chief officers of police as
to the exercise of their functions under, or in connection with, this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this
section.
(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this
section, and any revision of it, to be published.
(4) A chief officer of police must have regard to any guidance issued under
this section
.
(5) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must
consult—
(a) the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and
(b) the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland.”

Might start to put the brake on some of the wilder excesses of FLDs up and down the country.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-public-bill-office/2015-16/compared-bills/Policing-and-Crime-bill-160414.pdf
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the info will raise it with them. It just seems bonkers to have two rifles one only for deer and one only for fox and then not allowed to shoot anything else or even cross them over. I can't see the logic behind it at all but have raised a query will see what comes out of it. I do feel sorry for the licensing people because it seems to just be making work harder for them as someone obviously took the time to write those specific criteria.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

woodmaster

Well-Known Member
It's not making work harder for them. It's them making the work harder. May be you want to shoot a muntjac with the 22-250, or travel to Scotland to shoot Roe, so need 22-250 conditioned for deer.
Perhaps you have ground where you have been specifically asked to shoot fox on site. So you want to have fox on your 270.
Don't worry about asking for this to be put right, it's them that have inconvenienced you after taking your money and probably an age to sort things out.
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
Just to update on this. I was called back by who I assume is the boss man. We had a very frank an honest conversation I explained why I wished to have AOLQ on the ticket and the logic behind having two rifles but not conditioned for the same thing being flawed. He agreed and we discussed shooting Muntjac of all things, it was left with us both agreeing that it would be less hassle and stress for all concerned if I could have it and even the new HO guidance stated this. I was told it is being discussed with their superiors Monday so will come back with an answer which they hoped would marry the HO guidance. If that happens then it would be perfect for all concerned. So I have to give them top marks for taking the time to call me back, explain their stance and offering a solution. It really does seem that the poor office folk are being encumbered by reams and reams of red tape and just like us would rather see a uniform structure to set things up.
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
The problem with much of this nonsense is that sensibly nobody is willing to take the risk to challenge conditions, nor to push the limits of what they mean.
The oddest part of the random conditions seems to be in 5. Because the condition specifies that.... "used only in connection with : -
(a) the lawful shooting of deer & )b) the shooting of vermin, or in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife."

This appears to mean that you can only use the ammunition in connection with the lawful shooting of deer AND shooting vermin - something that would need a very crafty trick shot to achieve. For that condition to make any sense at all, it would have to be changed to (a) OR (b).
Also personally I might argue that I'm not sure that the conditions 6 and 7 restrict you exclusively to what they say, but they require you to actually use the guns for the reason given. i.e. as long as you're shooting the deer and foxes (your good reason to possess), then there is no restriction on what else you can do (subject of course to good sense and other legislation).

The AOLQ to me seems tautological. It's obvious that anyone given a licence should only use their guns legally without that having to be put as a condition on their licence. The conditions are restrictions, therefore the absence of a condition to me indicates that such a restriction does not apply.

I would suspect that there's a strong argument that the conditions on your licence as it stands are meaningless. It seems that the need for authorisation to buy expanding ammunition has just disappeared anyway, and the other two conditions appear to only require you to shoot a few foxes and deer from time to time - which I'm sure you intend to do anyway.

"It really does seem that the poor office folk are being encumbered by reams and reams of red tape and just like us would rather see a uniform structure to set things up." I am afraid I have zero sympathy. The Home Office gave them an uniform structure and they choose to ignore it and produce their own reams of red tape - much of which is probably not fit for purpose. Not only that, but all forces have been instructed to stick to the guidance unless there is a good reason not to. Novice shooters are not good reason to apply random conditions.
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
Apthorpe you are right of course but really like you say, they have the guidance and are not following it. But then again it was explained to me that they are not allowed to by people further up the food chain. Which is where the problem comes from and as you suggest having a centralised pod managing all this would be much better.

But still for all the bashing they get at least they are trying to be proactive and help me for that I am grateful.....
 

Erik Hamburger

Well-Known Member
Write to the Firearms Licensing Manager, recorded/to be signed for, and politely but businesslike ask for the conditions to be amended so they reflect Home Office guidance.
You'll find in almost all cases, after a bit of shadow-boxing, the Police is perfectly reasonable.
 

JTO

Well-Known Member
I think the forms have too little space to tell them exactly what you want, and for what reasons.
Put 'See attached letter' in each box and set out, in separate paragraphs, your requests and the logic behind them. State at the end of the letter that you believe that all your requests are within Home Office guidance. Quoting HO paragraph numbers might tend to get negative reactions. Just be ultra polite and possibly get someone who is more literate, but fully understands your requests, to design the letter. The people who read your application may not be as knowledgeable regarding shooting methods/terminology as they should be.
When faced with confusion, they will always 'cover their @r$€, and rightly so in today's world of litigation.
 

Greymaster

Well-Known Member
Let's hope they will be in a position to justify that particular piece of nonsense when the Policing and Crime Bill receives Royal Assent!

107 Guidance to police officers in respect of firearms
(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 55 insert—
“55A Guidance as to exercise of police functions
(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to chief officers of police as
to the exercise of their functions under, or in connection with, this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this
section.
(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this
section, and any revision of it, to be published.
(4) A chief officer of police must have regard to any guidance issued under
this section
.
(5) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must
consult—
(a) the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and
(b) the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland.”

Might start to put the brake on some of the wilder excesses of FLDs up and down the country.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-public-bill-office/2015-16/compared-bills/Policing-and-Crime-bill-160414.pdf
and the secret 5(c) Representative shooting organisations who declare themselves to be "fully engaged", notwithstanding.
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
Just for info I have received a call then email and been told that for both my Rifles my certificate has been amended to Deer & AOLQ ....

All very straight forward in the end and very helpful. So Cert is on its way back to be amended. Everyone is happy. Good job Lancs :D
 

Orion

Well-Known Member
Just for info I have received a call then email and been told that for both my Rifles my certificate has been amended to Deer & AOLQ ....

All very straight forward in the end and very helpful. So Cert is on its way back to be amended. Everyone is happy. Good job Lancs :D
Do you think this might signal a global change for all FAC holders in the area - or is it just for you that they are actually getting around to implimenting the HO Guidance, because you've challenged them?
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
Do you think this might signal a global change for all FAC holders in the area - or is it just for you that they are actually getting around to implimenting the HO Guidance, because you've challenged them?
By the sounds of it them seemed very happy with it also. So hopefully it speeds over into other area's.
 

Top