Avon and Somerset will not allow mentoring

Cyres

Well-Known Member
My son has just applied for a coterminous SGC and FAC. FAC for .22lr which should not be an issue. I thought it might be appropriate to get him to add .223, in that he could use my .233, I could mentor him on the use of Centre fire for vermin/fox control. I have an open ticket

A@S told me verbally that they had stopped the mentoring condition several months ago and to be granted a C/F (not deer calibre!!!) then he would either have to do an approved course or provide evidence of military training.

As my .223 is also conditioned for legal deer species makes me wonder what a deer calibre is (they actually mean 6mm/.243 and above) and would for this require a DSC L 1. I didn't press the point at the time but am lead to believe A@S are being a bit over zealous.

Any comments?

D
 

paul o'

Well-Known Member
talk to basc think i remember something about mentoring in one of the mag issues are thay saying he must do the dcs1! and or join a paper shooting club , did't know this was a requied under the firearms act ,and did't we have a lad on here who had done the dsc1 and jumped over hot fire's but still could't get his mentor removed or something !! sorry someone will be able to help drop david from basc a line on this site or call basc direct.
as you say more than over zealous sounds like a home rule put in place by a group small minded folks, mentoring is far better than paper punching if done by another hunter and as it would be by his dad, well no better man than to teach your son ,you don't have to be so nice if he cocks up lol been that way since the bow and arrow !
atb hope you get it sorted out
 

Dalua

Well-Known Member
I wonder whether it actually matters that they've decided that they've 'stopped mentoring condtions'? Indeed, it might be a good thing, since just as 'mentoring conditions' are a farcical nuisance, so plain mentoring is a most useful and fulfilling way for an experience FAC-holder to support and inexperienced one, and for an inexperienced on to learn.

The bit that they told you verbally about the 'approved course' or 'military training' doesn't sound at all reasonable as a blanket policy. It might be best to forget about it

This sounds like a case where a letter to the FEO/FLD Manager explaining, with other pertinent detail, your and your son's intentions with respect to adding the .223 to son's FAC, and that you'll be supervising him initially to make sure he's competant in both safety and animal welfare. A letter will give them a chance to have a proper think about what you're proposing, and should elicit a written reply which might be more in keeping with what you're after that the verbal response so far.

As suggested by Paul, run it past your organisation, if you're in one.
 
Last edited:

al4x1

Well-Known Member
This is the downside of the ACPO and BASC's latest meeting, basically the outcome of that and the new recommendation is where the new applicant doesn't have experience the advice is to send them on a course rather than mentoring, apparently its a big step forward but personally I do wonder.
The only option I can see is depending on his age and your setup to get him some experience and try and argue it from that angle
 

finnbear270

Well-Known Member
Strange then that some, nay most forces discount H.M. trained personnel's experience, for the purposes of a sporting fac. Talk about the tail wagging the dog?:rolleyes:
 

jack

Well-Known Member
Ask for it in writing, their policy WRT CF authorisation.

When I was seeking a CF my initial consideration was for a 223, they said I had to do a CF course at W-S-M Locking for £150.

So I did DSC1 as I would have done both to get a deer cal rifle.
 
Last edited:

Patterdale Terrier

Well-Known Member
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.

If you are not able to show previous experience then I would expect the application will be refused beause you have not met the basic suitability test in respect of this. So you are either suitable or you are not. Some police forces, too weak to make a direct decision, decided to introduce mentoring in which they would grant a certificate if you had a mentor to show you the basics. At that stage you are still unsuitable but some forces granted the certificate blindly hoping you would take up the mentoring and not go off shooting yourself. A right state of affairs.
So in a nutshell, whether you are with a mentor or not, you do not meet the requirements unless you can show/prove previous experience for rim fire and centre fire rifles.
 

J222ROE

Well-Known Member
When did this mentoring come about ? Or is it just in England ? I got my fac when I was 20 no probelms at all for a.222 for deer and fox control

​J2R
 

Richard S

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if it's true, but I've been told that I am the last person to be allowed to follow the mentored route in Avon & Somerset.
Should I get a special certificate from the police when I finish ?

Richard
 

Cyres

Well-Known Member
My lad has just turned 18 and has been coming out shooting/stalkinf/fox shooting with me for many years. He has his own air rifle and has done weapon training with cadets. The law says he can't use a FA unless he has a certificate but how can he get legal experience with such if they wont issue him with a suitable certificate?

Law is mad, who better to teach him than the person who owns the rifle and has an open certificate?

D
 

paul o'

Well-Known Member
catch 22 :cuckoo: who says what he has done ? the ccf training is weapons training just like the adult training if not drilled in more as thay are kids !! i know i finnished my mod time off as an adult instructor and inc weapons and range instructor with the essex cadet force.



My lad has just turned 18 and has been coming out shooting/stalkinf/fox shooting with me for many years. He has his own air rifle and has done weapon training with cadets. The law says he can't use a FA unless he has a certificate but how can he get legal experience with such if they wont issue him with a suitable certificate?

Law is mad, who better to teach him than the person who owns the rifle and has an open certificate?

D
 

tFl

Well-Known Member
This is the downside of the ACPO and BASC's latest meeting, basically the outcome of that and the new recommendation is where the new applicant doesn't have experience the advice is to send them on a course rather than mentoring, apparently its a big step forward but personally I do wonder. The only option I can see is depending on his age and your setup to get him some experience and try and argue it from that angle
what meeting?

Home Office guidance has always required experience for rifles, (the new para is below) what BASC has achieved is a move away from mentoring which some forces (A&S included) would add to an FAC regardless of experience to keep the bunny huggers and animal welfare charities like the BDS... off their backs. It had nothing to do with public safety which is the police role.

If you read the new chapter 10 & 13 of the 2013 guidance you will see much better wording which BASC wrote to take away the risk averse attitude that the police manifested. Thanks has to be given to ACPO for helping effect what we shooters wanted but what was a them and us scenario between the likes of BASC and licensing managers.

The following takes away the inane proposition that somehow the bigger the bullet the more danere their is and that you cant have a .243 stright away until you've had a .22 or actually shot a deer etc

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.

What A&S should not be doing is demanding courses for all applicants who have experience i.e. refusing fox shooters (.223 etc) as somehow unworthy to shoot deer before doing a classroom based DSC1 course.
 
Last edited:

Harry mac

Well-Known Member
That is a ridiculous and unreasonable set of conditions. The LAW clearly states that an FAC shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied that it can be done without danger to the public safety or the peace. That is meant to be in relation to the applicant's character, not his/her shooting experience. I sense and suspect that some (one in particular)associations will be only too glad to climb aboard this as they see a potential money spinner in the provision of "approved" courses.
My advice would be to play along to an extent, but rather than do a "course", join a target shooting club and gain demonstrable experience that way.
 

woodmaster

Well-Known Member
Since the applicant does have experience of guns and shooting (assuming he holds a SGC) he should demand the reason why A+S view him as a danger to public safety. They are there to ensure public safety and that's it. Why anyone would except that they can be molded to follow a path which although may be admirable is still a deviation from the law. Once you pass your driving test in a mini do you then have to have experience in a more powerful car? Is one more or less dangerous than the other? I don't think so. Tell them what you want and stick to it. If you are not fit then you will be given the reason why and you may aswell chose another activity. Otherwise you are fit.
 

tFl

Well-Known Member
That is a ridiculous and unreasonable set of conditions. The LAW clearly states that an FAC shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied that it can be done without danger to the public safety or the peace. That is meant to be in relation to the applicant's character, not his/her shooting experience. I sense and suspect that some (one in particular)associations will be only too glad to climb aboard this as they see a potential money spinner in the provision of "approved" courses.
My advice would be to play along to an extent, but rather than do a "course", join a target shooting club and gain demonstrable experience that way.
The law allows chief officers to grant and apply conditions. The mentoring condition was born out of police concern and not shooting orgs. BASC is totally against mandatory testing and any form of conditions. However the law has always required a person to be safe beyond having suitable character. Species competence is not the same as safety and that is where the mentoring condition had its roots.
 

tFl

Well-Known Member
Since the applicant does have experience of guns and shooting (assuming he holds a SGC) he should demand the reason why A+S view him as a danger to public safety. They are there to ensure public safety and that's it. Why anyone would except that they can be molded to follow a path which although may be admirable is still a deviation from the law. Once you pass your driving test in a mini do you then have to have experience in a more powerful car? Is one more or less dangerous than the other? I don't think so. Tell them what you want and stick to it. If you are not fit then you will be given the reason why and you may aswell chose another activity. Otherwise you are fit.
the ownership of a shotgun for aerial shot does not mean you are safe with a rifle. The aspect the police are looking for is that the applicant can take a safe shot every time i.e. by choosing safe backstop. For some this comes naturally, some not so naturally and their ability with a shotgun is often superb besides.

however you have some very valid points. For example; the police showed themselves up to be favouring animal welfare critics by demanding experience around deer applicants even though the applicant had centre fire experience whilst shooting foxes. However your car analogy doesn't work when you give a 17 year old a lotus exige, they require great skill to keep on the road.
 
Last edited:

Tommy Kaira

Well-Known Member
Essex police are the same. I've been asked to shoot foxes but Essex police said I don't have enough experience. I said that I've been using .22 for pest control for some time now. The response? "Yeah, but that's only 22. I can't give you dum-dum bullets based on that. You'll have to just have Solid ammo (FMJ) for target shooting...I'll put you down for 1200."

I've done the DSC1 course and, in my opinion there is not sufficient content/focus to turn an unsafe shooter into a safe one.

(The DSC1 is a great course by the way...just not designed for inexperienced fox shooters.
 

Jagdmatch

Well-Known Member
That is a ridiculous and unreasonable set of conditions. The LAW clearly states that an FAC shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied that it can be done without danger to the public safety or the peace. That is meant to be in relation to the applicant's character, not his/her shooting experience. I sense and suspect that some (one in particular)associations will be only too glad to climb aboard this as they see a potential money spinner in the provision of "approved" courses.
My advice would be to play along to an extent, but rather than do a "course", join a target shooting club and gain demonstrable experience that way.
I am already ahead of the game on that one Harry, having written and copyrighted such an 'approved course' which is available now. I have to prove my competency twice a year in for instructional practice and four times per year in shooting, so I ensure that I keep my skills up to scratch. Of course some people do not need to practice and i am very sure that the majority of the old and bold on SD are very responsible and safe but if you doubt the requirement just watch then 'poacher post' that YRS put on here.

I do not see it as any more of a money spinner than the NGO game handling course that I attended with around 50 other people at £60 per head! As I have said before nobody likes paying for training but sometimes you have to do it. The choice however should always be yours rather than compulsory.
 

woodmaster

Well-Known Member
the ownership of a shotgun for aerial shot does not mean you are safe with a rifle. The aspect the police are looking for is that the applicant can take a safe shot every time i.e. by choosing safe backstop. For some this comes naturally, some not so naturally and their ability with a shotgun is often superb besides.

however you have some very valid points. For example; the police showed themselves up to be favouring animal welfare critics by demanding experience around deer applicants even though the applicant had centre fire experience whilst shooting foxes. However your car analogy doesn't work when you give a 17 year old a lotus exige, they require great skill to keep on the road.
So am I to assume that someone owning a shot gun is only safe because they are shooting a SG and would be un-safe if given a CF rifle? This I find pretty hard to believe although I accept there are likely to be more accidents using SG than there are with CF rifles. This doesn't make all potential users un-safe. I to agree that more vehicle accidents happen to young male drivers, however not all young male drivers are dangerous or bad drivers and they still don't have to pass a further test in order to drive said car or prove their ability/inability. Until it is law that we do these highly profitable courses we should not be made to do so.
 

GWILLI

Active Member
HI. I am in gwent and applied for coterminous license. I asked for a .22lr and .223. this was 18 months ago. I was granted both-no mention of mentoring at the time.
after 18 mths I got an open ticket for my .22 and asked for the .223 to be changed for a .243 as I would only be buying 1 c/f rifle at the moment as I had no deer shooting, I could only put for foxes and vermin, which they granted.
As advised I would speak to BASC, for example, as many forces make their own rules up. I had over 25 years experience with shotguns but none with rifles, but shoot with lads that have rifles so big advantage to pick their brains. I hope you get you application granted
 

Top