Not really, a quick look on the OS website or Google earth would do that
Confused- new calibre on open certificate...
- Thread starter Outandabout-goneshooting
- Start date
Outandabout-goneshooting
Well-Known Member
Thanks for all the replies. Just to clear up a few bits:
I don't have the certificate back yet, but made sure before the FEO went that it would be an open condition on the .308 as with all the others- he definitely said yes and I saw him write it down- hence the confusion about the land clearance. I am hoping it comes back with "used for vermin/ deer/ boar control or zeroing over land which the holder has lawful permission to shoot"
The 400 acres cleared for up to .338 doesn't have boar on it- hence why I got away with having .243 until now. Historically it was owned by a guy who had dangerous game calibres- hence the clearance. The 60 acres is a private farm recently purchased by a friend of a friend who didn't realise the damage boar can do. I have walked it with him and am happy it's safe from certain positions for the reasons above.
I've arranged to call the FEO Friday and discuss. I wondered if it was because the land was on a different force that it was some kind of policy- otherwise he said he would have happily driven there with me there and then to clear it if it was his area.
Thanks again for all the advice. I feel a bit more confident to be able to articulate the point of confusion now.
I don't have the certificate back yet, but made sure before the FEO went that it would be an open condition on the .308 as with all the others- he definitely said yes and I saw him write it down- hence the confusion about the land clearance. I am hoping it comes back with "used for vermin/ deer/ boar control or zeroing over land which the holder has lawful permission to shoot"
The 400 acres cleared for up to .338 doesn't have boar on it- hence why I got away with having .243 until now. Historically it was owned by a guy who had dangerous game calibres- hence the clearance. The 60 acres is a private farm recently purchased by a friend of a friend who didn't realise the damage boar can do. I have walked it with him and am happy it's safe from certain positions for the reasons above.
I've arranged to call the FEO Friday and discuss. I wondered if it was because the land was on a different force that it was some kind of policy- otherwise he said he would have happily driven there with me there and then to clear it if it was his area.
Thanks again for all the advice. I feel a bit more confident to be able to articulate the point of confusion now.
Tf223
Well-Known Member
… they just want to check the main land as being suitable (for the calibre, for the species present, etc) to establish good reason for the application. Being pragmatic I’d suggest going along with it for the ‘good reason’ justification on a suitable bit of land and then allow them to grant it as being open calibre. Thats what Kent Police done for my 6.5x55
“A person wishing to shoot over land should nominate in their application a specific area of land over which they intend to or have permission to shoot (this does not restrict their ability to shoot elsewhere where permission is also given), and provide written authority, where appropriate, from the person entitled to grant the shooting rights. The land may then be examined and approved by the police (if it is not already known to be suitable) in order to help to establish that the “good reason” requirement has been fully met, and that the use of firearms and ammunition will not endanger public safety or the peace (section 27(1)(c) of the 1968 Act).”
“A person wishing to shoot over land should nominate in their application a specific area of land over which they intend to or have permission to shoot (this does not restrict their ability to shoot elsewhere where permission is also given), and provide written authority, where appropriate, from the person entitled to grant the shooting rights. The land may then be examined and approved by the police (if it is not already known to be suitable) in order to help to establish that the “good reason” requirement has been fully met, and that the use of firearms and ammunition will not endanger public safety or the peace (section 27(1)(c) of the 1968 Act).”
Last edited:
Similar threads
