Do we assume the worst of our FLD?
- Thread starter SimpleSimon
- Start date
Hi.
I heard we had a new 'regime' at west yorks and it was with some trepidation I did my renewal earlier this year. I have had an FAC for getting on 30 years and always found I had to argue over silly things or get even sillier mistakes rectified in the past. However I was delighted to experience the slickest and most professional renewal I have ever had in those 30 years. Hats off to them and I hope things continue.
Yorkie.
Psjunkie
Well-Known Member
Looks like things have moved in the right direction. I think as long as your good reason is there they are more than fair.
Ben
I agree. Dealt with Northumbria for many years as both FAC and as an RFD. Personal FAC took 12 days from posting to license received for full renewal and additions. Painless process with phone calls to discuss changes being courteous and prepared to listen and discuss. 24 hour and same day changes not unknown. Pleasure to deal with.
Iain
CWMMAN3738
Well-Known Member
Well I can't agree GWENT are in chaos I've recently had a long running saga with them where both FEO's openly supported an application but management blocked it even "refusing to submit the application for consideration". They are totally incompident from a management point of view while the FEOs try hard to make an often impossible situation work, to quote Paul Adams recently " if you can't stop an animal with a big rifle you shouldn't have guns in my opinion, & that's it" so not exactly competent of law abiding, a few of their cases are going to complaints at the moment & will probably go further, one senior staff member has gone long term sick, & the others have no idea what their doing or the law, I've recently been given a licence with a rifle with NVM on by mistake & been offered a section 5 I have never applied for, sorry but their a complet shambles save for the boys on the ground who try very hard in a bad situation.
Regarding Gwent I would give an entirely different answer today as to that I would have given only a few years ago. They were appallingly bad, in fact words fail me as to just how bad they were at one time, but they have turned it around and for some time now they have been really quite good. Helpful friendly and generally very knowledgeable are the words that presently come to mind. Perhaps not perfect but getting there.
A friend has recently crossed back across the river from bear country (Glos) and was well relieved to have done so as there is an entirely different attitude over there.
Resurrecting my old thread here with a bit of a whine...
I sent my FAC off to West Mercia on the 3rd of December with a letter requesting that they
1. Add target shooting conditions to all my rifles to satisfy over-zealous club officials that I am allowed to shoot targets
2. Open my certificate so I can accept invitations and/or book paid stalks anywhere without worrying about checking ground, etc
3. to make sure my FAC wording would allow me to use a moderator with all rifles even though I had disposed of one moderator and replaced it with one on a different calibre slot (I have no intention of actually acquiring another mod, so actually don't want/need a variation to do so as long as I have authority to use it.
Anyway, yesterday I sent them a quick email just to check that they'd recieved everything and see if I could be of any help.
I got a curt response saying that I need to fill in a 202 variation form, and today my certificate and the letter I sent with it landed back on my doormat (my letter is stamped with the date they presumably read it, December the 4th)
So, if they were never going to do anything without the form 202, then what the hell have they been doing with my certificate for the past 7 weeks?
I sent my FAC off to West Mercia on the 3rd of December with a letter requesting that they
1. Add target shooting conditions to all my rifles to satisfy over-zealous club officials that I am allowed to shoot targets
2. Open my certificate so I can accept invitations and/or book paid stalks anywhere without worrying about checking ground, etc
3. to make sure my FAC wording would allow me to use a moderator with all rifles even though I had disposed of one moderator and replaced it with one on a different calibre slot (I have no intention of actually acquiring another mod, so actually don't want/need a variation to do so as long as I have authority to use it.
Anyway, yesterday I sent them a quick email just to check that they'd recieved everything and see if I could be of any help.
I got a curt response saying that I need to fill in a 202 variation form, and today my certificate and the letter I sent with it landed back on my doormat (my letter is stamped with the date they presumably read it, December the 4th)
So, if they were never going to do anything without the form 202, then what the hell have they been doing with my certificate for the past 7 weeks?
SimpleSimon, send your FAC back with another covering letter reminding them that for a change of conditions a form 202 is not needed and you are not applying for additional calibres/mods, also ask them to explain how to fill in the form 202 for a condition change because as far as i remember there is no place on a form for you to request condition change anyway.
Ian.
Ian.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that the club officals are being 'over-zealous' in ensuring that you're not in breach of what your conditions (are commonly believed to) permit you to do when you're using their range/s.
If you've only got the ususal quarry and 'zeroing' condition, and you are of the commonly-held view that conditions are restrictive, then really you're stuck with the idea that you're allowed to shoot quarry, and to zero as defined in the HO Guide
10.43 Zeroing is the process of adjusting the sights of a rifle so that the aim corresponds to
the mean point of impact at the chosen distance. When the sights are harmonised, the
bullet impacts where the shooter is aiming. Any small change either to the rifle or to the
ammunition used will change the impact point of the bullet and necessitate re-zeroing.
Zeroing of course does involve shooting at a target and therefore is a kind of target-shooting - but it seems that the HO do not intend the description to cover practicing, shooting in 'competitions' (whatever that means) or load development - all of which required non-zeroing-type shooting at targets.
All of this is why I didn't send form 202 in the first place. Fear not, a new letter will go out on Monday! It's convenient actually, I need to buy some ammo whilst my certificate is here
It's convenient actually, I need to buy some ammo whilst my certificate is here
Ian.
I don't know whether you have the condition or not, but would you still need a target shooting condition if you already had an Open Condition with AOLQ...?
B
Bolt action
Guest
My 1-4-1 been going on since end of July. Renewal falling due at the end of November. I've had the audacity to ask for an update. Wondered if the fac/sgc have been lost n the post since being advised, I'd have my tickets back for crimbo! No changes in my circumstances for 35 years, other than eyesight failing a bit. No repose. And now I feel I'm on the naughty step? Well complaint will be going in when I get the pieces of paper back! So patients is the key. B a
I think the poll is a bit flawed to be honest. I have had to fight for everything I have had until very recently. There is also no single standard of service we are voting on here.
Some forces may be excellent but as ever it varies in both location and time and even FEO personality. For me this is the real point. HO guidance should be the norm, not the exception and action should be taken against police forces for NOT following the guidelines or adding spurious clauses (esp for deer stalking).
The police are not the custodians of the public good in terms of anything other than - are you a fit and proper person to own and use a firearm.
Rubbish about 'you need experience gralloching before you can have a deer rifle', having your own permission for deer stalking, doing a DSC1/mentoring are NOT the preserve of the police. For them to 'bend what is sensible HO advice confirms another agenda, driven by Chief Constables to reduce/remove firearms ownership. Give advice by all means.
Following policy is the police role not introducing/amending primary legislation. Until a FA and E manager can tell his C Con to go and take a running jump because what he wants is beyond the law/guidance, we will continue to be ruled by 'Lords of the Manor' and their disenfranchised operatives. Rather than ever more personalised firearms interpretations, we need ONE and a model for management of police forces which is not para/semi - military, Sir. Sorry rant over.
Some forces may be excellent but as ever it varies in both location and time and even FEO personality. For me this is the real point. HO guidance should be the norm, not the exception and action should be taken against police forces for NOT following the guidelines or adding spurious clauses (esp for deer stalking).
The police are not the custodians of the public good in terms of anything other than - are you a fit and proper person to own and use a firearm.
Rubbish about 'you need experience gralloching before you can have a deer rifle', having your own permission for deer stalking, doing a DSC1/mentoring are NOT the preserve of the police. For them to 'bend what is sensible HO advice confirms another agenda, driven by Chief Constables to reduce/remove firearms ownership. Give advice by all means.
Following policy is the police role not introducing/amending primary legislation. Until a FA and E manager can tell his C Con to go and take a running jump because what he wants is beyond the law/guidance, we will continue to be ruled by 'Lords of the Manor' and their disenfranchised operatives. Rather than ever more personalised firearms interpretations, we need ONE and a model for management of police forces which is not para/semi - military, Sir. Sorry rant over.
B
Bolt action
Guest
Kes, absolutely agree with you. That is why in my previous post I'm not going to raise my head above the parapet until I have my cents in hand. I then intend to challenge the way I as a law abiding citizen have been treated. I can prove the department has blatantly stood outside the HO guideline, and been found to not be honest, and to have no integraty. However, I am going to be a lone voice and will it change anything??? No!! But hey it'll make me feel better. B a.
It is a common view that you do need that condition before you can lawfully do any target-shooting other than 'zeroing' as defined in the HO Guide, (assuming you have zeroing on there as well as the quarry condition).
This poses a problem for a club official who permits FAC-holding visitors to shoot on the club's range. The official should arguably eyeball the visitors's FAC to check his authority to possess and use the firearms - and it follows that the official will be unwilling to let someone shoot in an organised course of fire (whether 'competition' or organised practice session) if there is no target-shooting condition there.
If the visitor has the 'zeroing' condition, a handful of rounds at appropriate ranges would be fine - but that would be that.
This is based on the idea (which it is safest to assume is correct, even if it is not) that a FAC-holder is allowed to do only what the conditions say.
Another interpreation is that the condition describes the 'good reason to possess' - and that unless it contains the word only - as in shall be used only for whatever, then in fact there is no restricition prevent the holder from any lawful use of his firearms and ammuniton.
The odd thing is that one hears tales of FLDs refusing a target shooting condition to folk whose good reason is quarry shooting, thereby apparently denying them the abitility to practice at the target, take part in competitions or do any load development - all of which are 'target shooting'.
There is often a reference to adequately or properly insured places/ranges for target shooting in a condition for target. Having had manily quarry on mine, I joined a gunclub for a shoot on the sealand ranges. The club was really good - some very nice helpful people and non too 'anal', although very safe. The specific condition was added without me requesting it, I just advised I had joined.
That ought to do it - ideally all sporting FAC-holders should have something like that IMO. 'Target practice' might make things clearer, as this means the practice of shooting at targets, without prejudice as to the purpose for doing so. It would therefore cover all activities including zeroing, load-development and shooting to maintain or improve one's skill.
Similar threads
