FAC Renewal

[Scapegoat]

3 - I wanted a 308 adding to my FAC and when asked why I replied because I want to shoot larger species such as RED and Wild boar..he asked me to name where would be shooting boar despite having an existing OPEN FAC WITH ''ALL LAWFUL QUARRY ''.. 4- Was initially going to refuse a 308 because I had a Couple of 303 lee Enfields which have ''all lawful quarry'' / targets . He asked why I couldn't use them for large species....!!! after explaining that some estates dont like people Turning up looking like they are members of the Kings Own Regiment he accepted that as a good reason.
And despite not being a current member of home office target club ( old club still on my ticket ) - and advising that I was in the process of joining a new indoor large calibre range - he said that target shooting would be removed from new ticket until I had completed the membership process of the new club ..then I could ask for a free variation for target shooting ....

Anyone else experienced any of this ?

I'd like to point out a logical flaw in your argument here.

You tell us that your .303's are conditioned for AOLQ and target. That's fine, except now you're no longer a member of a club, the target condition will be removed.

SO your .303 rifles are now conditioned only for live quarry.

You are then asked why you can't use them for deer. You answer is that you don't want to or they are impractical as a stalking rifle. Thereby negating the remaining "good reason" . I'd suggest you are lucky to hang onto them!

 

[User00040]

Firearms department strategy is simple. To ensure that members of the public can lawfully and safely own and use firearms in the UK. The decision making is bound by the guidance contained in the HOG. It isn't a mystery, it's available to download for free.

T

Which would be fair if all forces followed the HOG.

Having read it I find it to be a reasonable document but its a shame that some forces and FEO's have clearly not done this if other certificate holders are to be believed (which you would hope is the case!).

Personally had good service in my area, which I am lucky to be living in.

 

[Scapegoat]

Which would be fair if all forces followed the HOG.

Having read it I find it to be a reasonable document but its a shame that some forces and FEO's have clearly not done this if other certificate holders are to be believed (which you would hope is the case!).

Personally had good service in my area, which I am lucky to be living in.

It isn't that the HOG guidance isn't being followed. The best example is that of the very real need for the decision maker to be sure that the applicant is going to use those firearms lawfully and safely.

The decision to grant or otherwise is made by the head of department. There will be a written, recorded force policy which dictates how that decision is reached. That policy will be a distillation of HOG, recommendations and national standards driven by the College of Policing ( Firearms licensing) , as well as the Chief Officer for the relevant area's policy and strategy. There isn't much room for huge variance in the strategy itself, as it's national. The local policy may vary in some details but that is becoming more and more homogenous thanks to legal challenge. Every police force firearms lead (usually an Assistant Chief Constable) will be kept up to date on current legal cases and precedents, and between them and the Office of the Force Solicitors will ensure policy is kept up to date and relevant.

So Example . You are the departmental head in a Licensing Department in Stalkingshire. Fred Astaire rings the department and asks to be allowed to buy a "bullet gun". Asked what experience he has and questioning determines that he once hit a couple of pop bottles with his neighbour's Relum Tornado. Oh and he can knock a pheasant out with a catapult at twenty paces, innit. He's managed to badger the local farmer into allowing him to shoot rabbits. So, the Stalking Directory Decision Making Massive all agree that he has good reason to possess a rifle and that any attempt to restrict that to ensure public safety is to be ridiculed, 'simply because the law says he can have one.'

"Come back when you have experience of shooting with a .22LR and we'll reconsider your application" appears to be a pretty sensible approach. We will need to be satisfied that you know what the rifle can do, and what safety measures you need to take to keep the public safe. Not exactly rocket science!

So Fred befriends someone he met on Facey, and spends the next few months learning to shoot his CZ under his tutelage and supervision, on land where he can be taught about backstops and ricochets, safe handling and transportation and storage of firearms and ammo.

Now he can be considered to a reasonably safe bet. He's much more likely to be granted an FAC, albeit restricted to Rimfire calibres.

However, he's got a taste for it now and has watched Youtube videos of a guy malleting foxes with a .243. "So if I can have a .22LR for bunnies, can I also have a .243 for foxes please? There are foxes on my patch of land."

No problem, says the Stalking Directory Decision Making Massive, he's got good reason and it would be ridiculous if the ......etc etc.

But here's where some Departments vary. How can the Decision Maker be satisfied that he will be safe with a .243? We all know in practical terms the potential for catastrophe are increased massively as the calibre leaps from .22LR to centrefire ( and I don't personally distinguish between .222 and .30-06) in this respect.....) so somehow we've got to establish how safe he'll be. Without experience, no decision maker in the UK would grant authority for a centrefire without at least some way of determining whether he can use one safely. The.22LR experience will help, but it doesn't answer all the questions.

I'm not a fan of mentoring as a condition. However, when I taught my son to shoot I ensured he was safe with a centrefire before allowing him to apply for one. That way he was able to demonstrate and give evidence of experience, could go into detail on backstops, legal requirements, safety and security on his initial interview. A few months after his 18th birthday he had .22LR, .17 HMR , .243 win and .308 win on an open ticket. I'll stress here that at the time of his application I was not an FEO, and my local force has been held as one of the more "rigid" forces in terms of what they will allow.

Other forces have different restrictions and use different ways to answer that all important question based on protecting the public from danger/harm, but the overarching strategy is the same.

 

[Broadarrow]

I'd like to point out a logical flaw in your argument here.

You tell us that your .303's are conditioned for AOLQ and target. That's fine, except now you're no longer a member of a club, the target condition will be removed.

SO your .303 rifles are now conditioned only for live quarry.

You are then asked why you can't use them for deer. You answer is that you don't want to or they are impractical as a stalking rifle. Thereby negating the remaining "good reason" . I'd suggest you are lucky to hang onto them!

I advised the FEO that it would be frowned upon using a LEE ENFIELD 303 on ''some'' estates or areas of land for deer.....I didnt say that I would no longer use it.

I wanted the 308 for large deer species and a lighter rifle with the facility to mount a modern scope , for upland stalking where a longer than usual walk applies...He was happy with that in the end.

 

[Broadarrow]

You are very lucky. Over nearly 50 years I have had all sorts of FEOs from excellent to at least one idiot that pointed my 416 at the house opposite to see if it was loaded and asked if my 308 was semi auto.

I had an FEO visit a few years back...very nice lady who refused to inspect my individual rifles with me , to verify serial numbers, as she ''didnt like guns''.

 

[Scapegoat]

I advised the FEO that it would be frowned upon using a LEE ENFIELD 303 on ''some'' estates or areas of land for deer.....I didnt say that I would no longer use it.

I wanted the 308 for large deer species and a lighter rifle for upland stalking where a longer than usual walk applies...He was happy with that in the end.

In other words the FEO queried your request and you were able to give a good reason to acquire a .308. Great! Shows the system is working then.

As for the in depth interview by phone, we are in the throes of a global pandemic. Face to face the same questions needed answering. The officer has conducted a thorough interview with you as there were a number of issues that needed to be cleared up. It appears from the information that you have given, that the matters were concluded successfully.

Despite the suggestions that he was being a jobsworth, consider this; If that same officer conducted a really sloppy interview, rushed and inattentive, with your neighbour, missing vital information and simply granting whatever calibre took his fancy, and then the guy went out with the wrong rifle and put a round through your living room window because he didn't know what he was doing with it there would be an outcry. The officer would quite rightly be hauled over the coals. The blame would lay squarely with him and he knows it. There are some jobs which demand scrupulous attention to detail and a thorough, logical approach. That is one of them, with potentially appalling consequences for errors and omissions.

One minute folk are saying the FEOs are lacking in knowledge and common sense, yet when there is an obvious case of a guy doing the job properly he's accused of being a jobsworth. As my Mother in Law would say "It beats hen-racing!"

 

[Scapegoat]

I had an FEO visit a few years back...very nice lady who refused to inspect my individual rifles with me , to verify serial numbers, as she ''didnt like guns''.

Cool story bro.

 

[Broadarrow]

Cool story bro.

when the FEO had finished the questions and answer session we went to my ''gun room'' and to make matters easier I removed al my firearms from the cabinet and laid them on a table - not a proper gun room ( I would be so lucky - a room my wife permits me to use - with a requirement to open the windows when cleaning as she hates the smell of cleaning fluids / gun oil . ). As I read out the serial numbers she said she couldn't make out the serial number on a CZ 511 so as it had a semi auto red safety flag in the breach , I advised her that it was safe to turn it into the light to make it easier to read...I appreciate it wasnt or is the norm for FEO's to handle firearms at a customers house but thats when she said those immortal words....I was slightly astounded .....The next renewal was completed the opposite..The FEO was a real firearms enthusiast especially when shown the lee enfields..

He was a proper breath of fresh air .....and it was a pleasure to have him deal with my renewal process.

I think it makes a difference with every profession or employee ..if they have an interest in the task they are carrying out it makes it easier for all this involved...and a lot less stressful

 

[Scapegoat]

when the FEO had finished the questions and answer session we went to my ''gun room'' and to make matters easier I removed al my firearms from the cabinet and laid them on a table - not a proper gun room ( I would be so lucky - a room my wife permits me to use - with a requirement to open the windows when cleaning as she hates the smell of cleaning fluids / gun oil . ). As I read out the serial numbers she said she couldn't make out the serial number on a CZ 511 so as it had a semi auto red safety flag in the breach , I advised her that it was safe to turn it into the light to make it easier to read...I appreciate it wasnt or is the norm for FEO's to handle firearms at a customers house but thats when she said those immortal words....I was slightly astounded .....The next renewal was completed the opposite..The FEO was a real firearms enthusiast especially when shown the lee enfields..

He was a proper breath of fresh air .....and it was a pleasure to have him deal with my renewal process.

I think it makes a difference with every profession or employee ..if they have an interest in the task they are carrying out it makes it easier for all this involved...and a lot less stressful

See how a proper recounting of the events makes a difference to people's perceptions of what you are trying to say? It's all about perspective and perception. Your initial post told us that the FEO refused to inspect your firearms, which in itself is shocking, and frankly, unbelievable. At best it was sloppy, at worst it was neglectful . Challenged, your more detailed post changes the entire complexion of what actually took place.

I have no idea what your actual agenda is, or the purpose behind your original post, so I'll simply leave you to it.

 

[Broadarrow]

See how a proper recounting of the events makes a difference to people's perceptions of what you are trying to say? It's all about perspective and perception. Your initial post told us that the FEO refused to inspect your firearms, which in itself is shocking, and frankly, unbelievable. At best it was sloppy, at worst it was neglectful . Challenged, your more detailed post changes the entire complexion of what actually took place.

I have no idea what your actual agenda is, or the purpose behind your original post, so I'll simply leave you to it.

Apologies for the initial inaccuracies / vague account ...it was a few years ago but has stuck in my mind as one of those incidents you would not have expected to experience.

 

[Jon P]

I obtained my first firearm certificate in my early 20’s. For a .22 rf, About 28 years ago, my first FEO was a complete nightmare, to the point i had to put a complaint in about him, 3 farms all in the local area , farm one passed with no issue by different officer , but same force , problem officer inspected 2 nd farm identical layout of land other side of a rylock sheep fence was declined but no reason given, , 3rd farm he intimidated the elderly farmers that much with questioning them , getting farm maps out and asking them what fields do the foxes sit in and then bringing his family down to picnic in the field watching us working on the farm , his comments to me where, he was a firearm officer and did not like giving licence out easily as the gun may be used against him one day. Glad to say , no issues since .

 

[Broadarrow]

In other words the FEO queried your request and you were able to give a good reason to acquire a .308. Great! Shows the system is working then.

As for the in depth interview by phone, we are in the throes of a global pandemic. Face to face the same questions needed answering. The officer has conducted a thorough interview with you as there were a number of issues that needed to be cleared up. It appears from the information that you have given, that the matters were concluded successfully.

Despite the suggestions that he was being a jobsworth, consider this; If that same officer conducted a really sloppy interview, rushed and inattentive, with your neighbour, missing vital information and simply granting whatever calibre took his fancy, and then the guy went out with the wrong rifle and put a round through your living room window because he didn't know what he was doing with it there would be an outcry. The officer would quite rightly be hauled over the coals. The blame would lay squarely with him and he knows it. There are some jobs which demand scrupulous attention to detail and a thorough, logical approach. That is one of them, with potentially appalling consequences for errors and omissions.

One minute folk are saying the FEOs are lacking in knowledge and common sense, yet when there is an obvious case of a guy doing the job properly he's accused of being a jobsworth. As my Mother in Law would say "It beats hen-racing!"

I did not mean to imply that he was a jobsworth . he was very thorough which is what I would expect ..this was my first renewal interview by telephone and it felt even more intensive than a face to face..It did feel that I was being put on the spot something I have never felt with a pre arranged appointment.

I appreciate that we have all have to make changes to our day to day practices and at the time the covid issues did not even enter my head.....

 

[Broadarrow]

See how a proper recounting of the events makes a difference to people's perceptions of what you are trying to say? It's all about perspective and perception. Your initial post told us that the FEO refused to inspect your firearms, which in itself is shocking, and frankly, unbelievable. At best it was sloppy, at worst it was neglectful . Challenged, your more detailed post changes the entire complexion of what actually took place.

I have no idea what your actual agenda is, or the purpose behind your original post, so I'll simply leave you to it.

no agenda.

 

[Scapegoat]

I did not mean to imply that he was a jobsworth .

It wasn't you who used the term, it was used by someone who read what you had written and decided to join in the FEO bashing.........

 

[stubear]

It isn't that the HOG guidance isn't being followed. The best example is that of the very real need for the decision maker to be sure that the applicant is going to use those firearms lawfully and safely.

The decision to grant or otherwise is made by the head of department. There will be a written, recorded force policy which dictates how that decision is reached. That policy will be a distillation of HOG, recommendations and national standards driven by the College of Policing ( Firearms licensing) , as well as the Chief Officer for the relevant area's policy and strategy. There isn't much room for huge variance in the strategy itself, as it's national. The local policy may vary in some details but that is becoming more and more homogenous thanks to legal challenge. Every police force firearms lead (usually an Assistant Chief Constable) will be kept up to date on current legal cases and precedents, and between them and the Office of the Force Solicitors will ensure policy is kept up to date and relevant.

So Example . You are the departmental head in a Licensing Department in Stalkingshire. Fred Astaire rings the department and asks to be allowed to buy a "bullet gun". Asked what experience he has and questioning determines that he once hit a couple of pop bottles with his neighbour's Relum Tornado. Oh and he can knock a pheasant out with a catapult at twenty paces, innit. He's managed to badger the local farmer into allowing him to shoot rabbits. So, the Stalking Directory Decision Making Massive all agree that he has good reason to possess a rifle and that any attempt to restrict that to ensure public safety is to be ridiculed, 'simply because the law says he can have one.'

"Come back when you have experience of shooting with a .22LR and we'll reconsider your application" appears to be a pretty sensible approach. We will need to be satisfied that you know what the rifle can do, and what safety measures you need to take to keep the public safe. Not exactly rocket science!

So Fred befriends someone he met on Facey, and spends the next few months learning to shoot his CZ under his tutelage and supervision, on land where he can be taught about backstops and ricochets, safe handling and transportation and storage of firearms and ammo.

Now he can be considered to a reasonably safe bet. He's much more likely to be granted an FAC, albeit restricted to Rimfire calibres.

However, he's got a taste for it now and has watched Youtube videos of a guy malleting foxes with a .243. "So if I can have a .22LR for bunnies, can I also have a .243 for foxes please? There are foxes on my patch of land."

No problem, says the Stalking Directory Decision Making Massive, he's got good reason and it would be ridiculous if the ......etc etc.

But here's where some Departments vary. How can the Decision Maker be satisfied that he will be safe with a .243? We all know in practical terms the potential for catastrophe are increased massively as the calibre leaps from .22LR to centrefire ( and I don't personally distinguish between .222 and .30-06) in this respect.....) so somehow we've got to establish how safe he'll be. Without experience, no decision maker in the UK would grant authority for a centrefire without at least some way of determining whether he can use one safely. The.22LR experience will help, but it doesn't answer all the questions.

I'm not a fan of mentoring as a condition. However, when I taught my son to shoot I ensured he was safe with a centrefire before allowing him to apply for one. That way he was able to demonstrate and give evidence of experience, could go into detail on backstops, legal requirements, safety and security on his initial interview. A few months after his 18th birthday he had .22LR, .17 HMR , .243 win and .308 win on an open ticket. I'll stress here that at the time of his application I was not an FEO, and my local force has been held as one of the more "rigid" forces in terms of what they will allow.

Other forces have different restrictions and use different ways to answer that all important question based on protecting the public from danger/harm, but the overarching strategy is the same.

I agree with this. And its this thought process that the DSC1 is very good at moving along, because you have passed a shooting and handling test with a deer legal centrefire, can demonstrate you know the law, species, seasons etc.

I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tell me why I'm wrong and the DSC is a waste of time (theres always one...) however in todays litigious society everyone likes bits of paper which demonstrate competence.

Yes we all know it doesnt make you an expert, that experience in the field is worth more than the time in the classroom blah blah blah... But in this exact scenario which has been played out eleventy billion times on hunting forums across t'interwebs the piece of paper helps.

FWIW I have been pretty happy with Hampshire FLO - I've not had any silly restrictions and my local FEO is excellent. I remember when I put in for my .45-70 my FEO turned up, rung the doorbell and when I opened the door he said with a smile "Ahh Mr Stubear - havent I given you enough guns recently?" to which I replied "Its not my fault, they just keep turning up"

 

[Broadarrow]

thats similar to what my wife says ;- ''why do you need another one / how much was that one ?""

 

[Stalker62]

thats similar to what my wife says ;- ''why do you need another one / how much was that one ?""

Your wife knows too much. Way, way too much.

 

[Broadarrow]

she is like the all seeing eye from lord of the rings...makes Sherlock Holmes look like an amateur !

she misses nothing.....

 

[muddy42]

I had an FEO visit a few years back...very nice lady who refused to inspect my individual rifles with me , to verify serial numbers, as she ''didnt like guns''.

My last renewal interview was done via facetime in June - iphone and Bluetooth headphones. It worked perfectly - I held the phone up to the cabinet, gave it a shake for them, held up the serial numbers, showed my remaining ammo. I don't know why they couldn't always be like this, particularly if it keeps the cost of renewal down. I am not sure of the GDPR side, but the resulting video would be a pretty good record for both parties.

 

[Broadarrow]

in this day and age I am surprised that the POLICE dont make more use of technology when carrying out renewal visits . But I suppose its down to individual force areas and budgets and how data is used and stored. The introduction of body worn cameras caused major issues with regard to data security and storage so was delayed in some areas until it could be resolved . photographing cabinets and ammo lockers etc. would be a simple way of keeping track on installations and I like your experience of the video chat ....Could be the way forward?

Another thought I have just had ( I get these know and then but not as often as I did ) ....Would it not be a jump forward to get all RFD's online in order to process all purchases of firearms / ammo etc via an electronic system then Police licensing have an instantaneous record of all transactions rather than relying on paper records both with the licence holder and the big old hard back register that RFDS keep ?

MOT's stations are all linked to a central computer system...to prevent fraud etc so why cant it be the same for RFd's?

Retain the paper licence for production of required and also for private sales of firearms ...No doubt would reduce the paperwork . Issue firearms licence holders with a credit card sized licence with an RFID chip ??