License wording

[DTB]

The firearms and ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin including foxes,and ground game and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing-practice on ranges, on land over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot. This is the wording on my license it doesn’t state deer although that was my purpose for the variation I have been told deer count in this wording but as they haven’t actually said deer but have mentioned fox I’m a bit concerned anyone able to clarify.

 

[Morkai]

If the chambering of the rifle is deer legal then AOLQ counts.

 

[T.eddie]

Any other lawful quarry is there so you would be fine

 

[VSS]

The firearms and ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin including foxes,and ground game and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing-practice on ranges, on land over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot. This is the wording on my license it doesn’t state deer although that was my purpose for the variation I have been told deer count in this wording but as they haven’t actually said deer but have mentioned fox I’m a bit concerned anyone able to clarify.

Open ticket + AOLQ = Fill yer boots!

 

[DTB]

Cheers chaps for the clarification it’s what I thought but thought I’d get clarification from the experts!

 

[ContinShots]

Cheers chaps for the clarification it’s what I thought but thought I’d get clarification from the experts!

Like most of the standard conditions, the wording is dreadful. Whoever came up with the conditions wouldn't even past Standard Grade English and some of them are confusing, while others are downright contradictory. You can tell it wasn't lawyers. However, as others have now said, you are good to go, so long as you comply with the deer-specific calibre requirements.

 

[SimpleSimon]

Like most of the standard conditions, the wording is dreadful. Whoever came up with the conditions wouldn't even past Standard Grade English and some of them are confusing, while others are downright contradictory. You can tell it wasn't lawyers. However, as others have now said, you are good to go, so long as you comply with the deer-specific calibre requirements.

To be honest, I disagree and I've never really understood why some people struggle to interpret the standard conditions. The wording can end up a bit awkward, I think because the conditions are "constructed" using standard phrases which are added/deleted as appropriate, but the information is always there.

I wonder if it's more to do with people expecting to see phrases like "open ticket" or not understanding what constitutes Any Other Lawful Quarry and then worrying over what it doesn't say rather than looking at what it does

Anyway, we're all different...

 

[ContinShots]

To be honest, I disagree and I've never really understood why some people struggle to interpret the standard conditions. The wording can end up a bit awkward, I think because the conditions are "constructed" using standard phrases which are added/deleted as appropriate, but the information is always there.

I wonder if it's more to do with people expecting to see phrases like "open ticket" or not understanding what constitutes Any Other Lawful Quarry and then worrying over what it doesn't say rather than looking at what it does

Anyway, we're all different...

You can disagree all you like, it's a free country and we're all entitled to our opinions, but you have literally admitted that the wording is 'awkward'. These are legal documents. They are documents that can and have resulted in people being charged and taken to court. They should be absolutely precise, not 'awkward', not clumsy, not open to interpretation. They should be clear and easy to understand. My critism has absolutely nothing to do with 'expecting to see phrases like open ticket' and everything to do with having worked in a legal profession that took enforcement cases to court, and we would have been crucified if we worded conditions on documents in this fashion. We would also have struggled to enforce anything based on the lack of precision and clarity. As things stand, we have standard FAC conditions that regularly confusion people, we have others that are framed so as to conflict with other conditions and we have some that can have multiple interpretations, and more. Given the subject matter, that's extremely poor; however, when you see just how clumsy some of the sections of the firearms acts are - not least many of the newer kneejerk sections - I suppose it's being consistent!

 

[Frank Homes]

The firearms and ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin including foxes,and ground game and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing-practice on ranges, on land over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot. This is the wording on my license it doesn’t state deer although that was my purpose for the variation I have been told deer count in this wording but as they haven’t actually said deer but have mentioned fox I’m a bit concerned anyone able to clarify.

Why they don't just say any lawful quarry is beyond me.

 

[VSS]

Why they don't just say any lawful quarry is beyond me.

Presumably because you need one quarry listed to justify your initial "good reason", and any  other lawful quarry covers the rest.
But I agree. A simple condition stating "any lawful quarry" would be much simpler.

 

[Dalua]

Why they don't just say any lawful quarry is beyond me.

Why they bother writing anything is beyond me.
They've issued a certificate of fitness to possess and use firearms and ammunition - you'd think that this alone would cover by implication all lawful uses, without any further rigmarole.

 

[Pedro]

Why they bother writing anything is beyond me.
They've issued a certificate to possess and use firearms and ammunition - you'd think that this alone would cover all lawful use, without any further rigmaroles.

It's all to do with control. It's an offence to fail to comply with the conditions. So whilst it might be against the law or not to do something anyway, if by doing it you break a condition, then they've got you every which way.

 

[Dalua]

It's all to do with control. It's an offence to fail to comply with the conditions. So whilst it might be against the law or not to do something anyway, if by doing it you break a condition, then they've got you every which way.

The next logical step, having introduced the AOLQ - essentially a restrictive condtion that doesn't restrict - should be to get rid of all non-statutory conditions, except when they actually serve some purpose which serves the safety of the public or maintenance of the peace.

 

[timbrayford]

You can disagree all you like, it's a free country and we're all entitled to our opinions, but you have literally admitted that the wording is 'awkward'. These are legal documents. They are documents that can and have resulted in people being charged and taken to court. They should be absolutely precise, not 'awkward', not clumsy, not open to interpretation. They should be clear and easy to understand. My critism has absolutely nothing to do with 'expecting to see phrases like open ticket' and everything to do with having worked in a legal profession that took enforcement cases to court, and we would have been crucified if we worded conditions on documents in this fashion. We would also have struggled to enforce anything based on the lack of precision and clarity. As things stand, we have standard FAC conditions that regularly confusion people, we have others that are framed so as to conflict with other conditions and we have some that can have multiple interpretations, and more. Given the subject matter, that's extremely poor; however, when you see just how clumsy some of the sections of the firearms acts are - not least many of the newer kneejerk sections - I suppose it's being consistent!

Largely down to a parliamentary act rushed through in 1920 to prevent KG V facing the same fate as cousins Billy and Nicky

 

[cjm1066]

The Act was designed so that the Police could issue restrictive conditions.

They have turned this around to making them premisive.

Does it say shall be used, leave SD immediately and get out stalking.