Its not the size of the weapon that makes it dangerous its how you use it. I personally would not own any fullbore rifle if it wasnt legal for all uk species that I am likely to encounter, i.e fox, roe, sika and red deer. Its also sill with expanding or "non" expanding ammo. Which one would you rather be shot with? Answer- None
Where is it safe to shoot a 222 but not a 243?????
- Thread starter Chris p Bacon
- Start date
...which, as I pointed out is not what the thread is about.
How is a 'mentor condition' in any way supported by 13.24?
13.24 suggests that some experience of the safe use of firearms is desirable before the applicant is allowed (we presume) c/f rifles. To me, this means that the experience, perhaps as a club probabtioner, perhaps using .22LR, perhaps just going out with an experience rifleman, must be had before grant.
In other words, the opposite of 'mentoring conditions'.
Irish Bob
Well-Known Member
Well, as it uses the word "desirable" it permits those applicants who do not possess the relevant experience, but do have a good reason to possess such a rifle, to be granted a certificate for that rifle.
In such circumstances the use of a mentoring condition deals with the lack of experience point, which on its own may prevent such a certificate from being granted.
It seems to me eminently more sensible to deal with the problem in this way, rather than make the applicant gain the necessary experience first, by way of using a .22rf for a defined period or joining a rifle club, when in fact all they want to do is go stalking and do their DSC1.
In such circumstances the use of a mentoring condition deals with the lack of experience point, which on its own may prevent such a certificate from being granted.
It seems to me eminently more sensible to deal with the problem in this way, rather than make the applicant gain the necessary experience first, by way of using a .22rf for a defined period or joining a rifle club, when in fact all they want to do is go stalking and do their DSC1.
Last edited:
Jimbo 30 06
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
i have 7mm rem mag on my tikket for rabbits fox deer a 22rimfire is no less dangerous than a 7mm rem mag end of they both kill why they would say222 but no243 is beyond me if your granted a fac the police are deaming you a competent person they have no right to refuse your recwest for a bigger caliber as long as you have good reason to want one you will get it dont let them tell you what you want /you tell them in a polite way of course
Irish Bob
Well-Known Member
I think the answer is straight forward - if you already have a .243 for deer the FLD should grant you a fox condition.
Equally, if you are applying for both fox and deer a .243 is appropriate as it covers both.
However, if you are applying for a .243,which you do not already own, for fox alone you may have an uphill struggle demonstrating why you need that calibre when a number of other smaller calibres are suitable. Given that the game keepers I know all use .223s with no problems and the FLD is well aware of this, you are likely to have some difficulty.
Equally, if you are applying for both fox and deer a .243 is appropriate as it covers both.
However, if you are applying for a .243,which you do not already own, for fox alone you may have an uphill struggle demonstrating why you need that calibre when a number of other smaller calibres are suitable. Given that the game keepers I know all use .223s with no problems and the FLD is well aware of this, you are likely to have some difficulty.
Irish Bob
Well-Known Member
It really is a bit of a no brainer. Do you really think it is sensible to let someone, however upstanding, loose with a large cf when they have little or no experience? As there is no test of competence before the grant of FAC the FLD have to go on character, good reason etc.
You can't just get in a Ferrari drive off, you are required to take a test to ensure that you have the requisite level of competence to drive it unsupervised. In the absence of such a test for a firearm a mentor condition is a good compromise as it allows the inexperienced person to gain the experience under the supervision of a person who knows what they are doing.
The fact that applicants push back against such conditions in circumstances where they have little or no experience of section 1 firearms makes the FLD even more inclined to impose them. What is the problem with going out with someone for the first six to 12 months?
The alternative is compulsory competence testing for all.
No, of course I don't. Nor did the law-makers in 1920, and nor do the police.
They have, since 1920, been able safely to assess FAC-holders before issuing the FAC.
This has nothing to do with 'mentoring condition' The assessment of safety must in law be done before issuing the certificate.
The test for a Ferrari is the same as the test for a Mini-Minor.
The 'mentoring condition' is certainly a compromise:
it is a compromise of public safety, it is a compromise of the police's duty under law, it is a compromise of the conditioned mentor's liability.
I struggle to see the good, though.
Would it not be better if the police made the novice applicant jump through the neccessary hoops before grant, as they're meant to?
What's the problem with doing that before the certificate is granted, so the novice can see how it's done without the risk of him doing some harm while alledgedly being 'mentored' by some poor sap?
In your world, perhaps.
In mine, the provisions of the 1920 Act have worked perfectly well for 90 years without any 'mentoring condition' nonsense.
In the absence of any evidence that inadequatly-qualified novice FAC-holders are a significant risk to the public, could we not just stand together (for once) and hold out for just and efficient administration of the the law unadorned by the liberty-sapping micro-management fripperies of the FLDs?
Probably not. But it might be worth a go.
if joe blogs gets a bit of land to shoot over farm what ever how is he suposed to get mentored ask his mates to come with him farmer gave joe the shooting not his mates. and what if joe blogs has no shooting mates is every shooter on hear going to taike some lad out with him on there land i have done it. and now have a good mate as well as shooting partner he has no land of his own if i did not have the land i have he would not have a gun but not every one will give every one the chance ilove my shooting but get just as much enjoment waching others shoot but i dont thinkmost shooters would put in the time mentoring some lad fromdown the road who wants a gun and if god forbid somthing goes rong you would be responcable as your the one in charge just my 2 cents worth
Gents,
We're starting to stray way off topic here but who mentors the mentor? I believe it's principally a back covering excercise relied upon by the police authorities that has no real value because to the best of my knowledge there is no criteria to judge the mentor against.
Regards,
Tim
Irish Bob
Well-Known Member
Things have changed somewhat in the last 93 years. Your views, whilst valid, lack any real objectivity. Given recent history, great care must be taken in allowing someone access to a firearm, they must be both suitable and competent. Mentoring conditions have a place to assist the inexperienced holder gain experience.
Irish Bob
Well-Known Member
No one. You could say that a mentor should be someone who has held a CF FC for 5 or 10 years. The fact is that the inexperienced person who applies could have been on two stalks, both successful. This would mean that they have fired less than 10 rounds with a rifle three each stalk to demonstrate competency and one on the beast. That is not enough experience to be let loose alone with something that can kill at 1000 yards?
I do not see why people are so hung up on mentoring.
i understand what your saying bud but who will do the mentoring for all the new fac aplicatons seams an imposable task unless sombodey becomes a paid mentor and travels a designated area for a fee which the new aplicant pays mentor goes out with aplicant and if deamed safe gets his fac still dont think it would work as all mentors would have to be mentored themselfs so that every one had the same standards cost i think would be a big thing and insurance so i for one am not hung up on mentoring just dont think it would work
Clearly many things have changed.
However, unless I've missed something, the incidence of harm to the public, or damage to property, resulting from careless use of firearms by novice FAC-holders isn't one of them.
I agree about the taking care, and the suitability. 'Competent' here would mean 'competent not to harm anyone' rather than 'competent as a deer-stalker', for example.
However, as I have explained, the fundamental duty of the police to determine before grant
that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted tohave the firearm or ammunition in his possession withoutdanger to the public safety or to the peace.
is undermined by 'conditioned mentoring'. The process of assessing suitability of a FAC-applicant must be completed before grant, not by the application after the event of some half-arsed nannying scheme dreamt up by the FLD.
If for no other reason that a FAC-holder with a mentoring condition can nevertheless access his firearms and ammuniton whenever he pleases.
I couldn't disagree more.
To say that a FAC-condition assists anyone to do anything is an absurd abuse of language, disingenuous and dangerous.
Conditions on FACs remove liberties, and that should not be tolerated unless there is a good reason for it in terms of protection of the public.
Mentoring is an excellent thing for a novice. Learning from fellow shooting-men is something that never seems to stop, and to help a novice along can be a very rewarding.
'Conditioned mentoring', though?
Irish Bob
Well-Known Member
One thing that we have to remember is that mentoring is, or should be, only applicable in a minority of cases.
How many people do you know who have applied for section 1 cf without first holding a section 2 and / or section 1 .22rf first?
In the vast majority of cases mentoring should only apply to those that are coming in at the section 1 cf stage with very little (a couple of stalking bookings etc) or no previous experience.
In reality there are only going to be a small number of people to whom this will apply.
I recall many years ago my father told me that I had to go on a shotgun safety and shooting course before I could move from an air rifle to a shotgun (he was a fisherman and not a shooter). I completed the course and got the gun! And it did me good.
It was a night school course and I was the youngest there by a long chalk. It knocked the corners off me and I learnt a lot from older and wiser heads. The dangers of mixing cartridges in your pocket, checking barrels for snow or mud (I still do it now after seeing the results on the breach of a s/s). How to cross obsticles etc. I went in as a young man self taught in the use of an air rifle and came out competent in the use of an air rifle and shotgun.
I think that such courses are time well spent and my children will find the are a cp to picking up any gun.
I only learnt of the term "muzzle awareness" during the DSC course. I had though been practising it since that course all those years ago. I have been on shoots with too many "invited guests" who have made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end by their lack of knowledge and respect for what they are holding.
Those who are competent should not fear training, it is a chance to show off, and those who lack competence should embrace it.
How many people do you know who have applied for section 1 cf without first holding a section 2 and / or section 1 .22rf first?
In the vast majority of cases mentoring should only apply to those that are coming in at the section 1 cf stage with very little (a couple of stalking bookings etc) or no previous experience.
In reality there are only going to be a small number of people to whom this will apply.
I recall many years ago my father told me that I had to go on a shotgun safety and shooting course before I could move from an air rifle to a shotgun (he was a fisherman and not a shooter). I completed the course and got the gun! And it did me good.
It was a night school course and I was the youngest there by a long chalk. It knocked the corners off me and I learnt a lot from older and wiser heads. The dangers of mixing cartridges in your pocket, checking barrels for snow or mud (I still do it now after seeing the results on the breach of a s/s). How to cross obsticles etc. I went in as a young man self taught in the use of an air rifle and came out competent in the use of an air rifle and shotgun.
I think that such courses are time well spent and my children will find the are a cp to picking up any gun.
I only learnt of the term "muzzle awareness" during the DSC course. I had though been practising it since that course all those years ago. I have been on shoots with too many "invited guests" who have made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end by their lack of knowledge and respect for what they are holding.
Those who are competent should not fear training, it is a chance to show off, and those who lack competence should embrace it.
Last edited:
To approve of the application of a novel, unprecedented and unjustified restriction to FAC-holders, and then to expect it to be applied by the FLDs in the way which you think sensible seems to me (by the most charitable reading of it) to be a triumph of hope over experience.
In an extreme situation, I suppose court would be an option.
More commonly, the police could just carry on doing what they've done since 1920, namely to establish the good reason and the good character of the applicant, make an assessment of his attitude and experience; and if they find that everything is OK except experience they can hold the application pending until he's been out with someone a bit to see how it's done, and grant when they're satisfied he has an adequate idea of what he's doing.
If they don't have either the good reason or the good character, then of course they should be refused.
I note in your informative anecdote that your father very sensibly made sure yoy knew about safe gun handling before you got a shotgun.
It is the before bit that is noteworthy, and that in my view is the way to keep it. Not neccessarily formal training programs, but enough to assure the FEO that you have enough idea of what you're doing to avoid risk to yourself and others.
It's quite simple, really, and the police have been doing it successfully for a very long time.
Last edited:
matt_hooks
Well-Known Member
Why not? Pretty arbitrary isn't it?
Similar threads
