WTH - Strange new FAC condition

BRACES of Bristol - Dark Fox Package, Mauser M12, LIEMKE Thermal Scope, Wildcat Mod

Stayangry

Well-Known Member
Hi guys,

I just moved house and received a new FAC yesterday, with a revised address on it (from Herts police).

I noticed that a new condition has been added to the document, without any notice or explanation.

I am now required to ensure that I have adequate insurance in place when using my firearms, in much the same way that I must be insured when driving a car.

I am insured of course, through BDS and NRA, so this is not a show-stopper, but I have never heard of this before.

Has anyone else come across it?

James
 

sandersj89

Well-Known Member
Is this another case of the POlice imposing conditions they have no right to?

There is no legal requirement for insurance, obviously it is a very sensible thing to do, but nothing the police should get involved in?
 

Stayangry

Well-Known Member
Sounds like another wheeze to me

Imagine: the Police begin adding compulsory insurance as a condition of firearms ownership, without drawing attention to the fact

Thousands of shooters either don't notice at all or get insurance but later let it slip.

Overnight, shooters find themselves in breach of their conditions and lose their tickets

Call me suspicious, but ...
 

devilishdave

Well-Known Member
Law

Send it back and tell them to take the ilegal condition off of your certificate
Speek to BASC (who you probably have your insurance with) if they wont play ball lol.

Dave
 

Bob

Well-Known Member
Don't let the Bast'rds grind you down!

From memory you have only 14 days to object to new conditions placed on a FAC on a change of address. If its the same Constabulary it would be odd for them to alter the conditions that they impose upon you. As others have said consult our "authorities" ie BDS, BASC, CA, And our own Swampy. For light weekend reading go to the BASC web site and download the Home Office Guidance to the Police. You could print it but it's about 247 pages from memory. Also get the relevant Firearms Acts, useful to be able to say to the Police :-

a. Show me where in the relevent legislation where it requires me or you to do that,

b. The Home office Guidance to the Police reccommends this course of action why are you departing from it.

If you are in the BASC speak to the Firearms department at Marford Mill - generally very helpful they also have a free vetting service for FAC and SGC applications. You tell them what info you have put on your FAC application and if not ideal they will suggest alternative / appropriate wording. I have always found them straightforward, helpful and on our side so long as what we want to do is legal!

Good Luck

Bob
 

snowstorm

Well-Known Member
Mine says I have to have insurance for shooting on approved ranges while a member of my club, but not for anything else. I suppose that is sensible as there will be other people around and I'm on another's property.
 

jack

Well-Known Member
I have something similar on mine, it is just plod covering themselves in their own sweet way.
 

Jagare

Well-Known Member
Mine says I have to have insurance for shooting on approved ranges while a member of my club, but not for anything else. I suppose that is sensible as there will be other people around and I'm on another's property.

Oh dear, just roll over and take what ever crap the police decide to print on your FAC. They already impose illegal restrictions by asking for DSC1. You really get the firearms laws you deserve.
 

Mat

Well-Known Member
Just a guess. but it might have something to do with the change in which shooting ranges are certified: from what I understand, ranges no longer need to be certified safe by the MOD, so now the wording has changed to say that as a target shooter you can shoot on any range that has adequate insurance, the point being that a range can't be insured unless it's been inspected by an approved civilian body (or something like that)

It might be that they're applying the insurance thing for all FACs...

Searching back in the NRA news:
Range Safety Certification
Clubs will be aware that the arrangement whereby the Army inspected ranges and certified them as conforming to their standards was withdrawn some 18 months ago.

Since then the NSRA and NRA have been in discussions with the Home Office as to what should replace this agreement.

Earlier this year, the Home Office advised us that they would not be establishing a new mandatory certification process.

Historically, ranges have been built to Joint Service Publication 403 standards for the calibre and type of firearm to be used on the range. The insurance companies had the satisfaction of knowing that the facility was built to a standard which, historically, was found to be safe. Concerns were raised that if these standards were not maintained then the insurance industry would perceive there to be an increased risk and premiums would escalate. In addition, the police expressed their concerns that any lowering of the standard may have an impact on public safety.

It has been agreed that the NSRA and NRA will together produce range construction guidance, and any organization that requires to take advantage of the insurance schemes operated by those two Associations will be required to demonstrate their facility meets a minimum standard, either by the production of an Army Form AK1314 (historic), or confirmation in writing from a person appointed by either Association to confirm that the range is considered suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm.

There is still some work to be undertaken before all the arrangements are in place, however, we hope to be able to move forward with effect from the beginning of May.

Updated: 06-Mar-06 (Original posting: 06-Mar-06)
 

snowstorm

Well-Known Member
Jagare said:
Oh dear, just roll over and take what ever crap the police decide to print on your FAC. They already impose illegal restrictions by asking for DSC1. You really get the firearms laws you deserve.

On the contrary, I didn't just roll over and take any crap off them at all.

I got our solicitors involved from the outset and made sure I got what I wanted. The result was that even with no experience of stalking or even pest control, I got my ticket granted first time out with all 4 rifles I asked, no DSC requirement, no mentor or supervision clause, no insurance needed for land shooting. I even challenged the calibre the land was cleared for and got that increased.

All told they were pretty good about it all.

In fact I think shooting on ranges was even a free offer from them because I dont think I asked for it.

If you are shooting on an MOD range I understand it's an MOD requirement to have insurance, not a police one.

The only time I roll over take crap off anyone is when my mate rings me up to ask why Sunderland keep winning and Newcastle keep losing.
 

8x57

Distinguished Member
I too am certain that it is to do with the MOD no longer inspecting ranges other than their own. Civilian ranges have to carry out their own assessments with regard to safety and be able to prove compliance with a recognised standard. As a result of this you have to ensure adequate insurance cover for public liability when shooting on a range.
As previosly pointed out you would be irresponsible to stalk or shoot over open ground without insurance, but you are legally required to be covered by adequate insurance when using a range (nomally arranged by the club or range owners).
 

swampy

Well-Known Member
new condition

It's a new one on me and i can see no legal reason why it should be on there. If you wish to have it removed ring for an explanation and send it back.

or just don't worry about it.

I don't think personally the police should impose the dsc or this condition legally speaking. but it is one way to try and get best practise out there.

swamp[y
 

swampy

Well-Known Member
conditions

hi guys,
I checked with my buddies in firearms licensing they have not been centrally directed to use this condition. it would appear it is local practise. This would make me feel that it very challengable.

This local practise really is undermining of the whole idea of having home office guidance.

swampy
 

griff

Well-Known Member
I understand the comments made that it seems to be only one force that is insisting on this, but why would you not want to have insurance?
S**t happens and if it happens to me and its your fault I want to make sure you are covered.

regards
griff
 

Gurube62

Well-Known Member
Having seen this post I Just checked my FAC. It is a Thames Valley Issue FAC and reading through the conditions I have found a bit of a strange one and I quote

" with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim"

What is odd about this is that it only relates to my .375 H&H Mag which I can only zero on a suitable range and with non expanding. I have other calibres which have no such condition.
So is this a first? A calibre specific insurance requirement?

I go with the view that I don't think that local areas should adapt their own policies as it leads to confusion and different standards in different parts of the country. However I also wouldn't use a firearm unless I am adequately insured, and at the moment am probably overinsured as I have BASC , BDS, and Countryside Alliance
 

Bob

Well-Known Member
Hi Griff,

I understand your point and having insurance is the sensible way to go.

However if it is a condition on your FAC and your insurance runs out are you :-

guilty of a criminal offence

or

a civil offence

and

could the police revoke your FAC and or shotgun certificate for non compliance.

I don't know the answers to these questions and it may be useful to site users to get definitive answers to prevent future problems.

regards

Bob
 

Bandit Country

Well-Known Member
Gurube62 said:
However I also wouldn't use a firearm unless I am adequately insured, and at the moment am probably overinsured as I have BASC , BDS, and Countryside Alliance

This is slightly off topic, but has anyone ever had definative answer on the multiple insurance thing? If you have three lots of insurance for basically the same 'risk' and a claim is made, which insurance company is going to take the hit? Or do the all duck & weave to avoid it?
 

Bob

Well-Known Member
I believe they share the risk/payout between them on a prorata basis but I don't work in insurance and cannot confirm this.

Bob
 
Our passion is your passion... stalk with us!
Top