999

[gbal]

Never had the transporter but I have had the helicopter on many occasions overhead. I have a lot of land in that area and I am sure they see the lightforce 170 illuminate the field and just take a curious look though the TIC at me.

 

Ronny,

A very senior source told me that they were intrigued by the laser like trace of the 20 tactical,and had never seen the like..

There is apparently much talk about rebarreling their sniper rifle (mini 14 )......

 

Gbal

[HotDogsForTea]

If i'm near houses,( on my local golf course for example ), i would call in and resurrect an incident no from control room just out of common sense really as someone is bound to phone up when they see the lamp. However, I know it won't make a blind bit of difference to the police response because if someone calls in to say they have seen/ heard shots near to a built up area, someone with a gun and are scared,then the police will attend anyway, ( they have to cover their a*se afterall).

If i am on my other permissions out in the sticks,depending on the arrangements with the landowner/ keeper, i call them to let them know i'm on their patch and text them to let them know i've left (unless early a.m.).

As for worrying about your fac due to people calling the police about you shooting, i don't. You have permission, you have good reason, the shot is safe, you have your fac for a reason, use it!

That's my take on it,

Cheers,

Fatty.

[Andy R]

Luckily I'm out in the sticks, i rent the shooting rights for the whole patch, so technically I go when and where I like. When out lamping I have to drive through the tenant farmers yard, he's often about, in which case I tell him what and where I'm going ( always useful as he's often seen a fox about, and I can ask for info).

 

However I never phone the police, firstly I'm lucky enough not to shoot near a town, secondly, I stay away from any isolated houses, the 223 can't be heard more than a few hundred yards away, thirdly I think it sets a precedent of having to let the police know. They may get calls from the public about men with guns, but how many terrorists have launched attacks in the middle of the countryside? With a bit of common sense ( without having to scramble the helicopter) they can set aside 99% of reported incidents. Sounds of shots should not in my view necessitate a call out unless very close to building.

 

If we have to report all shooting trips then at some point some anti leaning MP will try to make it mandatory. As far as wasting police time and resources scrambling helicopters and firearms teams, don't feel or be made to feel guilty by the police, its their decision to do this, not yours for following a lawful activity.

 

Andy R

[sonic]

According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 138,728 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 435,383 weapons. There are 574,946 shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns.

this is from bbc may not be up to date but near enough.

 

so if we say that all FAC holders also have shotguns if each certificate holder on average shoots once every two weeks thats 14,948,596 trips per year. Or 287,473 a week or just over 41,000 a day can our police forces afford to take each of these calls. How do they cope with the extra workload. I'm not saying you should never call rather you should think carefully before suggesting we should all call.

By the way if you call before and after then double the above numbers.

[gbal]

According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 138,728 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 435,383 weapons. There are 574,946 shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns.

this is from bbc may not be up to date but near enough.

 

so if we say that all FAC holders also have shotguns if each certificate holder on average shoots once every two weeks thats 14,948,596 trips per year. Or 287,473 a week or just over 41,000 a day can our police forces afford to take each of these calls. How do they cope with the extra workload. I'm not saying you should never call rather you should think carefully before suggesting we should all call.

By the way if you call before and after then double the above numbers.

 

Sonic

Interesting numbers!

Maybe the way to go is to phone the relevant police once and ask them whether they want individual advising of each outing- it's then their decision based on operational and other factors- like where it is,any history of incidents etc etc.,and you have cooperated .

That is in effect not unlike farmers,etc some of whom want to know specifically,and others don't.It's their decision,always worked for me.

Gbal

[sonic]

They are just an example of what may be involved if we had to call every time. I do believe there are times you should call. To cover your own bum if nowt else. but every time may cause more problems than it solves.

[DaveK]

But these are total figures? Thanks for the info but can you break it down into what percentage are clay, syndicate or target shooters and, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion. I would suggest that you could maybe subtract two thirds of the numbers to more accurately gauge it.

[geordieh]

i went out to do a spot of zero checking the 17 hornet and target practice with my fac air today.all went well and after 30 mins max i walked back to the car with a pal i have up for the weekend and went home to cook a nice brunch.after brunch i went up for a quick cat nap (not with my friend) the phone kept ringing but i run a buisness and that is not abnormal.woke up and checked my phone 15 missed calls.

 

i checked voice mail and it was the farmer and the police,can i call them.when i did i was asked had i been out shooting,yes i said.

i then got did you call it in ,do you realise we have had 8 police offecers on this for 2 hours.(made to feel bad for wasting police time big time)who was the chap with me?(i refused to tell them as he is not a shooter and is just up for the weekend to visit me.i'm not anti police but why ask who my friend was if it was established i had permission.

there is some sort of car repair place 4-500 yds away the other side of the river and no houses so the call came from the car place.i explained i used that field as it has a superb back stop and if there was a problem let me know and i'll go and have a word to sort it out but the police would not tell me who what or why there were concerns just right now we can add that info to the file and close it.and can i call it in in future.

 

how many of you call it in when you go out?

i'm in and out like a yo yo when developing a load.and i do hope this won't go on my firearm record as spooking the public whilst shooting as all my permissions could potentialy have me seen and heard.

your thoughts please gents

 

i went out to do a spot of zero checking the 17 hornet and target practice with my fac air today.all went well and after 30 mins max i walked back to the car with a pal i have up for the weekend and went home to cook a nice brunch.after brunch i went up for a quick cat nap (not with my friend) the phone kept ringing but i run a buisness and that is not abnormal.woke up and checked my phone 15 missed calls.

 

i checked voice mail and it was the farmer and the police,can i call them.when i did i was asked had i been out shooting,yes i said.

i then got did you call it in ,do you realise we have had 8 police offecers on this for 2 hours.(made to feel bad for wasting police time big time)who was the chap with me?(i refused to tell them as he is not a shooter and is just up for the weekend to visit me.i'm not anti police but why ask who my friend was if it was established i had permission.

there is some sort of car repair place 4-500 yds away the other side of the river and no houses so the call came from the car place.i explained i used that field as it has a superb back stop and if there was a problem let me know and i'll go and have a word to sort it out but the police would not tell me who what or why there were concerns just right now we can add that info to the file and close it.and can i call it in in future.

 

how many of you call it in when you go out?

i'm in and out like a yo yo when developing a load.and i do hope this won't go on my firearm record as spooking the public whilst shooting as all my permissions could potentialy have me seen and heard.

your thoughts please gents

Hi All

I was told by the police once that I should inform them when I was going out shooting, I said no problem, I would ask to reverse the call charges would they accept and pay for the call. They said no they wouldn't so I said when they pay for the call I will call it in. Never been asked since

geordie

[sonic]

DaveK all I wanted to do was put some perspective on potential numbers if calls were mandatory. we could of course exempt clay shooting at approved grounds rifle ranges etc. But I only aloud 26 trips per shooter per year. I as I would guess many other shooters go out far more than that. I thought I was being conservative with the numbers but if we take of 2/3's that's still over thirteen thousand a day.

[Sausage Warrior]

On some of my perms the owners have no wish to be disturbed with calls, just keep them up to date with progress on keeping the vermin numbers down. Some stipulate that I call first as they also allow a couple of lads with shotties to have a sniff around and don't want any cross-over.

I asked my FEO if I should call in every time I was going out and his reply was " God no! We have enough paperwork to dig through as it is without adding this sort of thing to it!".

[kent]

Hi All

I was told by the police once that I should inform them when I was going out shooting, I said no problem, I would ask to reverse the call charges would they accept and pay for the call. They said no they wouldn't so I said when they pay for the call I will call it in. Never been asked since

geordie

 

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

[gbal]

On some of my perms the owners have no wish to be disturbed with calls, just keep them up to date with progress on keeping the vermin numbers down. Some stipulate that I call first as they also allow a couple of lads with shotties to have a sniff around and don't want any cross-over.

I asked my FEO if I should call in every time I was going out and his reply was " God no! We have enough paperwork to dig through as it is without adding this sort of thing to it!".

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for t

 

he call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

On some of my perms the owners have no wish to be disturbed with calls, just keep them up to date with progress on keeping the vermin numbers down. Some stipulate that I call first as they also allow a couple of lads with shotties to have a sniff around and don't want any cross-over.

I asked my FEO if I should call in every time I was going out and his reply was " God no! We have enough paperwork to dig through as it is without adding this sort of thing to it!".[/quote

 

No surprise there,though it might vary.My point is that by offering,you have acted responsibly and cooperatively,and can't be taken to task about it.

Gbal

 

 

 

 

 

[gbal]

On some of my perms the owners have no wish to be disturbed with calls, just keep them up to date with progress on keeping the vermin numbers down. Some stipulate that I call first as they also allow a couple of lads with shotties to have a sniff around and don't want any cross-over.

I asked my FEO if I should call in every time I was going out and his reply was " God no! We have enough paperwork to dig through as it is without adding this sort of thing to it!".

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for t

 

he call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

On some of my perms the owners have no wish to be disturbed with calls, just keep them up to date with progress on keeping the vermin numbers down. Some stipulate that I call first as they also allow a couple of lads with shotties to have a sniff around and don't want any cross-over.

I asked my FEO if I should call in every time I was going out and his reply was " God no! We have enough paperwork to dig through as it is without adding this sort of thing to it!".[/quote

 

No surprise there,though it might vary.My point is that by offering,you have acted responsibly and cooperatively,and can't be taken to task about it.

Gbal

 

 

 

 

This is the point, the fact they requested it, not the fact that you are unwilling to pay for the call . Its a short step away from under the counter non legislation / legislation. Like DSC1, mentoring, rim fire experiance before centre fire grant and all the other invented stuff!

 

Maybe....

The other extremis scenario is no driving test etc:

 

Then drugged up 14 year olds could jump on their 1000cc super bikes ,express their natural youthful enthusiasm and abilities with complete abandon ,free from artificial restriction on the public highway.

 

Hmmm. Need to think about that a little .....

 

Gbal

 

 

 

 

[kent]

ame="Sausage Warrior" post="152738" timestamp="1366796288"]On some of my perms the owners have no wish to be disturbed with calls, just keep them up to date with progress on keeping the vermin numbers down. Some stipulate that I call first as they also allow a couple of lads with shotties to have a sniff around and don't want any cross-over.

I asked my FEO if I should call in every time I was going out and his reply was " God no! We have enough paperwork to dig through as it is without adding this sort of thing to it!".[/quote

 

No surprise there,though it might vary.My point is that by offering,you have acted responsibly and cooperatively,and can't be taken to task about it.

Gbal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe....

The other extremis scenario is no driving test etc:

 

Then drugged up 14 year olds could jump on their 1000cc super bikes ,express their natural youthful enthusiasm and abilities with complete abandon ,free from artificial restriction on the public highway.

 

Hmmm. Need to think about that a little .....

 

Gbal

Listen up I am not against training I AM AGAINST made up rules, can't understand any point your making in this clearly though. Are you saying a "drugged up" 14yr olds should have to sit a test before going out on their 1000cc bikes? As we all know a 14 yr old cannot have a bike licence and driving under the influence is also an offence. Is it going to help road safety if they phone the cops before they set off down the highway? Are they going to phone in anyway ? Are the police to pull every biker over just to check they don't meet the criteria you mention? I bet if they did nearly every one will will be middle aged blokes, same as nearly all shooters are going to be legitimate licence holders with full permission. Are all those middle aged biker blokes being asked to phone in? Jeeze I bet its hard enough getting away from mowing the dammed lawns and painting the front door, cleaning out the gutters etc on a nice Sunday without getting grief of the Mrs let alone phoning the cops also

[gbal]

Listen up I am not against training I AM AGAINST made up rules, can't understand any point your making in this clearly though. Are you saying a "drugged up" 14yr olds should have to sit a test before going out on their 1000cc bikes? As we all know a 14 yr old cannot have a bike licence and driving under the influence is also an offence. Is it going to help road safety if they phone the cops before they set off down the highway? Are they going to phone in anyway ? Are the police to pull every biker over just to check they don't meet the criteria you mention? I bet if they did nearly every one will will be middle aged blokes, same as nearly all shooters are going to be legitimate licence holders with full permission. Are all those middle aged biker blokes being asked to phone in? Jeeze I bet its hard enough getting away from mowing the dammed lawns and painting the front door, cleaning out the gutters etc on a nice Sunday without getting grief of the Mrs let alone phoning the cops also[/quot

 

Sorry,the "etc" could have been clearer,but It would take a while to spell out every rule and condition.But you are rather losing it in thinking I was saying bikers need to phone in.Take a more general position.There are sets of constraints for driving,including a test -it may or not be very good-but it is almost certainly better than one.Extend this to age,free from drugs and alcohol,and add in limits on engine size for first bikes,and so on.Pretty much what we actually have-not a hypothetical scenario.Do you not agree that what we have for drivers is better than no regulation at all?ie something like the explicitly extreme scenarios I outlined,complete with freedom to do what they liked,disguised as youthful expression of skill.

Ok it's a parallel,but a real contemporary one-driving is quite regulated,and Society is generally the better for it,even if every regulation is not optimum,or even unanimous.That's how society works,and it makes society society a bit different from "the law of the jungle",or complete anarchy.

Hard to see any coherent case against the principles of rights and responsibilities that underlie all this.I don't see any case for shooting to be an exception either,maybe even less,as the gain overall to society is probably less than for some other highly regulated activities,like transport,but we don't need to go into that,please!

As has become clearer,anyhow,by just asking the police what they want locally,much of the issue is resolved,in the legitimate shooters' interests,and by cooperating the said shooter is much less likely to be interrupted.,while going about legitimate pursuits,by police who would otherwise have to be more intrusive in the pursuit of their duty to wider society,and indeed the shooter.

Getting bogged down in actually irrelevant detail just slows us down-who mows the lawn etc within the Englishmans castle isn't a matter for legislation,generally ,thank goodness,and yes I know the lawn is generally outwith the castle.

Strawmen too are outwith careful discussion.And let 's just not get into regulating law mowing (there are some restrictions,of course,as with everything-which is the simple but essential point,and anyone saying they don't like them,or that there are not any,is just p***ing into the wind,and that is subject to some regs too!

Generally,our world may be complex,but in this country it is seldom officially just plain bloody minded.even for the naughty.

 

Gbal

 

 

 

[sonic]

By and large as FAC holders we are far more law abiding than most of society. we obey the rules.

For many years shooting has been self regulating as to safety and has a very good safety record.

The same cannot be said for drivers.

 

One problem we have is the lack of right of appeal. if you get a condition applied that say you can't use x for vermin etc then there is no way to appeal this.

 

Get a speeding ticket you can take the matter through the courts

 

We already have strict laws that apply to us I have nothing against training, but does it need to be mandatory?

take a look at the numbers of people killed by cars etc each year. Do the same for legally held firearms

The system already works, if it aint broke why fix it.

 

going back to the OP do /should you call then the answer is sometimes yes. do we have the infrastructure to cope if we all did I doubt it. Will calling in stop the helli ARU response maybe maybe not.

 

what we want is all forces to follow the home office guidance to allow without undue restriction the lawful use of firearms. while maintaining public safety. thereby allowing police time to be spent policing.

 

some of the less than cooperative replies may be due to the less than fair treatment received

[gbal]

By and large as FAC holders we are far more law abiding than most of society. we obey the rules.

For many years shooting has been self regulating as to safety and has a very good safety record.

The same cannot be said for drivers.

 

One problem we have is the lack of right of appeal. if you get a condition applied that say you can't use x for vermin etc then there is no way to appeal this.

 

Get a speeding ticket you can take the matter through the courts

 

We already have strict laws that apply to us I have nothing against training, but does it need to be mandatory?

take a look at the numbers of people killed by cars etc each year. Do the same for legally held firearms

The system already works, if it aint broke why fix it.

 

going back to the OP do /should you call then the answer is sometimes yes. do we have the infrastructure to cope if we all did I doubt it. Will calling in stop the helli ARU response maybe maybe not.

 

what we want is all forces to follow the home office guidance to allow without undue restriction the lawful use of firearms. while maintaining public safety. thereby allowing police time to be spent policing.

 

 

some of the less than cooperative replies may be due to the less than fair treatment received [/quote

 

 

Hi Sonic,

I think clear presentation of our views suggests we are in quitecloseagreement.

Sometimes comparisons- here with driving-can be helpful in making some points,that most activities in society are regiulated to reduce negatives-but thereareusually differences too,as the activities differ,as with safety record,as you say.

Shooting has a few special issues- maybe of public perception,rather than reality,though gun abuses like Dunblane can' be ignored,and have few parallels in motoring,which is also quite universally accepted,no serious antis.

Nonetheless,it is pretty much a condition of granting a FAC that no serious criminal exists,and I imagine we all value our privilege,and exercise responsibilities to ensure it.The safety record for shooting is very good.If we can minimise police time investigating non incidents,so much the better-so just checking with the police in your own circumstances,makes some sense -probably they will not want an every time call.

FLO decisions have been negotiated,and some more transparency across the seeming,though perhaps not actual,post code lottery would help.I say not actual,because of the varying individual circumstances .FLOs will correctly refer to the Law,ofcoursebut also the improved guidelines,which do have some discretionary elements-often a good thing,but often misrepresented as unfair,where they are misunderstood.It may also take awhile for old practices and attitudes,on both sides-as if there should be two sides- to get into synch-but this is likely to be accelerated by reasoned presentations,and some bluster at least is muttered by some disgruntled shooters,and is unlikely to be helpful,especially when it isn't actually very well informed,or defensible.Maybe BASC etc so advise,they are not there to tilt at windmills (oops-ignore) or be unbalanced in their advice.

Training is an difficult issue -hard to be agin it if voluntary,and properly done.Likewise basic range instruction,which is mandatory.I don't. get a strong sense of widespread support for an major extension.( to anything close to say,the driving tests,oops!)

Essentially,with occasional very serious exceptions,there is no problem with legitimate FAC holders acting sensibly,and it's accepted that almost no human behaviour can be guaranteed immune from aberrations,which are precisely predictable (nor,indeed by a coercive process).

 

Atb

Gbal

Ps the quote by KG V1 Is exemplary,and succinct,and could well be applied more generally.

Conservation means good management.

Lets work for such good management of rifle shooting!

[kent]

Listen up I am not against training I AM AGAINST made up rules, can't understand any point your making in this clearly though. Are you saying a "drugged up" 14yr olds should have to sit a test before going out on their 1000cc bikes? As we all know a 14 yr old cannot have a bike licence and driving under the influence is also an offence. Is it going to help road safety if they phone the cops before they set off down the highway? Are they going to phone in anyway ? Are the police to pull every biker over just to check they don't meet the criteria you mention? I bet if they did nearly every one will will be middle aged blokes, same as nearly all shooters are going to be legitimate licence holders with full permission. Are all those middle aged biker blokes being asked to phone in? Jeeze I bet its hard enough getting away from mowing the dammed lawns and painting the front door, cleaning out the gutters etc on a nice Sunday without getting grief of the Mrs let alone phoning the cops also[/quot

 

Sorry,the "etc" could have been clearer,but It would take a while to spell out every rule and condition.But you are rather losing it in thinking I was saying bikers need to phone in.Take a more general position.There are sets of constraints for driving,including a test -it may or not be very good-but it is almost certainly better than one.Extend this to age,free from drugs and alcohol,and add in limits on engine size for first bikes,and so on.Pretty much what we actually have-not a hypothetical scenario.Do you not agree that what we have for drivers is better than no regulation at all?ie something like the explicitly extreme scenarios I outlined,complete with freedom to do what they liked,disguised as youthful expression of skill.

Ok it's a parallel,but a real contemporary one-driving is quite regulated,and Society is generally the better for it,even if every regulation is not optimum,or even unanimous.That's how society works,and it makes society society a bit different from "the law of the jungle",or complete anarchy.

Hard to see any coherent case against the principles of rights and responsibilities that underlie all this.I don't see any case for shooting to be an exception either,maybe even less,as the gain overall to society is probably less than for some other highly regulated activities,like transport,but we don't need to go into that,please!

As has become clearer,anyhow,by just asking the police what they want locally,much of the issue is resolved,in the legitimate shooters' interests,and by cooperating the said shooter is much less likely to be interrupted.,while going about legitimate pursuits,by police who would otherwise have to be more intrusive in the pursuit of their duty to wider society,and indeed the shooter.

Getting bogged down in actually irrelevant detail just slows us down-who mows the lawn etc within the Englishmans castle isn't a matter for legislation,generally ,thank goodness,and yes I know the lawn is generally outwith the castle.

Strawmen too are outwith careful discussion.And let 's just not get into regulating law mowing (there are some restrictions,of course,as with everything-which is the simple but essential point,and anyone saying they don't like them,or that there are not any,is just p***ing into the wind,and that is subject to some regs too!

Generally,our world may be complex,but in this country it is seldom officially just plain bloody minded.even for the naughty.

 

Gbal

 

 

I am sorry I really cant get the point you might be making there in all that text.

 

1. Are you thinking its good for all of us to phone in before shooting?

 

2. Some of us?

 

3. Do you feel such things should be added to current legislation?

 

4. Is compulsory training required for all?

 

5. Is it ok for FEO's and police HQ to add their own rules ?

 

6. Should the police recognise what is likely to be legitimate shooting and fail to respond off calls from the general populous?

[triggersqueezer]

i had another call last night from the farmer as the police had got him up at 1130pm asking if there was anyone shooting then i heard of another incident last week never known it like this.

i wonder if some figures will appear next year on how much it costs to attend call out.this will be before trying to make calling in law

[gbal]

 

I am sorry I really cant get the point you might be making there in all that text.

 

1. Are you thinking its good for all of us to phone in before shooting?

 

2. Some of us?

 

3. Do you feel such things should be added to current legislation?

 

4. Is compulsory training required for all?

 

5. Is it ok for FEO's and police HQ to add their own rules ?

 

6. Should the police recognise what is likely to be legitimate shooting and fail to respond off calls from the general populous?

OK -sorry it isn't always easy to cover complexity in a sentence .I general,I think there are few absolutes,

But I'll try:

1) My view is that it is probably best to ask the permission giver,keeper and police what phone in arrangements they would like and respect them.There will be considerable variation,and it is likely the police will not want a call on every shooting visit,unless they see potential problems in that location.

 

2) Links to above,really-on balance my view is that the shooter is being reasonable by following the above,but there is no absolute requirement to phone the police-at any time,even once to ask what they would appreciate- the permission giver and usually keeper may well reasonably make calling in a condition of the permission.If they do,it follows you should.

 

3) I can't see any case for legislation.The permission giver can of course revoke the permission if any of his/her conditions are breached. I doubt very much whether the police would want all the extra admin,though might advise phoning in if there is a history of call outs,on a cooperative basis rather than compulsorily.

 

4) I am not in favour of compulsory training at this time,as there does not seem to be much of a problem caused by it's lack.Some voluntary training courses seem recommendable but shooters can judge for themselves,as perhaps the BDS /DSCstalking ones.Additionally,I don't think courses without rather rigorous assessment criteria are worth much more than the paper they are printed on.But at the present time,there isn't much indication at all that there is any problem to fix, or one that compulsion would fix,which isn't quite the same.So no compulsion.

 

5) Firearms licensing is quite a complex domain.It isn't just about ballistic technicalities,not that every FAC applicant is more knowledgeable than every FLO on those matters.There are some clear laws( eg about deer calibre s etc,which are non negotiable while they are the law).There are also police guidelines,as I understand them,to be used as such,allowing some discretion based on defensible individual circumstances.One of my personal beliefs is that rules are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of the foolish- if you like,there should be some discretion,or mitigating circumstances,but these have to be carefully assessed.So some discretion seems to me better than rigidity.That is not at all the same as agreeing that FLOs or 'Police HQ' can add their own rules.It is absolutely not ok for them to add their own rules.

 

6)This is an operational decision for the police.And I imagine the sort of decision they have to make about many different situations which are raised by a phone call from a member of the public.I imagine they have some kind of risk assessment,and that probably includes relevant information,which in this context would include information that someone has legitimate shooting access to the land,tough of course they cannot be sure who is actually there(having your car registration would help,for example).I imagine this feeds into some kind of proportional ,and prioritised,response,given the resources available,and their intelligence (in the strict military sense).I imagine calls and response to them are logged;and the police are accountable.I don't think lay amateurs can sensibly contribute to operational decisions,though there are increasing channels for communication,via was it 'police commissioners', or whatever the recent very low turn out vote was for.At some point,you trust the police (etc) or come up with a better system,or emigrate!

 

I hope that clarifies.

It is though far more important that the complex issues get a fair and reasoned discussion,free of acrimony,and partial- in both senses- information.

Atb

Gbal

[hughes.s]

Triggersqueeser.

 

From your first post,

 

"i was asked had i been out shooting,yes i said.",(which is true, but not necessaraly the person reported)

 

from your last post,

 

" i had another call last night from the farmer as the police had got him up at 1130pm asking if there was anyone shooting then i heard of another incident last week".( I assume it was not you)

 

To me I think somebodys "guesting"

 

In short, I have had a "incident" where who was there? who did what? was asked.

I explaned my time there, and location, walked of the land never to return.

 

 

Hughes.s

[sonic]

Gbal I can agree with most of what you say to some degree. But I draw the line at using military and intelligence in the same sentence. Gunner Barnes

[gbal]

Gbal I can agree with most of what you say to some degree. But I draw the line at using military and intelligence in the same sentence. Gunner Barnes

 

Enigma or oxymoron?

Gbal

 

 

 

[sonic]

definitely the later occasionally the former

[kent]

OK -sorry it isn't always easy to cover complexity in a sentence .I general,I think there are few absolutes,

But I'll try:

1) My view is that it is probably best to ask the permission giver,keeper and police what phone in arrangements they would like and respect them.There will be considerable variation,and it is likely the police will not want a call on every shooting visit,unless they see potential problems in that location.

 

2) Links to above,really-on balance my view is that the shooter is being reasonable by following the above,but there is no absolute requirement to phone the police-at any time,even once to ask what they would appreciate- the permission giver and usually keeper may well reasonably make calling in a condition of the permission.If they do,it follows you should.

 

3) I can't see any case for legislation.The permission giver can of course revoke the permission if any of his/her conditions are breached. I doubt very much whether the police would want all the extra admin,though might advise phoning in if there is a history of call outs,on a cooperative basis rather than compulsorily.

 

4) I am not in favour of compulsory training at this time,as there does not seem to be much of a problem caused by it's lack.Some voluntary training courses seem recommendable but shooters can judge for themselves,as perhaps the BDS /DSCstalking ones.Additionally,I don't think courses without rather rigorous assessment criteria are worth much more than the paper they are printed on.But at the present time,there isn't much indication at all that there is any problem to fix, or one that compulsion would fix,which isn't quite the same.So no compulsion.

 

5) Firearms licensing is quite a complex domain.It isn't just about ballistic technicalities,not that every FAC applicant is more knowledgeable than every FLO on those matters.There are some clear laws( eg about deer calibre s etc,which are non negotiable while they are the law).There are also police guidelines,as I understand them,to be used as such,allowing some discretion based on defensible individual circumstances.One of my personal beliefs is that rules are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of the foolish- if you like,there should be some discretion,or mitigating circumstances,but these have to be carefully assessed.So some discretion seems to me better than rigidity.That is not at all the same as agreeing that FLOs or 'Police HQ' can add their own rules.It is absolutely not ok for them to add their own rules.

 

6)This is an operational decision for the police.And I imagine the sort of decision they have to make about many different situations which are raised by a phone call from a member of the public.I imagine they have some kind of risk assessment,and that probably includes relevant information,which in this context would include information that someone has legitimate shooting access to the land,tough of course they cannot be sure who is actually there(having your car registration would help,for example).I imagine this feeds into some kind of proportional ,and prioritised,response,given the resources available,and their intelligence (in the strict military sense).I imagine calls and response to them are logged;and the police are accountable.I don't think lay amateurs can sensibly contribute to operational decisions,though there are increasing channels for communication,via was it 'police commissioners', or whatever the recent very low turn out vote was for.At some point,you trust the police (etc) or come up with a better system,or emigrate!

 

I hope that clarifies.

It is though far more important that the complex issues get a fair and reasoned discussion,free of acrimony,and partial- in both senses- information.

Atb

Gbal

well, we are pretty close on most things other than asking the police what they would like ( they are to serve us and the queen not the reverse, that's back door legislation ) and emigration ( its my country, I vote and reserve the right to complain as it is not a dictatorship or communist state ) Politics and policy should start with the man in the street not in the halls of " He who knows best and must be obeyed".

 

have you a particular dislike of the BDS as a training org.? I feel they have proved to be one of the better ones personally