Firearms Licensing Office...

[poacher]

The simple answer to all & any request made by a firearms dept /officer is pls show me where in legislation this appears & I will conform you are not rocking the boat merely making sure that there job is being done properly, they may tut a little but belive me if you stand your ground they very soon begin to respect you & value your opinion as some one that has truly looked into what they are doing & as there main intrest is public safety this ticks a lot of there boxes, Steve

[gbal]

The simple answer to all & any request made by a firearms dept /officer is pls show me where in legislation this appears & I will conform you are not rocking the boat merely making sure that there job is being done properly, they may tut a little but belive me if you stand your ground they very soon begin to respect you & value your opinion as some one that has truly looked into what they are doing & as there main intrest is public safety this ticks a lot of there boxes, Steve

 

Yes,but it works both ways.Since Jay does not seem to have the clear and explicit written permission(s) to shoot deer on (any) specified land (and dates if a commercial stalk is arranged) given by the landowner,or person with the sporting rights on the land who can lawfully extend such an invitation (is that in writing?),then the FLO seems to be doing his/her job......

"Inconvenience/easier said than done/cost " is not relevant,and will not override legalities,as others have said.

 

This is just the kind of issue BASC can be helpful with-in this instance more to Jay/friend than FLO,maybe.

It should however,be resolvable - unless some of the assumptions are more problematic than has been implied,and there is continued reluctance to provide the asked for written authority.....

 

As I mentioned before,there are numerous cases where 'word of mouth' about guests,'non renewed' leases -or quite generally non legal contractual assumptions- have led to.... err.. "disappointments".

 

Police/FLO legalities are quite rightly taken seriously,by the Police/FLO. As far as I can see,so far,they are not saying "no",but do want watertight written authority for all involved,which would be in Jay's interest too.

 

I rather agree that,on the face of it,and with "agreements"put in writing,it should all work out;not sure that obstructive FLO attitude is the barrier,though.

Hope you can resolve soon.

gbal

[jay666d]

I shall read the above posts when I get home... I just can't read them on my phone!

 

I just wanted to quickly add this link:

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-30491470

 

And I need their permission!

 

Disgraceful!

[Guest Stacka]

I shall read the above posts when I get home... O just can't read them on my phone!

I just wanted to quickly add this link:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-30491470

And I need there permission!

Disgraceful!

Whilst I like banter as much as the next guy, the BBC link is a bit below the belt in my opinion... And totally irrelevant, to a mature discussion.

 

I had a vaguely similar situation. Where by the police wouldn't allow me to have a certain calibre for the job in hand, rather than rant over the phone, email or in fact public forum I asked to visit HQ and chat to said parties.

 

After a visit with to Police I saw it their way believe it or not, and settled for the calibre they suggested. During the chat, the FAO told me the biggest drama they have are people dictating, and whilst sometimes they are right and wrong the only way these matters get sorted is by good a sensible dilect.

 

Finally the closing note he told me is that owing a firearm is a privilege, not a right. However passing the personality test must.

 

Ask your self, regardless of what you want and your opinion on the matter.....did you pass the personality test? Have you asked the reasons as to why you have been declined the application? And have you made every effort to negotiate things?

 

The end of the day, these people regardless are the authorisers of granting you a weapon that is capable of killing. And you should take their decision as final, unless it's a illegal decision.

 

We have a chain of command in all walks of life and wether we like it or not, it works.

 

T

[The_Dogge]

...ask yourself how many keepers fox shooters vermin shooters up & down the UK use the 243 as an all-round gun applying for a 243 would make you deer legal...

 

I'm not sure that would solve the problem immediately. A few years ago I had a 243 for range and fox use, so already had the gun and ok to shoot in the field, when I asked them to add deer to the conditions they still wanted details of a pre-booked stalk. I'm not sure how anyone's safety was improved by that, but there it was.

[jay666d]

I feel I must apologise for my next long winded post... We seem to be a little off track.

 

This post was never intended to be a Rant at the police. I do understand their need to ask the right questions and make sure that the public is going to remain safe. Non of this is in dispute by me.

 

I feel I must re-cap, I haven't been refused a caliber from a variation that I've sent, my post was to give the outlines of a phone conversation I had with my FAO asking for advice on getting a Deer legal caliber.

 

It was the advice I received that I was puzzled by.

 

I understand that I need permission from a land owner to shoot their land, and that it would need to have deer that I could shoot in order for me to have a deer legal caliber. I rang the FAO for advice, because I thought that maybe a letter from a fellow stalker who has permission & and invited me to stalk might also be acceptable. I feel this was a reasonable question. It's not like it would be difficult to check on the legitimacy of another FAC holder!

 

Again, I do understand the notion of "Good Reason"... And like I said above, I thought that being invited to stalk land would fall under "Good Reason"

 

There's land, there's permission, there's Deer. The phone call was to clarify.

 

My confusion came in two parts, the first being that the letter which invited me to stalk must contain pre arranged dates... I'm quite sure I don't need to explain why this could be difficult.

 

The second part that confused me was about the paid stalks... By the FAO's reckoning, I could book a stalk and this may enable me to get a deer legal caliber... Let's say I go on this stalk and never book another.

 

That means I have a Deer legal caliber just locked away in my gun cabinet.

 

I feel the invite to stalk carries a lot more weight than a one off booking!

 

I took it upon myself today to ring a different constabulary for their advice.... I posed the same question, in the same manor and got different advice.

 

Their's being that a letter of invite from another FAC holder would be acceptable once the police had made the necessary checks. By this he explained, my friends FAC would be checked, as would his permissions. They'd then call the landowners to verify that my friend could invite me to stalk on their land... NO PRE-ARRANGED DATES NEEDED!

 

 

Whilst I like banter as much as the next guy, the BBC link is a bit below the belt in my opinion...

You're right, maybe not relevant to this discussion, but certainly not below the belt... In an ideal world we should be able to look up the chain of command and respect their decisions. If it's the decision to grant me a particular firearm or not, I can deal with that... They are the law, but to look up the chain of command and see that they could not dispatch a Deer in a humane and dignified way unsettles me.

 

They showed no respect for the life of that animal... Doesn't matter to me if it was a crow, rabbit or fox, they all deserve the right to a quick dispatch!

 

I realise that the BBC artical was a little bit of a tenuous link between discussion making... But an FAO did make that decision!

 

 

*Bad Joke Alert*

I think it may be rocking the boat and making waves for myself if I put a variation in for Crowbar!

 

Again, I apologise for this long winded post and thank you all for your input! :-)

 

Jay

[Will0]

Could you maybe have your stalking bookings through your friend?

There's no need for the police to know if money changes hands, he could give some pre defined dates for your FAC conditions, and go from there?

[jay666d]

Could you maybe have your stalking bookings through your friend?

There's no need for the police to know if money changes hands, he could give some pre defined dates for your FAC conditions, and go from there?

I think just from the landowner where he has his permissions point of view, might see that as him trying to make a quick buck of his land.

 

Also, the police might question my friend when it comes down to a commercial stalk, insurance and all that!

[Will0]

Sorry, to make myself clear. I wasn't necessarily saying money would change hands, but It could satisfy licensing.

I take your point about commercial insurance etc

[gbal]

Jay,your comments in general on permission,police and safety are are clearer.The Police/FLO have at least two duties-to ensure shooting is lawful,and that it is safe.The alleged crowbar incident many months ago is irrelevant-we don't actually know the detail,but don't need to-even if some of the same personnel were involved.

You say you understand the need for permission from the landowner...but it is not yet forthcoming in writing,which seems to be a main reason the FLO is not as yet agreeing....

Your comments on 'rifle in safe' but no permission is flawed-the FLO might well take a view that you are just as likely to lose your friend's invitation (yet to be satisfactoritly established,note) as you are to go on no more paid stalks...indeed,losing the invitation is rather less in your control than is paying for more stalking commercially,though I doubt that the FLO is basing any decision on 'what if' hypotheticals .

The issue of 'specific dates' seems a detail of 'clear and written permisssion'-and the second police opinion has not explicitly rejected it-"subject to checks with the landowner" is fairly open ended on detail.

 

While your 'feelings' are to some extent understandable,some remarks are off the point,and hardly help-would you not be better to spend your time positively trying to meet the FLO's conditions-which amount to written permission to shoot deer,from someone who can give such permission.Trying to bypass that by saying it's 'easier said than done',or 'inconvenient' will not help at all-it simply raises the obvious point-"why is written permission not easy?"

I think it also the case that your comments about club target rifles are unhelpful too-the FLO is entitled to check on reasonable useage-and clubs keep such records.You do your case no good at all by such irrelevant/erroneous remarks,which in tone are not at all conciliatory.

The law requires legitimate permission,and having it in writing is to everyone's advantage.That is what you should concentrate on getting-to a disinterested observer,that seems quite a reasonable condition,and probably a legal one.Don't clutch at straws and/or crowbars (and note the officers may well face disciplinary action about their action)-put all that aside,as it is colouring your judgement, to your disadvantage,and focus on what is needed.

 

g

[Dalua]

The Police/FLO have at least two duties-to ensure shooting is lawful,and that it is safe.

 

I'm not sure that is true. As far as I can tell, their duty is fairly straightforward, and that is to issue FACs only to folk who

i) have good reason to possess firearm/s, and

ii) whom they reasonably think are able to hold and use firearms with danger to the public safety or the peace.

 

The duties to make sure shooting is safely and lawfully carried out are thereafter squarely with the shooting FAC-holder. Nor is there any need in law for written permission to shoot on land to exist anywhere in the process, regardless of how sensible it might seem for the shooter to have such evidence.

 

Those things being said (and it is vitally important to remember them, as well as to recall that we do have a right to hold firearms under the terms of the Firearms Act), we must bear in mind that the FLDs duty although straightforward is not necessarily simple to discharge.

 

The steps they might request to make sure that the FAC-applicant is a fit person to hold firearms will vary from applicant to applicant, and circumstance to circumstance.

That having been said. this is not an application for a FAC, but a request for a variation for a second c/f rifle.

[weejohn]

Wow , it really is mind boggling what some of you guys need to put up with in England .

I have never ever had anything like the problems you get.

 

I would of said just use your 223 but your roe deer are bigger in England than we have up here so is also a no no.

[jay666d]

I'm not sure that is true. As far as I can tell, their duty is fairly straightforward, and that is to issue FACs only to folk who

i) have good reason to possess firearm/s, and

ii) whom they reasonably think are able to hold and use firearms with danger to the public safety or the peace.

 

The duties to make sure shooting is safely and lawfully carried out are thereafter squarely with the shooting FAC-holder. Nor is there any need in law for written permission to shoot on land to exist anywhere in the process, regardless of how sensible it might seem for the shooter to have such evidence.

 

Those things being said (and it is vitally important to remember them, as well as to recall that we do have a right to hold firearms under the terms of the Firearms Act), we must bear in mind that the FLDs duty although straightforward is not necessarily simple to discharge.

 

The steps they might request to make sure that the FAC-applicant is a fit person to hold firearms will vary from applicant to applicant, and circumstance to circumstance.

That having been said. this is not an application for a FAC, but a request for a variation for a second c/f rifle.

It would be nice if it could be that straight forward. :-)

[Offroad Gary]

This all seems very complicated, I just put a phone number in he box on form, it's up to the police to follow it up. I've never give permission in writing to the police. Nowadays I just put "previously notified permission".

 

Last variation was a couple of weeks ago, third "all" deer rifle, it's a real pain needing three, when I really only want one!

[jay666d]

This all seems very complicated, I just put a phone number in he box on form, it's up to the police to follow it up. I've never give permission in writing to the police. Nowadays I just put "previously notified permission".

Last variation was a couple of weeks ago, third "all" deer rifle, it's a real pain needing three, when I really only want one!

Ha Ha! My brother also shoots and his FAO is a different one to mine... It's always that straight forward for him too!

 

Maybe I should move house! ;-)

[jay666d]

Downloaded a copy of the Home Office Guidance Firearms Law this evening and had a good old read.

 

Here's a couple of paragraphs which I found helpful and made the 'advice' I was given a little out of touch.

 

6.21

Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a person over the age of seventeen to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of either the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It should be noted that this gives slightly more flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than is permissible with the use of a shotgun as described in paragraph 6.18, in that the borrowed rifle can also be used in the presence of the servant of the occupier.

 

13.10

The land need not be owned or rented by the applicant, nor need they have regular or automatic access to it. Farmers and landowners may allow shooters to shoot on their land, for payment or otherwise, on a formal or informal basis. An applicant need not always nominate a piece of land as evidence of “good reason”, but in such cases the applicant may be required, where possible, to provide written evidence, for example from a relevant organisation, a professional pest controller, gamekeeper or of a booking to shoot.

 

13.32

An applicant who wishes to shoot deer should name land which has the likelihood of the appropriate deer species being present, and an invitation, booking or authority to shoot. This is not necessary where a person already holds a deer legal rifle for an established reason. Many deer stalkers will rely on invitations to shoot on payment rather than be hired or paid to do so and may not be able to shoot regularly or frequently, though others may be permanently employed, for example, Forestry Commission staff. Hunting large animals with powerful rifles requires particular skill, and applicants should generally have some experience of firearms.

[gbal]

Jay,glad you have at last read the instructions! The HO Guide is designed just to help all concerned.

 

(Incidentally,Dalua,though your advice was helpful,the comment that the police are not concerned with the law is disingenuous...the Guide has 255 pages ,and as it's author says,firearms licensing can be complex,being derived from some 34 different pieces of legislation.The Guide tries to make all this as clear as possible for the police,shooting community and the general public.There are references to the Law(s),and case law on virtually every page,as these mandate,advise and guide the police.The essential points for issue of FAC are 'fit to posses',"not disqualified" and 'good reason'.The overarching consideration is public safety. That said,there is very little explicitly operationalised on safety-it is left as a judgement,and the 'fit'/disqualified are explicit,but brief.In total maybe a couple of pages,so it is clear that those important issues do not exhaust the Police's duty.

Actually,I just meant that the Law will have a say in which calibre eg (and that a 243 may be granted in this case,but a 338 is unlikely- indeed here is a case where the law mandates a more powerful cartridge for deer,so in that way is not entirely consistent with public safety.There is a balance.)But 'good reason' is extensively referred to,and is germain to this thread...."As the issue is central (nb) to the role of the Police,full guidance is in Ch12 and 13..."

 

OK,Jay : the Guide has to be the basis-your FLO will be aware of it,and use it.

 

Can you explain your particular points:

 

6.21 seems to be the 'generic' estate rifle issue-other than 'who is a servant' it seems clear enough,and enables a guest to use the landowners 'estate' rifle,when accompanied by landowner or servant.

?How does this apply in your circumstances?

 

3.10...."but in such cases the applicant may be required to provide ...written evidence..of booking of a shoot" seems to cover the commercial 'let shooting'-often on a day by day basis-when the applicant has no named land where he has authority-the BASC scheme is a clear example.Fine...'evidence of booking',note.

 

13.32.....'name land,with invitation,booking or authority'....seems closest to your position.But do not ignore

13.10: "the applicant may be required to provide written evidence (of permission to shoot)."

 

So,progress-at least you are becoming familiar with the guidance which your FLO will abide by. After several readings,(and with some detail about your friend's authority unclear),the FLO request for written evidence does not seem to breach the guidlines.

 

 

It should with good will and common sense be possible to provide that,in a form of words which deals with your concerns (intruding on a friends permission...or whatever). There may be issues,as you have alluded to,from multiple permissions ...the police (and landowner,or stalkers) might take a view that several stalkers on the ground,independently but simultaneously and incommunicado does raise safety issues,but that is not currently the case (your present arrangements seem much like mentoring,but that has no legal status,though will not be irrelevant to your experience ('fitness" to have a larger calibre).

 

Stay calm,work through the guidance,and discuss with your FLO (you may have to also clarify with your friend/landowner),but keep to the guidance and your actual situation.

 

I would not look to change your Postcode yet......

 

gbal

[andybrock]

Jay, if I was in your shoes I'd just do as they ask, get a permission with deer on it, then get your variation done......sorted.

 

I've had an open FAC for donkeys years for rimmies and my 2 cf rifles but to keep my 6mm ppc every time it's due for renewal I still have to name a piece of land I have permission on to shoot deer, yet for my .22 BR which I only use for foxing I don't have to name any land, my point being I don't question or argue why I have to name land when I've got an open FAC I just do it to keep the FLO happy!

[gbal]

Jay, if I was in your shoes I'd just do as they ask, get a permission with deer on it, then get your variation done......sorted.

I've had an open FAC for donkeys years for rimmies and my 2 cf rifles but to keep my 6mm ppc every time it's due for renewal I still have to name a piece of land I have permission on to shoot deer, yet for my .22 BR which I only use for foxing I don't have to name any land, my point being I don't question or argue why I have to name land when I've got an open FAC I just do it to keep the FLO happy!

+1.Thanks,Andy-easier done than said!!

g

[Dalua]

...though your advice was helpful,the comment that the police are not concerned with the law is disingenuous...

Had I said that, it certainly would have been!

 

As you say, the remit of the Police in issuing FACs is public safety and maintenence of the peace.

 

The OP already has a FAC: the thing that seems disingenuous is that the FLD are making a big deal about giving him a slightly larger rifle than he already owns so that he can take advantage of a bona fide opportunity lawfully to shoot deer.

 

The OPs reading the HO Guide will certainly help - but he must be under no misapprehension that it is his duty and his alone to ensure that his shooting is safe and lawful.

[jay666d]

Ok, it seems that people are still looking at this thread from the wrong angle.

 

I'm not writing this because I've tried to put in a variation for a larger caliber and have been denied because of lack of land or good reason!

 

Just like most, when I got my FAC it was I went about it the way you'd expect. I got land/permission & good reason to shoot the land.

 

The post was because I thought I had good reason from a slightly different angle and I wanted to talk to the FAO and see what's what.

 

Jay, if I was in your shoes I'd just do as they ask, get a permission with deer on it, then get your variation done......sorted.

I wish it was that simple... If it was, this post wouldn't exist.

 

To answer you questions Gbal, I'll pull some quotes from some of the things I've already written.

 

6.21

Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a person over the age of seventeen to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of either the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It should be noted that this gives slightly more flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than is permissible with the use of a shotgun as described in paragraph 6.18, in that the borrowed rifle can also be used in the presence of the servant of the occupier.

 

While we were on that subject the FAO went on to explain, the fact that I'd been shooting/stalking on someone else's permission with their rifle was also a No-No...

The 'servant' in this case being my friend who has permission to shoot by the Landowner.

 

13.10

The land need not be owned or rented by the applicant, nor need they have regular or automatic access to it. Farmers and landowners may allow shooters to shoot on their land, for payment or otherwise, on a formal or informal basis. An applicant need not always nominate a piece of land as evidence of good reason, but in such cases the applicant may be required, where possible, to provide written evidence, for example from a relevant organisation, a professional pest controller, gamekeeper or of a booking to shoot.

 

I have the invite to stalk, it's just not my permission.

Maybe I should of been a little clearer here... My friend (who has the permission to stalk on land, and take me along) has given me written permission for the stalks, just no set dates. I may of clarified this in a later post. (If not, my bad, sorry.)

 

13.32

An applicant who wishes to shoot deer should name land which has the likelihood of the appropriate deer species being present, and an invitation, booking or authority to shoot. This is not necessary where a person already holds a deer legal rifle for an established reason. Many deer stalkers will rely on invitations to shoot on payment rather than be hired or paid to do so and may not be able to shoot regularly or frequently, though others may be permanently employed, for example, Forestry Commission staff. Hunting large animals with powerful rifles requires particular skill, and applicants should generally have some experience of firearms.

 

In this paragraph I was more focused on "An applicant who wishes to shoot deer should name land which has the likelihood of the appropriate deer species being present, and an invitation" and "Many deer stalkers will rely on invitations to shoot"

 

Again, I thought that my invite might of covered this...

 

The OP already has a FAC: the thing that seems disingenuous is that the FLD are making a big deal about giving him a slightly larger rifle than he already owns so that he can take advantage of a bona fide opportunity lawfully to shoot deer.

I thought indeed that this opportunity would in itself count as good "Good Reason"

 

I had mentioned an open ticket during this thread... This being my (The FAC holder) responsibility to ensure that the land is safe to shoot.

 

 

Have I missed anything out... Probably, but it's such a long post! :-/

[gbal]

Jay,it's getting late tonight,but a minor point is whether your friend can be deemed "servant" to the landowner (I can't find any clear definition of servant-often it means 'employed by',but it isn't transparent-it gives you loan of rifle anyhow...not the real issue.

 

More important might be 13.9 "a person who wants to shoot on a nominated specific area..and provide written authority from the person entitled to grant shooting rights".....I think this probably means the landowner,not someone like your friend,who is in effect someone who has been given that authority from the landowner,and probably can't just pass it on (to you ...and you to someone else (it is irrelevant whether you wish to or not-it proliferates stalkers beyond the landowners control..).....only the landowner can give permission.Note written permission is specified....you have said that the landowner on your other permission won't give you written (or any) permission for deer...and I imagine your friend's landowner is reluctant to do so too (ie extend written permission to you) ..it seems that is the point where the application founders at the moment...

 

Let's see how it looks in the morning....but is my reading of the current position correct:

 

{{the landowner is not willing to give you written permission to shoot (roe) deer on his land ,where your friend has such permission}}.

 

 

And you are not willing to just accept the friend as 'mentor'....though that status is none too clear either.. with police advised of stalking dates? You can of course pay for specified stalking on something like the BASC scheme...again,probably need it confirmed

in writing.

Much hinges,it seems,on written permission for you from the landowner? With that,it seems OK,without that,it doesn't.

 

g

[jay666d]

Not quite, the land owner of the land I have permission to shoot won't extend permission to Deer. (I totally understand his reasoning)

 

The land owner where I have an invite to shoot, is so far not in the equation. The invite has come from my friend.

 

I do agree with the points you have made above, and now that I can read the Home Office Guidlines for myself I have a better understanding of where I stand. (Whilst always understanding the need for land/permission and reason, I was exploring other options... Maybe just misinterpreting the Guidlines myself!)

 

This is why I spoke with them and have not submitted a variation.

 

If I do decide to put one in, then maybe my friend can vouch for me to his Land Owner and he may give me permission... If not, then not too worry. I'd rather not pay for stalks, I don't really have that kind of money.

[gbal]

Thanks,Jay. It is always best to read the guidlines,and then ask your FLO,who is indeed bound by them too.As you suggest,its possible to select bits,but legal documents are generally quite tightly worded-if long(the idea that complex matters can be summarised in a sentence is curious).Permission for deer shooting is especially complex,hence the 'written permission from landowner' emphasis.

As you say,that may be forthcoming in the future-and you can clarify your current 'near mentoring' position with your friend,and the FLO -he may want dates,or not-be sure to check the FLO accepts the arrangements,so that this experience will be in your future favour.

 

As you think through this,you will/have realised that the guidlines are designed to minimise "misunderstandings"-the great merit of having it in writing....much mischief has come about in the past from Tom sharing his (legitimate) permission with Dick,who then includes Harry.....

There are also instances of stalkers finding their verbal,but paid,annual permission was not renewed,but without being so advised....and turning up,with guest.....unpleasant for all,no doubt.

What you had in mind was maybe not implausible (given the guidlines were not read) but it is not consistent with the guidlines,in part because it has the potential to result in an unsatisfactory state for all.

Good luck with your shooting.

g

[gbal]

Dalua, it seems that Jay's reading of the guidlines has helped-as it usually does.

 

Earlier I said -perhaps too briefly- "the police/FLO have at least two duties-to ensure shooting is lawful and that it is safe"

 

You commented "I'm not sure that is true.As far as I can tell,their duty is fairly straightforward,and that is to issue FAC's only to folk who

i) have good reason to possess firearms and

ii) whom they reasonably think are able to hold and use firearms without (I assume the original 'with' is a slip :-) ) danger to the public safety or peace.

The duties to make shooting is safely and lawfully carried out is THEREAFTER squarely with the shooting FAC holder.""

 

Agreed,'thereafter"-though there was nothing said to the contrary.But my point was that the police brief is concerned with both 'good reason' and 'safety'-we agree- and 'good reason' is in part defined by Law,as per the extensive guidelines,though 'safety' is not so prescribed,though some of the prohibitory factors could easily be so construed.In general,all I meant was that the Police have a synoptic duty to the Law,and 'thereafter' confirms only that the onus for safety is primarily moved onto the shooter,once the FAC is granted.

In this case,specifically the Police must be satisfied that the Guidlines apply,including authority to shoot deer and that a legal deer calibre,and ammunition/missiles is authorised-as specified by the Deer Act.This is ,of course, prior to issuing FAC variation-hence my brief point that the police/FLO must ensure lawful authority is issued,as well as that it is safe to do so (given due consideration,including legalities)

 

The subsequent responsibility 'on the ground' is primarily the shooter',and only breaches concern the Police,and your point here is well made-whether having a firearm is a right (removable,of course-in Law)or a priviledge,is for our purposes,marginal-it very clearly has responsibilities.

 

OK,just a quiet Saturday am tidy up-I hope,Dalua.The Police/FLOs seem to do a pretty good job,all in all,in a sometimes complex context.255 pages of good guidlines should help everyone,though of course,in most cases only some apply.

Cappucino time,cheers

 

g