Any Thoughts On The .204 Ruger Calibre?

[shropshire dan 467]

Stuff that then.

[Alsone 789]

 

Also, not buying .243, meant that if he chose to do deer shooting, he could choose a larger calibre and they couldn't refuse him ( :laugh: Oh please, do behave, of course they can refuse him, as you have pointed out in many threads the police make up the rules as they go along, your favourite being .......they will not issue a centrefire on first grant), as he didn't already have a deer legal calibre (.243) on his cert (in the end he got a .30-06 for deer).

 

 

 

Deker, the reality is, in case you haven't read many of the threads on the subject on this very forum, started by the very people who've been told that they can't have a centre fire on 1st grant, that many forces won't grant centre fire at 1st instance.

 

I haven't started / written those threads, they have. Many forces seem to do this. If you want to believe in the insular world of your county that, your force represents the way licensing is throughout the country, then believe it.

 

You seem to believe that because you have a good FEO / force / relationship its the same universally. It's not. I sued my force to get a SGC after being refused unlawfully, and yes I did win. The same FEO retired the day before the case, presumably because he'd (allegedly) inaccurately recounted certain facts, not to mention other things that happened of questionable merit..

 

So if you want to believe the FEO is your friend, that he won't screw you over or lie to you, that you can trust what he says without it in writing, then go ahead. The BASC or anyone who's had contact with multiple forces will tell you the rules aren't applied the same way at every force and some forces do contain FEO's that are alleged anti gun and out to stop as many people obtaining licenses / retaining licences as they can. Those people are just waiting for an opportunity to pounce.

 

As I said in the other thread about legal issues, if you want to push boundaries on matters and ignore advice from the BASC / or more general advice from other legally minded people, then go ahead, it's your choice, it's your licence, your freedom. I Just wouldn't advise others to ignore BASC advice, as you effectively did in the other thread. If the BASC advised not to shoot fox without a specific condition or ALQ on the licence, then it was for a reason, most probably because there's room for interpretation beyond the dictionary definition, which is what I said to you.

 

If you want to keep thinking the professional vermin shooter (you) know the law better than BASC, or how the Courts think better than legal professionals then go ahead. As I said before, pushing the boundaries is playing with fire. No-one ever got their fingers burnt from playing it safe. Plenty have got burnt from dancing with the flames.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Alsone

[Alsone 789]

 

There is little or no point in comparing the terminal ballistic effect on a fox at those distances with .204, .222, .223, .22-250, .243 or anything else you can find to throw in that mix, dead is dead, you don't get a bit dead and very dead, and they all make foxes dead!

 

 

Wasn't that my very point? There's no discernible difference between the damage to a fox from .223 or .243 as confirmed by Xray, so there's little value in shooting .243 for fox at reasonable ranges when it costs £5 per box extra.

[Deker 3,450]

 

Also, not buying .243, meant that if he chose to do deer shooting, he could choose a larger calibre and they couldn't refuse him ( :laugh: Oh please, do behave, of course they can refuse him, as you have pointed out in many threads the police make up the rules as they go along, your favourite being .......they will not issue a centrefire on first grant), as he didn't already have a deer legal calibre (.243) on his cert (in the end he got a .30-06 for deer).

Deker, the reality is, in case you haven't read many of the threads on the subject on this very forum, started by the very people who've been told that they can't have a centre fire on 1st grant, that many forces won't grant centre fire at 1st instance. And many have, you seem to forget for all those who say you can't get a CF on first grant many have come back and said I DID, as you have also been told, you have a right to any rifle if you can show good reason, a region simply adopting a policy of we don't give out CF on first grant should be challenged and put in their place!

 

I haven't started / written those threads, they have. Many forces seem to do this. If you want to believe in the insular world of your county that, your force represents the way licensing is throughout the country, then believe it. I don't believe in any insular world, I believe in the Law, not what some region wants to invent as a policy!

 

You seem to believe that because you have a good FEO / force / relationship its the same universally. It's not. I sued my force to get a SGC after being refused unlawfully, and yes I did win. The same FEO retired the day before the case, presumably because he'd (allegedly) inaccurately recounted certain facts, not to mention other things that happened of questionable merit.. Please don't tell me what I believe, you don't know, that is speculation and totally inadmissible in any court proceeding, a wild statement from a solicitor!I don't have a good FEO, my last retired seconds before he was pushed, after I and many other FAC holders had put him in his place and also complained to the region!

 

So if you want to believe the FEO is your friend, that he won't screw you over or lie to you, that you can trust what he says without it in writing, then go ahead. The BASC or anyone who's had contact with multiple forces will tell you the rules aren't applied the same way at every force and some forces do contain FEO's that are alleged anti gun and out to stop as many people obtaining licenses / retaining licences as they can. Those people are just waiting for an opportunity to pounce. You have a very interesting turn of phrase and are good at inventing things people never said, no FEO is my friend, I have never said that and don't believe it either! Kindly stop telling me what I think or believe as you are invariably wrong.

 

As I said in the other thread about legal issues, if you want to push boundaries on matters and ignore advice from the BASC / or more general advice from other legally minded people, then go ahead, it's your choice, it's your licence, your freedom. I Just wouldn't advise others to ignore BASC advice, as you effectively did in the other thread. If the BASC advised not to shoot fox without a specific condition or ALQ on the licence, then it was for a reason, most probably because there's room for interpretation beyond the dictionary definition, which is what I said to you. For an alleged solicitor you have a shocking lack of understanding of the world and litigation, its called arse covering and goes on in all walks of life!

 

If you want to keep thinking the professional vermin shooter (you) know the law better than BASC, or how the Courts think better than legal professionals then go ahead. As I said before, pushing the boundaries is playing with fire. No-one ever got their fingers burnt from playing it safe. Plenty have got burnt from dancing with the flames. Vermin is fox, there is no boundary pushing, which part of that don't you understand, look it up in a dictionary, the same dictionaries any defence would drop at the feet of the court, you have been told why a prosecution on this question will never happen, perhaps you could address that and tell me what jurisdiction has any court got to change retrospectively the long established dictionary definition of a word, especially as the FAC holder has done nothing wrong and the region have very badly worded the condition if they did not want vermin to include fox. As a solicitor it is the sort of case you should jump at knowing as defence you will win before you even walk into court, and if you don't like the odds then I will!

 

[Deker 3,450]

 

There is little or no point in comparing the terminal ballistic effect on a fox at those distances with .204, .222, .223, .22-250, .243 or anything else you can find to throw in that mix, dead is dead, you don't get a bit dead and very dead, and they all make foxes dead!

Wasn't that my very point? There's no discernible difference between the damage to a fox from .223 or .243 as confirmed by Xray, so there's little value in shooting .243 for fox at reasonable ranges when it costs £5 per box extra.

 

There is every point, as buying one rifle (a .243) will be much cheaper in the long run than buying two, which part of that did you miss?

 

You don't seem to be keeping up very well for a solicitor! :hmm:

[Alsone 789]

 

Deker, the reality is, in case you haven't read many of the threads on the subject on this very forum, started by the very people who've been told that they can't have a centre fire on 1st grant, that many forces won't grant centre fire at 1st instance. And many have, you seem to forget for all those who say you can't get a CF on first grant many have come back and said I DID, as you have also been told, you have a right to any rifle if you can show good reason, a region simply adopting a policy of we don't give out CF on first grant should be challenged and put in their place!

 

I would suggest that in a region that permits rimfire for Fox it's going to be very difficult to show good reason for having a centre fire should they impose a rimfire restriction at 1st grant, unless you can show the rimfire is unsuitable for the purpose by means of range considerations.

 

.....and you don't exactly seem to hear of a string of Shooting Organisation challenges to this do you.

 

 

You seem to believe that because you have a good FEO / force / relationship its the same universally. It's not. I sued my force to get a SGC after being refused unlawfully, and yes I did win. The same FEO retired the day before the case, presumably because he'd (allegedly) inaccurately recounted certain facts, not to mention other things that happened of questionable merit.. Please don't tell me what I believe, you don't know, that is speculation and totally inadmissible in any court proceeding, a wild statement from a solicitor!I don't have a good FEO, my last retired seconds before he was pushed, after I and many other FAC holders had put him in his place and also complained to the region!

 

What I've said is worded carefully so it's only opinion not a statement of fact as I don't want to risk any possibility of getting sued. You don't have all the facts. So don't criticise me for exercising caution in what I type on public forums.

 

As I said in the other thread about legal issues, if you want to push boundaries on matters and ignore advice from the BASC / or more general advice from other legally minded people, then go ahead, it's your choice, it's your licence, your freedom. I Just wouldn't advise others to ignore BASC advice, as you effectively did in the other thread. If the BASC advised not to shoot fox without a specific condition or ALQ on the licence, then it was for a reason, most probably because there's room for interpretation beyond the dictionary definition, which is what I said to you. For an alleged solicitor you have a shocking lack of understanding of the world and litigation, its called arse covering and goes on in all walks of life!

 

I advised playing it safe. That's covering your arse.

 

Playing word games relying on dictionary definitions as your total defence is taking risks. A Court is not bound by the content of the Oxford English Dictionary and there are many instances in Civil Litigation where Courts have considered dictionary definitions when making a judgement but then haven't necessarily followed them. Where fox is classified separately in the Guidelines to other Vermin, then in the absence of any precedent case affirming that fox is considered "Vermin" for these purposes, and when it's usual to have "Fox" or "ALQ" authorisation on your certificate for shooting fox, it is risky in my opinion to self classify fox as vermin and proceed to shoot them on the basis that the Oxford English Dictionary says they are vermin. As I said before, my general opinion as a non firearms law expert is exercise caution. It maybe the Police would never prosecute in this situation even if they didn't consider it Vermin, who knows. However, it pays to be cautious. Advising another to shoot fox based on the dictionary definition when they report the BASC advised against using his HMR against fox in these circumstances, is not good advice in my opinion. However, you are entirely free to obtain advice from a Firearms expert who will obviously be able to give you precise advice.

 

If you want to keep thinking the professional vermin shooter (you) know the law better than BASC, or how the Courts think better than legal professionals then go ahead. As I said before, pushing the boundaries is playing with fire. No-one ever got their fingers burnt from playing it safe. Plenty have got burnt from dancing with the flames. Vermin is fox, there is no boundary pushing, which part of that don't you understand, look it up in a dictionary, the same dictionaries any defence would drop at the feet of the court, you have been told why a prosecution on this question will never happen, perhaps you could address that and tell me what jurisdiction has any court got to change retrospectively the long established dictionary definition of a word, especially as the FAC holder has done nothing wrong and the region have very badly worded the condition if they did not want vermin to include fox. As a solicitor it is the sort of case you should jump at knowing as defence you will win before you even walk into court, and if you don't like the odds then I will!

 

As above.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Alsone

[Deker 3,450]

 

Deker, the reality is, in case you haven't read many of the threads on the subject on this very forum, started by the very people who've been told that they can't have a centre fire on 1st grant, that many forces won't grant centre fire at 1st instance. And many have, you seem to forget for all those who say you can't get a CF on first grant many have come back and said I DID, as you have also been told, you have a right to any rifle if you can show good reason, a region simply adopting a policy of we don't give out CF on first grant should be challenged and put in their place!

 

I would suggest that in a region that permits rimfire for Fox it's going to be very difficult to show good reason for having a centre fire should they impose a rimfire restriction at 1st grant, unless you can show the rimfire is unsuitable for the purpose by means of range considerations.

 

 

 

.....and you don't exactly seem to hear of a string of Shooting Organisation challenges to this do you.

 

 

You seem to believe that because you have a good FEO / force / relationship its the same universally. It's not. I sued my force to get a SGC after being refused unlawfully, and yes I did win. The same FEO retired the day before the case, presumably because he'd (allegedly) inaccurately recounted certain facts, not to mention other things that happened of questionable merit.. Please don't tell me what I believe, you don't know, that is speculation and totally inadmissible in any court proceeding, a wild statement from a solicitor!I don't have a good FEO, my last retired seconds before he was pushed, after I and many other FAC holders had put him in his place and also complained to the region!

 

What I've said is worded carefully so it's only opinion not a statement of fact as I don't want to risk any possibility of getting sued. You don't have all the facts. So don't criticise me for exercising caution in what I type on public forums.

 

As I said in the other thread about legal issues, if you want to push boundaries on matters and ignore advice from the BASC / or more general advice from other legally minded people, then go ahead, it's your choice, it's your licence, your freedom. I Just wouldn't advise others to ignore BASC advice, as you effectively did in the other thread. If the BASC advised not to shoot fox without a specific condition or ALQ on the licence, then it was for a reason, most probably because there's room for interpretation beyond the dictionary definition, which is what I said to you. For an alleged solicitor you have a shocking lack of understanding of the world and litigation, its called arse covering and goes on in all walks of life!

 

I advised playing it safe. That's covering your arse.

 

Playing word games relying on dictionary definitions as your total defence is taking risks. A Court is not bound by the content of the Oxford English Dictionary and there are many instances in Civil Litigation where Courts have considered dictionary definitions when making a judgement but then haven't necessarily followed them. Where fox is classified separately in the Guidelines to other Vermin, then in the absence of any precedent case affirming that fox is considered "Vermin" for these purposes, and when it's usual to have "Fox" or "ALQ" authorisation on your certificate for shooting fox, it is risky in my opinion to self classify fox as vermin and proceed to shoot them on the basis that the Oxford English Dictionary says they are vermin. As I said before, my general opinion as a non firearms law expert is exercise caution. It maybe the Police would never prosecute in this situation even if they didn't consider it Vermin, who knows. However, it pays to be cautious. Advising another to shoot fox based on the dictionary definition when they report the BASC advised against using his HMR against fox, is not good advice in my opinion. However, you are entirely free to obtain advice from a Firearms expert who will obviously be able to give you precise advice.

 

If you want to keep thinking the professional vermin shooter (you) know the law better than BASC, or how the Courts think better than legal professionals then go ahead. As I said before, pushing the boundaries is playing with fire. No-one ever got their fingers burnt from playing it safe. Plenty have got burnt from dancing with the flames. Vermin is fox, there is no boundary pushing, which part of that don't you understand, look it up in a dictionary, the same dictionaries any defence would drop at the feet of the court, you have been told why a prosecution on this question will never happen, perhaps you could address that and tell me what jurisdiction has any court got to change retrospectively the long established dictionary definition of a word, especially as the FAC holder has done nothing wrong and the region have very badly worded the condition if they did not want vermin to include fox. As a solicitor it is the sort of case you should jump at knowing as defence you will win before you even walk into court, and if you don't like the odds then I will!

 

As above.

 

 

:laugh:

...........on the basis that the Oxford English Dictionary says they are vermin As I said before, my general opinion as a non firearms law expert is exercise caution. It maybe the Police would never prosecute in this situation even if they didn't consider it Vermin.................

 

Law is written in words, those words are defined in the dictionary, you don't write a law then say the dictionary has it wrong, you badly worded the Law. NO case to answer!

 

If you want to crawl on your belly and not question any bull from a region so be it, and you have one hearsay response from the BASC, call and ask yourself, see what someone else there says, fox is vermin! There speaks a man who accepts as gospel without question...my region will not issue CF as first grant!

 

From a so called solicitor who has no firearms law experience and no FAC you seem to be talking out of your field!

 

Perhaps best you leave this to those of us who know or at least have the balls to question!

Edited April 22, 2014 by Deker

[let'sshoot 11]

Admin please lock this thread. Bored of the Deker vs Alsone keyboard battle.

 

ps Deker - there'll be no need to pm me and explain your corner.

 

This is of no use to the OP.

 

All I can see is tit for tat and I'm bored of it.

 

Thanks Admin

Edited April 22, 2014 by let'sshoot

[Deker 3,450]

From BASC magazine...my apologies for not referencing the date, but something I had saved and not featured date on, I'm sure BASC will be able to confirm magazine issue date!.

"Hit or Myth?
It's illegal to use a .22 rimfire for fox
Myth. There is no legislative obstacle to using any firearm for fox control, unless prohibited by a condition on your firearm certificate. Foxes fall within the definition of "vermin" and no court has said otherwise. If "vermin" are featured in the certificate condition it is lawful to cull them with a rifle. However using an air rifle or a calibre which was likely to wound a fox rather than achieve a clean kill could lay you open to prosecution under animal welfare legislation. For best practice advice about the use of rimfire rifles please contact BASC's firearms department"

[shropshire dan 467]

Im taking both the .22lr and hmr tonight as the wife is using the .22 if 2 foxes cone into call 1 within 60yards and 1 within 120 yards we will both take the shot. Went their last week and 3 came in so took the closest at 50 yards with the hmr. If my mate had his or my .22 we would have had 2 in the bag.

[Alsone 789]

Deker I'm not going to continue arguing with you because from previous posts people are getting fed up with it.

 

It was never my intention to enter into such a lengthy discussion.

 

Suffice to say, regarding the article you quoted, IF the OP in the other thread on the cross related subject, consulted the BASC as he claims to have done (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), and if the BASC advised him not to use the HMR against fox without a specific condition as he mentioned, then it may simply mean their position has changed since the date when the article was written.

 

Anyway, whatever the position, my original premise still stands, no-one ever fell foul of the law by staying safely within the boundaries of established precedent. Problems arise when you push the boundaries or where definitions are undecided. So my general advice still stands, if in doubt, play it safe. Never trust the word of the FEO - get everything in writing, and if something is undefined in law (and I mean undecided by the Courts or defined by Statute), then better to play safe than sorry. If you or anyone else wants to do different because the dictionary or anything else says otherwise, then fine. It's at your risk.

 

That's my last word on the subject to avoid a p*ssing people off further.

 

Dan I hope you enjoy your shooting tonight and everything goes well.

[SportingShooter 0]

I'm fairly convinced the OP has had his question answered