To Soon To Apply For Different Gun ?

[Adrian Prisk 6]

All sorted contacted basc. Best to leave the fox alone with the 17hmr. Was told in my situation shouldn't be a problem to get a hornet or similar for fox, he reccomended the hornet. But I shall wait because as of yet iam not specifically targeting fox. Thanks all

[Deker 3,453]

 

Confused .com. If my ticket is at risk why would they so its ok. I will put a line in the good reson box like,17hmr also for close range fox.My recent permission slip states the farmer whats me to take fox so there is a need.I will send a copy with the variation form. See what happens.

It usually states on your ticket what your allowed to shoot.

 

If you have All Lawful Quarry, then you're ok.

 

If not and you have eg. vermin, ground game and other small quarry against the HMR. Then you can't shoot fox (its regarded as medium quarry). Some would argue its vermin but I'm using the headings from the Firearmas Guidance Tables as It's these the police would most likely rely on in Court.

 

He has already been told it is ok to shoot Fox with his HMR by his FEO.

 

Argue as much as you want about fox being Medium quarry, any size description does not change it status, fox is vermin!

 

ver·min (vûr′mĭn)

n. pl. vermin

1. Various small animals or insects, such as rats or cockroaches, that are destructive, annoying, or injurious to health.

2. Animals that prey on game, such as foxes or weasels.

 

When was the last court case where someone was prosecuted for shooting Fox under a Vermin heading?

[Alsone 789]

Deker I don't totally disagree.

 

However, I know how the Courts work and IF an FEO decided to prosecute for shooting outside of the permitted species, then in the absence of a precedent case from a "high" Court (as in higher Court not High Court (I'm not aware of any but then again I'm not a Firearms legal expert)), it's 50:50 as to which way a judge would go. A judge who leans towards human justice would probably err towards the deinition you posted and give the Defendent the benefit of the doubt. A judge who was a stickler for the law, would probably view it in terms of the Firearms Definitions and take the view that it was quite clear that foxes were intended to be outside of the normal definition of "vermin" by virtue of their medium game classification in the Firearms Guidelines, and the shooter should have known that.

 

Are you really going to gamble a conviction on the basis of what judge you get on the day?

 

It's far safer to simply stick to the letter of the law as found on the Certificate / Guidelines and not push the boundaries.

 

As for the FEO, I wouldn't trust a word they say, unless it was supplied in writing, and even then in the case you have the issue of interpretation of what constitutes "close range".

[Deker 3,453]

There is no letter of the law, vermin has not been defined in law because there have been no prosecutions, there will not be either, first off, because the word vermin is defined in the English Language, and second, because it would not be in the public interest to bring a case. His FAC is conditioned for Vermin, vermin is defined in the English language to include Fox, hence he is complying with his FAC conditions.

The Home Office Guide is a GUIDE!

 

Dictionary definition, in the Public Domain

ver·min (vûr′mĭn)
n. pl. vermin
1. Various small animals or insects, such as rats or cockroaches, that are destructive, annoying, or injurious to health.
2. Animals that prey on game, such as foxes or weasels.

 

Do you seriously think any Police Authority will bring a case for this (or the CPS would even let it bring a case) when all the defence needs to do is produce a pile of dictionaries!

Edited April 17, 2014 by Deker

[Alsone 789]

One very good reason for bringing a case in law is to bring clarity. That doesn't mean a force will and it doesn't mean they won't. You just can't be sure either way. All you can be sure of is that one day in the absence of a clarifying definition from the authorities, one day, a force somewhere will bring a test case as to the definition, and you don't want to be the subject of that.

 

Like I said above, I know how the Courts work, and there are 2 views a judge could take. It's not worth the gamble.

 

Also, why do you think the BASC advised him not to use it for fox even after what the FEO said - probably because "close range" isn't defined. Playing the definition game is a dangerous thing.

 

As I've said before Deker, it doesn't pay to push the boundaries.

 

Trying to define what is and isn't the law is best left to politicians and the foolhardy. Those with any sense, play within the boundaries of established definition and precedent.

 

The fact that fox is defined as medium game in the guidelines, could easily be seen as drawing a clear distinction between it and other vermin, and if a judge sees it that way, and takes the guidelines as guidance to the Police, the shooter and Court, then no amount of dictionaries are going to see you innocent.

[TheRealChuckNorris 42]

I asked for my .223 to help with the fox issues, my force sent my FAC with it conditioned for vermin, fox was not specified on the ticket despite that being the only thing I mentioned it would be used for. Read into that what you will

[Deker 3,453]

One very good reason for bringing a case in law is to bring clarity. That doesn't mean a force will and it doesn't mean they won't. You just can't be sure either way. All you can be sure of is that one day in the absence of a clarifying definition from the authorities, one day, a force somewhere will bring a test case as to the definition, and you don't want to be the subject of that.

 

Like I said above, I know how the Courts work, and there are 2 views a judge could take. It's not worth the gamble.

 

Also, why do you think the BASC advised him not to use it for fox even after what the FEO said - probably because "close range" isn't defined. Playing the definition game is a dangerous thing.

 

As I've said before Deker, it doesn't pay to push the boundaries.

 

Trying to define what is and isn't the law is best left to politicians and the foolhardy. Those with any sense, play within the boundaries of established definition and precedent.

 

The fact that fox is defined as medium game in the guidelines, could easily be seen as drawing a clear distinction between it and other vermin, and if a judge sees it that way, and takes the guidelines as guidance to the Police, the shooter and Court, then no amount of dictionaries are going to see you innocent.

Seems to me the only person here unclear of what vermin means is you. The police do not/will not, need to bring a case to court for clarity, vermin is defined in the English language.

 

Nobody is pushing any boundary, if your FAC says vermin, then you can shoot fox, as the OP has already been told by his FEO, which part of that says vermin is not fox and needs clarification?

Edited April 17, 2014 by Deker

[TheRealChuckNorris 42]

it was quite clear that foxes were intended to be outside of the normal definition of "vermin" by virtue of their medium game classification in the Firearms Guidelines, and the shooter should have known that.

 

Not an expert in the Firearms Guidance here but I've read the relevant sections and Foxes aren't classed in there as medium game; quarry yes but game no.

 

Given that there are restrictions on shooting game (i.e. not on a Sunday or at night) you wouldn't ever class a fox as game. The guidance doesn't help as it split out vermin from the medium sized quarry in the table (to help with clarity around calibre size no doubt) but includes Fox with other vermin in section 13.19

[Cedric 132]

I've just read through the Guide on Firearms Licensing Law 2013.

 

The table on page 119 quite clearly states for "Fox and other mediun quarry" that it is a "Yes" for .17 Remington & HMR, .22 Hornet and WMR – also .22 RF in certain circumstance".

 

This seems to be quite unambigious and not a mistake as .17 Mach2 is not included.

 

Whether an individual would consider .17 HMR suitable for fox is another matter but it would seem any judge faced with the question has definative guidance. The vagaries of different constabulary's firearms departments should not be taken as definative law and can and should be questioned, challenged or appealed if required.

[worthy130 21]

 

Seems to me the only person here unclear of what vermin means is you. The police do not/will not, need to bring a case to court for clarity, vermin is defined in the English language.

 

Nobody is pushing any boundary, if your FAC says vermin, then you can shoot fox, as the OP has already been told by his FEO, which part of that says vermin is not fox and needs clarification?

 

The FEO told him he could shoot a close range fox BUT WOULD NOT condition the ticket for it! why?

[Deker 3,453]

 

Seems to me the only person here unclear of what vermin means is you. The police do not/will not, need to bring a case to court for clarity, vermin is defined in the English language.

 

Nobody is pushing any boundary, if your FAC says vermin, then you can shoot fox, as the OP has already been told by his FEO, which part of that says vermin is not fox and needs clarification?

The FEO told him he could shoot a close range fox BUT WOULD NOT condition the ticket for it! why?

 

 

Probably because Fox is vermin, his FAC is conditioned for vermin and so there is no need for fox to be listed! :D

[Alsone 789]

 

One very good reason for bringing a case in law is to bring clarity. That doesn't mean a force will and it doesn't mean they won't. You just can't be sure either way. All you can be sure of is that one day in the absence of a clarifying definition from the authorities, one day, a force somewhere will bring a test case as to the definition, and you don't want to be the subject of that.

 

Like I said above, I know how the Courts work, and there are 2 views a judge could take. It's not worth the gamble.

 

Also, why do you think the BASC advised him not to use it for fox even after what the FEO said - probably because "close range" isn't defined. Playing the definition game is a dangerous thing.

 

As I've said before Deker, it doesn't pay to push the boundaries.

 

Trying to define what is and isn't the law is best left to politicians and the foolhardy. Those with any sense, play within the boundaries of established definition and precedent.

 

The fact that fox is defined as medium game in the guidelines, could easily be seen as drawing a clear distinction between it and other vermin, and if a judge sees it that way, and takes the guidelines as guidance to the Police, the shooter and Court, then no amount of dictionaries are going to see you innocent.

Seems to me the only person here unclear of what vermin means is you. The police do not/will not, need to bring a case to court for clarity, vermin is defined in the English language.

 

Nobody is pushing any boundary, if your FAC says vermin, then you can shoot fox, as the OP has already been told by his FEO, which part of that says vermin is not fox and needs clarification?

 

 

Deker I already explained what the possibilities are.

 

In the absence of a precedent, the guidelines could be taken by a Court to classify fox outside of the normal meaning of "vermin".

 

But play the dictionary game if you want.

 

I'll reveal my hand, I've kept quiet on this for a long time....I'm not a firearms or Criminal Law Expert, but I am a qualified Solicitor.

 

My advice would be to play it safe. Ultimately, you do what you like. It's your licence and your freedom.

 

The BASC wouldn't have given the advice they did if they thought there was no risk......

 

It probably is remote, but it's there in my opinion.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Alsone

[Adrian Prisk 6]

Interesting info , my ticket states vermin ground game and any lawful quarry . As cedric say guidelines state hmr as a calbre for fox and my firearms dept say ok at close range . You would think these thing would a bit more clear . Basc did say they were hearing of injured foxes with smashed up ribs due to wrong calbre . But surely that's down to shot placement and range.

[Deker 3,453]

Interesting info , my ticket states vermin ground game and any lawful quarry . As cedric say guidelines state hmr as a calbre for fox and my firearms dept say ok at close range . You would think these thing would a bit more clear . Basc did say they were hearing of injured foxes with smashed up ribs due to wrong calbre . But surely that's down to shot placement and range.

Any Lawful Quarry means Any Lawful Quarry!

 

Why should anything about range (distance) be a bit more clear, it stands to reason a HMR is not a long range tool, why does that need making more clear, does your FEO say don't use your .243 or .308 further than 500-600 yards?

[Deker 3,453]

Deker I already explained what the possibilities are.

 

In the absence of a precedent, the guidelines could be taken by a Court to classify fox outside of the normal meaning of "vermin".

 

But play the dictionary game if you want.

 

I'll reveal my hand, I've kept quiet on this for a long time....I'm not a firearms or Criminal Law Expert, but I am a qualified Solicitor.

 

My advice would be to play it safe. Ultimately, you do what you like. It's your licence and your freedom.

 

The BASC wouldn't have given the advice they did if they thought there was no risk......

 

It probably is remote, but it's there in my opinion.

 

 

The possibilities are the world could end tomorrow and I could win the lottery, both are far more likely than the police bringing a case against someone for shooting a fox under a vermin condition on a FAC.

 

I don't give a jot what you do for a living, I have taken on a whole Firearms Dept, Chief Constable and Force solicitor and won.

 

The terms of his FAC have been listed and are defined in the English Language. There is no case for a region to bring, they have worded it badly if they meant vermin NOT to include fox, so any court/judge would throw it out, there will never be a case to define fox in these circumstances because fox is vermin in the English Language, so it is already defined.

 

Look at it like this, if the police did not want Fox included under a Vermin heading then they should have conditioned his FAC, "Vermin, Excluding Fox". They didn't, fox is Vermin, no case to answer!

 

You can't convict someone for complying with the terms of their FAC because you (the Police) worded it badly.