Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
David Aiken

.22Lr On An 8 Acre Stable, A A New Fac Holder

Recommended Posts

 

 

The last time I went to luck yard farm there was 2 feet of snow and we had to carry all our bags and stuff up the hill to the farm! It was an experience that's for sure!

Same here . Half a dozen of us went in the February a few years back

Snow that deep even the 4x4s wouldn't get up the drive.

We have been a few times it's a good laugh shoot some clays put some targets up there's even trout in the pools

But there is not a rabbit,pigeon,squirral or fox for about 30 mile of the place

It would be the same abarrett....we were in the same truck lol
Well I never would have thought it

The only other person in my truck was the cross dresser from burton

If you had put your name as

The cock in a frock instead of corky 1991

I would have knew it was you kid lol

Share this post


Link to post

I,m also from North kent . Had my Fac for a few months now for fac air and 22lr. I also have a closed ticket. I thought that as long as the land had been passed for the calibre you are using then you was good to go, I phoned Kent police headquarters with a couple of new permissions and was told they were cleared for what I was using so I said I can start shooting then , I was told on the phone that I cannot start shooting these other pieces of land until I have sent Kent police written permission for these pieces of land, I thought this was wrong so I phoned my feo and he told me it was Kent police new policy that this it what I had to do, pain in the arse as a lot of farmers and people I shoot for don't want to be bothered filling forms in and I just don't want to keep bothering them, I would check with your feo first

Share this post


Link to post

I,m also from North kent . Had my Fac for a few months now for fac air and 22lr. I also have a closed ticket. I thought that as long as the land had been passed for the calibre you are using then you was good to go, I phoned Kent police headquarters with a couple of new permissions and was told they were cleared for what I was using so I said I can start shooting then , I was told on the phone that I cannot start shooting these other pieces of land until I have sent Kent police written permission for these pieces of land, I thought this was wrong so I phoned my feo and he told me it was Kent police new policy that this it what I had to do, pain in the arse as a lot of farmers and people I shoot for don't want to be bothered filling forms in and I just don't want to keep bothering them, I would check with your feo first

 

Unbelievable.

 

As well as us, wouldn't this also create more work for them at their end, so adding extra burden to a possibly understaffed department?? The mind boggles! :icon_eek:

Share this post


Link to post

I know some on here may disagree but personally I'd suggest as a matter of policy, it's always a good idea to get every permission in writing as it's the only defence you have against an allegation of armed trespass if the landowner should later deny he gave you permission for some reason (it has been known to happen).

 

If you really aren't happy about getting written permissions, then talk to the BASC as I believe there's now a national licensing policy agreed with the police against forces introducing their own rules or forms that go over and above what the law requires. I'm unsure as to what may or may not have been agreed with regards to permissions.

Share this post


Link to post

I know some on here may disagree but personally I'd suggest as a matter of policy, it's always a good idea to get every permission in writing as it's the only defence you have against an allegation of armed trespass if the landowner should later deny he gave you permission for some reason (it has been known to happen).

 

If you really aren't happy about getting written permissions, then talk to the BASC as I believe there's now a national licensing policy agreed with the police against forces introducing their own rules or forms that go over and above what the law requires. I'm unsure as to what may or may not have been agreed with regards to permissions.

 

I don't think many would disagree at all, but the real world just isn't that simple sometimes!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Equally I agree Deker but I guess that's where it comes down to a matter of personal choice of either risking it or walking away from a new permission. Personally I'd rather walk away than potentially put my freedom in the hands of a unkown 3rd party.

 

Maybe the best thing here would be if it become compulsory to obtain written permission, as then farmers / landowners would either be forced to grant it in writing or do without shooting / pest control. To that extent, I have some sympathy with the Kent approach because although it's heavy handed under current regulations, it does at least protect everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post

I also have a rather large permission. The land owner agreed both section 1 and 2. To put it plainly, he can not read or write and has no wish for my FLO to visit. So even with an open ticket he will not provide written permission, just verbal. I still shoot there with my sub 12ft HW100

Share this post


Link to post

I always use my gut feeling when talking to new land owners. You can tell the ones that are genuine, and the ones that would sell you down the river without a second thought.

 

I always try to maintain a good level of communication with my land owners. I always tell them when I expect to be about, and I try to call around the farmhouse when I can. I find that this way works for a good relationship. To me there is no need for a piece of paper when you have established trust between both parties.

 

I've only just recently let a good permission go because I was not happy with the lady owner. She never returned calls, and was never around when I arranged to drop in. It just didn't feel right.

 

Just my experience. :thumbs:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I know someone who was in the same position, where he knew that some land was cleared (upto 22-250), as the landowner had one, whereas he wanted to use a .223. He rang the firearms department to explain the situation, and confirm that the land was indeed cleared. He was met with a venom-tongue response from a woman, who stated "Well if you knew, why did you bloody ask?"! So there you go :D It doesn't harm to confirm, but in this light she viewed it a time-wasting, and said that he needn't bother ringing up, if he knew it was cleared.

Share this post


Link to post

I know someone who was in the same position, where he knew that some land was cleared (upto 22-250), as the landowner had one, whereas he wanted to use a .223. He rang the firearms department to explain the situation, and confirm that the land was indeed cleared. He was met with a venom-tongue response from a woman, who stated "Well if you knew, why did you bloody ask?"! So there you go :D It doesn't harm to confirm, but in this light she viewed it a time-wasting, and said that he needn't bother ringing up, if he knew it was cleared.

So, in respect to her comment, I take it, once cleared, always cleared?? A piece of lane is cleared, something is built nearby, she is saying there is no need to double check to make sure? I wonder if the Police data base is regularly updated to include new developments near a permission??

Share this post


Link to post

From what I can gather, I believe so. Also, with her input, it backs it up. It does save doing a job twice, but this was very rural farmland, planning permission is nigh-on impossible. I remember somewhere where they asked for Ordnance Survey maps, so I imagine they use them, as they show all of the fields and footpaths. They may have updated it to Google Maps, I don't know. I'm not sure how often OS maps are updated, but it can't be that regular. Plus the Google Earth image over my house is about 10 years old, so that's not any different.

Share this post


Link to post

I know someone who was in the same position, where he knew that some land was cleared (upto 22-250), as the landowner had one, whereas he wanted to use a .223. He rang the firearms department to explain the situation, and confirm that the land was indeed cleared. He was met with a venom-tongue response from a woman, who stated "Well if you knew, why did you bloody ask?"! So there you go :D It doesn't harm to confirm, but in this light she viewed it a time-wasting, and said that he needn't bother ringing up, if he knew it was cleared.

 

The Firearms lady was having an off day!

 

Who knows the circumstances of the call, or the conversation with her, or the landowner, but just because a landowner uses 22-250 it doesn't mean the lands is cleared for it.

 

I use rifles/calibres regularly on land that the homeowners themselves would never get permission on!

 

:thumbs:

Share this post


Link to post

Surely in this situation, making a quick phone call to your local Firearms Department to check on clearance demonstrates you attitude toward shooting (i.e. safety and professionalism)??

 

Face it guys ............ We are damned if we do, and we are damned if we don't. :hmm: It is a cross that we have to carry I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post

In the same phone call I was also enquiring to see if 2 different pieces of land had been cleared for 22lr. The lady on the phone told me that one was ok and to get the written permission slip sent to them but the other piece of land was cleared but she said it had expired and would need to be checked by a visit by my feo to be cleared again, seems different parts of the country have there own policy's . My Fac certificate actually states I can shoot on any land that has been deemed safe by the chief of police, it does not state that I have to get written permission for every piece of land , I have just gone along with it as I get on ok with my feo although I have been advised I have no need to do this, has anyone else had this same thing happen

Share this post


Link to post

With respect to post 32, it is strange how even despite increasing staff shortages that they should ask for written permission slips to be put on their system. Our force just asks for a landowner's contact number.

 

I completely agree that one should contact the firearms department to confirm. Plus, the more you ring up, they might get fed up and just give you an open ticket

 

As far as I know, on a closed certificate, the land must be cleared, and you must have permission to shoot on it. It may depend on your police force whether they ask for written permission, or just contact details. But if you get stopped by the police, you will have to prove you have permission, or you're in trouble. The last few incidents I've heard of, the police didn't accept a written permission slip, but phoned the landowner.

 

Does anyone here think that in the future, closed certificates could be phased out, in order to reduce staff workload in wake of the cuts? When you think about it, the FEO has to check the land, put it on the system, and then the same shooter could ring up again the next week for some more land to be checked. All this time adds up. Will they phase out closed certificates, or just expect people to cope with longer waiting times?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...