My Firearm Certificate is currently up for renewal with Cheshire Constabulary.

I own .243,.270, .308 and 7mm calibre rifles for deer stalking and for which I have previously had permission to use them for 'deer stalking and fox control whilst deer stalking'. Apparently, the new guidelines issued by the Home Office exclude the dual provision of using the rifles for 'deer stalking and fox control whilst deer stalking'. Permission for rifles to be used for fox control now has to be entered seperately on my certificate. This was not necessarily a problem until I was told that I would only be permitted to use my .243 and .270 for fox control and my .308 and 7mm are considered inappropriate. Strange logic I know. Therefore if a fox presents itself whilst I am deer stalking I would technically be in breach of the law to shoot it with the latter two rifles.

I have taken advice from the BASC and after lengthy discussion concluded that it would be easier to go along with the guidelines for various reasons.

I hope the above makes sense and was wondering whether anyone else in the UK has recently encountered this problem with their local constabulary.

Regards,

Not a problem for me down here in the west country - at the moment!

What possible reasons can there be for accepting an upgrade on your conditions?

You have proved yourself a safe shooter with good reason to possess and use your range of calibres.The home office produce GUIDELINES but stress that individual circumstance must be taken into account when conditioning a license.

Why would dual usage suddenly present a problem? What possible benefit is there to the home office in increasing the number of firearms in legal circulation. As you say, strange logic.

Ian

Yes, the guidleines are supposed to be exactly that;'guidelines' not the law. However try arguing the point with a the admin staff on the other end of the phone - because it sets it down in print in the guidelines it must be right. Although for arguments sake a .308 and .270 are calibres of similar power the .308 is seen by firearms staff as being considerably more powerful than a .270 because 308 is a bigger number than 270. They have no idea of ballistics and that they are in fact calibres of similar capability.

As I see it you are either safe to possess any number of firearms or non at all and a safe shot is a safe shot regardless of rifle calibre or quarry. At the time of my home visit the firearms officer actually highlighted that they don't normally authorise the use of 30 calibres for fox control 'because they tend to make a bit of a mess'.

In discussing this with the BASC I highlighted that if this reasoning is being brought in uniformly nationwude as I was informed by the firearms staff then BASC need to bring it to the attention of the Home Office as a strategy that is simply incorrect, unenforceable and indeed laughable.

As a side issue, I successfully countered the guidlelines last year when I changed address and the firearms department tried to reduce the amount of ammunition including unloaded bullets that I'm allowed to possess to a maximum of 250 as set down in the guidelines. This was done automatically without my consulatation and immediately put me in breach of the law. I successfully argued that I need permission to possess considerably more as a homeloader who reloads fro myself, my brother and father.

Best wishes

Hmmm - not a good thing if indeed this is 'recent' change to guidance as you have been told.

I will invariably send a letter to the FLO if I have a problem with one of the admin officers - providing written 'good reason' for any conditions required. Finished off with a request that he calls me on a daytime number to discuss further.

Rightly or wrongly, I find some of the junior staff are ignorant of the subject. Talking to their superior shifts the query to the person who 'can' authorize something outside of 'guidelines'.

Finally, I really believe that the majority of FLOs are concerned with covering their ass against possible future recrimination. Think how you would feel, as the person signing a grant for the likes of Michael Ryan?

Providing written 'good reason' for going outside of guidelines allows the FLO to justify his decision, apend the evidence of his diligence to your file - grant your requirements and go home relaxed! :0)

Works for me - may be a consideration if you wish to challenge a glaring problem that is going to surface more and more.

Of course - you can just 'go with it' - but that strategy doesn't often benefit you in the long run!

Rgds Ian

I see the Basc are a waste of time if that what they said.It is only guide lines and if you have had it on your ticket before with out any problems why not now.It is about time the BASC started to fight this bullying by FLO.

Dear Tim

IMHO I think the BASC a bit of a waste of time if you are shooting anything other than birds and vermin. They had no clue what to do with taking a firearm to Europe or Africa. I had absolutly no porblem taking my 0.308 Win through France nd Belgium even thiugh BASC said it was illegal. Customs was fine.
Guidelines are guidelines and not a legal requirement therefore you need to speak to the head of the firearms licensing section and there should be no problem.

How do you guys in the U.K get on when need a 375H&H,458winmag? you don't need for game in the U.K do you tell FLO that you have a trip planned in 6 months to Africa?Things are not too bad out here yet we can own as many firearms as we want.

The rot is spreading throughout the Commonwealth as immigration patterns change and the newcomers from nations where individual freedoms are not accepted or respected gain power and influence. For example, in the 1930s, it would have been simply unthinkable that Pakistani immigrants would dare to violently riot in a British city and now......?

Here in Canada, we now have intrusive gun laws which do nothing to address or prevent the violent crime which our overly-liberal immigration laws are largely responsible for causing. Most Canadians realize that these laws are bullshit, but, political manipulation by a minority of agenda-driven "activists" keeps us from realizing the freedom which is our birthright.

To think of Britain and the Commonwealth in 1905 and see it now............

Well said Kutenay.What would Winston say if he saw the state of England and its commonwealth today?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkH:

IMHO I think the BASC a bit of a waste of time if you are shooting anything other than birds and vermin. They had no clue what to do with taking a firearm to Europe or Africa. I had absolutly no porblem taking my 0.308 Win through France nd Belgium even thiugh BASC said it was illegal. Customs was fine.

BASC exists to provide a service for Britain. To find out another countries laws you should contact their consulate, there is no way that BASC can be expected to be up to date with all the regulations of foreign countries. Consulates provide accurate and up to date advice from my experience travelling to Sweden, France and Spain.

The fact that you illegaly imported a firearm into a foreign country and was not picked up at customs does not reflect on the advice that BASC gave you...... you may be OK 90% of the time but should they get the hump and enforce the (stupid but nevertheless well known and enforcible) law you will be sans your rifle and potentialy your liberty.

quote:

Originally posted by TOP_PREDATOR:
How do you guys in the U.K get on when need a 375H&H,458winmag? you don't need for game in the U.K do you tell FLO that you have a trip planned in 6 months to Africa?Things are not too bad out here yet we can own as many firearms as we want.

Top Predator.

Im guessing that some form of 'good reason' along the lines you suggested is the normal way folks get to pick up medium and big bore rifles.

Certainly that was my gambit for a .375hh. Since then however, it has travelled extensively and is possibly the favourite rifle in my cabinet. Of course, prior to using such a thing on dangerous game, I need to be fully practiced and familiar with it.

So........ I am able to use it here in the UK on every thing from Rabbit to Red Stag.

rgds Ian

Dear 1894mk2

I do object to being accused of knowingly importing illegal firearms into France.
If you look carefully at the laws it states military weapons/calibres and ammunition. Since the military do not use sporting firearms (catagory C1) or expanding ammunition and you possess a valid European Firearms Pass, invitation to hunt and declare the firearms on entrance and exit there are no problems.


For your information I did contact the consulates/embassies/customs/police of all the countries I passed through and finally got the answers I needed before leaving the country with my firearms. I do not think it unreasonable that a shooting organisation which is a member of FACE cannot provide more detailed guidance ( such as contact numbers) to its membership on the more common destinations that its members may travel to as long as it adds a disclaimer. I did not notice a section saying British Firearms advice only.It is so easy to develope teflon shoulders and pass the buck then send out a single sheet of A4 or PDF on the internet with some basic guidelines for its shooting membership.

Mark,

I can't say i know the letter of the French law, but my understanding was that all military calibres were banned, whether in current usage, or obsolete??

I shoot a .308 win myself and was under the impression that it fell of this law as its the 7.62 Nato by another name???

Regards,

Pete

British gun law
A good friend of mine in London, was flatly refused a 7.62 for Deer hunting, he argued for a while, then applied for a .308 win. This was granted in no time flat.

I sometimes think that the Nazis won after all...........

Dear Pete

As you found out its with the 0.308/7.62 its not what your rifle really is but what people really think it is.
After days of research and telephone calls as long as you dont say rifle or 7.62 and ask permission there is no problem.
You would find the same problem if you walked onto a BA flight with a 0.223 ackley improved semi auto in tactical black and FMJ ammo compared to a beautifully engraved Heym bolt action, they do the same thing but send out two completely different messages as to usage.
Out of interest at the border posts I had to go out of my way to find customs officials to check the paperwork.
If you look at the European firearms pass you need to send it to every country you pass through to have it authorised and stamped but there are no addresses available to send it to. I also lodged my intention to travel with the French consulate and British consulate in Lille who confirmend it would be no problem as long as I did not intend to do anything illegal.
It would appear that the authorities like the ambiguity as it puts people off from asking.

Mark,

Perhaps my post was a bit sharp for which I apologise but I fundamentaly disagree with your criticism of BASC. They gave advice which in my opinion and those of French hunters is correct.

7.62 and 308 is an interesting technicality which I have to say I don't think would stand up in court otherwise there would be a lot of 308 toting French hunters...

Here's the update:

I have received my Firearm and Shotgun Certificates back this morning from Cheshire Constabulary amended as per my original post.

I am now permitted to use my .243, .270, .308, and 7mm rifles for deer stalking. Incredibly, I am also authorised to use my .243 and .270 rifles only for fox control.

What I find even more frustrating though is that in returning my certificate the Firearms Department have removed permission for me to acquire a second .308 rifle without offering any explanation. When the Firearms Licesning Officer made his home visit I highlighted the fact that I had permission to acquire a rifle in a duplicate calibre and explained that it may present them with a problem and explained the circumstances for which I needed the permission. At the time the officer verbally agreed to recommend that the second .308 should be permitted. I only hope it's an oversight and the omission hasn't been made by design. Needless to say the phone will be ringing at 9.00am on Monday morning.

Finally, I would agree with 1894 that when I have needed the BASC's advice in the past it has always been good and helpful. I may need some more advice from them on Monday.

Regards,

Keep us posted Tim. The interpretations of various guideline can be quite extraordinary.

For example, until recently I had authority to use a 375 H&H for all deer including CWD and muntjac, while my 7x64 was only legal for red and "sikka" deer (sic excuse pun).

Deerdogs, here's the latest.

I will elaborate slightly on the above post and explain that the second .308 I wanted permission for was intended for target shooting although I am not currently a member of a club but I was when I was originally granted permission to acquire a second .308. This is what I explained at the time of my home visit to the Firearms Officer who resolved that he would recommend permission should be retained providing I acquire a suitable weapon and join a club within the five year term of my renewed certificate. This I agreed to as it seemed reasonable.

Having spoken to the Firearms Officer this morning it seems that he has been over ruled and permission has been rescinded on the basis that I am not currently a club member. This is fair enough I suppose although I think it would have been useful if I had been notified of the decision before my new certificate was issued saving time and effort on both sides.

I am obviously reluctant to loose the slot and have today returned my certificate with a request that the permission for the .308 should be changed to a .22-250 to be used for dedicated vermin control. This should get around the club membership issue and retains my slot to avoid the time and cost in applying for a variation to add a rifle at a later date. It also gives me a more suitable rifle for fox control in light of the decision which generated my original post.

Fingers crossed but I'm expecting a call from Firearms before the end of the week..........

The things we have to do for our past time!

A slot for a 22-250 for fox is different to a 308 for dual deer and target use so you are not really safeguarding a 'slot'

I would be prepared to have to argue the aquisition of the 22-250 when you have a 243. It is these sorts of things that BASC excels at as they are pretty well in tune with the various departments and how things work.

Reasons such as the use of a higher power varmint style scope not suitable for carrying on foot for deer, sound moderator or your 243 being innaccurate with lighter weight bullets may be needed.

BTW why not something quieter and pleasant to shoot like a 222rem seing as you have a 243 which with 55gr is a 22-250 in all but name.

One thing I allways check is that the change I am after is not going to have a detrimental change to something else.

I have just received my firearms cerificate back after applying for a variation, centrefire moderators. Attached to it was a note informing me that conditions on the certificate may have changed to bring it into line with Home office guidelines.

The only changes I can see are the permission to acquire a couple of moderators.

I only have four rifles, 22lr, 22 Hornet, 243 and a 6.5 X 55, but it still states on my certificate that the firearms and ammunition may be used for sporting and pest control and for zeroing on land over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot and may also be used for target shooting on ranges where a safety certificate for that class of firearm has been issued by the competent authority.

So, I cannot fault my local constabulary in any way. It just depends on the common sense and and firearms experience of the forces licensing officer, and your luck of the draw, which cannot be right.

John

I am not sure common sense comes into our firearms laws much At the end of the day, how has public safety being served by the hoop's Tim has had to jump through? Would a second rifle turn him into a potential nutcase? IMHO, either a person is considered safe and trustworthy, or they are not...

Regards,

Pete

This is all this very interesting.

Here in New Zealand, once a licence has been granted, one can buy and sell rifles as one wishes.
There is a 50 BMG for sale here on the net, if I wanted to, I could buy it and use it for deer.
The limit is set by the wallet not the FAO, which is one of the good reasons, amogst many, for living here in Godzone Country.

Top Predator,
Are you thinking of Churchill or Peters?

Churchill,my guess would be Winston Peters parents named him after Sir Winston Churchill

Thanks for your comments 1894.

At the time I was issued permission for the second .308 I was interested in getting involved with some medium to long range target shooting. However, I have since seen the light and realised that I probably wouldn't be able to find the time to commit to such an interest and in any event my main interest is in sporting shooting. Therefore, as it turns out a .22-250 dedicated to vermin would be of more benefit to me.

I have considered a .223 alhtough not a .222 but I already load .22-250 for my brother and so there is no need to buy additional reloading equipment. Also, in my brother's experience a .222 or .223 is a much bigger number than the .22 bit of .22-250 therefore, it appears that incredibly the Firearms Department is willing to pass a .22-250 for fox and vermin control whereas they may only pass a .222 or .223 for fox control only.

I accept that my .243 with a light bullet could be considered as basically a .22-250 but I would need to fix a moderator which I don't want to do to one of my stalking rifles. I would screw cut a .22-250 without hesitation.

All in all, it's a dreadful minefield to negotiate. At the risk of tempting fate I haven't yet had the call so this all may yet have a happy ending.

Best wishes,

I thought some of you might like to know how this story ended. At least for the timebeing.

I received my certificate back yesterday with a covering letter to the effect that the firearms department consider a .22-250 inappropriate for vermin control and have refused permission. However, providing I re-join a club within the next 12 months they are prepared to offer a free variation to reinstate the original permission for a .308 for target shooting.

I think I may be partly to blame here as I requested a .22-250 Rem for vermin control (read rabbits and crows). Perhaps I should have specified for fox control.

Anyway, I can't be bothered anymore with this at the moment I'll go with along with it safe in the knowledge that I can use my .270 Win for fox control if I choose!!!

Never too sure about corvids, bunnies and centrefire in the eyes of the law....

Tim,
you might find that you are a little undergunned with the 270 for foxes!!!
hope you are using a premium partition bullets!!!..
or perhaps the 7mm rem

regards
griff

That did cross my mind Griff but they won't give me permission for anything more powerful. Oh well!

Best wishes

I've had the conditions on my FAC changed to read Deer, Vermin and Groundgame. At the time it was to be sure that Boar and Goat could legally be shot and there was a discrepancy as to whether the law would consider them vermin.

Thi interesting thing is that reading my cert last week, I am only allowed to buy Expanding ammo to shoot deer with in those calibers....

Go figure!!

Either way there are more holes in our licencing procedure than swiss cheese...

Rgds,
FB

This is so sad and so typical of the statist nonsense that is destroying our once proud traditions. My mother's family hails from Argyllshire, Hertsfordshire and Devon; when my maternal granfather served as a Canuck officer in WWI, he had no problem with having his service revolver with him in merry England as he was recovering from being wounded at both Courcellette and Passchendaele.

Now, it appears that no matter what service a Briton renders to Crown and country, including shedding his blood, he may not even own a handgun and must justify his long guns to some yob in a uniform. We other members of the Commonwealth are blindly strolling down the same path and soon will be just as emasculated in our private lives; I am glad that I am in my 60th year and have had the best that Canada has had to offer as I feel sorry for younger shooters throughout the Commonwealth.

When I was a young punk, "Sir Mick" sang about "it's time for...revolution" and maybe he was right.............

Some of the technicalities can be a bit arcane but on the whole we have sensible firearms law that is well suited to our circumstances.

I agree with 1894 to an extent,

I think our firearms laws are not the big mess they are often perceived as being by outsiders. The discrepancy on my certificate could easily be rectified were I to just call the FLO and get them to put it right. In the big picture it doesn't really matter.

Problems that tend to occur are not due to the law itself but rather some individual misrepresenting it. In my Eyes Tim 1 should not need to join a club for the police to give him permission to have the 308 for range shooting. He can just go to Bisley or the local range book a couple of hours and punch holes in paper for the fun of it. The requirement for being a moember of a club is not a legal requirement afccording to the firearms act. Just the same way DSC is not a legal requirement even though some authorities are refusiong cert's on the grounds that applicants don't have them.

The problem here is that a civil servant is imposing his own views on licence holders/applications, and any resulting legal challenge is funded on their part by the tax payer and on the shooters part by himself. Suddenly bringing these cases before a judge to correct a bad decision becomes a costly hassel.

So yes I agree the law is not at all bad but firearms applications are not always treated within the law.

Personally I'm very lucky with my FLO and have yet to experience anything less than efficient help.

I just hope this post doesn't jinx me!!!

Rgds,
FB

I guess my point is that I believe in "birthrights" as do the Americans and, being of partial British ancestry, I quite naturally am interested in the situation there. I tend to support the British Commonwealth as about the only actual international organization that I have much use for and I just deplore the very idea that ANY civil servant, copper or otherwise, has so much discretionary power.

I took my oath to H.M.Q.E. in April, 1965 as a serving member of the B.C. Forest Service and have also worked for the Canadian Coast Guard and the R.C.M.P. here in "the Colonies", so, I have some first hand experience of similar situations. Our gun laws are an unworkable, very costly mess and actual shootings are on the increase, so, I am very sceptical about the value of tight gun laws in general.

However, I do not believe in having everybody "packin' a rod" either and it is a British thing for the British people to decide. I do think that a formal statement in law to the effect that arms ownership is a fundamental right is both beneficial and needed here in Canada and elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Good Luck with it.

Kutenay

You should run for parliament, the British parliament you would get my vote

I think, rightly or wrongly, that overall our gun laws are not too bad, or at least have the potential to be not too bad. In the past some stupid things have been done in the name of crime prevention, handguns for instance. However I do believe that the penny is starting to drop, and those in power are realising that altering gun laws only affect people who legaly own firearms. Criminals who use guns in crime acquire these things illegally, and surpise surprise are not in the least bit affected by any new legislation.

Then there is the matter of the existing laws that are open to different interpretation by Police forces and their firearms depatments, which leads to the nationwide differences in what should be almost identical documents, our firearm cerificates. I think the guidelines are too ambiguous and should be ammended to extend an even handed, not a more restrictive, approach to all applicants. I also think that the BASC and the like should be heavily involved in discussions on any such ammendments.

It's just what I think, please don't shout at me!

John