feo interview

[dadioles 68]

im only going off what he said his exact words being "im going to put a condition on u of no prone shooting" we shall see what come through the letter box. as you say common sense is the main priority when shooting. the main point the feo was talking about when looking at my land was common sense aswell, he told me a few stories of people applying for fac's without using there common sense and asking for 22-250 on alotments just because a mate told them that was the calibre for fox and things like that , he had full faith in me though when i showed him what i considered to be the safe lines of fire and good backstops.

 

If the FEO does not have confidence in your judgment and does not think that you have common sense and the ability and knowledge to decide what is both safe and legal then he should not be allowing you to have a firearm. On the other hand if he considers that you are a fit and proper person who can be trusted then he should let you get on with it as when push comes to shove it is you that makes the decision whether to fire, not him. By all means have a long conversation with you about what is safe and pass on his knowledge and advice, such as don't shoot prone on flat land as it creates a greater possibility of ricochet and lessens the effect of the ground itself as a backstop, but you don't set that as an enforced condition on the licence. That sort of decision is made every time I go out shooting, around aircraft at the airfield, on the golf course day and night, in open fields, near housing and livestock. If there is any chance of upsetting people or inconveniencing them in any way you just don't shoot, safety is everything - I don't want to have to live with the consequences of my own error or lose my licence.

 

I still have the gut feeling though that we are rather thrown in at the deep end and that potentially getting a firearm (or shotgun) with little or no proven experience is asking for trouble. A compulsory 1 day course involving classroom style lectures and time on a range shooting targets just to make sure that the basics are covered does seem sensible.

[matt_hooks 188]

Dadio I agree that a good basic grounding in guns, gun handling and safety is desirable, but to make any course compulsory is not the way forward.

 

The police and firearms licencing function have enough control over us as it is. If I am trustworthy to hold a high powered firearm, then why is that only the case for ground that they have looked at and deemed safe? Ok, come to my main permission at first issue, and check that I am knowledgable and capable of deciding what is a good shot and what isn't, but what is gained safety wise by then putting a condition that I have to get any new piece of land approved?

 

I even had one of the firearms team tell me that I had to get each piece of land checked by them, and send them a copy of my permission letter before I could shoot it, EVEN IF it has already been checked.

 

Erm... Nope, sorry, the condition says "land that has been cleared by the chief officer of police for the area it lies in" so if it has been checked and cleared, I'm safe to shoot on it.

 

It's frustrating having these conditions, which make NO difference to actual safety, but make some bureaucrat feel like they are doing something, imposed on us. There are enough of them already without talking about mandatory training (which only serves to make people money!)

[dadioles 68]

Dadio I agree that a good basic grounding in guns, gun handling and safety is desirable, but to make any course compulsory is not the way forward.

 

The police and firearms licencing function have enough control over us as it is. If I am trustworthy to hold a high powered firearm, then why is that only the case for ground that they have looked at and deemed safe? Ok, come to my main permission at first issue, and check that I am knowledgable and capable of deciding what is a good shot and what isn't, but what is gained safety wise by then putting a condition that I have to get any new piece of land approved?

 

I even had one of the firearms team tell me that I had to get each piece of land checked by them, and send them a copy of my permission letter before I could shoot it, EVEN IF it has already been checked.

 

Erm... Nope, sorry, the condition says "land that has been cleared by the chief officer of police for the area it lies in" so if it has been checked and cleared, I'm safe to shoot on it.

 

It's frustrating having these conditions, which make NO difference to actual safety, but make some bureaucrat feel like they are doing something, imposed on us. There are enough of them already without talking about mandatory training (which only serves to make people money!)

 

I think you missed my point Matt, or more likely I was not clear (and I did not even mention cleared land).

 

A 1 day course is, I think, a good idea for people applying for their first licence, a one-off. It would be an effective "hands on" extended interview attended by the FEO and makes sure that a new shooter has got the basics covered. A bit like the CBT (compulsary basic training) that motorcyclists have to do before being let loose on the roads.

 

At the moment you fill in the right form, smile at the right people bolt a steel box to the wall and now have a gun (or several). Possibly no experience, no idea about ricochets, no idea how to zero, no understanding of bullet trajectory or for that matter how to dispatch humanely a wounded animal that you have just shot. You just learn by doing and some people are more gung-ho than others. Maybe half a day in the classroom and half a day on the range would have been a more sensible way to start.

 

I agree with you about "cleared land". It just seems daft. It is up to us as shooters to decide if it is safe. If we can't make that judgement don't give us a gun. The land may have been cleared but it does not mean that it is safe to shoot. More hassle for us to contend with.

[matt_hooks 188]

Dadio I agree that a good basic grounding in guns, gun handling and safety is desirable, but to make any course compulsory is not the way forward.

 

The police and firearms licencing function have enough control over us as it is. If I am trustworthy to hold a high powered firearm, then why is that only the case for ground that they have looked at and deemed safe? Ok, come to my main permission at first issue, and check that I am knowledgable and capable of deciding what is a good shot and what isn't, but what is gained safety wise by then putting a condition that I have to get any new piece of land approved?

 

I even had one of the firearms team tell me that I had to get each piece of land checked by them, and send them a copy of my permission letter before I could shoot it, EVEN IF it has already been checked.

 

Erm... Nope, sorry, the condition says "land that has been cleared by the chief officer of police for the area it lies in" so if it has been checked and cleared, I'm safe to shoot on it.

 

It's frustrating having these conditions, which make NO difference to actual safety, but make some bureaucrat feel like they are doing something, imposed on us. There are enough of them already without talking about mandatory training (which only serves to make people money!)

 

I think you missed my point Matt, or more likely I was not clear (and I did not even mention cleared land).

 

A 1 day course is, I think, a good idea for people applying for their first licence, a one-off. It would be an effective "hands on" extended interview attended by the FEO and makes sure that a new shooter has got the basics covered. A bit like the CBT (compulsary basic training) that motorcyclists have to do before being let loose on the roads.

 

At the moment you fill in the right form, smile at the right people bolt a steel box to the wall and now have a gun (or several). Possibly no experience, no idea about ricochets, no idea how to zero, no understanding of bullet trajectory or for that matter how to dispatch humanely a wounded animal that you have just shot. You just learn by doing and some people are more gung-ho than others. Maybe half a day in the classroom and half a day on the range would have been a more sensible way to start.

 

I agree with you about "cleared land". It just seems daft. It is up to us as shooters to decide if it is safe. If we can't make that judgement don't give us a gun. The land may have been cleared but it does not mean that it is safe to shoot. More hassle for us to contend with.

 

Dadio, the "cleared land" was just an example of the desire to over-control us as shooters, even where the law doesn't actually support it.

 

As for the training, well, I learnt at the feet of my forebears, as I'm sure many others did. I started off with a .22 air gun, and learnt basic weapons handling from that. When I was big enough, and deemed safe, I was allowed to use the LR, and then the cf's. I didn't apply for my FAC until this year, even though I've been shooting for about 20 years.

 

So now should I be made to sit in a classroom for half a day, and on the range for another half, to tick a box on a form?

 

I'd say most people who own guns had a similar experience growing up. So the vast majority should be punished fiscally for no appreciable safety gain?

 

The police now say you have to "evidence" experience. So what's the level of experience required before you can "evidence" someone's experience? It's a complete hash, from beginning to end, and adding another layer, with compulsory training, serves only to make more money for the training providers (and what are the chances of getting hold of an FEO for a whole hour, let alone a whole day, especially given the current cuts?) and will probably mean that fewer people take up the sport.

 

Will it make the world a safer place?

 

Will it stop the Birds, and the Ryans of this world from "flipping a switch"?

 

I'd say the answer is no. And if the current system doesn't catch all the nutters, then adding a days training certainly won't!

 

Sorry to go on, it sounds like a nice idea, but when you think about it, it's a whole barrel of trouble!

[mcrobo123 0]

got my certificate through on saturday and theres no mention of that prone condition just the usual conditions which i have seen posted on here a few times when poeple are talking about licenses so i presume it was just a bit of advice but as i said in a previous post he said "im putting a condition on u of no prone shooting". god knows! anyways its all over with now just gotta find some rifles. cheers guys for all your help and advise

 

Rob-O