FAC & Club Attendence Minimum Requirements

[Chapuis]

"Clubs stipulating minimum attendance in their terms and conditions I believe is an unnecessary and divisive move. I choose to attend that club, I PAY for that privilege, it is not for the Club, or anyone else to tell me how, and when to run my life, just be grateful you have the revenue, without it you would not exist."

I'm afraid that I can't entirely agree with you there. Members of our club are expected to take a full and active part in the club's activities as it is a members club run by the members for the benefit of the members. It is not a commercial concern. Those members that only turn up on rare occasions are in effect relying on the good works of the other members to support their shooting and to subsidise their activities indirectly. Membership is a privilege and not a right. If you simply want a shooting facility that you can use when and if you feel like it then you need to pay that much more by going to a commercial concern.

[Steve]

Club secretaries have a duty to notify the licensing authority of any member that has not shot within a twelve month.

Bingo-correct anwser!

Im membership secretary for a club and when a member hasnt attended the range for 12 months i highlight their slot red on the spread sheet for easy identification then every 3 months send firearms licensing a (digital) copy of the entire register.

Also,various FEO's contact me calling up members shooting records too.

Our club does not have a minimum attendance.If someone chooses to shoot 3 times a year or not at all even that is entirely upto them.

[ovenpaa]

Hi Steve, good to see you on the forum again, it has been a while

[dromia]

Club secretaries have a duty to notify the licensing authority of any member that has not shot within a twelve month.

Bingo-correct anwser!

Im membership secretary for a club and when a member hasnt attended the range for 12 months i highlight their slot red on the spread sheet for easy identification then every 3 months send firearms licensing a (digital) copy of the entire register.

Also,various FEO's contact me calling up members shooting records too.

Our club does not have a minimum attendance.If someone chooses to shoot 3 times a year or not at all even that is entirely upto them.

[Dustyman]

I agree with the other clubs that have a minimum attendance clause , I also could understand if people may still use weapons at other clubs instead of yours ( as noted above by one ) but wish to support certain clubs by membership subs alone almost as a donation . If you are a good sec and know your members you may have some members who don't shoot with you but I'm sure you would make sure you are aware of the . " non shooters " usage of other facilities to know that they are actually using their weapons. . In this instance I'm sure most secs would not send a note to the FLO as the member is showing good reason for ownership and supporting your club financially . BUT my concern is the newer member that goes thro the probationary , attends regularly initially , applies for a liscence , the sec is used to support his application when the FLO rings to ask about the apllication , then once the member has his FAC he never attends .
What's that person doing with the firearm now , wheres the good reason ? And if the next Time the FLO asks is when it's renewal time , what's been happening in the interim ?

That's the one that I want to report to the FLO not the other who shoots else where , that might be seen as one rule for one and one for another but I don't see it that way , it's merely fulfilling the " good reason ". Clause . As a sec you need to be aware of what's going on and act accordingly I believe and this is not just my decision as how we do it , it's been agreed by the main body of out regular shooters who , god forbid , don't want some numpty getting a firearm and being able to retain it without good reason . Once a year drop in is nothing to maintain the need not for the sec to have to tell the police but even then I think you should still be using it else where or have a good reason .
Just mine and a few other members take on it .

[Chapuis]

It's not the club secretary's job to justify or make judgements on good reason. It is however his/her responsability to monitor and report non attendance to the Chief Constable so that he/she can make such a decision.

[Dustyman]

Not my intention to say was the secs job to decide on good reason . Apols if come over that way , badly written then , what I was trying to say was there are some circumstances where I agree there should be little attendance controls but in others I'm afraid i think there may need to be more control , especially with new members . There is a requirement to attend regularly as a probationer , so does that stop as soon as they become a full member and get a ticket ? Would we not have a almost almost a duty to monitor these newer ticket holders to see they retain the interest they showed as probationers rather than ( rather simplistically put ) them just disappearing off into the sunset with a ticket in their hand until twelve months is up and the police are informed they haven't shot for twelve months ? Police are then judging the good reason whilst we would just be voicing a concern ?

[Chapuis]

No Dustyman you put your point over quite well but perhaps my reply was a bit curt. My attitude was when supplying the information to the police was just supply the raw facts and let them sort it out. I knew perfectly well that some shooters were also members of other clubs and were shooting elsewhere but that's for them to discover. It's their system, it's what they wanted so they can do the work.

Personally I object to the intrusion, you don't have to supply information on non attendance at a golf or bowling club do you. At the same time I believe that clubs have a duty to self monitor so perhaps my attitude is rather contradictory.

[Dustyman]

I think u just worded it much better :-) thankyou , I agree . I think there's a very fine line between the two lines of thought but for most I think were would unfortunately have to lie more on the side of the police if we were honest because of the possible outcome if we were to ignore any concerns .

When I was talking to a FLO recently he was saying that because they have so little contact with ticket holders nowadays , the clubs , members and shooters are now becoming the police eyes and ears in the shooting community . They are now reliant more upon shooters themselves to monitor and advise them of any concerns . A role that I do not favour but I think we must all take some of this responsibility. He made a valid point that really the club side is less of a concern to them as it is generally well structured and monitored because of the rules associated with them but the casual shooter such as ( not specifically this is not an attack on anyone or branch of shooting ) the stalker or merry weather clay shooter . They could have little contact with anyone in the shooting community for years and have very ltd shooting time yet still have access to firearms . These people have berg legitimate reasons to shoot but how can they be monitored for good reason ? Ammo usage was a good indication of good reason but what if you reload or stalk with factory ammo , the latter might see hundred rounds used in a couple of years ! Very difficult to monitor , like i say , a fine line and a difficult one to police

[Les]

My club stipulates a minimum of 4 visits a year, which seems fair to me.

Most people applying for a FAC have to either be a member of a HO approved club, or prove that they have hunting permissions, so it seems only fair that if the club's name is to be used to apply for a FAC, then it should be used by its members on a 'regular' basis.