varminting safety question

[joshmartin8]

hi guys, i would like peoples opinion and if anybody knows the exact state of play with the laws in this area,

 

Situation......... a rural village with a very nice valley for long range varminting, I currently shoot on both sides of the valley and both sides are clear by the FLO, one thing i have never considered is shooting from one side to the other for long range varminting after seeing a fox on the other side the other day.

The valley sides are vary steep then level out, There is a very small single track road in between the two sides right in the lowest part of the valley. it has very high hedges and cannot really be seen, if you drew a strait line across the valley (line of shot) the road is about 150-200y below so no where near line of sight, safe in my eyes but do not want to risk incase.

 

is it legal to shoot over a road that is in this sort of position, the only laws i can find is that your are not aloud to shoot on or within 55ft of a public road,and the only other thing i can find is referring to game shoots and it states it is not illegal unless it becomes an issue from someone or causes distress ( but this doesn't make sense to me as its legal Until someone complains) that doesn't make sense, please help guys......

[andybrock]

hi guys, i would like peoples opinion and if anybody knows the exact state of play with the laws in this area,

 

Situation......... a rural village with a very nice valley for long range varminting, I currently shoot on both sides of the valley and both sides are clear by the FLO, one thing i have never considered is shooting from one side to the other for long range varminting after seeing a fox on the other side the other day.

The valley sides are vary steep then level out, There is a very small single track road in between the two sides right in the lowest part of the valley. it has very high hedges and cannot really be seen, if you drew a strait line across the valley (line of shot) the road is about 150-200y below so no where near line of sight, safe in my eyes but do not want to risk incase.

 

is it legal to shoot over a road that is in this sort of position, the only laws i can find is that your are not aloud to shoot on or within 55ft of a public road,and the only other thing i can find is referring to game shoots and it states it is not illegal unless it becomes an issue from someone or causes distress ( but this doesn't make sense to me as its legal Until someone complains) that doesn't make sense, please help guys......

Personally I would never shoot over a road, I also think it will be illegal as your bullet will leave your permission as it passes over the road!

[Gandy]

There is a very small single track road in between the two sides right in the lowest part of the valley. it has very high hedges and cannot really be seen, if you drew a strait line across the valley (line of shot) the road is about 150-200y below so no where near line of sight, safe in my eyes but do not want to risk in case.

 

Josh i think you have answered your own question (highlighted in bold), how would you answer if your FLO asked?

[1967spud]

you are not allowed to shoot over a public road or footpath and to just slightly correct you on another point in a non sarcastic way you are not allowed to shoot with in 50 feet approx 17 yards of the centre (not the edge) of a public highway or footpath

[Swamp Donkey]

you are not allowed to shoot over a public road or footpath and to just slightly correct you on another point in a non sarcastic way you are not allowed to shoot with in 50 feet approx 17 yards of the centre (not the edge) of a public highway or footpath

Just to slightly correct you,

It's highway, as in suitable for veicles, footpaths or bridleways are not affected.

[The_Dogge]

With respect, I do wish people wouldn't post their opinion as if it were law!

 

Generally, if you can't provide a reference, it's not helpful advice. Actually I think it is legal, with caveats.

 

The "50 foot rule" has been misquoted too, the law on shooting within 50 feet of the carriageway (Note carriageway, public footpaths do not count!) is that it is legal so long as it does not cause "any user of the highway to be injured, interrupted or endangered". It was also established in case law by a pigeon shooter who was arrested and charged that alarming only the arresting officer did not constitute the offence.

 

 

From a handy league against cruel sports leftlet (LoL!) "It is not an offence in itself to shoot across a public highway, but to do so may amount to common law nuisance (which is a civil wrong) or intimidation or harassment (which is a criminal offence), according to the circumstances."

Ref: http://www.nwhsa.org.uk/Troubled%20by%20the%20shoot.pdf

If nobody notices, then it is not an offence, wierd, but that's the law, it doesn't have to make sense.

[andybrock]

Perhaps just to shoot a fox it ain't worth the potential hassle?

[abolter]

another thing is that the projectile can only commit a civil offence of trespass, as allueded to above. So your bullet would be trespassing when it crossed the road (hence the LACS civil comment) but no one ever pursues civil cases (almost), the police could not pursue that. After that its like any other shot, if it goes wrong you are in a world of pain.

[Wiltshire Boy]

Use the law of common sense as should always be applied.

 

'is it sensible to shoot over a public highway bounded by tall hedges where any highway users may not be seen?'

 

The answer is absolutely not.

 

I would argue that the legal semantics are irrelevant it's just not a sensible thing to do on any number of levels.

 

Cheers

Rich

[abolter]

the OP reckons the shot is 200m ABOVE the road. I would consider it perfectly safe to fire my rifle 200m from buildings just not towards them. His point is exactly the semantics of a bullet passing through "public" airspace.

[Jamie]

With respect, I do wish people wouldn't post their opinion as if it were law!

 

Generally, if you can't provide a reference, it's not helpful advice. Actually I think it is legal, with caveats.

 

The "50 foot rule" has been misquoted too, the law on shooting within 50 feet of the carriageway (Note carriageway, public footpaths do not count!) is that it is legal so long as it does not cause "any user of the highway to be injured, interrupted or endangered". It was also established in case law by a pigeon shooter who was arrested and charged that alarming only the arresting officer did not constitute the offence.

 

 

From a handy league against cruel sports leftlet (LoL!) "It is not an offence in itself to shoot across a public highway, but to do so may amount to common law nuisance (which is a civil wrong) or intimidation or harassment (which is a criminal offence), according to the circumstances."

Ref: http://www.nwhsa.org.uk/Troubled%20by%20the%20shoot.pdf

If nobody notices, then it is not an offence, wierd, but that's the law, it doesn't have to make sense.

As per highlighted, after serving as a Police Office for many years, a high percentage of laws were made many years ago, and should have no real bearing on "modern" life. In fact when I was a sprog PC in 1990, some of the laws taught in class, (more for amusement) had all of us in stitches!! Yet on occasions they are used!!

In "real world" situations most, (Not all!) "shooters" will have the common sense to know whether to take a shot or not.

Lets face it, even if a particular shot is "legal" to take, regardless of where it might be, some of us may still want to air on the side of caution....

Jamie

Jamie

[joshmartin8]

With respect, I do wish people wouldn't post their opinion as if it were law!

 

Generally, if you can't provide a reference, it's not helpful advice. Actually I think it is legal, with caveats.

 

The "50 foot rule" has been misquoted too, the law on shooting within 50 feet of the carriageway (Note carriageway, public footpaths do not count!) is that it is legal so long as it does not cause "any user of the highway to be injured, interrupted or endangered". It was also established in case law by a pigeon shooter who was arrested and charged that alarming only the arresting officer did not constitute the offence.

 

 

From a handy league against cruel sports leftlet (LoL!) "It is not an offence in itself to shoot across a public highway, but to do so may amount to common law nuisance (which is a civil wrong) or intimidation or harassment (which is a criminal offence), according to the circumstances."

Ref: http://www.nwhsa.org.uk/Troubled%20by%20the%20shoot.pdf

If nobody notices, then it is not an offence, wierd, but that's the law, it doesn't have to make sense.

 

 

 

 

​That was where i got it from mate it doesn't make sense, it is not an offence to do the act until it causes intimidates/nuisance....so it would be perfectly legal until mr Joe public is walking the road and doesn't like the noise of the shot.........

 

And also like one guy said the OP did state its a very long way down to the road so the angle of shot is horizontal and the road itself is of great angle downwards, not possible for a miss shot,

 

As I'm sure you would agree you would be happy to take a shoot at an animal that was in a field with a great backstop BUT there was a lane running among side the field that your shooting in.

Like one member stated 100%of us would like to hope we are all competent and safe shooters and don't dream of ever taking a shot till we deem it safe to do so,

 

Any more views please guys i like this topic,good debate

 

[abolter]

^^ agreed in so much as every shot requires a decision on safety

[Wiltshire Boy]

the OP reckons the shot is 200m ABOVE the road. I would consider it perfectly safe to fire my rifle 200m from buildings just not towards them. His point is exactly the semantics of a bullet passing through "public" airspace.

 

I certainly wouldn't fire a rifle over a building which is what you are seeming to say is safe (even at 200 m).

 

In the strictest legal terms the shot would be legal provided no one was injured, interrupted or endangered, causes a nuisance or whatever. Given that the OP has said the lane itself has thick hedges either side that you can't see through how would you possibly know whether that is likely to be the case.

If I were walking down a road and heard a rifle shot crack over my head I would certainly consider myself interrupted at the very least!

 

^^ agreed in so much as every shot requires a decision on safety

 

This was the point I was trying to make.

 

Cheers

 

Rich

[abolter]

no I meant that we routinely take shots ALONGSIDE buildings roads etc. 200m of air is a lot in any plane.

 

Unfortunately you can never tell how a member of the public will react to the sound of a shot anywhere.

[dylan5588]

If the shot is taken from 150-200 yds above the road then it is not a legal question as it is more than the 50 ft that the law requires, Surely it is purely a personal choice of whether one decides if the shot is safe to take? personally i dont think i would be tempted. but then who am i to judge on a firing position i have not seen first hand?

Adrian

[justin credible]

Wiltshire Boy

I certainly wouldn't fire a rifle over a building which is what you are seeming to say is safe (even at 200 m), was your quote.

Have you never shot a pigeon off your chimney or TV aerial?

[Wiltshire Boy]

not with a centre fire or rim fire either for that matter. If you are you seriously suggesting shooting a pigeon off the top of your house with a centre fire rifle is safe you need your head read.

[happyhunter]

Hopefully common sense will prevail here....

[justin credible]

not with a centre fire or rim fire either for that matter. If you are you seriously suggesting shooting a pigeon off the top of your house with a centre fire rifle is safe you need your head read.

I don't think I mentioned rim fire or centrefire for that matter, I merely asked a question, but really would have thought an air rifle was more appropriate for the task.

Rim fire and centrefire would be far too dangerous to use, unless of course you knew the exact range and windage.

[brown dog]

As some have pointed out, 'legal' and 'common sense' are not the same thing.

 

I have a great friend who, whenever he has to make a work decision that is risky; tests it by explaining why he made the decision by speaking out loud and starting the explanation with the words "Your Honour,....." to see how it would sound if he had to explain the decision in court.

 

 

I think that's an excellent test.

 

To see how it sounds, explain out loud to yourself or to your wife, why you shot over a road

 

"Your Honour, I shot over the road because..."

 

 

 

 

 

How likely is court? Take common sense a stage further:

 

I'm a shooter, but if I was on a road, path, bridleway, whatever and I heard the supersonic crack of a bullet passing over or even near me, I would be on the phone to plod in zero seconds flat.

 

 

But court's just the test for people without the moral compass to work out for themselves, that shooting over a road is just a plain, solidly bone and stupid thing to do.

[Foxshooter]

I would be interested to know whether someone walking along said road and positioned just for the sake of it directly under the path of the crossing bullet could determine what it was and the direction in which it was travelling (parallel to or crossing their path). If the shooter or the intended target whatever their location cannot be clearly seen and identified as such would it not be just another countryside noise. At a distance of a hundred yards or more the noise would be somewhat different that that you would hear while pulling targets in the butts on a range

 

Taking aside any legal implications or otherwise it would be an interesting test to conduct with a friend, positioned with the aid of a mobile phone.

 

On a different track, pursuit of an injured target requiring a follow up shot would be a lot more difficult.

 

Mark

[gbal]

I generally think the law does a pretty good job-it's an enlightening experience to try to write better ones-though it cannot anticipate every possible nuance in the real world.The 'discharging a firearm near a highway' was probably intended to cover the much more likely situation with shotgun shooting,not rifles;there is probably therefore some lack of complete transparency in how it applies to overhead missiles,as in the original post.That does not mean it does not apply-in any case,safety is over-riding,legally and common sense.

 

I'm with BD on this..I do like the 'justify aloud to the court' test ("I thought it was OK " just won't do)-so here is another test:

 

Ask yourself,what would a careless,trigger happy,fail to see the big picture,thoughtless person with a do here?

And what would a conscientious,safety is top priority,trustworthy shooter do?

 

...is the correct answer.

 

Since we started with shotgun and game shooting,the famous lines of advice,father to son,seem to apply:

 

'All the pheasants ever bred

Are not worth one man dead"

 

and I think it applies to "any other legitimate quarry".(mutatis mutandis-you may be in court,remember-for 'pheasant' read 'fox').

 

If you don't care for that,the shot,in more modern management speak,simply fails the cost/benefit analysis-and applying the suggested tests should convince anyone who isn't a careless,trigger happy etc etc.

 

Gbal

[brown dog]

I would be interested to know whether someone walking along said road and positioned just for the sake of it directly under the path of the crossing bullet could determine what it was and the direction in which it was travelling (parallel to or crossing their path). If the shooter or the intended target whatever their location cannot be clearly seen and identified as such would it not be just another countryside noise. At a distance of a hundred yards or more the noise would be somewhat different that that you would hear while pulling targets in the butts on a range

 

'Crack' and 'thump' training will be familiar to anyone who served in NI; it's very hard to locate the shooter; but it's doable. And, in a vastly easier environment where you're not having to take cover, and can wander with a pair of binos, it's easy. I'm sure most of us have heard shooting in the countryside and used binos to easily locate the shooters.

 

'Another country noise' - the crack of a bullet is not 'another country noise' to anyone who's served on a two way range. Such people will know exactly what I mean.

 

Over or parallel? - who cares, either is too close. If some untrained & unqualified individual (ie in H&S legal terms, not a competent individual) thinks they can make close-call safety decisions with a lethal system being operated close to me and my family; well, they will be educated otherwise and I would go out of my way to bring in plod in the hope that, at the very least, they lost their FAC.

[Foxshooter]

God forbid anyone using a firearm in audible range of you then. You must be on first name terms with the local plod switchboard You always have to run up to the moral high ground, other opinions need not apply.