varminting safety question

[gunner]

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......

So this very small single track is it used by public people/vehicles or or is the track owned by the land owner ?

 

One of my shoots is just like this and the track is owned by him the cottage in the bottom is again 200 low from one side , allot more from the other side . I have shot across and above his track / Not over the house tho , and he knows i do and hees fine with it . I would never take a risky shot , i know whatever anyone says the probably 6 shots across that valley iv taken over some time are perfectly safe . BUT if it was a public highway / road / path - its would be a definite NO - the trouble one could stir up is scary , even tho i know it would harm no one , all it would take is 1person in the right place and your in trouble !

[achosenman]

 

'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.

 

 

 

The only problem with that training BD is the thump bit is missing with moderators in use these days.

 

For those who have never had the crack of a bullet nearby, it's a remarkably non directional sound.

 

Any shot that causes alarm to a member of the public is ill advised in my book.

 

ATB

[gbal]

Gentlemen,best perhaps leave aside the issue of 'fire fight' experience,which I think makes no difference in law.Nor is it a matter of correct identification-consider the not altogether scenario where a sonic crack (eg) startles a pony on the bridlepath,and it throws it's (young) rider....in general,causing alarm to an innocent third party is enough for some action to be taken-as the laws indicates-just what would result cannot be advantageous to the shooter,and many would think that is as it should be.

 

What is this MORAL LOW GROUND that legitimises a shot that 'the moral high grounders' general agree is ill advised?

These are not my terms,but if they are to be bandied about,and not in very good grace,just what is meant?

 

One highly regarded system of moral justification is that the lowest level of morality' is to justify one's action in terms of one's personal convenience;a middle level is to justify actions in terms of what legitimate authorities allow (the law is the obvious);and the higher moral ground is to justify one's actions in terms of universal decencies (preserving human life,perhaps)

If that's too complex,the Nuremberg defendants pleaded the first two (I would have been punished if I'd disobeyed orders) but were unsuccessful.Thankfully,we are seldom presented with such serious circumstances,but the principles hold.(note the Law eg explicitly allow breaches,in extenuating circumstances-justified by the higher principles,typically.(and that is often 'common sense'-jumping a red light when there is no other traffic to get a seriously injured person to hospital,eg,though it carries some risk-if you make a mistake)

 

So,let's hear about the moral low ground here,and how it overides the so called 'moral high ground'?

I'm not against informed discussion,but conceeding the moral high ground is generally an admission of being in the wrong,as usually defined,not an argument in favour of one's selfish, self interest only position. This is NOT a 'my backstop is better than yours' scenario.There is a risk in the shot,to innocent parties,including the pony,and no corresponding general gain.

If you insist on the moral low ground,here is your question:

You see your new FLO -your renewal is due-on the public access path,observing you-do you take the shot or not,and why?

 

Just to be clear,I don't think it needs a 'moral' decision,but that is what underlies it,and if so,better to be high/right than low/wrong,don't you think?(can't see how 'not shooting' can be wrong,thou you might "get away" with shooting-not the point though).

 

atb

G

[brown dog]

 

The only problem with that training BD is the thump bit is missing with moderators in use these days.

 

For those who have never had the crack of a bullet nearby, it's a remarkably non directional sound.

 

Any shot that causes alarm to a member of the public is ill advised in my book.

 

ATB

 

Well, yes and no For eg. I'm used to shotgun noise around where I live; was quite surprised to hear HV rifle fire a month or so ago.

 

Could only hear the 'cracks' - a distinctive noise; and coming from a direction I wouldn't expect.

 

My concern was to assess the shooter's bearing of fire - to make sure it wasn't towards my property - I'm on a long flatish spur, and the shooting noise was on the same spur; therefore I knew if the shooter was taking ground shots, he's be winging ricochets along his bearing of fire. Not happy.

 

Grabbed binos, jumped in car. Zoomed down bridleway towards the 'cracks' stopping to glass on a couple of occasions. After 1.2km, spotted the shooter; zeroing a moderated centrefire into a haystack - and not firing towards my house.

 

Happy; but there was no difficulty being aware of and subsequently locating him based on supersonic crack alone.

 

Gentlemen,best perhaps leave aside the issue of 'fire fight' experience,which I think makes no difference in law.Nor is it a matter of correct identification-consider the not altogether scenario where a sonic crack (eg) startles a pony on the bridlepath,and it throws it's (young) rider....in general,causing alarm to an innocent third party is enough for some action to be taken-as the laws indicates-just what would result cannot be advantageous to the shooter,and many would think that is as it should be.

 

What is this MORAL LOW GROUND that legitimises a shot that 'the moral high grounders' general agree is ill advised?

These are not my terms,but if they are to be bandied about,and not in very good grace,just what is meant?

 

One highly regarded system of moral justification is that the lowest level of morality' is to justify one's action in terms of one's personal convenience;a middle level is to justify actions in terms of what legitimate authorities allow (the law is the obvious);and the higher moral ground is to justify one's actions in terms of universal decencies (preserving human life,perhaps)

If that's too complex,the Nuremberg defendants pleaded the first two (I would have been punished if I'd disobeyed orders) but were unsuccessful.Thankfully,we are seldom presented with such serious circumstances,but the principles hold.(note the Law eg explicitly allow breaches,in extenuating circumstances-justified by the higher principles,typically.(and that is often 'common sense'-jumping a red light when there is no other traffic to get a seriously injured person to hospital,eg,though it carries some risk-if you make a mistake)

 

So,let's hear about the moral low ground here,and how it overides the so called 'moral high ground'?

I'm not against informed discussion,but conceeding the moral high ground is generally an admission of being in the wrong,as usually defined,not an argument in favour of one's selfish, self interest only position. This is NOT a 'my backstop is better than yours' scenario.There is a risk in the shot,to innocent parties,including the pony,and no corresponding general gain.

 

If you insist on the moral low ground,here is your question:

You see your new FLO -your renewal is due-on the public access path,observing you-do you take the shot or not,and why?

 

 

Absolutely.

 

Great last line 'test' too.

[joshmartin8]

these last few in deep comments is how i like a discussion and points of view to be held, very good opinions of what you should think before taking the shot, especially if your FLO was stood there would you take the shot (altho perfectly safe, the moral wrong of shooting over a track/road would not be deemed safe by the court or a passer by who had some knowledge of HV rifles/bullet crack) on this note alone for the sake of varminting/quarry it is not worth it, my decision is made and confirmed, thanks guys.