Tiff Posted February 24, 2013 Report Share Posted February 24, 2013 So far I've only invited insured open ticket fac holders shooting on my permissions, be it zeroing or stalking. I've received many requests from non-FAC holders (like my relatives) whom would like to have a go. However I'm beyond confused as to whether this is possible or not! The H.O. Guidance 2002 referring to non-fac holders shooting states: 'section 6.16 of the 1988 act enables a person to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of the occupier or their servant.....' & 'the effect of this provision is to allow a person visiting a private estate to borrow and use a rifle without a certificate.' Further on it states: 'A borrowed rifle should not be specifically identified as such on a "keeper's" or "landowner's" firearm certificate.' Therefore I presume the ocuppier IS the landowner and thus I cannot let other people shoot my rifle on land that I have sporting rights to? And then of course there is no legal definition of 'occupier' and I found this also in the guidance: 'The term occupier is not defined in the Firearms Acts, nor has a Court clarified its meaning. However, the Firearms Consultative Committee in their 5th Annual report recommended that the provisions of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted. This states that occupier inrelation to any land, other than the foreshore, includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish.' As ever, any ideas greatly appreciated, Tiff N.b. I forgot to add the exact wording of the act below: 'Borrowed rifles on private premises. (1)A person of or over the age of seventeen may, without holding a firearm certificate, borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the presence either of the occupier or of a servant of the occupier if (a)the occupier or servant in whose presence it is used holds a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle; and (b)the borrowers possession and use of it complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate. (2)A person who by virtue of subsection (1) above is entitled without holding a firearm certificate to borrow and use a rifle in another persons presence may also, without holding such a certificate, purchase or acquire ammunition for use in the rifle and have it in his possession during the period for which the rifle is borrowed if (a)the firearm certificate held by that other person authorises the holder to have in his possession at that time ammunition for the rifle of a quantity not less than that purchased or acquired by, and in the possession of, the borrower; and (b)the borrowers possession and use of the ammunition complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtb Posted February 24, 2013 Report Share Posted February 24, 2013 if i was you mate id run it by your flo just to be sure then at least you would have your local police forces veiw personally i would have thought as long as you were there supervising it wouldnt be a problem but it wouldnt be the first time ive been wrong just ask the wife lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted February 24, 2013 Report Share Posted February 24, 2013 I would suggest a call to SACS or BACS and get a legal view on it as an FLO is no lawyer and his 'opinion' will not stand up in court if god forbid something should go wrong ifd a none FAC holder does something wrong on your permission Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiff Posted February 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2013 Double post.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiff Posted February 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2013 Mtb I almost admire your faith in the flo's or police firearms departments, but to be honest that is almost the last place I would ask for a definative answer..... I'm not BASC, but am with CA - I don't think they have much of a firearms department (although would be pleased to find it otherwise when I call in the morning). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Mtb I almost admire your faith in the flo's or police firearms departments, but to be honest that is almost the last place I would ask for a definative answer..... I'm not BASC, but am with CA - I don't think they have much of a firearms department (although would be pleased to find it otherwise when I call in the morning). The issue is to comply with the law-or it's likely interpretation-what anyone thinks of FL0 etc is irrelevant-you act not in accordance with their view at your peril. BASC Firearms Dept is the first port of call for members.Experienced,understanding ,fair and know the law. The 'prudent man' also asks for his FLO's position on this,in writing. FLO and BASC might talk to each other. If you act in a way that goes against FLO you can expect a comeback and it might be serious indeed.You will need legal council,and may lose,but it won't be a pleasant experience either way. The issue is not wheher one agres with the law etc,but to have been seen to act prudently and take relevant advice so as to comply with it.There just isn't an alternative.Nor is there usually any reason to consider it a priori unfair. A simple way to think of it is-suppose a lawful authority challenges you on any issue-are you in a better position if you have followed FLO advice,or disregarded or not even sought it?Even if the law is sometimes neccessarily complex,it is not deliberately bloody minded.But it is the law. george PS I'd be surprised if the CA say anything different,though they have little status vis a vis the interpretation of firearms law. BASC have earned more respect,at least,and are more importantly,geared up to deal with such issues in a professional and courteous manner,usually reciprocated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiff Posted February 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hi gbal, the point I was making is that if I ask ten flo's for an answer, in my experience I'd expect at least ten different answers.... I was hoping someone knew of a definative answer (i.e. court ruling) - I just don't understand how there can be a grey area surrounding a simple firearms issue? I'm guessing most people that sell stalking days to non fac holder's, don't use the farmers rifle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rem700 Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 as far as ime aware [presence of the occupier or their servant.....'] means the FAC holder that has permission on that land and the chap that is borrowing your gun is within ear shot and sight of you [and if there not experienced then DONT LEAVE THERE SIDE this is what my FLO told me a few years back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6.5Grendel Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 I think you're covered under the 'or their servant' as you are acting for the landowner / occupier with the releveant licence and permissions. If a stalker is acting on behalf of the estate to cull deer then he can allow non fac holders to use his rifle for that purpose 'within sight and sound' of the fac holder Not sure where you stand on someone just 'having a go' at zeroing on targets Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSG Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 I also think you are OK. You could reasonably check zero and establish shooting ability however continued shooting, (competition or practice may be an issue). I have not seen any cases surrounding this that are recent however there are a few Anti-Piracy companies who use this option for training. This is stretching it a bit so I suspect this is where we will see a case taken to court. There is no mention of prohibited persons either, so I would get a signed declaration rom somebody who is not known to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hi gbal, the point I was making is that if I ask ten flo's for an answer, in my experience I'd expect at least ten different answers.... I was hoping someone knew of a definative answer (i.e. court ruling) - I just don't understand how there can be a grey area surrounding a simple firearms issue? I'm guessing most people that sell stalking days to non fac holder's, don't use the farmers rifle? Hi Tiff, Not in any way personal-it seems to me that if you are in compliance with your FLO's writen instruction you are in a much better position,and if that is consistent with BASC firearms advice,so much the better. otherwide,if you get it wrong-and good luck with the legalities of some firearms law/guidance-you will be deemed not to have been prudent,or taken reasonable care...that will not help you! I imagine your 'asking ten differnet FLOs ' is not based on actual experience.I would not be surpprised if there were some differences of interpretation between FLOs-all the more reason to be aware of the advice of the one who issues your FAC.They may not all be correct,but you may be held accountable-in which case,compliance is way ahead of non-compliance.This specific isssue isn't that simple,as multiple other persons may be involved,with or wothout FAC;the 'farmer' may or not own the land/have sporting rights/ etc- see the thread,but see also 'old barrels' .. or 'deer legal/not hollow point bullets' What may look 'simple' to the non expert,is often much less so-the devil is in the detail-and it is genuinely difficult for the 'law' to cover every possible circumstance specifically,so there is sometimes 'interpretation'-and some interpretations may not stand full legal scrutiny,but the prudent man minimises the risk-get the FLO and BASC reading from the same page ... george Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiff Posted February 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hi George, no worries not taken personally at all. As for the ten FLO's comment, with D&C it is very much based on experience unfortunately. I could write a book on the number of variations on advice and mistakes I've seen them make. Heck I even have a 2 page letter from a senior officer stating range danger areas (including aerial ones) apply to deer stalking ground..... Hence why I was asking on here if there was a bit of relevant legislation I could have in hand when I talk to the FLO's - since I've learnt it is a lot easier to have the correct information to hand before I speak to them.... I have spoken to the CA and they have confirmed that in their interpretation if I'm employed by the landowner I can use my own rifle (i.e. where I'm the gamekeeper). However where I just have the sporting rights it's more gray......it could be argued (as it is with rabbits) that keeping the deer in lieu of cash payment is still employment - but it is grey. As I mentioned before, there are plenty of people selling stalking or even places like WMS that do firearms training that only have the shooting rights (i.e. not employed by the landowner as such), so I really don't see how it can be illegal - but equally don't want to find myself a test case - since it looks like it hasn't been tested in court yet! Still just about as confused as before really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hi George, no worries not taken personally at all. As for the ten FLO's comment, with D&C it is very much based on experience unfortunately. I could write a book on the number of variations on advice and mistakes I've seen them make. Heck I even have a 2 page letter from a senior officer stating range danger areas (including aerial ones) apply to deer stalking ground..... Hence why I was asking on here if there was a bit of relevant legislation I could have in hand when I talk to the FLO's - since I've learnt it is a lot easier to have the correct information to hand before I speak to them.... I have spoken to the CA and they have confirmed that in their interpretation if I'm employed by the landowner I can use my own rifle (i.e. where I'm the gamekeeper). However where I just have the sporting rights it's more gray......it could be argued (as it is with rabbits) that keeping the deer in lieu of cash payment is still employment - but it is grey. As I mentioned before, there are plenty of people selling stalking or even places like WMS that do firearms training that only have the shooting rights (i.e. not employed by the landowner as such), so I really don't see how it can be illegal - but equally don't want to find myself a test case - since it looks like it hasn't been tested in court yet! Still just about as confused as before really! 10 shades of grey ?! Can't see it being a best seller,but what is common practice isn't quite what is law.As you note,better safer than sorrier.Just a general position, "without prejudice"! george Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 10 shades of grey ?! Can't see it being a best seller,but what is common practice isn't quite what is law.As you note,better safer than sorrier.Just a general position, "without prejudice"!george PS "D&C" are they the region that "approve" the Bicton College safety course ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiff Posted February 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 PS "D&C" are they the region that "approve" the Bicton College safety course ? Oh yes....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hancock Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Tiff. Mike Eveleigh at BASC is your man. 01244 573 000. Get the response from him in writing. As we know, each force has a different interpretation. "In the presence of" is a worry as we all know. Several people want to come out with me when I'm shooting and 99% of the time I just find it easier to politely say no. It was bad enought the other week with a lady walking her dog through the pig arcs at duck the other evening !!!! All the best. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryh Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Tiff, FYI been through D&C's licensing when asking about my son using my rifles over land i've a short practice range. They're answer was 'yes OK if you've the shooting rights etc. As I've not set up anything yet I was going to get it in writing before letting him shoot. As to worries about exact letter of the law I've discussed this with our legal eagle and in his opinion if you've a letter from the Police Firearms licensing dept. (who issue your FAC with all its terms and conditions) stating it's specifically OK the CPA would be on pretty shaky ground trying to prosecute. It is down to your own judgement and responsability. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.