Shooting on private land.

[No i deer]

I live 1150yds from my nearest permission ranging it from my gunroom velux window.

[VarmLR]

11 hours ago, One on top of two said:

Thank you 👍

I just couldn’t be assed anymore 

but for the record 

I am game keeper , in fact I have been the keeper on the estate for 12 years now , and paid by the estate. 

I run it all and have a considerable financial interest in it too . 

I’m also paid by two other estates for all the crop protection  , I supply all the bird scarers / Gas guns  and bangers and cover the maintenance too . Also moving them to the vulnerable areas as and when needed , 7 days a week .
and if that does not work I will shoot the fields as per current DEFRA general license conditions. 

during lambing season I will also be doing predator control . which those that do it or have done it will know  is a full on job and with NO room for mistakes or idiots . 

at drilling times I jump on the machines and help drill , ( which is what I’m busy doing tomorrow ) 

harvest time Upto game season I’m  Nearly full time With everything going on . 
 

I also own my own land , I have stables and horses . 
 

I should be covered 👍 

I belive  the above qualifies me as  one of the so-called key workers .... your welcome 👍

Well that’s half of my income haha 😂 

as for the other half , Im a partner in small building firm with few great lads doing what we have done for the past 30 yrs  and thats farm maintenance  also one off houses , and extensions  ect ect , However being a partner affords me the luxury of just helping out as and when which in turn allows me to do what I love the most ... that would be the farm / game keeper / crop protection side of things . 

 

Yes, I was backing up your situation, not arguing against it, so apologies if it came over that way.  You are absolutely covered as are all those who undertake a similar role.  You're right too about predator control and the larger the sheep numbers lambing, the more important it becomes.   I get paid in kind to do all of the post control...my arrangement is that in exchange for helping out with the odd labouring work and pest control, I get to keep the sole shooting rights for the land and keep any deer that I shoot plus can shoot whenever I want once the pheasant season begins.  I also cover a fair amount of arable for pigeon control.  You can walk about and scare them as much as you like but unless you're there almost constantly, inevitably the numbers need to be controlled although we do follow the guidance to the letter with scaring and deterring.  The past few years, we've seen more Ravens than in decades and last year they gathered in unbelievable numbers....big birds close up!  Basically scaring them off the lambing fields is the only option.  We had a caravan at one end of a large field pretty well hidden and used to take it in turns to monitor things at the start of lambing to discover where the worst threats came from and concentrate on controlling those.  Worst thing I've witnessed was a badger coming out of the woods, grabbing a few day old lamb and starting to chew on it's back end before dragging it off.  It had cleared off with the lamb before I could get to it but we discovered the remains of the lamb a short distance away.   Those cuddly badgers did more damage than the fox that particular year.

[One on top of two]

1 hour ago, VarmLR said:

Yes, I was backing up your situation, not arguing against it, so apologies if it came over that way.  You are absolutely covered as are all those who undertake a similar role.  You're right too about predator control and the larger the sheep numbers lambing, the more important it becomes.   I get paid in kind to do all of the post control...my arrangement is that in exchange for helping out with the odd labouring work and pest control, I get to keep the sole shooting rights for the land and keep any deer that I shoot plus can shoot whenever I want once the pheasant season begins.  I also cover a fair amount of arable for pigeon control.  You can walk about and scare them as much as you like but unless you're there almost constantly, inevitably the numbers need to be controlled although we do follow the guidance to the letter with scaring and deterring.  The past few years, we've seen more Ravens than in decades and last year they gathered in unbelievable numbers....big birds close up!  Basically scaring them off the lambing fields is the only option.  We had a caravan at one end of a large field pretty well hidden and used to take it in turns to monitor things at the start of lambing to discover where the worst threats came from and concentrate on controlling those.  Worst thing I've witnessed was a badger coming out of the woods, grabbing a few day old lamb and starting to chew on it's back end before dragging it off.  It had cleared off with the lamb before I could get to it but we discovered the remains of the lamb a short distance away.   Those cuddly badgers did more damage than the fox that particular year.

Cheers varmLR .

i know you was buddy 👍 I think there  was just a spot of confusion, but we’re all good now . 
im having a nightmare out in the fields at the min , drilled crops are being dug up left right and center , had a similar problem with the rooks a couple of years Ago on the potatoes. The rooks would just walk down the furrows and pull the potatoes straight out the side . One feild alone lost 15 % of its  Expected yield due to rooks ! 
I did  get a right handle on numbers the following springtime and took out two very big rookeries And a few big bag days decoying them so the Potential damage is way down however it’s not something to ignore, it’s a sickening feeling leaving a fresh drilled field , and seeing it decimated  the following Day Or coming weeks . 
 

[VarmLR]

We had similar with crows two years back, and gave up shooting them as it didn't bag enough.  A Larsen trap was the answer and in one morning alone we must have had double figures inside the trap...probably one of most effective means of control where large numbers are concerned.  The problem with them is using outside of the pairing season ( March to June) their mates can cotton on quickly and become trap shy.  Using them early in spring I think is best as id disrupts the pairing and breeding for that year.  I've tried shotgun, rifle, scaring and the usual methods but the two I favoured most were the crow call (under cover close to a perching tree) and the Larsen trap.

Never seen as much as a 15% loss, that's quite devastating!  We have lost about 3 to 4% of one very large wheat field due to deer though.  Quite a few Roe got in and made circles to lay down to ruminate and within weeks a surprisingly large loss of crop ensued where big clumps had been randomly flattened.

[AJW7088]

8 hours ago, Avian said:

Where does it say in the legislation that it has to be a home office approved range for target shooting.  I believe it merely states on one's FAC that it has to have adequate insurance in place.

 

 

 

Hello,

Apologies if this is a little dull, and if you are aware of all of it already!

The usual FAC condition wording relating to target shooting is similar to;

The firearm(s) and ammunition shall be used for target shooting, and only whilst a member of
*club1, and only on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate
financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim.

There are some local variations to the exact wording (such as omitting the second instance of the word "only").   At the section appearing as *club1, the name of a Home Office Approved club is inserted.

Consequently you are correct in asserting that there is nothing relating to a "Home Office Approved Range" in either the condition wording or other law.  I guess you will already be well aware that the Home Office do not approve ranges anyway, and that the responsibility for their safe construction, operation and insurance against the above types of claim, is the responsibility of the range operator and the range users (depending upon agreements between them - see the HO Circular referenced below).  

The aspect of the condition wording that is sometimes not fully appreciated is the element regarding "only whilst a member of...".  This means that the FAC holder shoots on the range as a member of the HO Approved Club (the use of the word "only" at that point is sometimes clouded by the holder belonging to more than one HO Approved Club, but the fact is that the holder shoots in their capacity as a member of one of them).  The HO Approved Club is subject to separate conditions in order to maintain its Approval.  One of the conditions is that the Club must notify the Home Office and the police of all of the ranges it uses or intends to use.  The condition is usually worded;

 

IMPORTANT NOTE

The Secretary of State and the Chief Officer of police MUST be notified if:-

a.    the club loses its range(s), or intends to use an alternative or additional range; 

 

The effect is that before a club member can shoot on a new/additional range, then the club must notify the Home Office and the police (the condition wording is "intends to").  This is because the police then have a power of entry and inspection for that range (s15(7) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988).

So, if the holder of an FAC granted with the club related target shooting condition (for some if not all of the rifles held) wishes to shoot on a private range that the club has not already notified to the Home Office and police then the club must make that notification (for which a fee may now be payable). The safe construction and appropriate insurance arrangements must be in place and the FAC holder must satisfy themselves as to that.  The HO provided guidance on those subjects by way of a Circular some while ago (HO Circular 31 of 2006).  There is therefore a little more than checking the range is properly built and insured, if the FAC holder has the target shooting condition, but the basic premise is correct, the Home Office do not inspect and approve ranges.

I hope that helps,

Adrian

 

[One on top of two]

17 minutes ago, VarmLR said:

We had similar with crows two years back, and gave up shooting them as it didn't bag enough.  A Larsen trap was the answer and in one morning alone we must have had double figures inside the trap...probably one of most effective means of control where large numbers are concerned.  The problem with them is using outside of the pairing season ( March to June) their mates can cotton on quickly and become trap shy.  Using them early in spring I think is best as id disrupts the pairing and breeding for that year.  I've tried shotgun, rifle, scaring and the usual methods but the two I favoured most were the crow call (under cover close to a perching tree) and the Larsen trap.

Never seen as much as a 15% loss, that's quite devastating!  We have lost about 3 to 4% of one very large wheat field due to deer though.  Quite a few Roe got in and made circles to lay down to ruminate and within weeks a surprisingly large loss of crop ensued where big clumps had been randomly flattened.

I have always had very good results with a shotgun 👍 I don’t take a lot of prisoners ! 

Have sent you a PM 

[Popsbengo]

4 minutes ago, AJW7088 said:

The HO Approved Club is subject to separate conditions in order to maintain its Approval.  One of the conditions is that the Club must notify the Home Office and the police of all of the ranges it uses or intends to use.  The condition is usually worded;

IMPORTANT NOTE

The Secretary of State and the Chief Officer of police MUST be notified if:-

a.    the club loses its range(s), or intends to use an alternative or additional range; 

The effect is that before a club member can shoot on a new/additional range, then the club must notify the Home Office and the police (the condition wording is "intends to").  This is because the police then have a power of entry and inspection for that range (s15(7) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988).

So, if the holder of an FAC granted with the club related target shooting condition (for some if not all of the rifles held) wishes to shoot on a private range that the club has not already notified to the Home Office and police then the club must make that notification (for which a fee may now be payable). The safe construction and appropriate insurance arrangements must be in place and the FAC holder must satisfy themselves as to that.  The HO provided guidance on those subjects by way of a Circular some while ago (HO Circular 31 of 2006).  There is therefore a little more than checking the range is properly built and insured, if the FAC holder has the target shooting condition, but the basic premise is correct, the Home Office do not inspect and approve ranges.

I hope that helps,

Adrian

 

Hi Adrian

I think the interpretation of  "a.    the club loses its range(s), or intends to use an alternative or additional range; "  is not what you go onto say regarding the individual club member shooting at other ranges.

The clause you refer to is regarding the club's HO approval only.  To be an HO Approved club the club must have access to ranges and notify the FEO of the same.  This demonstrates the club has actually got somewhere to shoot.  A change of ranges or additional ranges by the club is not the same as an individual member shooting away from the club.

It does not prevent an individual club member shooting on any other suitable range within the definition.  I think if I understand you correctly you are suggesting that a club must notify the FEO of all and any ranges members wish to use?  That's not the case IMO and many people who shoot in competitions do so away from their club 'home' ranges.  For example, I may shoot at Kingsbury in a comp. but our club does not list Kingsbury anywhere as a "club" range.   This is the whole point of the Safe Shooters Card - it's a passport to prove competence.

What I think you're suggesting is also at odds with shooting at Bisley, our HO Approval does not list Bisley as a range(s) used bu our club (although it is implied by being affiliated)

Have I understood you correctly?

[Mattnall]

9 hours ago, Avian said:

Where does it say in the legislation that it has to be a home office approved range for target shooting.  I believe it merely states on one's FAC that it has to have adequate insurance in place.

The HO do not approve civilian ranges, neither the MoD nor the NRA approve civilian ranges.

From what I understand the range operator approves the ranges after taking advice and guidance from any source he deems fit (JSP403, NRA, NSRA, etc).

The condition you state seems to be more and more prevalent these days on FACs I see replacing the one that mentions Approved Ranges (not HO approved), probably reflecting the lack of MoD Approval for civilian ranges now that they don't do it.

[Popsbengo]

1 minute ago, Mattnall said:

The HO do not approve civilian ranges, neither the MoD nor the NRA approve civilian ranges.

From what I understand the range operator approves the ranges after taking advice and guidance from any source he deems fit (JSP403, NRA, NSRA, etc).

The condition you state seems to be more and more prevalent these days on FACs I see replacing the one that mentions Approved Ranges (not HO approved), probably reflecting the lack of MoD Approval for civilian ranges now that they don't do it.

This is correct.  What I do believe though is that range construction & operation will be a hot issue if tested in court,  eg the insurance company disputes the safety of the range in construction or in operation.  Some ranges I've been to would never satisfy any NRA or Military standards and the court would take a view as to the competence of the design and operation should a serious issue result in action.  IMHO it's an unholy mess created unintentionally by cost cutting in the MoD.

[justin credible]

A few years ago where I used to go beating on an estate the gamekeeper got tasked with organising a crow culling day, as part of the estate which farmed pigs was literally inundated with crows that came in from miles around to nosh on tons of pig feed every day  

The keeper set all the bale hides up on the main flight paths 3 weeks beforehand to let the crafty bstards get used to them. 

On the day of the cull, the 8 of us who were shooting got there before dawn and set up in our designated hides, the estate supplied all the cartridges and a radio to be able to call for more shells when we started to get low.

As first light appeared so did the crows and then the carnage commenced. It sounded like the Battle of the Somme all day long with continuous gunfire from all parts of the estate. It was the best days crow shooting I have ever had and one which I will never forget.

Between the 8 of us the days total was just over 3000 of them with the gamekeeper personally accounting for 700. 

Two weeks later the farm was alive with them again. 

[Avian]

21 minutes ago, AJW7088 said:

Hello,

Apologies if this is a little dull, and if you are aware of all of it already!

The usual FAC condition wording relating to target shooting is similar to;

The firearm(s) and ammunition shall be used for target shooting, and only whilst a member of
*club1, and only on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate
financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim.

There are some local variations to the exact wording (such as omitting the second instance of the word "only").   At the section appearing as *club1, the name of a Home Office Approved club is inserted.

Consequently you are correct in asserting that there is nothing relating to a "Home Office Approved Range" in either the condition wording or other law.  I guess you will already be well aware that the Home Office do not approve ranges anyway, and that the responsibility for their safe construction, operation and insurance against the above types of claim, is the responsibility of the range operator and the range users (depending upon agreements between them - see the HO Circular referenced below).  

The aspect of the condition wording that is sometimes not fully appreciated is the element regarding "only whilst a member of...".  This means that the FAC holder shoots on the range as a member of the HO Approved Club (the use of the word "only" at that point is sometimes clouded by the holder belonging to more than one HO Approved Club, but the fact is that the holder shoots in their capacity as a member of one of them).  The HO Approved Club is subject to separate conditions in order to maintain its Approval.  One of the conditions is that the Club must notify the Home Office and the police of all of the ranges it uses or intends to use.  The condition is usually worded;

 

IMPORTANT NOTE

The Secretary of State and the Chief Officer of police MUST be notified if:-

a.    the club loses its range(s), or intends to use an alternative or additional range; 

 

The effect is that before a club member can shoot on a new/additional range, then the club must notify the Home Office and the police (the condition wording is "intends to").  This is because the police then have a power of entry and inspection for that range (s15(7) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988).

So, if the holder of an FAC granted with the club related target shooting condition (for some if not all of the rifles held) wishes to shoot on a private range that the club has not already notified to the Home Office and police then the club must make that notification (for which a fee may now be payable). The safe construction and appropriate insurance arrangements must be in place and the FAC holder must satisfy themselves as to that.  The HO provided guidance on those subjects by way of a Circular some while ago (HO Circular 31 of 2006).  There is therefore a little more than checking the range is properly built and insured, if the FAC holder has the target shooting condition, but the basic premise is correct, the Home Office do not inspect and approve ranges.

I hope that helps,

Adrian

 

Thanks Adrian,

Mine used to say

"The .308 rifle, sound moderator and ammunition shall be used ONLY for target shooting on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim."

I need to check what it says now after a recent renewal as the 308 id also down for stalking and only my .338 is just for target now.

The whilst a member if a club bit would be difficult in court to enforce as use only on that clubs ranges as it does not state in your wording that the ranges have to be club ranges. 

The condition is that you can only shoot whilst a member of a club, so if your membership is current you meet that criteria and that you have insurance in place to cover injury or damage, so BASC or other insurance should cover you, no ?

So if one was a member of a club and shooting on ones own range then one would still meet the wording of the FAC condition.  If they meant it to be only on that clubs ranges surly it would state that clearly on the condition.

How do people manage if they go to a range such as the tunnel one, https://www.thetunnel.co.uk/

One does not have to be a member of their club to shoot there or arrange it through your own club.

 

[Popsbengo]

1 minute ago, Avian said:

Thanks Adrian,

Mine used to say

"The .308 rifle, sound moderator and ammunition shall be used ONLY for target shooting on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim."

I need to check what it says now after a recent renewal as the 308 id also down for stalking and only my .338 is just for target now.

The whilst a member if a club bit would be difficult in court to enforce as use only on that clubs ranges as it does not state in your wording that the ranges have to be club ranges. 

The condition is that you can only shoot whilst a member of a club, so if your membership is current you meet that criteria and that you have insurance in place to cover injury or damage, so BASC or other insurance should cover you, no ?

So if one was a member of a club and shooting on ones own range then one would still meet the wording of the FAC condition.  If they meant it to be only on that clubs ranges surly it would state that clearly on the condition.

How do people manage if they go to a range such as the tunnel one, https://www.thetunnel.co.uk/

One does not have to be a member of their club to shoot there or arrange it through your own club.

 

I believe yours is the correct interpretation

[Avian]

51 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

I believe yours is the correct interpretation

I believe it is having spoken to the guys are Orion and WMS firearms training, both of which many people use. 

If i could only be on club ranges then how does Orion and WMS firearms training operate?

This about sums it up

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/answers/legal-answers/legalities-target-shooting-private-land-104960

 

 

[AJW7088]

Hello Popsbengo and Avian,

I think your interpretation is the pragmatic one, and the approach actually likely to be accepted by the police, but I am not sure it is precisely correct. Though that may not matter in practice.

As I think you will already know, the standard condition wording derives from the need to meet the requirements of s44 Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and also to preserve the ability of the police to exercise the powers that o mentioned. It is this latter aspect that is often overlooked, including by some police forces.

The interpretation I had given is the one that gives the greatest preservation to those powers, which is why that had been my understanding, based on my previous experience. I think that your interpretation is the one that (being more pragmatic) is accepted day to day. However the reason that it is pragmatic is that ranges such as Bisley and The Tunnel (one of the locations I work at as it happens) are already notified to the Home Office and police as being used by at least one HO Approved club, so the police have their powers irrespective of how many members of other clubs then go on to use it.

The only time I have come across an issue with this aspect of interpretation has been in connection with a private range where no club made use, and the owner used it for zeroing a rifle possessed for stalking. However when a target shooter wished to make use of it too, the police asked that shooter’s club to declare it so they would have powers of access. Consequently the shooter reverted back to the other ranges already in use and did not use the “new” one. Of course this may be just an isolated case, but the interpretation I have given may be one that police could suggest at some point. 

I am not aware of any cases where a Court has had to decide if certificate conditions have been complied with, and I don’t think it would get that far if the holder liaised with their FEO from the start. I may we’ll be incorrect (and I certainly think the interpretation I have given is less likely to be encountered in practice), but it may be worth bearing in mind before a certificate holder simply goes ahead to shoot at an entirely new location not already used by another HO Approved Club.

I hope that helps?!

Thanks

Adrian

[AJW7088]

I have just read the ShootingUK article which omits to reference the s44 requirement, which is the aspect that leads to the target shooting FAC condition which includes the element of shooting “only” as a member of a HO Approved Club. It is that wording which then leads to the question about whether any range the shooter goes on to use has to have been notified to the HO and police as part of that club’s HO Approval conditions.

I think the important aspect to keep in mind on all this is that this has nothing to do with who says the range is safe and who insures it, but is solely to do with the police preserving their power to enter and inspect ranges used by HO Approved Clubs.

The power does not relate only to any ranges the club may own or have exclusive use of, because the power relates to premises which are used by the club in addition to , and distinct from, any that are occupied by the club.

 But for all practical purposes I think your interpretation is the realistic working one.

Adrian

[Avian]

Thanks Adrain,

It must be correct or they would not accept it.

There is nothing within the legislation that states that target shooting can only be on a club range

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997

section 44 states:

44.—( 1) If a chief officer of police is satisfied, on an application for the grant or renewal of a firearm certificate in relation to any rifle or muzzlec ertain firearms loading pistol which is not a prohibited weapon, that the applicant's only used for target reason for having it in his possession is to use it for target shooting, any certificate which may be granted to the applicant or, as the case may be, renewed shall be held subject to the following conditions (in addition to any other conditions), namely—

(a) the rifle or pistol is only to be used for target shooting; and

(b) the holder must be a member of an approved rifle club or, as the case may be, muzzle-loading pistol club specified in the certificate. (2) In this section, "muzzle loading pistol" means a pistol designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile).

It is of course good policy to get the FEO to check the site and state that they are happy with it.

 

David

 

 

[Avian]

8 minutes ago, AJW7088 said:

I have just read the ShootingUK article which omits to reference the s44 requirement, which is the aspect that leads to the target shooting FAC condition which includes the element of shooting “only” as a member of a HO Approved Club. It is that wording which then leads to the question about whether any range the shooter goes on to use has to have been notified to the HO and police as part of that club’s HO Approval conditions.

I think the important aspect to keep in mind on all this is that this has nothing to do with who says the range is safe and who insures it, but is solely to do with the police preserving their power to enter and inspect ranges used by HO Approved Clubs.

The power does not relate only to any ranges the club may own or have exclusive use of, because the power relates to premises which are used by the club in addition to , and distinct from, any that are occupied by the club.

 But for all practical purposes I think your interpretation is the realistic working one.

Adrian

Why do the police need powers of entry to land to check if someone is shooting safely at targets.  The safety is down to the individual as it is with stalking.  

If the FOE wanted to inspect I can hardly see and FAC holder refusing him entry as that would risk his or her FAC 

[Avian]

18 minutes ago, AJW7088 said:

I have just read the ShootingUK article which omits to reference the s44 requirement, which is the aspect that leads to the target shooting FAC condition which includes the element of shooting “only” as a member of a HO Approved Club. It is that wording which then leads to the question about whether any range the shooter goes on to use has to have been notified to the HO and police as part of that club’s HO Approval conditions.

I think the important aspect to keep in mind on all this is that this has nothing to do with who says the range is safe and who insures it, but is solely to do with the police preserving their power to enter and inspect ranges used by HO Approved Clubs.

The power does not relate only to any ranges the club may own or have exclusive use of, because the power relates to premises which are used by the club in addition to , and distinct from, any that are occupied by the club.

 But for all practical purposes I think your interpretation is the realistic working one.

Adrian

The issue is not about clubs, it is about a private individual being able to set up his or her own target range.  Therefore police entry to HO Approved clubs does nto come into it.

 

[AJW7088]

Hello David,

The s15(7) powers are not limited to checking safety aspects but cover the police generally ensuring that the limitations and conditions of the club approval are being complied with, for example that s21 declarations have been signed for a guest day. 
 

I entirely agree that a certificate holder is unlikely to object but if the owner/occupier of a private range is not actually a certificate holder or even a member of an Approved Club (however unlikely that might be in practice) then in theory that lever would not be available and so the police have a power instead.

The law does not create a category of ranges as “club ranges”, it simply relates to any premises occupied by a club (which I guess are what might colloquially be called club ranges) and any premises used by a club (such as private ranges the club hires for a day).

Hopefully I am not at cross purposes here, just trying to indicate that the law and the conditions for HO club approval may allow a little more than is usually thought?

Thanks

Adrian

[AJW7088]

“The issue is not about clubs, it is about a private individual being able to set up his or her own target range.  Therefore police entry to HOApproved clubs does nto come into it.“

The overlap with police powers in relation to HO Approved Clubs depends on the private individual’s FAC Condition wording, if the FAC holder can target shoot only as a member of a HO Approved Club.

 

[Avian]

Again you are using the term club.

 

Yes I accept that clubs must be approved.

A private individual who wishes to use a rifle for solely target shooting needs to be a member of such a club , and visit it a number of times per year.

 I fail to see however that there is any legislation that prevent him or her setting up a range, a target with a suitable backstop and have insurance in place in case of accidents etc, for his or her own use that is not on club property.
 

[Avian]

1 minute ago, AJW7088 said:

“The issue is not about clubs, it is about a private individual being able to set up his or her own target range.  Therefore police entry to HOApproved clubs does nto come into it.“

The overlap with police powers in relation to HO Approved Clubs depends on the private individual’s FAC Condition wording, if the FAC holder can target shoot only as a member of a HO Approved Club.

 

So on my .308 which had

"The .308 rifle, sound moderator and ammunition shall be used ONLY for target shooting on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim."

You agree I could shoot it on any range I set up providing it had insurance in place and a proper backstop.

I'll need to check the current wording for my .338, I've overseas at the moment

If what you are saying is correct and it can only be your won club then how do people manage to travel as individuals to other ranges and use them without breaking the law?

 

 

[AJW7088]

Yes, if your FAC condition wording did not/does not include the element that says “and only whilst a member of *club1” then the HO and police would not need to be notified of the range use (as your wording does not restrict you to target shooting as a member of a HO Approved Club only).

 

However, and this is where I think I may have been at cross purposes, the OP had not said exactly what their FAC condition says and yours appears to be different from the standard one. My points about the club notifying the use of ranges only applies to an FAC holder who has the condition wording that includes the “only whilst a member of *club1” element.

Adrian

 

 

[Popsbengo]

2 minutes ago, AJW7088 said:

Yes, if your FAC condition wording did not/does not include the element that says “and only whilst a member of *club1” then the HO and police would not need to be notified of the range use (as your wording does not restrict you to target shooting as a member of a HO Approved Club only).

 

However, and this is where I think I may have been at cross purposes, the OP had not said exactly what their FAC condition says and yours appears to be different from the standard one. My points about the club notifying the use of ranges only applies to an FAC holder who has the condition wording that includes the “only whilst a member of *club1” element.

Adrian

 

 

Adrian, do you have professional knowledge of this matter - ie are you a legal or police professional ?  It would help to understand where you're coming from.

I dispute your interpretation;  as far as I know all target shooters have the wording "only whilst a member of 'club1' etc.."   There's no problem in practice or law regarding a club member shooting at a range not notified by the member's club to the FEO provided it's a lawfully set up and operated range.

[Avian]

23 minutes ago, AJW7088 said:

Yes, if your FAC condition wording did not/does not include the element that says “and only whilst a member of *club1” then the HO and police would not need to be notified of the range use (as your wording does not restrict you to target shooting as a member of a HO Approved Club only).

 

However, and this is where I think I may have been at cross purposes, the OP had not said exactly what their FAC condition says and yours appears to be different from the standard one. My points about the club notifying the use of ranges only applies to an FAC holder who has the condition wording that includes the “only whilst a member of *club1” element.

Adrian

 

 

Hi Adrian,

I disagree with your interpretation of that wording.

The wording "Whilst a member of club XYS" is necessary since it is a condition of the act for people who solely wish to target shoot to be a member of a club:

section 44 states:

44.—( 1) If a chief officer of police is satisfied, on an application for the grant or renewal of a firearm certificate in relation to any rifle or muzzle loading firearms loading pistol which is not a prohibited weapon, that the applicant's only used for target reason for having it in his possession is to use it for target shooting, any certificate which may be granted to the applicant or, as the case may be, renewed shall be held subject to the following conditions (in addition to any other conditions), namely—

(a) the rifle or pistol is only to be used for target shooting; and

(b) the holder must be a member of an approved rifle club or, as the case may be, muzzle-loading pistol club specified in the certificate. (2) In this section, "muzzle loading pistol" means a pistol designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile).

If the intention was to only shoot at that club, or ranges approved for it's use the FAC would state clearly.

If your interpretation is correct, then most target shooters using ranges that are not at their club are breaking the law. since a lot of people go to other ranges as individuals and not as part of their club competitions and also to ranges that their club never shoots at.