Jump to content

Shooting entitlement for a non-license holder.


arko
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wanted to know if when I am out on land where I am Permitted to shoot, is my wife allowed to shoot my gun?. My insurance covers myself. My wife has no insurance. Here is a quote I found........ does the license holder mean me in this instance?

"Can I Borrow a Shotgun?
A non certificate holder may use a shotgun in the following circumstances:
He may borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private land and use it on that land in the occupier’s presence. For a borrower under 18 years old, the occupier must be over 18 years old.
Whilst at a shooting ground approved by the police for shooting at artificial targets only.
Note that “occupier” is not defined by the Firearms Act 1968 but may be taken to include the owner, tenant or licence holder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it (and my feo, he's happy for my son to use my .243) yes! there is also a bit about a servant of the which would be you as you have permission to shoot on that ground. But because as far as i know it has never been tested in a court who knows.

English definition of “occupier”

someone who lives or works in a particular room, building, or piece of land, or someone who is using it:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it (and my feo, he's happy for my son to use my .243) yes! there is also a bit about a servant of the which would be you as you have permission to shoot on that ground. But because as far as i know it has never been tested in a court who knows.

English definition of “occupier”

someone who lives or works in a particular room, building, or piece of land, or someone who is using it:

I'm not 100% certain without checking, but I am pretty sure that the 'servant' bit is only mentioned in the same question regarding rifles. Paradoxically, it can actually be easier to borrow a rifle than a shotgun - which is the gun this post refers to. You don't mention whether or not your son has a FAC, but either way, see if you can get the FEO to put it in writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes my son has got a fac but not got a .243 on it or slaughtering instrument (humane killer) but when i asked about him using or more importantly being in possession of them (holding on to) well i sorted out the animal to be shot if need be i was told it was all ok. With out looking through the fire arms act checking what the OP has posted sounds close to what is in it the important word is occupier and as the dictionary definition in first post if you are using the piece of land you are "the occupier".

 

A magistrate I know said one of the best law books you could get is a dictionary because not all law makers/writers can spell or know the definition of the words they use or use the words that fit the definition they wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next time i see him i will put this question to him, his a shooting man so will probably know of the top of his head if there is an answer.

As with all laws until its tested no one knows the answer.

Edited by bluesj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a similar question a while back regarding a shotgun and the answer (for West Mercia at least) I got was that if I only have permission to shoot on private land then I cannot let someone else without a license have a shot with my gun.

 

I think a lot comes down to interpretaion of the law. It is probably best you talk to your local FEO first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a legal professional and my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

This is the link I think the OP is on about so it does say licence holder but it is badly worded it should say shooting rights not licence holder.

 

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/ca/article/faqs

 

“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” in relation to any land, other than the foreshore, includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish. “

 

Now before anyone say their permission is the same as shooting rights :-

 

One of the following is true:-

 

The landowner solely controls who can or cannot shoot and when.

The occupier solely controls who can or cannot shoot and when.

If you have the shooting or hunting rights you control who can or cannot shoot and when.

 

If you have a permission slip then one of the above gave it you so you will not be considered an occupier. You also have no control whatsoever on who can or cannot shoot and when, only one of the above listed can do that so it is not classed as a ‘right’ in a legal definition, as a right cannot be taken away from you.

 

Sporting rights are automatically owned as part of the land unless they are specifically separated from it, once separated they are treated like property and can be owned, sold, given or leased. You certainly cannot not sell your permission slip on.

 

Also if the farmer is just the occupier and not the land owner he could not give you the shooting rights in the first place. The same might also apply to the land owner if he is not the occupier and rents the land out as unless the rights were separated before he rents them out the famer will automatically have them in the lease.

 

Just because occupier is not defined in law doesn’t mean a get out of jail card on a tenuous link to the word right or occupier. If the right you have is enforceable you should be covered if not then you are running a very big risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mods,

 

Would it not pay to have this highly repetitive topic pinned using the reference in Dekers' Post of 24/3/2011 in the 'Other Types of Shooting - Vermin Control' sub-forum? This covers shotguns and rifles.

 

Due to their concerns ACPO FELW are, at this moment in time, waiting for the Home Office to come up with a definition that is not open to misinterpretation. Until then, one must go with their previously held interpretation that an occupier is someone who has an interest in the land that is enforceable in law (ie. own the land or own/lease the shooting rights by a legally binding contract).

Edited by CharlieT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mods,

 

Would it not pay to have this highly repetitive topic pinned using the reference in Dekers' Post of 24/3/2011 in the 'Other Types of Shooting - Vermin Control' sub-forum? This covers shotguns and rifles.

I've just searched for this, and can't find it - anyone have a link, please? :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, no. Purely out of interest, can you possibly post the reference for that info'?

It came fro a snippet off the shootinguk website. I will see if I can find the whole thing and post it. And thanks for the comments guys. Dont know which way to turn so will just tell her to sod off and get her own license and insurance and consent to shoot on the land! hahahahaha. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Due to their concerns ACPO FELW are, at this moment in time, waiting for the Home Office to come up with a definition that is not open to misinterpretation. Until then, one must go with their previously held interpretation that an occupier is someone who has an interest in the land that is enforceable in law (ie. own the land or own/lease the shooting rights by a legally binding contract).

Thanks, Charlie. To me, it seems that the existing interpretation is perfectly adequate but just needs putting in writing within the Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It came fro a snippet off the shootinguk website. I will see if I can find the whole thing and post it. And thanks for the comments guys. Dont know which way to turn so will just tell her to sod off and get her own license and insurance and consent to shoot on the land! hahahahaha. )

Thanks. I asked because all was well until the last few words. The source would appear to be the CA and an eminently sensible suggestion by another member suggests that 'licence' and 'rights' were unfortunately confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...