Punt Gun Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Last year I was out walking and met a gent shooting, got chatting and this was the start to my new sport. I didn't have a licence or gun, but was able to go out with him and use one of his spares. I am told that this situation was acceptable because he has the shooting rights to the land that was shot. Debate:- Say he lost his licence or voluntarily gave it up would I be able to put his guns on my licence and supervise him shooting on the land that he has the shooting rights on, or would I have to be the land owner, or have the shooting rights before I could take him out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakerboy Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) Last year I was out walking and met a gent shooting, got chatting and this was the start to my new sport. I didn't have a licence or gun, but was able to go out with him and use one of his spares. I am told that this situation was acceptable because he has the shooting rights to the land that was shot. Debate:- Say he lost his licence or voluntarily gave it up would I be able to put his guns on my licence and supervise him shooting on the land that he has the shooting rights on, or would I have to be the land owner, or have the shooting rights before I could take him out? as I understand you have to be the occupier of the land. Now that does not mean you have to be the owner or tenant,but the person who shoots on that land with the consent of the Landowner/tenant. In my case the Tenant does not hold and does not want a Shotgun certificate, I have been granted the right to shoot on said land. The rest is as the law decrees, within sight/earshot/or company (not sure of the exact wording) of the Landowner/Tenant/occupier. This was confirmed to me only last week by my FEO. Hertfordshire. bakerboy ps I do not mind being corrected in any of the areas, I may have to go back for clarification if it looks like I am completely wrong, but I think it is one of those gray areas. Edited November 2, 2010 by bakerboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 my flo said, when i asked him if i could take a mate out with out a licence,he said only if i owned the land, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakerboy Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 my flo said, when i asked him if i could take a mate out with out a licence,he said only if i owned the land, It's all in the wording, Tenants do not own the land, and how many tenant farmers do we shoot for? The twist is in the word the "occupier". The occupier being the person with the permissable shooting rights. More clarification, where is David from BASC ?? bakerboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 They have repeatedly failed to produce any firm definition of the word 'occupier'. This is included in the formal police guidance: '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’. In the absence of any firm definition for firearms purposes, it is suggested that each chief officer of police may wish to make use of this definition.' If this definition were applied, anyone with 'permission' should legally be able to supervise a non-certificate holder on this permission. HOWEVER, this definition has not been tested in court so it is still a grey area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 The trouble is that guidelines are just that. They carry no more weight in law than a post on here. The point is that if you act sensibly and do not draw attention to yourself nobody is going to ever know or worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyb Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 If he lost it, then I'm sure there is a section of the law which prohibits him from using any form of firearm in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Bakerboy, no point in requesting a BASC response as they cannot give a proper one, we've been there and done that a few times, occupier hasn't been tested as to whether it includes people with permission to shoot. The fact it hasn't been tested says rather a lot that common sense is applied, fundamentally I doubt many people here haven't shot on land they didn't own with someone elses gun before they got their ticket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Its a good point to have some clarification on though because a similar scenario exists where Dad proudly takes young son on his first shooting trip having acquired on his own licence, a 410 say for son to shoot with. Obviously son has no licence, Dad does and is shooting on Farmers land with permission. Common sense would say that no-one would bat an eyelid but it only takes one to complain and a whole canful of worms could be opened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Its a good point to have some clarification on though because a similar scenario exists where Dad proudly takes young son on his first shooting trip having acquired on his own licence, a 410 say for son to shoot with. Obviously son has no licence, Dad does and is shooting on Farmers land with permission. Common sense would say that no-one would bat an eyelid but it only takes one to complain and a whole canful of worms could be opened. As far as I am aware there is no definitive answer as there has not been a test case, however, if a situation did arise and you quoted.... '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’. In the absence of any firm definition for firearms purposes, it is suggested that each chief officer of police may wish to make use of this definition.' Then I struggle to belive there would be an issue, if in doubt check with your region first. I did when I had issues with my lad and they said he couldn't, I then pointed out the above and now we have it in writing from them he CAN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 i would not take anyone shooting with out a licence, i dont want to lose mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 (edited) '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’. In the absence of any firm definition for firearms purposes, it is suggested that each chief officer of police may wish to make use of this definition.' Maybe BASC could lobby MPs to ammend legislation to that effect... Edited November 3, 2010 by guest1957 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Its all about covering their backsides, the BASC won't say yes you can just in case plod decide to make a test case out of anyone, an FEO can only go by their interpretation and as the piece Dekers has just posted says even though its recomended they don't have to use that definition. However not using that definition and it standing up in court is very unlikely to happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakerboy Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Its all about covering their backsides, the BASC won't say yes you can just in case plod decide to make a test case out of anyone, an FEO can only go by their interpretation and as the piece Dekers has just posted says even though its recomended they don't have to use that definition. However not using that definition and it standing up in court is very unlikely to happen I just thought that someone at the BASC would be far more knowledgeable than me, and give a bit of clarity to an ever recurring grey area of discussion. bakerboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Your initial reply to the post was correct bakerboy,although the scenario has never been tested in court as far as I know.We take kids and adults on land where we own the shooting rights,or simply just have permission to shoot.Some have tickets, others don't.I'ne discussed this with my FEO,retired and serving coppers(some of high rank)all of whom shoot,and they all do the same,so it seems to be common practise,rightly or wrongly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 im sure it says occupier or servent of the occupier. as you have been given permishion for vermin controle on the land for the occupier you are the servant !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 im sure it says occupier or servent of the occupier. as you have been given permishion for vermin controle on the land for the occupier you are the servant !! Yes but thats not what they mean. Its intended for the gamekeeper or ghillie on a big estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 I just thought that someone at the BASC would be far more knowledgeable than me, and give a bit of clarity to an ever recurring grey area of discussion.bakerboy Personally I think it is hardly grey at all, especially as I have a written acceptance that it is ok from Wiltshire Police! This of course is specific to me and my lad, but must set some sort of precident! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Yes but thats not what they mean. Its intended for the gamekeeper or ghillie on a big estate. ...or the person with shooting rights! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 It is worth remembering that the police don't interpret and enforce the law, the courts do. That is why unless there is an ammendment to the act or a court ruling defining occupier for the purposes of the act we will always be in the same grey area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 But here's a thing. Unless the law is clear enough for the CPS to stand a realistic chance of a successful prosecution in the public interest, they won't bother. How is it in the public interest for starters, if you take your mate shooting, and secondly given the fact that the interpretation is more likely to go AGAINST prosecution, chances of going to court are slim, ESPECIALLY when the Police, equipped with guidance saying the practice is acceptable, are the ones that start the ball rolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Bill Harriman of BASC has written an article on this subject in this weeks Shooting Times. The basic thrust is that this is an absolute offence, and therefore must be prosecuted.# Just stop and think for a moment; if your mate has no SGC, the chances are that he has no insurance, even if he has insurance it may well be found to be void in the event of a claim. Is it really worth all the agro for the sake of £50, or take your mate clay shooting at an appropriate ground. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Does anyone else think crystalising the exemption in law would be a positive step for the firearms review? After all, would it be a reasonable state of affairs if the only place people could be introduced to shotguns without a certificate was a clay ground? As Webber quite rightly points out, possession of a firearm is a strict liability offence, and as such if a judge decided they didin't agree with the definition od occupier supplied by ACPO, there would be no choice but to convict you. Daft I know. Rather than writing about it, maybe BASC should be lobbying for the ACPO used definition to be incorporated in the Act, therefore providing certainty of law to many well intentioned shotgun users. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted November 4, 2010 Report Share Posted November 4, 2010 a servent is somone wether paid or unpaid to do a job for somone so in doing that job you become there servent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted November 4, 2010 Report Share Posted November 4, 2010 Bill Harriman of BASC has written an article on this subject in this weeks Shooting Times.The basic thrust is that this is an absolute offence, and therefore must be prosecuted.# Just stop and think for a moment; if your mate has no SGC, the chances are that he has no insurance, even if he has insurance it may well be found to be void in the event of a claim. Is it really worth all the agro for the sake of £50, or take your mate clay shooting at an appropriate ground. webber the idea that someone can't take their children shooting and teach them to shoot webber is absolute bulls testicles. Are you in possesion of a firearm without a license if the SGC holder is next to you I would say not. If not its implications the length and breadth of the country on driven days when people often have a friend / wife / girlfriend carry their gun or hold it while they pick up. You can't let people wander off with a gun but under direct supervision and with you holding shooting rights it would be an immense waste of public money to try for a prosecution that would with the Home office guidance document be doomed to failure. as for insurance that only becomes an issue if there is an accident and as we all know you are far better off making sure an accident doesn't happen. There is a simple reason this hasn't been in court and thats because its unenforceable without a definition of occupier being found in law. With home office guidance being that it includes people with shooting rights then its hardly likely to go against that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.