leeds chimp Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Steady, those posts could be interpreted as you're running a business! no not running a business at all..just people have been good to me and taken me out and I want to repay the favour....maybe not so much after the thread I put up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Wasn't there an example fo this very case recently regarding a Welsh(?) rugby player who used his fathers rifle to shoot something from a bedroom window in his fathers house?And didn't Bill Harriman from BASC represent the defendant,who wasn.t convicted?Have done a search on here but can't find it. Thats actually the best example so far, the bloke wasn't even properly supervised and got off no problem. However his father did own the ground he was shooting from so there would be no issue with the occupier definition. Dekers posted the right section to read and then it was followed up with the definition of occupier. To my mind you are fine but you have to satisfy yourself you fit the criteria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjimlad Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 The issue with the rugby chap was the degree of supervision needed, I think. The "estate rifle" exemption means that the gun can be lent by a "servant" of the occupier as well as by the occupier. Someone who is culling bunnies on the instructions of the occupier ought to be able to be classed as their "servant". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 The issue with the rugby chap was the degree of supervision needed, I think. The "estate rifle" exemption means that the gun can be lent by a "servant" of the occupier as well as by the occupier. Someone who is culling bunnies on the instructions of the occupier ought to be able to be classed as their "servant". Jim, Could you clarify the middle sentence? This could apply to me shortly and I'm confused. I thought that I've always had it sorted (certainly agree with Catweasle), but I now have doubt about the one element in that sentence. I was sure that only the occupier could actually lend the rifle but it could be used in the presence of either both the occupier and servant. If it is an estate rifle, then it belongs to the estate (occupier/owner) and although the 'keeper (servant) may have the rifle to physically give on loan, the occupier is still doing the lending. This would mean (if correct) that the servant cannot lend a rifle that HE owns for use on said estate. Cheers and thanks in advance. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjimlad Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Borrowed rifles on private premises 6.16 Section 16(1) 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 either the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It should be noted that this gives slightly more flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than is permissible with the use of a shot gun as described in paragraph 6.14, in that the borrowed rifle can also be used in the presence of the servant of the occupier. However, the occupier and/or their servant must hold a firearm certificate in respect of the firearm being used, and the borrower, who must be accompanied by the certificate holder (whether it is the occupier or their servant), must comply with the conditions of the certificate. These may include a safekeeping requirement and, in some cases, territorial restrictions. Section 57(4) of the 1968 Act defines “premises” as including any land. The effect of the provision is to allow a person visiting a private estate to borrow and use a rifle without a certificate. The exemption does not extend to persons under the age of 17 or to other types of firearm. There is no notification required on the loan of a firearm under these circumstances. A borrowed rifle should not be specifically identified as such on a “keeper’s” or “landowner’s” firearm certificate. The term “in the presence of” is not defined in law but is generally interpreted as being within sight and earshot. This indicates that the servant or the occupier can have the gun on certificate, and that the certificate holder must supervise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I spoke to my firearms office yesterday about this as I had a friend (A non fac holder) that wanted to come out with me. The chap I spoke to used to be my first FEO until he retired, and what a grand chap he is, you could not have found a better FEO! I asked him about this and he admitted that it was all down to the "landowners agent" thing which could at times be a bit of a "grey area". He also admitted that they knew that this sort of thing went on (Taking a friend - A Non FAC Holder with you and allowing them to shoot your rifle) but it was almost impossible to police this! What he suggest that I did (Off the record) was that if I really wanted to be 100% certain that I was acting within the law I could offer to pay the landowner a nominal fee (Maybe £1.00 or so) and get him to put it in writing that I was paying to lease the shooting (All be it maybe "Vermin Only" in some cases) from him - Even a short note on my permission letter would suffice. It is his belief that this would legally make me "the landowners agent" and I would then be allowed to let a non FAC holder use my rifle on that land under my supervision! I would welcome any thoughts and comments on this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Don't know where, "landowner's agent" crept into this. If we take supervision out of the equation for a minute, then only two "people" can lend a rifle, the landowner and occupier (who may just be one and the same). The land owner is self explanatory and the occupier is you now that you've obtained the shooting rights. However, having sold the shooting rights, the interesting question is has the landowner also disposed of some of the "rights" that he enjoyed before flogging of the crown jewels for whatever period of time? All too difficult, just get on with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cushies Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I asked my FEO this a couple of weeks ago and was told if I have permission to shoot over the land and that the person is under supervision at all times it would be ok, he also said how else are folk supposed to get experience, on that I took a freinds son who has firearm experience out for his first buck. It appears that the UK's police forces have differen t opinions on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 The way it was explained to me is that having permission to shoot is a little different to actually leasing the shooting rights! Maybe I should have put "Occupier" rather than "Landowners Agent" even though for all intents and purposes they are basically the same thing! I don't want to get into any argument over this, all I was doing was passing on what was told to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 The way it was explained to me is that having permission to shoot is a little different to actually leasing the shooting rights! Maybe I should have put "Occupier" rather than "Landowners Agent" even though for all intents and purposes they are basically the same thing! I don't want to get into any argument over this, all I was doing was passing on what was told to me! Yep, Frenchie, Occupier sorts it nicely. As an "agent" you are in the landowner's employ, ie, "servant". You may well physically hand over the rifle on loan but you are doing so at the behest of the landowner or occupier (ie, as 'keeper might) and you are limited to supervision only. You're right in getting it sorted as if something were to happen and the landowner/occupier said, "nothing to do with me, I gave no permission". Guess where the doo doo stops! No argument, just trying to help - I'm in the same boat shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 if you are doing a job for the farmer ether paid or unpayed (pest controle)you are the servant. from the oxford dictionary (a person who performs duties for others , especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.) so then you can lend a rifle to a non fac holder under supervishion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 if you are doing a job for the farmer ether paid or unpayed (pest controle)you are the servant. from the oxford dictionary (a person who performs duties for others , especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.) so then you can lend a rifle to a non fac holder under supervishion If that is correct, why didn't it say that in the legislation that Dekers went to the trouble of posting for our benefit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 What "Fruitloop" has put might well be correct (To a certain extent) "as a bit of a technicality" on "dictionary definitions" but this really does seem to be a bit of a grey area! I personally would like to stay on the safe side until there is some sort of legal clarification on this one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 when i had my visit for my licence the flo ask me what experience i had so i told her that a frend lets me use his rifle on land that was passed for the cal and she told me im not sure on the legalitys on that and will get back to me with the out come so i explaned the section 16 and he was the servent to the land owner guess what got my fac no one lost theres and when i ask her about it she told me i was correct as far as she could tell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthegearandnoidea Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 When my FLO came around a few months ago when I moved house he asked me a few questions, one of which was how did I get experience using a rifle before I had my FAC. I can't remember the exact words he used but he worded it in a way to make it sound as though you weren't allowed. Anyway, I told him that it was his force that had requested I had experience before they issued my FAC and that you were allowed to use a persons rifle under their supervision on their land/permission. I said that I had also done this for someone that I was a mentor for before their FAC arrived. He said I was quite correct and that he just wanted to check I knew what I was talking about and was trying to put me on the spot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 Fruitloop - I'm not faulting you or what your FEO says but what I will say is that we have to be careful about the word "interpretation" as this is where most grey areas start to appear! We all know what the "Home Office Guidlines" say but these are only "guidelines" and there are many parts of them that, if you read them to let's say 6 different people and ask them for their "interpretation" of what exactly what they are saying you might well get 6 varying, differing and even conflicting interpretations/replies. I think many of us have already experienced this when we have questioned things with our firearms offices - Take for instance the situation of shooting foxes with a rimfire if you have "vermin" listed on your conditions - Is a fox vermin or is it in a seperate catagory of it's own where choice of calibre is concerned (As far as the firearms offices are concerned) - Different firearms offices have different opinions/thoughts on this, and I believe that it all comes down to their individual "interpretation"! With regards to the subject we are talking about - "Can I let someone else shoot with my rifle" - It is apparent that your FEO has already told you something that differs from what my firearms office has told me - This is what I mean by "Different Interpretations" of the Home office Guidelines and something that we should all be aware of as if one tells you one thing but another tells you quite differently (Or the complete opposite) than surely they both can not be right and who do you go by? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Yer 'tis. Post #11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainBeaky Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Yer 'tis. Post #11 Ta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Hi Just a thought as its such a grey area How would you be covered by insurance and would you have to notifie your insurance provider That you were lending your gun Just a thought All the best Of 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.