Clay Site Legalities

[OddJob]

I visited a well known clay site near my father in law today with him, my fiancée and her sister. He and I are certificate holders but they were not allowed to shoot because they are not. This was due to the firearms department stating that non certificate holders must be accompanied by an 'experienced instructor'.

 

 

This is not a criticism of the ground but the implications are massive if this, as they said, is a requirement for all grounds. I have read the quoted sections of the firearms act and no mention is made of coaches let alone what constitutes an 'experienced coach'. Why has the firearms department written this? Is it a legal requirement? My concern was for the school clay club I run (did I ever mention that?......) and me/others instructing the students. I am not a qualified coach. Thankfully we do have this stipulation at the ground but I need to know I am operating legally.

 

What do you think?

Edited December 31, 2011 by OddJob

[Browning 425 clay hunter]

Where I shoot the rules are it has to be a 1:1 basis with a licence holder. Thought this was the same everywhere

[PhilR]

From having had a quick Google on Section 11(6) it would seem that Gloucs. Firearms Licensing Dept. are being a bit onerous with the requirement for non cert holders to be under supervision of an experienced coach. However, it would suit a Shooting School to have that terminology to ensure that there's no coaching going on done by anyone other than the School's coaching staff.

[paulos]

Where I shoot the rules are it has to be a 1:1 basis with a licence holder. Thought this was the same everywhere

Nope.

[Livefast123]

Turned up at my local clay ground in Avon and Somerset with a friend who is an experienced clay shot and known to the owner. I carried on no problem

Edited December 31, 2011 by Livefast123

[clayman]

It is a commonly held incorrect view that a licensed shooter may accompany an un-licensed one, and the unlicensed shooter is thereby legal.

 

Unless you have a SGC, you may not be in possession of a shotgun at any time, at a ground or any shoot.

 

There are two exceptions to this.

 

Sec 11-5 states that the owner of land may lend their gun to an unlicensed person who uses it in their presence. This means the 1:1 concept works on game shoots where the land holder does the gun lending - but this does not apply at shooting grounds.

 

If you are unlicensed and at a shooting ground, you are shooting illegally if merely accompanied by a SGC holder. This would also invalidate any insurance that might apply, as most policies cover legal and recreational - so even if the ground has cover it would not respond to a claim on or by the unlicensed shooter.

 

The exception at shoot grounds is granted to a named person under section 11-6 and states that an unlicensed shooter may shoot under supervision. As this consent is granted to an individual, it is their responsibility to define supervision, and most shoot grounds would expect new visitors to have a lesson with a club coach or at least be supervised in a squad by a competent member. Even if a ground has an 11-6 permit, just going along with your mate and using his gun is illegal, as the 11-6 holder MUST delegate the supervision. If the shoot does not want the SGC holder to be the supervisor of the guest ( fair enough, if not known to them the ground has no knowledge of their capability to instruct and supervise safely), then the newbie must be supervised by the person delegated by the ground.

 

In the granting of an 11-6 permit the Police may add any conditions they feel appropriate.

 

Times / dates / places - level of supervision are normal conditions. These are prudent controls designed to ensure that supervisors are competent, and novices get safely trained.

Edited December 31, 2011 by clayman

[Gordon R]

All this would hinge on the definition of an "experienced coach". Legally, it is about as vague as it gets.

 

If a ground insists on it being one of their own coaches, I would shoot elsewhere - end of chat.

[artschool]

It is a commonly held incorrect view that a licensed shooter may accompany an un-licensed one, and the unlicensed shooter is thereby legal.

 

Unless you have a SGC, you may not be in possession of a shotgun at any time, at a ground or any shoot.

 

There are two exceptions to this.

 

Sec 11-5 states that the owner of land may lend their gun to an unlicensed person who uses it in their presence. This means the 1:1 concept works on game shoots where the land holder does the gun lending - but this does not apply at shooting grounds.

 

If you are unlicensed and at a shooting ground, you are shooting illegally if merely accompanied by a SGC holder. This would also invalidate any insurance that might apply, as most policies cover legal and recreational - so even if the ground has cover it would not respond to a claim on or by the unlicensed shooter.

 

The exception at shoot grounds is granted to a named person under section 11-6 and states that an unlicensed shooter may shoot under supervision. As this consent is granted to an individual, it is their responsibility to define supervision, and most shoot grounds would expect new visitors to have a lesson with a club coach or at least be supervised in a squad by a competent member. Even if a ground has an 11-6 permit, just going along with your mate and using his gun is illegal, as the 11-6 holder MUST delegate the supervision. If the shoot does not want the SGC holder to be the supervisor of the guest ( fair enough, if not known to them the ground has no knowledge of their capability to instruct and supervise safely), then the newbie must be supervised by the person delegated by the ground.

 

In the granting of an 11-6 permit the Police may add any conditions they feel appropriate.

 

Times / dates / places - level of supervision are normal conditions. These are prudent controls designed to ensure that supervisors are competent, and novices get safely trained.

 

is it just the owner of the land? I though you were able to allow none cert holders to shoot supervised on land you had permission on?

 

if not how on earth does anyone ever get any experience before applying for a certificate?

[clayman]

The act says "owner of the land".

 

In interpretation the owner of land is the person/s with the legal permissions to shoot there, ie written consent. For instance, you can buy, lease, rent, be granted shooting rights - you "own" those rights even if not the freehold of the land. It really means owning the entitlement to shoot / hunt on the land.

[clayman]

All this would hinge on the definition of an "experienced coach". Legally, it is about as vague as it gets.

 

If a ground insists on it being one of their own coaches, I would shoot elsewhere - end of chat.

 

Not really, if you think about it - you are an experienced coach after you have given one lesson. You are a coach if you have passed an NGB examination, or been professionally appointed as one at a club or place of business.

 

How a ground operates is their commercial decision, but with safety foremost it is not a bad thing for a novice to be accompanied by the appointed coach. With our sporting equipment capable of invoking serious injury or even death on others, to ensure that all newcomers to the sport are properly introduced is a good thing in my view.

[HDAV]

Interesting holding an SGC is no qualification in proficiency it is entirely possible to hold an SGC without ever having had a lesson or fired a gun, indeed it is possible to be a safe and proficient **** without holding one ...... An SGC should not be a"Safety standard" as it isn't

 

 

I have a good friend who is an experienced RF and CF shot but has never held SGC although he has had as many lessons as me! And is completely safe and alot safer than shooters I see at clay grounds

[Diceman]

The act says "owner of the land".

 

In interpretation the owner of land is the person/s with the legal permissions to shoot there, ie written consent. For instance, you can buy, lease, rent, be granted shooting rights - you "own" those rights even if not the freehold of the land. It really means owning the entitlement to shoot / hunt on the land.

 

I will double check but I think the act states "occupier" not "owner"

 

We have yet to se a legal definition of "occupier"

[HW682]

Edit: Diceman beat me to it. There is a link below though

 

The act says "owner of the land".

 

Don't want to rake up this well run debate - but the act actually states "occupier".

Firearms Act 1968 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

 

Different people interpret that in different ways.

 

11 Sports, athletics and other approved activities.E+W+S.

(1)A person carrying a firearm or ammunition belonging to another person holding a certificate under this Act may, without himself holding such a certificate, have in his possession that firearm or ammunition under instructions from, and for the use of, that other person for sporting purposes only. .

 

(2)A person may, without holding a certificate, have a firearm in his possession at an athletic meeting for the purpose of starting races at that meeting. .

F36(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

(4)A person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range (whether for a rifle club or otherwise) or shooting gallery at which no firearms are used other than air weapons or miniature rifles not exceeding ·23 inch calibre may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, such miniature rifles and ammunition suitable therefor; and any person may, without holding a certificate, use any such rifle and ammunition at such a range or gallery. .

 

(5)A person may, without holding a shot gun certificate, borrow a shot gun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the occupiers presence. .

 

(6)A person may, without holding a shot gun certificate, use a shot gun at a time and place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the chief officer of police for the area in which that place is situated.

Edited January 1, 2012 by HW682

[deershooter]

A person may, without holding a shot gun certificate, use a shot gun at a time and place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the chief officer of police for the area in which that place is situated.

 

this was section 15 exemption i think is the ground not reconised ?

 

Deershooter

[Greymaster]

Guidance on Firearms Act 1968, Section 11(6)

 

In order to assist your application, the law in relation to conducting a clay pigeon shooting event is quoted below and some guidance on the operation of the event is attached.

 

Section 11(6) of the Firearms Act 1968 states:

 

"A person may, without holding a shotgun certificate, use a shotgun at a time and place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the Chief Officer of police for the area in which that place is situated."

 

The organiser of any clay pigeon shoot at which persons who do not hold a shotgun certificate wish to shoot must apply to the Chief Officer for the area in which the shoot is to take place for an exemption under section 11(6) of the 1968 Firearms Act.

This allows non-certificate holders to possess shot guns at a time and place approved by the Chief Officer for shooting at artificial targets which normally, though not exclusively, includes clay pigeons.

This exemption applies ONLY to shotguns falling under Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).

Any person, under 15 years of age, using a shotgun must be supervised by an adult (over 21yrs). (Firearms Act 1968, Section 22(3)).

Prohibited persons as defined by Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 (If known) must not be permitted to be in possession of guns or ammunition.

The owners of any shotguns used on the site are reminded that the security of those guns remains solely their responsibility.

 

http://www.westmercia.police.uk/guidance-on-firearms-act-1968-section-11-6.html

Edited January 1, 2012 by Greymaster

[clayman]

Yes, agreed, the actual word used is occupier - and in effect this is interpreted as the person with legal consent to use the land. In my last conversation with my FLO it appears that the definition has not been tested in a case of law, and therefore remains open to interpretation. Also, exactly what "in the presence of" means is subjective, but currently considered to be within eye-shot and mobile ( ie walking out - not from a car or kitchen window, for instance). If you are out with the loan gun, as long as you can see what they are doing and are not so far away that you could not intervene at the very least verbally or with signals ( good reason to carry safety whistles, a loud Acme Thunderer is best, and have agreed codes for stopping and starting shooting - eg:

 

Whistle Code:

 

Long loud blast = Stop the Shoot, all shooters unload, beaters, trappers etc stop and raise flags to acknowledge.

 

Rapid short series = prepare to re-commence. While flags remain up, the shoot captain will not give the all clear, flags down means the other personnel have acknowledged are safe and ready.

 

Two short, followed by two short = All Clear

 

Best way of ensuring the legal right to be the occupier ( and therefore allow 11-5 exemption to having an SGC) is to have that consent in writing, and mentioning "to the exclusion of others". A problem does occur when one has shooting rights and, say, the pony club also rides the land. Without the clear exclusivity. it can and has been argued by authority, that the land is not safe to shoot. Also, shot should not run outside the boundaries of the consents, so small bits of land would be deemed unsafe to shoot if the shot lands outside where others have a right to be. The usual guidance is 300yds or 270m of fallout distance available in the direction of fire.

 

BASC provides good general legal guidance here:-

 

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/code-of-good-shooting-practice.cfm

 

I have seen, but can't now find the link for, a pro-forma for shooting / hunting rights that can be downloaded - any-one got a link?

 

Std annual agricultural licenses are probably suitable as well, while usually used for giving one years consents for grazing etc, a small wording addition could clearly extend that to shooting / hunting rights.

 

Moving a bit off original subject, any shoot with others involved, should also have:

 

A Safety Policy Statement and a A Risk Assessment - proformas and guidance for these on CPSA and BASC sites.

Insurance ( individuals, syndicate, or group commercial policy, or extension eg NFU will add to farming policies.

 

Law enforcers are generally re-active to an incident. Often, no-one questions the legal rights and H&S until after an incident is reported, and its then too late to define in writing what most people do as best practice already. If you shoot land, its only a few minutes work to produce paperwork to satisfy law enforcers that good H&S through codes of practice is adhered to, and you have the exclusive right to shoot the land you are on.

[Salopian]

I think that what we should be doing is obeying and observing the Law as laid down in the Firearms act 1968.

NOT trying to make it as we go along and certainly not trying to understand it or interprit to our own convenience.

It is my belief that either Ian Coley or Gloucester Constabulary have worded that section 11.6 for the benefit of the ground.

I have to say that it is a very wise thing to do until the ground owners have adequate proof that the customer is conducting themselves safely.

The Press are only interested in tragedies.

Until such time as we shooters educate the Press.

[clayman]

Problem with that remains interpretation. The law itself in not written in laymans terms, and we generally rely on the Home Office publication the Police use:

 

Firemans Guidance 2002

 

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0geu8gYRABP1hAAwx1LBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=13lda7gfq/EXP=1325446296/**http%3a//www.cheshire.police.uk/idoc.ashx%3fdocid=a09570c4-5674-4566-b007-220ff18955e5%26version=-1

 

In may cases, this in itself needs further interpretation, and this will be situation based, resulting in different constabulary's applying different meanings in individual cases. Further, many interpretations are not tested in law, i.e. there has been no judgement decision made on by a Judge for the Police or a defence's interpretation in a criminal proceeding. Theoretically, the law enforcements agencies interpretation may not be considered correct in a particular situation, and any conditions police impose could be argued as inappropriate to the situation or onerous. That being said, it would be unwise to debate the interpretations after the event, and far better to ensure close liaison with any authorities to establish agreed and appropriate conditions as part of the preparations to shoot land.

 

Ian Coley is a commercial operation, and would have no reason to debate the condition of accompaniment of non-SGC holders by experienced coaches (appointed by the 11-6 permit holder, i.e. the ground).

 

Ultimately, good initial training in safe gun handling is for the over-all benefit of the sport, and conditions and guidance given by the Police usually has safety as the over-all consideration, and as expressed by others its in our best interests to abide by these terms.

Edited January 1, 2012 by clayman

[HDAV]

I wonder if something has caused this clause to be implemented?

[clayman]

It doesn't really matter, most shooting schools with an 11-6 would impose that concept of supervision for commercial reasons anyway.

 

Whether written specifically as a condition of an 11-6 permit or not, its the named holder of the 11-6 that holds the power as to whom to nominate as the supervising person. As a withdrawal of an 11-6 would have significant results for a shooting school, its certainly in the interests of a Ground operator would ensure that supervision is competent.

 

Certainly, when I ran my ground, if an unknown shooter and a mate turned up to shoot, I'd want to assess both myself before allowing them to shoot together, otherwise unaccompanied. Ultimately, the 11-6 holder is responsible for what-ever might occur when they have delegated supervision and they may need to prove they did everything reasonable and practical to ensure duty of care and safety. The screening of both novices and supervisors appointed under 11-6 is part of that good practice.

 

As many will testify, possession of an SGC does not denote any level of personal proficiency, or any ability to supervise or instruct, so a ground appointing an "experienced coach" would seem a correct procedure whether written as a condition or not..