Al69ec Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Quick question guys... I've been invited to do a couple of nights roost shooting and I can take a guest with me. My question is can that guest be legally in possession of a shotgun in my company with without himself holding a sgc? I've only had mine since December 2011. What's the score on this matter? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Quick answer, no! The score is, an uncertificated person can only borrow a gun (firearms are different) while in the presence of the occupier of the land. The occupier is taken to be the land owner, a tennant or someone who owns the shooting rights, although as has been said countless times, this has yet to be defined in a court of law. If the guy issueing the invite is one of those, then, if you can manage to position the 'guest' within sight/hearing of that person (and on safety grounds, you're supervising him), then the answer becomes, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al69ec Posted March 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Spoke to my firearms department and they said as long as I'm the person with permission I can legally have him in my company. Doesnt matter that I'm not the land owner. It may be different in other areas, but that's how mine view it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaxiDriver Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Spoke to my firearms department and they said as long as I'm the person with permission I can legally have him in my company. Doesnt matter that I'm not the land owner. It may be different in other areas, but that's how mine view it. Ask them to confirm that in writing (email at least) and watch them squirm. Whats to stop them denying they verbally said OK if, heaven forbid, anything should happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Ask them to confirm that in writing (email at least) and watch them squirm. Whats to stop them denying they verbally said OK if, heaven forbid, anything should happen. Absolutely, ignore this at your peril. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al69ec Posted March 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Spoke to firearms officer and they won't confirm what's been told to me, neither email or letter! They could not define to me the person with the shooting rights to be either the land lord of the property or me having permission there for me being the person with the shooting rights! Looks like my guest is staying at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Well done for having the courage to check but you owe TD a pint! Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolhead Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Spoke to firearms officer and they won't confirm what's been told to me, neither email or letter! They could not define to me the person with the shooting rights to be either the land lord of the property or me having permission there for me being the person with the shooting rights! Looks like my guest is staying at home. Quite and since they aren't the Magistrate and their neck isn't on the block, their word is less than nothing. Play it safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al69ec Posted March 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Well done for having the courage to check but you owe TD a pint! Cheers Yes thanks TD I'm sure I'll see you at a game fair or in a hide sometime, always better safe than sorry ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaxiDriver Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Yes thanks TD I'm sure I'll see you at a game fair or in a hide sometime, always better safe than sorry ) Chap, I'm only sorry to be proven right sadly, But you've gotta protect your own liberty and licence(s) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 The occupier is taken to be the land owner, a tennant or someone who owns the shooting rights Really?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitty tree Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 hello lads. read about this before on pw. if the police are not able to tell you what the law is on topic . how does a magistrate know if it comes to court. why dont the police do some home work. and ask the courts what the ruling is on this matter. must not be that hard to ask the question. regards peter. ps. in the mean time if in doubt and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luckyshot Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 The occupier is taken to be the land owner, a tennant or someone who owns the shooting rights, although as has been said countless times, this has yet to be defined in a court of law How can the occupier be the land owner, a tennant or someone who owns the shooting rights when as you so rightly say "it has yet to be defined in a court of law." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Ah, the lawyers' delight - a couple of gullible volunteers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luckyshot Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Ah, the lawyers' delight - a couple of gullible volunteers! Whos gullible, the law states what is legal no one else can. I would and have gladly allowed other non license holders to use my shotguns/firearms in my presence and always will until the law says otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitty tree Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 hello . just like i said who knows the ruling on this. is it courts/police/ or lawyers.maybe the moderators can shed some light on this before some one gets caught doing this. but if the police dont know the ruling on this what can they charge them with . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luckyshot Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 hello . just like i said who knows the ruling on this. is it courts/police/ or lawyers.maybe the moderators can shed some light on this before some one gets caught doing this. but if the police dont know the ruling on this what can they charge them with . No one has ever been charger for this, how do you think most of us started shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolhead Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 hello . just like i said who knows the ruling on this. is it courts/police/ or lawyers.maybe the moderators can shed some light on this before some one gets caught doing this. but if the police dont know the ruling on this what can they charge them with . The vague nature of the laws quite suits the police. They can make it mean whatever they want. It is actually the court's role to interpret the law. Since they apply the law they have the final say. The top definition in the OED says; Occupy verb (occupies, occupying, occupied) 1) reside or have one’s place of business in (a building): the rented flat she occupies in Hampstead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 The vague nature of the laws quite suits the police. They can make it mean whatever they want. It is actually the court's role to interpret the law. Since they apply the law they have the final say. The top definition in the OED says; Occupy verb (occupies, occupying, occupied) 1) reside or have one’s place of business in (a building): the rented flat she occupies in Hampstead You hit the nail on the head there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 I would and have gladly allowed other non license holders to use my shotguns/firearms in my presence. Are you saying that you don't have one either? With that thought, I'll say, goodnight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luckyshot Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Whos gullible, the law states what is legal no one else can. I would and have gladly allowed non license holders to use my shotguns/firearms in my presence and always will until the law says otherwise. Are you saying that you don't have one either? With that thought, I'll say, goodnight! I do and have both fac/sgc, happy now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al69ec Posted March 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 So can the person with shooting rights be defined as the person with whom has sole permission to shoot if the land is not part of a shooting estate and is privately owned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferret Master Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 It all comes down to the interpretation of occupier. Most forces I know of deem this to be someone with shooting permission. Wiltshire certainly does. There was a case in Scotland involving a professional rugby player who shot a rabbit in his father's garden from an upstairs window with a .22 while his Dad watched from downstairs. This was deemed to be legal by the courts so as far as I can see anyone who is accompanying a non-certificate holder who isn't prohibited from having guns shouldn't experience any problems. Most of us started shooting this way and I honest think if there was going to be a prosecution for simply doing this then it would have happened a long long time ago. FM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Isn't there some confusion here... I think you are applying Sec 1 rules to sec 2 weapons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) hello lads. read about this before on pw. if the police are not able to tell you what the law is on topic . how does a magistrate know if it comes to court. why dont the police do some home work. and ask the courts what the ruling is on this matter. must not be that hard to ask the question. regards peter. ps. in the mean time if in doubt and all that. The magistrate is told by the clerk what the laws is. And in grey areas like this its a lottery as to whether the clerk really has any idea at all. Their attitude tends to be if its got this far it must be an offence. Their fall back is "well it can always go to an appeal" would you really want to get in that deep? Magistrates virtually never go against the police / CPS and chuck things out unless its glaringly obvious, grey areas are for judges. If the magistrate really had doubts he still wouldn't throw it out he would refer it to a crown court for a higher judgement. Thats a whole mountain of hassle and stress. Not to mention expense. Edited March 8, 2012 by Vince Green 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.