Wanting clarity on shotgun legislation.

[Bombadil]

I've seen a few complaints about the way SGC & FACs are handled and the legislation of in general. But I think one of the most strange elements of the current law is:

 

Sections 11(5) and 11(6) -Firearms Act 1968 allow non-certificate holders to shoot

shotguns in the following circumstances ONLY:

a) when using the occupier’s gun, on the occupier’s private land and in his/her

presence.

 

Maybe I am naive but it seems strange to me that there is legislation out there which no one is 100% sure on.

 

Although BASC states:

 

"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’. 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.”"

 

it seems to me it would take a bit of confidence to put this to the test. So at the moment the definition may aswell read that it is the actual owner of the land.

As far as I am aware it is the citizens responsibility to know the law, but that seems unreasonable when the law is not clearly defined - to the extent that no one is completely sure.

 

Why are people not pushing for clarity on this matter? Or are they doing so and it is just going unheard? Is it from the fear that a push for clarity would cause the definition to be changed to the owner or land? It's an important part of legislation as it controls the way people can be introduced to the sport, potentially limiting it's growth.

 

Or have i missed the point entirely?

[wymberley]

As a cynic due to age, education and experience, I know that they have us where they want us.

 

Someone sensibly recognised a need for an exception to the law. They did not envisage it (exception) being available to every Tom, Richard and Harry; otherwise, why pass the law in the first place. The first thing one needs to do is to examine the intention of the exemption. Now, the WaCA 1981 is supposed to clarify this "occupier" bit which it does.

 

Everybody happy? No. Now all we need to do is to have, "anyone having the right..." clarified. Does this mean whoever has the formal rights or just permission to shoot pigeon/rabbit?

 

So where are we? Confused? Yep. This is where they want us!

 

Edit: Doh, replace **** with Richard!

Edited March 23, 2012 by wymberley

[David BASC]

Someone who has the shooting rights over a piece of land is certainly an occupier.

 

A piece of land can have more than one occupier.

 

If in doubt, call up your firearms licensing team and ask them if they have any other definition as opposed to that in the W&CA.

 

David

[guest1957]

The obvious thing to do would be to find an MP to introduce a bill to ammend the act to include a definition of occupier. Sadly that is very unlikely to happen.

[storme37]

surely if theres no clear definition it would seem few or none have been nicked doing it as it does not seem to have been ruled on in court?

Edited March 23, 2012 by storme37

[wymberley]

 

A piece of land can have more than one occupier.

 

David

 

Yep, I can think of four possibilities on any one estate. The Riparian owner could be one. And what I really, really want to know is can you use his shotgun in his presence to catch fish? Now we're talking!

[Bombadil]

As a cynic due to age, education and experience, I know that they have us where they want us.

 

Someone sensibly recognised a need for an exception to the law. They did not envisage it (exception) being available to every Tom, Richard and Harry; otherwise, why pass the law in the first place. The first thing one needs to do is to examine the intention of the exemption. Now, the WaCA 1981 is supposed to clarify this "occupier" bit which it does.

 

Everybody happy? No. Now all we need to do is to have, "anyone having the right..." clarified. Does this mean whoever has the formal rights or just permission to shoot pigeon/rabbit?

 

So where are we? Confused? Yep. This is where they want us!

 

Edit: Doh, replace **** with Richard!

 

 

I'm quite cynical as well, but I don't see what there is to gain by making the law deliberately ambiguous. If they wanted to stop people going out with non-license holders then there wouldn't be much stopping them from having that quite explicitly stated in the law in the first place by saying the owner of the land rather then occupier.

 

However the fact that it is worded that way, does suggest that it was a deliberate attempt at being ambiguous as it so obviously is open to interpretation.

 

The only reason I can see for it being worded this way is to have the option to prosecute - but why on earth would they want that?

 

Someone who has the shooting rights over a piece of land is certainly an occupier.

 

A piece of land can have more than one occupier.

 

If in doubt, call up your firearms licensing team and ask them if they have any other definition as opposed to that in the W&CA.

 

David

 

It's good to hear that. I wasn't fully aware of the definition of W&CA definition before. However the issue still remains that the wording of the legislation is ambiguous and as we are excpected to be responsible for abiding by the law it's only fair that it is made reasonably clear.

 

From BASC:

 

"The Home Office publication: “Firearms Law, Guidance to the Police 2002” provides guidance

relating to a) above in Section 6.14. It says;

“ Section 11(5) of the 1968 Act allows an individual, without holding a shot gun certificate, to

borrow a shot gun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the

occupier’s presence. The presence of the occupier is normally taken to mean within sight and

earshot of the individual borrowing the firearm. 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’. 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.”"

[ /quote]

 

I'm really not trying to nit-pick. It would appear that if you ahve shooting rights then you are an occupier. But it worries me that you can't abide by the law with full confidence when it's such an easy matter of clearing up the wording of the act. Why not just put the W&CA definition in the legislation and have it as law?

Edited March 23, 2012 by Bombadil

[Sprackles]

Here's a curve ball, can an occupier borrow a friends shotgun in his presence.

[mudpatten]

Why should we seek "clarity" on this issue when the clarity is certain to narrow our options.

 

I`m all for leaving it as vague as it is at the moment.

 

It is obviously not an issue given much thought by the police or any of the other bodies which have recently carried out reviews of firearms law and licensing.

 

It`s a sleeping dog best stepped over gingerly.

 

Kick it up the backside if you want, but it will surely turn round and bite you!