retromlc Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) . Edited August 24, 2012 by retromlc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codeye Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Yes is true was informed same by notts feo so i had to get my son a licence to shoot with me even though hes only fourteen and cant legally own a shotgun but at least with the licence he can shoot without the farmer being there it sounds like a money making scam but im all for it as my son now has the responsibility of keeping his nose clean or losing his lcence so it works for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolhead Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 The Firearms Act 1968 section 11 (5) - Borrowing a shot gun. The term is "Occupier" not owner. Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 Section 16 Section (1) - Borrowing a rifle. "In the presence either of the occupier or of a servant of the occupier." The general view is that these laws are too vague to be trusted though. The police are not at all happy with such measures and often won't admit they exist. You can see it from their point of view though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B725 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 As long as he is in your company it is allowed,we sometimes have folks from the office clay shooting with my own trap I checked with firearms team and as long as a sgc holder is with them that was ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Occupier is the word that does it. If you have permission to shoot on the land and you are there, then YOU are the occupier and as such can let someone else use your shotgun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakerboy Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Yes is true was informed same by notts feo so i had to get my son a licence to shoot with me even though hes only fourteen and cant legally own a shotgun but at least with the licence he can shoot without the farmer being there it sounds like a money making scam but im all for it as my son now has the responsibility of keeping his nose clean or losing his lcence so it works for me but at least with the licence he can shoot without the farmer being there. A person under 15 may not have an assembled shotgun with them except: (i) when they are under the direct supervision of someone of or over 21 years of age, in which case they may use the shotgun, providing they have a valid shotgun certificate, under that persons instruction. (ii) when the shotgun is in a securely fastened gun cover so that it cannot be fired. Upon reaching the age of 15, a person may use a shotgun without supervision providing they hold a valid shotgun certificate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 avon and somerset is the same, if you have no licence you cant shoot, unless farmer with you.with his gun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Occupier is the word that does it. If you have permission to shoot on the land and you are there, then YOU are the occupier and as such can let someone else use your shotgun. I wouldn't like to be the one that takes that before a jury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu nesling Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 maybe not, but it is the word of the law. not how the jury interpret it.....probably never get that far anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 maybe not, but it is the word of the law. not how the jury interpret it.....probably never get that far anyway Look at it this way. If we all went shooting with a mate only half of the shooters would require a licence. Was this the intention of the law or was it to allow an occasional relaxation in exceptional circumstances. I'll go with the occupier being the resident landowner, tenant or holder of the shooting rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 what ever is was the old bill have never tried to bring a case to court regarding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaunda Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 The only way they would bother to take this to court would be consequent on an enquiry into a tragedy,otherwise I would hope they have more important things to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retromlc Posted August 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 i guess the servant bit could refer if you have permission to shoot you could be considered a servant of the occupier,therefore you could lend your personal gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Yes is true was informed same by notts feo so i had to get my son a licence to shoot with me even though hes only fourteen and cant legally own a shotgun but at least with the licence he can shoot without the farmer being there it sounds like a money making scam but im all for it as my son now has the responsibility of keeping his nose clean or losing his lcence so it works for me which feo was it as imo notts talk out of there **** most of the time .if they dont know make it up if you get a anser at all Edited August 24, 2012 by fruitloop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 i guess the servant bit could refer if you have permission to shoot you could be considered a servant of the occupier,therefore you could lend your personal gun? That (servant) only applies to borrowing a rifle which, paradoxically, is easier to borrow than a shotgun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 avon and somerset is the same, if you have no licence you cant shoot, unless farmer with you.with his gun Nope they are governed by the same law as everyone despite what some feo makes up as his interpretation. If the law was so rigid most of us would never have started shooting I know that I borrowed shotguns many years ago. The more important thing is they wouldn't have much to do with a prosecution anyway it would be down to the officer who arrested you and the cps who would decide whether the occupier criteri were met. Occupier is a general term deliberately and depending where you look includes people with shooting rights, it doesn't specify these have to be paid for and it could easily be claimed pest control is a service to the farmer. As mark bivvy said no one has been in court and most people round here have started shooting by borrowing guns. It's one of those things that gets debated at length on the Internet and really there is no definitive answer but that also means its something that wouldn't ever get to court. Assuming the other person wasn't a prohibited person etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillmouse Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 I would ask the FEO in Notts to put his/her advice in print. The information regarding clay shooting in particular is at odds with the written letter of the Law and if things went wrong a prosecution would be straightforward. As with the conditions and other restrictions invented by many FEO's a lot of their advice is not as the Law states. It may well be a practice which is seen through a blind eye, but if things go wrong the FEO will deny ever saying anything and the written letter of the Law will be taken in evidence. Is it worth the risk of a revocation ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continental Shooter Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Firearms office in Edinburgh advised that the servant (people permissioned by the land owner), can take people shooting / land a gun to people without a license on a one-to-one basis. ATB Franco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Taken from BASC reference the term occupier, basically means anyone should be ok as long as they have permission and with the advice being there the odds on a prosecution is negligible. However it won't stop mass debating here as people just don't like to read facts “ 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Doesn't stop a chief constable revoking the cert either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Actionpigeons Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) I take people out pigeon shooting who do not have a S.G.C. and I have to keep on top of the law as I do this for part of my living. As long as it’s a one to one, you can let some one without a S.G.C. shoot with you. However with you they must stay, you can’t let the wonder off with the gun or shoot from a different hide. Edited August 27, 2012 by Actionpigeons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 I take people out pigeon shooting who do not have a S.G.C. and I have to keep on top of the law as I do this for part of my living. As long as it’s a one to one, you can let some one without a S.G.C. shoot with you. However with you they must stay, you can’t let the wonder off with the gun or shoot from a different hide. As has been said very recently in threads of a similar nature, the emphasis is, or should be, on not rocking the boat. Consequently, just out of interest as you are doing this on a professional basis which I would see as an entirely different kettle of fish and together with all that that entails, how do you relate the above to the quote at Post #20? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 Wymberley Further to your question above regarding the quote on post #20 and in general on this often debated matter, I am of the oppinion, as I often state, that permission to shoot on land from the occupier does not make that person (the one with permission) the occupier under the terms of the act. The act is quite specific and the Wildlife and Countryside Act in its definition of the word occupier uses the word "right". Right is a legal term and the holder of a right has, in law, the entitlement to do with that right as he pleases whereas someone with permission to shoot has been granted the "privilege" of shooting on the land. In law there is a distinct difference between a right and a privilege. I am therefore, minded to believe that BASC are skating on thin ice by stating that someone who has permission to shoot qualifies as the occupier. As a farmer, I certainly do not consider someone whom I have given permission to shoot as the occupier of my land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 The basc info came from directions made under the last home office guidance on such matters. So a little more than speculation 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.