Public Footpaths

[Anthony]

Thanks for all your replies,

I ended up shooting in a different field as there was some work on drainaga at present so I set up elsewhere, however the weather was not good and the birds were flying very high. I believe also the decoys were shining too much as not a single bird was interested and this has never happened to me before.

[Columbus Polumbus]

Sorry Rjimmer I must totally disagree with you in the strongest of terms with respect ot phoning the police if your out lamping etc.

 

There is no requirement under the law to inform the police as you are going about you lawful business. I have been "swatted" twice and they always bring the helicopter in, the moment you see it unload, place your weapon down and move a suitable distance from it, put your hands up and follow their instructions.

 

A short while ago the police in certain area's were advocating this sort of behaviour which BASC defended vigorously against and won the day, quite rightly so. We do not need the police being informed everytime you want to go about your lawful business you do not need to phone them to drive your car! and subversely it was considered another attempt at control by stealth. They say it is so they don't need to respond, but the police have a duty to respond so whether you phone them or not is neither here nor there.

 

There excuse was that it costs thousands to respond, well if they have to it is neither here nor there what the cost so why insist we start phoning them?? there is no reason other than to add more draconian rules, regulations and laws on one of the tightest gun lawed countrys with a VERY law abiding legally held firearm public that already has too many restrictions and if you look at the latest statistics from the home office, the gun crime is committed by criminals and not us law abiding hunters.

 

Col Pol

[Pigeon Pieman]

Col Pol, when we go out I'll be contacting the Police! I always do out of courtesy for the village bobby. I also give them an OS map reference too. Not required but seems appreciated.

 

PP

PS sent PM with dates this arvo!

[Cranfield]

Col Pol, you are quite right, there is no legal liability to take this action

 

But, why not be reasonable, especially when night shooting.

Perhaps if we made ourselves appear less anti social, we wouldn,t have any draconian law changes proposed.

 

A local Farmer has stopped two chaps night shooting, following complaints from residents, of a "landrover" driving round the fields at 2 am, shining lights into their gardens and firing shotguns (not into their gardens).

Were the shooters within the law ?

I expect so.

Were they being sensible ?

I don,t think so.

 

 

What about the pigeon shooters who set up two hides on a rape field, last Winter.

They proceeded to fire about 200 cartridges (they shot over 100 birds).

80 yards away across the field was a primary school and this was mid week, in term time.

There were a deluge of complaints.

Were they within the law ?

I expect so.

Were they being sensible ?

I don,t think so.

 

I frequently think we are our own worst enemies.

[Hammergun]

I was driving the landrover late one night shooting rabbits when a chap came across from the house opposite the field.

 

Thinking I was going to get a complaint, I was pleasantly surprised when he said that he and his wife had been having real problems with rabbits digging up the garden and eating just about everything in sight, and could I please go round his place before I pack in to see if I could get some of them!!!

 

As it turns out, I didn't see any, but I sent one of my mates round with his ferrets a few days later and they got about 20 out of burrows in the hedge at the back of the house, much to the delight of the owners.

[Catamong]

Cranners is dead right, as usual...!!!

 

Common sense must prevail, there are already so many people against us shooters, why make more enemies by not behaving sensibly???

[Quercus]

Columbus Polumbus, I have to say that I completely agree.

 

We're out lamping three or four nights a week for most of the year and never inform the police. We have been stopped by the police only once in the last six years and that was just a routine vehicle check and not the result of any shooting. A good friend of mine has a piece of ground locally that he only lamps once a week for a couple of months after harvest. He religiously informs the police every time he goes out. He's been pulled twice this year . Once whilst trying to squeek a fox in

 

Q

[rjimmer]

Pigeon Pieman and Cranfield have said all I could have said in resonse to Col Pol.

 

I wonder if they have ever been 'swatted' after informing the old bill beforehand.

 

Mobile phones make it so easy to spoil someone's passtime. Modern times requires modern thinking.

 

As for BASC, they have done little to safeguard the sort people that they were set up for.

 

Cartridges at over £1 each to shoot ducks. No more moonlight flighting in a few years time. Soon we will all have to take a test before we can have a shotgun.

 

COME ON WAGBI(2).

[Pigeon Pieman]

No, I've never been 'swatted'. I have had the local bobby ring my mobile to ask where I was as a citizen had called to report red lights moving around a field!! It helps forge a good working relationship with the Firearms Dept, several of whom I now claim to be good friends with.

 

I also drop leaflets into residents with my mobile number on, in case they have any concerns - and offer to drop them in a couple of bunnies if wanted!!

Most of the houses are farmer workers or people I know from the village community.

 

I have a great relationship with the homeowners where I shoot, several often call to see how we got on Again, I don't have to tell them by law we are going out but the courtesy thing does, without doubt, bring its own dividends. I'll keep doing it this way 'cos it works for me! Even if I shoot like a complete **** I can go to bed knowing I'm promoting my craft in a positive light.

[Columbus Polumbus]

Gents

 

Whilst I accept the tales of Woe and recognise we are our own worst enemies sometimes this has to be put into context.

 

I for one am for, in certain circumstances, informing the police if the reasons for it are justified and make logical common sense, I will leave it to you to decide on that issue as it is indeed a personal thing.

 

What I am saying is, these measures need to be balanced with the perceived need for doing so e.g. if you have been "swatted" then to foster good relations with the local bobby etc it might be reasonable under the circumstances to consider this course of action. Why not give your mobile to the police who if they have received a report, can call you to determine if it is you or not? Another way of looking at it.

 

What I am venimously against is certain police force area's imposing their own policies and procedures that have no substance in law, they are operating outside of the law and imposing their will and demands on an already law abiding sector of the public. The latest and greatest one on the burner right now is the need for deer stalkers or anyone who wants a centre fire rifle to have completed the DSC 1 course. Now whilst I accept in some small way it has a certain logic to it but it IS NOT a requirement under the law for you to possess this qualification before they will grant you a Section 5 firearm. So why are they imposing it? the level one course is a theory course with a small amount of "range" work being done at the end of the week. They are spouting the need for insistance on this as "safety". This I beleive has nothing to do with safety, but we will keep personal opinions out of it, it has everything to do with adding even more restrictions to what is widely accepted as overtly draconian measures. The reason for this is quite simple, The procedure and system is in place to deny you your request if the police have sufficient grounds for doing so. If they cannot justifiably deny you what is your right under the law of the land they must grant you your application. If they have concerns regarding your safety then again, this would be sufficient for denying you your request. The home office guidance to firearms law came about because so many forces were applying their own rules and regulations, many outside their legal remit and it was long overdue.

 

What happens if you are out lamping, you informed the police and received a urgent request from another farmer demanding urgent assistance, today you can move around with the freedom this great nation reverts to you but in this scenario you haven't booked out with Pc Bobby on the other land so you need to complete the cycle again. If they have a duty to respond to any and every firearms incident whether you call them or not is irrelevant they must still respond so what would it achieve apart from inconveniencing you, the law abiding citizen.

 

Remember gents these are public servants being paid to do the public a service which you pay for through your application fee's etc. They are there to facilitate you in your lawful conduct they are not there to frustrate you at every turn and make it as difficult as it can be to own firearms.

[leon]

Quite right Col Pol I have a friend who for the last twenty years has had a .243 for fox control and stalking, his renewal came up three months ago so he went through the usual proccess and his licence turned up, upon inspection the wording had been changed from "the purpose of fox control and deer stalking" to "for fox control while carrying out deer stalking" the FLO in said firearms department who already has a bad reputation with lots of people as regards to his attitude anyway replied "who is to say that your primary target was not deer if you were stopped when you were out" as my friend pointed out to him who shoots deer with a lamp at 2 am in places where there are no deer. After two months of arguing and solicitors getting involved he now has it changed.

Just another major unjust decission against law abiding gun owners. And this is just one of the many cases I know off, something needs to be done.

Regards,

Leon.

[Cranfield]

I think in many respects, we are all pushing the same open door.

 

We agree that a common sense approach in where and how we conduct ourselves, is very important.

 

We have indicated in the past that we will fight for our "rights", many of us marched to demonstrate this.

That includes incorrect interpretation of current legislation.

 

Most of us are paying members of organisations, we trust are looking after our sporting interests and lobbying the law makers, on our behalf.

 

United we stand, divided we fall.

 

A Group Hug is called for.

[Pigeon Pieman]

Col Pol, I sort of understand your point and it does seem to be a 'horses for courses' thing. My police Force like centrefire boys and girls to do the DSC1. The Act gives the Chief of Police the responsibility that they must satisfy themselves that the person applying for the rifle is competent/suitable to use it. The decision in Sussex was taken that to convince the ol' Bill you were safe the boss man would want you to do the course - to shoot UNACCOMPANIED. Sure, you'll get a foxer/deer gun without the course but you'll be conditioned to be accompanied, which can be a real pain in the ****.

 

They aren't really acting outside the law, just chosing to interpret it in their terms. No one has to accept it. The BASC are more than willing to take on the Police if such applications are refused. iI know 'cos I recently went through the same problem with m 6.5x55 variation!

 

The sad thing is to make a stand you end up being police enemy No.1!!

 

PP

[Columbus Polumbus]

That PP is a mantle I have and will gladly accept again.

 

Where in the guidance (accepting it isn't actually law) or any law does it say you must be accompanied? It doesn't and the more we put up with it the more they will do it. They either think your acceptable against a set of criteria that is reinforced by the law or they don't and if they don't then you have the right and they have the responsibility and duty to tell you in writing exactly why they are refusing you.

 

It is worth remembering, these are lawful activities that we wish to pursue and therefore we have every right to participate within the confines of current legislation without harm or hinderence from the police based on their perceptions of misguided policy.

 

I wonder what the outcry would be for example, if Sth Wales police adopted the policy that you can only do 40 mph on our motorways in the name of safety? Or if you have passed your driving test they insist here you must be accompanied for the first two years of your licence? Their would be riots in the streets, also lest we forget, there are more fatalities as a direct result of bad driving etc that destroy lives and families than there are firearms offences committed by the lawfully held "gun totting" public.

 

I too have been bullied, lied to, misreprensented and alienated by the police over some issues however, I am delighted to say I won the day with huge amounts of absolutely first class assistance from the BASC firearms team and now they pick on someone else.

 

Regards

 

Col Pol

 

PS I never got your PM PP would you resend it buddy?

[Columbus Polumbus]

Cranners your abosutley right my friend here goes guys ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

))))))))))))))

 

This doesn't mean I wanna start takin showers with you guys tho'

[Pigeon Pieman]

OK guys, I've got my Devil's Advocate head no now. The following is from the Act:

 

38. For subsection (1) of section 27 of the 1968 Act (special provisions about the grant of firearms certificates) there shall be substituted the following subsection-

 

"(1) A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied-

 

(a) that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;

 

So. lets suppose I am the Police Chief. I work hard and am conscientious in my work (yeah right!!) You apply for a .243 rifle which, we agree, is technically possible assuming you have the land permissions etc.

 

I have no knowledge in your experience and, in theory, I could licence you to go off with your rifle with never having used one before. As the Police Chief, that bothers me and stops me sleeping at night.

 

However, my legislation says 'I must be satisfied that you are fit to be entrusted'. How do we define fit? I can't officially add a condition for you to be accompanied, but could refuse your request as not being able to satisfy me that you are 'fit'.

 

I could offer to impose an 'accompanyment condition' or advise you to go to a gun club and come back when you can convince me - through supported evidential experience - that you are fit to posess. Hmm, let me think. What evidence could you submit - how about a DSC 1 certificate?!!!!!

 

So you see, technically conditions can't be imposed but refusal hurts more! At the end of the day an appeal judge will side with the Chief of Police if he can show concerns over your fitness to possess. The Police Chief's level to prove fitness is set at either documented experience, course attendance or accompanyment - well within the spirit of the Act! That's the problem with subjective legislation!!

 

Personally, I think a test of some kind would be a good thing. Or, rather than a test the old sweats could submit experience records.

 

As gun crime is on the increase - not that licence holders are robbing shops! - I feel th courts will side with the Police more and more at appeal stage!

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the Police loophole thing but can understand their reservations. After all when it goes tits up its down to them!!

[Cranfield]

As ususal, its a question of "interpretation" and we will all see in words, what we want to see.

 

Many would say the "applicant is fit to be trusted", means no criminal record or, similar evidence of unsocial behaviour.

"Trusted", does not relate to technical competence in that interpretation.

 

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Columbus Polumbus]

PP I do not wish to lose friends over this or invoke a heated response by anyone and whilst you are correct in what you say, we do not have the whole picture.

 

There are clear and precise rules and regulations regarding the interpretation of who is fit and proper to be entrusted with firearms, which is at the Chief Constables disposal if he so chooses to consult them.

 

Failing that we have what is called the statutory interpretation Act 1978 whereby the laws as decreed by soveriegnty of parliament, outline what is exactly meant by the word(s) in an Act of parliament. If it goes to court then the judge will employ what is called the "rules of construction" there are three of them namely i) literal rule ii) the golden rule & iii) the mischief rule where a dispute as to the meaning of words in said act occurs and the court will decide as to the meaning and interpretation of the words, you can find an example of this in action in the following case Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v. Department of Health and Social Security [1980] 1 All ER 545

 

As far as I am aware, this has never been challenged by a CC or the ACPO or the firearms consultative committee therefore, given the circumstances it is reasonable to assume the additional policies and restrictions imposed by some of the police forces throughout the UK are local enforcements that have no basis in law. In other words they are nothing more than unlawful.

 

As I have already said, these are nothing more than unnecessary restrictions on our sport which if left unchecked will quickly return us to the days pre HOGTFL which was a complete mess. Why is it only some police forces are making it up as they go along??? Why is it some police forces embrace the guidance and are exceptionally helpful to all? I never got a straight answer from my firearms department but what I can tell you is Tony Burden is anti guns in every way and it just so happens his police force is one of the culprits for trying to enforce these local restrictions.

 

I was recently asked to supervise a colleague who had applied for his ticket and I politely asked " is there any legal requirement for me to do this" the answer was no so I declined. What is not explained or has been tested is if your colleague is with you makes an error of judgement of such severity that the police are called and they decided to press charges would you as the agreed supervisor be held in part responsible for the actions of the other individual? I will not comment either way with the exception that you might have a lengthy legal battle that will cost a lot of money in your own defence and to get your firearms back. My colleague got his ticket and as we speak is enjoying himself stalking stags in Scotland!

 

Equally I have lived in some (in my Experience) excellent Police force areas that were a pleasure to work with in every way. This is the same for the shooting fraternity we have our bad eggs and steps are being taken to disassociate the main body from these people, so why cant the police do it??

 

Quite frankly, the CC is paid by the tax payer to do the job he does and if he has a problem with firearms (legally held that is) on his patch and has pangs of guilt then perhaps he should question his future in that role.

 

From personal experience I can say this, if the police refuse your application for anything THEY ARE OBLIGATED to write to you detailing exactly why they have declined your request and who the deciding officer was who took the decision. The reason for this is simply pre guidance days they just did it, this is in contravention of your human rights and the reason why they never write and tell you is because 99% of the time they do not have a good reason for denying you your rights but have just had a bad hair day so you do not get what you want.

 

Final point to close, the courts cannot side with the police if the police have acted outside their remit and over stepped the mark. There are numerous cases where the judge has heavily criticised the police for their handling of an application in fact a lot more so than any appeals for refusal.

[rjimmer]

I think we've strayed off the footpath!

 

I hope the dogs are under control.

[Pigeon Pieman]

Sorry col pol mate ,but I think you just drowned in legal babble

 

At the end of the day, it is judgements all round. They have to defend theirs and we have to promote ours, if things go to appeal.

 

I have no doubt that the laws will tighten much more in a fairly short pace of time.

 

Be careful you don't fall into the 'tunnel-vision' trap. I know i wouldn't want to sign all the FACs. With the increase in litigation a family suffering a loss to a madman (with a licence which is rare, although Michael Ryan held appropriate licences) could sue the CC as being the person giving authority to the loony to hold the firearms.

 

We won't mention this when you come down to shoot the rabbits - they'd get bored with our debate!!!!

[Columbus Polumbus]

That is a shame PP

 

More legal drowning, one of the victims of the peter sutcliffe murders family, sued the CC for failing to prevent her death. The action failed on grounds of policy which is another tool the judiciary uses but we wont go into that.

 

looking fwd to seeing you PP I did not get your PM would you send it again??

 

Regards an all the best mate

 

Col Pol

[londonfoxshot]

Being unfortunate to living so near to the london suburbs any night time shooting almost certainly requires a quick call to the areas control room to let them Know where and what time one would be present.

Only last week i'd been reqested to assist in removing problematic Charlies' from a north Hertfordshire golf course(no bunnies to feed on the greens just charlie to rip them up instead lookin for worms each)

Having just dispatched charlie no1. the dreaded mobile starts vibrating

Expecting it to be work requiring an extra early start the coming morning I was suprised to receive a call from the area control room.

Turned out a resident(nearest property 500 metres away) had heard the single shot(sound moderated ofcourse) and was in histerics.

The control room were good as gold actually after checking wether i was still on site. Apparantly they were going to reassure her that it was probably just a private party nearby using air bombs in their display.

Just shows you that not all area police units are unapprochable.

[taptap]

Public footpaths, rights of way, these were only introduced recently, and are the postmans routes between farms (look at the maps). The Bridle Ways , Drovers Lanes are the pre 18th century roads, which were all taxed. or were subject to tolls.

Re-introduction of these tolls would give our farmers some compensation, and those who want the right to roam, would have to pay for it.

[squirrelhunter]

A teacher at my old high school was a pigeon shooter of some note, he was one of the only shooters within his own circle of friends that hadnt had an armed response unit disarm him in some field, most of these call outs came because of townies passing by and going ape over seeing a man with a gun, its not always possible to be out of sight but it can save a lot of grief so do it whever possible.