Police Request?

[kent]

Precisely, and when I'm out in the middle of a country estate with nobody but the quarry to worry about do I call the police every time, certainly not! I am not for one second suggesting you should rush to the phone every time you grab you gun. So just what is this about?

 

"Now, for goodness sake, let me make this clear:

STOP CALLING THE POLICE TO TELL THEM WHEN YOU ARE OUT SHOOTING."

 

as I said in post 22 above...

As always, there are some very macho responses here born out of little experience, or thought, in many cases.............

.........You have to be realistic and sensible and use your brains

 

There are exeptions to all things, shooting in what amounts to a town environment culling ferals or shooting urban foxes is very different than a guy on the farm deycoying woodies or lamping foxes. Without talking specifics i have another answer being non reliant on income from pest control - i dont do it if it seems a risk. I had a conversation recently when a guest was comming here and i needed to confirm what they had previously cleared the ground for , i was told it needed to be added to his certificate notes. I argued this point and was then told "well we need a record on his file" again i pointed out this was not going to happen. Off to the head guy to check and yes i was correct " but there is actually no right and wrong on this one" the exact words i quote here- what a stupid statement! Because they get away with it they not only start to expect it they actually start to believe its legislation. I seem to remember you have made a few comments about DSC 1 + 2 in the past on this very forum- legislation without legislation is what we are talking about and its totally wrong

[artschool]

But you could be arrested until such time as the officers were happy that you had permission to be there. If I were the officer and was not happy with the details given I would be contacting the landowners then and there to get an answer. If that was not possible I would probably ask you to leave the land until I have been able to clarify if any offences have taken place and follow it up slow time. That would mean nobody getting arrested at the scene and no guns would have to be seized.

 

Harry

 

 

Assuming that they had all certification with them and you were satisfied that the guns were legally held.

under what law would you ask them to leave the land or be subject to arrest?

 

i dont think you are entitled to actually do anything about it.

Edited October 28, 2012 by artschool

[JonathanL]

Having just secured the shooting rights to a small 40 acre farm and nursery, I advised the landowner that I would inform the police of the right to shoot the land and that any enguiries, complaints etc should be direct toward myself.

 

I called the police to let them know the situation and asked for a local telephone number or email address so I could advise them of the days I'm shooting.

 

Thinking that would be enough, I recieved a call from Surrey Police, they requested the vehicle reg number of the vehicle that I would use to transport the gun. The names of any other persons I would be shooting with. The date and time I was going to shoot. I explained that this is not a 'one off' shoot date but ongoing vermin control.

I was told that every time I wish to shoot, I had to call 101 and advise them of a reference number (which has been given to me) and that I must advise them before shooting. Now I believe this to be over the top! What was meant to be a good PR between shooter and police has now turned out to be a pain, it takes ages to get through on the 101 number, and I am sure that I am not legally bound to inform them as long as I shoot within the law. Anybody know if I have to comply?

 

You're right - it' totally over the top. You don't have to do any of that.

 

The situation is going exactly the way I said it would when this has been discussed before. First they ask where you want to shoot; they they want to see the land; then they want to 'clear' the land; then they ask you to ring in when you are shooting; then they say you must ring in. Next it will be askng for permission to go out.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

as long as you have aletter from the farmer /landowner( or person who owns the shooting rights )with your name and address and likewise for anyone with you and,your vehicle reg.that is all that is required.

 

It isn't. Nothing is required, actually. The police just tell you its required but it isn't.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

had aproblem lamping some years ago luckily we had letter from farmer with all details if not we could have been done for armed trespass we checked with basc they said we had done the right thing having letter withus

 

Having written permission is not a requirement as a defence against trespass with a firearm. All you need is permission to be there. That permission can be verbal.

 

J.

[12boreblue]

Update

 

I called the landowner over this and have been informed by the land owner that one of the neighbours to one side of the fields has previously complained, this nursery is on a busy road linking Croydon to Banstead. The previous rights holder had an open license and wandered around shooting as he pleased, Roost shooting and Deer Stalking. The police were called as a neighbour saw a man in a T shirt and shorts walking across a field with a rifle and telescopic sites, you can guess the response. Owner does not want any more police visits as it is not good for business, therefore part of the permision terms is to inform the police when shooting as requested by the officer at the visit.

 

It seems that this topic has many of us expressing views of 'should we or shouldn't we?' I agree that I am within my legal rights not to inform the police, but considering the geographical location, the wishes of the landowner and the police, I will report as requested, it is not a major inconvenience just an irritating one. At the end of the day the police can give any worried neighbour immediate reasurrance that shooting is occurring within the law, the police will be reassured that they know of the activity and can respond succinctly and without deploying investigate teams. And above all the landowner can be reassured that he has let his shooting to someone acting responsibly, acting according to his requests, and leaving him to concentrate on his business. If there is a lesson to be learnt from this is that in reality it must be better for all shooting activities to keep the police on our side, be it clay, pigeon, game, target or any other. We can still remonstrate to overzealous requests, and object to any further changes to shooting rights, in a mature and responsible way. Where I live is on the borders of three largish towncentres and shooting rights are as rare as hens teeth, so I am going to keep this one! I only dream of a large expanse of stubble, or drilled wheat fields, where one can set up and enjoy this sport uninterrupted.

 

Many thanks to all the contributors

 

Keep shooting!

 

 

Many thanks to all the contributors to this topic, and I t

[JonathanL]

30 seconds to connect, speak to a person and finish? It usually takes me twice that long for the stupid voice recognition to finally get it right, never mind actually then holding a conversation!

 

 

Now, for goodness sake, let me make this clear:

 

STOP CALLING THE POLICE TO TELL THEM WHEN YOU ARE OUT SHOOTING.

 

Shooting over land is a perfectly legal activity. Now, I don't want the ARU coming and interrupting me either, however can you not all see that by informing them we're making it the norm?

Then, 'as everybody does it' it will be made a requirement, and we will have to tell them every time we take a gun out.

Next, they'll require 24 hours notice. Then that will change to written notice 7 days in advance, then 'notice' will change to a request for permission.

 

We already have a large number of rules and restrictions upon us, shooting is suffering because of this, why do we want to shoot ourselves in the foot and kill shooting even further, by doing something that is not required of us?

I don't ask the police every time I'm taking my car out, both activities are as legal and necessary as each other.

 

As things are, the only circumstances I would ever consider telling them would be if I were shooting in an area that could cause (me) problems. Such areas would be outside gov listening stations or other such secure and secretive bases, where they might get worried. Even then, if I felt they could be concerned, I think it would be much better to tell someone at the site what you were doing, rather than the police, who'll come out and check anyway if phoned by the security.

 

 

Stop helping the demise of our sport and for many of us, work.

 

Perfectly stated!

 

J.

[JonathanL]

So when I'm shooting on the sports ground being overlooked by commuters on the railway embankment stopped and queueing on the train to get into the station during rush hour there is no need to call the police, when I am shooting at a Garden centre on a major roundabout on an "A" road with a massive pedestrian walkway over it and it full view of pedestrians and vehicle drivers there is no need to let the police know, when I am in the company car park in full view of anyone who wants to look shooting pigeons there is no need to let the police know, etc etc

 

as I said in post 22 above...

 

As always there are some very macho responses here born out of little experience, or thought, in many cases.............

 

.........You have to be realistic and sensible and use your brains!

 

There will be situations where it's sensible to call in before hand. These will very much be the exception to the rule though.

 

As others have said, if we keep doing this stuff then it will evolve into having to do much more and will become a de-facto requirement as so many other things have become. There is absolutely no legal reason as to why you have to tell the police about any land you are going to to be shooting on at all, let alone having them 'clear' it but it has become a requirement because it was never challenged at the outset. It is perfectly legal for anyone who lawfully possesses a firearm to go and shoot it on any land at all as long as they are there legally.

 

J.

[Dekers]

There will be situations where it's sensible to call in before hand. These will very much be the exception to the rule though.

 

As others have said, if we keep doing this stuff then it will evolve into having to do much more and will become a de-facto requirement as so many other things have become. There is absolutely no legal reason as to why you have to tell the police about any land you are going to to be shooting on at all, let alone having them 'clear' it but it has become a requirement because it was never challenged at the outset. It is perfectly legal for anyone who lawfully possesses a firearm to go and shoot it on any land at all as long as they are there legally.

 

J.

 

Exactly my point, which is why I consider this over the top.......

 

"Now, for goodness sake, let me make this clear:

STOP CALLING THE POLICE TO TELL THEM WHEN YOU ARE OUT SHOOTING."

 

 

Which part of my comments below, already repeated several times, is anyone struggling to understand, shall I put it in big letters and say it slowly?

 

as I said in post 22 above...

 

As always there are some very macho responses here born out of little experience, or thought, in many cases.............

 

.........You have to be realistic and sensible and use your brains!

 

You will also notice .......

 

......... when I'm out in the middle of a country estate with nobody but the quarry to worry about do I call the police every time, certainly not! I am not for one second suggesting you should rush to the phone every time you grab you gun. ............

 

 

:good:

[Dirty Harry]

 

 

 

Assuming that they had all certification with them and you were satisfied that the guns were legally held.

under what law would you ask them to leave the land or be subject to arrest?

 

i dont think you are entitled to actually do anything about it.

 

If the police believe an offence has been committed they can arrest people and seize any evidence relating to said offence.

If someone had reported you shooting somewhere you were not allowed and you could not prove you had pemission then you could be arrested and your guns seized. What I was suggesting is that if I was the officer attending I would try and deal with it by asking you to move to some other land and follow it up slow time.

 

Where I shoot I either own the land or I know all of the landowners personally. I have friends who have never met the landowner and only have a mobile contact and do not know where he lives. I'm sure he would rather go home than get locked up.

 

Poaching and aggravated trespass spring to mind. It would be unlikely to get that far but it's possible.

 

Harry

[mr salt]

blaserf3 and luckyshot have said it all.

[artschool]

If the police believe an offence has been committed they can arrest people and seize any evidence relating to said offence.

If someone had reported you shooting somewhere you were not allowed and you could not prove you had pemission then you could be arrested and your guns seized. What I was suggesting is that if I was the officer attending I would try and deal with it by asking you to move to some other land and follow it up slow time.

 

Where I shoot I either own the land or I know all of the landowners personally. I have friends who have never met the landowner and only have a mobile contact and do not know where he lives. I'm sure he would rather go home than get locked up.

 

Poaching and aggravated trespass spring to mind. It would be unlikely to get that far but it's possible.

 

Harry

 

thats the bit i don't understand/agree with.

 

if a certificate for the guns was produced and the person explained that they had verbal permission to be there, on what grounds would you be able to take any action?

[bedwards1966]

If the police believe an offence has been committed they can arrest people and seize any evidence relating to said offence.

If someone had reported you shooting somewhere you were not allowed and you could not prove you had pemission then you could be arrested and your guns seized. What I was suggesting is that if I was the officer attending I would try and deal with it by asking you to move to some other land and follow it up slow time.

 

Where I shoot I either own the land or I know all of the landowners personally. I have friends who have never met the landowner and only have a mobile contact and do not know where he lives. I'm sure he would rather go home than get locked up.

 

Poaching and aggravated trespass spring to mind. It would be unlikely to get that far but it's possible.

 

Harry

 

If I were shooting on a piece of land and plod came along and asked me to prove I could be there, and after not being able to show written permission or being able to contact the landowner they then told me to move along, I'd tell them (politely) to get stuffed.

 

Unless they have a very good reason to believe you are not permitted to be there (i.e not the usual 'someone with a gun in a field' complaint) then why on earth should I move because they aren't satisfied that I've permission?

 

It should be innocent until proven guilty, something which the police (and, judging by your post, you), seem to overlook much of the time. I should not need to stop because I can't prove my innocence, they should prove my guilt first.

 

Also, when you consider that FAC/SGC holders tend to be the most respectable, law abiding citizens you'll ever encounter, arresting someone because they can't immediately prove they have shooting permission where they are would be very heavy handed, and completely ridiculous. I have my doubts that they are able to anyway.

[CharlieT]

If I were shooting on a piece of land and plod came along and asked me to prove I could be there, and after not being able to show written permission or being able to contact the landowner they then told me to move along, I'd tell them (politely) to get stuffed.

 

Unless they have a very good reason to believe you are not permitted to be there (i.e not the usual 'someone with a gun in a field' complaint) then why on earth should I move because they aren't satisfied that I've permission?

 

It should be innocent until proven guilty, something which the police (and, judging by your post, you), seem to overlook much of the time. I should not need to stop because I can't prove my innocence, they should prove my guilt first.

 

Also, when you consider that FAC/SGC holders tend to be the most respectable, law abiding citizens you'll ever encounter, arresting someone because they can't immediately prove they have shooting permission where they are would be very heavy handed, and completely ridiculous. I have my doubts that they are able to anyway.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

I despair at attitude with which many of todays serving police officers view those whom they serve. Politeness and common sense appears to have gone out of the window.

[dicehorn]

The only time I phone in is to make a phone call or text to the landowner to say I am coming over and that is purely to cover my back should some idiot come onto their land and shoot a sheep or cow. From what I understand, if you phone into the police and they get a call from the public, they are duty bound to turn up anyway.

[demonwolf444]

nothing in writing. Only rang once on a one off permission near a busy road, many Public paths, and known anti's..

[Dirty Harry]

 

 

thats the bit i don't understand/agree with.

 

if a certificate for the guns was produced and the person explained that they had verbal permission to be there, on what grounds would you be able to take any action?

 

If someone else said you did not have permission then who do you believe?

If there is an allegation that you have committed an offence then the police can deal with that within the law.

If you refused to move the police can't really leave you there if you may be committing offences.

Easier all round if you agree to move on until the officer can get to the bottom of it.

 

Imagine getting a call saying there are people shooting deer who should not be there. You turn up and they say its ok we have permission so you leave them to it then the following day the landowner complains about all the poached deer.

 

Harry

 

 

[Dirty Harry]

 

It should be innocent until proven guilty, something which the police (and, judging by your post, you), seem to overlook much of the time. I should not need to stop because I can't prove my innocence, they should prove my guilt first.

 

The way the system works you have to arrest people before charging them and eventually if you get lucky at court you get a conviction. Everything else has to happen before they are proven guilty. That's the legal system we have in this country and it has been like that for years.

 

 

Also, when you consider that FAC/SGC holders tend to be the most respectable, law abiding citizens you'll ever encounter, arresting someone because they can't immediately prove they have shooting permission where they are would be very heavy handed, and completely ridiculous. I have my doubts that they are able to anyway.

 

Like I said at the beginning I would do everything possible to avoid arrest but its an option. Moving somewhere else would be a better option.

FYI I've arrested policeman, teachers, doctors and other respected members of the community including FAC/SGC holders. Your job or hobby has no bearing on how the police deal with you. If your in the wrong your in the wrong.

 

Harry

[artschool]

 

 

If someone else said you did not have permission then who do you believe?

If there is an allegation that you have committed an offence then the police can deal with that within the law.

If you refused to move the police can't really leave you there if you may be committing offences.

Easier all round if you agree to move on until the officer can get to the bottom of it.

 

Imagine getting a call saying there are people shooting deer who should not be there. You turn up and they say its ok we have permission so you leave them to it then the following day the landowner complains about all the poached deer.

 

Harry

i appreciate that it must be difficult. out of interest is the burden of proof not on the accuser?

 

or else ever anti should just say that they suspect that there is no permission.

 

Like I said at the beginning I would do everything possible to avoid arrest but its an option. Moving somewhere else would be a better option.

FYI I've arrested policeman, teachers, doctors and other respected members of the community including FAC/SGC holders. Your job or hobby has no bearing on how the police deal with you. If your in the wrong your in the wrong.

 

Harry

 

have you ever arrested someone whilst they were out shooting?

[Dirty Harry]

 

i appreciate that it must be difficult. out of interest is the burden of proof not on the accuser?

 

or else ever anti should just say that they suspect that there is no permission.

 

 

The burden of proof is for later on at court really not in the field so to speak. The antis could try it and sometimes do but most people could prove they are legal within a few minutes.

 

 

have you ever arrested someone whilst they were out shooting?

 

No just for public order and I think one for fraud. Just made for firearms licensing department aware and gave my recommendations.

[artschool]

 

 

The burden of proof is for later on at court really not in the field so to speak. The antis could try it and sometimes do but most people could prove they are legal within a few minutes.

 

 

 

No just for public order and I think one for fraud. Just made for firearms licensing department aware and gave my recommendations.

cheers for the replies, always interesting to get an opinion from someone who's in the thick of it.

 

the one time I have had the police called out my farmer picked up his mobile and gave them the ok, but it would have been interesting if he hadn't I suppose.

[Dirty Harry]

 

cheers for the replies, always interesting to get an opinion from someone who's in the thick of it.

 

 

It's a pleasure.

[bedwards1966]

If someone else said you did not have permission then who do you believe?

If there is an allegation that you have committed an offence then the police can deal with that within the law.

If you refused to move the police can't really leave you there if you may be committing offences.

Easier all round if you agree to move on until the officer can get to the bottom of it.

 

Imagine getting a call saying there are people shooting deer who should not be there. You turn up and they say its ok we have permission so you leave them to it then the following day the landowner complains about all the poached deer.

 

Harry

 

Good lord, no wonder this country is in such a mess.

The way I'm reading your post, if someone rings in saying they don't think I'm permitted to be shooting on a piece of land, and you turn up and find I have not got written permission on me, and can't contact the landowner by phone then or there, your saying that I must move on or be arrested? A little common sense would say that if you've got 1 person saying that you can be there, and one saying you probably can't be there, that's nothing to go on. Then add in that the shooter is probably a very respectable person and the complainer is probably a silly townie/anti just having a go because they don't like hearing gunshots or something, and it should be a no-brainer. Ever heard of common sense? It seems to be lacking more and more in the police farce.

So why take the view that it's best to move the person on, with such a limited amount of reason to think they could be doing something wrong?

 

The way the system works you have to arrest people before charging them and eventually if you get lucky at court you get a conviction. Everything else has to happen before they are proven guilty. That's the legal system we have in this country and it has been like that for years.

 

 

 

Like I said at the beginning I would do everything possible to avoid arrest but its an option. Moving somewhere else would be a better option.

FYI I've arrested policeman, teachers, doctors and other respected members of the community including FAC/SGC holders. Your job or hobby has no bearing on how the police deal with you. If your in the wrong your in the wrong.

 

Harry

 

It's the assumption that because someone has told you that there is a person shooting in a field who possibly shouldn't be there, you will automatically treat him as a trespasser until he can prove to you beyond all doubt he's there lawfully. That is the issue here, it needs to be/is supposed to be the other way round.

Edited October 29, 2012 by bedwards1966

[artschool]

 

 

Good lord, no wonder this country is in such a mess.

The way I'm reading your post, if someone rings in saying they don't think I'm permitted to be shooting on a piece of land, and you turn up and find I have not got written permission on me, and can't contact the landowner by phone then or there, your saying that I must move on or be arrested? A little common sense would say that if you've got 1 person saying that you can be there, and one saying you probably can't be there, that's nothing to go on. Then add in that the shooter is probably a very respectable person and the complainer is probably a silly townie/anti just having a go because they don't like hearing gunshots or something, and it should be a no-brainer. Ever heard of common sense? It seems to be lacking more and more in the police farce.

So why take the view that it's best to move the person on, with such a limited amount of reason to think they could be doing something wrong?

 

 

 

It's the assumption that because someone has told you that there is a person shooting in a field who possibly shouldn't be there, you will automatically treat him as a trespasser until he can prove to you beyond all doubt he's there lawfully. That is the issue here, it needs to be/is supposed to be the other way round.

I actually see DH side of things. he isn't there to prove beyond doubt.

 

I might carry a copy of my written permission from now on.

[Nikk]

Anyone could make up a permission slip. The only way the police could know you have it is to speak with the land owner. I can't see a piece of paper helping if you find yourself in this situation.

 

The police or operator needs to scrutinise the person reporting this. "I've seen a man with a gun on farmland" shouldn't be enough. There have been plenty of reports of people falling foul of an anti being malicious. A few questions should be asked to get some definite proof that they think something actually illegal is happening and if the caller is found to be making up stories they should be prosecuted I would hope.

 

Anyway hopefully this is what the police already do, but it is unnerving to hear the stories you sometimes see in the shooting magazines. Sadly I think a fear of litigation is behind many of the over reactions we read about. The newspapers jump on anything where they can say the police didn't do enough or were too late etc.