What would people pay for a night on rifles?

[JonathanL]

 

 

 

Not necessarily. He is only an employee if he is contractually obliged to do it and is under the direction and control of the landowner. If he's just been given permission to do or, or has purchased the right to do it, then he is not in the employ of the land ownwer.

 

His words. He is doing it "for the landowner". To me that means he is not doing it for himself but for the landowner. Nothing to do with permission or buying shooting rights, he will be doing it as the landowner's agent and as such he would be under the landowners control.

 

You are changing your argument here somewhat. He may well be an 'agent' of the landwoner but that does not make him an employee. If he is not contractually obliged to carry out the work then he is not an employee. If you wander up to a farm and ask if the farmer wants some rabbits shooting, he says yes and lets you do it then you might be his agent but you are not his employee. Yes, you would be under the landowners control, in that he can tell you where to shoot, what to shoot, and what not to shoot but you are not under his control as an employee would be. If you told him you had decided not to do it then he could not sue you for failing to carry out his instructions.

 

Not correct. The Act does not require that the rifle belong to any specific person and does not mention the landowner in particular. It says that the person supervising the non-certificate holder must be an occupier of the land and that he must have a certificate for the rifle. A person does not need to be an owner to be an occupier. Indeed, the owner may not be an occuier. If you let a house on a six month lease then you are still the owner but you are not the occupier during the term of the let, the tenant is.

 

As the landowner's agent he would not be an occupier, therefore he would be using the estate rifle exemption. As such my above statement is correct.

 

He may or may not be an occupier - in fact, if you are correct and he were an employee then he probably would be an occipier.

 

FYI the ACPO have asked the HO to rule on the term occupier as they feel that a person merely given permission to shoot is not an occupier. Watch this space.

 

The HO cannot 'rule' on a point of law. Only a court can do that. I agree that someone who has mere permission might not be considered an occupier. The issue revolves around control of the land. If you are given exclusive permission to do something on the land then I think that you probably would be an occupier as you have complete control over that particular activity.

 

I as a landowner and the owner of shooting rights on adjacent farms am an occupier, I do not consider the lad I give permission to shoot a few rabbits an occupier. I am pleased ACPO take the same view.

 

You are probably correct.

 

Where do ACPO say this?

 

J.

 

 

[JonathanL]

It is my view that an occupier, as far as shooting rights are concerned, is someone who, amongst other things, has the legal right to pass on those rights by renting them out, sale or gift.

 

Therefore, if you are able to legally do any of the above then, yes, you would be an occupier.

 

The first thing you will need is for the shooting rights to be assigned to you in a form which would stand up in court.

 

I think that this is correct but I don't think it would be that restrictively construed. If you gave exclusive permission to a named individual without giving him actual contractual rights to the sporting rights then I think it would not be unreasonable to refer to him as an occupier.

 

J.

[kyska]

 

I think that this is correct but I don't think it would be that restrictively construed. If you gave exclusive permission to a named individual without giving him actual contractual rights to the sporting rights then I think it would not be unreasonable to refer to him as an occupier.

 

J.

This is exactly why it needs clarifying, without a test case!

[al4x]

last time they said to include people with permission to shoot now they want to clarify further really it makes you wonder what the point of the Quango is. They seem to make no difference at all to what actually happens, just have the odd meeting drink a bit of tea talk to their mates at BASC and come out with a press release few departments act on. I'd love to know who gets paid what for taking part......

[CharlieT]

last time they said to include people with permission to shoot now they want to clarify further really it makes you wonder what the point of the Quango is. They seem to make no difference at all to what actually happens, just have the odd meeting drink a bit of tea talk to their mates at BASC and come out with a press release few departments act on. I'd love to know who gets paid what for taking part......

Yet this very quango you ridicule was responsible for introducing the AOLQ condition which everyone seems to want. You can't pick and chose which bit of their output you accept.

 

I am not aware that ACPO have previously sought definitive clarification on the permission/occupier status to enable them to issue a directive to CC's.

 

We have to accept that HMG via the HO have delegated firearms licensing to the police. Each CC being responsible for his area.

 

ACPO FELWG's remit is to interpret and issue guidance to CC's on the implementation of the firearms act. Like it or not we are stuck with it.

[JonathanL]

Yet this very quango you ridicule was responsible for introducing the AOLQ condition which everyone seems to want. You can't pick and chose which bit of their output you accept.

 

I am not aware that ACPO have previously sought definitive clarification on the permission/occupier status to enable them to issue a directive to CC's.

 

We have to accept that HMG via the HO have delegated firearms licensing to the police. Each CC being responsible for his area.

 

ACPO FELWG's remit is to interpret and issue guidance to CC's on the implementation of the firearms act. Like it or not we are stuck with it.

 

Hang on, you are attributing way to much importance to ACPO here and the tone of this post implies that they actually have legal powers to influence the way in which the police licence firearms. They most certainly do not. In fact, they have no powers to do anything.

 

ACPO have not "introduced" anything. They have not been delagted any authority by Parliament to do anything at all. The police have been given the job of administering licensing but ACPO are not the police. ACPO FELWG have a remit but that is a remit given to them by ACPO themselves.

 

ACPO are a privately constituted and privately funded union for senior police officers. They are not law makers and they have no power to instruct any police force to do anything.

 

People, especially shooters, should be very wary of organisations such as this. The home office is the department responsible for firearms licensing and if you don't like the way they are run then you can vote for a government who will do things differently. That is not possible with ACPO so their influence needs to be kept very much in check.

 

J.

[CharlieT]

Jonathan

 

Quite why do you feel it necessary to rubbish and ridicule everything anyone, other than yourself , writes on this forum is beyond me.

 

However:

 

I agree that the Home Office is responsible and for that very reason, they themselves have representatives attending the ACPO FELWG meetings.

 

Whinge and spout all you like but it is via this group that the voice of shooting community is heard and is the accepted route for the likes of the NGO, BASAC and the Countryside Alliance to seek change.

 

I have never said they have any legal powers, we all know who and what they are, please don't try to be clever by missipreting my post. All I am saying is that ACPO FELW is the route the HO take to try and "guide" individual CC's in firearms licensing matters.

 

Oh and yes it was this bunch who drafted and circulated the AOLQ condition, introduced is the correct term to me, following representation from the NGO.

 

As I said, like it or not, this is the way the system works and I'm pleased to say that the NGO and BASC accept this fact and continue to lobby them on behalf of us all.

 

I'm pleased that, with your attitude, you are not the interface between shooters and firearms licensing matters.