pin Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 Well done, you quoted my entire post, and for what reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabid bunny Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 Listen mate, its been done to death at least twice I can remember and I have only been here 6 months. YES they are shoring up the legislation, YES it is badly worded. If you think that law would stand up in court you are as daft as I think you are, that or you make a habit of feasting mostly on billy goats when you spring out from under you're bridge. I encourage you to try it, shoot your neighbours windows out, better still take them out with your air rifle then try and hide behind some badly worded legislation. You are aware that the law can be challenged and changed by a suitably ranking court? Considering the number of times you bring this up perhaps you would stand by it by challenging it in the courts? I didn't think so. ****** me off, the last time you had anything to say it was this exact same thing, try finding something else out, this time make it useful. Pushed the wrong button, sorry. I do not condone such things and I did not bring it up. Someone else mentioned pellets leaving premises, but forgot to say it only applies to under 17 year olds. However if someone here requests more info on the subject...like what was the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 Yet every time this comes up you deem it neccisary to tell people about a known badly worded piece of legislation? One that is being currently worked on, and to remove the implied ambiguity? The right thing to do would be to discourage people shooting air weapons without a popper backstop, when its not dark so that the weapon can't be readily mistaken by a layman as being something it isn't. Perhaps my idea of responsibility is different to yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabid bunny Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 Yet every time this comes up you deem it neccisary to tell people about a known badly worded piece of legislation? One that is being currently worked on, and to remove the implied ambiguity? The right thing to do would be to discourage people shooting air weapons without a popper backstop, when its not dark so that the weapon can't be readily mistaken by a layman as being something it isn't. Perhaps my idea of responsibility is different to yours. yeh mate, your idea of responsibility is obviously different to mine. My responsibility lies within knowing my rights within the law. If I am shooting on a permission ( I'm over 17 years old) and wish my pellet to go beyone the boundaries to kill a crow or rabbit, what's wrong with that? Bearing in mind I have several permissions from different land owners next to each other. I say it is not illegal to shoot beyond the boundaries in this case. Also, if shooting in my garden, a ricochet should leave my property, that too would not be illegal. If the pellet broke a window in the process, that would likely be a civil case for criminal damage I think. If you have it your way, I would have to be so responsible that it would restrict my rights as a law abiding shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naddan28 Posted December 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 complating sending the following letter to the FLO: I am writing on behalf of a friend who has received a visit from two of your local constables, on Friday the 8th of December regarding complaints from neighbours about air rifle pellets hitting windows. The two police constables although clear to spell out the nature of the complaint and take my friend’s contact details they were not prepared to look outside at the garden to see what we were shooting. This was after I had explained that the shots were fired at tin cans standing against a solid wall therefore preventing any ricochet toward others property. One of the constables involved proceeded to explain in depth that if a pellet left our land, even in the form of a ricochet it would be a criminal offence. After myself having viewed both the Firearms Act of 1968 and a Home Office publication on air weapons I fail to find any relevant clause that states it is an offence for someone over the age of seventeen to shoot an air rifle on private land, even if the pellets leave the individual’s land. As section 24(1)(a) states in reference to offences for those under the age of seventeen shooting under the supervision of a n adult twenty-one years or older, “for him to use it for firing any missile beyond premises,†As a result of this act any accidental ricochets would appear not to be a criminal offence unless causing direct damage to private property. If this is the case the taking of the individual’s name would be completely unfounded due to the fact, firstly there was no evidence other than the circumstantial fact that my friend owns an air rifle in the vicinity of the complaints. While secondly, if the pellets did not cause any damage to private property to the contrary of what your constable explained the exit of pellets from the boundaries of his property is not an offence under the firearms act. Furthermore, although my friend failed to state this to the constables due to a state of shock he is not the only individual within the area who owns a small firearm as neighbours of his own BB guns which also on occasion have been seen to fire them in the back garden which in retrospect is more likely “to bounce†off windows without leaving any form of damage to the panes themselves. What I suspect is more likely is a local neighbour is making numerous complaints about the air rifle being shot and using the excuse that it is hitting her/his windows in order to spur your officers into action. In which case the individual would be wasting your time and causing a nuisance to my friend who has the misfortune of a visit from your officers. Although I would like to praise your constables courtesy and demeanour the fact they did not seem interested in looking in the garden was somewhat disturbing. Finally, due to the fact no offence seemed to be committed I trust the contact details my friend supplied will not be placed upon his record as he has fully co-operated at every opportunity and not actually committed any offence. I have enclosed some photos to show the targets he shoots at and the only windows in his vicinity so you can clearly see how improbable it is for the pellets to leave the boundaries of his property, especially hitting a neighbouring house. I believe that might sort them out? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 yeh mate, your idea of responsibility is obviously different to mine. My responsibility lies within knowing my rights within the law. If I am shooting on a permission ( I'm over 17 years old) and wish my pellet to go beyone the boundaries to kill a crow or rabbit, what's wrong with that? Bearing in mind I have several permissions from different land owners next to each other. I say it is not illegal to shoot beyond the boundaries in this case. Also, if shooting in my garden, a ricochet should leave my property, that too would not be illegal. If the pellet broke a window in the process, that would likely be a civil case for criminal damage I think. If you have it your way, I would have to be so responsible that it would restrict my rights as a law abiding shooter. My final word on the matter. You keep shooting crows on someone else's land, and as you do. Hopefully you won't find out the hard way, I just pray you do it quietly without national press coverage to bring the already much maligned sport into further disrepute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabid bunny Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 yeh mate, your idea of responsibility is obviously different to mine. My responsibility lies within knowing my rights within the law. If I am shooting on a permission ( I'm over 17 years old) and wish my pellet to go beyone the boundaries to kill a crow or rabbit, what's wrong with that? Bearing in mind I have several permissions from different land owners next to each other. I say it is not illegal to shoot beyond the boundaries in this case. Also, if shooting in my garden, a ricochet should leave my property, that too would not be illegal. If the pellet broke a window in the process, that would likely be a civil case for criminal damage I think. If you have it your way, I would have to be so responsible that it would restrict my rights as a law abiding shooter. My final word on the matter. You keep shooting crows on someone else's land, and as you do. Hopefully you won't find out the hard way, I just pray you do it quietly without national press coverage to bring the already much maligned sport into further disrepute. every shooter who has permission to shoot on private property, shoots on someone else's land. Man you are a real kill joy. I will not let hysteria and over caution restrict my rights as a law abiding, safe shooter. Naddan28.... Good letter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 The way I read this is that the original poster seems to be getting victimised by the police who MAY be more interested in the (quicker) easy option of giving the lad a lecture when they should be treating his side of the story with more respect and research - they have not bothered to properly investigate his extensive efforts to be responsible. Rabid Bunny appears to know that things arn't always as the police like them to be in order to get away with bullying the lad - I see no reason to discourage full and specific knowledge of the law here lads. If the forum cant help someone being treated wrongly it's a poor job. As it happens - it seems the police merely took notes with 'no further action' so that they can be referred back to if the need arises, in this event the lads may benefit from truthfull facts as they are now - rather than those that may exist in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 Naddan28, your friends who were approached by the Police should write the letter, not you. If they have no licensed weapons (therefore can't really write to their FLO), they should address it to the Chief Constable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killer rabbit (r1000) Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 If I am shooting on a permission ( I'm over 17 years old) and wish my pellet to go beyone the boundaries to kill a crow or rabbit, what's wrong with that? Bearing in mind I have several permissions from different land owners next to each other. I say it is not illegal to shoot beyond the boundaries in this case. Also, if shooting in my garden, a ricochet should leave my property, that too would not be illegal. If the pellet broke a window in the process, that would likely be a civil case for criminal damage I think. just reading through this post & decided it's getting a little silly, but i do have a comment... as far as i'm concerned, age doesn't come into it (except the legal shooting age), i would insist that every precaution be taken to prevent any projectile to exceed the boundary of the shooters land/permission (this would include ricochets). it's unlikely that a ricochet would cause any damage to property at range (30 yards?), but at the same range could hurt a person even if no wound is sustained (you'd be surprised at how many pellets come back for the eyes if they bounce off the wrong thing!), the only ricochets that are likely to damage property are from projectiles fired from fac-rated weapons. if you had permissions on neighbouring lands then yes, it would usually be ok to allow pellets to exceed your current boundary (lots of people already do this), otherwise i would reccommend against it as you could find yourself in a lot of trouble & hoping you are fully converse with every loophole in the law ...case closed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naddan28 Posted January 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Naddan28, your friends who were approached by the Police should write the letter, not you.If they have no licensed weapons (therefore can't really write to their FLO), they should address it to the Chief Constable. Not meaning to be rude, cranfield firstly i was there at the time and secondly i am the only one that has any form of legal knowledge so I would be the most appropriate to write the letter on their behalf (known as the concept of agency) In the same way you would get the BASC or a solicitor to write the letter. Finally, the only reason we considered sending it to the flo as it would take 5mins for him with his knowledge (as opposed to thousands of desk pc's) to realise that we were doing nothing wrong and that it was a neighbour falsifying a complaint in order to get my friend to stop shooting (which unfortunately he has ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killer rabbit (r1000) Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 write what you have to, to who you have to, & best of luck m8 (why, when the police send officers out to these occurrences, can't they at least send someone who's at least slightly educated in the subject at hand?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batmancaver Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 see here, in the UNDER 17 section c. Whilst under the supervision of a person aged 21 years or over, or whilst shooting, on private premises, including land, provided the missile is not fired beyond those premises. http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/airguns1.htm also here, page 2, top right corner (under 17 section) http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-p...pdf?view=Binary also if you read paragraph 34 of the VCR bill, soon to be law, they have taken steps towards improving the current situation... see here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060038_en.pdf although there are certain conditions, it is still not illegal to allow a pellet to leave private land. Maybe I am reading paragraph 34 wrong, however, there does not appear to be any mention of age in that section. From the way I read it the VCR act is amending the 1968 law and clearly states that a person (no age mentioned) commits an offence if a pellet leaves his premises. See here: "34 Firing an air weapon beyond premises (1) The 1968 Act is amended as follows. (2) After section 21 (possession of firearms by persons previously convicted crime) insert— “21A Firing an air weapon beyond premises (1) A person commits an offence if— a he has with him an air weapon on any premises and b he uses it for firing a missile beyond those premises." I may be wrong, however, the other two information sources you state are a web page and an advice leaflet. Neither of these are legal documents. In a court case the lawyers, judges, etc would be using the appropriate legal acts as passed and printed by parliment/HMSO. A poorly worded advice leaflet would certainly not stop you getting prosecuted. Finally, regardless of how the past/current/future law is worded you would have to be a complete and utter ******* idiot to either fire a pellet outside of your premises/permission areas or to advice people that they can do so because of an apparent loophole in the law. Even if you are correct about the wording of the law then the CPO would take you to court and would charge you with something that you could not get out of. eg if they could not do you for firing a pellet outside of the premises then they could do you for firing a weapon dangerously with intent to damage property or persons! A long time back I was attacked in the street, as I defended myself well I got arrested before my attacker. Despite assisting the police, I told them the name of my attacker and his address, what happened? We both ended up in court charged with causing a breach of the peace by fighting in a public place. The police/CPO were not interested in the reasons they only wanted a successful prosecution ... which they got as I could not deny that I had been fighting. I would advise anyone to ensure that any pellets they fire stay within their boundaries to avoid any unneccessary bad publicity. Karl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNAKEBITE Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 just reading through this post & decided it's getting a little silly, but i do have a comment... There is a lot it about recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naddan28 Posted January 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 see here, in the UNDER 17 section c. Whilst under the supervision of a person aged 21 years or over, or whilst shooting, on private premises, including land, provided the missile is not fired beyond those premises. http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/airguns1.htm also here, page 2, top right corner (under 17 section) http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-p...pdf?view=Binary also if you read paragraph 34 of the VCR bill, soon to be law, they have taken steps towards improving the current situation... see here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060038_en.pdf although there are certain conditions, it is still not illegal to allow a pellet to leave private land. Maybe I am reading paragraph 34 wrong, however, there does not appear to be any mention of age in that section. From the way I read it the VCR act is amending the 1968 law and clearly states that a person (no age mentioned) commits an offence if a pellet leaves his premises. See here: "34 Firing an air weapon beyond premises (1) The 1968 Act is amended as follows. (2) After section 21 (possession of firearms by persons previously convicted crime) insert— “21A Firing an air weapon beyond premises (1) A person commits an offence if— a he has with him an air weapon on any premises and b he uses it for firing a missile beyond those premises." I may be wrong, however, the other two information sources you state are a web page and an advice leaflet. Neither of these are legal documents. In a court case the lawyers, judges, etc would be using the appropriate legal acts as passed and printed by parliment/HMSO. A poorly worded advice leaflet would certainly not stop you getting prosecuted. Finally, regardless of how the past/current/future law is worded you would have to be a complete and utter ******* idiot to either fire a pellet outside of your premises/permission areas or to advice people that they can do so because of an apparent loophole in the law. Even if you are correct about the wording of the law then the CPO would take you to court and would charge you with something that you could not get out of. eg if they could not do you for firing a pellet outside of the premises then they could do you for firing a weapon dangerously with intent to damage property or persons! A long time back I was attacked in the street, as I defended myself well I got arrested before my attacker. Despite assisting the police, I told them the name of my attacker and his address, what happened? We both ended up in court charged with causing a breach of the peace by fighting in a public place. The police/CPO were not interested in the reasons they only wanted a successful prosecution ... which they got as I could not deny that I had been fighting. I would advise anyone to ensure that any pellets they fire stay within their boundaries to avoid any unneccessary bad publicity. Karl Yes Karl, however these are all either actual or based upon extracts from various acts, for example the Firearms Act, some of the above quotes are EXACT duplicates from the act itself, so would be used as evidence within a court. I am sorry for starting such a huge debate but it just annoyed me the way my friend who had done nothing wrong and none of his pellets had even left his boundaries was being treated like a criminal basically as the police could not be ***** to go and have a look to see the precuations taken and prefered to hand out a lecture/caution. Also the fact the complaints were just made by a neighbour who instead of approaching him decided to drum up some false accusations in order to get him into trouble for actually doing nothing wrong. Karl, you should count yourself lucky mate you have not studied martial arts as if that was me instead of you i would have been probably hammered for using inadqeute force. Martial artists get it really badly in those situations it almost makes me affraid to defend myself especially in a knife situation because if you cause any injury (which is what i would aim to do, break their arm probably) then the assilant gets off scot free and you end up with an asssult case on your hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 **Yawns** loudly and stretches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 This incident happened on the 8th December, have you had a reply to your letter yet ................................or haven't you written it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batmancaver Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 naddan28 I appreciate that these web pages/leaflets may be based upon the various acts and may even include extracts from them, however, to re-iterate, in a court case the courts would use the official parlimentary acts. I am aware of the use of leaflets to explain the laws from when I used to work for the Countryside Council for Wales (the Governments nature conservation advisors in Wales), however, they are NOT a replacement for the actual laws themselves. As for causing a huge debate, well that is what a forum is all about isn't it? I hope that your friends problems both with the police and their neighbours are sorted out to the mutual benefit of all concerned. Fortunately my neighbours take no offence to my shooting in the back garden, however, I did approach them first and explain what I was going to do. Cheers Karl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Regardless of the law, you shouldn't let your pellets leave the boundry of your permission! How would you feel if you blinded someone? To allow these things to happen will only give our sport a bad name (because of these things happening, it has already). What's already been done cannot be changed, but bear it in mind for the future. Forget what the law says, and get yourself a decent back stop. An old box filled with bulky material like carpet offcuts or tightly packed newspaper will do the job. It's not hard is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabid bunny Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Maybe I am reading paragraph 34 wrong, however, there does not appear to be any mention of age in that section. From the way I read it the VCR act is amending the 1968 law and clearly states that a person (no age mentioned) commits an offence if a pellet leaves his premises. That's exactly right, it now has no age limit. That's why it's in there, to correct the previous loophole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naddan28 Posted January 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Regardless of the law, you shouldn't let your pellets leave the boundry of your permission! How would you feel if you blinded someone? To allow these things to happen will only give our sport a bad name (because of these things happening, it has already). What's already been done cannot be changed, but bear it in mind for the future. Forget what the law says, and get yourself a decent back stop. An old box filled with bulky material like carpet offcuts or tightly packed newspaper will do the job. It's not hard is it That was the whole point, the backstop was suitable, as the pellets could not physically leave the landdue to the angle of the backstop and the wall behind it, the fact the pellets were all left in the backstop proved the point! I do not want to cause any upset or discredit the sport because like you I suffer from the bad press air gunners get but it does not help the fact that cases like this where the bad press is not deserved as the pellets have not left the land. It does make you wonder how much of the associated bad press (apart from the obvious moron chavs shooting children and pets) is actually an actual problem? Afterall I am sure my friend's will be regarded as an incidence and probably counted in statistics but as said their was no actual problem so it kind of skews the evidence such bad press is made on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcha Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 Regardless of the law, you shouldn't let your pellets leave the boundry of your permission! How would you feel if you blinded someone? To allow these things to happen will only give our sport a bad name (because of these things happening, it has already). What's already been done cannot be changed, but bear it in mind for the future. Forget what the law says, and get yourself a decent back stop. An old box filled with bulky material like carpet offcuts or tightly packed newspaper will do the job. It's not hard is it Well its their own fault really, they should have seen it coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Geordie Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 Well reading the the latest issue of Sporting Shooter in Scotland gun grime has FALLEN! Yet the sales and registration of LEGAL weapons has RISEN! So it proves a very good point that it is NOT the "legal" guns that seem to be the problem! But it's NOT the kind of news that sells papers so of course when an incident occurs where someone is injured by the "ILLEGAL" use of a gun then ALL guns are poked at with the mighty stick of the press. LG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slips Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 I was round my friend's tonight and at around 830pm we were shooting his B2 in the garden. We were just plinking at tin cans, within a roses tin against a solid brick wall on the floor so nothing remotely dangerous. 2 hrs later a knock at the door is heard by me and a friend (we were upstairs) go down to expected to see my girlfriend awaiting and a police officer is standing there with another in the front room with my friend Phil. The first officer asked whether we all lived here and how many others did. We explained 3 others and i was just on a social call. At this point the officer walks in and see's my friend's berrata 92f bb gun and picks it up (a tin off .22 pellets were next to it) and says "oh here is the offending item". We explained that it wasnt and his colluege had already seen the air rifle in the bedroom. So they began to explain how they had 3 complaints about air rifle pellets hitting neighbours windows, althou no damage had been caused and how we were committing an offence for shooting pellets of the land. They then proceeded to start questioning my friend as he admitted owning the gun, shooting it within HIS garden and stated he was not stupid enough to fire outside of the boundries. I quickly pointed out that the targets were solid with a brick wall back stop and were highly improbable to receot espically the required 50 yards to hit the flats window or back 20 yrds at a 60 degree angle to hit the neighbours. I invited him to look for themselves but they did not seem to care, Phil then stated that perhaps the noise of the gun was what caused them to think it hit their property not the actually leaving his boundries. The officers just said about they wanted his name and number etc in case anything else happened "so they know where to come." My friend Phil is now rather worried as firstly anything that happens in the area he is likely to get the grief and secondly we are going for a job at BAE Systems which requires a rigorous security check. I must admit the police officers did not really seem convienced by the "damage" the pellet caused as air rifle pellets dont "bounce" off windows but explained they had to come round as 3 people had complained and if not they would get it in the neck. I have told my friend to right in explaining that another neighbour's house has 3 bb gun owners who shoot and is more likely to have "bounced" pellets off the window. He now does not want to keep his gun at his incase anything happens from other shooters and he is blamed. I told him not to worry to much as clearly they were not bothered and any evidence they had would be purely curcmstanual. Just annoying that he has been responsibly shooting in the garden and the police have come round and made life arkward for him. With what the police have to deal with nowadays with the vast amounts of fatal shootings with real firearms, especially the black on black "trident" related crimes, im sure dealing with someone over a an "alleged incident" with an air gun and a little lead pellet going astray, im sure that its well down on their list of gun related worries, obviously they have to investigate, but just take a slap on the wrist and be carefull in future, coz if they visit you again you can at the least kiss your gun goodbye, anything more serious and it will be your a**e your kissing goodbye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeneyman Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Let's clear this whole mess up. Firstly, when your neighbour called the Police, they would have spoken to an operator in a Police enquiry centre somewhere. They would have created a computer log relating to the incident and then sent the log to the control room. The control room would then make a decision regarding how the job would be resourced. The circumstances will be passed from person to person until they eventually reach an officer. There are a lot of 'chinese whispers' involved when people call the Police. So much so that the original incident often bares no resemblance to the version of events passed to the officer that comes out to you. I would take the allegation of hitting the windows with a pinch of salt. Had there been any credible evidence then you would have been arrested there and then. If the control room deem the threat to be a low one then they would send your average bobby on the beat. If they thought that there was a higher threat (such as people shooting at other people) then they would start getting armed response units together. The Police have to deal with thousands of different crimes and can not be expected to know each individual law word by word. My advice would be for you all to know your law down to the act and section. If you can illustrate to an officer that you are aware of the laws and prove that you are taking steps to act in a lawful manner then they will leave you in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts