leagal to take a non sgc holder shooting

[M.A.Gnun]

is it legal to take a non sgc holder out to a permission and let him shoot pigeons with one of your/my guns ?

i got a mate who desperatly wants to do some decoying with me but im unsure on how the law sits on the matter i found this while researching but still not reallly what i was asking ! ANYONE ?

 

let me just add that he used to have sgc but it expired without renewal so he can shoot , he will apply again but is reovating a house that he will be moving into in 6 mths time so dosnt want to apply until hes in there at a permanant adress

 

You may only lend a shotgun to someone without a certificate if you are with that person, on land of which you are legally the occupier OR if you are at a clay pigeon shoot where the chief constable has granted special permission to allow non-certificate holders to shoot.

Edited September 3, 2013 by M.A.Gnun

[robbiep]

Right, the 'new, updated' HO guidance doesn't seem to cover this, so get to the 2002 guidance here :

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117797/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf

 

6.14 is the relevant section :

 

14

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. On some occasions

though, where the status of a certificate

holder acting as an occupier is an issue, the

chief officer may need to consider seeking

the advice of counsel. Section 57(4) provides

that “premises” shall include any land. The

borrower may be of any age but an offence

may be committed under section 22(3) if a

minor under the age of 15 is not supervised

by a person over 21 years of age.

However, do please note that your permission to shoot does not give any other person permission. They will need to get permission as well (presumably for the single occasion)

[malantone]

 

I think you`ve already said it, I would say "legal occupier" also translates as having permission to be there.

[Dangerous Brian]

According to the FEO down our way, simply having permission does not make me an occupier (rightly or wrongly).

 

Probably worth a quick call to your local Firearms dept before venturing out.

[wymberley]

If your mate doesn't have a gun and wants you to let him shoot pigeon it simply means that you have to lend him your gun. Consequently, robbiep has confirmed that your brief answer is correct. The problem revolves around the words, "any rights". If you think the intention is to allow any Tom, Richard or Harry to shoot without a licence provided they have permission to do so and provided they are with (sight and earshot) of someone else who already has both a licence and permission, then you're home and dry if, of course, you're right. If, on the other hand, you think the exception to the law is to permit the occupier, whether this refers to tenancy, ownership or the holder of the shooting rights, to entertain the odd guest, then it's a no no. The choice is yours.

[CharlieT]

This has been discussed before.

 

My stance, as a farmer and landowner, is that the permission to shoot I give a person does not in any way confer any right of occupancy or any legal right over my land to that person.

[kyska]

This has been discussed before.

 

My stance, as a farmer and landowner, is that the permission to shoot I give a person does not in any way confer any right of occupancy or any legal right over my land to that person.

And I've said before, being in the same situation, I completely agree with the above.

 

Permission can be deleted at anytime, without notice, rights cannot.

Edited September 3, 2013 by kyska

[markyboy]

Best thing to do is get a written letter from the farmer to say I give "whoever" permission to shoot on my land that keeps it water tight, it doesn't make them the occupier but it does say u have permission to be there and also ask to add guest to the letter but you should make the farmer aware that you are fully insured as are your guest and that way if any accidents happen then nothing can get back to landowner or farmer for letting your guest with no licence shoot

Also do not let your guest go away into another field away from your voice or vision I'm not saying hold hands but be sensible you just never know what type of bother can occur

[wymberley]

Best thing to do is get a written letter from the farmer to say I give "whoever" permission to shoot on my land that keeps it water tight, it doesn't make them the occupier but it does say u have permission to be there and also ask to add guest to the letter but you should make the farmer aware that you are fully insured as are your guest and that way if any accidents happen then nothing can get back to landowner or farmer for letting your guest with no licence shoot

Also do not let your guest go away into another field away from your voice or vision I'm not saying hold hands but be sensible you just never know what type of bother can occur

I think you may have misunderstood. If it doesn't make them (you) the occupier, eg, they would have to acquire the shooting 'rights' to qualify for that description, then the exemption simply cannot apply; In order to do so, your 'guest' having been given permission would have to remain in sight and earshot of the farmer, the occupier.

[markyboy]

I never misunderstood a thing

[markyboy]

A letter saying I give the rights to be on my ground to controll vermin from dates in letter with names and signature from farmer landowner would keep everything above board

A letter saying I give the rights to be on my ground to controll vermin from dates in letter with names and signature from farmer landowner would keep everything above board

[kyska]

A letter saying I give the rights to be on my ground to controll vermin from dates in letter with names and signature from farmer landowner would keep everything above board

A letter saying I give the rights to be on my ground to controll vermin from dates in letter with names and signature from farmer landowner would keep everything above board

 

I don't believe so, having permission to shoot does not enable you as an occupier. Although its not been tested in court.

[wymberley]

I never misunderstood a thing

As said, "The choice is yours".

[CharlieT]

A letter saying I give the rights to be on my ground to controll vermin from dates in letter with names and signature from farmer landowner would keep everything above board

A letter saying I give the rights to be on my ground to controll vermin from dates in letter with names and signature from farmer landowner would keep everything above board

 

There is a distinct legal difference between shooting "permission" and "right". Permission can be withdrawn a right can not.

 

An occupier has legal control and responsibility for the land and as such can be held legally responsible for all that happens on it.

[Paul taylor]

I asked my FEO last week about this and he says it's fine if both I and visitor have permission to shoot on the land with shotguns as long as within sight and sound

[kyska]

I asked my FEO last week about this and he says it's fine if both I and visitor have permission to shoot on the land with shotguns as long as within sight and sound

That would beg the question why clay grounds need a S11 exemption if it only requires permission and not occupation of the land.

[CharlieT]

I asked my FEO last week about this and he says it's fine if both I and visitor have permission to shoot on the land with shotguns as long as within sight and sound

Is the visitor a SGC holder though ?

 

Because if he's not I would suggest your FEO is wrong.

[aris]

Was discussed here. I think CharlieT is right.

 

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/255733-someone-else-using-my-shotgun/

Edited September 4, 2013 by aris

[ace_of_hearts]

That would beg the question why clay grounds need a S11 exemption if it only requires permission and not occupation of the land.

 

I guess because the clay ground don't have people following you around watching you the whole time

[M.A.Gnun]

its 50/50 it seems on this which leaves me thinking il let him down with said reasoning . meaning its unsure if its ok , its my shoot and i have written permission to shoot there and on other parts of the landowners land . as someone said if ANYTHING happens i will lose my shoot ,my open fac and sgc AND POSS MY LIBERTY ?! AND THAT AINT GUNNA HAPPEN

Edited September 4, 2013 by M.A.Gnun

[mossy835]

i would not take any one shooting,if they did not hold a shotgun licence,

[kyska]

 

I guess because the clay ground don't have people following you around watching you the whole time

 

They do, they don't just give a shotgun and let you get on do they?

 

The S11 is there for people to allow others to shoot, as I've done, but I've never just given them a gun and said 'I'll see you at trap 12'.

[kyska]

its 50/50 it seems on this which leaves me thinking il let him down with said reasoning . meaning its unsure if its ok , its my shoot and i have written permission to shoot there and on other parts of the landowners land . as someone said if ANYTHING happens i will lose my shoot ,my open fac and sgc AND POSS MY LIBERTY ?! AND THAT AINT GUNNA HAPPEN

 

Its not 50/50, its clarity.

 

As you've decided is right, its not legal, until a test case examines and writes in statute what a occupier means I think its a clear cut thing.

[-Mongrel-]

I asked my FEO about this as one of my stepsons wanted to shoot. This is Sussex Police. I was told that if I own or rent the land then it's ok.

 

If I only have permission to shoot then it is NOT alright as I am not the owner or occupier. If the farmer is present then it becomes above board again but he needs to be borrowing the farmers shotgun (crazy innit!).

 

Long story short, he applied for his SGC and 12 days after the interview being booked he had it drop through the door. Problem solved for me.

[wymberley]

I was given a copy because I was in desperate need of something where I could research some of the legal questions raised by the students on a series of shooting courses I was running. Now, almost some 30 years later I still refer to it although I no longer do the courses.

 

Fair Game by Charlie Parkes & John Thornley in the bookcase would avoid many such threads as this.