leagal to take a non sgc holder shooting

[liam_italian]

As long as you are supervising them and you are shooting on private property then their is no problem. You must remain with them at all times whilst they have your gun.

[CharlieT]

As long as you are supervising them and you are shooting on private property then their is no problem. You must remain with them at all times whilst they have your gun.

 

Would you please quote the relevant piece of legislation to substantiate this.

[channa]

Do the same rules apply for rifles?

[robbiep]

 

Would you please quote the relevant piece of legislation to substantiate this.

If you read my post on the first page of this thread, then exactly what constitutes an 'occupier' and 'in the presence of' etc is pretty detailed there - though even that doesn't rigidly define it.

 

As with a lot of the law though, it is rather open to interpretation.

A load of us could quite easily fill up 10 pages of this thread with what we THINK the law MIGHT mean, but it's a load of codswallop, either way. From the posts on here, it seems that even FEOs don't know what it means.

 

Anyone fancy asking someone from BASC if they have asked exactly what the law is ?

[wymberley]

Do the same rules apply for rifles?

No, it's arguably easier to borrow a rifle.

[wymberley]

 

 

Anyone fancy asking someone from BASC if they have asked exactly what the law is ?

See Post #15 of the reference given at Post #18 on this thread

[Andy H]

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

That comes under section 11-6 , A person may without holding a shotgun certificate,Use a shotgun at a time and place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the chief officer of police for the area in which that place is situated.

[kyska]

That comes under section 11-6 , A person may without holding a shotgun certificate,Use a shotgun at a time and place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the chief officer of police for the area in which that place is situated.

 

I know, that was my point, whats yours?

 

My point is, that if a clay ground needs exemption to allow other no sgc holders to use a shotgun in the presence of a non occupier, why does a lump of farm land not?

 

It proves the point that only the occupier can accompany a non sgc holder to shoot.

[kyska]

If you read my post on the first page of this thread, then exactly what constitutes an 'occupier' and 'in the presence of' etc is pretty detailed there - though even that doesn't rigidly define it.

 

 

Quite, it states that the person maybe deemed an occupier if they have the rights to shoot, my argument is that the right to shoot, is far, far different than the permission to shoot.

 

Again, example...I could set up a clay shoot on my farm, ask my buddy, who has permission to shoot over our land, to run it for me, but not bother to apply for a S11 exemption as he is accompanying them.

 

Can't see that working.

[Andy H]

A lump of farmland does need a section 11-6 exemption to allow non certificate holders to shoot at artificial targets ,I had to do that on one of the farm's i have permission to shoot over to allow member's and guest's of the rifle and pistol club i am a member of to have a monthly bash at some clays.

I had to supply the police with a map showing direction of shooting and shot fall out limit's together with copies of my club's indemnity insurance and a specific letter from the farmer giving permission for the club and guest's to shoot clay's over his land.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Andy H

[jamiedenny]

For what its worth my view is.

 

This has yet to be tested in court and I for one wouldn't want to be the one its tested on but "rights" can be as much defined by the landowner as the law. In that; if it all goes to **** and your mete shoots the neighbours dog the landowners opinion of rights will matter just as much. Now you may know him very well, be the godfather to his daughter and shared many a cosy evening in front of the fire drinking whiskey with the man and he may defined you by saying you have rights (dowsnt like his neighbour anway as the sog bit his child) However, if your mate shoots the land owners dog I would wager his opinion will be dramatically different to the first hypothesis.

 

An easy way to define rights is with a legal document. I live in East Sussex and almost all of te larger farms sell their shooting "rights" in a legally binding exchange of money and contract.

 

Now I have one permission that I do allow a friend to shoot under supervision with me. It's a collection of small holdings. The landowner is always within sight and sound. He knows the pal just as well as me, we have always shot together (including air rifle) and I own the rights to shoot the land (sold for a £1). In addition I have the landowners written consent to allow this scenario. Now this was all arranged informally over one of his home made apple juices but still I'm sure he would go off me should his cocker have an accident.

 

So, same friend on another very large estate in rural Hampshire. I have written PERMISSION here and have know this chap for 7 years. I would NOT allow my friend to shoot here with me as I do not have all the above in place.

 

You can and should make your own assessment of the statement as this would form part of the case should you end up in court. But if you want to avoid court completely just don't do it.

 

Btw- when I spoke with Sussex firearms dept lensing my shotgun to someone was just fine so comparing this to another post I don't think I'm going I have an clarity from the police on this matter but of course I have saved the email exchange should I ever need it :-).

 

My opinion is its not worth the potential pain.

[kyska]

A lump of farmland does need a section 11-6 exemption to allow non certificate holders to shoot at artificial targets ,I had to do that on one of the farm's i have permission to shoot over to allow member's and guest's of the rifle and pistol club i am a member of to have a monthly bash at some clays.

I had to supply the police with a map showing direction of shooting and shot fall out limit's together with copies of my club's indemnity insurance and a specific letter from the farmer giving permission for the club and guest's to shoot clay's over his land.

 

I know! Thats my point, why should it be any different depending whether you shoot clay or pigeon.

 

You either need a S11 exemption or be a occupier.

So, same friend on another very large estate in rural Hampshire. I have written PERMISSION here and have know this chap for 7 years. I would NOT allow my friend to shoot here with me as I do not have all the above in place.

 

 

 

 

My opinion is its not worth the potential pain.

 

^^^ This, good post.

[timps]

I am not a legal professional and my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.

How I had it explained to me is who controls the land.

 

The landowner solely controls who can or cannot shoot and when.

The occupier solely controls who can or cannot shoot and when.

If you have the shooting or hunting rights you control who can or cannot shoot and when.

 

If you have permission then you have no control whatsoever on who can or cannot shoot and when, only one of the above listed can do that so it is not classed as a ‘right’ in a legal definition.

 

Sporting rights are automatically owned as part of the land unless they are specifically separated from it, once separated they are treated like property and can be owned, sold, given or leased. You certainly cannot not sell your permission on.

 

You could, I suppose, as markyboy suggests be given the rights for a set short period of time, however, I doubt any farmer would do that unless being paid because he/she is giving you full control of his/her land for shooting and cannot stop you going on and shooting whenever you like or revoke it until the time specified has elapsed.

 

Also as it is a legally binding document that could have massive implications so written on a piece of A4 paper and not done by a professional is asking for trouble. I am also not sure that it would be legally binding unless entered onto the land deeds to create a separate piece of property that could be owned separate to the actual land itself. Also if the farmer is just the occupier and not the land owner he could not give you those rights in the first place the same might also apply to the land owner if he is not the occupier and rents the land out.

 

Just because occupier is not defined in law doesn’t mean a get out of jail card on a tenuous link to the word right.

[CharlieT]

If you read my post on the first page of this thread, then exactly what constitutes an 'occupier' and 'in the presence of' etc is pretty detailed there - though even that doesn't rigidly define it.

 

As with a lot of the law though, it is rather open to interpretation.

A load of us could quite easily fill up 10 pages of this thread with what we THINK the law MIGHT mean, but it's a load of codswallop, either way. From the posts on here, it seems that even FEOs don't know what it means.

 

Anyone fancy asking someone from BASC if they have asked exactly what the law is ?

 

And that is precisely my point, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states:

 

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;

 

There is a distinct difference between someone who has a right and someone who has permission from the occupier to shoot. The giving of permission to shoot does not confer any right over the land.

Anyone with permission to shoot who thinks they have a right is, quite frankly, deluded.

 

Right, a defined legal term meaning an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal.

 

Permission, not a legal term, means the action of officially allowing someone to do a particular thing; consent or authorization

[kyska]

^^^ excellent posts

Edited September 5, 2013 by kyska

[-Mongrel-]

Btw- when I spoke with Sussex firearms dept lensing my shotgun to someone was just fine so comparing this to another post I don't think I'm going I have an clarity from the police on this matter but of course I have saved the email exchange should I ever need it :-).

 

 

Out of interest, in which scenario were you asking about the loaning? Obviously you can loan another SGC holder your shotgun, but how else other than at a clay ground or, on land you own/have shooting rights on?

[jamiedenny]

Sorry I didn't make that clear did I.

 

I asked about having written "permission" to shoot for me and my friend who does not hold a sgc but not the shooting rights. The answer was you can take anyone you like as long as your next to them.

 

Another post showed a different response from the same county.

 

It's also worth saying that just using the words "rights" on a permission letter may not actually constitue rights as there is more involved in owning the sporting rights.

 

Somewhere in my head the thought is rattling around that you can take ANYONE under the age of 14 shooting as long as they are under supervision. I may have made this up and haven't checked it as I supposed to be paying attention in this meeting :-).

 

Back to the first point its great to see someone. Trying to get a friend into the shooting sports. Please don't take my ramblings as anything other than trying to be helpful an I too wish it was easier to get people trying it :-).

[Dekers]

Flippen 'ek, this one goes round and round, it has been covered many times, by similar parties writing similar things, check out history!

 

[Paul taylor]

Is the visitor a SGC holder though ?

 

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

yes he is but im not, im still waiting for post man to drop mine through door :(

[liam_italian]

Would you please quote the relevant piece of legislation to substantiate this.

i'll dig it up on the legal database when im next in work.