Invite

[Livefast123]

Moderator for range use, not a problem, at least it's not in Avon and Somerset

[Danger-Mouse]

Moderator for range use, not a problem, at least it's not in Avon and Somerset

 

Cheers.

[CharlieT]

This has come up multiple times on forums including this one, the trouble is that there is no definition of 'occupier' and whilst some have interpreted that as the person who owns/lives on the land, others have interpreted as someone with permission to shoot over the land could also be classed as an occupier.

 

It's one of the hazy areas in firearms legislation that would be great to tidy up if the review of the laws happens and under the control of someone who understands the realities of shooting - this may be a pipe dream though.

 

 

 

It may be hazy to you but an occupier is someone with legal control over the land and as such all the responsibilities, in law that are incumbent with that responsibility.

Such responsibilities are broad and cover everything from occupiers liability through to the ability to transfeer title.

 

Most certainly I do not confer occupation to someone to whom I have given permission shoot on my land. The very least a person needs to become an occupier is a legally drawn up lease for the shooting/sporting rights.

 

Further to this and just out of general interest here is the ACPO FELWG ruling on the subject,which clearly shows that, as far as firearms legislation is concerned, they deem an occupier to be someone with an enforceable legal right.

 

17. SECTION 11(5) EXEMPTION

17.1 Helen Rees asked for some concensus on the definition of “Occupier” for the purposes of S11(5) of the Firearms Act. BASC, NGO and Gamekeepers Association interpret it to mean the individual has a right to shoot which means they effecitvely have permission from the landowner. Helen’s view on 11(5) is that a person can benefit from non exemption if they have a shooting right (a binding contract with the landowner).

17.2 Graham Wididcome to address this in the Guidance in the near future. Ministers are looking as changing the terminology of “occupier”.

17.3 Barry Collacott concluded by reading a quote with regards to the definition of “occupier” from the BASC website “Issues arising from S11(5). No definition of occupier in the Firearms Act but generally means someone with an interest in the land that is enforceable at law”.

[wymberley]

As far as the OP is concerned, only if the land has been cleared.

 

Regarding the Estate Rifle exemption. To qualify, as the law currently stands, the person lending the rifle must be the occupier. Merely having permission from the occupier to shoot his land does not, in itself, make one an occupier.

Also and whereas, 'in the presence of' is not specifically defined but is accepted to be in the 'sight and hearing of', the borrower must be in the presence of the occupier or his servant and in the case of the latter, he too must hold an FAC for the calibre in question. Begs the question, does anyone with no more than permission to shoot over the land qualify as a 'servant'?

[Savhmr]

Also and whereas, 'in the presence of' is not specifically defined but is accepted to be in the 'sight and hearing of', the borrower must be in the presence of the occupier or his servant and in the case of the latter, he too must hold an FAC for the calibre in question. Begs the question, does anyone with no more than permission to shoot over the land qualify as a 'servant'?

 

No. "Servant" in legal terms must be someone employed by the Occupier, such as a paid stalker, gamekeepr or ghillie, with legal authority to use firearms of the calibre in question over that land. For the purposes of definition, "Occupier" also includes those with the stalking or shooting rights conferred on them by written or signed deed by the landowner. Examples of where this often has to be the case are where the landowner may be distant from the land, and the land is sub let to a tenant farmer. Unless the tenant farmer has written deed of authority to grant shooting rights, such rights can only be granted by the landowner as I understand it.

 

Regarding DM's point about whether good reason for grant of FAC and holding/use of expanding ammunition for land which he has an invite to shoot over, then most definitely the answer is NO. For the grant of an FAC you need good reason, and shooting by invite for land that may be cleared for that calibre by someone who has verbal permission is not good reason. You have to have the landowner or occupier grant you written permission which must include the purpose for the shooing (ie vermin control) together with the names species to be controlled (usually) and the specific calibres they have granted permission to use. That in itself does not qualify for the land being cleared. It must also be cleared by the FEO.

 

You can be granted an FAC and to include holding expanding ammunition for land that has yet to be cleared but your certificate will not be conditioned for vermin control or similar until the land has been cleared which means that you wont be able to legally shoot that land until such time as it is.

 

RE the use of a moderator on a range, there is no law prohibiting the use of one. There may be specific rules as set out by the NRA and NSRA for variious classes of shooting but a mod is usually seen (in the case of general target and non competition use) as a benefit under elf 'an safety grounds as it reduces muzzle blast. Maybe for competition in classes where it could be seen to provide an unfair advantage, could you get range policy which prohibits use.

 

Whilst you can be granted an FAC for range use, that will not allow for the use (or holding of) expanding amunition. You still need to have legal permission to shoot over that land as your primary land for the purposes of a grant.

[Danger-Mouse]

Thanks Savhmr.

 

One question does leap to mind though. As I understand it it`s possible for an FAC holder to own a calibre suitable for shooting deer, and presumably also expanding ammo. even if the holder does not have land with deer on it but regularly goes on paid stalks. The same applies for calibres suitable for big game. If it`s possible for larger calibres then why not smaller calibres?

[Savhmr]

The thing with paid stalks is you probably still need to provide evidence that you're paid up and using them at a guess. With invites, that's different to a paid stalk. I think you'll struggle tbh unless you can get written permission from a friendly landowner. might be worth doing the rounds with local farmers and offering vermin control services. You never know, you may get one who's amenable but it boils down to doing some leg work and introducing yourself. Many landowners want proof of insurance these days too, so BASC membership helps in that respect.

[steve_b_wales]

Also and whereas, 'in the presence of' is not specifically defined but is accepted to be in the 'sight and hearing of', the borrower must be in the presence of the occupier or his servant and in the case of the latter, he too must hold an FAC for the calibre in question. Begs the question, does anyone with no more than permission to shoot over the land qualify as a 'servant'?

 

 

The thing with paid stalks is you probably still need to provide evidence that you're paid up and using them at a guess. With invites, that's different to a paid stalk. I think you'll struggle tbh unless you can get written permission from a friendly landowner. might be worth doing the rounds with local farmers and offering vermin control services. You never know, you may get one who's amenable but it boils down to doing some leg work and introducing yourself. Many landowners want proof of insurance these days too, so BASC membership helps in that respect.

 

On an FAC renewal, I sold my .308 rifle because I didn't have 'good reason' to keep it. I could have paid for one stalk, and that would have allowed me to keep it, but I chose not to bother. Being invited by a friend etc to shoot deer, does not count, at least not with my police force. I had an invite to shoot deer on 6000 acres of land, but this wasn't good enough for the police.

[Savhmr]

Yep...invites don't count as good reason. You could have kept the 308 I guess had you joined a local range or something, but if that isn't your bag, then it gets difficult to justify in the eyes of the police.

[CharlieT]

Yep...invites don't count as good reason.

 

That is not strictly true. I personally know of several people who's sole good reason is stalking by invitation only.

 

Every FAC grant is based on the individuals circumstancs and if an applicant can demonstrate a genuine good reason to be granted a FAC he will get one.

I am not however suggesting that an invitation from a mate to shoot on his permission counts !

 

This is even covered in the HO Guidance:

 

13.10 The land need not be owned or rented by the applicant, nor need they have regular or automatic access to it. Farmers and landowners may allow shooters to shoot on their land, for payment or otherwise, on a formal or informal basis. An applicant need not always nominate a piece of land as evidence of “good reason”, but in such cases the applicant may be required, where possible, to provide written evidence, for example from a relevant organisation, a professional pest controller, gamekeeper or of a booking to shoot.

[steve_b_wales]

 

That is not strictly true. I personally know of several people who's sole good reason is stalking by invitation only.

 

Every FAC grant is based on the individuals circumstancs and if an applicant can demonstrate a genuine good reason to be granted a FAC he will get one.

I am not however suggesting that an invitation from a mate to shoot on his permission counts !

 

This is even covered in the HO Guidance:

 

13.10 The land need not be owned or rented by the applicant, nor need they have regular or automatic access to it. Farmers and landowners may allow shooters to shoot on their land, for payment or otherwise, on a formal or informal basis. An applicant need not always nominate a piece of land as evidence of “good reason”, but in such cases the applicant may be required, where possible, to provide written evidence, for example from a relevant organisation, a professional pest controller, gamekeeper or of a booking to shoot.

I actually quoted the 13.10 paragraph to the FEO, and was also told by BASC that I could challenge their refusal to allow me to keep my .308, and that I would win. But it was too much hassle for a calibre that I hardly ever used. So I sold it.

[Savhmr]

I think the issue, as with a lot of the Firearms Act and subsequent amendments, is that what constitutes Law, and what constitutes "guidance" leads to a lot of grey areas.

 

Whilst it's true that S13.10 states that the applicant needn't have their own permission, rent or otherwise have formal agreement to a piece of land, it also states that in such cases written evidence may be required ....the weasel words here being "may be". The Police usually choose to interpret that as "is required" because it all boils down to their responsibility for public safety.

 

In the case of being invited by a mate onto his permission, that isn't in the spirit of S13.10 nor would it count as good reason. Good luck to anyone trying that one, because the answer (I'd put money on it) is likely to be "nothing doing".

[Dekers]

As far as the OP is concerned, only if the land has been cleared.

 

Regarding the Estate Rifle exemption. To qualify, as the law currently stands, the person lending the rifle must be the occupier. Merely having permission from the occupier to shoot his land does not, in itself, make one an occupier.

 

 

That is my understanding.

 

When my lads FAC was first granted as closed we had a little debate with his region as he was going to help in my business. We got him a get out of gaol free card. An email from his Firearms dept. confirming he could shoot at any of my jobs whilst out with me regardless of land clearance.

 

As regards "Occupier", has that now been legally defined, last I heard this was still the case as in 2015 guidelines?

 

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.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Dekers

[wymberley]

Think it's 'work in progress'. "Any right" is ambiguous in legal terms, I think, but, as you understand infers 'The Rights'.

[Savhmr]

If the landowner grants shooting rights by way of signed deed-pole, then they are clearly unambiguous rights and the shooter could be deemed as "occupier" under the Firearms Act and Wildlife & Countryside Act as a right is then established to control shooting over that piece of land. If it is a verbal agreement only, this is where no formal right as such is established. Verbal agreements generally are not sufficient to be deemed a right in legal terms because they can be contested.

[CharlieT]

I don't really know what you mean by signed "deed poll". I thought that was the legal way one changed one's name.

 

However, you are correct in thinking that the owner of shooting rights may formally let them under a lease agreement by which the lessor becomes the occupier and the owner has no say in the matter or the owner may sell them, where again, the new owner will, under law, become an occupier.

 

The crux of the matter is that an occupier has legal control and as such, must, under law, accept and discharge his legal responsibilities.

 

As an example, in addition to my own land where I own the shooting rights, I also own the shooting rights on adjacent land which belongs to a third party. On all this third party land, of which I am therefore an occupier, I am responsible under the Occupiers Liability Act, for the safety of others, even "uninvited guests", who may injure or harm themselves. I therefore have to take out occupiers liability insurance.

 

It's all quite straightforward and simple, when the water starts to get muddy is when those with permission to shoot try to convince themselves and others that they are occupiers, in their bid to circumvent the estate rifle exemption.

[kyska]

 

 

It's all quite straightforward and simple, when the water starts to get muddy is when those with permission to shoot try to convince themselves and others that they are occupiers, in their bid to circumvent the estate rifle exemption.

 

Absolutely.

[wymberley]

If the landowner grants shooting rights by way of signed deed-pole, then they are clearly unambiguous rights and the shooter could be deemed as "occupier" under the Firearms Act and Wildlife & Countryside Act as a right is then established to control shooting over that piece of land. If it is a verbal agreement only, this is where no formal right as such is established. Verbal agreements generally are not sufficient to be deemed a right in legal terms because they can be contested.

I think that this has been established several times on this thread already. The words, "any rights" is not definitive to my mind. 'Any person having The Rights of any shooting................' is as you say.

[Savhmr]

I don't really know what you mean by signed "deed poll". I thought that was the legal way one changed one's name.

 

However, you are correct in thinking that the owner of shooting rights may formally let them under a lease agreement by which the lessor becomes the occupier and the owner has no say in the matter or the owner may sell them, where again, the new owner will, under law, become an occupier.

 

The crux of the matter is that an occupier has legal control and as such, must, under law, accept and discharge his legal responsibilities.

 

As an example, in addition to my own land where I own the shooting rights, I also own the shooting rights on adjacent land which belongs to a third party. On all this third party land, of which I am therefore an occupier, I am responsible under the Occupiers Liability Act, for the safety of others, even "uninvited guests", who may injure or harm themselves. I therefore have to take out occupiers liability insurance.

 

It's all quite straightforward and simple, when the water starts to get muddy is when those with permission to shoot try to convince themselves and others that they are occupiers, in their bid to circumvent the estate rifle exemption.

 

Yes, absolutely correct. Sorry, I didn't mean "deed pole" but simply "signed deed" transferring or bestowing formal shooting rights.