Shooting on a permission with a friend.

[Styla247]

Hey Guys,

 

This is my first post so hello to you all.

 

I have recently acquired my SGC and ive been doing a bit of clay shooting and i have also been to a pheasant shoot as a guest of my friend

 

I am looking for a permission to shoot on locally. Also if their is any one local willing to let me tag along and show me the ropes that would be greatly appreciated. I am a full BASC member so fully insured.

 

Any way sorry to get side tracked, I have a question.

If i have a permission to shoot on can i take a non SGC holder along with me and let them shoot.

I remember reading somewhere about a law which states you can but the land owner or someone that works for him has to be with you. Is this correct.

 

Thanks

Nick

[robbiep]

The other person can only shoot if they have the permission of the landowner.

You do not have the right to grant them permission to shoot.

 

An easy way round it is for the landowner to grant a 'you+1' permission. Which is what I've got on a farm I shoot on. I know the farmer (his land is next to mine), and he knows me, and is happy for me to bring a guest out shooting with me.

However don't even think about asking for that initially. Let any permission owner get used to the fact that you are reliable and respectful before asking about bringing a friend along.

 

As another point, you really should ask the friend if they have ever been sent down - prohibited person rules do mean that if you hand a gun to a prohibited person, you automatically commit an offence.

 

EDIT : Oh, and welcome to PW !

Edited November 25, 2015 by robbiep

[Styla247]

Hi Robbiep

 

Thanks for your reply. That makes sense and is a good point. Im still looking for a permission so will tread carefully at first. Also my friend i am thinking of taking is clean when it comes to criminal tecords, i have known him since i was 8.

 

Thanks for the info once again.

Nick

[timps]

It’s a bit of a grey area, the law is.

 

6.18 Section 11(5) of the 1968 Act allows an individual, without holding a shotgun certificate, to borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the occupier’s presence... 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.

 

There are those that take the view permission to shoot is the same as granting them a right to shoot so you are ok. There are others including me that take the view of the word ‘right’ in is proper legal context.

 

Sporting rights in their legal context 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 a permission slip on and is not considered a right in a legal context.

 

 

 

It's up to you which view you take, but be mindful that as far as I am aware no one as of yet has clarified its meaning so no one can tell you for sure although there was talk of clarifying it.

Edited November 25, 2015 by timps

[MartynGT4]

 

It’s a bit of a grey area, the law is.

 

6.18 Section 11(5) of the 1968 Act allows an individual, without holding a shotgun certificate, to borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the occupier’s presence... 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.

 

There are those that take the view permission to shoot is the same as granting them a right to shoot so you are ok. There are others including me that take the view of the word ‘right’ in is proper legal context.

 

Sporting rights in their legal context 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 a permission slip on and is not considered a right in a legal context.

 

 

 

Is up to you which view you take, but be mindful that as far as I am aware no one as of yet has clarified its meaning so no one can tell you for sure although there was talk of clarifying it.

 

 

If you ask two FEO's for their interpretation you're very likely to get two different answers, so how on earth we're supposed to make sense of it is beyond me.. I just take the safe option of no ticket, no shoot unless we're going to a shoot with a section 11.6 of course.

[mossy835]

years ago my flo said no licence,dont take any one.

[Styla247]

So to be on the safe side of the law. If their is no license their is no shooting. I can understand that.

Thank you all for your replies.

[robbiep]

Licence doesn't really matter (as long as they aren't prohibited). It's permission that is critical

[CharlieT]

It’s a bit of a grey area, the law is.

 

6.18 Section 11(5) of the 1968 Act allows an individual, without holding a shotgun certificate, to borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the occupier’s presence... 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.

 

There are those that take the view permission to shoot is the same as granting them a right to shoot so you are ok. There are others including me that take the view of the word ‘right’ in is proper legal context.

 

Sporting rights in their legal context 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 a permission slip on and is not considered a right in a legal context.

 

 

 

It's up to you which view you take, but be mindful that as far as I am aware no one as of yet has clarified its meaning so no one can tell you for sure although there was talk of clarifying it.

 

 

Licence doesn't really matter (as long as they aren't prohibited). It's permission that is critical

 

I agree 100% with timps.

 

Having permission from the landowner to take out a +1 does not fulfill the occupier requirement for lending a shotgun to a non certificate holder.

[timps]

A Licence does matter for the person borrowing the gun, lending a gun to a non licence holder is an offence under the firearms act unless you are legally classed as the occupier or have a section 11.6 in force (highly unlikely on farm land and only used for clay shooting anyway).

 

In the firearms act there is no mention of people with permission lending non licence holders a gun only the occupier can.

 

The legal definition of occupier has to be sought in case law, the test applied is one of 'occupational control' over a private premises.

 

Does the permission slip give you any control over the land?

 

If a permission slip just gives you permission to shoot but does not give you the right to control who can and cannot shoot you would have no control over the land, therefore you would unlikely be considered an occupier in law.

 

If you owned the shooting rights your right to shoot would control who could and could not shoot so you would have occupational control over the land, this is what the guidance is trying to clarify.

 

A right is different to being given permission, you can legally enforce a right you cannot legally enforce a permission.

 

Remember if you are considered the occupier you would also be subject to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and I very much doubt you could be sued because of your permission slip.

 

So a license does matter unless you are 100% sure you are legally classed as the occupier.

 

 

You might want to take the risk others might not.

 

[Styla247]

Thank you Timps,

 

It would appear that my question has opened up a can of worms.

I have decided i am not going to lend my gun to any one on private land just to be on the safe side. If my mate comes with me to shoot he will have to have his own license and gun.

Thank you for clarifying this as i felt it wasnt quite clear.

I wonder how many people out their are potentially unaware of this and breaking the law themselves.

 

Thanks

[Dougy]

Take your friend to a clay ground and let him have a go there you will both benifit, also have a few lessons.

[webber]

A Licence does matter for the person borrowing the gun, lending a gun to a non licence holder is an offence under the firearms act unless you are legally classed as the occupier or have a section 11.6 in force (highly unlikely on farm land and only used for clay shooting anyway).

 

In the firearms act there is no mention of people with permission lending non licence holders a gun only the occupier can.

 

The legal definition of occupier has to be sought in case law, the test applied is one of 'occupational control' over a private premises.

 

Does the permission slip give you any control over the land?

 

If a permission slip just gives you permission to shoot but does not give you the right to control who can and cannot shoot you would have no control over the land, therefore you would unlikely be considered an occupier in law.

 

If you owned the shooting rights your right to shoot would control who could and could not shoot so you would have occupational control over the land, this is what the guidance is trying to clarify.

 

A right is different to being given permission, you can legally enforce a right you cannot legally enforce a permission.

 

Remember if you are considered the occupier you would also be subject to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and I very much doubt you could be sued because of your permission slip.

 

So a license does matter unless you are 100% sure you are legally classed as the occupier.

 

 

You might want to take the risk others might not.

The best and correct answer so far.

 

webber

[Colster]

Thank you Timps,

It would appear that my question has opened up a can of worms.

I have decided i am not going to lend my gun to any one on private land just to be on the safe side. If my mate comes with me to shoot he will have to have his own license and gun.

Thank you for clarifying this as i felt it wasnt quite clear.

I wonder how many people out their are potentially unaware of this and breaking the law themselves.

Thanks

Not breaking the law as such... As said it has yet to be tried in court so as the law is ambiguous and there is no precedent who knows. When I started out I was encouraged by my FEO to shoot with others before I had my licence even for calibres bigger than I was initially applying for.

 

I have regularly shot with non licence holders, both with shotgun and Rimfire but as said above it is only fair the landowner is consulted first.

 

Sorry but the law doesn't have a clear answer to your question so we all can only offer opinions. The decision is down to you in the end.

[CharlieT]

Not breaking the law as such... As said it has yet to be tried in court so as the law is ambiguous and there is no precedent who knows. When I started out I was encouraged by my FEO to shoot with others before I had my licence even for calibres bigger than I was initially applying for.

 

I have regularly shot with non licence holders, both with shotgun and Rimfire but as said above it is only fair the landowner is consulted first.

 

Sorry but the law doesn't have a clear answer to your question so we all can only offer opinions. The decision is down to you in the end.

 

Not all things need testing in court.

In this context, the term occupier has been visited many times by those concerned with firearms legislation and it's implementation.

 

One only has to read the HO Guidance on the matter of the definition of the term occupier, where it states:-

"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."

 

Or

the FELEG, when defining occupier, advise the difference between a right and someone having permission, as a right is set out in law wheras permission is an informal arrangement which can be written or verbal.

 

The term occupier is clearly defined in law and simply put, is the person or persons responsible in law for the upkeep, repairs and all other duties including occupiers legal liability. Importantly, an occupier has, in law, control over the that which he is the occupier.

 

Equally, shooting or sporting rights are defined in law and are enforceable in law. The owner can sell, lease or let them Interestingly, the holder of the shooting rights can seek damages from the landowner should the landowner cause significant interfeerence.

 

As I have stated before when this subject raises it's head, I, when giving someone permissin to shoot on my farm, most certainly do not confer occupancy to them nor do I give them any right. All they have is my permission to come and shoot, which can be taken away at anytime.

 

How kind of you to think it fair that the owner should be consulted, I would suggest it is imperative. It always makes me chuckle when someone with mere permission to shoot considers themselves an occupier in their bid to circumvent the law and bandy's around the usual "not tested in court" and "it's a grey area", yet legal definitions of the words they are challenging have been used and accepted in law for many years.

 

Until the HO re-word the firearms act/guidance to include those with permission to shoot, in addition to the occupier, then the law is clear, section 11(5) is not applicable.

[timps]

I 100% agree with CharlieT, if you have sole full occupational control you would be considered the occupier no grey area there. If you have zero occupational control you would not be considered an occupier, again no grey area there.

The above is backed up with a significant amount of case law and really doesn’t need any clarification, permission slips give you zero occupational control.

The only grey area that exists and needs to be clarified in court is when the shooting rights are separated from the land, do these shooting rights give you enough control over the land to be considered the joint occupier along with the farmer / land owner in relation to the firearms act.

HO Guidance believes they do, but as of yet this bit hasn’t been tested in court so that’s why they sate it needs clarifying, they are not implying no one knows what an occupier is.

As CharlieT states people are then taking this statement of clarification out of context trying to state that nobody knows what an occupier is in law. Yes they do, it’s backed up with case law and you have to have some control over the land. The only grey area is if you don’t have full control over the land and it is a joint occupancy but this is usually more to do with liability than anything else.

[Gordon R]

Charlie T and timps - thanks. Nice to see proper replies in accordance with the law, rather than "someone at the pub told me etc.".

[old man]

Licence doesn't really matter (as long as they aren't prohibited). It's permission that is critical

As would be the insurance situation?