Lending a shotgun on private land

[daisyrob1]

Morning, is it legal to lend a shotgun to someone on private land if their not a cert holder? 

[martinj]

The law will allow a person, without a certificate, to borrow a shotgun or rifle on private premises and use that firearm in the presence of the lender or other person authorised in writing.

[johnphilip]

If it was legal for them to shoot one , and you were with them and they had permission to be there , then I would say yes .

[ditchman]

21 minutes ago, daisyrob1 said:

Morning, is it legal to lend a shotgun to someone on private land if their not a cert holder? 

if you do that ..you risk 

1. a fine
2. imprisonment

[daisyrob1]

Can you elaborate Ditchy? 

[martinj]

34 minutes ago, ditchman said:

if you do that ..you risk 

1. a fine
2. imprisonment

unless the lender is with the person

[prem1234]

I thought you can lend it.....found this on shootinguk.

Your friend can take advantage of the exemption from the need to have a certificate at Section 11(A) 
of the Firearms Act 1968. All of the following criteria must be satisfied:

• The borrower of a shotgun may 
be of any age.
• The lender must be aged 18 or 
older and have a certificate in respect of the shotgun.
• The borrower must be in the presence of the lender; that 
is in sight and/or earshot.
• Use of a shotgun must comply with any conditions on the certificate held in respect of that shotgun.
• The purpose of the loan is only for hunting animals, shooting game or vermin or shooting artificial targets.
• The lender must be a person who has the right to allow others to enter the premises for the purpose of hunting animals or shooting game or vermin, or a person authorised 
by them in writing.

 

[prem1234]

hmmm although now found this....which says only the "occupier" can loan the gun to the non-cert shooter

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/answers/legal-answers/borrowing-and-lending-guns-50443

[martinj]

I think that statement is misleading - assuming that permission to shoot is sorted out, it's OK under the terms of your first post

 

[daisyrob1]

So if I'm a cer holder and permission to shoot on the land does that make me the (occupier)? 

[Demonic69]

2 minutes ago, daisyrob1 said:

So if I'm a cert holder and permission to shoot on the land does that make me the (occupier)? 

Yep.

I checked on this recently. Anyone with permission to shoot on the land, be it private land or a club will be classed as the occupier and can, therefore, lend a shotgun to a non-cert holder as long as they're not knowing disqualified for possession of a firearm.

[ditchman]

37 minutes ago, martinj said:

unless the lender is with the person

yes of coarse providing the lender has permission to carry and use a gun on that land.....and is old enough to carry and use that gun unsupervised............

[daisyrob1]

Thank all👍

[CharlieT]

1 hour ago, daisyrob1 said:

So if I'm a cer holder and permission to shoot on the land does that make me the (occupier)? 

No, which is why the law was recently changed to allow someone with permission to shoot to lend a firearm to a third party provided they have authotity from the occupier to do so.

[wymberley]

57 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

Yep.

I checked on this recently. Anyone with permission to shoot on the land, be it private land or a club will be classed as the occupier and can, therefore, lend a shotgun to a non-cert holder as long as they're not knowing disqualified for possession of a firearm.

No, it most certainly does not. If a permission can be withdrawn without a by-your-leave by the person who granted it - is possibly one clear way of putting it - then the person with that has nothing more than that permission and does not qualify as an occupier or someone with the Rights.

PS I was just about to say another Devonian might just be along shortly but 

I never got chance!

[Demonic69]

5 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

No, which is why the law was recently changed to allow someone with permission to shoot to lend a firearm to a third party provided they have authotity from the occupier to do so.

Law or guidance?

The FEO I spoke to advised that the land owner was not, by definition, the occupier. The Occupier was the person physically on-site with permission to shoot there.

[wymberley]

20 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

Law or guidance?

The FEO I spoke to advised that the land owner was not, by definition, the occupier. The Occupier was the person physically on-site with permission to shoot there.

Because I'm not a complete idiot, I will bow to Charlie T's expertise in these matters. Having said that, someone needs to have a word with the F E O in question. It is perfectly possible in these circumstances that the land owner may well not be the occupier. An occupier of the land may well have permission to shoot game ( he certainly does to shoot vermin) if he either also holds the Rights or has been given that permission by the person who does. Anyone holding the Rights could be termed the occupier.Therefore, only the land owner if he has not let out either the farming and/or the shooting Rights or those who formally hold those Rights if he has can be termed an occupier. Simply having permission does not cut the mustard.

 

[daisyrob1]

Think we need a solicitor 🙄

[wymberley]

8 minutes ago, daisyrob1 said:

Think we need a solicitor 🙄

Or read Bill Harriman of BASC in the above link.

[Demonic69]

5 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Having said that, someone needs to have a word with the F E O in question.

I shall raise it to his superiors, "Some bloke on a forum says your FEO knows nowt"

Unless it's been clarified recently the Home office deems occupier as: “includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game fish”

Would that not include those with permission to shoot on the land?

[CharlieT]

24 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

Law or guidance?

The FEO I spoke to advised that the land owner was not, by definition, the occupier. The Occupier was the person physically on-site with permission to shoot there.

Then your FEO needs to brush up on what the term occupier means in law.

As I said earlier, because the term occupier excluded those who merely had permission to shoot from lending a shotgun to a third party the rules were recently changed to enable someone with permission to shoot to lend a shotgun to a third party if and I repeat if, they have authority from the occupier to do so.

If what you FEO said was correct, I, as a landowner, would be immediately revoking  all the letters of permission I have issued. I do not confer occupancy to my land by granting someone permission to shoot a few pigeons, nor do I confer on them the right to bring their mates on my land to have a go with their gun.

[Demonic69]

1 minute ago, CharlieT said:

Then your FEO needs to brush up on what the term occupier means in law.

As I said earlier, because the term occupier excluded those who merely had permission to shoot from lending a shotgun to a third party the rules were recently changed to enable someone with permission to shoot to lend a shotgun to a third party if and I repeat if, they have authority from the occupier to do so.

If what you FEO said was correct, I, as a landowner, would be immediately revoking  all the letters of permission I have issued. I do not confer occupancy to my land by granting someone permission to shoot a few pigeons, nor do I confer on them the right to bring their mates on my land to have a go with their gun.

TBF I think him, and most forces are following the Home Office guidance, which probably needs to be changed yet again (Or burned entirely and written not by morons). I'll ask him again soon as he was due in the office to talk about some changes this week.

Just reading section 11A of the Firearms act and it makes more sense with what you're saying. I'm assuming the guidance will follow suit if it hasn't already.

Cheers for the clarification

[Newbie to this]

9 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

I shall raise it to his superiors, "Some bloke on a forum says your FEO knows nowt"

Unless it's been clarified recently the Home office deems occupier as: “includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game fish”

Would that not include those with permission to shoot on the land?

I think (I'm no legal expert) that the key word is "right" having permission does not give you the right, it gives you permission from the person who has the right. That permission can be revoked at anytime.

That's my understanding of it.

[CharlieT]

14 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

I shall raise it to his superiors, "Some bloke on a forum says your FEO knows nowt"

Unless it's been clarified recently the Home office deems occupier as: “includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game fish”

Would that not include those with permission to shoot on the land?

You are correct in what the HO states. However, you must not confuse someone who has permission from the occupier to shoot and someone who is legally termed an occupier because they own the rights to hunt, shoot, fish or take game. 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by CharlieT

[Scully]

So have all us blokes who have let daughters, sons, nephews, friends and friends of friends ‘have a go’ been breaking the law for who knows how many years?