No guest shooting, is this normal?

[DaveADS]

Our 11/6 specifies that non Certificate holders must be supervised by a Certificate holder, we do "Have a Go" sessions, and a system in place for those non Certificate holders wanting to take up shooting to learn how to shoot, we  have four Certified Safety Officers and Coaches, and a small pool of trusted members that undertake this duty, BUT the kicker is the Insurance, this stipulates that only authorised staff are allowed to undertake this supervision, which means that someone cannot turn up with his mate and share his gun, and shoot under his instruction without a staff member present, anything else invalidates the Insurance.

[Rock_n_Roll_Outlaw]

Bisley Long Siberia have just announced that non certificate holders can now shoot pay and play when accompanied by a certificate holder. 

[HantsRob]

On 07/04/2021 at 12:50, timps said:

It is how the individual FEO is going to interpret it all, that is the biggest problem.

I liked your post. I wasn't keen on this sentence, although I agree FEO opinions can differ county to county.

If you have a sub to PNLD, you get a lot more notes than just the legislation. Point 4 on the notes on S11 Firearms act is:

"(iv) These approvals are either temporary or permanent and will specify the time and place to which they apply. They do not apply to shoots at live game. The holder of the permit is responsible for ensuring, so far as is practical, that adequate precautions are taken for the safety of spectators and participants. Approval is normally only given when the venue has been inspected and deemed safe and suitable."

From this I can only read about the holder of the S11(6) permit has the responsibility, and this site specifically has stated they cannot in good faith say they can ensure the safety of others, so therefore whilst they have the exemption (which I personally interpret as needed to enable instructors to instruct as no part of the legislation affords special rights to instructors) they choose not to allow non-SGC holders to shoot. This then allows them to instruct.

It could be as Dave said, a stipulation of their insurance to keep costs down.

I do believe some sites are a bit more elitist and do not want to grow membership of new blood, but only enjoy those that afford a certain lifestyle.

Edited August 11, 2021 by HantsRob

[HantsRob]

On 07/04/2021 at 16:19, Rob85 said:

Weapon handling....I don't know how else to describe a sporting shotgun but the term "weapon" doesn't sit easily with me. A weapon in my opinion is something you have with the intention of injuring or killing a person.

 

Some articles by their very nature are weapons. A firearm is a lethal barrelled weapon in law. The law can't provision between killing animals and clay, the fact it shoots a potentially lethal payload is enough. It is not how it is used that defines it as a weapon. In your example we are looking more at "offensive weapon" rather than weapon, where intent becomes more involved. It's deeper than that, but a firearm is a weapon regardless of how distasteful it may sound. 

 

Also a dictionary definition:

a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

That's exactly what a sporting shotgun does.... physical damage to a clay.

[HantsRob]

On 07/04/2021 at 20:59, London Best said:

Weapons are for fighting with. What we have are sporting guns or sporting rifles.  
I once had a police officer ask me what weapon I was carrying. I told him I didn’t have any weapons, I had a sporting rifle. There IS a difference. 

In law, you were carrying a weapon that was authorised through licencing. There may be a difference in your vernacular, but I would like to know why you think you aren't carrying a weapon in legal terms? 
Help me learn on this in case I have it wrong

 

(s57 Firearms act says a firearm can be a lethal barrelled weapon, and section 1B says “lethal barrelled weapon” means a barrelled weapon of any description from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than one joule at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged."

As a firearm is a weapon..... to be fair I am struggling to find an exact link in legislation, but common speech with the sentencing council clearly defines it:

Firearms – Possession without certificate – for consultation only – Sentencing (sentencingcouncil.org.uk))

Edited August 11, 2021 by HantsRob

[timps]

1 hour ago, HantsRob said:

(which I personally interpret as needed to enable instructors to instruct as no part of the legislation affords special rights to instructors)

You don’t actually need a S11(6) permit for the grounds instructors as Section 11A(3)(ii)  also covers non certificate holders borrowing a shotgun.

As I posted in the post you quoted, under this section a non certificate holder can borrow a shotgun in the presence persons authorised in writing by the occupier (person running the clay shoot) which in the case of a clay ground would only be one of their instructors or staff,  there is then no need for a S11(6) exemption only to give the instructors / staff a piece of paper stating they are authorised.

As I said in the previous post it is completely the wrong interpretation of authorised in my opinion for any ground with an S11(6) exemption in place but I can see that being the direction some FEO’s will be  wrongly insisting on. Confusing the requirements of 11A(3)(ii)  which needs someone authorised in writing from the shooting ground with the requirements of S11(6) which just needs a certificate holder.

A post a while ago was from someone who is involved in a shoot who was told by the FEO that they could only allow non certificate holders to shoot with their instructors so it has already happened at one ground if that post is to be believed.

FEO’s don’t always follow current guidelines, take medical reports for instance, the majority of police forces in England and Wales have now departed from Home Office guidance notes and are imposing mandatory GP screening for all applications for shotgun, firearm and explosives certificates.

With the wording on North Yorkshire police website I can see them insisting on it, combine that with the previous thread stating they have been told to do this and you can see why I came to this conclusion.

 

[HantsRob]

Thanks timps, insightful! I appreciate the effort of that post