Dangerous Idiot Shooting Pigeons

[beast 1,884]

there is a large field of rape just behind my house bordered on one edge by a strip of wood. a footpath runs along the side of the wood, its a handy spot to exercise the dogs. i took my little girl for a quick stroll this morning, usually she runs on ahead but today she wanted a carry, luckily enough because as we were passing the wood suddenly at most 20 yards in front of us some twat decided to stand up in the wood edge and let off both barrels at a woody! straight across the footpath (the only direction he could actually shoot in). apart from scaring the child no harm was done, but it was potentially a very dangerous siuation. i'm not sure if firing across a public footpath is actually illegal or not, but the way he was set back into the woods meant he couldnt see anybody unless they were within five yards either side of him, and this is a well-used footpath by ramblers, dog-walkers, cyclists etc. i told the bloke what my thoughts were, politely, and he told me to feck off and mind my own business! one word led to another and in the end i took my daughter home and came back about ten minutes later to have it out with him properly, only to find he had packed up hurriedly and gone. left a very bad taste in my mouth. in 16 years i have never seen this field shot over, so i guess he must be new, but obviously hasnt done any homework and wasnt interested in the polite advice i initially offered him. i was in two minds whether to call the police (pointless after he had gone i know) but i'm not sure if he had actually committed an offence or was just being an idiot. what do you think?

[Alsone 789]

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7hRX9rhRSmIAFMZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybjFrcjVnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=131i7dhk0/EXP=1371104983/**http%3a//www.basc.org.uk/download.cfm/docid/8201D2D3-E4B1-4333-B24BA94A9790765C

 

Explains all.

 

Only an Offence in very limited circumstances although there are Civil Law considerations.

 

Your Local Firearms Officer may take a different view with regards to his certificate though if he thought he was a danger to .......others...

Edited June 12, 2013 by Alsone

[Shrophunter 7]

Section 161 (2) Highways Act 1980

 

"It is an offence without lawful authority or excuse, to discharge any firearm within 50 feet of the centre of a highway if a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered"

 

Could fit the bill if its a public footpath?

[nobjerk 161]

i was under the impression that you had to be 50ft away from any puplic footpath/highway and be shooting away from it , whether thats common sense or law im not sure but this guy obviously realized his error or you scared him off and he got on his toes . either way i doubt he will be back .

[SportingShooter 0]

Section 161 (2) Highways Act 1980

 

"It is an offence without lawful authority or excuse, to discharge any firearm within 50 feet of the centre of a highway if a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered"

 

Could fit the bill if its a public footpath?

 

A highway is a footpath, bridleway etc and it's perfectly legal to shoot within 50ft of the centre providing no one is injured, interrupted or endangered. Which it appears isn't the case here and he's committed the offence.

[paulus 26]

Section 161 (2) Highways Act 1980

 

"It is an offence without lawful authority or excuse, to discharge any firearm within 50 feet of the centre of a highway if a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered"

 

Could fit the bill if its a public footpath?

i do believe the understanding in law for this is, if say, you shot a pigeon and it fell infront of a car causing it to stop then you would be "interrupting" so committing an offence, However if it fell on the verge and the driver stopped to take a look, then he would have stopped "of his own free will" so no offense will have been committed,the same with walkers on footpaths, shooting over a footpath on land you have lawful authority to shoot over is not illegal, however without reasonable precautions being taken it may well be seen as irresponsible.

[Alsone 789]

Section 161 (2) Highways Act 1980

 

"It is an offence without lawful authority or excuse, to discharge any firearm within 50 feet of the centre of a highway if a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered"

 

Could fit the bill if its a public footpath?

 

From the BASC PDF I linked to, some extracts:

 

 

Highways are a way in which the public have the right to pass and re-pass by foot, on horseback or with vehicles. Bridleways, footpaths and metalled roads (carriageways) are all examples of highways.

 

BUT :

 

 

SHOOTING NEAR HIGHWAYS (E.G. ROADS & CARRIAGEWAYS)

In England & Wales it is an offence without lawful authority or reasonable excuse to discharge any firearm within fifty feet of the centre of a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway, and in consequence a user of the carriageway is injured, interrupted or endangered. [section 161(2) of the Highways Act 1980 as amended].

 

It is important to remember that the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited in itself. It must also be proved that there was an injury, or that someone’s passage was interrupted or interfered with e.g. they have been forced to make a detour.

 

For the purposes of Section 161 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended), a ‘highway’ is restricted to a public right of way for the passage of vehicles and does not include footpaths, cycle tracks or bridleways. Therefore the fifty feet rule described above does not apply to rights of ways that cross private lands e.g. footpaths.

 

 

We (BASC) believe that....“Reasonable excuse” would apply to sportsmen shooting over land with permission......

 

 

SHOOTING NEAR RIGHTS OF WAY (E.G. FOOTPATHS & BRIDLEWAYS)

When the footpath runs across private land the ownership of the land and sporting rights are unaltered. Therefore a person with the shooting/sporting rights may shoot on or over footpaths on their land equally to public having the right to walk (to pass and re-pass) along it as a means of communication. So the public and the shooters have a concurrent right to the footpath and it is up to both parties to not obstruct the other.

 

However if you shoot over footpaths, only do so if you have permission to drop shot over the land on the other side.

 

I've not copied the full document here as its not fair to the BASC although I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

 

Maybe the mods could downnload and host the document as a sticky at the top of this forum as its a useful reference.

 

As an aside to the law, I still think a firearms licencsing officer would take a dim view of shooting across a footpath without ensuring it was safe to do so and this could result in a warning and for repeat offences a revocation. Remember to hold a licence he has to be satisfied that you don't pose a danger to yourself or the public. If you're taking reckless shots, then whilst I don't think in the light of the above an offence has been committed, it could perhaps be interpreted as showing that through recklessness you are a danger to others.

 

The only thing I might say in the shooters defence, is that in this instance, if you came up the path onto him suddenly and he was following the pidgeon in his sights, then he might not have seen you becuase his eyesight was focused on the foreground and not the background. So maybe a more friendly approach to him would have been better for you both.

 

This does show the dangers in shooting over footpaths though which is why personally I'd always shoot from the hedgrow by the path outwards rather than towards it.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Alsone

[Lab 10,979]

 

Section 161 (2) Highways Act 1980

 

"It is an offence without lawful authority or excuse, to discharge any firearm within 50 feet of the centre of a highway if a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered"

 

Could fit the bill if its a public footpath?

 

From the BASC PDF I linked to, some extracts:

 

 

Highways are a way in which the public have the right to pass and re-pass by foot, on horseback or with vehicles. Bridleways, footpaths and metalled roads (carriageways) are all examples of highways.

 

BUT :

 

 

SHOOTING NEAR HIGHWAYS (E.G. ROADS & CARRIAGEWAYS)

In England & Wales it is an offence without lawful authority or reasonable excuse to discharge any firearm within fifty feet of the centre of a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway, and in consequence a user of the carriageway is injured, interrupted or endangered. [section 161(2) of the Highways Act 1980 as amended].

 

It is important to remember that the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited in itself. It must also be proved that there was an injury, or that someone’s passage was interrupted or interfered with e.g. they have been forced to make a detour.

 

For the purposes of Section 161 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended), a ‘highway’ is restricted to a public right of way for the passage of vehicles and does not include footpaths, cycle tracks or bridleways. Therefore the fifty feet rule described above does not apply to rights of ways that cross private lands e.g. footpaths.

 

 

We (BASC) believe that....“Reasonable excuse” would apply to sportsmen shooting over land with permission......

 

 

SHOOTING NEAR RIGHTS OF WAY (E.G. FOOTPATHS & BRIDLEWAYS)

When the footpath runs across private land the ownership of the land and sporting rights are unaltered. Therefore a person with the shooting/sporting rights may shoot on or over footpaths on their land equally to public having the right to walk (to pass and re-pass) along it as a means of communication. So the public and the shooters have a concurrent right to the footpath and it is up to both parties to not obstruct the other.

 

However if you shoot over footpaths, only do so if you have permission to drop shot over the land on the other side.

 

I've not copied the full document here as its not fair to the BASC although I'm sue they wouldn't mind.

 

Maybe the mods could downnload and host the document as a sticky at the top of this forum as its a useful reference.

 

As an aside to the law, I still think a firearms licencsing officer would take a dim view of shooting across a footpath without ensuring it was safe to do so and this could result in a warning and for repeat offences a revocation. Remember to hold a licence he has to be satisfied that you don't pose a danger to yourself or the public. If you're taking reckless shots, then whilst I don't think in the light of the above an offence has been committed, it could perhaps be interpreted as showing that through recklessness you are a danger to others.

 

The only thing I might say in the shotters defence, is that in this instance, if you came up the path onto him suddenly and he was following the pidgeon in his sights, then he might not have seen you becuase his eyesight was focused on the foreground and not the background. This does show the dangers in shooting over footpaths though which is why personally I'd always shoot from the hedgrow by the path outwards rather than towards it.

 

Before i say this i'm talking in general and not at the OP.....but this right to roam nonsense has alot to answer for. Shooting pigeons coming to roost is determined on wind and if you need to stand with your back to the wood, tucked in and theres a footpath infront then theres not alot you can do if you have the permission on the place. Bets idea is if you have a situation like this and you know people walk in that area then put signs up before you shoot, takes 2 secs........

I have a small spot i used to go and stand at but no longer want to stand there for this very reason. I have stood there and folk have walked passed oblivious that i'm even there.....

[SportingShooter 0]

.

 

 

For the purposes of Section 161 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended), a ‘highway’ is restricted to a public right of way for the passage of vehicles and does not include footpaths, cycle tracks or bridleways. Therefore the fifty feet rule described above does not apply to rights of ways that cross private lands e.g. footpaths.

 

 

Learn something new everyday, I wasn't aware that for the purpose of that Act, it only included highways for use by vehicles.

 

I'll post it as a pinned thread when I have two minutes

[Alsone 789]

 

.

 

 

For the purposes of Section 161 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended), a ‘highway’ is restricted to a public right of way for the passage of vehicles and does not include footpaths, cycle tracks or bridleways. Therefore the fifty feet rule described above does not apply to rights of ways that cross private lands e.g. footpaths.

 

 

Learn something new everyday, I wasn't aware that for the purpose of that Act, it only included highways for use by vehicles.

 

I'll post it as a pinned thread when I have two minutes

 

 

Yeah I didn't have a clue.

 

Might be an idea to host or link the BASC pdf. I couldn't find a link through Yahoo that worked directly.

[charlie caller 3,654]

Well I tell you what I would do I would march up to the landowners door, and tell him what a dangerous idiot he has allowed onto his property, if it happens again you will film him and contact the police, the landowner will not want the hassle and will probably tell the co-ck to feck off

[beast 1,884]

thanks for some interesting and well-informed answers. i guess that by shooting over the footpath itself isnt an offence, but i feel very strongly that the manner in which the weapon was discharged was potentially dangerous, as i said i was less than 20 yards from him when the gun was fired. also the fact that he could see very little of the path from his seat except about 5 yards either side (i went and sat there tonight just to check).

 

labtastic, he wasnt roost shooting but had set up decoys in the rape, obviously visible to birds but not from the path. signs would have been a very sensible idea.

and alsone, i was ever so polite simply smiling and saying "steady on, pal"; at this obviously extreme provocation (!!) he began swearing at me. which is why i took my child home before coming back for a proper chat....

[Lab 10,979]

thanks for some interesting and well-informed answers. i guess that by shooting over the footpath itself isnt an offence, but i feel very strongly that the manner in which the weapon was discharged was potentially dangerous, as i said i was less than 20 yards from him when the gun was fired. also the fact that he could see very little of the path from his seat except about 5 yards either side (i went and sat there tonight just to check).

 

labtastic, he wasnt roost shooting but had set up decoys in the rape, obviously visible to birds but not from the path. signs would have been a very sensible idea.

and alsone, i was ever so polite simply smiling and saying "steady on, pal"; at this obviously extreme provocation (!!) he began swearing at me. which is why i took my child home before coming back for a proper chat....

Well thats a very different scenario mate and his gun level would be very dangerous....you had every right to be annoyed....

[RubyTex 1,957]

 

thanks for some interesting and well-informed answers. i guess that by shooting over the footpath itself isnt an offence, but i feel very strongly that the manner in which the weapon was discharged was potentially dangerous, as i said i was less than 20 yards from him when the gun was fired. also the fact that he could see very little of the path from his seat except about 5 yards either side (i went and sat there tonight just to check).

 

labtastic, he wasnt roost shooting but had set up decoys in the rape, obviously visible to birds but not from the path. signs would have been a very sensible idea.

and alsone, i was ever so polite simply smiling and saying "steady on, pal"; at this obviously extreme provocation (!!) he began swearing at me. which is why i took my child home before coming back for a proper chat....

Well thats a very different scenario mate and his gun level would be very dangerous....you had every right to be annoyed....

 

 

Exactly.....maybe not illegal but very irresponsible...following a woody down and a bike rides past....boom...shit....

[Alsone 789]

Yep 10 yards isn't a big gap and as Ruby said a cyclist could be int he centre of the gap in a second at speed.

 

@ Beast, I got the impression you had a heated exchange. If you were really polite with a steady on and he got abusive, then he is a real c*ck. No need for that. If I ever found myself in that situation, I'd have been apologising profusely and thinking long and hard how I could avoid the problem repeating. Then again I'd like to think I'd never get in that situation as I'd never fire towards to across a path in the 1st place! I'd rather not take a shot than risk an accident.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Alsone