Bit of advice

[Massey 0]

Hi, Thanks for the replies, I've looked through and i think that just to be 100% i'll give my firearms officer a call to clarify, I'll post what he has to say regarding this as it doesnt seem exactly clear weather it's legal or not, but just incase i dont think i'll risk my SGC, Thanks again for all replies!!

 

ATB Massey.

[HUnter_zero 58]

Hi, Thanks for the replies, I've looked through and i think that just to be 100% i'll give my firearms officer a call to clarify,

 

 

Massey, trust me on this. You would be better off calling the BASC and stating your concerns. Most Firearms officers do not have an in-depth knowledge of the law, yes they have a working knowledge but a lot of what they say often leads to misunderstandings which can be seen all over the Internet. Failing the BASC, give the actual firearms licensing clerk for your area a call at the firearms office. He/she may wish to speak to the head of the department but at least you will get the info direct from the horses mouth so to speak.

 

Best of luck

 

John

[The_Oakster 2]

I've been looking into this further and I believe I was wrong with my information.

 

I'm not going to try and argue or cover up or pretend I was misquoted but here is how I come to this new conclusion:

 

The excerpts and advice I was given by people who should know better were the parts that I had posted and I would say that even John's posts don't clarify it fully so I looked it up myself.

 

Section 1 of the firearms act is regarding requirement of firearms - rifles. Hence section 1 firearm.

Section 2 of the act specifies requirement of certificate for shotguns.

 

This section states that you can be exempt from having a certificate and the exemptions are what people are using to say the situation for Massey is legal. However, these exemptions and the bit I quoted has been taken well out of context of the actual legislation. The quote I posted relates to section 11 (5) and not Section 2. Section 11 actually relates to 'sports, athletics and other approved activities' nothing to do with rough or live shooting and in fact there has been some case law to clarify this further - Morton v Chaney (1960) which clarifies that rat shooting is not considered a sporting purpose. I'd guess that pigeons, rabbits or corvids would all be treated the same.

 

Therefore I apologise for my inaccurate posting. I'll have to change what I tell people in the future and update the people that guided me the wrong way. The attention is always in the detail. Goddamn detail

[HUnter_zero 58]

I've been looking into this further and I believe I was wrong with my information.

 

Therefore I apologise for my inaccurate posting. I'll have to change what I tell people in the future and update the people that guided me the wrong way. The attention is always in the detail. Goddamn detail

 

 

In my opinion you have nothing at all to apologise for! Forums are great places to banter opinions, right or wrong. It's one of the biggest misconceptions in shooting and IMHO the reason is that you can let a person shoot with your rifle, but not your shotgun. It sounds crazy that a person can use your .308 but not your .410 but that's our laws.

A few months back I invited a chap who works on the ARU's to do a bit of clay shooting on a local farm. His words were "no can do, I haven't got a shotgun cert, we could go up a clay club if you like". I don't for one minuet think a local bobby would know right from wrong with regards to the firearms act. It's not until something goes very wrong anyone would end up in hot water.

 

John

Edited April 9, 2011 by HUnter_zero

[dave1372 83]

I've been looking into this further and I believe I was wrong with my information.

 

I'm not going to try and argue or cover up or pretend I was misquoted but here is how I come to this new conclusion:

 

The excerpts and advice I was given by people who should know better were the parts that I had posted and I would say that even John's posts don't clarify it fully so I looked it up myself.

 

Section 1 of the firearms act is regarding requirement of firearms - rifles. Hence section 1 firearm.

Section 2 of the act specifies requirement of certificate for shotguns.

 

This section states that you can be exempt from having a certificate and the exemptions are what people are using to say the situation for Massey is legal. However, these exemptions and the bit I quoted has been taken well out of context of the actual legislation. The quote I posted relates to section 11 (5) and not Section 2. Section 11 actually relates to 'sports, athletics and other approved activities' nothing to do with rough or live shooting and in fact there has been some case law to clarify this further - Morton v Chaney (1960) which clarifies that rat shooting is not considered a sporting purpose. I'd guess that pigeons, rabbits or corvids would all be treated the same.

 

Therefore I apologise for my inaccurate posting. I'll have to change what I tell people in the future and update the people that guided me the wrong way. The attention is always in the detail. Goddamn detail

 

 

Hey.....at least you are man enough to apologise. :thumbs:

[The_Oakster 2]

Hey.....at least you are man enough to apologise. :thumbs:

 

There are a lot of angry people in this world because they cant admit when they are wrong

[Massey 0]

Hi, As HUnter_Zero says u have nowt to apologise for, thanks all the same for your advice lads, ATB Massey

[dadioles 68]

I am with Hunter Zero on this one.

The stumbling block is the definition of "occupier".

It is because of that grey area that my son now has his own firearms certificate, it takes away that element of legal doubt which arose when I took him out shooting (rabbits) with me.

There was also the issue of "payment". I was shooting land with "permission" and allowed to keep any rabbits that I shot, therefore, technically, that changed things slightly as I was being paid by the landowner, arguably in his employ. That puts me in a slightly different category than if I was shooting clays or targets.

I also checked the insurance situation as I did not want to find that by being "paid" (allowed to keep the shot rabbits) it meant that I needed a commercial policy. BASC advised me that as long as I was not undertaking more formal paid work which involved declaring the income for tax purposes, as in commercial pest control, the normal BASC membership insurance does cover my activities, which are those of a "hobby" shooter (I hate that expression).

The law is a tricky thing to negotiate with all of these "untested" grey areas. It would be very costly to be the test case.

One last word of advice, if you do ask the police where you stand, get their reply in writing. You will look really stupid standing in the dock when your FEO denies telling you that it is ok to lend your gun to a friend.

[The_Oakster 2]

When I looked at it before I came to the conclusion that the occupier definition isn't the stumbling block at all. That wording (the bit mentioning occupier) is in the 1968 section entitled 'Sports, Athletics and other approved activities' so using it for any game shooting seems to not be allowed at all. And like I posted previously someone has tried to argue that game shooting is included and was found to be incorrect (The case in 1960 where it was found rat shooting didn't count as a sport, athletic or other approved activities)

 

My impression of the both acts now mean that I can only borrow a shotgun for sporting purposes only. Which I would take to mean clay shooting etc.

 

The borrowing a rifle side of it is clearer in the 1988 act as it is a seperate section and has nothing to do with sporting activities but whether or not there is some wrangling to be had over the terms occupier and servant of occupier is another thing.

 

Im just gonna shoot my own guns. It seems easier

 

Out of interest Massey, what answer did you get?

 

(If you have a mind for reading firearms legislation then you can find it all here)