just a question

[geoff75 6]

if my mate has two hmr,s on his certificate am i legally aloud to use one if i,m shooting with him carry it about etc cheers

[smithie 2,424]

ask your mate im sure he needs to know the answer to that to get his cert, well i would like to think so anyway

[ryhope toma 42]

unfortunately not mate am surprised hes got 2 of the same calibre i got knocked back ? the only way its legal is if your mate is the land owner and owner of the gun and hes in sight of you using it ? i asked the FAO the same question ALB TOMA

[TWOTWOTHREE 152]

Someone I know had two rifles of the same calibre but it was a mission to get them I think he had to kiss the feo's trumper alot and say one was to to be dedicated just to be used with a night vision scope to save changing all the time,that was .22lr not .17...I'm guessing it's unlikely to happen.

Atb

[matt_hooks 188]

The answer is yes, you can use his rifle, under the "estate condition" as long as he's got permission on the land and has permission to take you on the land too. He doesn't need to be the landowner, the legislation states "the landowner or his agent" and an agent is considered to be someone who has been given permission to shoot over the land.

 

You have to be "under the supervision" of the person who has the weapons on their certificate, which is taken to mean within sight and sound of them, they don't need to be standing next to you as long as they are within reasonable shouting distance.

 

As for holding two rifles of the same calibre, if you can show good reason (one for NV and one with a normal scope, or maybe a light rifle for stalking and a varmint style for stationary shooting, the permutations are endless) then there is no reason why they should refuse to issue it. Of course getting a .17 hmr and a .22 LR removes any issue really.

 

I hold .22WMR and .22LR, the WMR gives me longer range for rabbits, and foxes at medium ranges/cheaper than the .243.

[SportingShooter 0]

The answer is yes, you can use his rifle, under the "estate condition" as long as he's got permission on the land and has permission to take you on the land too. He doesn't need to be the landowner, the legislation states "the landowner or his agent" and an agent is considered to be someone who has been given permission to shoot over the land.

 

You have to be "under the supervision" of the person who has the weapons on their certificate, which is taken to mean within sight and sound of them, they don't need to be standing next to you as long as they are within reasonable shouting distance.

 

As for holding two rifles of the same calibre, if you can show good reason (one for NV and one with a normal scope, or maybe a light rifle for stalking and a varmint style for stationary shooting, the permutations are endless) then there is no reason why they should refuse to issue it. Of course getting a .17 hmr and a .22 LR removes any issue really.

 

I hold .22WMR and .22LR, the WMR gives me longer range for rabbits, and foxes at medium ranges/cheaper than the .243.

 

I agree with your explanation Matt, unfortunately it is not written in any case law on the subject as there has been no test case.

 

The original estate condition as you mention above does specifically state that they have to be a servant of the landowner or the landowner and under their direct supervision.

 

The guidance on the interpretation is that S.27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is used as the definition of "servant" which includes anyone with shooting rights over that piece of ground.

 

However, that is only guidance and for instance my force will not use that definition no matter how many times you try to refer to the H.O guidance.

 

It is worth the original poster contacting his firearms department to glean their views on the subject as personally, I would not want to be put through the first test case, even though I think it would thrown out.

 

SS

[Deker 3,450]

The answer is yes, you can use his rifle, under the "estate condition" as long as he's got permission on the land and has permission to take you on the land too. He doesn't need to be the landowner, the legislation states "the landowner or his agent" and an agent is considered to be someone who has been given permission to shoot over the land.

 

You have to be "under the supervision" of the person who has the weapons on their certificate, which is taken to mean within sight and sound of them, they don't need to be standing next to you as long as they are within reasonable shouting distance.

 

As for holding two rifles of the same calibre, if you can show good reason (one for NV and one with a normal scope, or maybe a light rifle for stalking and a varmint style for stationary shooting, the permutations are endless) then there is no reason why they should refuse to issue it. Of course getting a .17 hmr and a .22 LR removes any issue really.

 

I hold .22WMR and .22LR, the WMR gives me longer range for rabbits, and foxes at medium ranges/cheaper than the .243.

 

I agree with your explanation Matt, unfortunately it is not written in any case law on the subject as there has been no test case.

 

The original estate condition as you mention above does specifically state that they have to be a servant of the landowner or the landowner and under their direct supervision.

 

The guidance on the interpretation is that S.27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is used as the definition of "servant" which includes anyone with shooting rights over that piece of ground.

 

However, that is only guidance and for instance my force will not use that definition no matter how many times you try to refer to the H.O guidance.

 

It is worth the original poster contacting his firearms department to glean their views on the subject as personally, I would not want to be put through the first test case, even though I think it would thrown out.

 

SS

 

Yes...the way I see it you are both correct, and the chances of their being a problem, or a court case, must be very slim, and I don't see a favourable outcome for the police anyway as it is written into the Home Office guidelines. Only perhaps if there was an unfortune incident with someone else using the gun.

 

The point about haveing 2 x HMR is a red herring, he could lend any gun, not just one he had two of!

[matt_hooks 188]

Agreed, there is no case law, but if it came to the police trying to press a prosecution, the CPS would take one look at the HO guidance and chuck it out (well, probably)

 

If not then there are a LOT of people who could be in trouble.

[Sidelock 10]

"Rifle clubs" ,,, where probationary members HAVE to use guns owned by THE CLUB, this is the same thing,

[pipcock 21]

if my mate has two hmr,s on his certificate am i legally aloud to use one if i,m shooting with him carry it about etc cheers

it would depend on whether or not you have your own fac,i asked my feo to check it out for the same thing. i wanted to shoot with my mate with his spare rifle untill mine came back from gunsmiths......This is what he sent me back via email......................................................

 

Hi (my name)

 

Its a strange one this, thats why I wanted to check it with my most senior colleague. On the face of it it would appear you can. But looking deeper into the legislation it seems you can't.

 

If the other shooter, (your buddy), was the land owner of the land in question, he could allow you to use his gun and it would be classed as use under his supervision whilst on his land. However if its land owned by a third party, as this case is, then you could only use the 17HMR under provision of your own certificate restrictions. That would mean you would have to "acquire" the gun and it would have to appear on your certificate and record. So i'm afraid its a no.

 

Sorry (my name)

 

Best regards.

 

Peter.

PC 9-- (his name)

 

yet another grey area to chew over

atb pipcock.

[matt_hooks 188]

Pip. Perhaps you should point them in the direction of the HO guidance, because it says otherwise.

[SportingShooter 0]

Agreed, there is no case law, but if it came to the police trying to press a prosecution, the CPS would take one look at the HO guidance and chuck it out (well, probably)

 

If not then there are a LOT of people who could be in trouble.

 

And its the probably part which I don't like. As demonstrated above, some interpret the actual legislation differently to others and the H.O. guidance is just that, they aren't forced to use it.

 

I'd rather have the piece of mind as to exactly what the licensing manager for my area considers the estate condition to include. However slim the chances of being caught, I definitely do not want to be arrested and my guns seized for however long it takes them to put a file together, be that file go to CPS, Court or no further action.

[Deker 3,450]

"Rifle clubs" ,,, where probationary members HAVE to use guns owned by THE CLUB, this is the same thing,

 

I'm not necessarily following that one.

 

Rifles clubs have their own laws, especially Home Office Approved clubs, there is a whole different raft of legislation that applies to them, potentially making the use and transport of FAC tools legal for even NON FAC holders! :thumbs:

Edited November 27, 2011 by Deker

[PLEDGEY 493]

Ring the FAO and ask. It's the only way you can be 100% sure you won't get any grief if anything goes wrong. You can then say ''FAO said it was OK''.........ass covered!.

[chr1sM 0]

I asked this question some time ago to the head of Wilts fire arms and my at the time current FEO and the answer was a definite no!

 

The Wilts force see it as the only acceptable way to use a firearm that isn't legally yours to fire on land you don't have permission is under the direct supervision of the land owner with his rifle or his servant(estate condidtion). Not even family are above that law regardless of what position they hold over the land. ( My permission asked me on a few occasions to take his son with me which is why I asked the question.)

 

OR as part of a registered club I.e Cadets, associated clubs etc..

 

It is definitely a Grey area but I wouldn't want to be the person that ends up going through the ringer to find out the outcome either way.

 

Chris