Borrowing Rifles

[Deker 3,458]

 

This very subject has been discussed by FELW where it was reported that the term Occupier, although not tested by the court, has been defined by the Home Office is respect of firearms licensing and I quote from FELWG minutes.

 

Definition of Occupier

 

Graham Widdicombe (HO rep. on FELWG) referred to the difference between a right and permission. A right is set out in law, whereas permission is more informal and can be given either verbally of in writing.

Interpretation is that permission that permission is given from one person to another who knows the person and is NOT passported through another.

 

From this it can be seen that firearms licensing view an occupier is someone who has a legal interest in the land, something that someone who has permission to shoot on land from the occupier does not have.

Most certainly, when I give someone permission to shoot on my farm I do not confer any right of occupancy to them. There is no legal requirement to put the permission in writing.

Even if I was to authorise someone whom I have given permission to bring a guest shooting it would not allow them to use the occupiers exemption for borrowing rifles because "permission to bring a mate" does not make them an occupier.

 

The latest Firearms Guidance in 6.18 suggests that the definition of "Occupier" that should be adopted is that found in S27 of Wildlife and Countryside Act -

 

 

“occupier”, in relation to any land other than the foreshore, includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish;

 

However, they are guidelines and any force is free to reject that interpretation as the guidelines have no force in law and thus each force is free to interpret it any way they like until a definitive definition is established by a higher Court or by further legislation. I believe that's the BASC's point on this as to why it's grey and care is needed and thus why the definition you mention above might be the one followed.

 

 

Deker, the advice I received came from a person at the BASC Firearms Team who was an ex-police licensing officer who rang me in person following an enquiry I made.

 

I believe the point of the letter is the police are unlikely to prosecute you if you can show that you had permission from someone who claimed to be the occupier and had represented themselves to you as being the occupier with all the relevant powers to grant the right for you to shoot under their supervision, as occupier.

 

" ....the advice I received came from a person at the BASC Firearms Team who was an ex-police licensing officer".... and what point would you be attempting to make with this comment, are you suggesting and ex FEO happens to know the Law on written and verbal contracts, most don't even know the Law on Firearms?

 

There is NO difference in Law between a written and verbal agreement!

 

 

The difference is in the proof. But as you know better than the BASC, there's really nothing left to say on the subject!

 

 

So, after saying Just be aware it needs to be in writing in #8 you now concede it makes no difference if it is verbal, it may just be harder to prove.

 

Yes, I know better than what you have reported the BASC as saying! There is NO difference in English Law between a written and verbal agreement and any permission from the Occupier, does NOT need to be in writing!!

 

And nobody can write a binding contract applicable in this country that does not comply with British Law (and God forbid EU law as well I suspect), so it makes no odds whatsoever if you have permission in writing or verbally from the Occupier, if he isn't the Occupier (whatever that may be) as he cannot give you permission, but if he is, he can, so it makes no difference once again if it is verbal or in writing.

 

And the definition in the latest (and previous) Home Office guide does indeed suggest the definition of "Occupier", found in S27 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted, but as Charlie has advised, life and times move on, and as you have so eloquently pointed out on more than one occasion, The Home Office Guide is a GUIDE!

[Alsone 789]

 

 

 

So, after saying Just be aware it needs to be in writing in #8 you now concede it makes no difference if it is verbal, it may just be harder to prove.

 

Yes, I know better than what you have reported the BASC as saying! There is NO difference in English Law between a written and verbal agreement and any permission from the Occupier, does NOT need to be in writing!!

 

And nobody can write a binding contract applicable in this country that does not comply with British Law (and God forbid EU law as well I suspect), so it makes no odds whatsoever if you have permission in writing or verbally from the Occupier, if he isn't the Occupier (whatever that may be) as he cannot give you permission, but if he is, he can, so it makes no difference once again if it is verbal or in writing.

 

And the definition in the latest (and previous) Home Office guide does indeed suggest the definition of "Occupier", found in S27 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted, but as Charlie has advised, life and times move on, and as you have so eloquently pointed out on more than one occasion, The Home Office Guide is a GUIDE!

 

Deker, as I've pointed out previously you just twist everything I say.

 

No where did I say a verbal permission wasn't valid (it's not likely to be an agreement btw). I said that the advice I received was that it had to be in writing. The reason I was advised this is because there are clear issues of proof if it is not and proof is needed to cover yourself given the ambiguity with the definition of Occupier. Without clear proof that the person giving you permission to borrow represented themselves as the Occupier, you're likely to be prosecuted. Hence the reason why to cover yourself if it has to be in writing.

 

As I said previously, I'm not going to get into these endless arguments with you. You seem to know better than the BASC Firearms Team's advice handed out to me. Enough said.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Alsone

[bigmac 97kt 13,749]

I would not borrow any ones rifle any way

 

some rifles are very expensive and it would just take you to drop it or it fall over and your stuck with a big repair bill

 

or need to replace say,d rifle .

 

I did this once and did not take it out of the house for three mths and when i did i had struck a deal with the owner to buy the rifle .

 

I no how much we think of our rifles and some like my self work and save hard to buy them in the first place

 

accidents do happen some times its not our fault but they do happen .

 

My mate Viz had just bought a new rifle and that very day he knocked it off a fence post a steel fence post and fecked the stock big time and all he did was turn around , its that easy

 

atvbmac

[Deker 3,458]

 

 

 

 

So, after saying Just be aware it needs to be in writing in #8 you now concede it makes no difference if it is verbal, it may just be harder to prove.

 

Yes, I know better than what you have reported the BASC as saying! There is NO difference in English Law between a written and verbal agreement and any permission from the Occupier, does NOT need to be in writing!!

 

And nobody can write a binding contract applicable in this country that does not comply with British Law (and God forbid EU law as well I suspect), so it makes no odds whatsoever if you have permission in writing or verbally from the Occupier, if he isn't the Occupier (whatever that may be) as he cannot give you permission, but if he is, he can, so it makes no difference once again if it is verbal or in writing.

 

And the definition in the latest (and previous) Home Office guide does indeed suggest the definition of "Occupier", found in S27 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted, but as Charlie has advised, life and times move on, and as you have so eloquently pointed out on more than one occasion, The Home Office Guide is a GUIDE!

 

Deker, as I've pointed out previously you just twist everything I say.

 

No where did I say a verbal permission wasn't valid (it's not likely to be an agreement btw). I said that the advice I received was that it had to be in writing. The reason I was advised this is because there are clear issues of proof if it is not and proof is needed to cover yourself given the ambiguity with the definition of Occupier. Without clear proof that the person giving you permission to borrow represented themselves as the Occupier, you're likely to be prosecuted. Hence the reason why to cover yourself if it has to be in writing.

 

As I said previously, I'm not going to get into these endless arguments with you. You seem to know better than the BASC Firearms Team's advice handed out to me. Enough said.

 

 

I posted Legislation, you posted conjecture and inaccuracies as I have clearly shown above, I know better than what you have suggested the BASC said, as you yourself now admit, it doesn't need to be in writing.

 

If you don't want an argument then don't inaccurately criticise my posts.

[bigmac 97kt 13,749]

 

 

 

 

 

So, after saying Just be aware it needs to be in writing in #8 you now concede it makes no difference if it is verbal, it may just be harder to prove.

 

Yes, I know better than what you have reported the BASC as saying! There is NO difference in English Law between a written and verbal agreement and any permission from the Occupier, does NOT need to be in writing!!

 

And nobody can write a binding contract applicable in this country that does not comply with British Law (and God forbid EU law as well I suspect), so it makes no odds whatsoever if you have permission in writing or verbally from the Occupier, if he isn't the Occupier (whatever that may be) as he cannot give you permission, but if he is, he can, so it makes no difference once again if it is verbal or in writing.

 

And the definition in the latest (and previous) Home Office guide does indeed suggest the definition of "Occupier", found in S27 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted, but as Charlie has advised, life and times move on, and as you have so eloquently pointed out on more than one occasion, The Home Office Guide is a GUIDE!

 

Deker, as I've pointed out previously you just twist everything I say.

 

No where did I say a verbal permission wasn't valid (it's not likely to be an agreement btw). I said that the advice I received was that it had to be in writing. The reason I was advised this is because there are clear issues of proof if it is not and proof is needed to cover yourself given the ambiguity with the definition of Occupier. Without clear proof that the person giving you permission to borrow represented themselves as the Occupier, you're likely to be prosecuted. Hence the reason why to cover yourself if it has to be in writing.

 

As I said previously, I'm not going to get into these endless arguments with you. You seem to know better than the BASC Firearms Team's advice handed out to me. Enough said.

 

 

I posted Legislation, you posted conjecture and inaccuracies as I have clearly shown above, I know better than what you have suggested the BASC said, as you yourself now admit, it doesn't need to be in writing.

 

If you don't want an argument then don't inaccurately criticise my posts.

 

:thumbs:

[walshie 2,804]

Boys boys. There's too much reading here. Let's make it simple.

 

If someone asks to borrow your gun, tell them to feck off.

[bigmac 97kt 13,749]

Boys boys. There's too much reading here. Let's make it simple.

 

If someone asks to borrow your gun, tell them to feck off.

:laugh:

 

:thumbs:

 

Feck you C*nts have to get a like button

 

atvbmac :thumbs:

[charlie caller 3,654]

Why not just apply for your own rifle, and put a separate cabinet in your boss's home, assuming he agrees, takes away all this borrowing bollo*ks, and you will be free to take it with you if and when you move.

[Alsone 789]

 

I posted Legislation, you posted conjecture and inaccuracies as I have clearly shown above, I know better than what you have suggested the BASC said, as you yourself now admit, it doesn't need to be in writing.

 

If you don't want an argument then don't inaccurately criticise my posts.

 

 

Deker, like I said I'm not going to argue.

 

There are no inaccuracies in what I've said. What the BASC said to me is reported above as I remember it and I have no reason to remember different.

 

Bottom line is, in the REAL World, it's down to you to PROVE in Court what you say. Anything verbal comes down to your word against someone else's.

 

Safest way as Charlie says, get your own FAC attached to that land. If not, get any Occupancy claims and related permissions in writing.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Alsone

[walshie 2,804]

Not taking sides here, but if people only shot where they had written permission, they'd be shooting a lot less places than they currently do. Admittedly I would prefer my permission to be in writing, but if the only choice is being given verbal permission or not shooting there I'd go with verbal, which is every bit as legal as written. Round here, they are happy for you to shoot their land, but ask them to spend 30 seconds of their time signing paperwork and they lose interest.

 

If someone was the sort of person to lie in court and say he hasn't given you verbal permission, he's also the sort of person to swear the signature on the paperwork isn't his.

[Deker 3,458]

 

 

I posted Legislation, you posted conjecture and inaccuracies as I have clearly shown above, I know better than what you have suggested the BASC said, as you yourself now admit, it doesn't need to be in writing.

 

If you don't want an argument then don't inaccurately criticise my posts.

 

 

Deker, like I said I'm not going to argue.

 

There are no inaccuracies in what I've said. What the BASC said to me is reported above as I remember it and I have no reason to remember different.

 

Bottom line is, in the REAL World, it's down to you to PROVE in Court what you say. Anything verbal comes down to your word against someone else's, and in this case they have a licence to lose and a prosecution to gain themselves if they weren't the Occupier and thus knowingly allowed you possession of a firearm. Chances are if their back's against the wall for both prosecution and revocation, they believed you held an FAC. If your permission was verbal, now prove different.

 

Safest way as Charlie says, get your own FAC attached to that land. If not, get any Occupancy claims and related permissions in writing.

 

 

No Inaccuracies? "Just be aware it needs to be in writing" in #8, your very first comment that led to this exchange!

 

No it doesn't, and if that is what you remember the BASC saying then they are wrong too!

 

It is obvious to anyone that a permission/agreement/contract, is easier to prove in writing, but that same agreement is equally as binding if it is verbal, therefore, it NEEDS to be in writing is totally inaccurate.

 

Edit

If by any chance you are actually using the Occupier exemption and borrowing the occupiers gun, then you will also need to be out with him in his presence, in those circumstances I can't help thinking he will have a hard job suggesting to anyone he didn't lend you his gun and give you permission to be out with him, as he is standing next to you! So I can't help thinking written or verbal permission is more than superfluous!

 

Have a nice day!

Edited February 26, 2016 by Deker

[Alsone 789]

Not taking sides here, but if people only shot where they had written permission, they'd be shooting a lot less places than they currently do. Admittedly I would prefer my permission to be in writing, but if the only choice is being given verbal permission or not shooting there I'd go with verbal, which is every bit as legal as written. Round here, they are happy for you to shoot their land, but ask them to spend 30 seconds of their time signing paperwork and they lose interest.

 

If someone was the sort of person to lie in court and say he hasn't given you verbal permission, he's also the sort of person to swear the signature on the paperwork isn't his.

 

The advice from the BASC was specifically in relation to shooting under the Estate Exemption where someone holds themselves out as "Occupier". Obviously that's different to a general shoot permission where the person using the gun holds an FAC themselves, although it's always wise to get every permission in writing if possible.

[walshie 2,804]

As I understand it, the Estate Exemption allows someone to borrow a gun from the Occupier of the land or the Occupier's Servant when they are present.

 

If there was an issue with this that needed resolving in court, I think whether there was written permission or not would be largely irrelevant. The biggest stumbling block IMO would be the court's interpretation of Occupier or Servant.

[Alsone 789]

I think you're slightly confused Walshie. The advice I received was that in order to cover yourself if borrowing a rifle in the event that the person who held themselves out as Occupier, actually wasn't the Occupier in law, you need to be able to prove that they held themselves out as Occupier, that they held the shooting rights and had the right to grant permission to shoot (in their presence) by having that in writing. The issue of land permission is something entirely separate.

[walshie 2,804]

I think you're slightly confused Walshie. The advice I received was that in order to cover yourself if borrowing a rifle in the event that the person who held themselves out as Occupier, actually wasn't the Occupier in law, you need to be able to prove that they held themselves out as Occupier, that they held the shooting rights and had the right to grant permission to shoot (in their presence) by having that in writing. The issue of land permission is something entirely separate.

 

Not confused, no. I'm not talking specifically about permission. I said the biggest thing would be a court's interpretation of occupier or servant.

 

If said person wasn't deemed to be either, he couldn't lend you his rifle and he couldn't grant permission, so his legal status is equally important in either scenario.

 

IMO holding up a piece of paper in court saying "he signed this" wouldn't help you and more than saying "he said this".

 

Anyway, quit bullying me just because Deker's not around.