Supervisers.

[Guest basil46]

I have been shooting with a mate for about two years now, using his .22 on rabbits and his 243 on deer and foxes. Eventually, i put in for my own FAC, which i`m expecting this week. When i sent in my application i put in a letter from my mate saying he (Andy) had supervised me in deer stalking and lamping foxes. When the FAO visited my home he said that me using Andys rifles was totally illegal as i didn`t possess my own FAC. The problem wasn`t the .22, it was the 243. I had to name Andy as my superviser, prior to submitting my application. (Some forces won`t permit ownership of a 243 in the first instance, preferring you to start with a .22) The FAO said there wouldn`t be a problem provided i did everything by the book from now. Andy and i both have our own permissions which we invite each other onto.

The law certainly takes some understanding.

basil.

[SportingShooter 0]

Yet again the Firearms Depts are making up the laws that suit them.

They are talking a load of b*****ks. The law states that under the so-called estate rifle condition the owner or occupier of private land may let someone who doesnt have an FAC to use a rifle under his supervision. If this was as far as it went then you would be breaking the law. However, the ACPO and Home Office decided to clarify things.

They said that the occupier should be taken as defined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 27.

This section defines the occupier as someone who has the fishing,hunting or shooting rights. In your case, your friend had the shooting rights over the land and you were supervised by him.

I had the same trouble when my FEO came to visit me, he said the same thing, I asked if he had his copy of the guidance from the ACPO and Home Office, he replied that he did not have them. I explained my understanding of the situation which he quickly rubbished as untrue at which point I produced my own copy of the guidance which I printed from the net.

He cannot argue with it and should not be making things up.

The reason, in my mind, is that they then have the justification to make you have supervision because you have shown you do not understand the law.

 

Regards

SS

[dicehorn 38]

I have been shooting with a mate for about two years now, using his .22 on rabbits and his 243 on deer and foxes. Eventually, i put in for my own FAC, which i`m expecting this week. When i sent in my application i put in a letter from my mate saying he (Andy) had supervised me in deer stalking and lamping foxes. When the FAO visited my home he said that me using Andys rifles was totally illegal as i didn`t possess my own FAC. The problem wasn`t the .22, it was the 243. I had to name Andy as my superviser, prior to submitting my application. (Some forces won`t permit ownership of a 243 in the first instance, preferring you to start with a .22) The FAO said there wouldn`t be a problem provided i did everything by the book from now. Andy and i both have our own permissions which we invite each other onto.

The law certainly takes some understanding.

basil.

 

 

Hi Basil

 

Well you did the right thing in having your friend take you out and about to hopefully teach you safety and fieldcraft but he should have known he could not let you as a non FAC holder use the .243 or for that matter the .22. In some areas in the UK your friend could have been in deep do do.

 

Pity you had not asked this forum before spilling all to your FAO - anyway damage limitation! Good luck with your FAC.

 

Peter

[Mr_Logic 5]

I have been shooting with a mate for about two years now, using his .22 on rabbits and his 243 on deer and foxes. Eventually, i put in for my own FAC, which i`m expecting this week. When i sent in my application i put in a letter from my mate saying he (Andy) had supervised me in deer stalking and lamping foxes. When the FAO visited my home he said that me using Andys rifles was totally illegal as i didn`t possess my own FAC. The problem wasn`t the .22, it was the 243. I had to name Andy as my superviser, prior to submitting my application. (Some forces won`t permit ownership of a 243 in the first instance, preferring you to start with a .22) The FAO said there wouldn`t be a problem provided i did everything by the book from now. Andy and i both have our own permissions which we invite each other onto.

The law certainly takes some understanding.

basil.

 

 

Hi Basil

 

Well you did the right thing in having your friend take you out and about to hopefully teach you safety and fieldcraft but he should have known he could not let you as a non FAC holder use the .243 or for that matter the .22. In some areas in the UK your friend could have been in deep do do.

 

Pity you had not asked this forum before spilling all to your FAO - anyway damage limitation! Good luck with your FAC.

 

Peter

 

Peter, you are wrong. You are perfectly permitted to let non-FAC holders use your rifles under supervision as SportingShooter says.

 

I checked this with the BASC before I let a mate of mine enjoy some bunny bashing - they provided the same piece of legislation quoted here.

 

Basil - if I were you I would get BASC to contact the Firearms Dept concerned and put them straight - this type of garbage confuses the situation, there is nothing more irritating in the shooting community than an FEO that doesn't know the law but thinks they're God's gift to the world.

 

Sorry if I sound harsh but tales like this REALLY piss me off...

[dicehorn 38]

I have been shooting with a mate for about two years now, using his .22 on rabbits and his 243 on deer and foxes. Eventually, i put in for my own FAC, which i`m expecting this week. When i sent in my application i put in a letter from my mate saying he (Andy) had supervised me in deer stalking and lamping foxes. When the FAO visited my home he said that me using Andys rifles was totally illegal as i didn`t possess my own FAC. The problem wasn`t the .22, it was the 243. I had to name Andy as my superviser, prior to submitting my application. (Some forces won`t permit ownership of a 243 in the first instance, preferring you to start with a .22) The FAO said there wouldn`t be a problem provided i did everything by the book from now. Andy and i both have our own permissions which we invite each other onto.

The law certainly takes some understanding.

basil.

 

 

Hi Basil

 

Well you did the right thing in having your friend take you out and about to hopefully teach you safety and fieldcraft but he should have known he could not let you as a non FAC holder use the .243 or for that matter the .22. In some areas in the UK your friend could have been in deep do do.

 

Pity you had not asked this forum before spilling all to your FAO - anyway damage limitation! Good luck with your FAC.

 

Peter

 

Peter, you are wrong. You are perfectly permitted to let non-FAC holders use your rifles under supervision as SportingShooter says.

 

I checked this with the BASC before I let a mate of mine enjoy some bunny bashing - they provided the same piece of legislation quoted here.

 

Basil - if I were you I would get BASC to contact the Firearms Dept concerned and put them straight - this type of garbage confuses the situation, there is nothing more irritating in the shooting community than an FEO that doesn't know the law but thinks they're God's gift to the world.

 

Sorry if I sound harsh but tales like this REALLY piss me off...

 

Yes, you and SS are quite right. I got this all mixed up with young persons using FAC

[SportingShooter 0]

I have been shooting with a mate for about two years now, using his .22 on rabbits and his 243 on deer and foxes. Eventually, i put in for my own FAC, which i`m expecting this week. When i sent in my application i put in a letter from my mate saying he (Andy) had supervised me in deer stalking and lamping foxes. When the FAO visited my home he said that me using Andys rifles was totally illegal as i didn`t possess my own FAC. The problem wasn`t the .22, it was the 243. I had to name Andy as my superviser, prior to submitting my application. (Some forces won`t permit ownership of a 243 in the first instance, preferring you to start with a .22) The FAO said there wouldn`t be a problem provided i did everything by the book from now. Andy and i both have our own permissions which we invite each other onto.

The law certainly takes some understanding.

basil.

 

 

Hi Basil

 

Well you did the right thing in having your friend take you out and about to hopefully teach you safety and fieldcraft but he should have known he could not let you as a non FAC holder use the .243 or for that matter the .22. In some areas in the UK your friend could have been in deep do do.

 

Pity you had not asked this forum before spilling all to your FAO - anyway damage limitation! Good luck with your FAC.

 

Peter

 

Peter, you are wrong. You are perfectly permitted to let non-FAC holders use your rifles under supervision as SportingShooter says.

 

I checked this with the BASC before I let a mate of mine enjoy some bunny bashing - they provided the same piece of legislation quoted here.

 

Basil - if I were you I would get BASC to contact the Firearms Dept concerned and put them straight - this type of garbage confuses the situation, there is nothing more irritating in the shooting community than an FEO that doesn't know the law but thinks they're God's gift to the world.

 

Sorry if I sound harsh but tales like this REALLY piss me off...

I couldnt get a straight answer out of BASC on this.

At first they told me I was in the wrong and the FEO was correct in what he was saying.

I found out about this law and the definition of occupier, rang them back and they were, "Oh yes, you are right after all".

I expected more than this for my money.

 

SS

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

BASC ..... I expected more than this for my money.

 

 

I watched some of those red faced, tweed suited wankers of the Old School Tie in operation one time at a Game Fair. Assuring some little kiddie that a one eyed, stinking, half toothless old hob ferret they produced from under the table would be the greatest worker he'd ever own ..... if he could produce a Tenner for the wretched thing. At a time when a good ferret was commanding a few quid or less.

 

I managed to catch the chavies eye and drew him aside. Gave him a nice little kit from my own stock and wished them both all the best. And swore I'd never have anything to do with those, disgusting, types again.

 

Can't make it as a Doctor? Settle for being a Pharmasist, so they say. Well, if ye too pissed or stupid to make it in Law or even Politics? Shake the right way and the likes of BASC will find a position for ye.

 

How it seems to me. I have nothing to do with such (Self) interest groups.

[Mr_Logic 5]

I have been shooting with a mate for about two years now, using his .22 on rabbits and his 243 on deer and foxes. Eventually, i put in for my own FAC, which i`m expecting this week. When i sent in my application i put in a letter from my mate saying he (Andy) had supervised me in deer stalking and lamping foxes. When the FAO visited my home he said that me using Andys rifles was totally illegal as i didn`t possess my own FAC. The problem wasn`t the .22, it was the 243. I had to name Andy as my superviser, prior to submitting my application. (Some forces won`t permit ownership of a 243 in the first instance, preferring you to start with a .22) The FAO said there wouldn`t be a problem provided i did everything by the book from now. Andy and i both have our own permissions which we invite each other onto.

The law certainly takes some understanding.

basil.

 

 

Hi Basil

 

Well you did the right thing in having your friend take you out and about to hopefully teach you safety and fieldcraft but he should have known he could not let you as a non FAC holder use the .243 or for that matter the .22. In some areas in the UK your friend could have been in deep do do.

 

Pity you had not asked this forum before spilling all to your FAO - anyway damage limitation! Good luck with your FAC.

 

Peter

 

Peter, you are wrong. You are perfectly permitted to let non-FAC holders use your rifles under supervision as SportingShooter says.

 

I checked this with the BASC before I let a mate of mine enjoy some bunny bashing - they provided the same piece of legislation quoted here.

 

Basil - if I were you I would get BASC to contact the Firearms Dept concerned and put them straight - this type of garbage confuses the situation, there is nothing more irritating in the shooting community than an FEO that doesn't know the law but thinks they're God's gift to the world.

 

Sorry if I sound harsh but tales like this REALLY piss me off...

I couldnt get a straight answer out of BASC on this.

At first they told me I was in the wrong and the FEO was correct in what he was saying.

I found out about this law and the definition of occupier, rang them back and they were, "Oh yes, you are right after all".

I expected more than this for my money.

 

SS

Hmmm... Well I guess if you speak to different people! When I rang them I wasn't a member at the time, they informed me straight away and quoted me the legislation, telling me that if any Plod gives me strife give them a ring back.

 

I thought that was pretty good service. Overall I've been happy with BASC - the insurance is a good thing to have and they've answered my questions promptly and efficiently.

[garyw 0]

I have been shooting with a mate for about two years now, using his .22 on rabbits and his 243 on deer and foxes. Eventually, i put in for my own FAC, which i`m expecting this week. When i sent in my application i put in a letter from my mate saying he (Andy) had supervised me in deer stalking and lamping foxes. When the FAO visited my home he said that me using Andys rifles was totally illegal as i didn`t possess my own FAC. The problem wasn`t the .22, it was the 243. I had to name Andy as my superviser, prior to submitting my application. (Some forces won`t permit ownership of a 243 in the first instance, preferring you to start with a .22) The FAO said there wouldn`t be a problem provided i did everything by the book from now. Andy and i both have our own permissions which we invite each other onto.

The law certainly takes some understanding.

basil.

the problem is not just the confusing laws and conditions re: firearms but also the f.a.o they are usually just a civvy with a badge and we know what happens when you give someone a badge or uniform they in my opinion should be ex-services or ex-police officers.

my own f.a.o is ex- army he was a armaments[spelling?]officer who also shot in competition for the army so there is not a lot he doesnt know.he is aiways available on the phone if you have a problem and will always phone you back if he misses your call.he sorted a problem out for me for a variation on my f.a.c for a 20 cal rifle because the staff at the firearms dept didnt have any info on this calibre i was after[wildcat round] .i know its frustrating but dont piss em off but as sporting shooter says get the relavant laws on paper and show or quote them,they cant argue with the law.

[SportingShooter 0]

Hmmm... Well I guess if you speak to different people! When I rang them I wasn't a member at the time, they informed me straight away and quoted me the legislation, telling me that if any Plod gives me strife give them a ring back.

 

I thought that was pretty good service. Overall I've been happy with BASC - the insurance is a good thing to have and they've answered my questions promptly and efficiently.

 

It has, so far, been the only issue where I could not get any decent advice one way or the other.

I have it mainly for the insurance and the occasional question. On other issues they have told me to ring them if the FEO or Licensing Dept are giving me hassle.

The other reason I have it, is that I shoot on the marshes and my club insists on it as its affiliated to them, the fee is included in my club membership.

 

SS

Edited May 26, 2008 by sportingshooter06

[Guest basil46]

Would i be right in saying that a stumbling block could be the fact that i`m not using the land owners or his employees rifles wether we`re shooting on my permissions or Andys??

Thanks all for the interest on this subject.

basil.

[SportingShooter 0]

The Occupier should be taken as someone who has the hunting, shooting or fishing rights over a piece of ground.

Therefore, wherever you shoot as long as you have permission to be there, i.e. you and Andy, then you have the shooting rights.

So, if you use Andy's rifle on ground which you both have permission to be on, and you are under his supervision then you are within the law and a problem does not arise.

 

Regards

SS

[Deker 3,491]

Guys....

 

Unless there have been some changes that I am not aware of the "Police etc" have got this wrong. The common mistake is "Occupier".......

 

Its quite simple really.....................

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Home Office Firearms Law Guidance to Police 2002

 

Exemptions from the requirement to hold a certificate

 

Shot Guns

 

1968 Act

 

Section 11(5) of the 1968 Act allows an individual, without holding a shot gun certificate, to borrow a shot gun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the occupiers presence. The presence of the occupier is normally taken to mean within sight and earshot of the individual borrowing the firearm.

 

 

 

Rifles

 

1968 Act

 

Section 16.1 of the Act enables a person to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of either the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle.

 

 

 

 

The term "occupier" is not defined in the Firearms Act, nor has a court clarified its meaning. However, the Firearms Consultative Committee in their 5th Annual Report recommended that the provisions of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted. This states that "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.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

As far as I'm aware this is still the position!

 

Cheers

 

Deker