similar to shotgun shooting...when applying for my shotgun ticket I explained that I had joined a sindicate and i was losing days...the said head firearms officer said i can shoot on the sindicate holders license..I said I though you could only shoot on the land owners license...he replied well that is a grey area ...WHAT!! we have 'grey' firearms laws??
am i the only one that finds that amusing?
similar to shotgun shooting...when applying for my shotgun ticket I explained that I had joined a sindicate and i was losing days...the said head firearms officer said i can shoot on the sindicate holders license..I said I though you could only shoot on the land owners license...he replied well that is a grey area ...WHAT!! we have 'grey' firearms laws??
am i the only one that finds that amusing?
This frequently comes up as I believe there is no case law to define 'the occupier' therefore it is a grey area. Most firearms lawyers or notable authorities on firearms law have offered the oppinion that a holder of the sporting rights can be taken to be the occupier.
I looked into this when I was going to mentor a friend and came up against brick walls when trying to clarify this. The police said I had to be a servant of the land owner, well my next door neighbour is a solicitor and he was laughing at that as he was wondering how to interpret that one. I then gave the police a few examples where this wasnt the case, ie when someone who has a stalking buisness takes a client out stalking who doesnt have an FAC and the above clauses wouldnt be able to be applied. Hence to say it was a bit of waffling and a lets not go there situation. Ie just because you have bought shooting rights doesnt make you a servant of the land owner.
Last summer I went to a legal course given on behalf of the BDS by this redoutable duo.
I asked the following question: If I put a guest without a FAC on a high seat and I rig up a video link as well as a walkie talkie so that I can see and hear all his movements. (I myself am 500 yards away). Am I within the law? The answer was clear: NO.
I asked exactly the same question to a High Court judge later in the year. The answer was clear: YES
No wonder Solicitors and barristers are doing well!
Last summer I went to a legal course given on behalf of the BDS by this redoutable duo.
I asked the following question: If I put a guest without a FAC on a high seat and I rig up a video link as well as a walkie talkie so that I can see and hear all his movements. (I myself am 500 yards away). Am I within the law? The answer was clear: NO.
I asked exactly the same question to a High Court judge later in the year. The answer was clear: YES
No wonder Solicitors and barristers are doing well!
I would still go with Parkes and Thornley! There is the aspect to consider of being able to intervene should anything go wrong. I would have thought another Judge might answer no and I wonder which one you would end up with if you ever went to court?
I would still go with Parkes and Thornley! There is the aspect to consider of being able to intervene should anything go wrong. I would have thought another Judge might answer no and I wonder which one you would end up with if you ever went to court?
I think it comes down to two things when considering this.
Firstly what experiance does the borrower of the rifle have with firearms and would an ordinary person in the street consider it reasonable known in legal terms as wednesbury reasonableness.
Consider two situations.
In both situations the guide lends guest rifle and leaves him in a highseat 100m away from the guides highseat. So within sight and earshot.
In the first situation the guest has been out with the guide many times has DSC 1 and has experiance with firearms he did hold an FAC but as he is in the Army and is currently posted to Germany so does not have a UK address therefore cannot hold an FAC.
Situation two the guest has never stalked before and the first time the guide met the guest 10 minutes before they sat out. The guest has stalked once before but does not have any guns and no other firearms experiance.
Which one would an average person think reasonable?
Is it really worth gambling your FAC?
Don't forget you are responsible for the security of your Firearms if you are not in a position to intervene how can you be complying with the security conditions of your certificate.
Wednesbury reasonableness is English case law from the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation