Can i let friend use my rifle?

3skins

Member
hi,im after a bit of advice please.A friend who does not have a fac has asked to come out shooting with me on my permission.my question is can i let him use my rifle under my supervision?

atb
pete
 
hi,im after a bit of advice please.A friend who does not have a fac has asked to come out shooting with me on my permission.my question is can i let him use my rifle under my supervision?

atb
pete

i think you can under direct supervision
 
Some see this as a grey area. I would read the home office guidelines yourself. I don't know if it has been clarified with the recent amendments but it will be under the 'estate rifle' heading. Will post a link tomorrow if I get a chance.
 
hi,im after a bit of advice please.A friend who does not have a fac has asked to come out shooting with me on my permission.my question is can i let him use my rifle under my supervision?

atb
pete

Yes you can Pete. But you both must be able to communicate to one another with verbal instructions.
He can be sitting in one hide and you in another side by side even though you cannot see one another you can still communicate.
Or either side of an hedge.
All`s explained in Chapter 6 6.14 section 11(5) Exemptions From The Requirement To Hold A Certificate.
Through to 6.23 section 9(2) hope this helps.
 
One of the best pieces of advice I've seen on the forum in a long time - Tack270 :tiphat:. SD members are a helpful bunch, but the buck ultimately stops with you

The Estate rifle provision appear to apply - but check direct. Also check if age is an issue - 17 years or older etc.

If Ive copied link correctly, the first two PDFs from BASC website should steer you right.

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/search-website.cfm

E
dit! Nope! Drat drat and double drat Mutley... too early/ no caffeine. Put Estate Rifles into the search box on that page.
 
As per above posts, if it were me there is no way I would hand a rifle to someone and be too far away to not see exactly what they are doing with it and not be able to exercise an element of control. If something did go wrong you are suddenly unable to offer an explanation as to what exactly caused it. Then consideration has to be given to whether your decision was a good one to allow them to control that rifle etc etc

i would also look at insurance cover if you plan to allow someone else to use your rifle. The policy may well cover you when the rifle is being used by you, but if you hand it to a guest and they are uninsured, as the mentor but not with your hands on the trigger are you still covered?
 
3skins as has already been indicated by others it may be possible using the "estate rifle" exemption, however you need to read and clearly understand this rule. Once again as others have said you need to read the relevant section of the Guidance to Police document which is pinned on this website and/or the guidance that BASC give.

jamross makes an excellent point about insurance.
Personally I believe that a lot of shooters who exercise the "estate rifle" rule have probably erred in law in some way and could be leaving themselves wide open if something goes wrong . Likewise the number of stalkers who take "clients" out without holding the correct business insurance is also quite high. It can be a bit of a minefield really.
 
Last edited:
Hi,thanks for your replies.like you say,its a grey área.ive no problem letting him shoot as regards safety as hes shot before and has ngo insurance and is plenty old enough.theres also no chance of me not being right next to him when hes using it.just wondered where i stand legally.thanks for your help chaps.

Atb

pete
 
The SGA now have an upgraded policy that covers taking guests out for a limited number of days per year, I would imagine the underwriters included aspects of lending rifles to these guests as well. It's not expensive either.
 
Personally I believe that a lot of shooters who exercise the "estate rifle" rule have probably erred in law in some way and could be leaving themselves wide open if something goes wrong .

Shouldn't an estate rifle technically belong to the estate?

Taking into consideration the number of FLD's that insist on experience prior to grant or variation. My FLD, when challenged by me over a mentoring issue, stated that my friend should use my .243 prior to his being granted one as they wanted him to have experience with the calibre and how else could he get it?

A pragmatic approach maybe but with the possibility of them leading me to break the law and him to breach the conditions of his existing FAC. It's very definitely a grey area. Several shades of grey at that.
 
Absolutely no grey area at all. Why imagine difficulty where there is none?

From the Manual of Guidance:

Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a person over the age of seventeen 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.

and later:

The effect of the provision is to allow a
person visiting a private land to borrow and use a rifle without a certificate.

How can an 'estate' own a rifle...a rifle can only be owned by a licensed individual??
 
Absolutely no grey area at all. Why imagine difficulty where there is none?

From the Manual of Guidance:

Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a person over the age of seventeen 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.

and later:

The effect of the provision is to allow a
person visiting a private land to borrow and use a rifle without a certificate.

How can an 'estate' own a rifle...a rifle can only be owned by a licensed individual??

I'm well aware what the Act says. The grey area is who is actually the occupier or servant. It has never been legally tested in court. How can an estate own a rifle? maybe the rifle could be entered onto the certificate of the owner and on the certificate of the estate manager? Aren't firearms owned by gun clubs estate rifles of sorts?

I wouldn't consider any of my rifles to be estate rifles in any shape or form but have still been encouraged to allow people to shoot them by the FLD. So their interpretation is pretty clear but what of other FLD's? Until it's legally clarified, it IS a grey area and will be open to interpretation. Interpretation is someone's opinion. Opinions are like arsehoes, everyone's got one (In my opinion:p).
 
"Aren't firearms owned by gun clubs estate rifles of sorts?"

Not really as there are exemptions in law that allow members of Home Office approved rifle clubs to use firearms belonging to the club and other club members without possessing a firearms certificate. The club certificate if the club has one is normally issued to the club secretary but can be in the name of another officer of the club.

I agree that who is regarded as the occupier of the land is still a bit of a grey area and that even the revised guidance to police document recognises the fact that to date it has not been tested in the courts.
 
Last edited:
I'm well aware what the Act says. The grey area is who is actually the occupier or servant. It has never been legally tested in court.
I suspect you are correct, it has never been legally tested in court, but you can bet your bottom dollar when something goes wrong (heaven forbid it does but it will one day) it will be tested and clarified and future questions posted like the OP will have his answer, until that day its open to interpretation of the existing act, so the buck stops with you.
Cheers
Richard
 
I'm well aware what the Act says. The grey area is who is actually the occupier or servant. It has never been legally tested in court. How can an estate own a rifle? maybe the rifle could be entered onto the certificate of the owner and on the certificate of the estate manager? Aren't firearms owned by gun clubs estate rifles of sorts? I wouldn't consider any of my rifles to be estate rifles in any shape or form but have still been encouraged to allow people to shoot them by the FLD. So their interpretation is pretty clear but what of other FLD's? Until it's legally clarified, it IS a grey area and will be open to interpretation. Interpretation is someone's opinion. Opinions are like arsehoes, everyone's got one (In my opinion:p).
I was told from an experianced feo that the occupier or servant was somebody with written permission for the stalking on the particular piece of land
 
I was told from an experianced feo that the occupier or servant was somebody with written permission for the stalking on the particular piece of land

Common sense would say that that would be the case but unfortunately what the courts decide does not always follow.:banghead:
 
Again, for reasons that pass me by, some are overcomplicating the issue. The fact that The Act fails to define occupier works FOR you. It makes any conviction for any alleged offence more or less impossible, especially when we see the Manual of Guidance saying:

'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.'

Don't see any problems here at all....thousands of deer are shot every year by guests without certificates.

The 'experienced' feo quoted above is wrong. Had the legislators wanted to make written permission a condition, they would have said so. They didn't.

You are fretting too much over nothing. Take your mate shooting.
 
Back
Top