My gun on a friend's permission?

[CharlieT]

my initial reply was a question. If you chose to take it as rude then it is because you probably consider yourself in that camp of people who responded without fully reading the question.
anyone who replied about the lampman shooting on his mate's land also didn't read it.
he doesn't mention this
a fundamental part of the question.

you don't need to agree, life would be dull if we all agreed.
but please show me the line in any firearms law that says a fac holder can no shoot another fac holders firearm when ground permission has been proven.

i have shown numerous examples that prove otherwise.
i welcome anything that advances my understanding of firearms law
if I am wrong I will happily admit it...but only when shown why.

please show me which part of the firearms act applies here

If we look at the OP we see that he asks the simple question "can we legally take mine and use it on his permission without an issue? " and he then goes on to say he, himself, does not have permission to shoot the land and I quote "surely just ask for your own permission on the land" but I'm afraid the golfers aren't very willing to let multiple people have access!


From this we see that the OP wishes to take his rifle to be used on the land. It doesn't take much of a genius to come up with the correct answer which is no.

The rifle owner can't use it because he has no permission to shoot the land.
The rifle owner can't let his mate use it because (a) the rifle is not listed on his mates FAC and (b) he, the rifle owner, is not the occupier.

Rather than you asking us to point out which part of the Firearms Act substantiates this fact, perhaps you could point us in the direction of the part of the act that you seem to think makes it legal.

 

[Mungo]

The rifle owner can't let his mate use it because (a) the rifle is not listed on his mates FAC and (b) he, the rifle owner, is not the occupier.

I think the point is that the two parts of that statement are not connected.

The first part, on its own, is not true: you can use a rifle that is not on your FAC if the legal holder is present.
The second part, on its own, just says that someone who doesn't have permission can't shoot on that land. But since the owner isn't intending to shoot, that part of the statement becomes irrelevant.

So I think it really does come down to whether the owner can carry his gun onto land where he does not have permission to shoot.

 

[Frank Homes]

Mungo
'you can use a rifle that is not on your FAC if the legal holder is present.'

What draws you to this conclusion?

F

 

[bewsher500]

Mungo
'you can use a rifle that is not on your FAC if the legal holder is present.'

What draws you to this conclusion?

F

mainly as there is no mention at all to the contrary in any firearms law and it is already done in so many scenarios as to make it commonplace (see the scenarios both I and Mungo posted)

I asked anyone to direct me to the section that lists it in the firearms act of home office guidance. I will happily concede my viewpoint on the matter if I can be shown to the contrary

If not how does anyone fire a gun they do not specifically have listed on their FAC? Ever?

under what section of firearms act exemptions does an FAC holder fire a rifle that is not listed?
dealers, ranges, mates using mate's on mate 1's ground, etc etc

 

[Frank Homes]

B500
in short there are no exemptions,what might be common practice with mates etc. is almost certainly illegal. You are bound by the authorities and conditions on your Fac and if it isn't contained therein you have no right to possess or use someone elses rifle. Daft? Yes, but true.

F

 

[flying felix]

Being someone who has shot many times with guns loaned by others (in their presence ) and considering some of these people are Firearm licensing officers. It is perfectly legal as long as you are not banned under Section 21 and there isn't a particular restrictions. eg LBR on the mainland.

 

[FGYT]

Your not on a range or in an RFD where a person can fire a firearm not on their FAC

The only exemption that applies in this situation is the estate rule and for that to apply you must be an occupier as per the CWA1981 description which means you need to hold a 'RIGHT' they won't even give you permission .

 

[willyroe]

mainly as there is no mention at all to the contrary in any firearms law and it is already done in so many scenarios as to make it commonplace (see the scenarios both I and Mungo posted)

I asked anyone to direct me to the section that lists it in the firearms act of home office guidance. I will happily concede my viewpoint on the matter if I can be shown to the contrary

If not how does anyone fire a gun they do not specifically have listed on their FAC? Ever?

under what section of firearms act exemptions does an FAC holder fire a rifle that is not listed?
dealers, ranges, mates using mate's on mate 1's ground, etc etc

answer - they both have landowner permission. Simple rule mate, imposed by fac, you can use your rifle where you have permission, if you dont have permission leave it at home.

As point of debate, "if the lamp man wasnt present then all could be fine", but as we know, you cannot lend rifles (like shot guns) and all firearms (serial numbers) and directly linked to the FAC holder, therefore said rifle would be on the golf cousre with the corrcet owner being shot (whoever pulls the trigger) and that isnt allowed becasue the fac holder that owns and is responsible for the rifle DOES NOT HAVE PERMISSION.

 

[willyroe]

Let me put another slant on it.

If i caught lamp man on my land with his rifle (under any circumstances) i would have him for breakfast!

And i guarantee you, the plod would not be impressed!

 

[Orvil]

My question is this - if he leaves his rifle in the cabinet, can we legally take mine and use it on his permission without an issue?

Thought I'd just replay the OP's post here to avoid any confusion. WE means "me and others" not "him".
The answer is still no.
It's all down to the conditions on your ticket, if you break them - you will loose you ticket and possibly your freedom, more to the point, you **** up our shooting in the UK. Hands up who wants to put their chopper on the block and test this in court...... thought so!

 

[willyroe]

I think the point is that the two parts of that statement are not connected.

The first part, on its own, is not true: you can use a rifle that is not on your FAC if the legal holder is present.
The second part, on its own, just says that someone who doesn't have permission can't shoot on that land. But since the owner isn't intending to shoot, that part of the statement becomes irrelevant.

So I think it really does come down to whether the owner can carry his gun onto land where he does not have permission to shoot.

You are in a grey area and mixing and matching, because the first part is correct/true, the rifle owner exposes himself becasue that rifle in that location is still his responsibility in the eyes of the law. Doesnt matter if the permission owner, the labrador of their granny pulled trigger, its not allowed.

Think we need a judges ruling on this!!!!...... Genuinely interesting.

 

[enfieldspares]

Bewsher IS wrong because it is not ONLY the Act that defines 'possession' but case law, accepted (and so permitted) custom and commonsense. Possession isn't merely about ownirg but about 'degree of control' of the firearm AND where and how it is being 'possessed'

Addtionally factors to be considered are that this weapon is neither a shot gun nor an air rifle and the 'where' is not a range, nor a gunshop, nor private house. And the person isn't a gunbearer, common carrier, servant nor auction house.

The Act says a person may 'possess' a firearm and ammunition on a range under CLUB authority. And may possess ditto on ESTATE RIFLE authority.

Any other possession is illegal according to the degree of control. Having a loaded firearm, s5 ammunition therein and firing it indicates total control of it by the firer. Plus the fact the owner is holding a lamp or 'spotting'.

It is illegal as described by the OP. As is firing at targets with it if not under CLUB or ESTATE RIFLE authority.

Others have proposed the simple efficient answer have a variation to possess it on the non-lamp man's FAC conditioned to say 'rifle X is. only to be possessed and used when accompanied by the owner of the rifle'.

Last but by no means least look up the definition or 'armed trespass' in British law...if the lamp man hasn't specific permission to bring HIS firearms onto the land he commits the offence.

 

[Mungo]

Having though about this a bit more, and done some enquiring with those more knowledgable than me, I think that it is after all illegal - or at least so ambiguous that you really wouldn't want to be the one in court making the defence.

My own interpretations arose from an unjustified generalisation of Section 16, which is much more specific than I realised.

What this illustrates to me is the danger of assuming I know and understand the law without properly checking!

Anyway - a very interesting and illuminating question!

 

[8x57]

Yes Mungo the estate rifle rule is far more specific than many realise.

I see that ranges have also been mentioned. Disregarding for now exemptions for schools, cadet forces, crown servants etc. I don't think most shooters actually realise just how restrictive the legislation is regarding borrowing rifles on ranges. The Home Office approval that permits rifle club membersto use club firearms and ammunition and those belonging to other club members is quite specific and applies to the club and not the range where the club happens to be actually shooting at the time. It does not normally extend to guests who may or may not have FACs other than on the limited number of official open/guest days (12) that a H.O. approved club may apply for each year. Clubs that are not H.O. approved do not benefit from the same exemptions.

While H.O. approved clubs are not permitted to grant temporary or day membership to non FAC holders I think it just may be possible for approved clubs to have allow guest shooters who hold FACs a sort of temporary membership if the wording on the club constitution is right and thus allow the use of that guest the same temporary limited privileges as other club members. This as far as I know is still a bit of a grey area and so far has been untested.

Regarding test firing by RFDs as opposed to personal use where the RFD will require to hold a FAC, then once again I don't think many RFDs have actually looked at the act and understand just how restrictive the law actually is.

As far as I can see there is only one consistency here, and that is that the firearms laws in this country are badly drafted and oppressively restrictive.

 

[enfieldspares]

The same with trespass. In another thread it was said if you've permission to be there it then isn't trespass so it doesn't matter if you've a gun with you. Incorrect.

1) What if the lamp man turns up, in daytime, and starts out (no gun) to play a round of golf?

2) Or again, no gun, turns up at evening and sets up his barbecue? After an hour, in the daylight, of flying his aerial drone?

3) Or he comes over all Claude Monet and arrives at daybreak every day for a week with six easels and canvasses for a day long, all week, session of impressions?

In all cases, trespass, as his permission to be there is a permission to there is accompanying the rabbit controller, as a lamp man, at night, and with NO gun.

If he isn't there accompanying the rabbit controller, as a lamp man, at night, or he's there with HIS gun (save if the rabbit controller has that gun on his own, the rabbit controller's, FAC) he has conflicted with the allowed access granted and is a trespasser.

A fox hunt may have permission to ride over land when hunting foxes. It doesn't have permission to turn up (all hunt members) and hold an impromtu gymkhana.

You can't trespass if you've permission to be there but if what activity you are doing doesn't comply with the terms of your permission to be there it's a trespass.

 

[bewsher500]

B500
in short

there are no exemptions,what might be common practice with mates etc. is almost certainly illegal.
You are bound by the authorities and conditions on your FAC and if it isn't contained therein you have no right to possess or use someone elses rifle.

Daft? Yes, but true.

I agree you are bound by your FAC....which details what the Police gave you authority to possess/purchase for your good reason.
This is not you possessing/purchasing, owning or keeping.
I am sorry but "almost certainly" doesn't cut it when discussing either law or firearms,

There are plenty of exemptions, they are listed throughout the entire act, the scenarios for loaning, borrowing, transferring, land use, authority to posses are detailed ad infinitum

what you effectively saying is that the Firearms act has accounted in detail for non FAC holders (some quite young and without any land authority) using, possessing and carrying ammo, rifles and shotguns of a SGC/FAC holder (not necessarily within eyeline of each other, earshot is fine!) ...
but for some reason has an unwritten subtext that stops authorised, vetted, deemed safe and granted FAC holders from using another rifle when in the direct company of another FAC holder with authority on ground they have permission for.

If it's written can someone please show me which part of the act specifically stops me shooting my mates gun on my ground in his company?
not land authority.
possession and use authority

because I am sorry I have read that thing over and over, probably since before I started taking an interest in extending the firearms list I have authority for.
discussed it at length with Police and officials from NRA, BASC and the gun trade....and I don't see one.




Enfield, there are several aspects of what you say which are in the right direction but not that are legally prescriptive in this scenario

Bewsher IS wrong because it is not ONLY the Act that defines 'possession' but case law, accepted (and so permitted) custom and commonsense.
A) Possession isn't merely about owning but about 'degree of control' of the firearm AND where and how it is being 'possessed'

B)Additionally factors to be considered are that this weapon is neither a shot gun nor an air rifle and the 'where' is not a range, nor a gunshop, nor private house. And the person isn't a gunbearer, common carrier, servant nor auction house.

C)The Act says a person may 'possess' a firearm and ammunition on a range under CLUB authority. And may possess ditto on ESTATE RIFLE authority.

A)
Case Law does not "define possession", it defines specific future offences based on convictions made in court,
No one is arguing that they (theoretically) have the rifle, are in control or are on the Golf course, on which one of them has authority TO SHOOT

Any prosecution relating to possession of a firearm and/or location is almost always done under the auspices of the 1828 and 1844 Night Poaching Act, the 1831 Game Act (1832 Game (Scotland) Act) if not in addition to a straight cut Firearms offence under the Firearms Act
The 2011 WANE (Scotland) Act updates this


B) and C) both aspects specific to NON FAC holders in section 16 exemptions, not relevant here.
Absence of coverage by Sect 16 does not suddenly make it an offence anymore than absence of coverage by any other section.

The discussion is distilled down to can Mate 1 shoot Mate 2's rifle on ground he (1) has authority to shoot.
I am arguing that he can, no case law exists to the contrary.
No element of the Act(s) specifies this scenario or a similar one as an offence.

The land authority is proven.
Mate 1 has it. (whether written or not)
So either the lamp man is allowed to be with him when he (mate 1) is shooting or he (lamp man) is trespassing - with or without a gun.
If he is not trespassing with a lamp then adding a rifle is not suddenly going to change that offence.
He is not the one in possession of the rifle anyway in this scenario. The shooter is, under the permission/supervision of the owner and in his presence.

Any other possession is illegal

according to the degree of control.
Having a loaded firearm, s5 ammunition therein and firing it indicates total control of it by the firer. Plus the fact the owner is holding a lamp or 'spotting'.

It is illegal as described by the OP. As is firing at targets with it if not under CLUB or ESTATE RIFLE authority.

You are mixing up actual possession and the proximity and scenario exemptions, one is law, one is covered under HO guidance which is not law.
The estate rifle/Sec 16 exemption covers the scenario, the HO guidance details what: "is normally taken to mean within sight or earshot of the individual borrowing the shotgun. The term “occupier” is not defined in the Firearms Acts, nor has a court clarified its meaning."

The Club and Estate Rifle authority (Sec16 Firearms Act) is specifically written as an exemption for NON FAC holders
If having an unloaded rifle belonging to the guy standing next to you is an offence, it being loaded makes no difference to the first offence

look up the definition or 'armed trespass' in British law...if the lamp man hasn't specific permission to bring HIS firearms onto the land he commits the offence.

I don't need to look it up but if you did you will have seen that not only is it a particularly vague element of the Firearms Act that there is a very clear caveat on the offence:

It is an offence to enter any building, part of a building or land (including land
covered by water) with a firearm without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies
on the person). [Section 20 Firearms Act 1968]

so which one of them is committing armed trespass?

if its the Shooter/Mate 1 then he would have had to be committing armed trespass before as well as at no point of the law on Armed Trespass does it detail who owns the rifle in question.
That is a possession/authority point which simply is not detailed as an offence when the land permission is covered.
If its the Lamp Man/Mate 2 then he was trespassing with a lamp as the law of armed trespass relies on location authority as the reasonable excuse to be proven as the first offence.


My problem here is that the vagaries of interpreting a law, that is what we have to do with most laws, mean that unless someone can demonstrate that what you are doing is illegal and defined by that law...it is not.
Its the very foundation of our justice system

Sadly speaking to FEOs and within reason the BASC if there is an aspect that is contentious they will err on the side of compliance and say it is illegal/ill advised.
Lets face it some of the advice people have received around calibre, cartridge, quarry, ammunition choice has been pretty shoddy in the past!

Public and Member bodies won't put out contentious public, legal statements unless it is in their interest.
If a member of the BASC legal team is defending someone in court it is clearly in both parties interest to push the definition and interpretation of whatever law the Police are saying makes the offence.

I will happily "discuss" with any Police officer the details of Firearms law, but "because it is" doesn't create an offence.
I am not in the habit of putting myself, my family and business at risk due to wildly breaching the terms of either my FAC authority or the terms of the Firearms Act under which I must operate but i do question anything when no clear exemption or offence is detailed


This scenario is not a poaching one or trespassing one
Its simple

Can someone with an FAC, shooting over ANY land they have authority on, shoot a rifle belonging to another FAC holder, whilst in their presence.

If not please show me the specifics of Firearms law that preclude it
I am not unreasonable, happily stand up and say I am wrong but you need to prove it not just say it


Anyway I am clearly rambling and apparently a distinguished and only member of a club in which people ignore me so I am finished on the matter

 

[Frank Homes]

B500
Yes there are many exemptions in the Firearms Acts but none that cover this scenario. Quite simply you commit an offence under S1 (1) (a) Firearms Act 1968 because you are in possession of a firearm that is not authorised by your certificate. The idiom there are none so blind as those that will not see springs to mind.

F

 

[8x57]

B500
Yes there are many exemptions in the Firearms Acts but none that cover this scenario. Quite simply you commit an offence under S1 (1) (a) Firearms Act 1968 because you are in possession of a firearm that is not authorised by your certificate. The idiom there are none so blind as those that will not see springs to mind.

F

Frank would that be the part that says;

PROVISIONS AS TO POSSESSION, HANDLING AND DISTRIBUTION OF WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION; PREVENTION OF CRIME AND MEASURES TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY.

and with the sub title
General restrictions on possession and handling of firearms and ammunition.

and then goes on to say

1. (1) Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person-
(a) to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise authorised by such a certificate;

 

[Frank Homes]

8x57 Yes that is right.

F

 

[enfieldspares]

As 8x57 says, the words is "a person" not "a person other than the holder of a Firearm Certificate".

If you didn't need an exemption to borrow a rifle then the Estate Rifle clause wouldn't exist. As there. would be no offence in borrowing a rifle you didn't have authority for on your FAC.

It arose, it is said, because Douglas Hogg had stalked deer on Lord Kimball's land, in his company, using Lord Kimball's rifle. So whether you've an FAC or not you can't "borrow" aka possess a rifle unless the lender satisfies the Estate Rifle rule. In UK firearms law if not specifically allowed it is prohibited.

For an firearms law offence can be both by omission of an act that is required (gun in safe keeping) or commission of an act that is not permitted (possession of a gun you are not authorised to possess or in enjoyment of one of the exemptions).

So the fact is where is the exemption that allows the rabbit controller to borrow the lamp man's rifle if the lamp man is the holder of the shooting permission?