My gun on a friend's permission?

[Sinistral]

8x57 Yes that is right.

F

That's exactly it.

The Act sets out as paramount the first & overriding principle that possession of a firearm has to be authorised specifically by an FAC. There are no Ifs, Buts, or equivocations in that clause which subordinates all those that follow.

Everyone needs absolute clarity on this aspect of the law, and the 1968 Act provides it. Possession in law can amount to no more than custodial possession (having the keys to someone’s cabinet), and to just the simple act of picking up a rifle not on your own FAC.

If your certificate is revoked, or not in force (expired, or not current for whatever reason) then you are in unlawful possession of all the firearms listed on it. It seems blindingly obvious that following this concept of strict authorisation to what’s on your FAC (and the corollary of what’s not) can not be bent to cover temporarily borrowing somebody else’s rifle with their permission. I think having permission to shoot on the land isn’t of the slightest relevance to the offence of illegal possession, which is the major sin eclipsing all others

 

[8x57]

I'm sure that the legislators would have not taken the trouble to detail the exemptions so fully (including the estate rifle rule) if they had intended that you could still borrow a rifle off a mate despite it not being on your FAC. If they had considered it reasonable to simply loan a rifle why go to all the bother of H.O. approval for clubs and issuing FACs to clubs, as it would be a simple matter for non FAC holders to just borrow a firearm and ammunition off a fellow shooter yet they specifically cover this eventuality in the legislation.

Also they took the trouble to legislate for handling of firearms by RFD servants and auction porters etc. so presumably they considered handling as being in possession?

I think its fair to say though some might dispute this, that the police are not out to snare or entrap the unwary shooter. They are fully aware that the legislation is confusing and often apparently contradictory. Occasionally some shooters and for that matter clubs and some RFDs deviate slightly from the strictest letter of the law usually due usually to being unaware of just how constraining the firearms laws actually are.
However as one FEO said to me not so long ago, they are totally unaware of what goes on behind closed doors or out in the field, that is unless some fool decides to shout about it, usually on the internet or on social media (whatever that is) these days.

Sometimes its better not to ask questions about certain things that you witness and perhaps the old adage of "ask no questions and I'll tell you no lies" is appropriate rather than telling the whole world via the internet.

 

[Heym SR20]

Reading this through, my interpretation is that you should only use or carry a rifle on a piece of ground where you have lawful permission to shoot. Under the firearms act it is unlawful to have a firearm (whether loaded or not) in a public place without good reason.

I would not take out my rifle onto a piece of ground unless I specifically had lawful permission to use it, and I would want that permission to be from the landowner or their appointed agent.

So back to the OP. Can the lampman take his rifle onto the Golfcourse - the answer is no - not unless he has lawful permission to do so.

If the Lampman does have lawful permission and is thus deemed to be the occupier or the agent of the occupier of the land, then somebody else can use his rifle under the estate rifle facility under his close supervision.

There is a certain gentleman who thought he had permission, cos his mate was a green's keeper, who is having three years of no bills to think about the error of his ways.

You do need to be very careful when go out shooting with somebody else that they actually do have permission to shoot on the ground and have the permission to take guests / clients. There are plenty of rogues out there who have a flexible view on boundaries and where they can and cannot lawfully shoot.

 

[CharlieT]

If the Lampman does have lawful permission and is thus deemed to be the occupier or the agent of the occupier of the land, then somebody else can use his rifle under the estate rifle facility under his close supervision.

There is a certain gentleman who thought he had permission, cos his mate was a green's keeper, who is having three years of no bills to think about the error of his ways.

.

Regrettably, having permission to shoot does not make someone an occupier.
An occupier is someone who has legal control and responsibility over the land, something that someone with mere permission to shoot does not.

 

[bewsher500]

Regrettably, having permission to shoot does not make someone an occupier.
An occupier is someone who has legal control and responsibility over the land, something that someone with mere permission to shoot does not.

Nope
not even the police or the courts know what that means

Policing and Crime Bill (12th April 2016)

"10. As the Guidance notes, the term ‘occupier’ has never been tested in the courts and while the Firearms Consultative Committee has recommended that the definition in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted, the Firearms Act 1968, which pre-dates the 1981 Act, remains undefined. The lack of certainty and clarity in this area poses a significant problem for shooters, given that no court has ever opined on how ‘occupier’ is to be interpreted."

 

[Sauer90]

Reading this through, my interpretation is that you should only use or carry a rifle on a piece of ground where you have lawful permission to shoot. Under the firearms act it is unlawful to have a firearm (whether loaded or not) in a public place without good reason.

sheesh...

 

[CharlieT]

Nope
not even the police or the courts know what that means

Policing and Crime Bill (12th April 2016)

"10.As the Guidance notes, the term ‘occupier’ has never been tested in the courts and while the Firearms Consultative Committee has recommended that the definition in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be adopted, the Firearms Act 1968, which pre-dates the 1981 Act, remains undefined. The lack of certainty and clarity in this area poses a significant problem for shooters, given that no court has ever opined on how ‘occupier’ is to be interpreted."

I'm afraid we will have to disagree.

I would happily spend good money taking to court anyone I've have given permission to shoot my land if they took it upon themselves to be considered the occupier or had a right over my land.

Until the Firearms Act is re worded the following still remains the generally accepted definition - 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".

 

[bewsher500]

Sorry I am not sure I get what you mean then as the two statements contradict each other.

We are not talking about anything other than from the perspective of Firearms here.
From a sporting rights perspective your quote indicates anyone with a lease or permission to shoot (or fish/etc) is deemed "occupier" in relation to the WCA and Firearms Act

Regrettably, having permission to shoot does not make someone an occupier.
An occupier is someone who has legal control and responsibility over the land, something that someone with mere permission to shoot does not.

I'm afraid we will have to disagree.

I would happily spend good money taking to court anyone I've have given permission to shoot my land if they took it upon themselves to be considered the occupier or had a right over my land.

Until the Firearms Act is re worded the following still remains the generally accepted definition - 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".