Closed ticket accompanied by open ticket, is police clearance required?

[Len the dog]

My son has just applied for his FAC and listed my 3 calibres as being required on his ticket, my ticket is open but one of my permissions I know has been cleared for 22CF from when I applied, does my son need to get every piece of land cleared for himself if he is accompanying me on my open ticket on the others that may or may not be cleared?

 

[enfieldspares]

If he is borrowing your rifle on land that you are the occupier of (which may be taken to also mean the holder or "occupier" of the shooting rights) then he can shoot as your guest as long as he is in your presence. What HE can do will be the same as what YOU can do. In effect he sits in your pocket or "rides piggyback" as it were.

But if he is going out on his own and it his first FAC I think that even though it sounds odd he'd need the land cleared for his use of that calibre rifle on that land. The .22CF being the exception in that as is already cleared he'd just need to mention that when submitting the paperwork so it wouldn't need inspecting. for that calibre.

OTOH others may know better if that is so. Here's something I found on the internet.

https://www.knights-solicitors.co.uk/uploads/HJREOlzX/160429-NeveraBorroweroraLenderbe-KtBSum16-KnightsLegal.pdf

 

[Island]

My son has just applied for his FAC and listed my 3 calibres as being required on his ticket, my ticket is open but one of my permissions I know has been cleared for 22CF from when I applied, does my son need to get every piece of land cleared for himself if he is accompanying me on my open ticket on the others that may or may not be cleared?

Am I correct in my reading that you will have the 3 firearms listed on both certificates?

I am admittedly not a legal expert by any stretch but if so one would assume that even when accompanying you he would be using "his own" rifle and therefore have to adhere to the conditions of his own certificate, and if those are the more-restrictive "land must be cleared" stipulations then that is what has to happen?

 

[Len the dog]

If he is borrowing your rifle on land that you are the occupier of (which may be taken to also mean the holder or "occupier" of the shooting rights) then he can shoot as your guest as long as he is in your presence. But if he is going out on his own and it his first FAC I think that even though it sounds odd he'd need the land cleared for his use of that calibre rifle on that land. The .22CF being the exception in that as is already cleared he'd just need to mention that when submitting the paperwork so it wouldn't need inspecting. OTOH others may know better if that is so.

He would be borrowing my rifle but the point of applying for his own FAC was so that he wouldn't have to be under close supervision at all times. I guess you are right in what you say that as I know the first piece of land is cleared for 22CF then technically it is cleared for anyone that has permission for that calibre, although it wouldn't hurt to bang out an email to our FEO. Fortunately we are on good terms with our FEO and he seems knowledgeable so a quick chat when he comes to inspect would probably yield the results we want, but you never know how each force or even individual is going to interpret the law.

 

[Island]

If he is borrowing your rifle on land that you are the occupier of (which may be taken to also mean the holder or "occupier" of the shooting rights) then he can shoot as your guest as long as he is in your presence. What HE can do will be the same as what YOU can do. In effect he sits in your pocket or "rides piggyback" as it were.

But if he is going out on his own and it his first FAC I think that even though it sounds odd he'd need the land cleared for his use of that calibre rifle on that land. The .22CF being the exception in that as is already cleared he'd just need to mention that when submitting the paperwork so it wouldn't need inspecting. for that calibre.

OTOH others may know better if that is so. Here's something I found on the internet.

https://www.knights-solicitors.co.uk/uploads/HJREOlzX/160429-NeveraBorroweroraLenderbe-KtBSum16-KnightsLegal.pdf

But if the rifles are listed on both certs then he is not "borrowing" the rifle, he is using his own. In which case he must do so under the terms of his own certificate?

 

[Len the dog]

Am I correct in my reading that you will have the 3 firearms listed on both certificates?

I am admittedly not a legal expert by any stretch but if so one would assume that even when accompanying you he would be using "his own" rifle and therefore have to adhere to the conditions of his own certificate, and if those are the more-restrictive "land must be cleared" stipulations then that is what has to happen?

Yes, shared rifles. Good point though.

 

[Len the dog]

All of my permissions are cleared for rimfire because when I got them I was still on a closed cert', it's just the CF that hasn't been cleared on all of them.

 

[enfieldspares]

No. I'd disagree with ISLAND. I'd argue that the son's FAC permits him to possess the rifles only and does not give him "title" to them or ownership of them. Therefore it might be said that this being so he is actually using (borrowing) rifles owned by the occupier at those times when he is in the occupier's presence. When not in the occupier's presence he is still borrowing them, yes, but he also has sole possession of them that excludes the state rifle clause benefits. It's all nuanced I fear and equally ISLAND may perhaps arguably be correct. I don't think so but it might be so.

 

[Selous]

I would suggest getting every piece of land approved to be on the safe side. Eventually they will get fed up and issue an open ticket.

 

[Len the dog]

I would suggest getting every piece of land approved to be on the safe side. Eventually they will get fed up and issue an open ticket.

I think perhaps that is the best route, it certainly worked for me because I kept pestering them for more land to be cleared so they opened my ticket when I applied for the CF.

 

[Len the dog]

No. I'd disagree with ISLAND. I'd argue that the son's FAC permits him to possess the rifles only and does not give him "title" to them or ownership of them. Therefore it might be said that this being so he is actually using (borrowing) rifles owned by the occupier at those times when he is in the occupier's presence. When not in the occupier's presence he is still borrowing them, yes, but he also has sole possession of them that excludes the state rifle clause benefits. It's all nuanced I fear and equally ISLAND may perhaps arguably be correct. I don't think so but it might be so.

This could be further muddied by the fact that I am not the owner of the shooting rights, I am an agent having been given permission to shoot there. Reference the attachment from your first reply.
With regards to the ownership of the rifles, I'm not convinced that they can't be jointly owned. All of my shotguns are jointly on my wife's SGC so that she doesn't fall foul of the law should she be dropping me off at the pub after a shoot and taking the gun home.
This was done at the FEO's recommendation some years back.

 

[Alantoo]

If he is accompanying you and using your rifle then I can't see anybody arguing that his having his own FAC would restrict him more than if he didn't have one at all.

The FAC and the conditions are personal to your son and are not transferable with the rifle or land permissions. If he is by himself he must abide by the conditions on his FAC and only shoot with the rifles, and where, his FAC conditions allow.

Alan

 

[devon deer stalker]

I think perhaps that is the best route, it certainly worked for me because I kept pestering them for more land to be cleared so they opened my ticket when I applied for the CF.

There is some correct advice on here, but the absolute best route, is discuss with the FEO.

 

[Len the dog]

Thanks for the advice, fortunately we are in no rush for my son's FAC to be granted but when it is I'll raise the question with him and list the areas of land that he wants clearing. It will probably be just a formality as only two are of interest to us for the CF but all of the others have been cleared already for rimfire.
The last thing I want to do in the current climate is overstep any requirements/interpretations with my local licensing.

Cheers

 

[25 Sharps]

If he is accompanying you and using your rifle then I can't see anybody arguing that his having his own FAC would restrict him more than if he didn't have one at all.

The FAC and the conditions are personal to your son and are not transferable with the rifle or land permissions. If he is by himself he must abide by the conditions on his FAC and only shoot with the rifles, and where, his FAC conditions allow.

Alan

Isn’t the estate rifle rule worded ‘non FAC holder’ or something along those lines?

Have to agree with @Island if the rifles are on his ticket he is not operating under the estate rifle rule at all.

 

[baguio]

Once they’re on his certificate the rifles are as much his as yours as far as shooting them is concerned. Who paid for them is irrelevant. If that wasn’t the case everyone would do it to circumnavigate the law. That land must be cleared if he’s pulling the trigger. Why wouldn’t you get it cleared anyway?

 

[Alantoo]

Isn’t the estate rifle rule worded ‘non FAC holder’ or something along those lines?

Have to agree with @Island if the rifles are on his ticket he is not operating under the estate rifle rule at all.

Once they’re on his certificate the rifles are as much his as yours as far as shooting them is concerned. Who paid for them is irrelevant. If that wasn’t the case everyone would do it to circumnavigate the law. That land must be cleared if he’s pulling the trigger.

I have to disagree.

The conditions on his FAC apply when he is out on his own with one of the rifles...if he is accompanied by his father then surely the estate rifle rule would apply?

The whole thrust of the Firearms legislation and the FAC is to protect the public...how does the son acquiring an FAC make him more of a threat than any lad off the street who could go onto that land with the OP/father and shoot one of the shared rifles?

It would make no sense that a perfect stranger with no experience of firearms accompanied by the father could use the same rifle on the same ground but that the son who has been vetted by the police and granted an FAC could not.

It makes no sense that it was perfectly okay for the son to use the rifle on that land when accompanied by his father before he was vetted by the police and found to be safe to possess a rifle, but that once he acquired his own FAC he could no longer do so.

Nor does it make sense that the son could be accompanied and use the rifle of a third party on the same land, but not if accompanied by his father using one of their shared rifles.

Why wouldn’t you get it cleared anyway?

Agreed, that removes any doubt

Alan

 

[baguio]

I have to disagree.

The conditions on his FAC apply when he is out on his own with one of the rifles...if he is accompanied by his father then surely the estate rifle rule would apply?

The whole thrust of the Firearms legislation and the FAC is to protect the public...how does the son acquiring an FAC make him more of a threat than any lad off the street who could go onto that land with the OP/father and shoot one of the shared rifles?

It would make no sense that a perfect stranger with no experience of firearms accompanied by the father could use the same rifle on the same ground but that the son who has been vetted by the police and granted an FAC could not.

Nor does it make sense that the son could be accompanied and use the rifle of a third party on the same land, but not if accompanied by his father using one of their shared rifles.



Agreed, that removes any doubt

Alan

Whilst I hear you Alan and you may be correct, it all sounds like a problem waiting to happen. These 'problems' are usually expensive to resolve and yet in this instance it's entirely avoidable. Who would want to test it (and pay for it) in court? The 'estate rifle' clause was certainly not written for instances like this where the user actually had the 'estate rifle' (how is it the estate rifle then?) on their FAC.

 

[Len the dog]

Once they’re on his certificate the rifles are as much his as yours as far as shooting them is concerned. Who paid for them is irrelevant. If that wasn’t the case everyone would do it to circumnavigate the law. That land must be cleared if he’s pulling the trigger. Why wouldn’t you get it cleared anyway?

It wouldn’t necessarily be straightforward to request the land be cleared, as an open ticket holder I may deem the land to be perfectly suitable whereas an inexperienced FEO may not, but once it has been denied then any closed ticket holder would be prohibited from shooting on it whereas I would still be allowed to under the conditions of my certificate.

 

[baguio]

It wouldn’t necessarily be straightforward to request the land be cleared, as an open ticket holder I may deem the land to be perfectly suitable whereas an inexperienced FEO may not, but once it has been denied then any closed ticket holder would be prohibited from shooting on it whereas I would still be allowed to under the conditions of my certificate.

I don't agree. It would certainly be straightforward to request for it to be cleared. Refused to clear it or not having even asked for it to be cleared is exactly the same thing to a closed certificate holder though and irrelevant to you.