shooting from a stile yes or no

[SL6.5]

It would certainly be unusual if Lister has a condition on his certificate that allowed him to shoot on land that he does not have permission to shoot on.
So just for starters he is probably not complying with the conditions on his firearms certificate before we start arguing about the whys and wherefores of armed trespass in pursuit of which I am sure will be an enthralling argument.

"probably not" but not "definitely not" isn't that so?

Are you of the opinion that; if any person enters any land without the consent of the owner or occupier or other lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, he shall be guilty of an offence.?

 

[8x57]

Are you suggesting that he has a certificate that says he may shoot on anybody's land regardless of whether he has permission or not? I'll have to admit ignorance on that one as I've never seen a certificate worded as such and I've seen a few odd conditions on certificates over the years.

 

[SL6.5]

Are you suggesting that he has a certificate that says he may shoot on anybody's land regardless of whether he has permission or not? I'll have to admit ignorance on that one as I've never seen a certificate worded as such and I've seen a few odd conditions on certificates over the years.

Unless my ticket reads differently to yours the conditions on it clearly and precisely specify which land the vermin and/or deer should be on and over which the shooter may shoot, not where the shooter must be when taking the shot. I think I can safely assure you our original poster is a clever person and fully understands, exactly, what he outlined in the opening post.

I'll have another go at asking my question, with you this time; Please name the offence you think the OP, or anyone doing as the OP suggests, would commit.

 

[berg]

"probably not" but not "definitely not" isn't that so?

Are you of the opinion that; if any person enters any land without the consent of the owner or occupier or other lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, he shall be guilty of an offence.?

I would have thought there is no such law that can give anybody the right to enter somebodys land with a firearm and shoot anything ,i don't no what resson you could have ,even a wounded animale outside your permisson would not be a just reason ,i am sorry i dont bye it.you have no idea who you could affect by entering somebodys land without them kowning ,i dont no what law his has broke but i am 99% sure there are a few.armed trespass two start .I will ask you a qustion SL6.5 if i may ,would you do it and if not why ?

 

[The tramp]

The discharge of a firearm is 'shooting',
Minimum barrel length is measured from where combustion is initiated, ie, the primer.
Therefore, the act of discharging a firearm starts at the breech, ending at the muzzle, so even if the muzzle is on the right side of the fence, if the breech isn't, then you are discharging a firearm on land you don't have legal authority to be shooting on.

That's your conditions broken, unless for some obscure reason yours does allow the use in land you don't have permission.
Even if that was the case, just because your ticket allows it, that still wouldn't give authority to enter and shoot on land you don't have permission of the landowner/holder of sporting rights. The police cannot give authority to shoot on another persons land, they are there to enforce laws, not make them up.

 

[SL6.5]

I would have thought there is no such law that can give anybody the right to enter somebodys land with a firearm and shoot anything ,i don't no what resson you could have ,even a wounded animale outside your permisson would not be a just reason ,i am sorry i dont bye it.you have no idea who you could affect by entering somebodys land without them kowning ,i dont no what law his has broke but i am 99% sure there are a few.armed trespass two start .I will ask you a qustion SL6.5 if i may ,would you do it and if not why ?

Read the Deer Act section 1.3. Also being in a public place with a firearm is not an offence if there's a reasonable excuse, which there clearly is in this case, ALL the way from where the shooter lives/keeps his gun and onto his "permission".

I already answer your question at post #34

 

[SL6.5]

The discharge of a firearm is 'shooting',
Minimum barrel length is measured from where combustion is initiated, ie, the primer.
Therefore, the act of discharging a firearm starts at the breech, ending at the muzzle, so even if the muzzle is on the right side of the fence, if the breech isn't, then you are discharging a firearm on land you don't have legal authority to be shooting on.

That's your conditions broken, unless for some obscure reason yours does allow the use in land you don't have permission.
Even if that was the case, just because your ticket allows it, that still wouldn't give authority to enter and shoot on land you don't have permission of the landowner/holder of sporting rights. The police cannot give authority to shoot on another persons land, they are there to enforce laws, not make them up.

Discharge means an emission... where has the OP said the discharge has taken place? ... On land over which he has permission to shoot.

Your interesting theory about where a discharge commences seems irrelevant, it isn't "discharged" till it leaves the gun.

 

[berg]

Read the Deer Act section 1.3. Also being in a public place with a firearm is not an offence if there's a reasonable excuse, which there clearly is in this case, ALL the way from where the shooter lives/keeps his gun and onto his "permission".

I already answer your question at post #34

please correct me if i am wrong but the welfare of a animale will not stand in court its black and white you do not have permission, it makes the issu of RTA a bit on the grey side

 

[SL6.5]

please correct me if i am wrong but the welfare of a animale will not stand in court its black and white you do not have permission, it makes the issu of RTA a bit on the grey side

??? Two different arguments here now. Section 1.3 of the Deer Act 1991 says nothing in particular about welfare, please read it. And, actually yes, animal welfare can "stand" as a good reason for matters never even having to go to court. Incidentally, there's nothing in the least bit "grey" about dealing with road traffic accidents, providing that is done correctly.

 

[SL6.5]

The reference to Section 1.3 of the Deer Act 1991, is by way of pointing out that our OP made it clear that he has yet to be refused permission and one might reasonably presume that he is thus entitled to the belief that, if he took such a shot, he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it. Which is all he has to be able to say, in the circumstances he outlined.

 

[The tramp]

The reference to Section 1.3 of the Deer Act 1991, is by way of pointing out that our OP made it clear that he has yet to be refused permission and one might reasonably presume that he is thus entitled to the belief that, if he took such a shot, he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it. Which is all he has to be able to say, in the circumstances he outlined.

Yes, IF, it was a welfare issue. But not for a normal, run of the mill stalk 'because it offers cover'

 

[jubnut]

The reference to Section 1.3 of the Deer Act 1991, is by way of pointing out that our OP made it clear that he has yet to be refused permission and one might reasonably presume that he is thus entitled to the belief that, if he took such a shot, he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it. Which is all he has to be able to say, in the circumstances he outlined.

Really? sounds wrong to me.

Surely the boundary is the boundary.

So, by that token If the OP was behind a bush, on land he had no permission to be on 250 yards from the boundary of land he had permission to shoot on and there was a buck grazing he could legally shoot it because he had never asked for permission to be there, so he had never been told he wasn't allowed?

Is what you are saying that Ignorance IS an excuse to commit a crime?

If I wandered in to a supermarket and helped myself to a box of beers and walked out without paying it wouldn't be theft because I didn't ask the manager if I could have them so he didn't say no?

 

[SL6.5]

Really? sounds wrong to me.

Surely the boundary is the boundary.

So, by that token If the OP was behind a bush, on land he had no permission to be on 250 yards from the boundary of land he had permission to shoot on and there was a buck grazing he could legally shoot it because he had never asked for permission to be there, so he had never been told he wasn't allowed?

Is what you are saying that Ignorance IS an excuse to commit a crime?

If I wandered in to a supermarket and helped myself to a box of beers and walked out without paying it wouldn't be theft because I didn't ask the manager if I could have them so he didn't say no?

Eh! NO! That's not what I said at all. You introduced the 250yds and had the shot being taken over ground with no permission to shoot over it, not me. The OP doesn't have anyone shooting over ground he doesn't have permission to shoot over. And I am saying that having a justifiable belief would allow the invocation of clause 1.3, in the actual circumstances outlined.

 

[berg]

It all sounds a bit wrong to me , I would not take any such chances were the law is concerned

 

[jubnut]

Eh! NO! That's not what I said at all. You introduced the 250yds and had the shot being taken over ground with no permission to shoot over it, not me. The OP doesn't have anyone shooting over ground he doesn't have permission to shoot over. And I am saying that having a justifiable belief would allow the invocation of clause 1.3, in the actual circumstances outlined.

I'm still confused. The OP is.

rifle on stile standing off my permission muzzle in my permission
only cover I can use
I do not think it is armed trespass ie public right of way
I will ask landowner for permission
any ideas

He is standing on ground he has yet to ask permission to be on shooting on to land he does have permission to be on. If he is over his boundary what does it matter if it is 6 inches or 250 yards? The boundary is the boundary.

You say.

The reference to Section 1.3 of the Deer Act 1991, is by way of pointing out that our OP made it clear that he has yet to be refused permission and one might reasonably presume that he is thus entitled to the belief that, if he took such a shot, he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it. Which is all he has to be able to say, in the circumstances he outlined.

So. Because he hasn't asked permission, the landowner hasn't said no. So what is the difference if he is 6 inches over the boundary or 250 yards? the boundary is the boundary surely. If you are on the wrong side of it you are breaking the law.

 

[jubnut]

It all sounds a bit wrong to me , I would not take any such chances were the law is concerned

you and me both

 

[private fraser]

Does paint take longer to dry when you are watching it from a stile...discuss.

 

[Taff]

Unless my ticket reads differently to yours the conditions on it clearly and precisely specify which land the vermin and/or deer should be on and over which the shooter may shoot, not where the shooter must be when taking the shot. I think I can safely assure you our original poster is a clever person and fully understands, exactly, what he outlined in the opening post.

I'll have another go at asking my question, with you this time; Please name the offence you think the OP, or anyone doing as the OP suggests, would commit.

mine actually says over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot, note the word shoot and lawfull,
of course mine is a open ticket not like yours.

 

[SL6.5]

I'm still confused. The OP is.



He is standing on ground he has yet to ask permission to be on shooting on to land he does have permission to be on. If he is over his boundary what does it matter if it is 6 inches or 250 yards? The boundary is the boundary.

You say.



So. Because he hasn't asked permission, the landowner hasn't said no. So what is the difference if he is 6 inches over the boundary or 250 yards? the boundary is the boundary surely. If you are on the wrong side of it you are breaking the law.

One pretty major difference is whether or not he would be shooting over land he has a right to shoot over. The OP's bullet would only ever be shot over land it had a right to be shot over. 250yds or even a few feet would of course change that.


And Taff, I see your problem. You jump to unfounded and flawed conclusions. My ticket is fully open, to shoot any other lawful quarry anywhere I have the appropriate authority, whether that authority is granted by the holder of sporting rights or by the law itself.

ps. What offence are you saying someone in the situation described might be charged with?

 

[SL6.5]

If I'm being a bore I'm sorry. Stop asking me questions and I'll stop posting. It was quite interesting though.