shooting from a stile yes or no

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

The Firearms Act was amended to get by the public places clause, like Forestry commission woodlands which are all under CRoW and allow the public free access. Without this condition you would be breaking the law by having a firearm in a public place, loaded or not but now you have just reason under the act.

Carrying firearms in a public place (section 19 of the 1968 Act)22.15 Section 19 of the 1968 Act makes it an offence to have in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on the accused) a loaded shotgun, an air weapon (whether loaded or not), any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm, or an imitation firearm.
22.16 Section 57(6) of the 1968 Act includes a definition of “loaded” in relation to shotguns and air weapons. An air weapon is to be treated as loaded if there is ammunition in the chamber or barrel or in any magazine or other device which is in such a position that the ammunition can be fed into the chamber or barrel by the manual or automatic operation of some part of the gun or weapon.185 Guide on Firearms Licensing Law
22.17 The definition of a “public place” in section 57(4) of the 1968 Act is the same as that in section 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, specifically “any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise”. For Scotland, the word “highway” in the definition of “public place” in section 57(4) has been deleted and replaced by “road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)”.

I think in answer to the original question if a person stood in a field where he wasn't the holder of the shooting rights, on a public footpath with his gun resting on the stile pointing over his permission then according to the law he would be guilty of armed trespass. If you shoot from a path situated on somebody else’s land (regardless of who owns
the rights to shoot on the land you are shooting into) it is taken to be armed trespass which is a criminal offence. It also says, Persons using a right of way are prohibited from loitering or using it for purposes other than a reasonable use.

Good question at the start but only one answer, don't do it and risk your licence as anything against you relating to firearms will result in you losing it straight away or when it comes up for renewal and the question have you been convicted or cautioned for any offence.
 
This thread is turning in to a Joke!

It is armed trespass under section 20 Firearms act 1968

See last paragraph on page 2 of the BASC guidance https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=49

or look at the firearms act Firearms Act 1968

If in any doubt as your FEO and watch him/her laugh

You WILL also breach your conditions on your FAC as even with an open ticket you DO NOT have authority, neither given nor implied to shoot from that land. Whilst it may be a public right of way, the land on which it is situated is still owned as are the sporting/shooting rights by another party, from whom you do NOT have permission to shoot!

What is complicated about it?
 
This thread is turning in to a Joke!

It is armed trespass under section 20 Firearms act 1968

See last paragraph on page 2 of the BASC guidance https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=49

or look at the firearms act Firearms Act 1968

If in any doubt as your FEO and watch him/her laugh

You WILL also breach your conditions on your FAC as even with an open ticket you DO NOT have authority, neither given nor implied to shoot from that land. Whilst it may be a public right of way, the land on which it is situated is still owned as are the sporting/shooting rights by another party, from whom you do NOT have permission to shoot!

What is complicated about it?

Nonsense! Read your own links. It is only armed trespass if done without reasonable excuse. And that is all there is to it. It says exactly that in both the law and the BASC advice.
 
Nonsense! Read your own links. It is only armed trespass if done without reasonable excuse. And that is all there is to it. It says exactly that in both the law and the BASC advice.
What exactly would the reasonable excuse be then?
 
Forget permissions and shooting rights, the law says regardless of who owns the shooting rights it is still a criminal offence to be on any public land with a firearm,loaded or not without a reasonable excuse.
If the Police were called by a member of the public who was using the footpath, it would be an armed response unit that would attend and when they ask the question do you have permission to be in possession of a firearm on this land and you replied you haven't but the landowner would probably give it to you then you would be going for a ride with nice shiny bracelets on back to the nick.
If the landowner turned up and said he would have given you permission there is still the fact that you were loitering in a public place without a reasonable excuse as the reason given at the beginning would not be deemed a reasonable excuse.

I think David from Basc needs to clarify this matter if people believe they would get away with this as I am sure Basc would not represent anybody in court when they already advise people not to do this.
 
Nonsense! Read your own links. It is only armed trespass if done without reasonable excuse. And that is all there is to it. It says exactly that in both the law and the BASC advice.

Reasonable excuse in law will not include "because I couldn't stalk it on my land" - How much time have you spent in a court of law? (as opposed to google)
 
Forget permissions and shooting rights, the law says regardless of who owns the shooting rights it is still a criminal offence to be on any public land with a firearm,loaded or not without a reasonable excuse.
If the Police were called by a member of the public who was using the footpath, it would be an armed response unit that would attend and when they ask the question do you have permission to be in possession of a firearm on this land and you replied you haven't but the landowner would probably give it to you then you would be going for a ride with nice shiny bracelets on back to the nick.
If the landowner turned up and said he would have given you permission there is still the fact that you were loitering in a public place without a reasonable excuse as the reason given at the beginning would not be deemed a reasonable excuse.

I think David from Basc needs to clarify this matter if people believe they would get away with this as I am sure Basc would not represent anybody in court when they already advise people not to do this.

reasonable adj., adv. in law, just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.

It would be as "rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual" to access one's shooting ground by an immediately adjacent public right of way as it would be to use the public highway. Crossing any other land in England & Wales would presumably require landowner consent. However the crossing of other land is not the particular circumstance outlined in the OP.

By Mr, Fudd's argument one cannot even use the public highway to transport one's guns, which is clearly not a reasonable point of view.
 
Using prw for access is no problem at all. You're talking about using it to wait on with a loaded rifle and shoot from into land which you have permission to shoot. In law there is a whole world of difference.
 
Using prw for access is no problem at all. You're talking about using it to wait on with a loaded rifle and shoot from into land which you have permission to shoot. In law there is a whole world of difference.

Please explain this whole world of difference.
 
Yes please because No it isn't and No it hasn't. Lots of unfounded assertion has been and that seems to be about it from the nay-sayers.

last post on the subject as I really can't believe you're seriously in any doubt that it's a no go situation. But in any case you are please read the following document (I especially like the part that says 'if you shoot from a path situated on somebody else's land (regardless of who owns the shooting rights to shoot on the land you are shooting into) it is taken to be armed trespass which is a criminal offence.')

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=49
 
I've followed most of the posts in this debate, but have occasionally had to work, walk the dog, eat, and sleep ! So I may have missed some crucial admission by the original poster in the half dozen contributions I haven't read - if so, please forgive me. BUT quite a number of contributors accuse him of planning armed trespass because he doesn't have permission from the owner of the land adjoining his permission, from which he intends to shoot. Yet in the original post he says that he will ask the owner's permission (I presume before rather than after !)
Assuming that consent is given, it surely can't be 'armed trespass'.

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
 
Last edited:
I've followed most of the posts in this debate, but have occasionally had to work, walk the dog, eat, and sleep ! So I may have missed some crucial admission by the original poster in the half dozen contributions I haven't read - if so, please forgive me. BUT quite a number of contributors accuse him of planning armed trespass because he doesn't have permission from the owner of the land adjoining his permission, from which he intends to shoot. Yet in the original post he says that he will ask the owner's permission (I presume before rather than after !)
Assuming that consent is given, it surely can't be 'armed trespass'.

You are correct. IF consent is given, then there is no issue here at all.
But, as he states 'off my permission' then one must assume that he doesn't have permission for the land the path is on.
 
Back
Top