I like your scenario about the .243 rifle but to be absolutely correct in law in order to test fire the rifle as ridiculous as it is, first it would be necessary to sign the rifle on to your certificate.
RFDs have the facility to test fire enshrined in legislation but not individuals. As usual the law is ridiculously complex and unhelpful.
So if read that correctly you are you saying that in the .243 scenario I gave that the owner can loan his rifle to someone
without an FAC on his own ground to shoot (under Sec 16 exemption)
but can't loan his rifle
to an FAC holder on their (the "loanee's") ground?
Because that is not the case.
There are several scenarios where firearms can be used in the presence of the owner and FAC holder by other FAC holders
RFD's have the facility to sign firearms onto and off their register permanently or temporarily, with that "holding" comes the right to possess and by default the right to fire but only in the course of their business.
Using a firearm for personal use that is held under RFD certification is an offence. (however it would be very hard to prove what is "test firing" for business purposes and what is "plinking" because he fancied seeing what the kick on a 416 Rigby was like!)
Your above scenario would also preclude any prospective buyer from firing a rifle on the property of a dealer/RFD as they would not have the RFD certification to cover that personally.
That is not the case either and several dealers advertise that prospective buyers can test their prospective rifle at their ranges.
RFD and Rifle manufactures produce promotional videos of well known shooters shooting their (the RFD's/Manufacturer's/Importer's) firearms in a variety of places.
The shooters in question do not own or have personal authority to possess those firearms.
Equally there is no restriction from a range member allowing another FAC holder (member or not dependant on the Range orders) from using their rifle at a range day, under supervision of the owner/holder.
Any more than there is a restriction to a non FAC holder shooting the same rifle under the same conditions on a range or on an estate under the "estate rifle" clause (which is their specifically to cover non FAC holders but by implication and in the absence of specification and exemption for FAC holders is not required.)
I have personally fired a former police (firearms) officer and RCO's firearm on a military range under his watchful eye. Now that is not proof that a law was not broken but this particular chap is a stickler for the rules, range and law.
The possession and authority to shoot on specific ground is still different.
The shooter needs to have authority to shoot on the property whether direct or indirect in the case of a lease holder be able to bring guests
I totally agree that there are specific exceptions of Sec 16, but they are there entirely for FAC holders loaning non FAC holders a rifle on ground/property the FAC holder has authority to shoot on.
But that doesn't apply here.
The OP is a holder and doesn't indicate desire to shoot.
if you can show me a specific line in the firearms act that says an FAC holder can not shoot another FAC holders rifle where the ground authority has been confirmed I will eat my words.
Yes , which is why we gave the answers we did !!
Well then I can only assume it must be down to a misunderstanding of the scenario and how it applies to the Firearms Act
Simple answer No. You will need permission to shoot and also the necessary condition on your certificate if it isn't an open certificate.
Were you thinking of using the estate rifle exemption? It would not apply under the circumstances you describe.
This is the legal, correct answer.
Your affirmation of a statement that the Op would need permission to shoot and questioning the use of the Estate Rifle clause (which is actually better referred to as "Sec 16 Exemptions") doesn't answer the question or provide the OP with any info
He did not detail he is looking to shoot
He has an FAC
Neither of which require him to have any conditions (for what I am not sure as that is not clear in the statement you replied to) or new authority applied to his FAC, nor does it bring any of Sec 16 into play
We seriously over think this sometimes
This is as bad as confusing good reason to own a particular cartridge/rifle with ability to shoot "non good reason" quarry. Shooting a crow with your 300wm deer rifle for example
or shooting Fox with a .22lr
or listening to FEOs when they say you can't have a .243 for fox only,
or can't have a 308 for deer and fox
or any other misinterpretation of a badly structured, poorly worded piece of law!