Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Estate rifle clause

  1. #1

    Estate rifle clause

    Hi chaps,

    Can some please explain to me the estate rifle clause.

    We have a chap on the estate with a .22 rim fire on his ticket. Can he use one of the estate rifles without it being on his ticket unaccompanied?

    Many thanks

  2. #2
    No he would need to be accompanied or as my Feo quoted at least within earshot ( which I think is rediculas
    )
    www.anglocustomrifle.co.uk
    Anglo deer management and training
    Yet another 7mm 08 user ..................... if Carlsberg made calibers.........................

  3. #3
    Section 16 of the Firearms amendment act 1988 states that 'a rifle may be borrowed, by a person aged 17 or over, from the occupier of private premises and used on those premises in the presence of the occupier or his employee providing the latter holds the appropriate firearm certificate, but the rifle and ammunition can only be used in accordance with the conditions of that certificate.'

    The person borrowing the rifle doesn't need a certificate at all but has to be 'in the presence' of the person who does (specific to the firearm being used). Interpret that how you will !
    Last edited by Tackleberry270; 11-02-2012 at 09:24. Reason: clarification

  4. #4
    A guest using an estate rifle on an accompanied stalk in under the licence and insurance of the F/A holder . Although i believe the written law is vague on the exact detail it is common sence for the F/A holder to be in a position to intervene. so arms length rather than "in earshot". In woodland stalking I walk behind the shoulder of the guest and point out routes/ game ect. On the hill i carry the rifle slipped and the guest comes up to the gun for the shot while i glass the target from immediately to his right so i can check the safety the run of the bolt ect. If the guest is competent i may be further -off left or right in order to see where the strike is and call a second shot if needed. In my experience few police officers are that aquainted with the details of gun law.

  5. #5
    similar to shotgun shooting...when applying for my shotgun ticket I explained that I had joined a sindicate and i was losing days...the said head firearms officer said i can shoot on the sindicate holders license..I said I though you could only shoot on the land owners license...he replied well that is a grey area ...WHAT!! we have 'grey' firearms laws??
    am i the only one that finds that amusing?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by cowsmart View Post
    similar to shotgun shooting...when applying for my shotgun ticket I explained that I had joined a sindicate and i was losing days...the said head firearms officer said i can shoot on the sindicate holders license..I said I though you could only shoot on the land owners license...he replied well that is a grey area ...WHAT!! we have 'grey' firearms laws??
    am i the only one that finds that amusing?
    There are some differences between shotgun and firearm laws. When it comes to the question in this thread the amendment states the 'occupier' not owner of the land. It would be reasonable to interpret this as being applicable to the holder of the sporting rights or perhaps 'syndicate license holder' as much as the land owner.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by cowsmart View Post
    similar to shotgun shooting...when applying for my shotgun ticket I explained that I had joined a sindicate and i was losing days...the said head firearms officer said i can shoot on the sindicate holders license..I said I though you could only shoot on the land owners license...he replied well that is a grey area ...WHAT!! we have 'grey' firearms laws??
    am i the only one that finds that amusing?
    This frequently comes up as I believe there is no case law to define 'the occupier' therefore it is a grey area. Most firearms lawyers or notable authorities on firearms law have offered the oppinion that a holder of the sporting rights can be taken to be the occupier.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by fatbloke View Post
    This frequently comes up as I believe there is no case law to define 'the occupier' therefore it is a grey area. Most firearms lawyers or notable authorities on firearms law have offered the oppinion that a holder of the sporting rights can be taken to be the occupier.
    I looked into this when I was going to mentor a friend and came up against brick walls when trying to clarify this. The police said I had to be a servant of the land owner, well my next door neighbour is a solicitor and he was laughing at that as he was wondering how to interpret that one. I then gave the police a few examples where this wasnt the case, ie when someone who has a stalking buisness takes a client out stalking who doesnt have an FAC and the above clauses wouldnt be able to be applied. Hence to say it was a bit of waffling and a lets not go there situation. Ie just because you have bought shooting rights doesnt make you a servant of the land owner.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by chickenman View Post
    I looked into this when I was going to mentor a friend and came up against brick walls when trying to clarify this. The police said I had to be a servant of the land owner, well my next door neighbour is a solicitor and he was laughing at that as he was wondering how to interpret that one. I then gave the police a few examples where this wasnt the case, ie when someone who has a stalking buisness takes a client out stalking who doesnt have an FAC and the above clauses wouldnt be able to be applied. Hence to say it was a bit of waffling and a lets not go there situation. Ie just because you have bought shooting rights doesnt make you a servant of the land owner.
    This isn't surprising considering other stories of local Police authorities trying to interpret firearms law and Home Office guidelines. Bottom line is it is not your local firearms clerk who you would be answering to if you got taken to court. I prefer to look at the law myself and then the opinion of the legal experts such as Charlie Parkes and John Thornley (Their book, Deer:Law and Liabilities).

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Tackleberry270;324564 I prefer to look at the law myself and then the opinion of the legal experts such as Charlie Parkes and John Thornley (Their book, Deer:Law and Liabilities).[/QUOTE]

    Last summer I went to a legal course given on behalf of the BDS by this redoutable duo.

    I asked the following question: If I put a guest without a FAC on a high seat and I rig up a video link as well as a walkie talkie so that I can see and hear all his movements. (I myself am 500 yards away). Am I within the law? The answer was clear: NO.

    I asked exactly the same question to a High Court judge later in the year. The answer was clear: YES

    No wonder Solicitors and barristers are doing well!

Similar Threads

  1. Carminnows estate
    By MJ75 in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 14-02-2011, 22:20
  2. Warning - Estate Rifle exemption
    By Fallow Follower in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 18-01-2010, 20:56
  3. estate rifle/guest
    By cervushunter in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17-02-2009, 21:27
  4. Variation clause.
    By basil in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 13-01-2009, 13:15
  5. Under 17 using an estate rifle
    By Sam in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19-04-2008, 13:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •