Question for RFD's

Speak to Rakers (Darren) - there's a sect 5 dealer/gunsmith in pulborough I'm told
 
Last edited:
I believe (correct me if wrong) that that is not allowed unless the rifle in question is on both tickets or at a range.

I believe that bewsher is refering to taking advantage of the estate rifle rule which can be used if you abide by the rules. Using someone elses rifle on a rifle range is taking advantage of Home Office approval so doesn't apply to all ranges and under all circumstances. Being section 5 things are entirely different and some people read it that section 5 approval is required to simply handle the gun. I don't know if that is absolutely true but better to be safe than sorry.
 
Question: if a section 1 gunsmith has the equipment, can they re-black a section 5 if the licence holder is on site in person?

NO the law is based on possession and that means holding it. So no s5 authority no holding it according to section 5 of the act which at subsection 1 says;

"A person commits an offence if, without the authority of the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers (by virtue of provision made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998), he has in his possession, or purchases or acquires, or manufactures, sells or transfers—"

it then lists all the prohibited weapons.
 
Last edited:
why not?
is it any different from firing someone's rifle in their company?

Of course it is....The law works differently for each category of firearm and allows you to hold a rifle under the terms given by section 16 of the 1988 act and it only applies to "rifles". The club exemption also allows possession and use in certain circumstsnces only whilst target shooting at a club. other types of firearm such as section 1 shotguns or long barrelled pistols cannot be held under club or section 16 exemptions. the law might appear stupid but it is the law.
 
Last edited:
hang on a minute..."Holding" does not mean "in one's hands"

"To hold" is "to possess, to own"

Borrowed rifles on private premises
6.16 Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a
person to borrow a rifle from the occupier
of private premises and to use it on those
premises in the presence of either the
occupier or their servant without holding a
firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It
should be noted that this gives slightly more
flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than
is permissible with the use of a shot gun
as described in paragraph 6.14, in that the
borrowed rifle can also be used in the
presence of the servant of the occupier.
However, the occupier and/or their servant
must hold a firearm certificate in respect of
the firearm being used, and the borrower,
who must be accompanied by the certificate
holder (whether it is the occupier or their
servant), must comply with the conditions
of the certificate. These may include a
safekeeping requirement and, in some cases,
territorial restrictions. Section 57(4) of the
1968 Act defines “premises” as including any
land. The effect of the provision is to allow
a person visiting a private estate to borrow
and use a rifle without a certificate. The
exemption does not extend to persons under
the age of 17 or to other types of firearm.
There is no notification required on the
loan of a firearm under these circumstances.
A borrowed rifle should not be specifically
identified as such on a “keeper’s” or
“landowner’s” firearm certificate. The term
“in the presence of” is not defined in law
but is generally interpreted as being within
sight and earshot.

If I take my rifle round to my mates house and he helps me strip it and rebuild it in my presence he is committing no more crime or contravention than he would be if I allowed him to shoot a rabbit whilst out on my granted land.

So long as he is with the rifle at all times I am struggling to see an issue here

Edit: should have read more carefully. above is true with regard to section 1 but I had not taken in the section 5 aspect.
can't comment on that but think there are distinct similarities
 
Last edited:
hang on a minute..."Holding" does not mean "in one's hands"

"To hold" is "to possess, to own"

Borrowed rifles on private premises
6.16 Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a
person to borrow a rifle from the occupier
of private premises and to use it on those
premises in the presence of either the
occupier or their servant without holding a
firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It
should be noted that this gives slightly more
flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than
is permissible with the use of a shot gun
as described in paragraph 6.14, in that the
borrowed rifle can also be used in the
presence of the servant of the occupier.
However, the occupier and/or their servant
must hold a firearm certificate in respect of
the firearm being used, and the borrower,
who must be accompanied by the certificate
holder (whether it is the occupier or their
servant), must comply with the conditions
of the certificate. These may include a
safekeeping requirement and, in some cases,
territorial restrictions. Section 57(4) of the
1968 Act defines “premises” as including any
land. The effect of the provision is to allow
a person visiting a private estate to borrow
and use a rifle without a certificate. The
exemption does not extend to persons under
the age of 17 or to other types of firearm.
There is no notification required on the
loan of a firearm under these circumstances.
A borrowed rifle should not be specifically
identified as such on a “keeper’s” or
“landowner’s” firearm certificate. The term
“in the presence of” is not defined in law
but is generally interpreted as being within
sight and earshot.

If I take my rifle round to my mates house and he helps me strip it and rebuild it in my presence he is committing no more crime or contravention than he would be if I allowed him to shoot a rabbit whilst out on my granted land.

So long as he is with the rifle at all times I am struggling to see an issue here

Edit: should have read more carefully. above is true with regard to section 1 but I had not taken in the section 5 aspect.
can't comment on that but think there are distinct similarities

Mr Perring's right here - Most section 5 dealers will not even allow you to hold a pistol until they've entered it onto your ticket! Section 5 law is very different from section 1 - there was a chap convicted near where I used to live for handing in a sawn off shotgun - Man's suspended jail term for 'handing in weapon' - News - getsurrey - the police argued he'd had a section 5 firearm in his posession (under length) and that carrying it down to the station constituted illegal possession as he could have just called them out! Hmmm....!
 
Bunnydoom I agree with what you are saying but I think you may have picked a bad example there. There was probably more to that case than some of the reports suggest.
 
Slightly off topic re section 5 but Would the term "servant" apply to, for example someone given permission to shoot rabbits (pest control) or would this have to be someone employed by the land owner, such as a keeper?
 
Bunnydoom I agree with what you are saying but I think you may have picked a bad example there. There was probably more to that case than some of the reports suggest.

Agreed - I was actually trying to find a similar case where a guy handed in a handgun he found in his bin but google kept bringing up that one! Lazy me basically! ;)
 
Slightly off topic re section 5 but Would the term "servant" apply to, for example someone given permission to shoot rabbits (pest control) or would this have to be someone employed by the land owner, such as a keeper?

I was told servant was someone under instruction (paid or unpaid) - if you ever do a risk assessment you'll see that by law there is no distiction between paid and unpaid workers
 
hang on a minute..."Holding" does not mean "in one's hands"

"To hold" is "to possess, to own"

Borrowed rifles on private premises
6.16 Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a
person to borrow a rifle from the occupier
of private premises and to use it on those
premises in the presence of either the
occupier or their servant without holding a
firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It
should be noted that this gives slightly more
flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than
is permissible with the use of a shot gun
as described in paragraph 6.14, in that the
borrowed rifle can also be used in the
presence of the servant of the occupier.
However, the occupier and/or their servant
must hold a firearm certificate in respect of
the firearm being used, and the borrower,
who must be accompanied by the certificate
holder (whether it is the occupier or their
servant), must comply with the conditions
of the certificate. These may include a
safekeeping requirement and, in some cases,
territorial restrictions. Section 57(4) of the
1968 Act defines “premises” as including any
land. The effect of the provision is to allow
a person visiting a private estate to borrow
and use a rifle without a certificate. The
exemption does not extend to persons under
the age of 17 or to other types of firearm.
There is no notification required on the
loan of a firearm under these circumstances.
A borrowed rifle should not be specifically
identified as such on a “keeper’s” or
“landowner’s” firearm certificate. The term
“in the presence of” is not defined in law
but is generally interpreted as being within
sight and earshot.

If I take my rifle round to my mates house and he helps me strip it and rebuild it in my presence he is committing no more crime or contravention than he would be if I allowed him to shoot a rabbit whilst out on my granted land.

So long as he is with the rifle at all times I am struggling to see an issue here

Edit: should have read more carefully. above is true with regard to section 1 but I had not taken in the section 5 aspect.
can't comment on that but think there are distinct similarities

Barest custody is something which may happen i.e. you go to a mates house and express interest in shooting and he shows you his shotgun and allows you to hold it briefly to gauge weight and explain its operation etc. Secion 5 is a very different kettle of fish otherwise RFD's woudl nto need a S5 authoroty to hold it to repair whilst the owner is standing in his presence. Also to repair a gun or hold it albeit breifly for some other reason in connection with the dealership would not be barest custody.
 
Last edited:
Mr Perring's right here - Most section 5 dealers will not even allow you to hold a pistol until they've entered it onto your ticket! Section 5 law is very different from section 1 - there was a chap convicted near where I used to live for handing in a sawn off shotgun - Man's suspended jail term for 'handing in weapon' - News - getsurrey - the police argued he'd had a section 5 firearm in his posession (under length) and that carrying it down to the station constituted illegal possession as he could have just called them out! Hmmm....!

the Surrey case was prosecuted as he held onto it for some time before he took it into the polcie station. He had moved the item which ruined any evidence they might have found (DNA etc) to establish where it had come from and to see whether it had been used in crime to be able to close cases, the polcie get sore when they lose opportunities. In essence if you find, call the police immediately and dont touch.
 
6.16 section 16(1) of the act enables a person to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle.

Surely if you take your rifle round your mates house and let him handle it as bewsher500 suggests the above does not apply as he is not on the premises of the person lending the rifle?

Ian.
 
6.16 section 16(1) of the act enables a person to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle.

Surely if you take your rifle round your mates house and let him handle it as bewsher500 suggests the above does not apply as he is not on the premises of the person lending the rifle?

Ian.

I was thinking about that as well
If you use your rifle on a farm that you don't own but have permission then you do so with authority
what if your mate has given you permission to bring your rifle in his house

same authority?
 
I was thinking about that as well
If you use your rifle on a farm that you don't own but have permission then you do so with authority
what if your mate has given you permission to bring your rifle in his house

same authority?

One of those grey areas i think mate, where a correct interpretation of the law would be needed.

Ian.
 
Back
Top