Is this legal ?

Craggy

Well-Known Member
Advice please

i have a piece of land with permission to shoot on.
problem is, I have not got an open ticket and the land
Is not passed of by the police.

I only shoot shot gun on there.
Now I want to zero my riffle, am I allowed to do this with my mate who has an open ticket?


with thanks
craggy
 
In theory, and I'd check with BASC, (I presume that you are a BASC Member) there is a way that you might be able to do this, via the Estate Rifle legislation.

You are the occupier of the land as you have the shooting rights. Your friend can, as your guest, use your rifle to shoot on the land under the Estate Rifle legislation.

Now, where it is a "grey" area is on him having to shoot a test group (with the Estate Rifle) to show that he is competent to shoot a deer and, if necessay at that time to adjust the rifle to shoot to required point of aim.

I would however seek definitive advise on this and NOT take my advice on it!
 
I don't think you are allowed to do that, so check with mr plod/basc
shooting rights aren't the same thing as shooting permission
 
if he has an open ticket and is using your rifle on your land then I can't see any reason stopping HIM zeroing the rifle.

He is using it lawfully in your company
he can shoot on the ground as he has an open ticket

That doesnt help you much though


a mockery of a stupid system
 
I think what you suggest may be illegal. I don't see that an open cert holder being present changes anything. The reality is that you have not got an open certificate and the land is not passed. As it stands you can only either ask for the land to be approved, ask for an open cert or zero elsewhere. I think your mate would only be legal if the rifle were on his ticket as well or is on your ticket as an estate rifle.
Sorry but I would hate you to get into hot water
 
Enfield, using the estate rifle clause means that the person shooting is bound by the same conditions as the FAC holder. If the FAC holder can't shoot over the land then nobody can do so using the estate rifle clause.

Bewsher, again, the relevant conditions are those on the FAC that the weapon is held under, NOT the FAC of the shooter! It makes no difference if your mate has an open ticket, unless the weapon is actually included on it. The only way around it is if he has an RFD ticket with a right to test weapons, then he can fire anything on it. Otherwise what Bewsher and Enfieldspares suggest is entirely illegal.

Srvet, almost correct, except there is no such thing as "an estate rifle". The "estate rifle clause" allows someone to use a weapon under the supervision of the holder, but as above it's under the same conditions as the holders FAC. You can share a rifle on several FAC's, but the conditions of use are still those on the FAC of the individual user supervising.

The only way you can use the rifle on the land is to either get the land cleared, get the restrictive land condition removed from your certificate or get the weapon added to the certificate of someone who has the less restrictive land condition ("open" certificate) and then use it under their supervision.
 
Last edited:
Does everyone have an automatic estate rifle clause? I was under the impression that if I wanted the facility for others to use one of my rifles then I would have to apply for that variation to be on my certificate. I had assumed that the facility would probably be for one of my rifles but not all How does it work and what level of supervision is needed. Could I set someone up in a high seat with the 'estate rifle' whilst I was in another or should I be sitting dutifully under the ladder?
 
It has nothing to do with the individual firearm holder or their certificate. The "estate rifle" clause is written in to legislation. Anyone 17 years old or older (if the borrower is 17, the lender must be 18 or older) can borrow, and use, any section 1 weapon held on an FAC, under the supervision of the FAC holder.

The relevant legislation is here:- Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988

There is much discussion about who can avail themselves of the clause.

"Occupier or servant of the occupier" is the first point of contention. The thinking seems to be that someone who holds shooting rights on the land (in writing to be safe) can rightfully claim to be an occupier.

"Servant of the occupier" is usually taken to mean one who is in "the normal employ" of the occupier, such as a gamekeeper or other employee.

Note that 1.B states that the firearm is used according to the conditions on the holders FAC.

The conditions states that the borrowing must take place "in the presence of" the FAC holder for the relevant rifle. "In the presence of" is usually taken to mean "in sight and earshot", although I'm not aware of any legal precedent on this.

So yes, it CAN apply to any weapon held on a S1 FAC (there is no such allowance for S5 weapons, or S2 either. You can lend someone a 30-06, but not a S2 12 bore. You can however lend a high capacity (S1) 12 bore!)

There is no such thing as an "estate clause" on a FAC. It is not something that can be "applied for".

I hope that kind of clarifies it.

BASC have a useful fact sheet on it.

https://www.basc.org.uk/download.cfm/docid/DB12FC55-AA2C-4E12-B87529F5D17C4E2F
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with the individual firearm holder or their certificate. The "estate rifle" clause is written in to legislation. Anyone 17 years old or older (if the borrower is 17, the lender must be 18 or older) can borrow, and use, any section 1 weapon held on an FAC, under the supervision of the FAC holder.

The relevant legislation is here:- Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988

There is much discussion about who can avail themselves of the clause.

"Occupier or servant of the occupier" is the first point of contention. The thinking seems to be that someone who holds shooting rights on the land (in writing to be safe) can rightfully claim to be an occupier.

"Servant of the occupier" is usually taken to mean one who is in "the normal employ" of the occupier, such as a gamekeeper or other employee.

Note that 1.B states that the firearm is used according to the conditions on the holders FAC.

The conditions states that the borrowing must take place "in the presence of" the FAC holder for the relevant rifle. "In the presence of" is usually taken to mean "in sight and earshot", although I'm not aware of any legal precedent on this.

So yes, it CAN apply to any weapon held on a S1 FAC (there is no such allowance for S5 weapons, or S2 either. You can lend someone a 30-06, but not a S2 12 bore. You can however lend a high capacity (S1) 12 bore!)

There is no such thing as an "estate clause" on a FAC. It is not something that can be "applied for".

I hope that kind of clarifies it.

BASC have a useful fact sheet on it.

https://www.basc.org.uk/download.cfm/docid/DB12FC55-AA2C-4E12-B87529F5D17C4E2F

The flaw in all the assumptions made about the 'estate rifle' exemption and it's applicability is that there is no definition of the 'occupier' in firearms law. The suggestion in Section 6.14 of the HO Guidance is that this may be interpreted by the Chief Constable as someone who has or holds the shooting rights.

Usually the shooting rights belong to the Estate or landowner. Someone who has permission to shoot is merely assigned temporary use of those rights, but the legal rights remain in the ownership of the landholder. In firearms matters courts take a much narrower view of rights, and assert a greater duty on those who claim the right to exercise them. We've all seen this in punitive sentences handed out for quite trivial breaches of Conditions on Firearms Certificates.

For most statutes the court takes the common law definition which is someone who exercises a sufficient degree of control over who is allowed to enter the land or premises.

This is established as fact in occupiers liability cases where injury to the public or damage occurs. The courts have held here that the 'occupier' in law is the landlord, the tenant, the land manager, a local authority, the Forestry Commission, or even a tenant farmer on LA land. Clearly, these same individuals or organisations actually hold the shooting rights over their land, so could be regarded by the Court as the true 'occupier' in firearms law.

I'm only making the point that the individuals or organisations which are defined as having the correct legal status & obligations in that area of law at least, are much higher in the pecking order than sportsmen who are just shooting on the land. The case of a genuine sporting estate with clients and employee gamekeepers or stalkers clearly fits that same definition of 'the occupier'.
 
Someone who has permission to shoot is merely assigned temporary use of those rights, but the legal rights remain in the ownership of the landholder.

This is the argument about lease or tenancy (of rights in land) being exclusive is it not?

That the lessor of sporting rights, if he has the right to exclude the landlord from exercising those rights, if even for one day of his lease, has exclusive possession. Which may be different from him having just a "permission" which is a form of licence that does not give exclusive possession.
 
If someone has the "right to shoot" on land as and when they deem nessesary, then can it not be argued that at any time they may occupy the land for the purpose of shooting and therefore would be classed as an occupier? In theory if they have permission to be on the land at any time then they could choose not to leave and actually occupy the land indeffinatly? However, the estate rifle clause does not state that the occupier be full or part time. Again, it is another gun law which was ill thought out at the time of implimenting.
 
Another question would be to ask exactly how many people are pressecuted for misuse of the estate rifle clause?
 
No it's not legal - you need to either get an open ticket or get the land cleared by the police. Your ticket at the moment probably says something like "land deemed suitable by the chief of police, and on which the licence holder has lawful authority to shoot"... It's not cleared so you can't zero there.
 
Here we go.... ...the estate rifle clause raises its head again. There is always some very assertive speculation surrounding the law on this subject but does anyone really know how the judicial system would interpret the law?
 
No it's not legal - you need to either get an open ticket or get the land cleared by the police. Your ticket at the moment probably says something like "land deemed suitable by the chief of police, and on which the licence holder has lawful authority to shoot"... It's not cleared so you can't zero there.

I've utterly failed to get my point across, but TB270 and BunnyDoom has brought this thread back to earth. IMO the point about an 'open' or 'closed' authorisation for rifle use isn't relevant here. It might be, but there are still decisive questions.

(A) Craggy hasn't actually said that he has permission to shoot whatever rifle is on his FAC over this land. He says only that he has 'permission to shoot' :rolleyes:

(B) He may only have permission for vermin/pigeon/game shooting (he hasn't said which?) with the shotgun on his SGC. What is this permission to shoot exactly? Does it include Deer for instance. Is it verbal (so deniable) or is it written?

(C) Whatever his mate's FAC situation is (we don't know of course) the aforesaid has no rights on the land whatsoever. Is Craggy allowed to take out a guest? Is it as an observer or an armed pal? If Cragg hasn't got the right sort of consent, and the pal turns up tooled-up then it's maybe an offence of armed trespass.

(D) Again - why is the 'estate rifle' clutching at straws idea mentioned? It's an exemption for NON-FAC holders, and AFAIK has never been defined by any court.

The BASC interpretation may be all hogwash. This outfit are out to enlist members, so you have to look at their advice on that basis. If you instructed your own solicitor on a 'no win - no fee' basis to wring a trial definition of this out of the Crown Court (should the police helicopter turn up on a mystery complaint of armed desperados endangering/alarming the public) then you might have some idea of what this justifies.

I haven't seen any case law on this, if someone has some (BASC INCLUDED) do post it here.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be simpler just to get the land cleared by the FLD if they need to and get the FAC amended to include this? atb Tim
 
Wouldn't it be simpler just to get the land cleared by the FLD if they need to and get the FAC amended to include this? atb Tim
Tim, I think you have it in one simple answer ( He doesen't have an open ticket, then GET ONE!!!!! thank goodness for clear advice
 
Enfield, using the estate rifle clause means that the person shooting is bound by the same conditions as the FAC holder. If the FAC holder can't shoot over the land then nobody can do so using the estate rifle clause.

where is that written?

not trying to be contrary but.... none of this is written in law - de facto.
There is no case law in respect of this.
An awful lot of firearms law is assumed or interpreted. Like the .22lr vs Fox debate. never tested in law or written definition precluding "fox" from the vermin category or solely prosecuting anyone for shooting a fox with a .22

Happy to be corrected but the aspect above applies if the borrower does not hold an FAC.
If the borrower holds their own FAC then they have their own set of conditions. (i.e. they are shooting a rifle under one aspect (estate rifle) and shooting on that ground under a entirely separate one (open ticket)).

For argument sake lets say the FAC holder has a 243 conditioned 1b - fox,
the guest also has a 243 conditioned 1c - fox and deer
The FAC holder has legal authority to shoot deer and bring guests onto land to shoot deer
the guest arrives and shoots a deer with the FAC holder's 243.
did he break the law?
I don't think so.

the issue is the distinction between authority to shoot on the ground and the FAC conditions, one does not usurp the other when different people are involved

If the guest by way of invitation has authority to shoot on the ground what rifle he uses under his open ticket comes down to who he is with and what he brings with him surely?

but everyone else is right. stop messing around and get an open ticket or the land cleared!
 
Whether the person doing the borrowing has an FAC or not is entirely irrelevant. The conditions that pertain are those on the FAC of the person doing the lending. It says so in the legislation. It is not open to interpretation.

Holding an FAC does not entitle you to shoot weapons not held on your FAC. There is no way you can borrow an FAC weapon and take it away on your own, you always have to be under the supervision of the person who has that particular weapon entered on their FAC.

So the answer to your question Bewsh, is emphatically YES.
 
Back
Top