Bullets crossing boundaries

[JTO]

Simple question, or is it. I am standing on the riverbank. I own the riverbank so I have the right to be there. I pick up a flat stone and skim it. It goes well and lands on the far bank. What offence have I committed. I have sent an object with velocity onto a neighbours property. It is inert. It cannot move without some external force doing so. The chances of the neighbour finding a nd recognising it as a foreign object are slim.
How many of us have tucked up in a hedge waiting for that buck to come out the neighbours wood into our field. Oh deer, I cannot shoot you as my bullet will land safely in the wood.

"Stops and beaters, oft unseen,
Lurk behind some leafy screen,
Calm and steady always be,
Never shoot where you can't see."

 

[Harry mac]

Now then. What if I am a dodgilly quoiffured Asian leader, I discharge my (legally owned) ballistic missile from my own land; it then passes over my neighbour's land, and then comes to rest in a body of water which nobody owns. Have I committed an offence?

 

[Irish Bob]

It's trespass. Constructive trespass is something else.

 

[kes]

Watching this debate I am genuinely surprised that the question arose in the first place. If you know your bullet will pass through an animal and traverse land (for whatever distance), land you have never visited or therefore 'know', in my view you have no backstop.
Change your position or leave well alone, ask the neighbour for permission to shoot across his boundary after first visiting and checking where bullets would end up. I have said it earlier and apologise for repeating it, a rifle bullet passing across any boundary may only qualify in law as 'trespass', for me its reckless, dangerous and therefore should never happen.

 

[jimbo123p]

Who removed the safe backstop from the debate? It's gone from a sensible debate to unsafe shooting. No one condones unsafe practices.

 

[tikka_madras]

Now then. What if I am a dodgilly quoiffured Asian leader, I discharge my (legally owned) ballistic missile from my own land; it then passes over my neighbour's land, and then comes to rest in a body of water which nobody owns. Have I committed an offence?

As with such things, the authorities tend to react without full recourse to the letter of the law; an even more dodgily coiffed American leader might, for example, decide to revoke your breathing certificate first as a safety measure and then let the courts sort it out later if necessary

 

[kes]

Who removed the safe backstop from the debate? It's gone from a sensible debate to unsafe shooting. No one condones unsafe practices.

How can you have a safe backstop if you haven't walked the land; or are we talking trespass here?

 

[nun_hunter]

How can you have a safe backstop if you haven't walked the land; or are we talking trespass here?

What would you do on an unaccompanied stalk on new ground? Say BASC Arran scheme type thing?

Surely you look where you believe the bullet is going to end up and then decide if it's safe or not?

 

[kes]

What would you do on an unaccompanied stalk on new ground? Say BASC Arran scheme type thing?

Surely you look where you believe the bullet is going to end up and then decide if it's safe or not?

I wouldnt take a shot unaccompanied unless I had previously walked the land.

 

[tarponhead]

Watching this debate I am genuinely surprised that the question arose in the first place. If you know your bullet will pass through an animal and traverse land (for whatever distance), land you have never visited or therefore 'know', in my view you have no backstop.
Change your position or leave well alone, ask the neighbour for permission to shoot across his boundary after first visiting and checking where bullets would end up. I have said it earlier and apologise for repeating it, a rifle bullet passing across any boundary may only qualify in law as 'trespass', for me its reckless, dangerous and therefore should never happen.

+1

 

[User00021]

These types of thread never cease to amaze me when considering the scrutiny shooting sports are under. Lawful or not slinging a bullet over the boundary is a bad practice which will eventually result in a life changing event for someone and further regulation for the rest of us. After all that is the reason the airgun rule came about.

 

[countrryboy]

I wouldnt take a shot unaccompanied unless I had previously walked the land.

I find that quite a strange thing to say.

I really don't know wot difference walking the land will make, can u honestly say u can walk ground and then remember inch perfect where every stone and potential hazard is weeks/months/years later? and in 3d from every conceivable angle u may take a shot in the future?
Even walking the ground can u tell how many stones are lying beneath the surface unseen? (I have a fair bit of experience fencing by hand pinching and swinging mel's and sometimes I'm still surprised by stones underground where I didn't expect them)

Yes by all means be safe and walk the ground and fair play to u if u insist on it, I dare say it depends on ur own experience/comfort but also the type of ground and location.

Its really all a matter of applying some common sense, but no 2 shots are ever really the same so u just have to weigh every single shot up and make sure ur happy with the safety/backstop plus a fair bit of room for error too.


Threads like this don't do an awful lot of good as everyone is talking about slightly different hypothetical shot/circumstances, I'm sure if u walked most of us throu a pretend shot (like dsc1 styley) in person the vast majority would agree wether it was safe or not (or at least I'd hope so)