Can a friend use my rifle on his permission?.

[Steve WY]

Morning all
Hopefully some kind sole could offer some advice .
A friend has a permission which he shoots day time only and clears the odd rabbit or two, however he would now like to give night shooting a go but at the moment doesn’t have a NV scope. I have a .22 LR with NV set up and would happily lend him this provided of course that this would be legal and above board, my concern is that at the moment I have a closed ticket ( his is open) so the question is can he borrow my rifle to use on his perm?.

The easy solution would of course to just lend him my NV scope but that would then mean me having to teach him how to set up and use the scope and also having to re- zero back onto my rifle.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[jall55]

Nope mate

 

[Rory]

Unless it is on his certificate, he cannot be in possession of it.

 

[Steve WY]

Ok guys, thanks for the quick replies, much appreciated .

 

[WalkedUp]

No, you would need to have permission and be in supervision. Probably easier for him to come with you on a night on your land to use the rifle then he can decide.

 

[Steve WY]

No, you would need to have permission and be in supervision. Probably easier for him to come with you on a night on your land to use the rifle then he can decide.

Thanks WalkedUp
So if I had his landowner’s permission and accompanied him then that would be deemed acceptable?. Would this need to be in writing?.

 

[VSS]

Thanks WalkedUp
So if I had his landowner’s permission and accompanied him then that would be deemed acceptable?. Would this need to be in writing?.

If you had an open FAC, or if his ground is cleared for your calibre, then yes.

 

[User00047]

Thanks WalkedUp
So if I had his landowner’s permission and accompanied him then that would be deemed acceptable?. Would this need to be in writing?.

I think that would also technically not be ok.
Unless you’re using the “estate rifle” thingy then I think he can’t use your rifle anyway.
If you’re on his ground it’s not really him borrowing an estate rifle is it?
I think it’s a bit of a grey area though

 

[Steve WY]

If you had an open FAC, or if his ground is cleared for your calibre, then yes.

Thankyou

 

[Steve WY]

Thanks Buckaroo8
I think the most sensible option would be to zero my scope on his rifle on my permission ( he has an open license) and He’s good to go.

 

[User00047]

Or you could ask your local firearms department. After all, it only really matters how they interpret the legislation.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Go to his permission
Let him shoot your rifle

Job done no drama.
Rods/backs etc etc

 

[WalkedUp]

Thanks WalkedUp
So if I had his landowner’s permission and accompanied him then that would be deemed acceptable?. Would this need to be in writing?.

As you have a closed ticket you would also need to contact your licensing department to add the land (see VSS’s post). When I had my initial grant I was contacting the department every few months with a field here and a field there. Within a year it was opened.

 

[enfieldspares]

I think that would also technically not be ok.
Unless you’re using the “estate rifle” thingy then I think he can’t use your rifle anyway.
If you’re on his ground it’s not really him borrowing an estate rifle is it?
I think it’s a bit of a grey area though

Ah well possibly it is. In terms of property "occupation" is exclusive. Therefore if B the holder of shooting rights grants sole and exclusive pheasant shooting rights to A then if during that time B comes onto the land and shoots pheasants then B is poaching. For unless B has reserved some part of those rights he no longer has the right to shoot those pheasants.

Daft? No, and yes, but it is how the League Against Cruel Sports operate in some places. They buy land and then sell on, or lease out, the land of property without those shotting rights. So the subsequent occupier cannot shoot any live quarry except rabbits under the old but still in force Ground Game Act exception.

So for estate rifle purposes LACS or B would be the lawful occupier and holder of the shooting permission. It also which is fatal to A and B as it means that the actual owner of the land over which that owner has granted permission cannot....if it granted exclusively to B....grant any permission to A as the actual owner of the land no longer controls the shooting rights whilst B "occupies" them.

So it is a bit convoluted and rather than believe a bloke on the internet I'd get proper legal advice. But if B grants permission to A that, if even for a night is exclusive to A then in theory as B could only then shoot on that land on that night with A's permission then B is now A's guest and satisfies the estate rifle rules.

However I do not know how this would be affected by A's rifle being held on a closed condition on their FAC. So the SIMPLE answer is obvious isn't it! B applies for a variation to their FAC to allow B to borrow on loan A's rifle (which may or may not specify as "being in the presence of A") for use by B on "any land over which B has permission to shoot".

So the far better work around that avoids dancing on the head of a pin over B supposedly granting shooting rights to A (as it avoids such issues of semantics) of if B actually can reassign those rights B holds. Better by far is for B to seek a variation, as noted, as above, to their FAC.

 

[VSS]

As you have a closed ticket you would also need to contact your licensing department to add the land (see VSS’s post). When I had my initial grant I was contacting the department every few months with a field here and a field there. Within a year it was opened.

It may be that the land is already cleared for his calibre due to someone in the past having shot there. It doesn't need to be "added" to anything, it just needs to be cleared. So first thing is find out if it's already cleared. If not, either request clearance for that calibre or ask for open conditions for that rifle.

 

[WalkedUp]

Added to the department’s register of cleared land, unless of course it has been previously added to the register.

 

[Donkey Basher]

If you had an open FAC, or if his ground is cleared for your calibre, then yes.

AND you have authority to shoot on that ground - that’s the important bit!

 

[finnbear270]

You would have to be present with him, if all the other posts regards conditioning were met.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Ah well possibly it is. In terms of property "occupation" is exclusive. Therefore if B the holder of shooting rights grants sole and exclusive pheasant shooting rights to A then if during that time B comes onto the land and shoots pheasants then B is poaching. For unless B has reserved some part of those rights he no longer has the right to shoot those pheasants.

Daft? No, and yes, but it is how the League Against Cruel Sports operate in some places. They buy land and then sell on, or lease out, the land of property without those shotting rights. So the subsequent occupier cannot shoot any live quarry except rabbits under the old but still in force Ground Game Act exception.

So for estate rifle purposes LACS or B would be the lawful occupier and holder of the shooting permission. It also which is fatal to A and B as it means that the actual owner of the land over which that owner has granted permission cannot....if it granted exclusively to B....grant any permission to A as the actual owner of the land no longer controls the shooting rights whilst B "occupies" them.

So it is a bit convoluted and rather than believe a bloke on the internet I'd get proper legal advice. But if B grants permission to A that, if even for a night is exclusive to A then in theory as B could only then shoot on that land on that night with A's permission then B is now A's guest and satisfies the estate rifle rules.

However I do not know how this would be affected by A's rifle being held on a closed condition on their FAC. So the SIMPLE answer is obvious isn't it! B applies for a variation to their FAC to allow B to borrow on loan A's rifle (which may or may not specify as "being in the presence of A") for use by B on "any land over which B has permission to shoot".

So the far better work around that avoids dancing on the head of a pin over B supposedly granting shooting rights to A (as it avoids such issues of semantics) of if B actually can reassign those rights B holds. Better by far is for B to seek a variation, as noted, as above, to their FAC.

This is why I’d just go along with him and let him shoot the bloody rifle on his own ground
It’s at night ffs with 2 people there .

Why do folk insist on this drive to dot every i rather than just be sensible ?

 

[VSS]

This is why I’d just go along with him and let him shoot the bloody rifle on his own ground
It’s at night ffs with 2 people there .

Why do folk insist on this drive to dot every i rather than just be sensible ?

I agree.
But the OP did specifically ask whether it would be legal.