shooting from a stile yes or no

[SL6.5]

you can be in a public place with a firearm if you have lawful authority and good reason if landowner says no then i will use a hide but i will use public footpath across his land to get to my permission

I think you'll find that's "or" not "and" and the or is "reasonable excuse", but basically I think you may have it right. I do hope you find that is in fact the case too.

 

[berg]

Ask your self do you really want to put your self in that position if your not sure don't do it that's how I look at it ,the last thing you want is having to try and justify to the police what you were doing!

 

[Dalua]

Oh my god. Of course it's armed trespass. Jeebus.

It's the ARMED bit that makes it trespass. You're allowed to walk along there but not with a loaded gun.

I think that to commit armed trespass you have both to be trespassing and be armed.

I've not come across the idea that being armed might make you a trespasser where if you were not armed you wouldn't be.

Does that make sense?

 

[Shabz]

I think that to commit armed trespass you have both to be trespassing and be armed.

I've not come across the idea that being armed might make you a trespasser where if you were not armed you wouldn't be.

Does that make sense?

It does, but I don't mean that being armed makes you a trespasser, I mean it makes you an 'armed trespasser'.
I mean that an unarmed person is not trespassing but an armed person is armed trespassing. I'm sure they will be different offences. They're bound to have different penalties.

 

[The tramp]

I think that to commit armed trespass you have both to be trespassing and be armed.

I've not come across the idea that being armed might make you a trespasser where if you were not armed you wouldn't be.

Does that make sense?

If he's firing on land he don't have permission to do so, that's trespass, and, obviously, armed.

Right of way or not, it's still somebody's land, and without permission to shoot from the landowner/holder of sporting rights/occupier, to shoot on/from that land is an offence.

 

[SL6.5]

I think that to commit armed trespass you have both to be trespassing and be armed.

I've not come across the idea that being armed might make you a trespasser where if you were not armed you wouldn't be.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but that does still leave the prickly problem of consent to shoot on the land one is on. Of course if the shooter was of the belief that "he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it" one has to wonder what offence would be committed? and why wouldn't the shooter have this belief unless he had been told otherwise?

 

[Monkey Spanker]

For Christ's sake, why walk on thin ice?
Just go and see the neighbouring land owner and explain the problem. You may even get to shoot the neighbouring land if you go about it the right way. I also can't believe that is your only option for cover. Why not construct a small 'Doe box' just inside your land and get in it before first light? 3 Pallets on edge and 4 wooden stakes is all you need. Longer stakes with a bit of tin or plywood for a roof if want the delux version!
MS

 

[Taff]

Yes, but that does still leave the prickly problem of consent to shoot on the land one is on. Of course if the shooter was of the belief that "he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it" one has to wonder what offence would be committed? and why wouldn't the shooter have this belief unless he had been told otherwise?

Are you on a wind up, if he had permission he would not be asking the question, and all the drivel written so far would be irrelevant, he does not have permission to shoot from the neighbours side of the fence, so he can not do it, he can walk the footpath with his rifle in its slip, but would if questioned by the police have to explain why he has a firearm with him, he can shoot off a footpath as long as he does not cause distress to other users,

 

[finnbear270]

rifle on stile standing off my permission muzzle in my permission
only cover I can use
I do not think it is armed trespass ie public right of way
I will ask landowner for permission
any ideas

Sounds like you have already tried this?......Or am I reading incorrectly?.... if so you may have already been in the wrong?

 

[timbrayford]

Your rights on a footpath are restricted to "pass and repass".

You have no entitlement to discharge a firearm on land for which you do not have the appropriate permission.

As others have said why not get this permission off the neighbouring landowner and if this is not forthcoming respect their wishes and keep off their land when stalking.

atb Tim

 

[SL6.5]

Are you on a wind up, if he had permission he would not be asking the question, and all the drivel written so far would be irrelevant, he does not have permission to shoot from the neighbours side of the fence, so he can not do it, he can walk the footpath with his rifle in its slip, but would if questioned by the police have to explain why he has a firearm with him, he can shoot off a footpath as long as he does not cause distress to other users,

Am I on a wind up? No! The OP posed an interesting and conversationally worthwhile question. How many people contributing to this thread have actually read the various pertinent firearms or deer acts? So far, I've read the view that it an offence to carry a loaded rifle in a public place, which of course is not necessarily true at all and that somehow carrying a gun creates a trespass offence where no trespass offence would exist without the presence of a gun, which seems like nonsense to me and also the notion that you must have permission from the landowner to use a gun on his/her land when the exceptions within the deer acts clearly define other possible options. All in all I believe this interesting question actually remains to be correctly unanswered despite the many unsupported assertions made by others. I do note that in the original post Lister says he will be asking the relevant landowner for permission too. So, I am really at a loss to understand the strength of feeling against the opening question. It's just a conversation but it is certainly interesting to note the various views and the conviction with which they are held. Good thread.

 

[Shabz]

Am I on a wind up? No! The OP posed an interesting and conversationally worthwhile question. How many people contributing to this thread have actually read the various pertinent firearms or deer acts? So far, I've read the view that it an offence to carry a loaded rifle in a public place, which of course is not necessarily true at all and that somehow carrying a gun creates a trespass offence where no trespass offence would exist without the presence of a gun, which seems like nonsense to me and also the notion that you must have permission from the landowner to use a gun on his/her land when the exceptions within the deer acts clearly define other possible options. All in all I believe this interesting question actually remains to be correctly unanswered despite the many unsupported assertions made by others. I do note that in the original post Lister says he will be asking the relevant landowner for permission too. So, I am really at a loss to understand the strength of feeling against the opening question. It's just a conversation but it is certainly interesting to note the various views and the conviction with which they are held. Good thread.

I think you should go out and test the theory. All we need is a footpath bordering Brian Mays land......

its not interesting, it's stupid. If you would take such a risk then you shouldn't own a firearm.

 

[SL6.5]

I think you should go out and test the theory. All we need is a footpath bordering Brian Mays land......

its not interesting, it's stupid. If you would take such a risk then you shouldn't own a firearm.

I am saddened that you think conversation is stupid. As for the taking of risk, who did that?

 

[SL6.5]

Just for the record. I cannot see that any offence would necessarily be committed by doing as the OP outlines. That said, in the course of "normal" stalking I would not take such a shot. Not because of fear of committing any offence but because of the risk of creating an unfortunate fall out with others. However, if a serious welfare issue, such as deer presenting injured, starved/ill/likely to die without humane intervention situation arose, I would not hesitate beyond assuring the shot was safe to take.

 

[HunterMoore]

rifle on stile standing off my permission muzzle in my permission
only cover I can use
I do not think it is armed trespass ie public right of way
I will ask landowner for permission
any ideas

I am sorry to say that whatever the precise legal interpretation might be, it seems an unwise practice even with the landowners consent.

mobile phone footage from a walker may well cause you all manner of grief with the police, who I suggest would take a dim view of it and may hold your rifle for some time whilst the matter is cleared up.

Although I have no public footpaths in my woodland, if I saw somebody shooting on my land (albeit from a stile over a public footpath) I would be very seriously unhappy.

less about rules and more about safe and considerate behaviour maybe?

anyway, appreciate the OP is just chatting so no real life drama!

 

[Orion]

Just cos it's in the countryside and you have permission on the land adjacent, doesn't change the fact that you don't have permission to carry a loaded firearm on the PRoW.

It's the ARMED bit that makes it trespass. You're allowed to walk along there but not with a loaded gun.

Is there any difference between carrying a 'loaded' firearm, (S.1 stalking rifle), and 'unloaded' but with ammo in your pocket/bag in a public place such as on a PRoW?

AFAIK S.19 of the Firearms Act makes no such distinction and it matters not if there is one in the chamber or anywhere else on your person, so why would it not be possible to carry a 'loaded' stalking rifle provided you satisfied the requirements of lawful authority or reasonable excuse in walking along the PRoW? Any offence committed?

 

[Erik Hamburger]

Just for the record. I cannot see that any offence would necessarily be committed by doing as the OP outlines. That said, in the course of "normal" stalking I would not take such a shot. Not because of fear of committing any offence but because of the risk of creating an unfortunate fall out with others. However, if a serious welfare issue, such as deer presenting injured, starved/ill/likely to die without humane intervention situation arose, I would not hesitate beyond assuring the shot was safe to take.

Fully agree - sensible post - thank you.

 

[berg]

If i saw you walking a bout on my land with a firearm i would just phone the police and let them deal with you ,you will then probalby take atip to the station while they find out what you were doing you could have your guns removed from you while they reslove the matter .Had you asked if you could be there then the answer would probably be yes like ms said tou dont you untill you ask ,it dose not matter weather is right or wrong public or not ,it just common bloody courtesy to let pepole no what are doing .you might find if was to complain to the owner of the land you have the rights to shoot on you losse that as well

 

[Cyres]

This is a intresting point.

For example when fishing the rights extend to the middle of the river because thats where the owner owns to.

In the case of a footpath or bridle way I think you will find the same applies. I cannot remember where I read this but if anybody has shooting law or the updated version I think it might be covered.

So in this case it could be perfectly legal.

I have several farms with footpaths and bridle ways running through them its not illegal to shoot from them as long as you do not impead or endanger any user( onus lies on the shooter to prove such).

Another scenario, you have permision to shoot on both sides of a valley but not the land on the valley bottom can you shoot across it?

D

 

[berg]

This is a intresting point.

For example when fishing the rights extend to the middle of the river because thats where the owner owns to.

In the case of a footpath or bridle way I think you will find the same applies. I cannot remember where I read this but if anybody has shooting law or the updated version I think it might be covered.

So in this case it could be perfectly legal.

I have several farms with footpaths and bridle ways running through them its not illegal to shoot from them as long as you do not impead or endanger any user( onus lies on the shooter to prove such).

Another scenario, you have permision to shoot on both sides of a valley but not the land on the valley bottom can you shoot across it?

D

all these ifs buts and should be ok ,i read somewhere .all a bit ify to put your firearms liecence on