police, permission and shotguns

[SEAN3513 7]

just found this on another site

 

this is a press release from the solicitors.

 

interesting !!

 

 

24.09.09

 

Shotgun case shows police need more understanding of legitimate shooting

 

A case in which a man out pigeon shooting had his shotguns confiscated by police and was later summonsed for shooting too close to the highway was today (Sept 24) abandoned after a judge questioned whether the prosecution was in the public interest.

 

Prosecutors decided to offer no evidence against 19-year-old Dale Barnard after Judge Daniel Curtis, sitting in a pre-trial hearing at Scunthorpe Magistrates Court, urged them to think again about the case.

 

Mr Barnard, of Winteringham, Lincolnshire, was awarded full costs and the judge observed that any delay by the police in returning his guns would be “more than churlish†.

 

After the case, Mr Barnard’s lawyers, Bridge McFarland Solicitors, called for police officers to be better trained and informed when dealing with legitimate shooters in the countryside.

 

Bridge McFarland consultant solicitor Stephen Ede said Mr Barnard’s treatment appeared to many people involved in shooting to be heavy-handed and showed a lack of understanding by police of legitimate shooting sports and rural pursuits.

 

He said: “Six months ago, Mr Barnard was approached by a local police officer while shooting pigeon in a field of oilseed rape near his home. The police woman informed him that it was an offence to shoot within 50ft of the highway and confiscated both of his guns and his shotgun certificate.

 

“Mr Barnard was eventually summonsed for an offence contrary to section 161 of the 1980 Highways Act, which prohibits shooting within 50ft of a road. However, the act makes it clear that an offence is only committed if someone is injured, interrupted or put in danger and that certainly did not happen in this case. In an important agricultural county like Lincolnshire, sports shooting and vermin control are part of rural life and Mr Barnard was charged with an offence and threatened with permanent loss of his shotgun licence simply for controlling pests.â€

 

Mr Ede said there was a widespread view in the shooting community that many police officers tended to assume that anyone carrying a gun in the countryside was in the wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

“The owners and keepers of shotguns and other legal firearms are rightly under a moral and legal obligation to take all reasonable safety precautions and to keep their guns secure at all times,†he said. “However, people who shoot legally either for sport or for vermin control should not have to feel that the police are, for some reason, hostile to their legitimate activities.

 

“Accidents in shooting are rare and both serious and minor injuries are much less common than in many other sports so any potential danger from shooting needs to be kept in perspective.

 

“In this case, Mr Barnard was put under extreme pressure by the police to accept a caution, both directly and indirectly through his mother and the owner of the land on which he was shooting. I am delighted that he accepted my strong advice that he should stick to his guns.

 

“Shooters who fall foul of the police but believe they have done nothing wrong should never accept a caution if they want to keep their licences. Accepting a caution is an admission of guilt and, whatever an individual officer might say at the time, there is every chance that it will later be used as a reason for revoking or refusing a firearms licence.â€

 

Mr Barnard said he was delighted that the case against him had been dropped but shocked by the way his case had been handled by the police.

 

“They did not show me that they respect or understand sporting shooters,†he said. “I got the impression that the officer involved did not like any shooting.

 

“I had only just pulled into the field when the officer drove by and I was probably still a bit too close to the road. However, I was facing away from the road and no-one was in any danger. I have only held my shotgun certificate for two years so I would never do anything to jeopardise it. The incident was blown out of all proportion and I am now delighted it’s over and looking forward to getting my guns back.â€

 

 

cheers

 

sean

[events co-ordinator 353]

It would be intresting to know if the guy paid for the soliciter or one of the shooting orgs took it on

[PAC1 0]

It would be intresting to know if the guy paid for the soliciter or one of the shooting orgs took it on

 

Interesting article. There's a few points that everyone should take from this if they are to protect themselves in their legitimate sport/occupation.

 

Firstly, the Firearms Act does state that it is an offecnce to shoot within 50 ft of a public highway OR Right of Way. You can shoot across a Right of Way providing its part of an organised shoot and that the pathway is made safe (ie temporarily supervised or closed) but you cannot under any circumstances shoot within 50ft of a highway.

That said, the interesting thing about this case is that the young man in question stated that he had only just arrived and presumably had not yet fired a shot. Therefore the police acted illegally as it is not an offence to be in possession of a shotgun or firearm within 50ft of a highway and you can sit there all day without breaking the law.

 

I for one advocate better training and discretion of police officers and my own experience supports the view that many are ill informed, do not use discretion or are plain anti-shooting as they do not believe that firearms shoot be in public possession. We do need to stick to our guns (sic) and defend our rights but must also ensure that we are well informed ourselves.

 

A good start is to down-load the Firearms Act from the HomeOffice Website and the guidance that goes with it.

 

Happy shooting all...

[SportingShooter 0]

It would be intresting to know if the guy paid for the soliciter or one of the shooting orgs took it on

 

Interesting article. There's a few points that everyone should take from this if they are to protect themselves in their legitimate sport/occupation.

 

Firstly, the Firearms Act does state that it is an offecnce to shoot within 50 ft of a public highway OR Right of Way. You can shoot across a Right of Way providing its part of an organised shoot and that the pathway is made safe (ie temporarily supervised or closed) but you cannot under any circumstances shoot within 50ft of a highway.

That said, the interesting thing about this case is that the young man in question stated that he had only just arrived and presumably had not yet fired a shot. Therefore the police acted illegally as it is not an offence to be in possession of a shotgun or firearm within 50ft of a highway and you can sit there all day without breaking the law.

 

I for one advocate better training and discretion of police officers and my own experience supports the view that many are ill informed, do not use discretion or are plain anti-shooting as they do not believe that firearms shoot be in public possession. We do need to stick to our guns (sic) and defend our rights but must also ensure that we are well informed ourselves.

 

A good start is to down-load the Firearms Act from the HomeOffice Website and the guidance that goes with it.

 

Happy shooting all...

You are not correct in that respect Pac

 

You can shoot within 50ft of a Highways as long as someone isn't endangered, interupted or injured

 

Even says so above.

 

But an interesting article.

[PAC1 0]

It would be intresting to know if the guy paid for the soliciter or one of the shooting orgs took it on

 

Interesting article. There's a few points that everyone should take from this if they are to protect themselves in their legitimate sport/occupation.

 

Firstly, the Firearms Act does state that it is an offecnce to shoot within 50 ft of a public highway OR Right of Way. You can shoot across a Right of Way providing its part of an organised shoot and that the pathway is made safe (ie temporarily supervised or closed) but you cannot under any circumstances shoot within 50ft of a highway.

That said, the interesting thing about this case is that the young man in question stated that he had only just arrived and presumably had not yet fired a shot. Therefore the police acted illegally as it is not an offence to be in possession of a shotgun or firearm within 50ft of a highway and you can sit there all day without breaking the law.

 

I for one advocate better training and discretion of police officers and my own experience supports the view that many are ill informed, do not use discretion or are plain anti-shooting as they do not believe that firearms shoot be in public possession. We do need to stick to our guns (sic) and defend our rights but must also ensure that we are well informed ourselves.

 

A good start is to down-load the Firearms Act from the HomeOffice Website and the guidance that goes with it.

 

Happy shooting all...

You are not correct in that respect Pac

 

You can shoot within 50ft of a Highways as long as someone isn't endangered, interupted or injured

 

Even says so above.

 

But an interesting article.

 

Thanks for the correction. I must admit that my view was based on the wording within the Firearms Act and on specific advice given to me by the local Police Firearms Officer only last week. He was at pains to point out that this was an offence under the act in all circumstances where a public highway was concerned. Perhaps the view of our local constabulary is simply that they would view this as endangerment of others as a blanket judgement?

[CharlieT 32]

It would be intresting to know if the guy paid for the soliciter or one of the shooting orgs took it on

 

Interesting article. There's a few points that everyone should take from this if they are to protect themselves in their legitimate sport/occupation.

 

Firstly, the Firearms Act does state that it is an offecnce to shoot within 50 ft of a public highway OR Right of Way. You can shoot across a Right of Way providing its part of an organised shoot and that the pathway is made safe (ie temporarily supervised or closed) but you cannot under any circumstances shoot within 50ft of a highway.

That said, the interesting thing about this case is that the young man in question stated that he had only just arrived and presumably had not yet fired a shot. Therefore the police acted illegally as it is not an offence to be in possession of a shotgun or firearm within 50ft of a highway and you can sit there all day without breaking the law.

 

I for one advocate better training and discretion of police officers and my own experience supports the view that many are ill informed, do not use discretion or are plain anti-shooting as they do not believe that firearms shoot be in public possession. We do need to stick to our guns (sic) and defend our rights but must also ensure that we are well informed ourselves.

 

A good start is to down-load the Firearms Act from the HomeOffice Website and the guidance that goes with it.

 

Happy shooting all...

You are not correct in that respect Pac

 

You can shoot within 50ft of a Highways as long as someone isn't endangered, interupted or injured

 

Even says so above.

 

But an interesting article.

 

Thanks for the correction. I must admit that my view was based on the wording within the Firearms Act and on specific advice given to me by the local Police Firearms Officer only last week. He was at pains to point out that this was an offence under the act in all circumstances where a public highway was concerned. Perhaps the view of our local constabulary is simply that they would view this as endangerment of others as a blanket judgement?

 

 

Or you could say that your firearms officer is as poorly versed in the law as the one who dealt with Mr Barnard.

Edited September 28, 2009 by CharlieT

[PAC1 0]

It would be intresting to know if the guy paid for the soliciter or one of the shooting orgs took it on

 

Interesting article. There's a few points that everyone should take from this if they are to protect themselves in their legitimate sport/occupation.

 

Firstly, the Firearms Act does state that it is an offecnce to shoot within 50 ft of a public highway OR Right of Way. You can shoot across a Right of Way providing its part of an organised shoot and that the pathway is made safe (ie temporarily supervised or closed) but you cannot under any circumstances shoot within 50ft of a highway.

That said, the interesting thing about this case is that the young man in question stated that he had only just arrived and presumably had not yet fired a shot. Therefore the police acted illegally as it is not an offence to be in possession of a shotgun or firearm within 50ft of a highway and you can sit there all day without breaking the law.

 

I for one advocate better training and discretion of police officers and my own experience supports the view that many are ill informed, do not use discretion or are plain anti-shooting as they do not believe that firearms shoot be in public possession. We do need to stick to our guns (sic) and defend our rights but must also ensure that we are well informed ourselves.

 

A good start is to down-load the Firearms Act from the HomeOffice Website and the guidance that goes with it.

 

Happy shooting all...

You are not correct in that respect Pac

 

You can shoot within 50ft of a Highways as long as someone isn't endangered, interupted or injured

 

Even says so above.

 

But an interesting article.

 

Thanks for the correction. I must admit that my view was based on the wording within the Firearms Act and on specific advice given to me by the local Police Firearms Officer only last week. He was at pains to point out that this was an offence under the act in all circumstances where a public highway was concerned. Perhaps the view of our local constabulary is simply that they would view this as endangerment of others as a blanket judgement?

 

 

Or you could say that your firearms officer is as poorly versed in the law as the one who dealt with Mr Barnard.

 

More than likely. This unfortunately does seem to be the sad state of affairs with many police forces. I would hazard a guess that many shooters probably know more about firearms law than the police who appear to be more PC than PC these days if you get my drift

[SportingShooter 0]

I'd hazard a guess that the local FEO takes a dim view to people shooting anywhere near a right of way or highway and is deliberately trying to steer you away.

 

Sad state of affairs, but as has been seen, its just not true

[toyo 0]

Read the info on the link below. Until reading this I was sure that it was just 50 feet of the centre of a highway.

 

Highways (Amendment) Act 1986

[nod 285]

When i got my firearms cert 8 years ago i was only 17 and the only land i had was a 25 acre pig farm with a public footpath straight through the middle of it, the gardens of houses backed on to this all bar the dyke stopping it, i never had any trouble getting my ticket for this land and any trouble from the land itself, fao knew about the footpath aswell

[SEAN3513 7]

FEO's are uaually very good and know their stuff...........the problem is the regular bobby on the beat.

 

imo

 

sean

[PAC1 0]

FEO's are uaually very good and know their stuff...........the problem is the regular bobby on the beat.

 

imo

 

sean

 

The Highways Act of 1980 does indeed state that

 

"....within fifty feet of the centre of any highway which comprises a carriageway......." so the amended wording appears to have dropped the "centre" reference?

 

Moreover, the bobby giving me the lecture during my FAC application interview went further and confirmed that this also applied to any Public Right of way, be that trafficked carriageway or a PRW through a field. The act defines "Highway" as:

 

"...For these purposes a carriageway means a highway (other than cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles."

 

Therefore, the unamended Act does not appear to include all public rights of way unless I have missed something. The governing decision I guess the police would have to make in a prosecution for discharging a firearm close to or over a PRW would need to consider whether in doing so, members of the public present were put in danger (what our friends across the pond might describe as reckless endangerment). Any other (more expert than my) knowledge on this issue welcomed, as I cannot find reference to this within the FireArms Act.

[PAC1 0]

Apologies

 

the amended act does indeed keep the "centre of carriageway" reference in.

[toyo 0]

Like I said. Its all in the link that I posted above.

 

The important part is

 

(2)For section 161(2) (penalty for lighting a fire or discharging a firearm or firework within 50 feet of the centre of a highway) there shall be substituted the following subsection—.

 

“(2)If a person without lawful authority or excuse—.

 

(a)lights any fire on or over a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway; or.

(b)discharges any firearm or firework within 50 feet of the centre of such a highway,.

 

and in consequence a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.â€.

[comanche 2,946]

Apologies

 

the amended act does indeed keep the "centre of carriageway" reference in.

It is indeed quite legal to shoot within 50feet of the CENTRE of a highway. "Highway" (as defined in its widest sense as a route for passing and re-passing of people and traffic ) includes cycle tracks ,bridleways and footpaths etc. In fact you can shoot from a bridleway or footpath if you own the land it crosses or have permission to shoot from the owner .

It becomes illegal when someone using the route is endangered or interupted . So a chap speeding past in a car is not likely to care if someone is popping pigeons from a hide in a nearby hedge but a horserider or mother with a sleeping baby in a pram might be affected at a far greater distance . They have a right to uninterupted enjoyment of the highway .

25 years ago as a Keeper I remember vividly the horror and embarrisment I felt as I helped hold a nervous horse belonging to a young rider who had been forced to stop on a bridlepath because my ignorant tw*t of a boss refused to stop shooting during a duck drive even when he saw the horse go into a thrutch.

One sometimes hears that people have been told that it is illegal to shoot an air-gun in their garden because "It is within 50ft of the road". Once again , not true! . If the pellets stay safely within the boundary and passing road users are not unduly disturbed by the little bit of noise the average air -gun makes there is no problem .

Edited September 29, 2009 by comanche