Borrowing Rifles

[ben the bunny killer 10]

right lads

 

 

i don't currently have a FAC due to my living accommodation (living in a caravan). i would love to have a rifle for sorting out charlie and some rabbits on the farm. the boss has a few rifles would i be able to apply for a cert and borrow his is can i borrow with out a FAC.

 

cheers ben

[Deker 3,478]

There is no reason why you can't apply for an FAC and list his rifles (as long as he consents). You will need to show good reason for all you apply for.

 

There are issues borrowing if you don't have a FAC and that is a tiny bit grey, but you certainly can't just borrow one and walk off without him.

 

From 2015 Home Office Guide

 

Borrowed rifles on private premises

6.21 Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a person over the age of seventeen to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of either the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It should be noted that this gives slightly more flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than is permissible with the use of a shotgun as described in paragraph 6.18, in that the borrowed rifle can also be used in the presence of the servant of the occupier.

6.22 The occupier and/or their servant must hold a firearm certificate in respect of the firearm being used, and the borrower, who must be accompanied by the certificate holder (whether it is the occupier or their servant), must comply with the conditions of the certificate. These may include a safekeeping requirement and, in some cases, territorial restrictions. It is also a requirement where the borrower is seventeen that the occupier or servant is eighteen or over – this was inserted by SI 2010/1759. Section 57(4) of the 1968 Act defines "premises" as including any land. The effect of the provision is to allow a person visiting a private land to borrow and use a rifle without a certificate. The exemption does not extend to persons under the age of seventeen or to other types of firearm. There is no notification required on the loan of a firearm under these circumstances. A borrowed rifle should not be specifically identified as such on a "keeper’s" or "landowner’s" firearm certificate. The term "in the presence of" is not defined in law but is generally interpreted as being within sight or earshot.

6.23 Section 16(2) of the 1988 Act provides for a person borrowing a rifle in accordance with section 16(1) of the 1988 Act to purchase or acquire ammunition for use in the rifle, and to have it in their possession during the period for which the rifle is borrowed, without holding a certificate. The borrower’s possession of the ammunition must comply with the conditions on the certificate of the person in whose presence they are and the amount of ammunition borrowed must not exceed that which the certificate holder is authorised to have in their possession at that time. It should be noted that the borrower may only take possession of the ammunition during the period of the loan of the rifle at which time they will be in the presence of the certificate holder. If the persons selling or handing over the ammunition are not certificate holders, it may be necessary for them to see the certificate to satisfy themselves that the terms of this section have been met and that the amount of ammunition the borrower wishes to acquire is no greater than that which the certificate holder is authorised to possess. The details of the transaction need not be recorded on the certificate.

[ben the bunny killer 10]

There is no reason why you can't apply for an FAC and list his rifles (as long as he consents). You will need to show good reason for all you apply for.

 

There are issues borrowing if you don't have a FAC and that is a tiny bit grey, but you certainly can't just borrow one and walk off without him.

 

From 2015 Home Office Guide

 

Borrowed rifles on private premises

6.21 Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a person over the age of seventeen to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of either the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It should be noted that this gives slightly more flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than is permissible with the use of a shotgun as described in paragraph 6.18, in that the borrowed rifle can also be used in the presence of the servant of the occupier.

6.22 The occupier and/or their servant must hold a firearm certificate in respect of the firearm being used, and the borrower, who must be accompanied by the certificate holder (whether it is the occupier or their servant), must comply with the conditions of the certificate. These may include a safekeeping requirement and, in some cases, territorial restrictions. It is also a requirement where the borrower is seventeen that the occupier or servant is eighteen or over – this was inserted by SI 2010/1759. Section 57(4) of the 1968 Act defines "premises" as including any land. The effect of the provision is to allow a person visiting a private land to borrow and use a rifle without a certificate. The exemption does not extend to persons under the age of seventeen or to other types of firearm. There is no notification required on the loan of a firearm under these circumstances. A borrowed rifle should not be specifically identified as such on a "keeper’s" or "landowner’s" firearm certificate. The term "in the presence of" is not defined in law but is generally interpreted as being within sight or earshot.

6.23 Section 16(2) of the 1988 Act provides for a person borrowing a rifle in accordance with section 16(1) of the 1988 Act to purchase or acquire ammunition for use in the rifle, and to have it in their possession during the period for which the rifle is borrowed, without holding a certificate. The borrower’s possession of the ammunition must comply with the conditions on the certificate of the person in whose presence they are and the amount of ammunition borrowed must not exceed that which the certificate holder is authorised to have in their possession at that time. It should be noted that the borrower may only take possession of the ammunition during the period of the loan of the rifle at which time they will be in the presence of the certificate holder. If the persons selling or handing over the ammunition are not certificate holders, it may be necessary for them to see the certificate to satisfy themselves that the terms of this section have been met and that the amount of ammunition the borrower wishes to acquire is no greater than that which the certificate holder is authorised to possess. The details of the transaction need not be recorded on the certificate.

cheers mate thats the answer i was looking for your a star. so if i apply i can list the rifles would the fire arms officer have to come and have a chat with me or would they just sign me off as the permission has already been checked.?

Edited February 16, 2016 by ben the bunny killer

[Torquemada 288]

As the FAC is for you and not the land , your suitability to hold a FAC and all the checks that will entail, one would assume that seeing you would be a requirement.

[Deker 3,478]

You will have to apply in the normal way, who knows what the region may do, but I suspect it may take a little longer than usual, you will have to convince them you have good reason for every calibre/rifle you want to borrow, and they will very likely want a word with whoever you plan to borrow rifles from.

[Jax13 251]

as above - you cannot borrow someone elses rifle to go out with, certificate or not even if your authorised on your own FAC for the exact same thing.

 

the two legitimate ways around it are to apply for a certificate yourself and put down for shared use of all his rifles, they will be added to your cert and so long as you return them to his cabinet after use there is no problem with you going out on your own.

 

the other way around it is to apply but have shared storage put on your ticket which would enable you to buy and use your own rifle but store it in his cabinet. if i remember rightly, all your rifles need to be entered onto his FAC as well and his onto yours as you both have legitimate access to them (i could have got the wrong end of the stick from my feo on that one though)

 

the best thing to do is have a word and see if there is a gap in the cabinet he is happy for you to fill then ring licensing for advice on the best / easiest way to do it then get your application in.

[CharlieT 32]

Why not fit a cabinet in your caravan and get your own rifle.

[Alsone 789]

There is no reason why you can't apply for an FAC and list his rifles (as long as he consents). You will need to show good reason for all you apply for.

 

There are issues borrowing if you don't have a FAC and that is a tiny bit grey, but you certainly can't just borrow one and walk off without him.

 

From 2015 Home Office Guide

 

Borrowed rifles on private premises

6.21 Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a person over the age of seventeen to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of either the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It should be noted that this gives slightly more flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than is permissible with the use of a shotgun as described in paragraph 6.18, in that the borrowed rifle can also be used in the presence of the servant of the occupier.

6.22 The occupier and/or their servant must hold a firearm certificate in respect of the firearm being used, and the borrower, who must be accompanied by the certificate holder (whether it is the occupier or their servant), must comply with the conditions of the certificate. These may include a safekeeping requirement and, in some cases, territorial restrictions. It is also a requirement where the borrower is seventeen that the occupier or servant is eighteen or over – this was inserted by SI 2010/1759. Section 57(4) of the 1968 Act defines "premises" as including any land. The effect of the provision is to allow a person visiting a private land to borrow and use a rifle without a certificate. The exemption does not extend to persons under the age of seventeen or to other types of firearm. There is no notification required on the loan of a firearm under these circumstances. A borrowed rifle should not be specifically identified as such on a "keeper’s" or "landowner’s" firearm certificate. The term "in the presence of" is not defined in law but is generally interpreted as being within sight or earshot.

6.23 Section 16(2) of the 1988 Act provides for a person borrowing a rifle in accordance with section 16(1) of the 1988 Act to purchase or acquire ammunition for use in the rifle, and to have it in their possession during the period for which the rifle is borrowed, without holding a certificate. The borrower’s possession of the ammunition must comply with the conditions on the certificate of the person in whose presence they are and the amount of ammunition borrowed must not exceed that which the certificate holder is authorised to have in their possession at that time. It should be noted that the borrower may only take possession of the ammunition during the period of the loan of the rifle at which time they will be in the presence of the certificate holder. If the persons selling or handing over the ammunition are not certificate holders, it may be necessary for them to see the certificate to satisfy themselves that the terms of this section have been met and that the amount of ammunition the borrower wishes to acquire is no greater than that which the certificate holder is authorised to possess. The details of the transaction need not be recorded on the certificate.

 

Just be aware it needs to be in writing, and that comes from the BASC Firearms Dept. not me. I asked them about this less than a month ago. Their advice was anyone wanting to rely on the Occupier exception needs a letter from their friend with the permission to say (from my memory) that he is the occupier, has the shooting rights, has the right to grant permission, and grants you permission to shoot under his supervision.

 

Without it in writing, should he turn out not to the the occupier (this provision regarding the definition has not been tested in Court and / or he could have misrepresented his actual status to you), you're facing prosecution for armed trespass.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Alsone

[Deker 3,478]

 

There is no reason why you can't apply for an FAC and list his rifles (as long as he consents). You will need to show good reason for all you apply for.

 

There are issues borrowing if you don't have a FAC and that is a tiny bit grey, but you certainly can't just borrow one and walk off without him.

 

From 2015 Home Office Guide

 

Borrowed rifles on private premises

6.21 Section 16(1) of the 1988 Act enables a person over the age of seventeen to borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and to use it on those premises in the presence of either the occupier or their servant without holding a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle. It should be noted that this gives slightly more flexibility in the use of a borrowed rifle than is permissible with the use of a shotgun as described in paragraph 6.18, in that the borrowed rifle can also be used in the presence of the servant of the occupier.

6.22 The occupier and/or their servant must hold a firearm certificate in respect of the firearm being used, and the borrower, who must be accompanied by the certificate holder (whether it is the occupier or their servant), must comply with the conditions of the certificate. These may include a safekeeping requirement and, in some cases, territorial restrictions. It is also a requirement where the borrower is seventeen that the occupier or servant is eighteen or over – this was inserted by SI 2010/1759. Section 57(4) of the 1968 Act defines "premises" as including any land. The effect of the provision is to allow a person visiting a private land to borrow and use a rifle without a certificate. The exemption does not extend to persons under the age of seventeen or to other types of firearm. There is no notification required on the loan of a firearm under these circumstances. A borrowed rifle should not be specifically identified as such on a "keeper’s" or "landowner’s" firearm certificate. The term "in the presence of" is not defined in law but is generally interpreted as being within sight or earshot.

6.23 Section 16(2) of the 1988 Act provides for a person borrowing a rifle in accordance with section 16(1) of the 1988 Act to purchase or acquire ammunition for use in the rifle, and to have it in their possession during the period for which the rifle is borrowed, without holding a certificate. The borrower’s possession of the ammunition must comply with the conditions on the certificate of the person in whose presence they are and the amount of ammunition borrowed must not exceed that which the certificate holder is authorised to have in their possession at that time. It should be noted that the borrower may only take possession of the ammunition during the period of the loan of the rifle at which time they will be in the presence of the certificate holder. If the persons selling or handing over the ammunition are not certificate holders, it may be necessary for them to see the certificate to satisfy themselves that the terms of this section have been met and that the amount of ammunition the borrower wishes to acquire is no greater than that which the certificate holder is authorised to possess. The details of the transaction need not be recorded on the certificate.

 

Just be aware it needs to be in writing, and that comes from the BASC Firearms Dept. not me. I asked them about this less than a month ago. Their advice was anyone wanting to rely on the Occupier exception needs a letter from their friend with the permission to say (from my memory) that he is the occupier, has the shooting rights, has the right to grant permission, and grants you permission to shoot under his supervision.

 

Without it in writing, should he turn out not to the the occupier (this provision regarding the definition has not been tested in Court and / or he could have misrepresented his actual status to you), you're facing prosecution for armed trespass.

 

 

 

IF, IF, IF, IF, what now?

 

My post above is legislation, your/BASC comments are speculation and never tested/legally defined.

 

The Law says Occupier or Servant, and seeing as the term Occupier has never been legally defined in this contest, how on earth can anyone be taken to court for not having a letter in writing from the occupier as nobody legally knows what an occupier is, as it has not been legally defined!

 

As you yourself point out (this provision regarding the definition has not been tested in Court and / or he could have misrepresented his actual status to you), How can they have misrepresented something to you when nobody knows what the definition is legally? Having something in writing or verbally from someone not entitled to give you that permission makes no difference legally.

 

They would need a test case to define Occupier before anyone could be taken to court for not having a letter from the occupier!

 

Ask the BASC for the LEGAL definition of Occupier in this context, not just the suggested definition, the legal definition!

 

If he gets a FAC and borrows the rifles listed under his FAC your comments are irrelevant anyway.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Deker

[Alsone 789]

Deker, the advice I received came from a person at the BASC Firearms Team who was an ex-police licensing officer who rang me in person following an enquiry I made.

 

I believe the point of the letter is the police are unlikely to prosecute you if you can show that you had permission from someone who claimed to be the occupier and had represented themselves to you as being the occupier with all the relevant powers to grant the right for you to shoot under their supervision, as occupier.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Alsone

[CharlieT 32]

This very subject has been discussed by FELW where it was reported that the term Occupier, although not tested by the court, has been defined by the Home Office is respect of firearms licensing and I quote from FELWG minutes.

 

Definition of Occupier

 

Graham Widdicombe (HO rep. on FELWG) referred to the difference between a right and permission. A right is set out in law, whereas permission is more informal and can be given either verbally of in writing.

Interpretation is that permission that permission is given from one person to another who knows the person and is NOT passported through another.

 

From this it can be seen that firearms licensing view an occupier is someone who has a legal interest in the land, something that someone who has permission to shoot on land from the occupier does not have.

Most certainly, when I give someone permission to shoot on my farm I do not confer any right of occupancy to them. There is no legal requirement to put the permission in writing.

Even if I was to authorise someone whom I have given permission to bring a guest shooting it would not allow them to use the occupiers exemption for borrowing rifles because "permission to bring a mate" does not make them an occupier.

[Deker 3,478]

Deker, the advice I received came from a person at the BASC Firearms Team who was an ex-police licensing officer who rang me in person following an enquiry I made.

 

I believe the point of the letter is the police are unlikely to prosecute you if you can show that you had permission from someone who claimed to be the occupier and had represented themselves to you as being the occupier with all the relevant powers to grant the right for you to shoot under their supervision, as occupier.

 

" ....the advice I received came from a person at the BASC Firearms Team who was an ex-police licensing officer".... and what point would you be attempting to make with this comment, are you suggesting and ex FEO happens to know the Law on written and verbal contracts, most don't even know the Law on Firearms?

 

There is NO difference in Law between a written and verbal agreement!

Edited February 25, 2016 by Deker

[Deker 3,478]

This very subject has been discussed by FELW where it was reported that the term Occupier, although not tested by the court, has been defined by the Home Office is respect of firearms licensing and I quote from FELWG minutes.

 

Definition of Occupier

 

Graham Widdicombe (HO rep. on FELWG) referred to the difference between a right and permission. A right is set out in law, whereas permission is more informal and can be given either verbally of in writing.

Interpretation is that permission that permission is given from one person to another who knows the person and is NOT passported through another.

 

From this it can be seen that firearms licensing view an occupier is someone who has a legal interest in the land, something that someone who has permission to shoot on land from the occupier does not have.

Most certainly, when I give someone permission to shoot on my farm I do not confer any right of occupancy to them. There is no legal requirement to put the permission in writing.

Even if I was to authorise someone whom I have given permission to bring a guest shooting it would not allow them to use the occupiers exemption for borrowing rifles because "permission to bring a mate" does not make them an occupier.

 

 

I know this subject has been debated many a time, and despite the latest "suggestion/definition" still remains a little grey in my mind, as no precedent has been set (as far as I'm aware), hence my "tiny bit grey", . #2

 

Regardless of that, getting permission in writing or verbally (from whoever that may be) makes no difference as you say!

[CharlieT 32]

 

This very subject has been discussed by FELW where it was reported that the term Occupier, although not tested by the court, has been defined by the Home Office is respect of firearms licensing and I quote from FELWG minutes.

 

Definition of Occupier

 

Graham Widdicombe (HO rep. on FELWG) referred to the difference between a right and permission. A right is set out in law, whereas permission is more informal and can be given either verbally of in writing.

Interpretation is that permission that permission is given from one person to another who knows the person and is NOT passported through another.

 

From this it can be seen that firearms licensing view an occupier is someone who has a legal interest in the land, something that someone who has permission to shoot on land from the occupier does not have.

Most certainly, when I give someone permission to shoot on my farm I do not confer any right of occupancy to them. There is no legal requirement to put the permission in writing.

Even if I was to authorise someone whom I have given permission to bring a guest shooting it would not allow them to use the occupiers exemption for borrowing rifles because "permission to bring a mate" does not make them an occupier.

 

 

I know this subject has been debated many a time, and despite the latest "suggestion/definition" still remains a little grey in my mind, as no precedent has been set (as far as I'm aware), hence my "tiny bit grey", . #2

 

Regardless of that, getting permission in writing or verbally (from whoever that may be) makes no difference as you say!

 

 

Like much English usage, it is never 100% until tested in court. I believe though that the HO are in the process of making the definition of Section11 (5) less "grey" as you call it.

However, in this instance, I feel the problem is with with those who have permission to shoot wishing to circumvent the firearms act by convincing themselves that they are an occupier and in pursuance of this they twist or are selective with advice to suit their aims.

 

For example, the BASC statement on the matter and accepted by FELWG is " a quote with regards to the definition of “occupier” from the BASC website “Issues arising from S11(5). No definition of occupier in the Firearms Act, but generally means someone with an interest in the land that is enforceable at law”.

 

In no way can the BASC definition be construed as applying to someone who has been "permission to shoot" from the landowner.

[Alsone 789]

This very subject has been discussed by FELW where it was reported that the term Occupier, although not tested by the court, has been defined by the Home Office is respect of firearms licensing and I quote from FELWG minutes.

 

Definition of Occupier

 

Graham Widdicombe (HO rep. on FELWG) referred to the difference between a right and permission. A right is set out in law, whereas permission is more informal and can be given either verbally of in writing.

Interpretation is that permission that permission is given from one person to another who knows the person and is NOT passported through another.

 

From this it can be seen that firearms licensing view an occupier is someone who has a legal interest in the land, something that someone who has permission to shoot on land from the occupier does not have.

Most certainly, when I give someone permission to shoot on my farm I do not confer any right of occupancy to them. There is no legal requirement to put the permission in writing.

Even if I was to authorise someone whom I have given permission to bring a guest shooting it would not allow them to use the occupiers exemption for borrowing rifles because "permission to bring a mate" does not make them an occupier.

 

The latest Firearms Guidance in 6.18 suggests that the definition of "Occupier" that should be adopted is that found in S27 of Wildlife and Countryside Act -

 

 

“occupier”, in relation to any land other than the foreshore, includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish;

 

However, they are guidelines and any force is free to reject that interpretation as the guidelines have no force in law and thus each force is free to interpret it any way they like until a definitive definition is established by a higher Court or by further legislation. I believe that's the BASC's point on this as to why it's grey and care is needed and thus why the definition you mention above might be the one followed.

 

 

Deker, the advice I received came from a person at the BASC Firearms Team who was an ex-police licensing officer who rang me in person following an enquiry I made.

 

I believe the point of the letter is the police are unlikely to prosecute you if you can show that you had permission from someone who claimed to be the occupier and had represented themselves to you as being the occupier with all the relevant powers to grant the right for you to shoot under their supervision, as occupier.

 

" ....the advice I received came from a person at the BASC Firearms Team who was an ex-police licensing officer".... and what point would you be attempting to make with this comment, are you suggesting and ex FEO happens to know the Law on written and verbal contracts, most don't even know the Law on Firearms?

 

There is NO difference in Law between a written and verbal agreement!

 

 

The difference is in the proof. But as you know better than the BASC, there's really nothing left to say on the subject!

Edited February 25, 2016 by Alsone