Legality of garden plinking

[no country members]

It’s would also bring into question some of those perms people have. Is the permit granted by a tenant farmer (leases the land and the building off say a trust through savills or knight Frank), if so, technically he has use of the land as a going concern, however, would not be the landowner under law.

Nope tenant farmers usually hold or do not hold control of the sporting rights under the black and white terms set out in the signed agreement. Interpretation of the law in this regard would only be grey if there was no black and white clause stating the position either way. Only an incompetent land agent would construct such an agreement for a farmer and/or landowner.

Renting a residential property is different as shooting is not a typically a linked activity hence you need to ask for written permission if you are not sure. Any lack of black and white clarity can easily be cleared up by the shooter if they genuinely try. It may not be cleared up in your favour of course but it will be cleared up.

In domestic rental scenarios I would expect a lot of landlords to decline your request by default as there is nothing in it for them other than perceived elevated risk. Unless you are lucky and have a landlord who is into shooting.

 

[1260engineer]

I am awaiting the arrival of a plastic storage box. My intention is to attach brackets and use magnets to attach the card. There will be a steel plate at the back, then layers of old jeans held in place with a plastic sheet (the type used for house signs). I tried plumbers mate and hated it. It's difficult to work with and getting the pellets out is hard work. With old clothing you simply shake the pellets out every so often.

Old pillows are also very good too

 

[Mark Palmer]

I'd have thought some code 4 lead sheet backed by steel would be perfect , it should prevent most ricochets and just build up piles of lead that can be knocked off

 

[Vy Rark Orro]

I have 1st hand knowledge of an airgunner who shot a wood pigeon from off the top of a telegraph pole (sited just within his land boundary). The pigeon was instantly killed and drifted in the wind a foot outside his boundary wall. He leaned over the wall to pick the pigeon up to be challenged by a dog walker who said he was going to report him to the old bill for shooting out side his boundary. They duly arrived and the shooter reminded them of the law that he was legally protecting his crops in the garden and this pigeon was eating his peas. It was shot within his boundary and it drifted outside in the wind. The Police were more than happy with his explanation of events and they had a "quiet word" with the dog walker about wasting their time. This occurred in a small village outside Bath. The Police didn't follow up any more than stated.

While I agree the police did the sensible thing the neighbour on a different day could have gotten into serious trouble as the pellet did leave the boundary albeit probably inside a pigeon or possibly straight through the pigeon. Best not to shoot if the pellet has a realistic chance of leaving the permission as it stops police and lawyers from interpreting laws. A miss would definitely have been an offence. An offence might also have been committed under the 50 foot highway law if near a road as the dog walker was upset etc.

 

[jesim1]

I recently came across the following text that has made me question the legality of my garden shooting range:

1. Air Rifles (.177 / .22)

• Backstop Height: At least 4–6 feet (1.2–1.8m) high.
• Depth: At least 1 foot (30cm) thick if made of earth/sand.
• Material: Earth bank, thick timber, or steel pellet trap.
• Distance Behind Target: Minimum 15–20 yards clearance behind target with no public access.
• Legal Note: It’s illegal to let a pellet go beyond the boundary of the land where you have permission to shoot.

It's the 4th bullet point that is causing me concern and I believe is an interpretation of the law that says that it is illegal to discharge an air gun within 50ft of a public highway. I always took this to mean the gun itself should not be within 50ft of a public highway. My backstop is comprised of 4" thick timber posts stacked 6ft wide x 4ft high 40 metres away, at the end of my garden. Mounted on this are commercially available steel pellet traps/target holders etc. My potential issue is that it is only a couple of yards directly behind this to a quiet narrow country lane separated by shrubs and trees.

It's not a huge issue as I can move the backstop to comply and still have 25 metres available which is my preferred range but this would not be as convenient. Am I being paranoid? How would you interpret the discharge of an air gun law and the 50ft distance?

It's just guidance, I'm in Scotland, so my garden got checked out by the local FAO, and it does not correspond to that list, but she was happy to sign it off, and I'm happy I'm safe using it.

 

[Sarge]

While I agree the police did the sensible thing the neighbour on a different day could have gotten into serious trouble as the pellet did leave the boundary albeit probably inside a pigeon or possibly straight through the pigeon. Best not to shoot if the pellet has a realistic chance of leaving the permission as it stops police and lawyers from interpreting laws. A miss would definitely have been an offence. An offence might also have been committed under the 50 foot highway law if near a road as the dog walker was upset etc.

And then the issue of what GL they were using to take the bird...

 

[Charl]

The police are not there to interpret the law, they are there to follow and enforce it to the letter, black and white.
Courts deal with any grey areas and if a president is set for a given fact, then it becomes black and white.

 

[Phil248]

I’ve set my bullet trap (sheet metal funnel, AliX-Special) inside my shed, so it’s got 1ft thick yorkshire stone walls on three sides, and with the best will in the world it’ll take me longer than the lifespan of the sun to plink a hole through that!

I’m hoping that will be suitably well reinforced for my sub12 setup

 

[Phil248]

And then the issue of what GL they were using to take the bird...

But luckily there’s currently a live thread that’s got LOADS of guidance and information on that side of things!

 

[Vy Rark Orro]

The police are not there to interpret the law, they are there to follow and enforce it to the letter, black and white.
Courts deal with any grey areas and if a president is set for a given fact, then it becomes black and white.

True but police officers are human and they have to make an on the spot decision as to if an offence may have been committed. If they do then their superior checks it. Then the CPS check it. Court cases are decided by judges and juries but can still be changed on appeal.

Many laws are grey rather than black and white. If it was that easy we could save billions by shutting the courts and letting the on the spot officer decide who is guilty.
There is another thread about GLs that has umpteen people discussing if a garden can have crops in it and if certain birds can be legally shot. If umpteen shooters can't decide what chance is there of all police officers always getting it right.

 

[Sarge]

...... If umpteen shooters can't decide what chance is there of all police officers always getting it right.

I think the problem here is; there is something we may want to do that might otherwise be illegal/banned/against-the-rules-of the-game/etc. and we're trying to find a loophole or set of circumstances that will allow it, and we conveniently gloss over the minutiae that doesn't support our cause.

 

[Phil248]

I think the problem here is; there is something we may want to do that might otherwise be illegal/banned/against-the-rules-of the-game/etc. and we're trying to find a loophole or set of circumstances that will allow it, and we conveniently gloss over the minutiae that doesn't support our cause.

Exactly that Sarge!

 

[no country members]

It might as well be fekking illegal in my garden as every time I try and squeeze a session in lately there's always something that scuppers my plan.

 

[Vy Rark Orro]

I think the problem here is; there is something we may want to do that might otherwise be illegal/banned/against-the-rules-of the-game/etc. and we're trying to find a loophole or set of circumstances that will allow it, and we conveniently gloss over the minutiae that doesn't support our cause.

Partly true but if I use myself as an example I am against shooting anything without a very good reason so it does irk me when I hear of someone celebrating that they have gained a permission to shoot animals just for fun.

In the telegraph pole story using the evidence we have I would say the police officers were wrong and should have charged the neighbour but either applied common sense to the circumstances and turned a blind eye or did not interpret the law correctly.

 

[flyboy1950]

In the telegraph pole story using the evidence we have I would say the police officers were wrong and should have charged the neighbour but either applied common sense to the circumstances and turned a blind eye or did not interpret the law correctly.

As I understand it the police officer went back to his station and discussed it with the duty sergeant. Their problem would have been 2 fold. A. No pigeon and B No pellet. The pigeon in question had by the time the officer returned been consumed by a friends captive bird of prey. Impossible to prove that the pellet had/had not left the property boundary, so neighbour and dog walkers word against each other. The neighbour had admitted quite readily that he had shot the pigeon as it was eating his peas but not shooting outside his boundary. CPS wouldn't even consider taking this further as no hard evidence either way, so in my view the Police did the only thing they could do, report it in the incident log and let it go.

 

[Charl]

The law is the law, nothing grey. Which law/s that are eventually applied to the judgement of a particular case is the decision of the Magistrates, Crown Court Judges, High Court Judges and Law Lords.

 

[Talyllyn]

In the telegraph pole story using the evidence we have I would say the police officers were wrong and should have charged the neighbour but either applied common sense to the circumstances and turned a blind eye or did not interpret the law correctly.

As I understand it the police officer went back to his station and discussed it with the duty sergeant. Their problem would have been 2 fold. A. No pigeon and B No pellet. The pigeon in question had by the time the officer returned been consumed by a friends captive bird of prey. Impossible to prove that the pellet had/had not left the property boundary, so neighbour and dog walkers word against each other. The neighbour had admitted quite readily that he had shot the pigeon as it was eating his peas but not shooting outside his boundary. CPS wouldn't even consider taking this further as no hard evidence either way, so in my view the Police did the only thing they could do, report it in the incident log and let it go.

The shooter should have been given a lecture about the importance of a backstop to ensure his pellets couldn't leave the property.
Unless you have permission to shoot in the potential fall-out area for the pellet don't take the shot!

 

[Charl]

Why? The shot was taken legally, bird fell the other side of the fence, everything else is conjecture.

 

[Bighit]

People have been taken to court for shooting in their garden and misusing the GL .

This case when Starlings were still on the GL. He was accused of attracting them with birdfeeder's then shooting them.


A LANDOWNER accused of shooting starlings he attracted to his garden with bird feeders was acting unlawfully, a judge ruled yesterday.

Craig Cundey, 37, who claimed Government-granted licences entitled him to kill the birds, was cleared by magistrates earlier this year.
But the RSPCA challenged the ruling and its appeal was upheld in the High Court. It is believed to be the first case of its kind.

Cundey, from Alconbury, Cambridgeshire, said licences issued by the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and its predecessor, MAFF, authorised the killing of "pest species".

Mr Justice Silber, ruled however that people who shot wild birds were acting unlawfully, even if they held a licence, if they could not prove the birds were a public health risk or potentially spreading disease to livestock or crops.

He allowed the RSPCA to appeal against a decision by Huntingdon magistrates in February to acquit Cundey of breaching the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Cundey will not face the charges again. The case was brought only for legal clarification.

Dr William Peach, a research biologist, said at the magistrates' hearing that it was "almost unheard of for starlings to pose a risk to public health in the summer."

A spokesman for the RSPCA welcomed the ruling. "This means that people with licences who shoot birds in their back garden or on their land can only do so for authorised purposes," he said.

"Those who have legitimate reasons for controlling birds under certain circumstances do not have to worry about this judgment," he added. "It will be relatively easy for farmers and landowners to demonstrate if birds are being a nuisance."

 

[Charl]

Poor judgement imo. Held licence and now bird flu can cross over to humans, although rare, through contact with the animal or it's sh1t make his judgement pretty much mute