target shooting at home on farms

ivanthehunter

Is there any law against target shooting at home on the farm, it would only be carried out by the farmer and a few friends.
The reason i ask is because i have seen or heard of legislation to govern all firing ranges. Would a small bunch of friends who are not paying money still be considered a proper range?

Sparks

Right now, it's legal so long as it's done safely (otherwise, it's discharging a firearm recklessly).

When Section 4A is commenced, it gets far more complicated - it becomes an offence to engage in target shooting in a place that is not an inspected and licenced range, with jail time and fines for anyone involved in the enterprise (and that's not just limited to those shooting on the range, but anyone involved - cut the grass, go to jail type silliness in theory). The last minister has said that a hunter zeroing his rifle wouldn't be included in this, but there's nothing in law that differentiates between zeroing and target shooting (though if you have a licence for target shooting, claiming you were zeroing would be difficult, and if you have a licence for hunting, it'd be hard to claim you were zeroing on land you hadn't permission to shoot over). And there's been nothing official from the current minister as yet so far as I know.

And yes, a small group of friends who are not paying money would still be considered a proper range because whether something is a proper range or not is not down to whether people are paying or not, but whether they're shooting or not.

ivanthehunter

Does this mean that pliking is now illegal. So shooting a few bottles or similar is now a jail-able offence.:mad:
Is the shooting of clays also considered an offence on/in land which has not been inspected and licensed

Sparks

No, it means that plinking will be illegal (unless you're on a range) when Section 4A is commenced. And no, it wouldn't apply to shooting clays, assuming you're shooting them with a shotgun (4A only applies to rifles and pistols).

It wasn't me!

Yeah, I had been concerned about that myself. Thanks for alleviating doubt before I bought a clay trap Sparks.

Sikamick

Does this mean that if your out doing some rabbit shooting and you decide to shoot a few bean tins that you could be breaking the Law.

Surely this could not be regarded as target shooting.

It wasn't me!

Just say you're routinely reconfirming your zero, or changing it for a different range or something.

jwshooter

Sikamick wrote: »

Does this mean that if your out doing some rabbit shooting and you decide to shoot a few bean tins that you could be breaking the Law.

Surly this could not be regarded as target shooting.

good point mick ,

rrpc

I think this area could be usefully brought to the FCP for clarification. The law (Section 4A) could be better phrased, but the thrust of it seems (to me) to apply to ranges that are open to members or paying visitors and not to ad hoc training facilities for persons on their own property.

jaycee

rrpc wrote: »

I think this area could be usefully brought to the FCP for clarification. The law (Section 4A) could be better phrased, but the thrust of it seems (to me) to apply to ranges that are open to members or paying visitors and not to ad hoc training facilities for persons on their own property.

Interesting point and a good Idea too.
I can see the merit in reviewing that whole section simply like that .


If restated like that It could also include clay and other shooting facilitys, one rule for all is easier to understand so to rephrase it as per your interpretation *any range open to members or paying visitors is subject to inspection and subject to the conditions of publc safety* etc makes sense.

Shooting on ones own land is a matter of satisfying yourself that your public liability insurance covers any activity there.

Good Idea !

Mellor

Will 4A in its current form apply to both clays and rifles when instated

rrpc

Mellor wrote: »

Will 4A in its current form apply to both clays and rifles when instated

No, clay shooting clubs are excluded from the section, as shooting clays is not deemed to be target shooting.

ivanthehunter

When will the new application of A4 come into being?

It seems that in Eire any person is allowed enjoy their property to a certain point. But what is that cut off point? Enjoyment of ones property surely involves all legal activities with reasonable numbers of people sharing that enjoyment.
If this law is so easily circumnavigated then it bids the question, Why have this law at all?
Is it designed to stop groups of people from gathering on mass and discharging a barrage of firepower in an unorganized manner? If so then law should stipulate a maximum number of people who are allowed to meet in a suitably private place deemed safe by them for the purpose of target shooting, the law should already give protection to other third parties through the "duty of care of an occupier", as we are concerned about shooting as it relates to an owner/occupier and not to a assigned hunter.

This law would seem to me, an attempt to restrict large groups of people meeting up with guns in unspecified locations.... Its seems to be born out of fear rather than fair play.. If it was worded that any land owner could meet with a reasonable number of friends to share in his/her enjoyment of his property as long as no profit was made etc etc. well then that would be great!!
Anyway has any body got a link to the relevant piece of legislation?

IRLConor

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Anyway has any body got a link to the relevant piece of legislation?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0026/sec0033.html

Rovi

This is something I'd love to see clarified one way or the other.
It's no big secret here (as I've posted on the subject before) that I have the land and the machinery to put together a very nice little private facility (NOT a 'range'! :rolleyes:) for my own and a few select friends' (by invitation only) shooting amusement.
No club, no fees, no 'general public'.

Currently, if I want to do a bit of shooting here at home, I fire over the bonnet of the jeep or off a wobbly table at paper targets stapled to propped up pallets; I'd love to install a permanent shooting bench, a proper target frame, a few steel gongs, etc.

What's stopping me for now and the foreseeable future is what appears to be the strong possibility that by creating such a facility, I'm opening myself up to all manner of unannounced search and inspection, never mind the legal repercussions of operating an 'Unauthorised Range'.

I agree with rrpc and jaycee, this is something the FCP might look at getting clarified.

Sparks

Definitely 4A needs to be reworked. I know it looks like "real" ranges to us rrpc, but since most people here would have the equivalent of a PhD level of qualification in shooting, I'd say we had a biased viewpoint. Certainly the actual wording of 4A makes absolutely no such distinction - it just says that target shooting must happen on a range licenced under 4A (or authorised under section 2, like RRPC's range is now), and that if it isn't so licenced/authorised, everyone gets to see the inside of a cell. Even Sikamick's point above about the tin cans is perfectly correct according to the letter of the law, and personally, I don't fancy ever having to stand up in court somewhere and say "yes your honour, I know it wasn't down to the letter of the law, but don't be silly, that law's daft!"

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Definitely 4A needs to be reworked. I know it looks like "real" ranges to us rrpc, but since most people here would have the equivalent of a PhD level of qualification in shooting, I'd say we had a biased viewpoint. Certainly the actual wording of 4A makes absolutely no such distinction - it just says that target shooting must happen on a range licenced under 4A (or authorised under section 2, like RRPC's range is now), and that if it isn't so licenced/authorised, everyone gets to see the inside of a cell. Even Sikamick's point above about the tin cans is perfectly correct according to the letter of the law, and personally, I don't fancy ever having to stand up in court somewhere and say "yes your honour, I know it wasn't down to the letter of the law, but don't be silly, that law's daft!"

Indeed. In fact all that's really needed is for a definition of the word 'range' inserted in the definitions part of the act for it to be clear as to what's being referenced. We've had the last Minister stand up in the Dáil and say that it didn't refer to people zeroing their rifles, but it doesn't say that in the act, so I'm not sure what weight that would carry in a court case.

The NTSA have a good few members who would be in the habit of training with air rifle or air pistol at home (where circumstances allowed) and that certainly shouldn't fall under section 4A.

Sparks

The term 'target shooting' also desperately needs to be defined in the Act. I think there might be more needed to change the direction of 4A's intent, but it wouldn't be much.

And yeah, the airgun training at home is what bugs me
(I only get to dry-fire myself, but several of our best shooters can train at home - banning that, which 4A currently would do, would do a lot of damage to our sporting hopes)

spideog7

Sikamick wrote: »

Does this mean that if your out doing some rabbit shooting and you decide to shoot a few bean tins that you could be breaking the Law.

Sparks wrote: »

Even Sikamick's point above about the tin cans is perfectly correct according to the letter of the law, and personally, I don't fancy ever having to stand up in court somewhere and say "yes your honour, I know it wasn't down to the letter of the law, but don't be silly, that law's daft!"

But it's quite difficult to prove that, surely nobody can actually say that there wasn't a rabbit there, that just ran away after the shot, and you just missed him and hit the can.
Alternately you could tie a rabbit to a peg in front of your preferred target , although you'd probably get done for animal cruelty.
That's a bit far fetched but the first point makes sense, how can anyone prove that you weren't hunting? Even if they were watching you!!

Sparks

Spideog, how would you prove you weren't target shooting, when "target shooting" has no legal definition?
And yes, it'd be difficult to prove - but so's murder (because you have to prove intent without reading someone's mind).

And more practically, you'd have to prove it in court and that's not acceptable to my mind. We should never have to go to court in the pursuit of our sport, because we're not criminals. Court should be an avenue of last resort for the settling of civil disputes and the sole resort for criminal matters; it should not be a part of a pathway into our sport, or a matter-of-course hazard when you're in it!

spideog7

Well the onus is on the law to prove you were in the wrong, so you don't have to prove anything.
My point was more that it's unlikely you'll get prosecuted for it unless someone has a personal vendetta against you. I understand that in theory nobody should have to conveniently sidestep the law, but the "law is an ass" and in practice there is a lot of grey areas. No harm no foul

Rovi

All this talk of tin cans and restrained rabbits (:rolleyes:) is just fiddling at the edges and looking for an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
In my particular case (and I suspect, many others), any talk of a recently departed Oryctolagus cuniculus would merely add "Taking the piss" to the list of potential charges; the shooting bench, target frame, steel gongs, silhouettes, etc would surely give the game away. Not to mention the quantity and variety of brass.
I should stress here that I'm not looking to set up a fully equipped range with all the bells and whistles; I am a member of and regularly attend at two full scale commercial ranges that cater to all the shooting disciplines to which I subscribe, and I have no intention of cutting back on my use of either. If nothing else, the camaraderie of the people and the variety of shooting and firearm types available is worth the membership fees on their own.
All I want to do, is set up something at home that's a bit more sophisticated than leaning across a jeep bonnet shooting at a bit of paper pinned to a stick at the far end of a field.
Without, needless to add, landing myself in trouble with the justice system.

spideog7

What's to stop someone actually getting a range licence ??
Is there crazy restrictions on it or is it really expensive ??

Sikamick

spideog7 wrote: »

Well the onus is on the law to prove you were in the wrong, so you don't have to prove anything.
My point was more that it's unlikely you'll get prosecuted for it unless someone has a personal vendetta against you. I understand that in theory nobody should have to conveniently sidestep the law, but the "law is an ass" and in practice there is a lot of grey areas. No harm no foul

---

Have you heard the story of the grey area, that's the place in the corner of the cell where you piss and contemplate why you listened to the wrong advise.

ivanthehunter

spideog7 wrote: »

What's to stop someone actually getting a range licence ??
Is there crazy restrictions on it or is it really expensive ??

i think the fee is one thousand euro. and as far as restrictions go you'd be looking at safe storage facilities, monitored alarms, large back drops ie civil works, membership logs, skills tests, trainers, lots of sh1t.
if you were to apply for a range licences it would be the same as any licensed range which is open to the public.
Why bother!!!
This law effects me as i have access to land but not to the sporting rights of that land, dont ask. Its going to be hard to prove zeroing when i cant hunt there but i own the land...

There is probably an Irish way out of this problem,:rolleyes:
What is a range?
Is it a place where you place a target? Do you shoot from the same location each time? Is the Irish Governments view of the target shooting range a place where a club meets?:rolleyes:
What is the definition of a club?:rolleyes:
Has the List of Question for the doj been sent off???

rrpc

My view on this is quite simple, but direct.

If the law says that anywhere you shoot targets is a range, then so be it, it's a range and all the mechanisms of the state must be brought to bear on certifying it or not as the case may be. If that's the purpose of the law, then let the guardians of the law pursue it to it's logical conclusion.

If on the other hand there is a different definition of target shooting that does not include someone practising air rifle in a farm shed, then let the law state so clearly and unambiguously so that nobody is 'turning a blind eye' or 'talking behind their hands' or any of the other usual bullsh*t that ensues when the law doesn't match reality.

ivanthehunter

rrpc wrote: »

My view on this is quite simple, but direct.

If the law says that anywhere you shoot targets is a range, then so be it, it's a range and all the mechanisms of the state must be brought to bear on certifying it or not as the case may be. If that's the purpose of the law, then let the guardians of the law pursue it to it's logical conclusion.

If on the other hand there is a different definition of target shooting that does not include someone practising air rifle in a farm shed, then let the law state so clearly and unambiguously so that nobody is 'turning a blind eye' or 'talking behind their hands' or any of the other usual bullsh*t that ensues when the law doesn't match reality.

How long will it take to get the law changed?? 10years? 2years?
I think i'll just have a special place i use for zeroing!!!!!