Are you allowed to shoot on RU2 Zoned Land? (NSW)

[bladeracer]

I did find something that might be relevant, or not, as it is applied under the Conveyancing Act 1919.
https://www.mondaq.com/australia/land-law-agriculture/520452/selling-rural-property-in-nsw

I mentioned it might not be relevant as it doesn't state categorically that land under 2.5ha can never be classed as rural.

[bladeracer]

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 defines the RU1 to RU6 zones. Zone RU5 is Rural Residential, but is still classed as rural property as far as I can determine. RU2 is rural but cannot be devloped in any way.
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/epi-2008-0128

[dpskipper]

Why not just ring up someone who works in a council planning department? They'd know all the ins and outs.

[bladeracer]

Why not just ring up someone who works in a council planning department? They'd know all the ins and outs.

They might, or they might not. Always ask for it in writing.

[Yes]

It certainly makes more sense to me that RU2 is rural, not residential. It wasn't me that suggested it wasn't rural...

Having gone through the Firearms Act and Regulations, and the Crimes Act, can you direct me to any law stating that you can't shoot on land zoned as RU2?

The entirety of my post wasn't directed at you, Bladeracer - I know you didn't state that RU2 wasn't rural.

I also didn't state that you couldn't shoot on RU2 land - but what you will find is that a lot of RU2 (and RU4) zoned properties are, as I say, often located closer to cities/townships and at the smaller end of rural property size (as a general rule, this isn't a 100% of all cases). My point, which is counter to your view, is simply that just because a property is zoned rural and you deem it safe to shoot DOES NOT mean that it will be lawful to do so - lots of rural zoned land around the outskirts of Sydney where it would be deemed illegal to discharge a firearm (see Poemax's example above). I could also rattle off a number of scenarios where it would be, in the very least, problematic for people to shoot on rural property even if they were outside the city limits.

The good old range in town - I'm going to have to visit this place if I ever get that far south - just to say I have shot a firearm in a built-up area (oh wait, all gun ranges in Sydney are in built up areas!). But to respond to your point Bladeracer, "because the law says we can't do something doesn't always mean that we can't", I agree - I speed on the racetrack, but wouldn't on the road. Same goes for shooting in a built-up area, I'd shoot at the range in this town, but wouldn't in my backyard; very different things and I don't think the law is at odds with itself in this instance!

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

My rule is if it is zoned rural and you can have cows, sheep and horses then you can shoot on it as you must be able to protect your livestock against feral pests. So long as it is safe to do so and your projectile will not leave the property.

[Yes]

My rule is if it is zoned rural and you can have cows, sheep and horses then you can shoot on it as you must be able to protect your livestock against feral pests. So long as it is safe to do so and your projectile will not leave the property.

Yeah, that would be problematic on your 3 acres at Penrith as your neighbour's kids ride their bike in the backyard

[bladeracer]

It certainly makes more sense to me that RU2 is rural, not residential. It wasn't me that suggested it wasn't rural...

Having gone through the Firearms Act and Regulations, and the Crimes Act, can you direct me to any law stating that you can't shoot on land zoned as RU2?

The entirety of my post wasn't directed at you, Bladeracer - I know you didn't state that RU2 wasn't rural.

I also didn't state that you couldn't shoot on RU2 land - but what you will find is that a lot of RU2 (and RU4) zoned properties are, as I say, often located closer to cities/townships and at the smaller end of rural property size (as a general rule, this isn't a 100% of all cases). My point, which is counter to your view, is simply that just because a property is zoned rural and you deem it safe to shoot DOES NOT mean that it will be lawful to do so - lots of rural zoned land around the outskirts of Sydney where it would be deemed illegal to discharge a firearm (see Poemax's example above). I could also rattle off a number of scenarios where it would be, in the very least, problematic for people to shoot on rural property even if they were outside the city limits.

The good old range in town - I'm going to have to visit this place if I ever get that far south - just to say I have shot a firearm in a built-up area (oh wait, all gun ranges in Sydney are in built up areas!). But to respond to your point Bladeracer, "because the law says we can't do something doesn't always mean that we can't", I agree - I speed on the racetrack, but wouldn't on the road. Same goes for shooting in a built-up area, I'd shoot at the range in this town, but wouldn't in my backyard; very different things and I don't think the law is at odds with itself in this instance!

But you are stating that you can't shoot on RU2 Zoned land. I'm asking for any legislation that supports your view that it can indeed be illegal to shoot on RU2 land. You are comparing doing something illegally, speeding, with something legal, racing. As with Pomemax's post, I'm asking whether it was illegal because it was RU2 land, or because of some extraneous reason. For example it is legal to shoot on rural property in NSW, but to shoot just for a bit of fun would be illegal. You can only shoot on private property in NSW for specific reasons, of which recreation is not one.

If you are saying that it is possible to have RU2 zoning within the boundaries of a township or other built-up area then that would indeed make shooting there illegal (at least without specific permits).

As I said, I can find nothing within the legislation that differentiates NSW RU2 from any other "rural" property, and the Act allows you to hunt with permission on "rural property".

[bladeracer]

My rule is if it is zoned rural and you can have cows, sheep and horses then you can shoot on it as you must be able to protect your livestock against feral pests. So long as it is safe to do so and your projectile will not leave the property.

There are properties on the southern outskirts of Melbourne that I believe you cannot shoot on despite being overrun with rabbits and foxes. People have to resort to trapping or bowhunting. I have no idea what the zoning is but it has plenty of stock, including a deer farm.

[Yes]

If you are saying that it is possible to have RU2 zoning within the boundaries of a township or other built-up area then that would indeed make shooting there illegal (at least without specific permits).

This is what I am arguing - but not only RU2 - that you can be on any rural land (no matter the zoning, even the RU1 properties) and it could be deemed unlawful to discharge a firearm for all sorts of reasons - RU2 is just more likely to be in the city limits than RU1 given the way that land is zoned. The "all sorts of reasons" will come down, ultimately, to safety - but the fact is that a property being rurally zoned won't save your skin - and indeed, as is the case in some instances, it is as unlawful to shoot on rural property as it is in my backyard here in inner Sydney.

[bladeracer]

If you are saying that it is possible to have RU2 zoning within the boundaries of a township or other built-up area then that would indeed make shooting there illegal (at least without specific permits).

This is what I am arguing - but not only RU2 - that you can be on any rural land (no matter the zoning, even the RU1 properties) and it could be deemed unlawful to discharge a firearm for all sorts of reasons - RU2 is just more likely to be in the city limits than RU1 given the way that land is zoned. The "all sorts of reasons" will come down, ultimately, to safety - but the fact is that a property being rurally zoned won't save your skin - and indeed, as is the case in some instances, it is as unlawful to shoot on rural property as it is in my backyard here in inner Sydney.

That's fair enough, but can you cite any legislation supporting this opinion? For example, anything that states rural land within city or town boundaries is not considered rural for shooting purposes? The Act and Regs probably would stand up in court if there are no outside influences making shooting there otherwise illegal.

[Yes]

I don't know if the "safe to do so" is legislated or not? Geniune question?

To me it is common sense - so haven't been bothered to look it up. If my neighbours are 100m away and I'm shooting a 223 on flat terrain I can't see how the law would be on my side... Indeed I hope they'd side with my neighbour if I'd lost my mind to that degree. Particularly because you're not permitted to set-up a range of any kind on private property, meaning back stops and the like would be deemed unlawful - so you'd need to be hunting/varminting... And there's a word for those that say they've never missed... Starts with L and ends iar.

[dpskipper]

To me it is common sense - so haven't been bothered to look it up.

Then look it up. Or you can't keep arguing against bladeracer without bringing something else to the table - except your opinion.

[Yes]

To me it is common sense - so haven't been bothered to look it up.

Then look it up. Or you can't keep arguing against bladeracer without bringing something else to the table - except your opinion.

So you think the law will side with you if you're shooting centrefire on flat terrain 100m from your neighbours boundary - toward their property? OK mate... Go try it out and let me know how it works out for you!

[dpskipper]

To me it is common sense - so haven't been bothered to look it up.

Then look it up. Or you can't keep arguing against bladeracer without bringing something else to the table - except your opinion.

So you think the law will side with you if you're shooting centrefire on flat terrain 100m from your neighbours boundary - toward their property? OK mate... Go try it out and let me know how it works out for you!

Show us some legislation. "Common sense" isn't enough.

[Yes]

Do it enough times they'll ping you Under Section 93I of the Crimes Act.

[dpskipper]

Do it enough times they'll ping you Under Section 93I of the Crimes Act.

I googled it. First result:

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 93I
Possession of unregistered firearm in public place
93I Possession of unregistered firearm in public place
(1) A person who--
(a) possesses an unregistered firearm in a public place, and
(b) is not authorised under the Firearms Act 1996 to possess the firearm,
is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

Did you have a typo? Surly your not serious...

[Yes]

Typo
Section 93GA: firing at dwelling-houses or buildings
Section 93GA(1) makes it an offence to fire a “firearm at a dwelling-house or other building with reckless disregard for the safety of any person”. The offence attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

As I say, do it enough and this is the kind of thing they'd slap you with.

[dpskipper]

So you think the law will side with you if you're shooting centrefire on flat terrain 100m from your neighbours boundary - toward their property?

Typo
Section 93GA: firing at dwelling-houses or buildings
Section 93GA(1) makes it an offence to fire a “firearm at a dwelling-house or other building with reckless disregard for the safety of any person”. The offence attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

So first, your claim is that shooting "towards property" is whats going to land you in hot water, but to back up your claim you cite legislation that only mentions "dwelling-house or other building" AND with "reckless disregard".

Not disagreeing with you that shooting towards someone else's property without some sort of back stop is reckless, but you're not pointing me towards any legislation where its expressly illegal.

[Yes]

OK.
What about reckless endangerment? Not a firearm law, but again, if you're stupid enough to fire a centrefire rifle toward your neighbours property from a close range with no back stop - I think I could make the charge stick - and I ain't in law!
As I say, would love it if you go try some of these out for us all who have a basic level of common sense, because you mate, are special.

[dpskipper]

because you mate, are special.

Hahaha awesome. Stooping to personal attacks.

Back on topic.

OK.
What about reckless endangerment?

Yes, if not shooting at a building, but otherwise shooting into a paddock occupied with people or livestock. Then reckless endangerment would very likely stick. Otherwise? What crime is there against shooting into some one else's EMPTY paddock?

I remember reading some time ago something about insuring projectiles do not leave the boundaries of the property you are shooting on. But i can't remember if it was a law, or even for what state. So theres every chance theres a law explicitly outlawing shooting from property to property. Do be a busy bee and find it if you want.

[Yes]

If I didn't know better I'd say Bladeracer hacked your account.

[dpskipper]

If I didn't know better I'd say Bladeracer hacked your account.

I am trying to have a civil discussion with you on this matter. Yet you seem to think that because I am politely rebuffing your points with logical counter-arguments I am supportive of the behaviour discussed (shooting in dense RU2 areas), and you are attacking me for it.

Remember what you where taught in Year 10 debating class. Remain civil, and argue the point, not the person.

[Yes]

Haha.. You've had a sheltered life if calling you special is an "attack" - surely you've been called far worse!

But alas, while I'd like to stay and console you, even though our debate is finished, I have foxes that need my immediate attention far more.

Remember, stay away from the boundaries and check the regulations if you're on rural land - it's not open slather as people here make it seem!

[dpskipper]

Quote from the footer:

Enough Gun aims to provide a mature environment

I'm doing my part. Are you?

[bladeracer]

I don't know if the "safe to do so" is legislated or not? Geniune question?

To me it is common sense - so haven't been bothered to look it up. If my neighbours are 100m away and I'm shooting a 223 on flat terrain I can't see how the law would be on my side... Indeed I hope they'd side with my neighbour if I'd lost my mind to that degree. Particularly because you're not permitted to set-up a range of any kind on private property, meaning back stops and the like would be deemed unlawful - so you'd need to be hunting/varminting... And there's a word for those that say they've never missed... Starts with L and ends iar.

The OP is looking for a legal answer, not an opinion.
You can't build a permanent range, but you can certainly make back stops if you require them, and you can use the terrain as well.
I have mobile bullet traps made of rubber so I can move them to wherever I want.

[bladeracer]

To me it is common sense - so haven't been bothered to look it up.

Then look it up. Or you can't keep arguing against bladeracer without bringing something else to the table - except your opinion.

So you think the law will side with you if you're shooting centrefire on flat terrain 100m from your neighbours boundary - toward their property? OK mate... Go try it out and let me know how it works out for you!

Who said anything about flat terrain and shooting at your neighbours?
If the property is such that you can shoot safely, and it's zoned rural, then you can shoot.
In this country we are still allowed to do lawful things on our on property, as long as it doesn't intrude on others doing their lawful activities.

[bladeracer]

Typo
Section 93GA: firing at dwelling-houses or buildings
Section 93GA(1) makes it an offence to fire a “firearm at a dwelling-house or other building with reckless disregard for the safety of any person”. The offence attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

As I say, do it enough and this is the kind of thing they'd slap you with.

You are actually inventing hypothetical scenarios to try to create unlawful situations, in which any sensible shooter is not going to get himself into. I'm talking about shooting on your own property where it is legal to do so, which, according to all the legislation I can find, includes rural property. Not shooting at your neighbours or creating a nuisance or any disturbance to others. We are specifically discussing RU2 zoning, which you are not allowed to develop, so no structures on the property, and very likely none on the surrounding properties, unless it's common to put half-acre blocks of RU2 in among residential blocks?

[bladeracer]

because you mate, are special.

Hahaha awesome. Stooping to personal attacks.

Back on topic.

OK.
What about reckless endangerment?

Yes, if not shooting at a building, but otherwise shooting into a paddock occupied with people or livestock. Then reckless endangerment would very likely stick. Otherwise? What crime is there against shooting into some one else's EMPTY paddock?

I remember reading some time ago something about insuring projectiles do not leave the boundaries of the property you are shooting on. But i can't remember if it was a law, or even for what state. So theres every chance theres a law explicitly outlawing shooting from property to property. Do be a busy bee and find it if you want.

The law is pretty simple. The bullet is yours and must not enter somebody else's property, unless you have permission to shoot there. I shoot a bunch of smaller properties so I can shoot across boundaries and chase targets across them. There are further laws regarding how close you can shoot to occupied structures without permission (250m down here) and other things.

[bladeracer]

If I didn't know better I'd say Bladeracer hacked your account.

Why would I need to, you haven't blocked me?
I'm still considering this to be a valid discussion aimed at providing a factual answer to the question. Have you abandoned that?
So far all you have offered is your opinions, which are certainly valid, but would not stand up in court, and are not supported by any legislation I can find.