BASC full response to firearms safety consultation

[Conor O'Gorman]

BASC has submitted and published its full response to the firearms consultation - which ends on 16 February.

Press release:
BASC publishes detailed response to Home Office firearms proposals | The British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Download the response:

https://basc.org.uk/download/288375/

If you haven't already done so please spare five minutes completing a Home Office online survey form as your response. For more information and BASC’s recommended answers to the survey see here:

Home Office firearms safety consultation - BASC

Home Office firearms safety consultation BASC is urging all its members to spend 5 minutes responding to a Home Office firearms consultation that covers airguns, ammunition components, high muzzle energy rifles and miniature rifle ranges in England, Wales and Scotland. To ensure that a...

basc.org.uk

For those with concerns about the proposals for component parts of ammunition the relevant text from BASC's response is below:

The consultation seeks views on the creation of a new offence of possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges. BASC would expect to see the government’s evidence of those instances where the existence of any such offence would have resulted in successful prosecutions. Further and better particulars are required before BASC gives its carte-blanche support to this proposal.

That notwithstanding, BASC is content to offer its in principle support to the creation of an offence of possessing all of the components of ammunition (case, bullet, propellant & primer) with intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges. This is subject to its being satisfied that the creation of any such offence will not disadvantage certificate holders in any way. It is important to stress that all four components must be possessed, and intent proven before any prosecution is mounted. Many people possess some component parts of ammunition for perfectly lawful purposes, (see below).

As intent is based on a highly subjective, individual state of mind, it follows that each case has to be taken on its merits. The CPS tests before mounting any prosecution will have to be met. In law, intent is strictly interpreted and regulated by Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967 (Quoted below, for ease of reference).

“Section 8: Proof of criminal intent.

A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence, —
(a)shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
(b)shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.”.

The following people are likely to have some components of ammunition. NB This list is not exhaustive.

• Militaria collectors with drill rounds or deactivated ammunition. (BASC understands this is a very important area for the deactivated firearms and militaria trades).
• Re-enactors and living history groups.
• Metal detectorists and archaeologists.
• Providers of firearms safety training who have a selection of dummy cartridges.
• People with nick-knacks made from ammunition components – key rings, pens, bottle openers etc.
• People with dummy rounds as fashion accessories, e.g., a waistbelt made from the ammunition belt of a machine gun.
• Antique gun collectors with inert rounds to show functionality of actions.
• Western quick-draw competition participants and Line Dancers.
• Owners of ammunition advertising material such as bullet boards and salesman’s cartridge displays.
• People with fireworks and model rocketeers – the powder in them is de-facto a component of ammunition.
• Film & theatre use.
• People who use blank cartridges for a wide variety of purposes, e.g., dog training, film & theatre etc.
• Cartridge reloaders.

BASC’s “in principle” support for this measure is also conditional on this list being incorporated into the Home Office document “Guide on Firearms Licensing Law”.
At a meeting of the Practitioners Group (Home Office, Law Enforcement/Firearms Licensing and Shooting Interests) on 27th November 2020, a senior civil servant from the Home Office Firearms Section (Mr Graham Widdecombe) stated unequivocally “This is not a control mechanism”. BASC is prepared to accept that remark at face value, providing proper safeguards are built into any new offence. To that end, BASC suggests that the modified wording of Section 5 (2A) of the Firearms Act 1968 might be imported into any new offence with some advantage.

BASC extends its conditional, in-principle support for the proposal to create the new offence of possessing all of the components of ammunition with intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges. It reiterates that two tests would have to be met before any prosecution could be mounted.

• Possession of all four ammunition components: and then,
• Intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges from such components proven.

Great care needs to be exercised with the drafting of any such offence so that it does not trench on those people (especially home loaders of ammunition) who might reasonably be expected to have ammunition components for legitimate purposes. Any such new offence should be used to strike at criminal manufacturers and suppliers and not to harass certificate holders.

BASC holds itself ready to assist with the drafting of the new offence and its supporting Guidance.

 

[enfieldspares]

Again I do wonder about the knowledge of some at BASC. An important part of what gunsmiths do when replacing broken firing pins (or making new ones) requires the gun to be fired with capped cases with live primers in place. So as to use the strike to adjust the protrusion of the firing pin from the breech and the shape of the end of the firing pin. And whilst the list is "not exhaustive" it would have been useful to have included in the list of "following people" gunsmiths.

 

[CarlW]

Surely, it's only the primers that matter? Either you have an FAC or you don't.

 

[User00040]

Talk about making a rod for your own back...

 

[Liveonce]

Again I do wonder about the knowledge of some at BASC. An important part of what gunsmiths do when replacing broken firing pins (or making new ones) requires the gun to be fired with capped cases with live primers in place. So as to use the strike to adjust the protrusion of the firing pin from the breech and the shape of the end of the firing pin. And whilst the list is "not exhaustive" it would have been useful to have included in the list of "following people" gunsmiths.

Are gunsmiths not RFDs so would not be a problem for them, unless manufacturing ammunition for the local crime gang.

 

[David63]

Exactly! Read the text ' with intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges'

 

[Apthorpe]

Exactly! Read the text ' with intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges'

I still don't see why the proposed criminal offence adds anything useful, but do see many ways in which it could be a pain. I don't understand what is deficient with the current arrangement that the bits which go bang are controlled. For the proposed offence, the police are required not only to find sufficient evidence to convict someone of an existing firearms offence, but to have all four components and prove intent. Surely it's completely unworkable and pointless, achieving nothing but to add more weight of law against the interest of the legitimate user?
BASC's position of supporting the creation of this offence even in principle is bizarre enough, but to add the rider that you want the police to have proved intent prior to charging them is a very disturbing idea - suggesting a flagrant disregard for basic tenets of law. Seems like someone's spent too long with the Home Office which seems to share a similar disregard for fundamental rights.

 

[sh1kar]

I think the niggle for me is the definition of the word unauthorised. If I have components to assemble say .308 but .308 is not a calibre on my FAC then its quite clear. However, notwithstanding proving intent, most of us reloaders will have the components to assemble more complete cartridges than our FAC allows us to hold and I would not want to see this changed

S

 

[enfieldspares]

Are gunsmiths not RFDs so would not be a problem for them, unless manufacturing ammunition for the local crime gang.

No. Not correct. A RFD registration may be limited in as to what it allows the holder to do. That may include not being authorised to possess ammunition.

 

[Liveonce]

Nothing good ever comes from these types of consultation they are struggling to be seen to do something that reduces violent crime. I agree with apthorpe they have all they need to prosecute anybody possessing or manufacturing ammunition for themselves or others which they have no legal rights to possess or own.
The only exception possibly is an RFD who could legally justify owning any components and ammunition but could have intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges for sale to criminals.

 

[Liveonce]

No. Not correct. A RFD registration may be limited in as to what it allows the holder to do. That may include not being authorised to possess ammunition.

But a case and primer is not assembling a complete cartridge. And surly such a need, testing, could be added to the condition of the RFD registration.

 

[Utectok]

I suppose if you bought a job lot of cases and it had some of a calibre you don’t shoot... ie 300win mag and you have 308 on your ticket you could be charged as you had all the components to reload that calibre bullets primers powder and no permission to do so?

 

[Woodsmoke]

most of us reloaders will have the components to assemble more complete cartridges than our FAC allows us to hold and I would not want to see this changed

Precisely. I don't have .243 on my FAC, but a friend does. I already own IMR4895 to reload my .308, and this will also suit the .243. I can buy dies, bullets, primers, and brass so that leaves me completely capable of manufacturing ammunition for a calibre I don't possess. If I reload for this friend of mine, am I not in direct violation of this 'with intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges' nonsense?

How about, instead of standing 'ready to assist with the drafting of the new offence' you lot at BASC instead grow a set and start fighting back against this nonsense instead of bending over backwards to accommodate each and every piece of idiotic proposed legislation that the clowns in charge can dream up?

And you wonder why you have little support on this forum? 'sake . . . . . .

 

[Liveonce]

Precisely. I don't have .243 on my FAC, but a friend does. I already own IMR4895 to reload my .308, and this will also suit the .243. I can buy dies, bullets, primers, and brass so that leaves me completely capable of manufacturing ammunition for a calibre I don't possess. If I reload for this friend of mine, am I not in direct violation of this 'with intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges' nonsense?

How about, instead of standing 'ready to assist with the drafting of the new offence' you lot at BASC instead grow a set and start fighting back against this nonsense instead of bending over backwards to accommodate each and every piece of idiotic proposed legislation that the clowns in charge can dream up?

And you wonder why you have little support on this forum? 'sake . . . . . .

Leaving aside this nonsense, if you assemble a complete round of .243 for your friend and do not have .243 or your certificate then you are breaking the law anyway, your friend needs to assemble the .243 using your equipment.

 

[Utectok]

Leaving aside this nonsense, if you assemble a complete round of .243 for your friend and do not have .243 or your certificate then you are breaking the law anyway, your friend needs to assemble the .243 using your equipment.

Or probably just seat the bullet under current regs

 

[Apthorpe]

Precisely. I don't have .243 on my FAC, but a friend does. I already own IMR4895 to reload my .308, and this will also suit the .243. I can buy dies, bullets, primers, and brass so that leaves me completely capable of manufacturing ammunition for a calibre I don't possess. If I reload for this friend of mine, am I not in direct violation of this 'with intent to assemble unauthorised complete cartridges' nonsense?

How about, instead of standing 'ready to assist with the drafting of the new offence' you lot at BASC instead grow a set and start fighting back against this nonsense instead of bending over backwards to accommodate each and every piece of idiotic proposed legislation that the clowns in charge can dream up?

And you wonder why you have little support on this forum? 'sake . . . . . .

I think you may already be on a sticky wicket by loading for a friend under existing legislation because there is a period of time during which you're in possession of ammunition for a cartridge you don't have on your FAC. You have to "show/help/teach him how to load with your equipment". Apologies, Liveonce beat me to it.

 

[Woodsmoke]

Exactly as above.

The point is, I can lawfully buy and hold all the components to assemble a round I'm not authorised to possess. And under the proposed legislation this makes me technically guilty of an offense by default. 'Minority Report' spring to mind?

Edit. Thanks for the advice regarding what I can, and cannot do, regarding reloading for a friend. I kind of assumed most would have the nous not to have to point out the blindingly-obvious, but I should've been clearer in stating you either need to leave bullet seating to the 'friend', or merely supervise him. As usual however, distraction, obfuscation, and nit-picking proves the rule

 

[andyk]

As it stands, I don't think FAC holders (or other legitimate users) risk prosecution if this new offence is created. So long as it is worded as suggested, and intent is key, then it cannot catch legitimate holders of ammunition components.

Conor has quoted the s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 definition of intent which is also very similar to the common law definition. Intent is always taken by the criminal courts to be a high standard and will require the prosecution to prove that the Defendant had it in his or her mind to do the thing which is prohibited. Merely being in the position to do the prohibited thing, or even having considered it but decided not to, will not suffice. They must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Defendant was wishing to do that thing.

So, for example, you have all the gear to load .308 and also have some .30-06 dies and brass as a mate at the range offered you them when you said you were thinking of getting a .30-06. You would not commit an offence as, even though you could put together .30-06 ammo which you are not permitted to have you could not be shown to have decided to do so.

Of course, it can't be denied that a policeman without good firearms knowledge might think 'oh, but you have the equipment so you must have been intending to do it' but, unless you solicitor and later barrister is a total halfwit, the police won't get anywhere. You would have a totally plausible explanation which would establish more than reasonable doubt in the minds of any jury.

I can also see that BASC won't want to be seen to be opposing legislation which does nothing to harm legitimate interest but might help lower crime. That's not a good look.

However, law for laws sake is no good thing and, without careful drafting, this new offence has the potential to mutate into something more sinister. With everything else, BASC members (myself included) can't help but wonder at how quickly BASC is willing to capitulate to new regulations.

@Conor O'Gorman - what evidence has the Home Office put forward to justify this new offence? I'm not totally against BASC giving the support you detail above (which is subject to sufficient caveats) but only if the HO has established that there is a problem which can be fixed with this new offence. Have they had failed prosecutions against people manufacturing illegal ammo which they consider would succeed with this new offence?

The way I look at it, shooting (as a whole) does benefit is miscreants are stopped from causing trouble (with which lawful shooting is inevitably grouped by the general public). So, if there is a problem to be solved, it might be that we are getting something in return for BASC's tentative support.

If there is no such evidence, then this is law for the sake of it. There is an obvious risk that the offence will be drafted poorly and have unintended consequences (something it does seem BASC is alert to but it is not it which will be drafting) and there will also be a risk that over-zealous FEOs will cause FAC holders a headache (even if a prosecution would be doomed to fail).

 

[Apthorpe]

As it stands, I don't think we have too much to worry about if this new offence is created. So long as it is worded as suggested, and intent is key, then it cannot catch legitimate holders of ammunition components.

Conor has quoted the s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 definition of intent which is also very similar to the common law definition. Intent is always taken by the criminal courts to be a high standard and will require the prosecution to prove that the Defendant had it in his or her mind to do the thing which is prohibited. Merely being in the position to do the prohibited thing, or even having considered it but decided not to, will not suffice. They must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Defendant was wishing to do that thing.

So, for example, you have all the gear to load .308 and also have some .30-06 dies and brass as a mate at the range offered you them when you said you were thinking of getting a .30-06. You would not commit an offence as, even though you could put together .30-06 ammo which you are not permitted to have you could not be shown to have decided to do so.

Of course, it can't be denied that a policeman without good firearms knowledge might think 'oh, but you have the equipment so you must have been intending to do it' but, unless you solicitor and later barrister is a total halfwit, the police won't get anywhere. You would have a totally plausible explanation which would establish more than reasonable doubt in the minds of any jury.

I can also see that BASC won't want to be seen to be opposing legislation which does nothing to harm legitimate interest but might help lower crime. That's not a good look.

However, law for laws sake is no good thing and, without careful drafting, this new offence has the potential to mutate into something more sinister. With everything else, BASC members (myself included) can't help but wonder at how quickly BASC is willing to capitulate to new regulations.

@Conor O'Gorman - what evidence has the Home Office put forward to justify this new offence? I'm not totally against BASC giving the support you detail above (which is subject to sufficient caveats) but only if the HO has established that there is a problem which can be fixed with this new offence. Have they had failed prosecutions against people manufacturing illegal ammo which they consider would succeed with this new offence?

The way I look at it, shooting (as a whole) does benefit is miscreants are stopped from causing trouble (with which lawful shooting is inevitably grouped by the general public). So, if there is a problem to be solved, it might be that we are getting something in return for BASC's tentative support.

If there is no such evidence, then this is law for the sake of it. There is an obvious risk that the offence will be drafted poorly and have unintended consequences (something it does seem BASC is alert to but it is not it which will be drafting) and there will also be a risk that over-zealous FEOs will cause FAC holders a headache (even if a prosecution would be doomed to fail).

Except that "intent" isn't key, because intent can only be determined in court, therefore the Police are entirely free to prosecute and the legitimate holder of components has no protection from the ordeal of arrest, lengthy investigation under bail, loss of his firearms, possibly job, and a stressful trial. Meanwhile, the new law has no effect on the imaginary criminal manufacturing ammunition for gangsters because it is already illegal for him to own the powder and primers, so the new law achieves nothing at all, while only being a burden to the wrong group of people.

 

[andyk]

And another thing!

@Conor O'Gorman - what will be done to prevent FEOs determining that they think an offence might be committed and so revoking FAC/SGCs without prosecuting?

I really don't think the current proposal risks legitimate shooters being prosecuted but we are all well aware of the harm an uneducated FEO can do when they overreach. Here, I can foresee an FEO, in the above example I give, seeing .30-06 brass and deciding that the FAC holder intends to commit and offence and so revokes his or her certificate.

Say a prosecution doesn't ensue, so the record is never 'set straight', that shooter is now shafted as his FEO has deemed him a criminal without there being any recourse for the shooter. Please don't say they would just appeal, as we all know how difficult and expensive that is.