It would be useful if the home office had stated an example of why they required this law, what incident has occurred which justifies it, possibly such a law if justifiable may be preferable to seeing additional restrictions on the sale of primers and powder/quantities.
BASC full response to firearms safety consultation
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
I really think BASC needs to go back and rethink. I can imagine no possible beneficial effect of the proposed law to anybody - not the police, nor your members (including me) - and there are obvious downsides to it for the legitimate shooter, collector, combined with the potential for it to be used as a vehicle to oppress shooters by "zealous" application by police and later amendment and extension. There is nothing about that proposal under any conceivable circumstance that is worthy of support by BASC in any way.
@Apthorpe - indeed, see my addition above.
I do think BASC should not been seen as NRA level obstinate when it comes to new legislation but nor should it simply capitulate so to be seen as being a 'friend' to ministers/the Home Office.
If there is a real problem, then maybe (just maybe) this is something we should get behind but I am sceptical. That's why I've asked Conor what is being said to BASC as the rationale. I'd expect more than the 'we thought this might, could, maybe, be a problem so here's some legislation' which is so commonly the HO approach.
I totally agree that it could cause trouble, as you say, through over-zealous enforcement. I don't consider successful prosecutions are a risk but the trouble you identify is.
I do think BASC should not been seen as NRA level obstinate when it comes to new legislation but nor should it simply capitulate so to be seen as being a 'friend' to ministers/the Home Office.
If there is a real problem, then maybe (just maybe) this is something we should get behind but I am sceptical. That's why I've asked Conor what is being said to BASC as the rationale. I'd expect more than the 'we thought this might, could, maybe, be a problem so here's some legislation' which is so commonly the HO approach.
I totally agree that it could cause trouble, as you say, through over-zealous enforcement. I don't consider successful prosecutions are a risk but the trouble you identify is.
Did basc have a crystal ball when they ended legal insurance cover?
CarlW
Well-Known Member
This is a balls-up in-the-making. The medical fiasco all over again. The fact that prosecutions of legitimate shooters are likely to fail is of no comfort whatsoever. FEOs, gun-shops, and shooters themselves will all start layering imaginary implications on top of this sh1te. None of that will end up in court: it will just become the de facto 'new normal'.
Primers are already restricted. This additional legislation achieves little other than cause yet another headache for law-abiding shooters.
Primers are already restricted. This additional legislation achieves little other than cause yet another headache for law-abiding shooters.
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
Apologies woodsmoke was not trying to nit-pick posted for the benefit of all incase others reading your post assumed it was legal to do as you suggested, it also shows that this nonsense law, given the facts we have at this time, is not necessary.
Ditto.
As is powder already restricted.
Woodsmoke
Well-Known Member
No need whatsoever (also @Apthorpe). Just me being a bit precious after rushing a post without properly thinking it through
I think we're all agreed though, that this apparent support by BASC is just another example of just how out-of-touch the organisation is with what its member base expect and deserve. in fact, I'd go a step further and call them a bloody disgraceYou have highly paid civil service staff and police (and BASC?) sitting round a table trying to think up yet another stupid law to justify their jobs (and fat pensions) and look good to Priti and then announce with a fan-fair to the media the latest government initiative to reduce violent crime, so we can all sleep so much safer not.
The word 'unauthorised' is a bit of a problem for me too. As I've mentioned in another post on this subject, there is AFAIK only one group of people who are authorised to possess a certain amount of S1 ammunition, and that group is FAC-holders.
This makes it sound as though the new offence is being suggested with FAC-holders in mind - despite the other blurb suggesting it is not intended to affect us at all.
FAC-holders wishing to behave unlawfully could in any case make ammunition and supply it unlawfully to criminals without ever producing 'unauthorised' quantities.
If the actual target of this new offence is people whopossess components with intent to make ammunition which either they themselves would unlawfully possess or which they intend to supply unlawfully to others, then it should say so, perhaps?
Or perhaps forget the components, and just have an offence of intent unlawfully to manufacture or supply ammunition, for the completion of which possession of tools and components could be taken into account?
BASC has recent and spectacular form in the matter of unforseen (by them, at least) consequences of provisions they have characteristically welcomed . We have seen not a shred of an acknowledgement of their responsibility for that ongoing debacle (perhaps because it has regrettably become 'the new normal') - but it would be good to see a little learning from it?
I used to have a .308 but sold it and now have a .300WM, but I still have some left over RS52, a few .308 empty cases kicking about somewhere in the reloading box plus a load of .30 bullets for the win mag. Am I committing an offence by having these parts kicking about because I COULD make up some .308 if I wanted to? Sounds like yes under this proposal which is patently absurd.
So is that going to mean that any powder or reloading kit we have for a particular cartridge has to be sold along with the rifle then, just to remove any doubt?
So is that going to mean that any powder or reloading kit we have for a particular cartridge has to be sold along with the rifle then, just to remove any doubt?
@stubear - no, you wouldn't be as you would need to be shown to have been wanting to make some .308 ammo, the fact you have the equipment to does not prove you will. If you're some criminal with no reason to possess ammo I can imagine a jury might think there is only one explanation, being intent, but in your case you have an explanation which would cast doubt on any suggestion you intended to make unauthorised ammo.
However, that doesn't stop the police, your FEO etc being difficult if they see it.
@Dalua - an interesting point, I wonder what the HO has to say for the reasoning. As you say, why not just say it is an offence to intend to make ammunition for which you have no lawful reason to possess?
However, that doesn't stop the police, your FEO etc being difficult if they see it.
@Dalua - an interesting point, I wonder what the HO has to say for the reasoning. As you say, why not just say it is an offence to intend to make ammunition for which you have no lawful reason to possess?
Jura
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I am missing something, but surely this is already covered in law with regard to reloading ammunition.
If you reload a calibre that isn’t on your FAC or exceed the number of rounds that you are allowed for a calibre allowed on your FAC, then you are committing an offence.
In order to purchase primers and powder in the UK you have to produce your FAC so why do we need further laws to deal with illegal manufacture of ammunition when it is already covered?
If you reload a calibre that isn’t on your FAC or exceed the number of rounds that you are allowed for a calibre allowed on your FAC, then you are committing an offence.
In order to purchase primers and powder in the UK you have to produce your FAC so why do we need further laws to deal with illegal manufacture of ammunition when it is already covered?
Who BASC, surly not! ........... oh let me think ........ medical reports and a ten year certificate.
Would have thought that BASC should pursue that the current Home Office Guidance be changed to law rather than let every police force make their own version of it.
As I don't at present reload, will not affect me but can see some police and FEO's using it to make life awkward for people that do.
As I don't at present reload, will not affect me but can see some police and FEO's using it to make life awkward for people that do.
This is legislation crafted to fix a problem that does not exist. Or rather, sufficient legislation exists to prosecute those making illegal ammunition.
But it takes hard legwork to find those relatively few criminals.
It is far easier to appear to be doing something . There is political capital to be made. In reality, this proposal is not about safety. It is about reducing the viability of lawful shooting. Which is not a new theme...
The McKay report of 1972 came to this conclusion: "a reduction in the number of firearms in private hands was a desirable end in itself. "
A year later parliament debated the resultant "Control of Firearms in Great Britain (1973 Green Paper) " [HO 288/156]. Though less sweeping than the McKay report, the changes in the 1973 Green Paper contained strictures spawned from the same process that has given breath to the legislation being considered in this thread.
BASC are in error if they support any legislation that is not evidence-lead AND proportionate. In 1973 Lord Gisborough is recorded in Hansard as having delivered these self-evident truths:
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Interesting comments on the ammunition components proposals and I would encourage forum members to complete the Home Office online survey form and having their say under general comments question 15. It is a public consultation so please don't solely comment about BASC's response in this thread and leave it at that - at the possible expense of your own voice in the consultation - please put your own views on the proposals on official record in your own consultation response.
Perhaps worth noting, as explained in Bill Harriman's 27 November 2020 blog that two of the early proposals leading up to this consultation were a complete ban on reloading and the imposition of a limit on the number of shotgun cartridges that could be possessed.
Perhaps also worth mentioning, as it may have been lost in the detail, but BASC worked together with the Fifty Calibre Shooting Association, the National Smallbore Rifle Association and the British Shooting Sports Council (BSSC) on positioning for this consultation.
The BSSC members are detailed here: The council’s members
BASC has put its initial position on the consultation and its full response on the basis of that position into the public domain relatively early in the process so if you disagree with BASC's position/response and are a member of organisation/s other than BASC please do contact your own organisation to make your voice heard and influence your organisation's public position on the matter.
Perhaps worth noting, as explained in Bill Harriman's 27 November 2020 blog that two of the early proposals leading up to this consultation were a complete ban on reloading and the imposition of a limit on the number of shotgun cartridges that could be possessed.
Perhaps also worth mentioning, as it may have been lost in the detail, but BASC worked together with the Fifty Calibre Shooting Association, the National Smallbore Rifle Association and the British Shooting Sports Council (BSSC) on positioning for this consultation.
The BSSC members are detailed here: The council’s members
BASC has put its initial position on the consultation and its full response on the basis of that position into the public domain relatively early in the process so if you disagree with BASC's position/response and are a member of organisation/s other than BASC please do contact your own organisation to make your voice heard and influence your organisation's public position on the matter.
Similar threads
