I wouldn't say this is too bad really. I've just dug out the BASC press release from when the Govt first consulted on this, it included:
1. Increased security rules for 50cals/HMEs.
2. Requiring a FAC for operation of a miniature rifle range
and prohibiting semi-autos from being used on such ranges.
3. Increasing the age at which an airgun can be used unsupervised to 18.
4. An offence of intending to manufacture ammunition you aren't entitled to possess.
More here:
Home Office firearms safety consultation - BASC
As to 1, I believe they've already done that by requiring level 3 security (which was less onerous than some of their other proposals, e.g. storage at an RFD).
While 2 looks to be being implemented, they've dropped the semi-auto restriction and there are no other restrictions beyond the operator needing a FAC (I recall there was a bit in the consultation that implied they might consider other restrictions in addition to this). All in, I don't think simply requiring the operator to have a FAC is too bad when there was the potential for no semi autos and possibly the removal of some of the other exemptions mini rifle ranges enjoy. I understand rifle clubs get a free club FAC. While I imagine mini ranges won't qualify for this, there is clearly a process in existence for granting FACs to possess club guns which ought to migrate over to mini ranges fairly easily.
3 doesn't appear to be in there, which is great as that would be very bad news for lots of youngsters getting started.
4 is happening, and the stated intention of the legislation shouldn't hurt legitimate reloaders as it was expressed as only applying if the person intends to manufacture ammunition they aren't authorised to possess. However, I'm a little concerned about how this is worded. Viewed in isolation, and with a very unsympathetic judge, it could cause a problem. If we consider the requirements for the offence in the circumstance of a legitimate reloader who possesses the means to manufacture unauthorised quantities but does not intend to do so, then:
s3A(1)(a) - satisfied as all four components listed in s3A(2) would be possessed.
s3A(1)(b) - could be satisfied depending on how it's interpreted (more below).
s3A(1)(c)(i) - would be satisfied as they will have (in this example) more components than they can possess as assembled ammo.
The issue with s3A(1)(b) is I could see two ways of interpreting it. The first is the way we're told this is meant to be interpreted, that the "intention" would need be the intention to manufacture ammunition in excess of that authorised/not authorised at all. This wouldn't concern the legitimate reloader. The second approach would be to interpret "intention" more broadly as "intends to manufacture ammunition from those components" with no qualification that the person only intends to do this when it would be legal. This broader approach would catch the legitimate reloader as the intention would be present and, if carried out at that moment, would lead to unauthorised amounts. This problem arises because s3A(1)(c) doesn't specify at what time that part of the test is to be applied.
I'd think the first approach to intention is the most likely, as the result of the second approach would appear absurd. However, the issue is that the legislation will be interpreted by police, CPS lawyers and judges who may struggle to comprehend why the legitimate reloader would possess the means to manufacture unauthorised ammunition if they don't intend to do so.
I think an improved wording should be pushed for by the relevant orgs and if
@Conor O'Gorman reads this, I'd hope BASC can consider this. I'd think further subsection would suffice, if it made clear that "intention" must be an intention to manufacture in breach s1/s3.
. If somebody is in possession of shooters powder without an explosives licence or one of the exemptions i.e FAC, SGC or RFD they are breaking the law, Explosive regulations 2014, no proof of intent is need the very fact they posses the shooters powder is illegal, take them to court, find them guilty and lock them up for five years, simple.
