Current Firearms Bill and reloading restrictions

[SteveFisher]

I've mentioned this here before and was shot down as paranoid, but try as I might I cannot read the text of this bill as NOT making it a criminal offence to possess more than your allotted volume of reloading components.

See here - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0039/220039.pdf

Possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person has in their possession any component parts of 5 ammunition (see subsection (2)), (b) the person intends to manufacture ammunition to which section 1 applies using those parts, and (c) were the person to do so— (i) possession of the ammunition by the person would 10 constitute an offence under section 1, or (ii) the manufacture or possession of the ammunition by the person would constitute an offence under section 3. (2) For the purposes of this section the component parts of ammunition 15 are— (a) bullet; (b) cartridge case; (c) primer; (d) propellant.

Now, if I have 500 .308 on my FAC and I have 300 completed rounds, plus 300 heads, primers etc, then I have possession, I clearly have intent to manufacture and if I loaded all at once I would be committing an offence under section 1. So, given that any defence would rest upon the single claim of whether I would or would not manufacture them all at once, how come everyone is so blasé about this? Who wants to first to be had up in court and take a chance on a jury?

It would be such a simple thing to include a disclaimer stating that the offence would not apply to FAC holders holding stocks for reloading in calibres on their ticket, and yet no one seems to have suggested this.

Someone please explain to me how I'm wrong in my reading?

 

[Dalua]

Possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person has in their possession any component parts of
ammunition (see subsection (2)),
(b) the person intends to manufacture ammunition to which section
1 applies using those parts, and
(c) were the person to do so—
(i) possession of the ammunition by the person would
constitute an offence under section 1, or
(ii) the manufacture or possession of the ammunition by
the person would constitute an offence under section
3.
(2) For the purposes of this section the component parts of ammunition
are—
(a) bullet;
(b) cartridge case;
(c) primer;
(d) propellant.

That's what it says. So what does that mean for an FAC-holding reloader?
1a - yes, I have in my possession all the component parts in abundance. Enough, certainly, to make way more ammunition than I'm lawfully allowed to possess at any one time
1b - yes, I definitely intend to use the components to manufacture S1 ammunition.
1ci - Phew! I definitely do not intend to make ammunition the possession of which would constitute an offence under either S1 or S3.

So I will not have committed any offence.

That's my reading of it, anyhow. Proving intent is notoriously difficult - particularly, one would hope, if there isn't any.

 

[Morkai]

@SteveFisher

The same was said here, poorly written isnt it.

Thread 'Firearms Bill 2023' Firearms Bill 2023

 

[SteveFisher]

Possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person has in their possession any component parts of
ammunition (see subsection (2)),
(b) the person intends to manufacture ammunition to which section
1 applies using those parts, and
(c) were the person to do so—
(i) possession of the ammunition by the person would
constitute an offence under section 1, or
(ii) the manufacture or possession of the ammunition by
the person would constitute an offence under section
3.
(2) For the purposes of this section the component parts of ammunition
are—
(a) bullet;
(b) cartridge case;
(c) primer;
(d) propellant.

That's what it says. So what does that mean for an FAC-holding reloader?
1a - yes, I have in my possession all the component parts in abundance. Enough, certainly, to make way more ammunition than I'm lawfully allowed to possess at any one time
1b - yes, I definitely intend to use the components to manufacture S1 ammunition.
1ci - Phew! I definitely do not intend to make ammunition the possession of which would constitute an offence under either S1 or S3.

So I will not have committed any offence.

That's my reading of it, anyhow. Proving intent is notoriously difficult - particularly, one would hope, if there isn't any.

But how do you prove 1c? A jury of tabloid readers is shown your huge stock of powders, primers, heads - shocked by this stockpile they are easily persuaded... "Of course he had intent!" says the barrister.

And please don't tell me it is up to the courts to prove guilt, in practice we know that often does not happen.

 

[SteveFisher]

@SteveFisher

The same was said here, poorly written isnt it.

Thread 'Firearms Bill 2023' Firearms Bill 2023

Or very well written if the intent is to criminalise currently legal reloaders.

 

[Morkai]

Or very well written if the intent is to criminalise currently legal reloaders.

True.

 

[Stalker62]

Now, if I have 500 .308 on my FAC and I have 300 completed rounds, plus 300 heads, primers etc, then I have possession, I clearly have intent to manufacture and if I loaded all at once I would be committing an offence under section

Legally (and ballistically) there is no such thing as 'heads', they are bullets.

Please stand by whilst those who refuse to accept this fact will be along to say 'It doesn't matter, we all know what is meant'.

It matters. Cases are thrown out on the incorrect wording of charges.

That said.

Someone please explain to me how I'm wrong in my reading?

If your allowance is 500 rounds of ammunition, and you have 300 completed rounds, and the components for another 300, and your intention is to make those components into 300 completed rounds of ammunition, bringing your total over your allowance - you are guilty.

If you tell the Police this (after they have cautioned you):-



You (the Royal you) render yourself liable to prosecution and are, in any event, too stupid to be trusted with any firearm.

 

[SteveFisher]

Legally (and ballistically) there is no such thing as 'heads', they are bullets.

Please stand by whilst those who refuse to accept this fact will be along to say 'It doesn't matter, we all know what is meant'.

It matters. Cases are thrown out on the incorrect wording of charges.

That said.

If your allowance is 500 rounds of ammunition, and you have 300 completed rounds, and the components for another 300, and your intention is to make those components into 300 completed rounds of ammunition, bringing your total over your allowance - you are guilty.

If you tell the Police this (after they have cautioned you):-

View attachment 301327

You (the Royal you) render yourself liable to prosecution and are, in any event, too stupid to be trusted with any firearm.

Well that's a daft post. I certainly do have intent to add another 300 rounds to the 300 I already have. I have the components and the intent to manufacture is obviously there. But not all at once.
Do you see what you did? Jumped to the same conclusion a juror very easily could. This is a terribly written piece of legislation, already past it's third reading. Some poor innocent bugger will go to jail before this is edited, and maybe hundreds if the police get a taste for it. It beggars belief that the shooting associations are doing nothing.

 

[Husky]

" I intend to assemble the components whilst keeping under the maximum amount allowed on my FAC ".
That's what I would say if asked.

 

[Stalker62]

Well that's a daft post. I certainly do have intent to add another 300 rounds to the 300 I already have. I have the components and the intent to manufacture is obviously there. But not all at once.

Have another read of my 'daft post'.

...and your intention is to make those components into 300 completed rounds of ammunition, bringing your total over your allowance - you are guilty...

It says exactly that.

 

[Mossypaw]

How would ‘they’ know how many cases you had…….. unless you tell them. !
Do ‘they’ come round and check the cupboard under the stairs, the garden shed or wherever you may be stockpiling these unlicensed components.

 

[Eric the Red]

There is much danger in taking a part piece of legislation and seeking to make sense of it in isolation. There are references to other sections even within the short extract provided. Clearly this is not the complete legislation and there will be clear text as to what is legal too. This area is seeking (IMHO) to identify where there is an offence when the person does not hold a legal certificate to do these things - this is what they are tightening legislation on - it's not currently an offence to hold any component parts.

As an aside bullets are defined as 'missiles' on certificates, so there is a mismatch there.

 

[Stalker62]

As an aside bullets are defined as 'missiles' on certificates, so there is a mismatch there.

Absolutely right.

The entire firearms legislation could do with re-write, a streamline and a simplification.


In the meantime...

 

[Stalker62]

How would ‘they’ know how many cases you had…….. unless you tell them.

 

[cjm1066]

I don't reload and I am allowed 250 rounds, which the dealer enters on my ticket as and when I buy some. No check on if I am over the limit, until renewal when I am obligated to make truthful statements.

Perhaps this hole in the law needs plugging


Sorry forgot to state calibre before some one asks its a 0.3

 

[Apthorpe]

Legally (and ballistically) there is no such thing as 'heads', they are bullets.

Please stand by whilst those who refuse to accept this fact will be along to say 'It doesn't matter, we all know what is meant'.

It matters. Cases are thrown out on the incorrect wording of charges.

That said.

If your allowance is 500 rounds of ammunition, and you have 300 completed rounds, and the components for another 300, and your intention is to make those components into 300 completed rounds of ammunition, bringing your total over your allowance - you are guilty.

If you tell the Police this (after they have cautioned you):-

View attachment 301327

You (the Royal you) render yourself liable to prosecution and are, in any event, too stupid to be trusted with any firearm.

The problem with that is that, as you know, the meaning of "intent" in a court of law is not the same as the common understanding of the word. The law does not require the prosecution to be capable of mindreading, only to conclude that a reasonable person would reach the conclusion that intent was there given the facts.
Given the fact that the person had gone to the expense to buy more cases than he was entitled to hold, it is not hard to argue that the reason the man had 600 cases, not 500, is because he intended to make 600 rounds. There is not a persuasive counter-argument for that, especially given that the guidance is clear that bulk buying is not good reason for a high ammunition allocation. "The thought never crossed my mind" is probably not a very successful defence to charges involving intent.

 

[Apthorpe]

I don't reload and I am allowed 250 rounds, which the dealer enters on my ticket as and when I buy some. No check on if I am over the limit, until renewal when I am obligated to make truthful statements.

Perhaps this hole in the law needs plugging


Sorry forgot to state calibre before some one asks its a 0.3

No. What needs plugging is the endless river of unjustified extra restrictions and red tape on shooting, which perversely probably have the effect of increasing not decreasing the number of firearms in circulation.

 

[Utectok]

“I am advised that there will be law-abiding shooters who may have components of ammunition that they use lawfully, for such purposes as reloading ammunition, which they are legally able to possess by virtue of their firearms certificate. The offence in clause 2 has therefore been drafted in a way that will not criminalise such lawful activities. It requires first that the person committing the new offence has any of the components in their possession; secondly, that the person has the intent of manufacturing ammunition; and thirdly and critically, that the person would have no lawful basis for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete. In that way, the clause ensures that those who are able to hold ammunition by virtue of a firearm certificate issued under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, or who are registered firearms dealers under the Act and permitted to possess or manufacture such ammunition, will not be caught by the new offence when going about their lawful activities.”

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-03-15/debates/f40ec0da-6a95-48a2-b3c6-52f001007149/FirearmsBill

 

[Bowland blades]

I've mentioned this here before and was shot down as paranoid, but try as I might I cannot read the text of this bill as NOT making it a criminal offence to possess more than your allotted volume of reloading components.

See here - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0039/220039.pdf


Now, if I have 500 .308 on my FAC and I have 300 completed rounds, plus 300 heads, primers etc, then I have possession, I clearly have intent to manufacture and if I loaded all at once I would be committing an offence under section 1. So, given that any defence would rest upon the single claim of whether I would or would not manufacture them all at once, how come everyone is so blasé about this? Who wants to first to be had up in court and take a chance on a jury?

It would be such a simple thing to include a disclaimer stating that the offence would not apply to FAC holders holding stocks for reloading in calibres on their ticket, and yet no one seems to have suggested this.

Someone please explain to me how I'm wrong in my reading?

you need to prove without reasonable doubt a person intends to do this .

 

[Fosbery Holster]

The keeping of or manufacturing of our allotted maximum amount in no matter what calibre is to me a matter of trust between ourselves as FAC holders (don’t we have to be squeaky clean to obtain an FAC) and our relevant Firearms Licensing Authority, this can be evidenced at inspection time for renewal or at anytime ”if” our licensing authority have “cause“ to suspect that amounts held are above allotted amounts.
We, (as far as l am concerned), can have in our possession amounts of components (do l have to say not assembled) in excess of our maximum allocated complete ammunition as stated on our certificates, if that trust is betrayed by certificate holders and the Police have any cause to suspect this they can at anytime inspect our premises no holds barred.
The only time our certificates are required in the respect of components is to show the vendor of powder or primers that indeed we have the relevant documentation to purchase the products.
Neither the vendor of such products or the Police know the total amount of complete rounds we have in our possession…….as l stated earlier…..”it’s a matter of trust”….and if anyone wants to push the boundaries of their limits let it be on their heads.