Current Firearms Bill and reloading restrictions
- Thread starter SteveFisher
- Start date
Essexsussex
Well-Known Member
Heads actuallyphew it’s ok it’s only lead bullets
According to what the draft you've quoted says, it appears that the offence is complete only if there is intent to manufacture ammunition such that its possession would be unlawful.
Like the 'offence' of discharging a firearm within 50ft of the centre of a highway: it is only complete if there is more to it that the act of discharging the firearm.
So in this case, it seems to me that likewise there has to be more to it than the act of possession of components for the offence to be complete - and the 'more to it' is clause (c) with follows a very clear 'and'.
To suggest, as you appear to do, that possession of components implies intent to manufacture is truly begging the question - the fact that the proposal has been drafted as it has clearly shows that the one does not imply the other - otherwise they could simply have missed out the 'intent' but altogether.
Or am I really missing something?
Last edited:
I'm sorry for disagreeing, but it very clearly does not say that. If it did say that, I expect you would have quoted rather than paraphrased your interpretation. Clause b) and c) are separate conditions. One does not follow on directly from the other, retaining any part of it the prior clause. I do not propose to muddy the water by explaining again what I understand them to mean (I have done more than once above) and will restrict myself to pointing out there is a difference between the text of the bill and what you have written.
If a person without lawful authority or excuse—
(a)lights any fire on or over a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway; or
(b)discharges any firearm or firework within 50 feet of the centre of such a highway,
and in consequence a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (Highways Act 1980, 161)
The "more to it" follows directly and is not part of a separate clause. Incidentally the current legislation carries up to 5 years in prison, as opposed to a level 3 fine. There is some utility to being concerned.
I think the analogy is not suitable.
I don't imply that possession implies intent to manufacture. Those are separate clauses too. I suggest that clause b) the intent to manufacture ammunition is very likely to be fulfilled by anyone who shoots, whereas it might not be by someone who uses components for a different purpose for example to make up inert rounds for a museum or collector, or someone who makes belts, cufflinks, bad jewellery or whatever with bits of them. As a reloader, at the moment when you buy any component part and throughout the time you own it, there is nearly always an intent to make ammunition out of it. I really do not think anyone could honestly claim, let alone convince a court, otherwise.
I don't think you're missing anything, I believe you're inserting something that isn't there.
Correct. And the first part of the risk assessment that spawned this poorly worded legislation appears to want to add cases and projectiles to the other two components which already require FAC presentation: primers and powder.
And there's the rub: as worded, it does not differentiate between lawful licence holders with components for FAC conditioned chamberings and those who hold no licence at all. It merely asks whether there is the capacity to manufacture.
I think you're missing something, then - namely the 'and' before clause (c).
It seems axiomatic that the intent while in possession of components (which is the offence) must be to manufacture ammunition such that its possession by the manufacturer is unlawful.
I don't understand how can can possibly read it as meaning anything else - it is simply what it says!
Why do you think the offence of possession of components with intent to manufacture unlawful ammunition could be complete without intent being proven?
This is the rub I'm not feeling. It doesn't need to differentiate between a FAC-holder and a non-FAC-holder - that happens automatically when you get to the and (c) bit of the offence. Non FAC-holder is proven to have had intent to make S1 ammunition - guilty. FAC-holder proven to have had intent to make ammunition other than as authorised by his certificate - guilty.
As Apthorpe so clearly explained, having the components can reasonably be taken to show intent to manufacture so...
The only test of intent to breach certificate limits is volumetric extrapolation of one or more components.
Once again, multiple posts have demonstrated that holding just 1kg of propellent could make more cartridges than allowed by certificate. Your second test is satisfied.
...all OK so far.
The only test of intent to breach certificate limits is volumetric extrapolation of one or more components.
Once again, multiple posts have demonstrated that holding just 1kg of propellent could make more cartridges than allowed by certificate. Your second test is satisfied.
There is no crime in intent to manufacture unless the intended manufacture would result in unlawful possession of the resultant ammunition. To prove intent of anything can be quite a challenge, even when there is intent. To prove that an ordinary FAC-holder intended to manufacture ammunition such that its possession was unlawful based solely on his possession of components in what we all know are perfectly normal quantities would be quite a challenge, I'd have thought.
Which is my second test? This is a crime of intent - an intent is not something that can be extrapolated simply from possession of the components.
Last edited:
Correct - in the same way that owning knives doesn’t prove you intend to stab someone.
Or indeed owning a gun means you intend to shoot someone.
Iron Mike Tyson
Active Member
My car is full of petrol but I've got no long journeys planned.
Are you planning to speed though?
MAH
Well-Known Member
I am watching the thread with interest.
Despite some interesting contributions, I am still hiding my view that: if I don't have enough empty cases to exceed my stated authority, I can't be "intent" on exceeding that allowance.
So whilst I may exceed bullets or powder or both, and fall foul of clause a).
I can demonstrate no intent, by the fact of too few cases.
M
I think perhaps this view is taking 'intent' too lightly.
What, for example, if you owned components for a chambering you no longer have authority to possess? Intent can't be assumed simply because of possession in that circumstance, just as it can't with respect to quantities of components possessed to make rounds for which you do have authority to possess.
MAH
Well-Known Member
Hi Dalua. I agree with you, I just choose not to sail that close to the wind.
There are two things being debated here:
1. LEGISLATION - What does the new legislation mean? - Your view is clear, and I tend to agree.
2. RISK- Is there a risk that a Licencing authority could adopt a different view? Do they have the power to revoke a licence, because "they" believe the conditions of the licence have been broken? (e.g too many bullets). - I believe there is a significant risk of Yes Yes and choose to mitigate that risk by limiting the quality of brass.
In theory, one is innocent until proven guilty, and some might feel they'd have their day in court and win. But before that day, there would be 12-18 mths of hassle, (guns in storage, maybe damaged, empty pockets etc) and the possibility of losing.
I'd rather avoid all that.
See you soon.
M.
Surely the very fact that intelligent people who understand reloading can interpret this in very different ways indicates that there is a problem.For those new to this the following context may help.
The proposals date back to the Home Office firearm safety consultation which took place from 24 November 2020 to 16 February 2021; and sought views on a range of concerns which were raised with the Government during the passage of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019
BASC urged all shooters to take part in the 2020/21 consultation (including on SD) and provided the following guidance:
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
Further information was provided here:
Home Office firearms consultation explained - BASC
Bill Harriman outlines BASC’s key arguments and work for the latest Home Office consultation on firearms.
BASC published its response in January 2021 whilst the consultation was still live here:
BASC publishes detailed response to Home Office firearms proposals
Government consultation deals with areas of interest including miniature rifle ranges, large calibre rifles, airguns and ammunition.basc.org.uk
The govt response to the consultation was in July 2022 and is here:
The response document outlined that there were 12,758 responses to the consultation, comprising 12,293 completed online survey responses and 465 responses by e-mail. Around two thirds (67.7%) of respondents were categorised as members of the public. Almost one quarter (22.8%) of respondents self-identified as members of the shooting community.
It doesn’t matter what you, or I, or @Apthorpe or @Dalua thinks or hopes. It matters, very much, that we are capable (quite easily) of reaching different conclusions. That very obviously indicates poorly drafted legislation that has the potential to cause problems.
That in and of itself is SURELY a very strong reason to press for improved wording.
Better to get it sorted before it becomes law than try to change it afterwards when it turns out to be ambiguous and impractical.
That is unless the actual intent of the law really is to dramatically restrict reloading. Which is one quite easy conclusion to reach.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
+1
We've been here before, girls, haven't we with the debacle over expanding bullets being raised to s5. And the intention maybe having been well intentioned yet the outcome for licensed FAC holders being a proverbial balls ache. See below. My brother was prosecuted for exactly this below:
AND YET HOW MANY CRIMINALS WERE PROSECUTED WHEN THIS LAW WAS IN EXISTENCE FOR POSSESSING s5 AMMUNITION? All it ever was used for was against licensed FAC holders who had "legacy" odd part used boxes of soft point bullets (bullets not ammunition) in calibres they no longer had authority for a weapon in that calibre listed on their FAC.
My "fear" is that unless it is said clearly and unambiguously that the same will happen to licensed FAC holders. That they will be prosecuted for having "legacy" odd quantities of bullets and cases in calibre they no longer have (at that time) authority to posses such a weapon in that calibre listed on their FAC.
I can't give you an accurate number. I can tell you it did happen, though. Not just ammunition, bullets too. I dealt with several. Arrested them, identified the relevant bullets, interviewed them, put the files in. Not one was an ordinary FAC holder. Drug dealing, gun toting criminals, without exception.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
It is already an offence to possess any form of rifle or pistol ammunition inless specifically authorised to hold ammunition on your FAC. And is already an offence to hold more ammunition than is permitted by your certificate.
i could live with not being allowed to hold bullets unless you were authorised to hold that calibre by your FAC. I have 243 and 7mm so don’t have any need to buy say 308.
The trouble with majority governments is that they are able to pass an awful lot of very bad legislation cos they can just ram it through.
I don’t think it is any hardship with a minority government. This requires a collaborative approach to change in legislation so only well reasoned and argued legislation gets through.
To be honest there is more than enough legislation to run a just and fair society already on the statute books. We need a government that actually stops ****ing about tinkering at the edges of legislation and instead on actually delivering the base for an economy and society that actually works for us all.
So no particular order:
A health service that can deliver timely healthcare for those in need.
A transport network that allows people and goods to move around the country
An energy policy that allows good clean energy to be provided at an affordable price
A criminal justice policy that focuses on prevention of crime rather than just lock up as many as we possibly can
An economic and international policy focused allowing free and unhindered by bureaucracy movement of legitimate goods, services and people into and out of the UK.
And finally a restriction on monopolies and ever-growing reliance on fewer and fewer large companies holding complete control over whole sectors of the economy and society making extranormal profits at all our expense. Most of the current inflation is due to profiteering by the big energy and supermarkets. Oil, gas and grain prices have fallen dramatically but seen any effect on our personal pockets - have you.
The sooner we get elections in all regions of the UK and press the reset button on all the cockwombles currently in power the better.
But apologies this is beyond the topic of conversation
i could live with not being allowed to hold bullets unless you were authorised to hold that calibre by your FAC. I have 243 and 7mm so don’t have any need to buy say 308.
The trouble with majority governments is that they are able to pass an awful lot of very bad legislation cos they can just ram it through.
I don’t think it is any hardship with a minority government. This requires a collaborative approach to change in legislation so only well reasoned and argued legislation gets through.
To be honest there is more than enough legislation to run a just and fair society already on the statute books. We need a government that actually stops ****ing about tinkering at the edges of legislation and instead on actually delivering the base for an economy and society that actually works for us all.
So no particular order:
A health service that can deliver timely healthcare for those in need.
A transport network that allows people and goods to move around the country
An energy policy that allows good clean energy to be provided at an affordable price
A criminal justice policy that focuses on prevention of crime rather than just lock up as many as we possibly can
An economic and international policy focused allowing free and unhindered by bureaucracy movement of legitimate goods, services and people into and out of the UK.
And finally a restriction on monopolies and ever-growing reliance on fewer and fewer large companies holding complete control over whole sectors of the economy and society making extranormal profits at all our expense. Most of the current inflation is due to profiteering by the big energy and supermarkets. Oil, gas and grain prices have fallen dramatically but seen any effect on our personal pockets - have you.
The sooner we get elections in all regions of the UK and press the reset button on all the cockwombles currently in power the better.
But apologies this is beyond the topic of conversation
Similar threads
