Possession of ammunition components with the intent to illegally manufacture Section 1 ammunition.

[Conor O'Gorman]

The Firearms Act 2023 received Royal Assent in September 2023, confirming it as new legislation. The Act has raised some concerns from the shooting sector regarding the possession of ammunition components with the intent to illegally manufacture Section 1 ammunition. BASC’s view is that legitimate shooters, and those that reload their own ammunition, have nothing to fear from this legislation.

More information as follows:

What you need to know about the Firearms Act 2023

The Firearms Act 2023 received Royal Assent in September 2023, confirming it as new legislation.

basc.org.uk

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Further to the above you can watch a video about this from the link below.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Making ammunition without an fac or for a calibre you are not entitled to possess was already illegal.

If you think that legal shooters who are the main body of people with the equipment to manufacture ammunition have nothing to fear from this you are delusional.

They are the main people that this legislation will work against. Not criminals who already had the law against them.

Another bull**** , not required law to wield against law abiding people. Much like the idiot knife laws and the air weapons certificate.

 

[Len the dog]

As it stood, there were no means for charging someone in possession of the components to produce ammunition for an obsolete calibre, now there is.
It really is that simple.

 

[Buchan]

The Firearms Act 2023 received Royal Assent in September 2023, confirming it as new legislation. The Act has raised some concerns from the shooting sector regarding the possession of ammunition components with the intent to illegally manufacture Section 1 ammunition. BASC’s view is that legitimate shooters, and those that reload their own ammunition, have nothing to fear from this legislation.

More information as follows:

What you need to know about the Firearms Act 2023

The Firearms Act 2023 received Royal Assent in September 2023, confirming it as new legislation.

basc.org.uk

Conor. My FAC is awaiting renewal, 9 months and counting. I am allowed to hold my firearms, but not buy ammunition. Does this new legislation mean I cannot reload until the new one arrives?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Conor. My FAC is awaiting renewal, 9 months and counting. I am allowed to hold my firearms, but not buy ammunition. Does this new legislation mean I cannot reload until the new one arrives?

Whilst one cannot purchase or acquire ammunition on a S7 permit, there is nothing to stop you reloading on a S7 permit, provided you comply with the ammunition conditions on the S7. Those conditions should be the same as on your FAC. The new legislation is not relevant in this context.

This is general advice so if you need something more specific to your individual circumstances contact your FEO for advice – or if you are a BASC member and prefer to get our advice first, contact our firearms team for individual advice.

 

[Rake Aboot]

As it stood, there were no means for charging someone in possession of the components to produce ammunition for an obsolete calibre, now there is.
It really is that simple.

I have cases for many calibres I’m not allowed to possess, am i the kind of criminal you mean ?

And no it really is not that simple.

 

[bryn]

Thanks Conor
Bryn

 

[daw]

Thanks Conor. Handy clarification.

 

[3595wilk]

I have cases for many calibres I’m not allowed to possess, am i the kind of criminal you mean ?

And no it really is not that simple.

Think it's actually very straight forward.

All based on intent. A standard 'burden of proof' in many offences already exists and is not something new.

The classic is s.1 Theft Act and the intention to permanently deprive being part of the test of if the offence is made out.

The relevant offence in clause 2 of the new legislation requires firstly, that the person committing the new offence POSSESSES any of the components in their possession.

Second, that the person has the INTENT of using them to manufacture the ammunition.

Third - and critically - that the person would have NO LAWFUL BASIS for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete.

If you possess cases for a calibre you have no intent to reload - even if you don't have that calibre on your ticket - there is no offence.

If you decide to actually use them to make ammunition, you don't have lawful authority to possess that's a choice you make and is down to you, and likely to be made out.

Case law will establish it completely - but as BASC have indicated not an issue for reloaders at all.

 

[Rake Aboot]

So take into account all you have said above and tell me the requirement for the new law ?

The law existed before and relied on the same burden of proof you have mentioned

Again, I’ll state, the people most likely to be affected by this law are people with the equipment to build ammunition, who do you think that is ( in the majority)?

Why was a new law required that only seems to criminalise peoples who aren’t criminals

And again, no it very much isn’t that simple.
You mention burden of proof, but in the majority of prosecutions that works both ways, no matter what is meant to happen.

 

[gonzo]

I would argue the wording of the BASC's explanation. That it was already an offence for someone to posess both obsolete calibre guns ans the ammunition/components for them (unless the gun is on an FAC in the normal way).
This law is to allow them to charge people with just the components and the intent.

This law does worry me, as I have quite a stock of empty cases from the estate of a late friend, which I am slowly working to identify and find homes for. Also a good number of components for friends who borrow my reloading facilities.
I'm sure it would be argueable in court. But I don't fancy being the prospect of being made destitute through the cost of being that test case.

 

[Jelen]

So, what effect will this have on on-line sales of reloading components?

 

[CookM]

Yes good question,l looked at Henry Kranks website just now ,and it still says bullets are able to be purchased without an fac.
Cases,no mention,buy as many as you like?

I use PPU mainly in .224 so cheap is good for me.

 

[Len the dog]

So, what effect will this have on on-line sales of reloading components?

None, the new law provides a test for whether the person holding the components has any legitimate reason for doing so and whether they have criminal intent.
As a shooter and reloader I have a legitimate reason for holding components and I do NOT have criminal intent to use them.

By having a legitimate reason, the burden of proof regarding criminal intent would fall on the CPS.

 

[cjm1066]

This law is typical of the current political climate.

It was introduced to address a very specific issue and will probably never be used for that. However it will worry many and probably be abused by the police.

At least the politicians have done something, and will no doubt continue responding like this until the country is at a standstill with needless legislation and buracacary.

 

[Eddie P]

My concern. Imagine I can hold 200 .270 rounds, I have a reloading session and load 200. I also have more cases, powder, primers and bullets on the shelf. I have the intent to reload in the future, I have the means to do so, but currently have no lawful basis to posses them once reloaded (200 already in stock).
It would have been nice to have a total exclusion for FAC holders.

 

[Len the dog]

It would have been nice to have a total exclusion for FAC holders

FAC holders are not beyond manufacturing illegal ammunition.

 

[mealiejimmy]

My concern. Imagine I can hold 200 .270 rounds, I have a reloading session and load 200. I also have more cases, powder, primers and bullets on the shelf. I have the intent to reload in the future, I have the means to do so, but currently have no lawful basis to posses them once reloaded (200 already in stock).
It would have been nice to have a total exclusion for FAC holders.

You may have the components to manufacture an amount of ammunition that would exceed your allowance, but unless you actually manufacture those rounds so that you have more in your possession than your allowance, then you have not committed an offence

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Eddie P]

You may have the components to manufacture an amount of ammunition that would exceed your allowance, but unless you actually manufacture those rounds so that you have more in your possession than your allowance, then you have not committed an offence

Cheers

Bruce

All they need to do is say you intended to, you no longer actually need to manufacture them.