Importing expanding bullets

[Tamus]

Where any rifle is held for target use including dangerous game category rifles, if the person buys solids (which do not have to go on certificate) then yes your FAC will be barren of transfers. The police on many occasions ask whether the holder has used the rifles; though some rely on the good reason i.e. use abroad and at renewal only ask for details of your hunting outfitter and disregard your ammo usage in the UK as this is a secondary activity. Each force does things differently, but nonetheless you could be asked to show proof of home loading but this should only be done where you hold a rifle for the primary reason of target shooting as part of a club.

Home Office guidance says; 13.46: Target shooters may be expected to use their firearms fairly regularly, say three or more times a year. The police should consider on renewal whether “good reason” continues in respect of all firearms held for this purpose. However, failure to shoot in a year should be regarded as grounds for further enquiries to be made, rather than automatic partial revocation of the certificate for lack of “good reason”. For example, there may be personal circumstances such as illness, working away (where this is not to be repeated regularly), or practice for a particular competition that may preclude the use of all the firearms concerned. In some cases, competitions for unusual or older arms may be few each year. Owners may also not want to regularly shoot old and valuable weapons, thus avoiding excessive wear and tear.

That is correct and the assertion that no ammo transfers equals grounds for revocation is, without qualification, too general a statement. Thanks for confirming. Incidentally, if I buy expanding bullets for my "deer" and "vermin" rifles and my RFD declines to enter the transfers on my certificate, who is at fault? ... Apart from risking the unwanted attention that a blank "acquisitions" column might give rise to, would I have done any wrong?

 

[j0e_bl0ggs]

Oh I do love an unfounded allegation.

The repeal of the prohibition on expanding ammunition was suggeted by the organisations under the BSSC umbrella, it was accepted by ACPO or plod as you refer, as one of many items for a Regulatory Reform Order to reduce burdens on the police and Home Office in having to licence factories and carriers etc. Unfortunately due to combria its on the back burner. BASC saw the new policing minister this week and the RRO was on our agenda. The RRO is firmly with the Home Office and we hope they progress it in due course.

Dont verbally abuse us or confuse subjects here - so long as the law is the way it is (confusing and ungheklopful it is) I am simply advising on it as faiure to do so could be detrimental to you all. I agree that its long due an overhall but its being blocked at Government level. The police have also been asking until blue in the face for a consolidation act and simplification.

Glad my hard earned ain't paying your wages.

 

[mperring]

I've been away for some cups of tea... actually quite a few cups

Writing this as Andy, but via MO handle as the business in general shares the view.

Large part of my brain telling me to walk away from this, but if we were sensible all the time life would become very dull! As well as being a shooting related business, we are all here - first and foremost - stalkers and shooters. Regardless of RFD etc etc etc - we are 'Joe Public' in the broader context. So law - good, bad, indifferent and crazy applies to and affects us just as everyone else. Threats to fieldsports doubly impact - in addition to the personal interest, we stand to lose our livelihood.

What should have been a great opportunity to clarify a position for the benefit of all and perhaps debate the law as it stands in a constructive way has - YET AGAIN ( and that is a shout - of sheer darn frustration ) degenerated into a bun fight and personal ego/ agenda match. I'm not Admin, just a member so I've no right to tell people what should or should not be said on a public forum - but what has been put on here - by a number of people - has, it seems, been driven by anger of the moment. And in giving into that several people have done our cause - my cause - no good whatsoever. Can none of you see that? So now I'm writing in anger of the moment - because you lot are putting the things I love and cherish in jeopardy and I think that gives me the obligation to say something.

We've Firearms legislation that is frankly a muggers buddle. Whose to blame? All of us. Do we concentrate on doing the best we can to change it for the better - or do we remain embroiled in a mud slinging match until we eventually look around/ wake up and realise the lot has gone. Because make no mistake, brush it off if you will- but it is ever moving that way.

Authorities admit that much legislation is so complex that it is becoming near impossible for those affected by it and charged with its administration to follow it. But whilst it stands its the law. No matter what anyone says over a cup of tea the law stands - guideline, briefing notes, policy documents - all can be persuasive; but bottom line is what is written on the paperwork parliament passed. We may not like it, it may make no sense - it may be twisted and used against us - but if you start picking and choosing the law to suit the moment you throw away the underpinnings of everything - baby goes with the bathwater.

People on here - in so many words or otherwise have admitted they break the law. People on here have had the law pointed out to them and have gone on to state they will still break the law. Do you really want a picture painting of what even relatively neutral people will make of that - let alone those with an anti agenda? Do you honestly - after the brief pause for thought - not see the damage to all of us that is done by that. How on earth is anyone going to withstand the claim - and its being made already - that all guns must be banned because no humanly possible legislation is air tight and 'those people' will just ignore it - as they always do.

Matt took time to give the bottom line. It wasnt obvious, but in truth was there - he doesn't like it any more than we do. But his role was to state what the position was - and he did so with knowledge. That benefit was rapidly watered down because he also lost his cool and made poor choices in how he phrased subsequent responses. I can fully appreciate the human exasperation, but he should have walked away for that cup of tea. He was too abrasive in things he said and that detracted from the overall good. I can fully understand the frustration that came out, but not that he allowed it so come out. Yet again BASC were the one's here and putting something into the forum - they goofed - again - in terms of delivery, but where oh where are all the other bodies people rave about?

Only Matt named, but I believe the other posters concerned are quite obvious.

Stop helping to destroy our sport.

My comments are my own and as a result of unesseary goading from others, I have a right to defend myself and up the tempo to reinforce the point that you make well i.e. poeple going on to state they will continue to break the law.

Also I made my comments based not only on the comments in this thread, I know who the agressors are and often their comments are motivated by anti BASC views rather than looking at this subject on a level basis. Also just becuase somebody works for an organisation doesnt mean they have to put up and shut up.

On the whole I am very grateful for Moray's comments.

 

[mperring]

Glad my hard earned ain't paying your wages.

well you shouldnt make rude assertions. if tyou had asked what BASC were doing then I wouldn't mind and have given the explanation but how dare you make such accusations that we are in cahoots with plod to make life difficult for shooters. We have to work with them but we argue against on far more occasions.

 

[mperring]

Tamus, the person transfering the ammo breaches the law, but the police would expect the recipient to query a wrong transaction.

 

[Paul at Fechan]

so if i'm abroad then and buy 'expanding missiles', what happens in relation to filling in the FAC?

 

[mperring]

+1 Andy, from a huge supporter of the BASC - even if words should have been chosen better.

It also astounds me that so many people are quite openly vociferous and seem to be quite happy to test the law by being purposefully belligerent rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.

Well said and thanks. People are far too quick to accuse becuase of past experiecnes or views rather than query and judge over time.

 

[mperring]

so if i'm abroad then and buy 'expanding missiles', what happens in relation to filling in the FAC?

Your FAC is invalid abroad. if you acquire any loaded rounds or expanding missiles under foriegn laws you may bring them back to the UK only if your certificaate covers the loaded rounds in the calibres you have acquired and in the case of expanding ammo or missiles of such ammunition you hold an authority to possess them in the UK (the condition on the front of the FAC).

You must declare them at customs UK Border Agency and they will sign them onto your FAC.

 

[Tamus]

Tamus, the person transfering the ammo breaches the law, but the police would expect the recipient to query a wrong transaction.

Thanks again for your helpful answer.

I am in the position where I have an RFD who declines to enter "expanding" bullets (for reloading) onto my certificate. I have queried his actions and he has assured me I need have no concern. Accordingly my acquisitions column shows a mere fraction of my actual usage as I buy most of my reloading supplies from said RFD. I also buy a great many so-called "non-expanding" "target" bullets which do not require to be entered on my certificate but those bullets do quite definitely and predictably expand. I am not a member of a "target" shooting club but I own my own land upon which I may and do use these bullets for practice and "testing" purposes.

I will not accept that his error is grounds for my license to be revoked or partially revoked. However, I will now decline to purchase so-called "expanding" bullets from that dealer if he continues in his insistence... providing you are correct.

All of the above means I actually use thousands of bullets per year and yet according to your standards I may only seem to use a few hundred (per my acquisitions records, for "expanders"). I will bring all of these facts to the attention of my FEO and FLO should they feel inclined to question the continuance of my current "conditions" re: ammo authorisations, at my application for renewal. I also hope that, should my licensing authority take the view that "no-record" = "no -purchase" = grounds for partial or full revocation, your organisation will be able to assist me in retaining my current status in these things. As ..such assertions, on the part of my licensing office would, in point of fact, be founded on fallacious principles.

 

[Moray Outfitting]

Matt

Think it was useful to clarify your position - ie personal/ basc commentary. However, given nature of topic and your 'day job', people are understandably going to link you as BASC.

Regardless, nothing speaks louder than solid fact, backed with proper knowledge/ experience. Position here is a microcosm of the whole pro-anti debate. When argument cannot proceed factually, go the emotive route. You have the facts & experience on your side - being drawn into the emotive side is just playing into the hands of those with clear BASC issues - it dilutes your message. I have said as much to the gain sayers in the past - it applies equally, because a year or more on we collectively haven't moved the internal debate on.

That effect is two way. There are some clear issues that certain people have with the BASC/ Likely they exist with other organisations, but BASC seems to be the one on this forum. Every single move forward gets thwarted by the same old same old gripes. BASC is important - like it or not - by dint of size alone it is the best chance we have right now for a coherent voice. There are issues, so lets stop bemoaning past actions and people and start saying constructive things about how issues can be either resolved or at least taken to a place where we can move forward for a common good. If not, then we can serious and rather urgently search for another organisation to take up the mantle.

Still in funny mood, so not really putting things very well. But really does seem that as a group there are just too many that are never going to see past their own small patch. On that basis no organisation is ever going to be a complete success. I'm more and more convinced that group consensus - even on core issues - is a pipe dream. If that is the case and individual responsibility is considered too much to ask then maybe we should simply enjoy what we have, while we can - because its going to vanish.

 

[8x57]

I think the main problem here is really a communication issue. The Home Office could perhaps have revised the guidance to Police sooner or at least published sooner how the law has been interpreted by them for some time. The recent guidance from BASC is helpful but perhaps that could have been worded slightly more diplomatically. I have no doubt that it is perfectly correct but the way it comes across suggests to me and possibly some others also a cosy arrangement with the Home Office which I know isn't the case. It's just the tone sounds a bit dictitorial. I know that BASC and it's staff are doing their very best to get things right.

 

[mperring]

im not going to allow this to become a basc bashing thread or an advisory thread about me, so i have read your post and will say no more. If there are any more sensible questions about expanding ammo please ask the questions. and for those who think what I have said is being bulish it is not, im trying to avoid this thread becoming somthing which it is not.

I cant be all things to all men but i'll try, those who dont give others a chance will be ignored then we wont have any counter allegations about the motives behind my text

 

[mperring]

I think the main problem here is really a communication issue. The Home Office could perhaps have revised the guidance to Police sooner or at least published sooner how the law has been interpreted by them for some time. The recent guidance from BASC is helpful but perhaps that could have been worded slightly more diplomatically. I have no doubt that it is perfectly correct but the way it comes across suggests to me and possibly some others also a cosy arrangement with the Home Office which I know isn't the case. It's just the tone sounds a bit dictitorial. I know that BASC and it's staff are doing their very best to get things right.

sorry but what do you mean dictatorial - are you referring to my explanation or that of the fact sheet?

 

[8x57]

The Fact sheet. Sorry Matt no personal criticism intended. Just that personally I think it is far too direct. Yes it is a statement of fact and no doubt absolutely correct, but perhaps it may have been better received if worded slightly less directly?

 

[mperring]

The Fact sheet. Sorry Matt no personal criticism intended. Just that personally I think it is far too direct. Yes it is a statement of fact and no doubt absolutely correct, but perhaps it may have been better received if worded slightly less directly?

no offence taken or assumed. i just wanted to be sure about what you were referring to. it was written based on legal opinion so it is a bit formal as is the home office guidance

 

[8x57]

Yes that's the problem with legal notices.

 

[Virbius]

When dealing with such a contentious issue as firearms ownership and shooting in general and having to balance the needs and desires of individuals, pro and anti-shooting organisation, the police, RFDs, parliament, the public, the silent majority etc. etc. the ability to get consensus is virtually impossible.

In order to make progress, one or more of the stakeholders generally have to capitulate to appease the others. This often requires co-operation rather than confrontation. It is this co-operation that some people probably see as a weakness on behalf of pro-shooting organisations rather than seeing the bigger picture.

This thread has been very informative. If nothing else it demonstrates the issues of dealing with an Act that has been tinkered with which often confuses more than educates, guides and enlightens. It is also susceptible to different interpretation which obviously gives rise to (vastly) differing opinions.

But ..... let us please not forget that ultimately we all want the same thing which is to carry on with what we do for as long as possible without significant hindrance.

 

[nuttyspaniel]

+1 Andy, from a huge supporter of the BASC - even if words should have been chosen better.

It also astounds me that so many people are quite openly vociferous and seem to be quite happy to test the law by being purposefully belligerent rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.

Well said Virbius, and Andy. I was no fan of BASC until recently and was only a member due to syndicate policy. But Im glad i am, over the last few weeks alot of good advice has come my way especially from Matt after a shakey start. Matt Im glad you have posted what you have, as I said earlier I heard this a few weeks ago but thought it was only chinese whispers so to speak.


nutty

 

[al4x1]

Its an interesting thread this and if the law is according to BASC then I also have a local shop who ask if I want expanding bullets written on my ticket and huff a bit if you say yes as they have to use some expensive biro ink to fill it in. I'm also someone who has ordered from cliffs and the only thing I will say is he does customs declarations in a way that doesn't hide what they are by listing in my case sierra part numbers, but it certainly doesn't describe them as expanding bullets.
My understanding was as it was legal to send them from abroad once they hit my hands then I had the permission to posess, If thats wrong then so be it. As for the usage issue I've never had it mentioned but would happily show a press and all the associated gubbins that clutters up half my shed and back it up with receipts and empty boxes.

 

[ndt man]

as i stated in my reply to importing expanding bullets whats the problem with puting them on your fac yourself cant see a problem with this it helps with your renewal. if you dont want to put them on your fac dont its your choice.as for geting customs involved you are allowed to import your own bullets of the calibers on your fac . the customs guy told me the first time i went through the red channel with expanding bullets do you have expanding on you fac yes i do - do you only have the calibers on your fac yes well why are you declaring them you dont need to . ( as usual this thread has turned in to a slanging match)