Recent content by SteveFisher

The Bill as it is written includes no exemption for FAC holders. If people here can read it and reread it and still see a plain language meaning that having MORE components than are on your FAC breaches 1, 2 and 3, then I think a juror might understand it in that way too. It is badly drafted. I...

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...

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

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...

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 -...

No I got it eventually. I did have to fill out a form about importing firearms parts that did not have any relevant sections for a stock, so I just wrote "IT ISN'T A FIREARM IT'S A PIECE OF WOOD" several times and that seemed to do the trick. Took about a month all told.

They're never poorly constructed; they're constructed to support the outcomes they want to see.

I doubt anyone does that - as soon as you do it you are breaking your FAC. No, for me it's about, eg, having 5,000 primers when your total rounds allocation is 2,000. To some people that is a "stockpile". You can bet your boots that the legislation won't say, eg, you can't possess more than 5x...

Erm, because it does? You CLEARLY have the intent to load 1000 rounds. What would be critical is if a jury can be convinced that you wanted to to that all at one time. I'm sorry but I do not trust a jury to make good judgements 100% of the time. The law as written must exclude legitimate home...

Primary legislation certainly does have some exclusions similar to these.

I'll give you banning dog fighting and expanding bullets. Far too early to say if the first was a good idea but it isn't looking promising.

"The defendant had all the components to make 1000 cartridges and was only entitled to legally possess 250; that demonstrates intent to make 750 illegal cartridges. " "Guilty as charged. take him down"

That still hits reloaders - if your limit is 250 and you have components for 1000, bingo, you're nicked. 750 over limit is your INTENT they can say, and have the receipts to prove it.

No, everything is scary if you are rational and have a memory. If you can provide any examples of government getting anything right I'd love to hear them.

Great, so when the legislation is drafted without that hard-wired exemption for FAC holders I hope you will oppose it.