SteveFisher
Well-Known Member
Great, so when the legislation is drafted without that hard-wired exemption for FAC holders I hope you will oppose it.
Changes really are coming in firearms licensing….
- Thread starter Foxyboy43
- Start date
SteveFisher
Well-Known Member
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.
SteveFisher
Well-Known Member
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.
SteveFisher
Well-Known Member
"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"
Not really, no.
In the past, because I wanted to buy a quantity of the same batch for reloading, I was allowed to acquire 1000 rounds and possess 1200 of both 223 and 308. I only wanted to use the acquire figure once. I now am allowed to possess up to 300 of each, but I still have most of the empty cases, they are over 10 years old. I didn't start to reload until I was almost out of the factory rounds.
If plod want to prosecute, they can try, but I doubt they will.
If plod want to prosecute, they can try, but I doubt they will.
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
Shall we wait and see instead of getting our knickers in a twist now based on nothing more than speculative assumptions about what the wording might be? I can see no evidence yet that this need overly concern FAC holders and there was a gaping loophole allowing people who were not FAC holders acquiring many of the components lawfully up until these proposals came about. If the H/O twists this to prevent FAC holders storing more than the completed allowance in components, that's a different argument to be had down the line.
How does that prove intent?
I have brass in excess of my allowance as brass wears out after 5 loadings, that doesn’t show intent!
Neither does buying larger quantities of bullets, primers or powder to ensure batch consistency show intent.
You really are sounding very paranoid!! Hopefully your FEO doesn’t read this!
PS are you pals with Callum by any chance?
The defendant needs a better Lawyer.
Giving women the vote, banning dog fighting, taking expanding bullets off of section 5, how long have you got?
The issue [as we have already seen with FEO side-stepping of the HOG] is that woolly legislative wording and "guidance" can and has been applied subjectively by the disparate groups who enforce those pieces.
But, if there is clarity in primary legislation, no agency or fiefdom can co-opt legislation to be a cudgel for their parochial campaign.
One other issue: where would "intent" be tested? In a court too expensive for the average individual to fund? In recent memory, many shooters have had firearms seized. In some cases where we know the details, FEO action was [correctly] over turned by Crown Court rulings where the plaintiff could afford to fund such actions. But most could not. So it is infinitely better that the law is drafted to accurately protect all, including FAC holders.
badmolassesaccident
Well-Known Member
> But, if there is clarity in primary legislation, no agency or fiefdom can co-opt legislation to be a cudgel for their parochial campaign.
Primary legislation doesn't have descriptive paragraphs along the lines of "this doesn't apply to FAC holding homeloaders". That comes in the Home Office guidance. It is right to be concerned that legislation can be used against legitimate firearms owners outside of what it was already intended for. I think this is a low risk one though. I can't see it exempting FAC holders as there would be a desire to prosecute those who have components in excess of allowance AND have intent to supply to crooks.
Primary legislation doesn't have descriptive paragraphs along the lines of "this doesn't apply to FAC holding homeloaders". That comes in the Home Office guidance. It is right to be concerned that legislation can be used against legitimate firearms owners outside of what it was already intended for. I think this is a low risk one though. I can't see it exempting FAC holders as there would be a desire to prosecute those who have components in excess of allowance AND have intent to supply to crooks.
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree with the above two posts, it's still "wait and see" before any concerns are manifest and anything can be concluded. MOST FAC holders apparently chose not to despite it being publicised. For them, there's little sympathy from me and a good deal of not being surprised if the H/O and primary legislation are not in our favour since most are good at moaning after the fact whilst not even bothering to take part at the stage where their views can be represented and are therefore meaningful. I wonder how many on this thread responded? Talking around this issue won't change the outcome hence let's wait and see, with crossed fingers that a sensible approach can be navigated.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the obvious answer is to request a dramatic increase in the authorised quantities to take into account the new law?
I agree. There are wrong 'uns in all walks of life from police to priesthood and everywhere in between.
The Paul Edmunds case makes crystal clear that explicit blanket protection of any group is legally unworkable.
And I doubt anyone is proposing that. Rather, it cannot be that the wording is so over-arching and imprecise that it can be mis-applied.
Stated more plainly: the change to primary legislation should define the criminal act, not interpolate malfeasance due to behaviours/purchases that are entirely consistent with legal behaviour.
The revised wording of the 1968 Firearms Act should state that a criminal offence occurs when:
- any person procures reloading components for which they are not licenced/allowed by law
- any person manufactures ammunition for which they are not licenced/allowed by law
- any person facilitates distribution of components or ammunition for which they are not licenced/allowed by law
what do you mean by “licensed/allowed by law”. i buy 22hornet brass to convert to 17hornet but do not have 22hornet on my FAC am I now a criminal by your wording?
More laws are not the answer, enforcing what we have with proper punishment is all that is required.
You do not need an FAC to buy projectiles . By post. I.e. that is allowed. Likewise, there is no prohibition on public ownership of spent brass. In the scenario you describe, I assume you have 17 hornet on your FAC. So all within phraseology I described.
Agree. But the govt have proposed a legislative change. They have indicated it will amend primary legislation. They have suggested some [ambiguous] wording for the amendment.
Against the reality that a change is coming [next March?], the law abiding shooting community must do all it can to ensure that the wording delivers safety to the public, and unambiguous accommodation for FAC holders who reload legally.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
I mentioned in my submission that a miniature rifle is one that fires "miniature ammunition" (that is the Rules of the SMRC that literally does actually say that "A miniature rifle is a weapon that fires miniature ammunition") and that if the Home Office knew what that meant they'd never have had a worry. Miniature ammunition is what was defined in the rules of the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs (the SMRC that became the NSRA) as this:
Ammunition.—A miniature cartridge may be rim fire or central fire, with projectile of any calibre not exceeding .23 of one inch or 6 mm., and, in case of bottle-shaped cartridges, the shells may not exceed .297 of one inch. The powder charge may not exceed 7 grains of black gun powder, or its equivalent in any other explosive. The projectile must be of lead, not cased with other metal, and not exceeding 50 grains avoirdupois in weight.
Thus the high power .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire is excluded, all part jacketed rimfire cartridges are excluded as is the .223 Remington and similar. The centrefire .230/.297 Morris is permitted. But as ever this comes from Home Office civil servants making their own agenda and/or not having a clue of the bullsh1t they are peddling.
Last edited:
They are knee deep in bullsh1t, come march or when ever these new laws apply they will be announced with a fanfare of publicity saying how much safer we all are from gun crime and what a wonderful job the Government is doing, when in reality they will not stop the criminals as they ignore all laws, but the staff of the HO will also have justified their jobs yet again.
Lets see how they tackle knife crime in a similar way.
Lets see how they tackle knife crime in a similar way.
Similar threads
