Changes really are coming in firearms licensing….

[Liveonce]

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.

• any person procures reloading components for which they are not licenced/allowed by law

what about new brass will an RFD be allowed to sell you brass if the caliber is not on your FAC? as it is now for small and large primers.

As I bet they will not add a caliber to your FAC just so you can save money or supply issues, as I have already been told that with regards to ammunition quantity quote “we are not in the business of saving you money”.

 

[Dalua]

• any person procures reloading components for which they are not licenced/allowed by law

what about new brass will an RFD be allowed to sell you brass if the caliber is not on your FAC? as it is now for small and large primers.

As I bet they will not add a caliber to your FAC just so you can save money or supply issues, as I have already been told that with regards to ammunition quantity quote “we are not in the business of saving you money”.

The wording of the bullet-point is odd - I guess it's suggesting that if you acquire something you're not allowed to posses, you have committed a crime: a second crime, I suppose, since if you're not allowed to possess it and you do, that's already a crime.

I'm not aware that cases are subject to any restriction/licensing/certification in law - so it wouldn't apply to them. Or bullets.

 

[Dalua]

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

I think this suggestion is much, much worse than using the pretty clear legal concept of 'intent'.

The three bullet-points in any case seem to add little or nothing to the existing laws - which would mean that people doing the things specified were breaking the law already.

 

[SteveFisher]

Giving women the vote, banning dog fighting, taking expanding bullets off of section 5, how long have you got?

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.

 

[SteveFisher]

> 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 certainly does have some exclusions similar to these.

 

[SteveFisher]

How does that prove intent?

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 loaders; anyone who thinks we can wait for clarification by the courts is a fool.

The positive here is that we have plenty of time to lobby and I shall be doing that via contacts and other means. It's much much easier to get good law written, than to get bad law rewritten. That should be everyone's goal. This is not paranoia it is pragmatism.

 

[Dalua]

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 loaders.

The 'intent' which they propose to make criminal seems not to be intent to load 1000 rounds - which, as you say, is probably demonstrable by the purchase of sufficient components to do so.
Rather it seems to be intent to load those rounds in such a way that unauthorised quantities would be possessed.
I'm not sure that would be so easy to do.

Presumably part of the problem with this proposed change is that apparently-legitimate home-loaders have been implicated in the unlawful supply of ammunition - and it is the proof of intent which would remove the reloader's legitimacy. That being so, I suppose the law suggested does exclude legitimate home-loaders.

 

[kes]

At its worst surely this means not to reload in batches which exceed you FAC stated allowance for that calibre. Why reload for a calibre you don't have unless you can demonstrate you are doing it free for a friend?

 

[SteveFisher]

At its worst surely this means not to reload in batches which exceed you FAC stated allowance for that calibre. Why reload for a calibre you don't have unless you can demonstrate you are doing it free for a friend?

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 your allocation in component form. They're not going to introduce an arbitrary number. So the only way to keep home loaders safe is to expressly exclude them. EG "Nothing in the above clauses shall be taken to apply to FAC holders manufacturing cartridges for their own use" or suchlike.

 

[zambezi]

It's much much easier to get good law written, than to get bad law rewritten. That should be everyone's goal. This is not paranoia it is pragmatism.

^^^^^^^^
Well said

 

[kes]

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 your allocation in component form. They're not going to introduce an arbitrary number. So the only way to keep home loaders safe is to expressly exclude them. EG "Nothing in the above clauses shall be taken to apply to FAC holders manufacturing cartridges for their own use" or suchlike.

I don't think anyone will get criminalised for too many primers even an idiot knows you buy as cheap as you can when offers allow - that is not criminal and whilst we may yet see primers as with all other reloading material removed from the clutches of a very odd series of Firearms Acts I will hazzard a guess that such a charge if brought would not win the sympathy of the court if the defendant is a firearms cert holder - This will be in the crown court not the court according to a Chief Con.

By the way I don't think you are correct about making ammo for a friend - what about showing someone how to reload ? Also as long as no money changes hands why should not a younger shooter make a few rounds for his older friend or someone who knows barely enough about reloading ?

 

[kes]

Incidentally getting good law written is not that easy - take the firearms acts. Most law should be interpretable to some degree and scoped by precedent, however I agree if you can get it right first time much better but in order to do that you would have to ask someone with a detailed knowledge - has that ever happened ?
Please do not quote any of the current orgs as having done this because they are NOT experts and clearly have their own agendas.

 

[25 Sharps]

Perhaps the obvious answer is to request a dramatic increase in the authorised quantities to take into account the new law?

@NullMac has already suggested that, would be a good idea.

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 loaders; anyone who thinks we can wait for clarification by the courts is a fool.

The positive here is that we have plenty of time to lobby and I shall be doing that via contacts and other means. It's much much easier to get good law written, than to get bad law rewritten. That should be everyone's goal. This is not paranoia it is pragmatism.

No, you sound more paranoid with every post you make!

 

[Twodogs]

The 'intent' which they propose to make criminal seems not to be intent to load 1000 rounds - which, as you say, is probably demonstrable by the purchase of sufficient components to do so.
Rather it seems to be intent to load those rounds in such a way that unauthorised quantities would be possessed.
I'm not sure that would be so easy to do.

As Dalua says and I agree totally.

Intent seems to be the issue under much discussion. Intent is an interesting legal point and very difficult to prove.
We must look at the legislation, does it say 'with intent to load X number of rounds' or does it say 'with intent to load Y number of rounds which would exceed your legal entitlement'?
A reloader may have enough reloading components to load 1000 rounds but intend to do that over a period of time and at no point exceed their legal entitlement, how will the prosecution ever disprove that?

Until the legislation is published in full we will not know.

Just to further complicate matters under the Criminal attempts act 1981 - (1) If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence. That intent again.

 

[25 Sharps]

I don't think anyone will get criminalised for too many primers even an idiot knows you buy as cheap as you can when offers allow - that is not criminal and whilst we may yet see primers as with all other reloading material removed from the clutches of a very odd series of Firearms Acts I will hazzard a guess that such a charge if brought would not win the sympathy of the court if the defendant is a firearms cert holder - This will be in the crown court not the court according to a Chief Con.

By the way I don't think you are correct about making ammo for a friend - what about showing someone how to reload ? Also as long as no money changes hands why should not a younger shooter make a few rounds for his older friend or someone who knows barely enough about reloading ?

It’s ok if you have the same calibre on your ticket, reloading another calibre not in your ticket once a round is assembled you are illegally In possession of ammunition.

 

[kes]

It’s ok if you have the same calibre on your ticket, reloading another calibre not in your ticket once a round is assembled you are illegally In possession of ammunition.

I understand that point but if you have an acceptable explanation or buy the materials for another to assemble on his premises - still that does require an intelligent interpretation and that may not accompany the finding of the materials.

 

[25 Sharps]

I understand that point but if you have an acceptable explanation or buy the materials for another to assemble on his premises - still that does require an intelligent interpretation and that may not accompany the finding of the materials.

I did hear that there is already case law where someone was successfully prosecuted for having all the components and dies for a calibre not on ticket. Could just be internet chatter though.

 

[Dalua]

I did hear that there is already case law where someone was successfully prosecuted for having all the components and dies for a calibre not on ticket. Could just be internet chatter though.

More detail would be interesting - but it's hard to imagine how such a prosecution could have succeeded solely on the grounds of possession.
I imagine that quite a few of us have dies and other bits for cartridges we no longer have authority to possess - simply because dies and brass take up little room, and one might well have a rifle in that calibre again in future.

 

[Twodogs]

I did hear that there is already case law where someone was successfully prosecuted for having all the components and dies for a calibre not on ticket. Could just be internet chatter though.

Sounds like more internet tosh, though I will gladly be proven wrong.
Section 1 Firearms Act as we are all so familiar with.

(1) Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person—
(b) to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, any ammunition to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate, or in quantities in excess of those so authorise.
No mention of component parts and dies here or anywhere else in the act. No licensing requirement to purchase and all legal to hold.

There could be an offence under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The prosecution would have to prove the intent to construct the complete round. In this case the defence would certainly have their work cut out as possession of all the relevant bits when not entitled to hold the completed product is good evidence of intent. Is the act of collecting all the parts more than merely preparatory though?
As with everything legal it’s not straightforward and every case needs to be judged in its own merits.

 

[timbrayford]

Just do away with "authorised quantities" job done. Its unenforceable anyway!