We all know what the status quo ante was. The issue is whether the new legislation alters that, by creating an offence which doesn't require that the excess ammunition has actually been made in order for the owner to be guilty.
Current Firearms Bill and reloading restrictions
- Thread starter SteveFisher
- Start date
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Bullets!
Fosbery Holster
Well-Known Member
l “stand“ corrected. You’re more pedantic that l am……on me head son.Bullets!
Last edited:
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
It's unenforceableI don't reload and I am allowed 250 rounds, which the dealer enters on my ticket as and when I buy some. No check on if I am over the limit, until renewal when I am obligated to make truthful statements.
Perhaps this hole in the law needs plugging
Sorry forgot to state calibre before some one asks its a 0.3
MAH
Well-Known Member
Post # 2 provides the explanation. @Dalua
The key word being "intent".
Anyone listening to Boris today, (party-gate enquiry) will have heard both sides focus on whether he "intended" to miss lead parliament.
I'm not trying to derailed the thread by mentionin Boris, just highlighting the importance of "intent" in the criminal justice system.
Personally, having said that, I would rather not rely on a legal argument to protect myself.
Protesting you're innocents to an over enthusiastic FLO my take a while, and in the mean time your ticket might have been revoked.
So, instead, whilst I do have more bullets, powder, and at times primers than my stated authority for ammunition, I DON'T have enought cartridge cases to exceed my authorised limit.
M
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Sad loner "with an arsenal of weapons" now becomes the "sad loner with an arsenal of weapons and an illicit ammunition factory...."
Tabloid readers may be horrified that someone was keeping "HEADS" without refridgeration.
Crow Man
Well-Known Member
I think this bit needs reading first.
1Requirement of firearm certificate.
(1)Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person—
(a)to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate;
(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 authorised.
1Requirement of firearm certificate.
(1)Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person—
(a)to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate;
(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 authorised.
Crow Man
Well-Known Member
The new legislation still recognises the distinction between component parts and ammunition.
3A 1a uses the words component parts.
3A 1b uses the words manufacture ammunition to which section 1 applies. (I refer to my previous post)
Prior to this amendment (correct me if I am wrong) you could buy most component parts without producing a certificate.
This bill the way I read it is just making it an offence under section 1 to have any component parts in your possession without due authority.
3A 1a uses the words component parts.
3A 1b uses the words manufacture ammunition to which section 1 applies. (I refer to my previous post)
Prior to this amendment (correct me if I am wrong) you could buy most component parts without producing a certificate.
This bill the way I read it is just making it an offence under section 1 to have any component parts in your possession without due authority.
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Presumably the cap is there to protect the public from us nasty shooting types. All a load of nonsense if common sense were applied (like when?). My FAC has 1000 of each on it - what mischief am I going to get up to with 2000 or even 10,000 that I cannot do with the measly 1,000?
Which has the effect of very seriously limiting the legitimate shooter's access to components and will heap considerable extra costs onto him. This will make any but the most common calibres unusable. Most, I suspect nearly all, do not live in range of an RFD who would ever hold stock of a full range of components.The downside to this amendment is that we will probably have to provide authority to possess to purchase components online etc.
The intention may be to prevent criminals getting hold of ammunition or components, but the actual effect is to prevent legitimate shooters getting hold of ammunition / components. Criminals will still have a plentiful supply through the same channels they're illegally acquiring firearms.
Again, it's extraordinary the lassitude with which our shooting orgs have greeted this.
When it comes to intent, in 99% of occasions if not 100% that means you will be interviewed.
Nowadays they will often try to interview you by appointment or voluntarily. Personally unless under arrest, i would not be talking into a microphone.
however once there, remember these words of advice SAY NOTHING UNTIL YOUR DAMN BRIEF ADVISES YOU!
seen too many people not realise how throwaway comments or jokes can be taken when said after caution.
Nowadays they will often try to interview you by appointment or voluntarily. Personally unless under arrest, i would not be talking into a microphone.
however once there, remember these words of advice SAY NOTHING UNTIL YOUR DAMN BRIEF ADVISES YOU!
seen too many people not realise how throwaway comments or jokes can be taken when said after caution.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
This isn't a government bill sponsored by the Home Office. It's a Presentation Bill usually called a Private Members Bill, which is a bit of parliamentary jargon that always makes me titter.
It has no chance of becoming law unless the government takes it over, and allocates HOC time to it.
Making more rounds of ammunition than is permitted under Part II of your FAC is already an offence. This clause creates a much broader offence of having components for calibres which aren't listed on an FAC with intent to make illegal ammo. Having said that, the new clause has to be read in the context of the Act it's been slotted into. The following section (4) currently provides for exemptions.
There was a public consultation on the proposed changes, which some might remember, a few months ago. In their official response to the feedback to this, the Home Office stressed that ordinary FAC holder/reloaders will not be affected by any new restrictions. If the 1968 Act is read as a whole with the new bit in place, you can see how this will all play out should that become law.
(3) It is an offence for a person to undertake the repair, test or proof of a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or of a shot gun, for any other person in the United Kingdom other than a registered firearms dealer as such, unless that other produces or causes to be produced a firearm certificate authorising him to have possession of the firearm or ammunition or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate, or shows that he is by virtue of this Act entitled to have possession of it without holding a certificate.
“3A Possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person has in their possession any component parts of 5 ammunition (see subsection (2)),
(b) the person intends to manufacture ammunition to which section 1 applies using those parts, and
(c) were the person to do so—
(i) possession of the ammunition by the person would constitute an offence under section 1, or
(ii) the manufacture or possession of the ammunition by the person would constitute an offence under section 3.
(2) For the purposes of this section the component parts of ammunition are—
(a) bullet; (b) cartridge case; (c) primer; (d) propellant.
(4) Subsections (1) to (3) above have effect subject to any exemption under subsequent provisions of this Part of this Act.
It's ratified by the United Nations that all countries should be aiming to reduce the number of privately held firearms, and that a citizen's access to them should be made as difficult as possible, with the end goal of them being phased out entirely.
For those who claim 'our guns are legally held', well, the politicians can decide that they are illegal, pretty much overnight, and without recourse for appeal. Be grateful if you get compensation...
Refer UK post-Dunblane, NZ post-Christchurch (both Police firearms licensing failings, much like the Devon & Cornwall shooting) along with Canada and Australia where nothing actually happened but their politicians decided to ban some guns anyway.
These are countries where an individual's right to own private property should be protected, but they are being violated. Something close to countries like the People's Republic of China and North Korea.
And nothing being done to address it
Does all the above refer to calibres/chamberings that are either not mentioned on 'the person's' FAC or are banned/illegal perhaps?
The problem with this is that it is almost certainly a badly drafted law, and it will have all sorts of consequences other than what its sponsors claim it will do. Anti-terrorism legislation was used to stop entirely legitimate public protests, detain trainspotters and so on, wildlife legislation is misused to annoy landowners trying to control pests, surveillance powers misused by councils to persecute people for what's in their dustbins, emergency powers to fine people for wholly legitimate and safe activities, etc etc,
We can debate until we're blue in the face about whether or not this law intends to restrict current practices by legal shooters. It doesn't matter, the fact is that it will restrict us in practice, and will not achieve its purpose.
We can debate until we're blue in the face about whether or not this law intends to restrict current practices by legal shooters. It doesn't matter, the fact is that it will restrict us in practice, and will not achieve its purpose.
How will it do that, as currently written?
Similar threads
