They will if they arrive with a search warrant.
Current Firearms Bill and reloading restrictions
- Thread starter SteveFisher
- Start date
In much the same way as the Firearms Act 1968 now has the effect where many police forces assume powers to determine who may shoot what quarry with which precise cartridge and in which individual pieces of land. And where people have money extorted out of them by some unscrupulous GPs, other people have their guns confiscated because they're getting divorced or have various illnesses not related to their ability to shoot safely. None if this was "intended""at the time the enabling legislation was passed.
As currently written, it seems straightforward:
A person commits an offence if— (a) the person has in their possession any component parts of 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.
An offence is committed if someone has even one component part of ammunition (note in part ( a) the wording is "any component parts" - not "all component parts") and (b) the person intends to manufacture ammunition with those parts (what other explanation is there for my ownership of ammunition components? It would not require much talent from the prosecution to make the case that shooters buy components with the intent of making ammunition) and (c) that if the person were to do so it would e..g exceed my allowance. There is no longer any need for excessive numbers of rounds to actually be made for an offence to be committed, only for me to possess sufficient of one (or more) components to exceed my limit.
I use powder that comes in 1kg tubs. 1kg is approximately enough for 300 rounds, and my allowance is 200. That is not to go into bullets or primers. It is not beyond possibility that this legislation criminalises me and perhaps most other reloaders.
Even if it doesn't, it depresses a barely functional market for ammunition even further.
There is also some question about how one will buy bullets and cases in future. It may well destroy the mail order / online market, with knock on effects for the ability of RFDs to acquire bullets, especially of newer lead-free types.
Utectok
Well-Known Member
haha for me about 3000 center fire rounds that'll happen no problem? lol
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Absolutely no need to.
And where would the answer "no" get you?
The limits we individually have exist because those are the maximum numbers the police currently consider safe for us to hold. I do not really see how the police are going to suddenly decide the risks have changed substantially purely because this bill gets onto the books. The Police do not have to, and probably rightly, take any account of factors like ease of shopping, bulk buying to get an order and so on.
I’m going to post here what I posted in the other thread because it applies here too
“I thought this one had already been around for a while…? I seem to recall responding to a consultation on these topics last year…
That said - are they really saying that if you don’t have an FAC you can buy as many bullet heads and brass as you want, but if you do have an FAC you’re restricted to 600 or whatever? How does that work? Or are we now going to have to supply an FAC to buy brass and bullets?
Oh and I can make more than 600 rounds with a single tub of powder - so what do I do there? Ask the RFD to decant out exactly 600x75.6gn of powder and keep the rest?
Or primers which are typically sold by the 1000….?
This is just yet more badly worded and poorly thought out legislation from some random MP trying to make a name for themselves that isn’t going to make it into law because it’s entirely unworkable.
I’m pretty sure this is part of an earlier consultation which asked about making reloading components FAC only and imposing more restrictions on mini ranges - I’m also pretty sure the key words are “with intent to manufacture” as it pertains to unlicensed people making ammo for illegal purposes. This is coming back to me now, and I’m pretty sure that was what this relates to.
It’s also a private members bill (ie I thought of it and want to try and wedge it in) as opposed to anything more legitimate, and it’s yet to get to the Lords.”
I think folks are adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 in some cases here!
“I thought this one had already been around for a while…? I seem to recall responding to a consultation on these topics last year…
That said - are they really saying that if you don’t have an FAC you can buy as many bullet heads and brass as you want, but if you do have an FAC you’re restricted to 600 or whatever? How does that work? Or are we now going to have to supply an FAC to buy brass and bullets?
Oh and I can make more than 600 rounds with a single tub of powder - so what do I do there? Ask the RFD to decant out exactly 600x75.6gn of powder and keep the rest?
Or primers which are typically sold by the 1000….?
This is just yet more badly worded and poorly thought out legislation from some random MP trying to make a name for themselves that isn’t going to make it into law because it’s entirely unworkable.
I’m pretty sure this is part of an earlier consultation which asked about making reloading components FAC only and imposing more restrictions on mini ranges - I’m also pretty sure the key words are “with intent to manufacture” as it pertains to unlicensed people making ammo for illegal purposes. This is coming back to me now, and I’m pretty sure that was what this relates to.
It’s also a private members bill (ie I thought of it and want to try and wedge it in) as opposed to anything more legitimate, and it’s yet to get to the Lords.”
I think folks are adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 in some cases here!
The offence is committed unless the possessor of the component/s intend to manufacture ammunition which by its quantity or nature they're not lawfully allowed to possess.
Nothing to do with quantities of component/s possessed.
All to do with intent to manufacture ammunition which by nature of its quantity or type would not be lawfully in the manufacturer's possession.
Indeed. And the problem with this sort of legislation, and considerable amounts of it do end up on the statute books, is that while the intention is claimed to be that 2+2=4, the fact is that law has the effect courts interpret it to have. If the wording contains 2 and 2 and 2, then there is a real probability that a court will add it up and get 6.
Yes. I'm afraid I can't quite grasp why we're both reading the same words and you can't see the validity of the interpretation I've made of them.
In relation to an offence of quantity:
The legislation sets out clearly that there are three tests which must be met:
1. Possession of any component(s). This does not have to be all the components needed for ammo. I could hold one tub of powder and trigger the conditions necessary for an offence to be committed.
2. Intent to manufacture. What is your intent in buying or possessing the reloading components? To manufacture ammunition. This cannot reasonably be denied.
3. If the quantity of ammunition that would exist, if you were to manufacture those components into complete rounds, exceeds your FAC allowance.
You do not actually have to manufacture any complete rounds to commit an offence under this wording, and nor do you have to possess all the component parts to make ammunition.
I'd add to this that this wording would presumably make it illegal to buy any component part of ammunition, since they all become legally controlled, without producing a FAC in person.
I'm afraid I cannot see any way in which the interpretation I have made above is inconsistent with the wording in the legislation? I'd very much welcome any errors being pointed out.
@Conor O'Gorman What is BASCs position on this legislation, and are you able to confirm that my interpretation is impossible?
Last edited:
That's certainly true.
To commit an offence you have to possess the component with the intent to manufacture ammunition - but you must also intend to manufacture ammunition in such a way that you are unlawfully in possession of it.
e.g. I am allowed to possess 200rnds of .270, but have components for 1000rnds. I clearly intend to manufacture 1000rnds - but not in such a way that I fall foul of (c) - meaning that I will not manufacture the ammunition in such quantities that I am in possession of more that 200rnds. I have committed no offence by the possession of those components
or: I own some cases, bullets and dies for a cartridge I no longer have authority to possess. I have no intent to manufacture any ammunition for that chambering - so I have committed no offence here either.
That's my reading, at least.
Last edited:
Iron Mike Tyson
Active Member
Completely unenforceable. Who is going to check ?
Who's going to check what?
Not sure if it helps but here goes. I was taught that when reading any government legislation, the first place to go is to the back pages to be up to date with all the amendments,that override/overrule the original legislation.
Iron Mike Tyson
Active Member
FEO deciding to come round and do some addition ?
Addition of what, though?
I have highlighted some of your text in bold - and inserted some of mine. I cannot see where the text of the legislation says that or anything which permits your interpretation to be made.
The three conditions are separate: 1. Possession of component(s). (Check.) 2. Intent to manufacture rounds. (Check). 3. If you were to do so, an offence would be committed under ..etc...etc. The third condition does not require any intent or act to break the rules, an offence is committed anyway.
All the text says is " the person intends to manufacture ammunition to which section 1 applies using those parts,". No ammunition needs to be made, nor does there need to be an intention to make too much at any one time.
In a common law jurisdiction, the law has the effect a court decided it should have based on the text, legal opinion and precedents. Precedents are created by other people's interpretations. There is no particular requirement that the law must have the effect that the people who wrote it claimed to intend.
With this text on the statute books, it would be entirely legitimate for a force with a chippy senior officer, to have FEOs inspect all FAC holders. All holders found to have enough of any one component to exceed their allowances can then be arrested. Presumably their FACs will be revoked, and guns and equipment seized, pending trial. It doesn't much matter what the outcome of the trial is. It's certainly not sensible or moderate behaviour, but it's also not implausible from the sort of senior police officers who thought that using police roadblocks, police aircraft and drones to make spurious arrests and issue fines which didn't hold up in court was a good use of resources. It has a strong virtue-signalling component, would create an almighty inconvenience and cost to shooters and many would never get their certificates back afterwards.
I believe some of them can count. As written, the text of the law gives an FEO reasonable cause to think a criminal offence is being committed if he comes round and finds you have .e.g. 1 kilo of N140 powder and an allowance of 200 rounds, but no loaded rounds at all.
To me, it seems that the official name of the offence under discussion is 'Possession of components parts with intent to manufacture'.
One of the conditions, (c), necessary for the offence to be complete is that the intended manufacture would result in unlawful possession of the ammunition.
It has nothing to do with the quantities of any component held, but everything to do with intent to manufacture resulting in unlawful possession. An intent that would have to be proved - the quantities or nature of components possessed not in abstract being relevant.
Similar threads
