Current Firearms Bill and reloading restrictions

[Scotty99]

I understood differently. FAC holders would be OK, except in the situation that they possessed more of any one component than they are entitled to. In which case, they would definitely be guilty of an offence. The key is that the "intent" is not intent to manufacture an amount that would be illegal, it is used in an earlier part establishing intent to make any ammunition with the components.
Hansard recorded that they are also looking at making cases and bullets restricted items too. It is this which will have the effect of destroying the ability to reload and rendering obsolete a very large range of cartridges/calibres. It is unthinkable that a normal local RFD would be able to efficiently supply the components which are now supplied efficiently via Internet or mail order. Primers and powders are relatively universal, but the metal parts will become impracticably difficult to get hold

I applaud your optimism, that is where I was a little while ago. I’ve gone and read the latest draft online (there is a link in one of Conor OGormans posts). The wording is the same. It makes no reference to FAC holders or their ammunition allowances.

It still says any person found to have in their possession ammunition components, with intent to manufacture is committing an offence. It is very broad wording, that I believe catch out FAC holders who reload.

 

[Liveonce]

it’s an unnecessary law, it is an offence to have shooters powder without either a licence to acquire and keep or one of the exemptions like FAC, SGC. No need to prove intent as just being in possession is an offence, just enforce the explosive regulations simple. Then primers are controlled via the VCR bill and if they wanted to again make it an offence to have them in your possession as per the explosive regulations do for shooters powder.

These HO or do gooders that come up with these new laws are just doing so to justify their jobs, not to improve public safety.

 

[Scotty99]

I think the wording of the bill would have significantly improved clarity of the the word unlawful was inserted.

To read “with intent to manufacture unlawful ammunition” rather than in its current form of “with intent to manufacture”. Unlawful ammunition being defined as any ammunition that the person has no legal authority to possess.

 

[Essexsussex]

I applaud your optimism, that is where I was a little while ago. I’ve gone and read the latest draft online (there is a link in one of Conor OGormans posts). The wording is the same. It makes no reference to FAC holders or their ammunition allowances.

It still says any person found to have in their possession ammunition components, with intent to manufacture is committing an offence. It is very broad wording, that I believe catch out FAC holders who reload.

“ the person would have no lawful basis for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete”
A FAC holder would have a lawful basis. I’m sure it’s just the number of potential cartridges that is in question.

 

[zambezi]

possession of components sufficient to make more ammunition than one is allowed to possess at once is a universal practice among reloaders, that seems unlikely to be seen by the CPS or courts in any way as pointing in the direction of that intent.
A component-count is therefore unlikely to be particularly relevant?

This seems to be the logic that assuages BASC lobbyists too.

With a fair wind blowing, any court test of intent based purely on stock held should fail.

But all of that utterly misses the point: As worded, stock count could be contrived by an FEO as a legitimate basis for FAC revocation pending court adjudication. How many legitimate shooters will loose access to their lawful hobby for how many months just because legislators cannot craft wording that appropriately frames illegal activity without ambiguity?

 

[Scotty99]

“ the person would have no lawful basis for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete”
A FAC holder would have a lawful basis. I’m sure it’s just the number of potential cartridges that is in question.

Where does the wording that you have quoted appear in the bill as currently drafted?

We all have to drop our optimistic, it’ll be alright on the night attitude and read the bill as it is worded, which says that anyone having in their possession any ammunition components with intent to manufacture is committing an offence. I am really surprised that both BASC and BSSC are accepting of the wording, it’s all well and good quoting comments made at the committee stage of the bill as recorded in Hansard, but Hansard is not the law. Once this bill is law it will be up to law courts to decide what “with intent to manufacture“ means in each case brought before them. This bill provides them with no basis on which to differentiate between lawful and unlawful intent to manufacture.

 

[Scotty99]

This seems to be the logic that assuages BASC lobbyists too.

With a fair wind blowing, any court test of intent based purely on stock held should fail.

But all of that utterly misses the point: As worded, stock count could be contrived by an FEO as a legitimate basis for FAC revocation pending court adjudication. How many legitimate shooters will loose access to their lawful hobby for how many months just because legislators cannot craft wording that appropriately frames illegal activity without ambiguity?

Round count or component count is irrelevant and a distraction. The wording of the bill makes no reference to either nor indeed FAC holders. Anyone holding only one of each component with intent to manufacture is committing an offence as the bill is currently worded.

 

[Apthorpe]

“ the person would have no lawful basis for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete”
A FAC holder would have a lawful basis. I’m sure it’s just the number of potential cartridges that is in question.

Round count or component count is irrelevant and a distraction. The wording of the bill makes no reference to either nor indeed FAC holders. Anyone holding only one of each component with intent to manufacture is committing an offence as the bill is currently worded.

Scotty, I believe you're going a bit too far. Essexsussex, I believe you're mistaken. First, it is important to note that this entire bill inserts into the 1968 Firearms Act. It is within that Act that a FAC holder is permitted to hold any components or ammunition. The problem is different.

Permit me to quote the actual text in full. Reading from that, we can see that the offence is committed by fulfilling three conditions, all of which must apply:
1. You must have any components of ammunition. Obviously any reloader does.
2. The person intends to make ammunition with it. Obviously they do, why else would they have bought it? Note that this is the only part where "intent" applies. So the "intent" is in fact very easily established, despite the unexplained contention of our friend from BASC. No rational person could possibly be persuaded that a FAC holder buys component parts of ammunition for any other purpose.
3. if (not "when", nor " if intent is established" ) those parts were made into ammunition (even if no ammunition is ever made), possession of that ammunition would constitute an offence. This clearly and explicitly makes an offence out of e.g. having a FAC limit of 200 centrefire rounds and possessing a tub of Viht powder (enough for 300+ rounds), or of having 400 primers etc.. because no ammunition needs to be made, it is an offence created by hypothetically having the potential to make an illicit amount of ammunition with that component part, even if the other parts are absent.

Some people have assured me that I must be wrong, but nobody has managed to provide a reading of the text which means anything else, without resort to ideas which are not in the text.

2Possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture​

In the Firearms Act 1968, after section 3 insert—

“3APossessing 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
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. 

​

 

[Scotty99]

Scotty, I believe you're going a bit too far. Essexsussex, I believe you're mistaken. First, it is important to note that this entire bill inserts into the 1968 Firearms Act. It is within that Act that a FAC holder is permitted to hold any components or ammunition. The problem is different.

Permit me to quote the actual text in full. Reading from that, we can see that the offence is committed by fulfilling three conditions, all of which must apply:
1. You must have any components of ammunition. Obviously any reloader does.
2. The person intends to make ammunition with it. Obviously they do, why else would they have bought it? Note that this is the only part where "intent" applies. So the "intent" is in fact very easily established, despite the unexplained contention of our friend from BASC. No rational person could possibly be persuaded that a FAC holder buys component parts of ammunition for any other purpose.
3. if (not "when", nor " if intent is established" ) those parts were made into ammunition (even if no ammunition is ever made), possession of that ammunition would constitute an offence. This clearly and explicitly makes an offence out of e.g. having a FAC limit of 200 centrefire rounds and possessing a tub of Viht powder (enough for 300+ rounds), or of having 400 primers etc.. because no ammunition needs to be made, it is an offence created by hypothetically having the potential to make an illicit amount of ammunition with that component part, even if the other parts are absent.

Some people have assured me that I must be wrong, but nobody has managed to provide a reading of the text which means anything else, without resort to ideas which are not in the text.

2Possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture​

In the Firearms Act 1968, after section 3 insert—

I would love to be able to think you are right, but here is the complete wording of section 2 as it refers to ammunition components. I think it’s quite explicit, allows no room for interpretation and makes no allowances for FAC holders. I’ll go a read the 1968 Firearms act and see if there is any context there that would change the meaning of the new bill.

2Possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture​

In the Firearms Act 1968, after section 3 insert—

“3APossessing 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
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.

(3)​

A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a)​

on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both);

(b)​

on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’
court or a fine (or both);

(c)​

on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the
statutory maximum (or both).”

 

[Scotty99]

So the wording of the new bill fits in under section 3 of the 1968 Firearms Act as section 3A. Here is the wording of section 3 of the 1968 Firearms Act.

3Business and other transactions with firearms and ammunition.​

(1)A person commits an offence if, by way of trade or business, he—

(a)manufactures, sells, transfers, repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or a shot gun; [F4or] F5. . .

(b)exposes for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, repair, test or proof any such firearm or ammunition, or a shot gun, [F6[F7or]

(c)[F8sells or transfers an air weapon, exposes such a weapon for sale or transfer or has such a weapon in his possession for sale or transfer,]]

without being registered under this Act as a firearms dealer.

(2)It is an offence for a person to sell or transfer to any other person in the United Kingdom, other than a registered firearms dealer, any firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or a shot gun, unless that other produces a firearm certificate authorising him to purchase or acquire it or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate, or shows that he is by virtue of this Act entitled to purchase or acquire it without holding a certificate.

(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.

(4)Subsections (1) to (3) above have effect subject to any exemption under subsequent provisions of this Part of this Act.

(5)A person commits an offence if, with a view to purchasing or acquiring, or procuring the repair, test or proof of, any firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or a shot gun, he produces a false certificate or a certificate in which any false entry has been made, or personates a person to whom a certificate has been granted, or [F9knowingly or recklessly makes a statement false in any material particular].

(6)It is an offence for a pawnbroker to take in pawn any firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or a shot gun.

[F10(7)It is an offence for a pawnbroker to take in pawn an air weapon within the meaning of section 1 of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015.

(8)Subsection (7) applies to Scotland only.]

@Apthorpe I think you might be right. The section of the new bill that says

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. 

My interpretation is that Ammunition manufactured by an FAC holder would not be deemed as an offence if possession of the ammunition is legally allowed by that person (I.e the FAC holder).

Sorry about the tortuous route to get here, but I think I understand it now. Thanks to @Apthorpe for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[Dalua]

Some people have assured me that I must be wrong, but nobody has managed to provide a reading of the text which means anything else, without resort to ideas which are not in the text.

Would it help to look at it another way?
The offence is, although given the title 'possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture', actually (because of the 'and' before (c)) 'possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture ammunition possession of which by the person manufacturing it would be unlawful under S1 or S3 of the Firearms Act.'

I still think that means 'they' would have to prove intent on the FAC-holder's part that the FAC-holder was in possession of lots of cases, primers, bullets and powder not because that is entirely normal for reloaders, but rather because he intended to jeopardise his FAC, sport and liberty by making more cartridges than his FAC allowed him to possess.

I agree entirely that it could be worded better, and that it is fairly pointless - but I'm not hugely worried about it.

I don't buy the 'why else would you have the components if not to make ammunition' argument either. I think many rational people could understand that someone might possess, say, .30-30 cases and dies, along with bullets, powder and primers, without the slightest intention of manufacturing .30-30 ammunition; having, for example, sold the rifle and therefore having no ammunition allowance for that cartridge. Why keep them? Well, why not - I might buy another rifle in the same cal in future: perfectly reasonable.
If it's reasonable to have components and make no ammunition at all, then it should also be OK to possess components and manufacture only within the permitted limits.

 

[Bowland blades]

I dont feel worried at all its hard to get proper criminals charged at present-Fact ! I will have a laugh if the FEO tries to work out exactly how many rounds of loaded ammo i might be able to make from my component stock and why i might think doing so was worthwhile or passes the test " In the public good of prosecution " This latter bit must be answered by the CPS

 

[Essexsussex]

Scotty, I believe you're going a bit too far. Essexsussex, I believe you're mistaken. First, it is important to note that this entire bill inserts into the 1968 Firearms Act. It is within that Act that a FAC holder is permitted to hold any components or ammunition. The problem is different.

Permit me to quote the actual text in full. Reading from that, we can see that the offence is committed by fulfilling three conditions, all of which must apply:
1. You must have any components of ammunition. Obviously any reloader does.
2. The person intends to make ammunition with it. Obviously they do, why else would they have bought it? Note that this is the only part where "intent" applies. So the "intent" is in fact very easily established, despite the unexplained contention of our friend from BASC. No rational person could possibly be persuaded that a FAC holder buys component parts of ammunition for any other purpose.
3. if (not "when", nor " if intent is established" ) those parts were made into ammunition (even if no ammunition is ever made), possession of that ammunition would constitute an offence. This clearly and explicitly makes an offence out of e.g. having a FAC limit of 200 centrefire rounds and possessing a tub of Viht powder (enough for 300+ rounds), or of having 400 primers etc.. because no ammunition needs to be made, it is an offence created by hypothetically having the potential to make an illicit amount of ammunition with that component part, even if the other parts are absent.

Some people have assured me that I must be wrong, but nobody has managed to provide a reading of the text which means anything else, without resort to ideas which are not in the text.

2Possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture​

In the Firearms Act 1968, after section 3 insert—

“3. if (not "when", nor " if intent is established" ) those parts were made into ammunition (even if no ammunition is ever made), possession of that ammunition would constitute an offence. This clearly and explicitly makes an offence out of e.g. having a FAC limit of 200 centrefire rounds and possessing a tub of Viht powder (enough for 300+ rounds), or of having 400 primers etc.. because no ammunition needs to be made, it is an offence created by hypothetically having the potential to make an illicit amount of ammunition with that component part, even if the other parts are absent.”

“If those parts were made into ammunition it would constitute an offence” It wouldn’t constitute an offence if a FAC holder with permission to hold (200 or whatever) of ammunition I am not committing an offence unless potential for more. I can restrict all sorts of components, brass the easiest. But if it could be more than my permitted amount I’m not sure. That was all I was saying and I think the point you are making on amounts of ammo is worth thinking about further (as you are doing).

Probably, this legislation won’t come into force. If it does, there will need to be variations to make it work, even if it means powder mfr making 1/4lb tubs or FLO allowing 400 rounds. And then they need to sniff around everyone to see what they are making or what components they have.

Maybe, they will just allow FAC holders to hold whatever number they need that works by the certificate which then means all FAC holders are allowed to hold rounds that align with powder sales volumes.

I don’t think this is aimed at us, it doesn’t seem likely to pass into legislation and FLOs will vary their permissions on our certificates to be practical, which generally (lots of notable exceptions) they try and do.

Then, after all this, will anyone check a reasonable and legal FAC holder?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

For those new to this the following context may help.

The proposals date back to the Home Office firearm safety consultation which took place from 24 November 2020 to 16 February 2021; and sought views on a range of concerns which were raised with the Government during the passage of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019

BASC urged all shooters to take part in the 2020/21 consultation (including on SD) and provided the following guidance:

Home Office firearms safety consultation - BASC

Home Office firearms safety consultation BASC is urging all its members to spend 5 minutes responding to a Home Office firearms consultation that covers airguns, ammunition components, high muzzle energy rifles and miniature rifle ranges in England, Wales and Scotland. To ensure that a...

basc.org.uk

Further information was provided here:

Home Office firearms consultation explained - BASC

Bill Harriman outlines BASC’s key arguments and work for the latest Home Office consultation on firearms.

basc.org.uk

BASC published its response in January 2021 whilst the consultation was still live here:

BASC publishes detailed response to Home Office firearms proposals

Government consultation deals with areas of interest including miniature rifle ranges, large calibre rifles, airguns and ammunition.

basc.org.uk

The govt response to the consultation was in July 2022 and is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1090903/Firearms_Safety_Consultation_-_Government_Response_-_11072022.pdf

The response document outlined that there were 12,758 responses to the consultation, comprising 12,293 completed online survey responses and 465 responses by e-mail. Around two thirds (67.7%) of respondents were categorised as members of the public. Almost one quarter (22.8%) of respondents self-identified as members of the shooting community.

 

[Apthorpe]

“3. if (not "when", nor " if intent is established" ) those parts were made into ammunition (even if no ammunition is ever made), possession of that ammunition would constitute an offence. This clearly and explicitly makes an offence out of e.g. having a FAC limit of 200 centrefire rounds and possessing a tub of Viht powder (enough for 300+ rounds), or of having 400 primers etc.. because no ammunition needs to be made, it is an offence created by hypothetically having the potential to make an illicit amount of ammunition with that component part, even if the other parts are absent.”

“If those parts were made into ammunition it would constitute an offence” It wouldn’t constitute an offence because as a FAC holder with permission to hold (200 or whatever) of ammunition I am not committing an offence. But if it could be more than my permitted amount I’m not sure.

Quite so. The text is quite unambiguous that it would be an offence if you had more of any single component. For my rifles 1kg of powder is good for 3-400-odd rounds. A 50 grain load means about 300 rounds from a kilo.

It is necessary to remember that the entire point of this legislation is not to catch people with too much ammunition. That is already illegal. It is to catch people who don't have ammunition but do have any of the means to make it, despite the fact that perfectly good legislation already exists to prevent non-FAC holders from getting the bits that go bang. There is no intention of a high bar to protect legitimate users. The whole point is to massively lower the bar to deal with a very rare problem which the police have imagined to be a major risk.

The problem could be avoided if police forces simply raised the standard allowances to 1000 rounds per cartridge chambering. Somehow, I don't envisage that being the plan.

 

[Essexsussex]

Quite so. The text is quite unambiguous that it would be an offence if you had more of any single component. For my rifles 1kg of powder is good for 3-400-odd rounds. A 50 grain load means about 300 rounds from a kilo.

It is necessary to remember that the entire point of this legislation is not to catch people with too much ammunition. That is already illegal. It is to catch people who don't have ammunition but do have any of the means to make it, despite the fact that perfectly good legislation already exists to prevent non-FAC holders from getting the bits that go bang. There is no intention of a high bar to protect legitimate users. The whole point is to massively lower the bar to deal with a very rare problem which the police have imagined to be a major risk.

The problem could be avoided if police forces simply raised the standard allowances to 1000 rounds per cartridge chambering. Somehow, I don't envisage that being the plan.

Thanks Apthorpe
A cordial agreement.
I’ve just read connor’s attachment / link. That is the public’s view too I think.

 

[Apthorpe]

Would it help to look at it another way?

In short, sadly not.

The offence is, although given the title 'possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture', actually (because of the 'and' before (c)) 'possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture ammunition possession of which by the person manufacturing it would be unlawful under S1 or S3 of the Firearms Act.'

I'm afraid it is not. You have re-written the text to say something different, and then go on to explain that this (much preferable) version is not a problem.

I still think that means 'they' would have to prove intent on the FAC-holder's part that the FAC-holder was in possession of lots of cases, primers, bullets and powder not because that is entirely normal for reloaders, but rather because he intended to jeopardise his FAC, sport and liberty by making more cartridges than his FAC allowed him to possess.

I agree entirely that it could be worded better, and that it is fairly pointless - but I'm not hugely worried about it.

I don't buy the 'why else would you have the components if not to make ammunition' argument either. I think many rational people could understand that someone might possess, say, .30-30 cases and dies, along with bullets, powder and primers, without the slightest intention of manufacturing .30-30 ammunition; having, for example, sold the rifle and therefore having no ammunition allowance for that cartridge. Why keep them? Well, why not - I might buy another rifle in the same cal in future: perfectly reasonable.

On the contrary, I find this rather contrived, unrepresentative of the situation most reloaders are in, and very unlikely to sound convincing to a non-reloading police officer, prosecutor, judge or jury.

If it's reasonable to have components and make no ammunition at all,

It isn't, under the proposed legislation.

then it should also be OK to possess components and manufacture only within the permitted limits.

....this would be OK, but the possession of the parts is likely to have already been an offence.

 

[Essexsussex]

Quite so. The text is quite unambiguous that it would be an offence if you had more of any single component. For my rifles 1kg of powder is good for 3-400-odd rounds. A 50 grain load means about 300 rounds from a kilo.

It is necessary to remember that the entire point of this legislation is not to catch people with too much ammunition. That is already illegal. It is to catch people who don't have ammunition but do have any of the means to make it, despite the fact that perfectly good legislation already exists to prevent non-FAC holders from getting the bits that go bang. There is no intention of a high bar to protect legitimate users. The whole point is to massively lower the bar to deal with a very rare problem which the police have imagined to be a major risk.

The problem could be avoided if police forces simply raised the standard allowances to 1000 rounds per cartridge chambering. Somehow, I don't envisage that being the plan.

Is it to target those who make ammo for previously deactivated shooters? That seems to be perceived as a proper problem.

 

[Liveonce]

really who makes this rubbish up, this is tax payers money being wasted.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1090907/20220609_Ammunition_IA_FINAL.pdf

 

[Liveonce]

phew it’s ok it’s only lead bullets