@Conor O'Gorman Will BASC seek amendment that removes the possibility that law-abiding reloaders are jeopardised by the ambiguous wording as proposed?
Current Firearms Bill and reloading restrictions
- Thread starter SteveFisher
- Start date
@Conor O'Gorman Will BASC seek amendment that removes the possibility that law-abiding reloaders are jeopardised by the ambiguous wording as proposed?
That would be nice.
I think the office is closed until 9-00 on Monday.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
The bar for proving intent is incredibly high but concerns are understandable and were outlined in BASC's consultation response and BASC and other members of the British Shooting Sports Council (BSSC) have been consulted on the wording and the following committee stage debate on the Bill and the specific clause may be of interest.
EXTRACTS:
Clause 2 gives the police the power that they need to prevent criminals from manufacturing unlawful ammunition. The key components of ammunition are the propellant, which helps to propel a projectile from a firearm by burning rapidly, and the primer, which is an explosive chemical compound that ignites the propellant. Both are already controlled, and there are offences relating to the unlawful possession of complete ammunition. However, the police have expressed concern that these controls are not sufficient to prevent criminals from acquiring the components and going on to unlawfully manufacture ammunition. The clause will close that gap by making it an offence to possess the components of ammunition with the intent to manufacture unlawful ammunition.
I am advised that there will be law-abiding shooters who may have components of ammunition that they use lawfully, for such purposes as reloading ammunition, which they are legally able to possess by virtue of their firearms certificate. The offence in clause 2 has therefore been drafted in a way that will not criminalise such lawful activities. It requires first that the person committing the new offence has any of the components in their possession; secondly, that the person has the intent of manufacturing ammunition; and thirdly and critically, that the person would have no lawful basis for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete. In that way, the clause ensures that those who are able to hold ammunition by virtue of a firearm certificate issued under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, or who are registered firearms dealers under the Act and permitted to possess or manufacture such ammunition, will not be caught by the new offence when going about their lawful activities.
Also:
The BSSC was consulted on the changes proposed by the Government and discussed those matters with them. It will no doubt remain a matter for the police and the courts as to how intent to manufacture ammunition unlawfully is to be proven. However, I am satisfied that in the case of lawful shooters, reloading ammunition that they have authority to possess, no offence is committed under the proposed legislation.
EXTRACTS:
Clause 2 gives the police the power that they need to prevent criminals from manufacturing unlawful ammunition. The key components of ammunition are the propellant, which helps to propel a projectile from a firearm by burning rapidly, and the primer, which is an explosive chemical compound that ignites the propellant. Both are already controlled, and there are offences relating to the unlawful possession of complete ammunition. However, the police have expressed concern that these controls are not sufficient to prevent criminals from acquiring the components and going on to unlawfully manufacture ammunition. The clause will close that gap by making it an offence to possess the components of ammunition with the intent to manufacture unlawful ammunition.
I am advised that there will be law-abiding shooters who may have components of ammunition that they use lawfully, for such purposes as reloading ammunition, which they are legally able to possess by virtue of their firearms certificate. The offence in clause 2 has therefore been drafted in a way that will not criminalise such lawful activities. It requires first that the person committing the new offence has any of the components in their possession; secondly, that the person has the intent of manufacturing ammunition; and thirdly and critically, that the person would have no lawful basis for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete. In that way, the clause ensures that those who are able to hold ammunition by virtue of a firearm certificate issued under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, or who are registered firearms dealers under the Act and permitted to possess or manufacture such ammunition, will not be caught by the new offence when going about their lawful activities.
Also:
The BSSC was consulted on the changes proposed by the Government and discussed those matters with them. It will no doubt remain a matter for the police and the courts as to how intent to manufacture ammunition unlawfully is to be proven. However, I am satisfied that in the case of lawful shooters, reloading ammunition that they have authority to possess, no offence is committed under the proposed legislation.
SteveFisher
Well-Known Member
The Bill as it is written includes no exemption for FAC holders. If people here can read it and reread it and still see a plain language meaning that having MORE components than are on your FAC breaches 1, 2 and 3, then I think a juror might understand it in that way too. It is badly drafted. I would like BASC to be proactive and seek an amendment in the Lords to eliminate all ambiguity.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks @SteveFisher all legislation is ultimately interpreted by the courts. As explained earlier the bar for proving intent is incredibly high and BASC and other members of the British Shooting Sports Council (BSSC) have been consulted on the wording. That said I will pass your recommendation on to colleagues at BASC.
But SteveFisher makes a good point: non-shooting jurors might be lead to a view that the number of components held indicates intent. Many jurors, even those who shoot, will have no experience of reloading or the parameters involved in legal reloading. Nor will they be aware that reloaders neccessarily try multiple powders and projectiles and that those components are not sold in ounces or in 5s or 10s respectively. That is a concept well defined in the November 2022 HOG section 12.89 on page 115.
The obvious addition to the current bill wording would be to add a phrase that "law-abiding reloaders typically hold more components [for calibers conditioned on their FACs] than completed cartridges without that holding constituting intent as explained in Home Office Guidelines 12.89."
I.e. so that a lay interpretation of the bill does not arrive at a "2+2=5" logic, make a simple statement that components held will almost always exceed the max number of fully assembled cartridges allowed under the FAC conditioning.
One really obvious area that most reloaders will usually hold a surfeit is brass. It is a consumable. After a number of firings it is discarded. So...if a reloader is ever gifted once-fired cases from those who do not reload, he will accept them. Because however many empty cases they currently hold, they will run out.
I may have missed this but it was sent to me to sign by a friend. Anyone seen other orgs doing this ? I would think its a minimum.
Protect the future of shooting | Take action now
Take action now to protect the future of shooting across the United Kingdom. Sign our e-lobby to make your voice heard.
countryside-alliance.ac-page.com
The bar for proving intent can't be that high, or any law involving it would be largely unenforceable. The concerns are not just limited to what would happen in court. As you can appreciate, a legitimate FAC holder can be put to considerable disadvantage, expense, loss and inconvenience before any such case ever gets to court or even if charges are never brought. FAC holders ought to have an explicit exemption on the basis that the intention of the legislation should not be to encompass legitimate users.
I struggle to understand the set of circumstances that could arise whereby the Police would grant a FAC to someone who intended to illegally manufacture ammunition. Given the impossibility of such a situation, it is not asking for much for FAC holders to be explicitly exempted. What has BASC actually asked for in relation to this? And if you're not pressing for exemptions, what is the sound reasoning behind this? Blind faith that a court wouldn't convict you because intent may be hard to prove is really not a suitable standard. As written, the legislation is wide open to a court interpreting it in such a way as to criminalise what is currently entirely standard reloading behaviour, and as you point out, it is interpretation by a court which matters, which is why FAC users need to be explicitly exempted from these risks.
Your interpretation cannot be supported by reading the text. You're assuming that the aim is ONLY to deal with "criminals making ammo illegally", that is not explicit, and nor is any distinction made between "criminals" and what we think of as legitimate reloaders.
Indeed. But what on earth did you buy your bullets or your powder for if you do not intend to make ammunition out of them? That IS intent. The text specifically does not require intent to manufacture excessive amounts of ammo, it actually says that you commit an offence merely by possessing the components, if it would be possible to make an illegal quantity with one or more components. You read it again and try to find any wording which is actually in the text that would get you off if you had a kilo of Viht powder and only 200 rounds of FAC allowance. You don't even need to possess all the components needed for making that amount.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
My earlier post contained the full context with the concerns raised having been discussed and addressed on record in Parliament.
What was stated in parliament does not serve to negate the ambiguity in the proposed wording.
The blandishments made in parliament state the following. Setting aside the vague wording surrounding intent and how that might be asserted or defended, the speaker in the parliamentary summary below states that the critical test is whether it would be unlawful to assemble the components held.
So...if your licence states you can hold 50 cartridges, and you have a bucket of reclaimed brass...you have failed the critical test. BTW, the person who made this pronouncement is Simon Bayne, the Bill's custodian.
I am advised that there will be law-abiding shooters who may have components of ammunition that they use lawfully, for such purposes as reloading ammunition, which they are legally able to possess by virtue of their firearms certificate. The offence in clause 2 has therefore been drafted in a way that will not criminalise such lawful activities. It requires first that the person committing the new offence has any of the components in their possession; secondly, that the person has the intent of manufacturing ammunition; and thirdly and critically, that the person would have no lawful basis for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete. In that way, the clause ensures that those who are able to hold ammunition by virtue of a firearm certificate issued under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, or who are registered firearms dealers under the Act and permitted to possess or manufacture such ammunition, will not be caught by the new offence when going about their lawful activities.
For utter clarity, here are the criteria Simon Baynes said in parliament would constitute a breach of the new law. Phrase-by-phrase with my emphasis and assesment thereof:
It requires first that the person committing the new offence has any of the components in their possession; - condition (1) met if number of brass or primers or bullets exceed max cartridge count allowed by FAC
secondly, that the person has the intent of manufacturing ammunition; - condition (2) would need court adjudication for conviction, but not for FAC removal based on FEO applying condition (1) as criteria for action
and thirdly and critically, that the person would have no lawful basis for having the ammunition once it was assembled and complete - This does not refer to illegally held cartridges. The law already has penalties for holding more than allowed by FAC conditions. This wording speaks into the number of cartridges that might be made by extrapolating the component count that ticked the condition (1) criteria.
The obvious addition to the current bill wording would be to add a phrase that "law-abiding reloaders typically hold more components [for calibers conditioned on their FACs] than completed cartridges without that holding constituting intent as explained in Home Office Guidelines 12.89."
As a reading of both the concerns I had raised and the record in Parliament would reveal, the concerns I have raised have not been addressed at all, except in part by one MP (Djanogly) who said "It will no doubt remain a matter for the police and the courts as to how intent to manufacture ammunition unlawfully is to be proven."
Nobody has addressed the fact that the wording of the Bill leaves legitimate shooters wide open.
Nor has anyone addressed the risks that afflict shooters from this legislation prior to court. There is nothing, in fact, preventing a force from (admittedly acting in bad faith, but that is not illegal) arresting every legitimate shooter who reloads in their area, seizing their equipment and firearms and awaiting the judgment of the court on whether someone owning parts of ammunition ever intended to make ammunition for them. The text of the law requires only intent to make ammunition with components, it does not require intent to produce a prohibited quantity, it only requires possession of at least one component part, which if all of them were made into whole ammunition would breach their FAC limit.
Nor has anyone addressed the fact that the effect of tightening restrictions on inert components of ammunition will have the effect of severely, possibly terminally, damaging the market for reloading and for rifles in all but the most common chamberings. I'm sure that had these facts been properly considered, you would be able to point me in the right direction. The fact is that the proposed law has the wording it does and pretending it doesn't is negligent.
Similar threads
