Current Firearms Bill and reloading restrictions

[Apthorpe]

Has anyone considered that the wording as currently stated is to refer to Joe Public, someone without an FAC.

Where does it specify that it only refers to Joe Public, a person without a FAC? There is no exclusion of FAC holders in the text.

If you take it that context then the wording makes perfect sense.

Indeed, but that context is not there. The wording is no more and no less than the print on the page. Like others, you're projecting a hope that it says something it doesn't.

 

[Scotty99]

Where does it specify that it only refers to Joe Public, a person without a FAC? There is no exclusion of FAC holders in the text.

Indeed, but that context is not there. The wording is no more and no less than the print on the page. Like others, you're projecting a hope that it says something it doesn't.

I‘m merely asking the question “what if the wording is meant for non FAC holders, it does not say it is it does not say it isn’t. It just does not make a lot of sense with the current wording.

Let’s assume it makes no distinction between FAC and Non FAC holders, and take powder as an example. Usually sold in 1kg minimum tubs. How many rounds can you load from a 1 kg tub? Depends on calibre, how hot you make the load, who is going to measure it and how, what we are seeing right from the get go here is a badly drafted and even more badly worded law that is difficult to understand and even more difficult to enforce. This all smacks of the dangerous dogs act, swiftly drafted, badly thought through and almost impossible to enforce.

 

[Apthorpe]

I‘m merely asking the question “what if the wording is meant for non FAC holders, it does not say it is it does not say it isn’t. It just does not make a lot of sense with the current wording.

I think, and I haven't re-read recently enough, that it starts by defining the law as applying to "any person". There is no reason to presume or hope that a law applies only to a certain set of people.

Let’s assume it makes no distinction between FAC and Non FAC holders, and take powder as an example. Usually sold in 1kg minimum tubs. How many rounds can you load from a 1 kg tub?

342 rounds of 7x57. 416 rounds of 6.5MS. In most cartridges well above many people's limits.

Depends on calibre, how hot you make the load, who is going to measure it and how, what we are seeing right from the get go here is a badly drafted and even more badly worded law that is difficult to understand and even more difficult to enforce.

This all smacks of the dangerous dogs act, swiftly drafted, badly thought through and almost impossible to enforce.

.....and cheered through without intelligent scrutiny by witless MPs more interested in virtue signalling, as Hansard shows. I couldn't agree more heartily!

 

[JTO]

At one time, I had permission to buy 1000x308 and 1000x223, and to hold 1200 of each because I wanted to buy 1000 of each from the same batch for reloading. I now still have a lot more empty cases than my current loaded ammo allowance of 300 rounds in each calibre.
I also have several kilos of different powders for each of .284W, .308W and .223R
I went to HPS a few years ago and bought 5000 Murom small rifle primers and 5000 Murom large rifle primers.
Perhaps we could have ammo allowances for each weapon!

DISCUSS!

 

[Essexsussex]

I wondered this - no one has ever asked how much ammo I have

How would ‘they’ know how many cases you had…….. unless you tell them. !
Do ‘they’ come round and check the cupboard under the stairs, the garden shed or wherever you may be stockpiling these unlicensed components.

 

[Andrewslater]

Surely the simple solution is to have as many components as you want but never be in possession of more than your permitted allowance of cases? After all it is the cases that are reusable and all the other parts are consumables.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Apthorpe @zambezi I have read your comments on bits of my earlier posts and I appreciate that you continue to have concerns. Whilst those with an interest in the Bill at BASC and BSSC do not have concerns with the current wording of Clause 2 of the Bill (to the best of my knowledge) my recommendation would be that if you feel strongly about your concerns that you act on them - either directly with one of more of the shooting organisations you are a member of (if you are a BASC member please email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk) and/or to work together with others that share your concerns to lobby for amendments to the Bill as it passes through the House of Lords.

The Bill, records of debates, explanatory notes etc are here:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3216

 

[zambezi]

lobby for amendments to the Bill as it passes through the House of Lords

To be clear, @Conor O'Gorman are you saying that BASC will not be lobbying for any additional changes to this Bill's wording?

If so, I am certain that whatever membership BASC still has will haemorrage when the first FAC revocation using this law impacts a law-abiding reloader.

 

[Liveonce]

They need it appears, no solid reason to revoke just reasonable doubt, given they know appealing is going to be expensive. So i doubt this bill will make any practical difference to how they operate.

 

[MAH]

The Bill, records of debates, explanatory notes etc are here:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3216

Thanks for sharing this Connor.
I've been reading the thread with interest. (both sides of the debate) and I'm not a lawyer, so can't really comment on the legal hurdles to prove "intent".

However, i believe this legislation will cause problems for legitimate certificate holders who reload. And those problems will start long before a case reaches court. e.g.
I've held a certificate for 40yrs.
It is clear some FLOs don't understand the current law, (report on D&C) never mind this new legislation.
At every renewal, my FLO has counted my ammunition.
I think it is inevitable, that at future renewals, some FLOs will want to count "component parts" and countless debates will follow.

Have BASC considered:
A.. Canvassing Licencing Authorities to gauge their current view of this legislation - will they be counting components?
B.. Ensuring the HOG continues to contain the current wording relating to legitimate reloading (see post 67) and such wording is not removed when the bill is passed.

If it remains in place, the HOG would give the reloaded a solid basis, on which to have a sensible discussion with an over enthusiastic FLO.

M.

 

[Liveonce]

Again shows the difference in the way forces operate, I have never had ammunition counted at renewal, or even gun serial numbers checked. They did once try pulling one of the gun cabinets from the wall

Thats over what forty plus years.

 

[Dalua]

I think it is inevitable, that at future renewals, some FLOs will want to count "component parts" and countless debates will follow.

That's the interesting thing. This new crime is one of intent - and since 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?

 

[MAH]

That's the interesting thing. This new crime is one of intent - and since 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?

Hi Dalua. I do understand your views on this new bill, and tend to agree with you.

But the opportunity for misunderstanding is significant, and it doesn't mean that all FLOs will agree with you.

My point being we need a clear terms of reference to help facilitate sensible discussion. And the bill on it own doesn't do that. (Just look at the strong views held on this thread!).

I'll share another example of over enthusiastic behaviour. I have several spare barrels for my S/A 12g. Had them many years. At one renewal, the FLO queries why aren't they list on certificate? No need I reply, pointing to relevant guidance. He insisted they were llisted, and they are now listed on my certificate.

M

 

[Namman]

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.

9

Surely the simple solution is to have as many components as you want but never be in possession of more than your permitted allowance of cases? After all it is the cases that are reusable and all the other parts are consumables.

Think about it !

 

[Namman]

I think, and I haven't re-read recently enough, that it starts by defining the law as applying to "any person". There is no reason to presume or hope that a law applies only to a certain set of people.

342 rounds of 7x57. 416 rounds of 6.5MS. In most cartridges well above many people's limits.



.....and cheered through without intelligent scrutiny by witless MPs more interested in virtue signalling, as Hansard shows. I couldn't agree more heartily!

Couldn't agree more. Talk about ignorance and misinformation.

 

[Scotty99]

I think, and I haven't re-read recently enough, that it starts by defining the law as applying to "any person". There is no reason to presume or hope that a law applies only to a certain set of people.

342 rounds of 7x57. 416 rounds of 6.5MS. In most cartridges well above many people's limits.



.....and cheered through without intelligent scrutiny by witless MPs more interested in virtue signalling, as Hansard shows. I couldn't agree more heartily!

I agree, if there is no further context around the wording as it stands, it does apply to any person and therefore makes it illegal for any person to have in their possession one bullet, one case, one primer or any small amount of powder. Thereby making all reloading illegal, irrespective of the number of fully made up rounds you are allowed to have on your FAC.

 

[Smellydog]

I don't know what you are worrying about....it doesn't mention heads in the draft!

 

[Scotty99]

Just read the 8 page document in full and it does make it an offence for any person to have in their possession any reloading components, thereby making the reloading we do now illegal. There is no mention of FAC holders or mention of any fully made up ammunition allowances on the FAC.

Basically it is saying that any person is committing an offence if they have in their possession ammunition components with intent to manufacture. That applies to all FAC holders who reload.

I suggest we all get writing to our MP pointing out that the current wording will disenfranchise FAC holders who reload.

 

[Scotty99]

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.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-03-15/debates/f40ec0da-6a95-48a2-b3c6-52f001007149/FirearmsBill

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.

@Conor O'Gorman thanks for the clarification, it makes sense and allows FAC holders who reload to lawfully continue. However, is the wording of the bill going to be amended to include an exemption for FAC holders or will the wording remain the same, if so then it will be a matter for the courts to decide if there is “intent“ or not. The former will give FAC holders some piece of mind the latter potentially becomes a legal minefield.

 

[Apthorpe]

Just read the 8 page document in full and it does make it an offence for any person to have in their possession any reloading components, thereby making the reloading we do now illegal. There is no mention of FAC holders or mention of any fully made up ammunition allowances on the FAC.

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 of.