Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
Like or dislike for BASC has no context in my comments!? and your tone and general manner sir in this matter only serves to discredit your organisation.
Importing expanding bullets
- Thread starter MONGOOSE
- Start date
Like or dislike for BASC has no context in my comments!? and your tone and general manner sir in this matter only serves to discredit your organisation.
yes I was one of those strange fac holders that liked handguns I let my fac go before the handgun ban came in I had a family on the way and they will always come first if I had bought a black powder rifle at the time it was mine if I wanted it I would have had fac 30 plus years but lack of use I gave up my fac so will the police give me a break after 20 years and say because you gave up your ticket 20 years ago you can have one now
I do not think so
I do not think so
Dalua, re part 2 of your message.
Good reason to possess a firearm relies on a "genuine and substantial" reason to own it. This means you must have somewhere to use it and that must be enduring. As soon as you lose land or leave a club you have no good reason to possess the firearm.
ammunition usage is key to assessing good reason as you may have land or club membership but to not use a firearm that you sought for use (rather than collection) in the first place will cause police to wish to refuse to renew or revoke the certificate. Practically speaking forces are not that hot unless a person is being very silly but I can say from experience that if your ammo table is empty at renewal they will ask questions, but they don't want to have to check with dealers and rifle through records to check your purchases and they shouldn't have to if people follow the law and sign ammo and missiles into facs
Good reason to possess a firearm relies on a "genuine and substantial" reason to own it. This means you must have somewhere to use it and that must be enduring. As soon as you lose land or leave a club you have no good reason to possess the firearm.
ammunition usage is key to assessing good reason as you may have land or club membership but to not use a firearm that you sought for use (rather than collection) in the first place will cause police to wish to refuse to renew or revoke the certificate. Practically speaking forces are not that hot unless a person is being very silly but I can say from experience that if your ammo table is empty at renewal they will ask questions, but they don't want to have to check with dealers and rifle through records to check your purchases and they shouldn't have to if people follow the law and sign ammo and missiles into facs
Paul you are known to be controversial and make nieve comments just to be seen to be controversial and entrenched, probably to get a reaction. Your latest comment about discredit to my organisation is childish and unfounded. I don't seek to provoke you; that is my genuine opinion to which I am entitled and your comments leave me in wonder as to what, if any respect you have for the law.
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
Controversial? always a great way to explore an issue. You fail to consider that actually FLO's live in the real world which is not quite the same as the fine word of the law or the 2002 guidance. I'm not saying that this gives any FLO or certificate holder the right or excuse to bend or break the written word of law but with the inconsistencies across the UK your cut and paste chunks of text means nothing to FLO's who would not actually change their interpretations and methods they practice as well as the conditions and expectations they pass onto the FAC holder.
The point I am making about your comments that reflect on your organisation is that you are abrasive in the way you communicate and certainly do not carry the diplomancy that David does.
The point I am making about your comments that reflect on your organisation is that you are abrasive in the way you communicate and certainly do not carry the diplomancy that David does.
j0e_bl0ggs
Well-Known Member
So much for our shooting organisations helping to remove the expanding BS from our tickets, seems that they are in cahoots with the plod.
Glad I gave up my basc membership years ago.
Glad I gave up my basc membership years ago.
Tamus
Well-Known Member
I would like a .416 Rigby and solid non-expanding ammo, to practice with in this country and shoot one of the big five each year. I may buy 100 bullets to reload, without need of certificate entry and take five years to use them all.
A five year cycle of my FAC will show no ammo usage whatsoever. However, I will have made at least five trips to the dark continent and spent of the order of a quarter to half of a million pounds, plus every spare minute of my freetime that I can muster in organising, preparing for and carrying out all of this.
Are you saying that my ammo usage will damn me and deny me continued possession of a .416 Rigby?
Where in any of the firearms acts does it say anything to support such random and arbitrary gun control?
jon2
Well-Known Member
Matt
The current guidance (I mean the notes available to all currently) state that expanding bullets do not need to be entered onto the individual's certificate and they only need to be entered onto the RFD's register. However, when I consult with the act it states they should be entered onto the individual's certificate and the RFD's register.
So am I correct in thinking that what you are saying is that the guidance note which may be published in spring next year will be in line with what the act states?
Many thanks
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
I've been away for some cups of tea... actually quite a few cups 
Writing this as Andy, but via MO handle as the business in general shares the view.
Large part of my brain telling me to walk away from this, but if we were sensible all the time life would become very dull! As well as being a shooting related business, we are all here - first and foremost - stalkers and shooters. Regardless of RFD etc etc etc - we are 'Joe Public' in the broader context. So law - good, bad, indifferent and crazy applies to and affects us just as everyone else. Threats to fieldsports doubly impact - in addition to the personal interest, we stand to lose our livelihood.
What should have been a great opportunity to clarify a position for the benefit of all and perhaps debate the law as it stands in a constructive way has - YET AGAIN ( and that is a shout - of sheer darn frustration ) degenerated into a bun fight and personal ego/ agenda match. I'm not Admin, just a member so I've no right to tell people what should or should not be said on a public forum - but what has been put on here - by a number of people - has, it seems, been driven by anger of the moment. And in giving into that several people have done our cause - my cause - no good whatsoever. Can none of you see that? So now I'm writing in anger of the moment - because you lot are putting the things I love and cherish in jeopardy and I think that gives me the obligation to say something.
We've Firearms legislation that is frankly a muggers buddle. Whose to blame? All of us. Do we concentrate on doing the best we can to change it for the better - or do we remain embroiled in a mud slinging match until we eventually look around/ wake up and realise the lot has gone. Because make no mistake, brush it off if you will- but it is ever moving that way.
Authorities admit that much legislation is so complex that it is becoming near impossible for those affected by it and charged with its administration to follow it. But whilst it stands its the law. No matter what anyone says over a cup of tea the law stands - guideline, briefing notes, policy documents - all can be persuasive; but bottom line is what is written on the paperwork parliament passed. We may not like it, it may make no sense - it may be twisted and used against us - but if you start picking and choosing the law to suit the moment you throw away the underpinnings of everything - baby goes with the bathwater.
People on here - in so many words or otherwise have admitted they break the law. People on here have had the law pointed out to them and have gone on to state they will still break the law. Do you really want a picture painting of what even relatively neutral people will make of that - let alone those with an anti agenda? Do you honestly - after the brief pause for thought - not see the damage to all of us that is done by that. How on earth is anyone going to withstand the claim - and its being made already - that all guns must be banned because no humanly possible legislation is air tight and 'those people' will just ignore it - as they always do.
Matt took time to give the bottom line. It wasnt obvious, but in truth was there - he doesn't like it any more than we do. But his role was to state what the position was - and he did so with knowledge. That benefit was rapidly watered down because he also lost his cool and made poor choices in how he phrased subsequent responses. I can fully appreciate the human exasperation, but he should have walked away for that cup of tea. He was too abrasive in things he said and that detracted from the overall good. I can fully understand the frustration that came out, but not that he allowed it so come out. Yet again BASC were the one's here and putting something into the forum - they goofed - again - in terms of delivery, but where oh where are all the other bodies people rave about?
Only Matt named, but I believe the other posters concerned are quite obvious.
Stop helping to destroy our sport.
Writing this as Andy, but via MO handle as the business in general shares the view.
Large part of my brain telling me to walk away from this, but if we were sensible all the time life would become very dull! As well as being a shooting related business, we are all here - first and foremost - stalkers and shooters. Regardless of RFD etc etc etc - we are 'Joe Public' in the broader context. So law - good, bad, indifferent and crazy applies to and affects us just as everyone else. Threats to fieldsports doubly impact - in addition to the personal interest, we stand to lose our livelihood.
What should have been a great opportunity to clarify a position for the benefit of all and perhaps debate the law as it stands in a constructive way has - YET AGAIN ( and that is a shout - of sheer darn frustration ) degenerated into a bun fight and personal ego/ agenda match. I'm not Admin, just a member so I've no right to tell people what should or should not be said on a public forum - but what has been put on here - by a number of people - has, it seems, been driven by anger of the moment. And in giving into that several people have done our cause - my cause - no good whatsoever. Can none of you see that? So now I'm writing in anger of the moment - because you lot are putting the things I love and cherish in jeopardy and I think that gives me the obligation to say something.
We've Firearms legislation that is frankly a muggers buddle. Whose to blame? All of us. Do we concentrate on doing the best we can to change it for the better - or do we remain embroiled in a mud slinging match until we eventually look around/ wake up and realise the lot has gone. Because make no mistake, brush it off if you will- but it is ever moving that way.
Authorities admit that much legislation is so complex that it is becoming near impossible for those affected by it and charged with its administration to follow it. But whilst it stands its the law. No matter what anyone says over a cup of tea the law stands - guideline, briefing notes, policy documents - all can be persuasive; but bottom line is what is written on the paperwork parliament passed. We may not like it, it may make no sense - it may be twisted and used against us - but if you start picking and choosing the law to suit the moment you throw away the underpinnings of everything - baby goes with the bathwater.
People on here - in so many words or otherwise have admitted they break the law. People on here have had the law pointed out to them and have gone on to state they will still break the law. Do you really want a picture painting of what even relatively neutral people will make of that - let alone those with an anti agenda? Do you honestly - after the brief pause for thought - not see the damage to all of us that is done by that. How on earth is anyone going to withstand the claim - and its being made already - that all guns must be banned because no humanly possible legislation is air tight and 'those people' will just ignore it - as they always do.
Matt took time to give the bottom line. It wasnt obvious, but in truth was there - he doesn't like it any more than we do. But his role was to state what the position was - and he did so with knowledge. That benefit was rapidly watered down because he also lost his cool and made poor choices in how he phrased subsequent responses. I can fully appreciate the human exasperation, but he should have walked away for that cup of tea. He was too abrasive in things he said and that detracted from the overall good. I can fully understand the frustration that came out, but not that he allowed it so come out. Yet again BASC were the one's here and putting something into the forum - they goofed - again - in terms of delivery, but where oh where are all the other bodies people rave about?
Only Matt named, but I believe the other posters concerned are quite obvious.
Stop helping to destroy our sport.
8x57
Distinguished Member
Matt would I be correct in thinking that at some time in the recent past a deliberation has been made following consultation and legal opinion, and that the decision made was that expanding bullets ( missiles) should be entered onto certificates at the point of purchase or transfer. If so this is a change in thinking from what most of us have previously been led to believe and different to the way that many read the current guidance notes. I take it that this will be made clearer in the new guidance notes when they are made available to the general public.
I also take it that you and BASC have been involved to a great extent in the consultation process. If so what other shooting organisations have been involved in the consultation process.
I also take it that you and BASC have been involved to a great extent in the consultation process. If so what other shooting organisations have been involved in the consultation process.
Last edited:
Virbius
Well-Known Member
+1 Andy, from a huge supporter of the BASC - even if words should have been chosen better.
It also astounds me that so many people are quite openly vociferous and seem to be quite happy to test the law by being purposefully belligerent rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.
It also astounds me that so many people are quite openly vociferous and seem to be quite happy to test the law by being purposefully belligerent rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.
I'm not talking about skulduggery but yes the police do not know what you actually do with your ammunition once you have acquired it. Yes you could dump it, fire it at a range etc but ammunition is what the polcie look at as well as enduring permission over land or club membership.
Ive dealt with cases where the police wanted to rid a hill farmer of their fox rifle becuase they bought 40 rounds five years ago and they have 30 left. We argued that to kill one or two foxes in the course of five years was good reason and highly valuable to the farmer.
Abnother case invovled a person wh had bought 50 rounds of .22 and still had 50 rounds at renewal. he hadnt bought any in between. Whether or not he was given some ammunition without conducting a transfer remained to be seen, but admitting to that would cause problems, but the police viewed in accordance with current policy that he had no good reason for the firearm even though he had land to shoot over.
I am also in the real world of dealing with members issues diplomatically but when I talk on the forum I talk from expereince to help you understand that the real world contains nasties. you cna choose to ignore my comments about the practicalties and relaities of the law, but I reinforce my earlier view that to agree with any FEO who says that the law does not require expanding missiles to be signed on certificates is a dangerous prospect.
The RFD or other FAC certificate holder who transfers to another FAC holder. Section 32 of the 1997 Act requires the transferor to conduct a face to face transfer on production of the original certificate and for the transferor to follow the certificate instructuions which means that the ammunition table has to be completed with the details of the transfer.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/5/section/32
As ammunition is mentioned in this section it includes ammunition as in the defininition contained in Section 57 of the 1968 Act, which includes prohibited ammunition. The definition of prohibited ammunition includes missiles under Section 5(1A)(g) of the same Act.
Last edited:
Oh I do love an unfounded allegation.
The repeal of the prohibition on expanding ammunition was suggeted by the organisations under the BSSC umbrella, it was accepted by ACPO or plod as you refer, as one of many items for a Regulatory Reform Order to reduce burdens on the police and Home Office in having to licence factories and carriers etc. Unfortunately due to combria its on the back burner. BASC saw the new policing minister this week and the RRO was on our agenda. The RRO is firmly with the Home Office and we hope they progress it in due course.
Dont verbally abuse us or confuse subjects here - so long as the law is the way it is (confusing and ungheklopful it is) I am simply advising on it as faiure to do so could be detrimental to you all. I agree that its long due an overhall but its being blocked at Government level. The police have also been asking until blue in the face for a consolidation act and simplification.
Where any rifle is held for target use including dangerous game category rifles, if the person buys solids (which do not have to go on certificate) then yes your FAC will be barren of transfers. The police on many occasions ask whether the holder has used the rifles; though some rely on the good reason i.e. use abroad and at renewal only ask for details of your hunting outfitter and disregard your ammo usage in the UK as this is a secondary activity. Each force does things differently, but nonetheless you could be asked to show proof of home loading but this should only be done where you hold a rifle for the primary reason of target shooting as part of a club.
Home Office guidance says; 13.46: Target shooters may be expected to use their firearms fairly regularly, say three or more times a year. The police should consider on renewal whether “good reason” continues in respect of all firearms held for this purpose. However, failure to shoot in a year should be regarded as grounds for further enquiries to be made, rather than automatic partial revocation of the certificate for lack of “good reason”. For example, there may be personal circumstances such as illness, working away (where this is not to be repeated regularly), or practice for a particular competition that may preclude the use of all the firearms concerned. In some cases, competitions for unusual or older arms may be few each year. Owners may also not want to regularly shoot old and valuable weapons, thus avoiding excessive wear and tear.
Jon2 yes the Home Office guidance wil l reflect BASC fact sheet on the subject. I have seen the draft and have approeved from BASC's point of view this issue.
To add: the discussion about this took place with the head of Home Office firearms, myself, the secretary of BSSC and police. The outcome was unanimous.
Similar threads
