Agreed that that small primers and large primers have different dimensions and that pistol, rifle and magnum primers all have different brisances, but how, in terms of both the current law and the new law are they different ?
Cheers
Bruce
Possession of ammunition components with the intent to illegally manufacture Section 1 ammunition.
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
Cheers
Bruce
I know there have been a few RFDs done over the years , I dont really know but pretty sure most lead back to the dealing , importation of drugs and drug debts . I simply cant see why anyone else might risk so much for so little ?It's all this man's fault. Well him and others similar.
Antique-gun dealer jailed for 30 years for supplying to gangsters
Ammunition and weapons made by Paul Edmunds, 66, were found at more than 100 crime scenes including gangland murderswww.theguardian.com
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Yes It beggars belief. Maybe some sort of anger over the Tory ban? Or maybe just greed? Or once he did it once or twice he than was vulnerable to coercion and blackmail. But I think probably greed, a strange sense of "getting back" over the Tory ban and there it is. I probably, maybe, recognise the man from the days of Weller and Dufty in Birmingham? But never had any intercourse with him.
Regarding illegal "sales" I only had the one enquiry of that sort in all my near twenty years of holding a RFD. In the days before CLI (caller line indicator or caller display as it is also know). 'Phone rings and the question is asked
"Do you have spares for a Webley .455?"
"Yes," says I.
"Oh good. Only problem is it's "off ticket" is that OK?"
"And that's where this conversation ends." I replied.
And put the 'phone down.
But it wasn't unknown with some RFDs, apparently, anecdotally, in the Midlands in the 1970s.
Lets not bring personal politics into it . The issue the way i see it is the drug trade and gangs .
I have said to my FEO many times guns not available will always come in so long as we are taking in tonnage of drugs there will be a direct corelation. The government in question never makes much difference tbf but county lines issues was a Brown Blair issue as they stopped focus on street dealing. Conservative gun ban ? Meaningless to the trade in illegally held firearms , just a means of saying " we are doing something " happens world over
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
A friend of mine reloads rifle cartridges which require small rifle primers, occasionally he uses small pistol primers as a substitute if the rifle ones are n/a. Last time that he attempted to do so the RFD refused to supply them on the grounds that his FAC lists rifle and not pistol, so it's not simply a case of presenting an FAC to buy primers any more.
And what has that got to do with it?
The only scenario I can think of is the one you have described ie, someone attempting to purchase inappropriate primers for the firearms on their ticket which could indicate intent to manufacture ammunition which they have no authority to hold, in which case upon presenting their ticket to purchase such items the RFD would presumably say "I can't sell you those"?
I have a 22 hornet rifle which uses small primers and I have used both small pistol and small rifle primers.
An RFD refusing to sell small PISTOL primers because someone has RIFLE chambered for cartridges that can use both small rifle and small pistol primers simply does not know the law
Cheers
Bruce
An RFD refusing to sell small PISTOL primers because someone has RIFLE chambered for cartridges that can use both small rifle and small pistol primers simply does not know the law
Cheers
Bruce
The law is the 2006 violent crime reduction bill, which if followed to the letter could be interpreted that for 22 hornet you could only buy small rifle primers, however that is taking it to extremes, even if sold small pistol primers the police would need to prove intent, ie intent that you were going to make ammunition you did not have on your FAC.
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 - Explanatory Notes
I doubt very much if anyone would ever be prosecuted for possessing small pistol primers when they have 22 hornet (or any other cartridge that uses small primers) on their FAC
Cheers
Bruce
Cheers
Bruce
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
If they find the components and equipment to make 500 more then the intent to make them is pretty easy to prove.
They can’t prove you “have” made them but could quite easily claim you “intend” to make 500 more
This is very much downto the officer standing in front of you and his personal whims.
The personal whims of the officer standing in front of you would not decide whether or not a prosecution would follow.
That would be down to the CPS/procurator fiscal and I honestly cannot believe that in the circumstances as described, they would prosecute
Cheers
Bruce
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
I’m aware of the difference between upholding the law and enforcing the law.
Notwithstanding, what happens to your guns while the CPS make their mind up ?
Notwithstanding, what happens to your guns while the CPS make their mind up ?
Yes but the working of the legislation doesn’t distinguish between them, as long as you have centrefire on you’r certificate you can purchase any of the above by simply showing your FAC. So it really is as simple as that, if you don’t believe me go take a look.
The RFD was wrong, it’s a common misconception amongst RFDs but it is still wrong!
Please state on what bases you think it is wrong.
.
I honestly don't think it would get as far as the CPS.
Any sensible senior officer with a good knowledge of the law is not going to even let the matter go as far as the CPS and if guns are removed, I think they would be returned very quickly
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
(c)he holds a certificate authorising him to possess a firearm of a relevant kind;
Surely a relevant kind is the type to take primers they are buying?
how do yiu int
Len the dog
Well-Known Member
An awful lot of bedwetters on here thinking that the police decide who to prosecute based upon the lack of knowledge of the local PC.
The law as it now stands is VERY clear that the three tests have to be positive to take a case to court, any handloader has absolutely nothing to worry about.
The law as it now stands is VERY clear that the three tests have to be positive to take a case to court, any handloader has absolutely nothing to worry about.
Similar threads
