yes stand corrected you are sort of correct and i did't see
Column Number: 226, house of commons
amendments Nos. 228 and 229. Q[ A requirement simply to present evidence in the form of a firearm or shotgun
certificate when purchasing primers would be preferable and proportionate. It should also legislate for current best practice, which would be more commendable than adding further intricate layers to existing firearms legislation. Subsections (3) and (5) in particular need to be amended. Under the Bill, the requirement to produce a certificate every time is not only an administrative burden, but carries distinct dangers. Primers are bought
frequently, especially by experienced shooters, and there will often be many repeat purchases from one vendor. Our initial proposal is that the wording ''he produces'' be removed entirely from subsection (3)(c) and (d) and replaced with the less burdensome requirement of the words,
- ''he shows that he is the holder of'']end.
I have thous of primmers so haven't obtained any since 2000 and never i'v been asked to see my cert ,but as its another wooly rule thay could still get hold of them and i also think thay do a 20gr fmj reading an articale in a write up from the usa when the rifle came out as i was looking at super fast small cals for fox but essex did't like anything under a 22 hornet ,
That's fine, until you go to get some primers -FAC, please!- and bullets. I don't know of any non-expanding bullets in .17 cal., so -correctly-conditioned FAC, please!
At which point your naughty boy finds he's still armed with a shiny club that could see him put away for 5 years.
oh well one more gun on the streets, that if it ever gets use's we will get the blame for from the anti's
.
