The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Continuity ACPO, NABIS and a few other parties have always been disgruntled about interrupted cycle guns like the LR or MARS for years. They were going to keep on gnawing away at it, I would argue the actual tipping point to a ban was the Charlie Hebdo shooting where the aesthetically similar Zastava M70 was used, the Paris attack where actual Vz.58 were used and the Las Vegas pop concert mass shooting with a bump stock equipped AR-15. Those three mass shootings using guns that looked similar was all the disgruntled powers that be needed to persuade MP's that LR and MARS action rifles plus rather pointlessly bump stocks needed banning!

A chap on one of the Facebook MARS groups was telling me that the action type of his rifle isn’t noted on his FAC which presumably means that the Police don’t know he’s got it. If that’s common to other owners there could be a lot of people in illegal possession and they won’t be caught by the system until their next renewal, or if they try and shoot it after the surrender date and someone points it out.
Does that seem likely?

Rockhopper wrote:A chap on one of the Facebook MARS groups was telling me that the action type of his rifle isn’t noted on his FAC which presumably means that the Police don’t know he’s got it. If that’s common to other owners there could be a lot of people in illegal possession and they won’t be caught by the system until their next renewal, or if they try and shoot it after the surrender date and someone points it out.
Does that seem likely?

no, the serial number is listed, and the manufacturer. that will be all they need to look for. I'm sure both manufacturers will have had to submit serial numbers by now.

Really? You are placing a lot of faith in a system that uses manual data entry. At my last RFD visit I was asked about a Browning 1910 in .32ACP that was listed against my RFD. I did know of it, however it had never been lodged with us and worse still if they had got ratty about it I could not prove it either way apart from showing them my register. I have seen some subtle and some significant mistakes across both the counties I have held an RFD and FAC.

I tend to agree based on my experience with what I thought was an incorrect serial number for one of my rifles. I just emailed them and they corrected it and sent me a new ticket. It wasn’t until I came to sell the rifle that I realised the number had been correct in the first place.

It's up to us all to ensure we remain within the law. By way of example, I bet we all know of people who regularly shoot without relevant insurance (something that's clearly stipulated on all our FAC's).

I assume there has been a date set that interrupted semi automatic rifles will move to Sec 5?

By that set date, it will need to be handled in for destruction or lodged with Sec5 dealer with relevant authority.

Alan D wrote:It's up to us all to ensure we remain within the law. By way of example, I bet we all know of people who regularly shoot without relevant insurance (something that's clearly stipulated on all our FAC's).
.

I thought this referred to the range at which the firearms were used for target shooting, not the shooter. Is it not the range that must have the insurance in place?

If not, is BASC membership enough?

safetyfirst wrote:

Alan D wrote:It's up to us all to ensure we remain within the law. By way of example, I bet we all know of people who regularly shoot without relevant insurance (something that's clearly stipulated on all our FAC's).
.

I thought this referred to the range at which the firearms were used for target shooting, not the shooter. Is it not the range that must have the insurance in place?

If not, is BASC membership enough?

Either club (if shooting at a club), or individual insurance works to satisfy the condition, and yes BASC membership includes individual insurance

You’d need to be double careful though, club insurance might only indemnify the range itself, not the individual shooter so it’d be sensible to have your own PI such as offered by BASC or the NSRA etc.
I think that the range being insured would satisfy the FAC condition but wouldn’t help with any claim made against the shooter rather than the range.

Rockhopper wrote:You’d need to be double careful though, club insurance might only indemnify the range itself, not the individual shooter so it’d be sensible to have your own PI such as offered by BASC or the NSRA etc.
I think that the range being insured would satisfy the FAC condition but wouldn’t help with any claim made against the shooter rather than the range.

That's the point ... I had this discussion with a friend who uses my local range to zero his deer stalking outfit.

He didn't have any insurance cover via any sporting organisations, he had let it lapse and forgot about it.

It's one of those legal stipulations that effectively mean you are infringing your FAC.

The lesson is this, if you aren't 100% sure you are personally covered, get insurance via one of the shooting/ sporting organisations.