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

Supporting all legal firearm owners, collectors, enthusiasts, shooters and competitors by promoting and encouraging legitimate gun ownership and use in the UK through unity, advocacy and discussion. To REGISTER contact admin(at)full-bore.co.uk
It is currently Mon Mar 08, 2021 3:37 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please bear in mind that this is an open forum and your posts can be read by all members. If you are in a position that can be compromised by what you are saying on here because someone takes offense and tells your colleagues or your sponsor and that in turn means you are being punished for your posts on here, think before you post!



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 1355
Location: Bisley
Home club or Range: NRA Bisley
Rarms wrote:
IainWR wrote:
Unless I completely missed something, the NRA was not invited to give evidence at committee stage.


Did they ask to be considered to give evidence?

Yes, and submitted a comprehensive document.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 12:14 pm
Posts: 1005
IainWR wrote:
BooBoo wrote:
Quote:


Whilst the FCSA challenged at committee stage for evidence, the same was not so of others (the NRA was there) in respect of LR.



Unless I completely missed something, the NRA was not invited to give evidence at committee stage.


Did the committee give a reason why they decided to exclude the NRA, Iain?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 1355
Location: Bisley
Home club or Range: NRA Bisley
RDC wrote:
IainWR wrote:
BooBoo wrote:
Quote:


Whilst the FCSA challenged at committee stage for evidence, the same was not so of others (the NRA was there) in respect of LR.



Unless I completely missed something, the NRA was not invited to give evidence at committee stage.


Did the committee give a reason why they decided to exclude the NRA, Iain?


I was not the point of contact, but as far as I know, they did not. As I understand the system, they invite those they choose, and ignore the rest. Given the huge numbers of people and organisations seeking audience before Commons Committees, many for entirely self-serving reasons, I can see the rationale for that approach.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:30 am 
Offline
Site Supporter Since 2015
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:01 pm
Posts: 6975
Location: Co. Durham
Home club or Range: N.E. P.S.G., 3 Counties Sporting Club, Galloway Small Arms Club and various IPSC clubs around the country
IainWR wrote:
4. Ammunition components: In effect the proposal is to put empty cases and bullets within the same licensing regime as loaded ammunition. There are already controls on the ‘explosive’ parts of a round. The only impact of this is going to be on the legitimate shooters wanting to buy components. If a criminal can already obtain powders & primers, then getting bullets and cases will not present a significant challenge to them will it? The NRA again accepts the Home Office argument that such components are worthy of control but requests that FAC holders should be excluded.

The ammo proposal is absolutely not to bring cases and bullet within the same regime. It is to make it an offence to possess them with intent to assemble unauthorised ammunition. The problem from the enforcement point of view is that intent is notoriously difficult to prove, and no doubt the police will seek to have what constitutes intent drawn as widely as possible. The problem from the lawful shooter point of view is that capability may be mistaken for intent. So we need to kill that latter possibility before any draft legislation goes public.



If that truly is the case, then whoever wrote the consultation document is incredibly 'unlucky' in the phraseology used "To make it an offence to possess component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition"

There is no reason to include the words 'unauthorised quantities of' in that sentence/proposal unless it is directed at people who have the ability to manufacture SOME quantity of AUTHORISED ammunition. i.e. Certificate holders. The proposal could easily be changed to "To make it an offence of an unauthorised person to possess component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture complete rounds of ammunition" and remove us from the picture, without any complicated backroom wrangling required.

_________________
Mark
DVC


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:53 am 
Offline
Past Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:48 am
Posts: 2315
Home club or Range: NRA Bisley
In addition to your last line, sending a scan of one's FAC when ordering bullets etc. to satisfy the dealer that he's delivering to an FAC holders address would be an additional safeguard.

A cynic might say the proposal as is would make it easier for the authorities to satisfy the "need to be seen doing something" without actually doing anything, apart from further penalising legitimate FAC holders who reload.

Pete

_________________
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum" Lucretius


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:23 pm 
Offline
Past Supporter

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:36 pm
Posts: 363
Home club or Range: Wey Valley
Blackstuff wrote:
IainWR wrote:
4. Ammunition components: In effect the proposal is to put empty cases and bullets within the same licensing regime as loaded ammunition. There are already controls on the ‘explosive’ parts of a round. The only impact of this is going to be on the legitimate shooters wanting to buy components. If a criminal can already obtain powders & primers, then getting bullets and cases will not present a significant challenge to them will it? The NRA again accepts the Home Office argument that such components are worthy of control but requests that FAC holders should be excluded.

The ammo proposal is absolutely not to bring cases and bullet within the same regime. It is to make it an offence to possess them with intent to assemble unauthorised ammunition. The problem from the enforcement point of view is that intent is notoriously difficult to prove, and no doubt the police will seek to have what constitutes intent drawn as widely as possible. The problem from the lawful shooter point of view is that capability may be mistaken for intent. So we need to kill that latter possibility before any draft legislation goes public.



If that truly is the case, then whoever wrote the consultation document is incredibly 'unlucky' in the phraseology used "To make it an offence to possess component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition"

There is no reason to include the words 'unauthorised quantities of' in that sentence/proposal unless it is directed at people who have the ability to manufacture SOME quantity of AUTHORISED ammunition. i.e. Certificate holders. The proposal could easily be changed to "To make it an offence of an unauthorised person to possess component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture complete rounds of ammunition" and remove us from the picture, without any complicated backroom wrangling required.


That's exactly why I think the NRA reply is weak and that we need to respond much more vigorously to the consultation, on all the points I made previously and in the original thread on the Consultation. If the Fifty-Cal boys can head-off the banning of HME firearms, I can't see why we can't make this Consultation go away too.

What is not going to help is the National Body going along with many of the proposals -
* Endorsing the principle of separate storage for HME bolt/action/ammo, when we already have a tiered security principal, based on the professional judgement and risk assessment by the FEO.
* Accepting that the Miniature rifle range exemption is a 'dead-duck'. So consigning a valuable entry to shooting to the scrap-heap.
* Not challenging the principal of exerting control over 'inert' ammunition components just asking for an exemption for FAC holders. And we all know how certain Police forces will interpret the rules.
* Agreeing that Government should work with industry to improve safety (security) of airguns, when there is already adequate legislation in place, requiring air-guns to be secured. Unchecked this is only going to go down the Scotland route isn't it. Or the're will be a requirement to fit a gun cabinet for airguns.

Triffid


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:37 pm
Posts: 94
Home club or Range: Various
Unless I completely missed something, the NRA was not invited to give evidence at committee stage.[/quote]

Did the committee give a reason why they decided to exclude the NRA, Iain?[/quote]

I was not the point of contact, but as far as I know, they did not. As I understand the system, they invite those they choose, and ignore the rest. Given the huge numbers of people and organisations seeking audience before Commons Committees, many for entirely self-serving reasons, I can see the rationale for that approach.[/quote]


I would like to pick up on the above point - so, the NRA are the "National"... and if the "National" are not in front of the Committee challenging MP's on the evidence (which the HO would of course then be unable to provide), then just WHO IS or WAS championing the LR matter? For just as the FCSA posed some difficult questions, it is surely for the National to do the same as well? Either that, or they are not actually the National, or they had already rolled over, or they had already declined attendance? As the "National", why was a lack of an invite not immediately challenged.

If a more robust approach had been taken then we may not be now where we are with LR... and of course this then leads on to responses over the next consultation. The meaning behind every word is key in the eyes of the law... and if it was not the HO's intent then it would not have been worded as such.

What I want is for our National representatives to actually fight on our behalf - not just to submit a few words here and there just to show willing. This is doomed to failure and our sport (and a right to our possessions) is being and will continue to be taken apart one tier at a time. As it stands, our representative bodies appear complicit in this through weak response and vested self-interest.

As a charity of course, the NRA are also somewhat hands tied - for to stop the losses by decent law abiding people (to date, self-loading rifles to handguns to LR) then it will be necessary to become both political and legally challenging (and this means through the courts if so required).

When there are almost a million Certificate holders in the UK who pay a lot of money / jump through various hoops for their sport, how can a more robust approach appear "all too difficult". After all, one man was effectively behind the FCSA fight back…


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2020 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:26 am
Posts: 1132
Location: Wokingham
Home club or Range: Nra
I can tell you who was fighting for Mars & Lr, it was one chap, Mike Jenvey.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group