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