Firearms Safety Cosultation

Anything shooting related including law and procedure questions.

Moderator: dromia

Forum rules
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Message
Author
User avatar
Sim G
Past Supporter
Posts: 10726
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Firearms Safety Cosultation

#21 Post by Sim G »

There’s one overriding aspect that people need to be aware of, and continually remind the law makers, media and ordinary Joe Public alike.

Gun crime in the U.K. is tiny. It really is. As a international comparison and in actual offences. “Gun crime” involving what we would call “real” guns is a tiny proportion of overall gun crime, and crime involving lawfully held firearms or ammunition is so small it is statistically insignificant!!!
In 1978 I was told by my grand dad that the secret to rifle accuracy is, a quality bullet, fired down a quality barrel..... How has that changed?

Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
1066
Site Supporter Since 2015
Posts: 2158
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Firearms Safety Cosultation

#22 Post by 1066 »

Government response to consultation

https://www.nsra.co.uk/index.php/home/d ... &fs=e&s=cl

Ammunition
Although the key components of ammunition – the propellant and primer – are already
controlled, and there are offences relating to the unlawful possession of complete
ammunition, law enforcement have expressed concerns that these controls are not
sufficient to prevent criminals unlawfully manufacturing ammunition. The consultation
sought views on whether current controls on component parts of ammunition remain
sufficient or whether they should be strengthened by making it an offence to possess
component parts with intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of ammunition.
A majority (62%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that possession of these
component parts with intent to manufacture complete rounds of ammunition should be
made an offence. Over one quarter (28%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that this should
be made an offence.
While supporting a new offence in principle, many respondents drew attention to the fact
that a large number of law-abiding shooters reload ammunition to improve accuracy and to
provide them with ammunition (for example for vintage or historic firearms) that is not
commercially available, as well as to save costs.
There was also a wide range of circumstances where the inert components of ammunition
such as empty cartridge cases, bullets, shot, wads etc. are possessed for perfectly lawful
purposes such as film and theatre production; form part of antique or militaria collections;
are incorporated in nick-knacks or fashion accessories; or are used by the providers of
firearms safety training.
It was important therefore that any legislation was drafted in such a way that it did not
inadvertently criminalise those who lawfully possess ammunition or component parts of it,
and who do not intend to manufacture unauthorised rounds.
Firearms Safety
23
It was pointed out that intent is based on a highly subjective, individual state of mind and
that each case would have to be taken on its merits having regard to the strict
interpretation of section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. As well as having criminal
intent, any legislation should apply only in cases where an unauthorised person possessed
all the necessary components viz case, bullet, propellant and primer.

Having carefully considered all the responses to the consultation, the Government
intends to make it an offence to possess component parts with intent to assemble
unauthorised quantities of ammunition. This will require primary legislation to amend
the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968, which will be brought forward when Parliamentary
time allows. The offence will be drafted in a balanced way to meet the clear concerns that
it should not impact adversely on the legitimate home loading of ammunition or other
legitimate uses. While possession of all components would go towards proving criminal
intent, we think making this a necessary condition of prosecution could be further exploited
by criminals seeking a loophole.
TARGETMASTER
an altogether better trickler
www.targetmasteruk.com
User avatar
Blackstuff
Site Supporter Since 2015
Posts: 7709
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Firearms Safety Cosultation

#23 Post by Blackstuff »

"an offence to possess component parts with intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of ammunition."

This is the part that boils my p!$$ as anyone who has had to deal with an officious FLD/FEO knows EXACTLY how this will be interpreted. A criminal/someone without a certificate/exemption has no AUTHORISED quantity of ammunition permissible, it is entirely included/phrased that way to encompass certificate owners IMO. troutslapping
DVC
User avatar
bradaz11
Sporadic Site Supporter
Posts: 4714
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 1:23 am
Home club or Range: The tunnel at Charmouth, BWSS
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Firearms Safety Cosultation

#24 Post by bradaz11 »

there are offences relating to the unlawful possession of complete
ammunition, law enforcement have expressed concerns that these controls are not
sufficient to prevent criminals unlawfully manufacturing ammunition
THAT IS BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS!!!

extra laws making it even more illegal aren't going to help. tougher sentences might.... death penalty for anyone manufacturing live ammunition without a licence might deter some.
When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have guns
kevinww
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:42 am
Contact:

Re: Firearms Safety Cosultation

#25 Post by kevinww »

Law of unintended consequences will kick in, I think I’ll be putting in a 1-4-1 variation very soon and request all ammo allowances to be increased to 1200 rounds such that I can buy batches of 1000 bullets and primers when I have 200 left. So if everyone does the same they will end up with somewhere around 2-3 times the ammo or components in circulation making easier for criminals to obtain and tie up licensing authorities with extra work load.
BooBoo
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:37 pm
Home club or Range: Various
Contact:

Re: Firearms Safety Cosultation

#26 Post by BooBoo »

With regards to the raising of ammunition allowances as above (to allow for the continued lawful possession of bulk quantities of components either already held or wished to be held), I posed said question to my FLD... Suffice to say, the response was neither overly enthusiastic nor welcoming.

Another option would of course be compensation (as in a buy back scheme for components over limited allowances). Tumbleweed...

For those that say that this is not about the law abiding shooter, just remember that the word "unauthorised" has been left in for a reason... as in the intention is to specifically target the "authorised" (along with those having criminal intent). The devil will of course be in the wording of the amendment to the Act.

The lead ban is another nail... to which the compo issues also apply. What is the disposal route going to be for lead ammunition (or bullets) that you can no longer shoot on private land (or over ranges yet to be authorised where zeroing will no longer be a reason - you cannot zero with something that you then cannot use elsewhere, such as VMax / SP / Blitzking etc.)?

The intent has always been to limit shooting to smooth bore and bolt action deer / vermin for those that can demonstrate a real need. How this is achieved can take a variety of routes. If you cannot ban 50 cal then you simply make possession too onerous and then severely limit where they can be shot (such as template issues that only then apply to the non service shooter). As for hand loaded ammunition, well watch this space. I seem to remember a reference to this in one report as a potential underminer of the lead ban...

Sorry for the crossed threads... and the fact that so few shooters replied to the various consultations comes as no surprise. Handguns under a bus / LR under a bus... and what did BASC et al do for that? The fact that shotgun shooters are about to feel some real pain may (be divinity and) focus a few minds as to the fact that we all need to stand together. Older non steel shotguns already have little to no market (read value)... and what of the subgauges?

It could be worse... New Zealand or Canada...
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 20 guests