Firearms Safety Cosultation

[artiglio]

Surely the fact that the question includes the word intent means that for an offence to have been committed ( if it were to become law) it would have to be proven that there was intent, which is only going to really be possible if you have loaded more than your authorised qty , in which case you’ve committed an offence anyway.
i responded and wrote to my mp, not much more i could do.

[Pippin89]

I believe, of the ~13,000 responses, only 3000 were members of the shooting community. And a staggering 8000 were members of the general public (i.e. not shooters). So the fact that the responses have, very largely, gone in our favour is pretty remarkable. It does indicate that the general public has more support for us than we give them credit for...... Either that or a lot of shooters listed themselves as general public!

[Blackstuff]

2905 responses from shooters, out of a pool of certificate holders that tops 700,000. Says it all really.

God only knows what sort of response the lead ban will have. I completed it but all of questions, bar the general box were worded/asking things that no person could possibly respond to with any degree of accuracy it just felt like a complete waste of time.

[Mattnall]

I completed the questionnaire.

I still cannot get over 48% of people who completed it think it is OK or have no opinion on holding reloading components for firearms they do not have lawfully authority to possess.

I thought hard about this when I answered the survey but I was one of the 48%. I make key rings using bullets and cases for which I have no FAC to cover. People collect inert cartridges the components of which are reloadable or can be 'harvested'.
Getting a law to cover these and, no doubt, other eventualities would be virtually impossible.

I think the offence will be in proving the intent, much like it is now.

[bradaz11]

I completed the questionnaire.

I still cannot get over 48% of people who completed it think it is OK or have no opinion on holding reloading components for firearms they do not have lawfully authority to possess.

so you would be happy as a normal fac holder, to be able to be taken to court because someone found you with a casing for a calibre you don't have on your fac, or as in the first post, where it talks about quantities, of having spare brass in excess of your allowance, or only being able to buy x numer of bullets at a time, as buying 1k bullets and having an allowance of 500 would mean you can make 50 more...

its stupid. how do you prove it's not your intent? it comes under future crimes, or thought crimes. usually intent to commit crime is backed up with things like planning, messages coordinating people or posts online where you tell others you ARE going to do such and such.

I really don't think that when you have a limit of say 500 of x caliber, that it should be a crime, that you have 1500 brass (so you can clean in batches) and 2k bullets, and 1k primers. but in this propasal, it would.

[Mattnall]

I really don't think that when you have a limit of say 500 of x caliber, that it should be a crime, that you have 1500 brass (so you can clean in batches) and 2k bullets, and 1k primers. but in this propasal, it would.

Good point, I had forgotten about this way of looking at it.

And Q14, intent to manufacturer unauthorised quantities of ammo? Isn't this already a crime whatever your FAC status is? "Unauthorised" is just that.

[bradaz11]

I really don't think that when you have a limit of say 500 of x caliber, that it should be a crime, that you have 1500 brass (so you can clean in batches) and 2k bullets, and 1k primers. but in this propasal, it would.

Good point, I had forgotten about this way of looking at it.

And Q14, intent to manufacturer unauthorised quantities of ammo? Isn't this already a crime whatever your FAC status is? "Unauthorised" is just that.

yeah, its currently a crime if you do it, they want to make it a crime if they think, you might think, about doing it.

[Pete]

Judging by the questions, whoever put the survey together hadn't a clue what they were supposed to be doing, and whoever decides what policy changes will be made on the strength of the responses (assuming they even read them), will have even less of a clue.
This has nothing to do with firearm safety, but everything to do with political point-scoring by our govt., hardly worth discussing.
The cast of "The Thick Of It" would probably make a better go of running this country than the current shower...

Pete

[Dark Skies]

Eventually the police and the government are going to have to address the niggling issue of dealing with actual firearm crime instead of imagined crime.

And I might be a bit thick, it's this HEAT, but if you've gathered the components to produce ammunition for which you have no authority to possess you're already acting contrary to s35. of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 just in having the primers. But what criminal is going to care once he's popped it altogether and now falling foul of Section 1 (1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968?
All these new toys the police have pressed for ought to come out of their budget.

[Alpha1]

I completed the questionnaire.

I still cannot get over 48% of people who completed it think it is OK or have no opinion on holding reloading components for firearms they do not have lawfully authority to possess.

I thought hard about this when I answered the survey but I was one of the 48%. I make key rings using bullets and cases for which I have no FAC to cover. People collect inert cartridges the components of which are reloadable or can be 'harvested'.
Getting a law to cover these and, no doubt, other eventualities would be virtually impossible.

I think the offence will be in proving the intent, much like it is now.

I make pens to order using cartridge cases and bullets in all sorts of calibers that I don,t shoot. A popular one is 50 caliber. I guess if this goes through the bullet pens will be out of the window.