AJW7088

Potentially Roy. The derogation proposals for the continued use of lead bullets on outdoor ranges are summarised on page 9 of the HSE document. Whether outdoor range operators can meet the proposed arrangements would be be something they would each have to decide on I expect. There is/was a further issue of whether the land being used as a range or being shot over is also used for other purposes (e.g. agriculture or grazing). Whilst I think that this consideration was earlier applied to both the use of lead shot and lead bullets, it now appears restricted to the consideration of the use of lead shot alone (page 8). As Popsbengo says, these are proposals. The NRA links also link on to the current HSE consultation. Whilst that consultation seeks responses to very specific questions it does have a general comments section which could be used to comment on the aspects above. Adrian

With reference to indoor ranges, and their exclusion from further consideration, the HSE Proposal Document dated April 2022 included the following assessment as regards such ranges; "the environmental and human health risks arising from lead exposure from lead ammunition are negligible if the appropriate risk management measures are applied." (see page 153 as an example) I believe that this conclusion was based on the assessment conducted by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). I realise it is not a full rationale, but I hope it helps, at least for now. Adrian

Items have arrived safely and exactly as described. Many thanks John.

Hello John, I would like these please. Thanks Adrian

Hello, Trying to be helpful and not sound pedantic here but I am working on the basis you are maybe travelling from Great Britain (perhaps Scotland, given your profile location?) to Northern Ireland, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The reason for saying that is just that the PSNI offer the advice copied below on their website, and I think you will be a "Great Britain resident visiting NI". I have only travelled from England to Northern Ireland by ship with my firearms (rifles) and not by air, since 2016 and the last time I did so (2017) I did not need any other authority than my domestic Firearm Certificate. The ship operators had their own procedures regarding firearm security onboard, and I had to declare I was travelling with firearms and ammunition when booking, but in terms of police requirements in NI there was nothing further to attend to. I can't be certain, since I have never done it, but my expectation would be that you would have a similar situation when flying, abiding by the arrangements that your airline has in place for your flight/firearms, but not needing any other authority in NI than your GB FAC. I was shooting at a rifle club there and so the NI club stored my rifles and ammunition, having notified the PSNI they would be doing so. I hope that is helpful, and if you would like to see where I found the information, or if your circumstances are not as I have supposed (and apols for that!) then the link is; https://www.psni.police.uk/request/request-firearm-licence Thanks Adrian Great Britain residents visiting NI From May 2016 firearm and shotgun certificates issued in Great Britain are valid in Northern Ireland. No further documentation is required to enable Great Britain certificate holders to travel to Northern Ireland with their firearms. However in Northern Ireland airguns of over one joule and over are considered firearms. If you wish to bring such an airgun to Northern Ireland, you must apply for a Northern Ireland certificate of approval (Form 30/15). There is a fee of £11.00 for this documentation. Please apply at least 8 weeks before your expected date of travel. This includes residents from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

In this context “air weapon” means what is commonly referred to as a “low powered air gun”, (the route to establish this are the definitions in s57 and then the one at s1(3)(b) for those wanting to follow the details). Thus the provisions at s5(1)(aba) apply to “specially denagerous” air weapons but not to “low power” air guns, which is what allows for the lawful possession of air pistols still. The relevance of this to the OP will depend upon whether the air gun in question is “specially dangerous” or “low power”. This determined by its muzzle energy. Whether to apply the 12ft/lbs for a rifle or the 6ft/lbs for a pistol is the aspect that is less clear, as this is likely to depend on how it was intended to be operated/fired, as Matt indicates. The air gun in the OP appears to be a rifle, but ultimately a court would be the decision making point if the question of rifle v. pistol really had to be answered. I hope that helps. Adrian

S5(1)(aba) Firearms Act 1968 prohibits a firearm if it’s barrel length is less than 30cm or its overall length (not including any folding stock or similar) is less than 60cm. However this provision does not apply to an “air weapon” (or to items designed as signalling apparatus or muzzle loading guns).

Like Roy I have several Arktis jackets, having first encountered them as issued uniform clothing when serving in the police. They proved waterproof and durable then, as well as having what I considered to be a good pocket layout (which I consider they still have). They have maintained the standards I think. I use the “waterproof combat smock” now, but also have an unlined (not waterproof) “combat smock” for warmer weather. The latter jacket is reasonably showerproof. I believe the founder of Fortis was previously associated with Arktis and their products also seem very good, although I have only used one garment personally, an insulating smock. I hope that helps, Adrian

Hello, I would like this please.

Hello, I would like to buy this please. Thanks Adrian

Hello, If you are happy to travel to the Target Sports Centre at The Tunnel, near Lyme Regis, (perhaps 90 mins away) then we would be happy to show you various reloading presses and equipment set up for handloading. We conduct some reloading on the site. I would very much endorse the comments from Miki and others above. Handloading is very satisfying (and something I do alongside one of my sons too), but it may not be the best money saving exercise. Happy to show you how some of us approach it, and although there is a shop on site selling some bits for reloading, no pressure on that front! I hope that helps, and I appreciate we may be further than you wanted to travel. Adrian

Hello, I would like this please. Thanks, Adrian

Hello Rick, Thank you for the Tier One 230mm carbon tactical bipod. It has arrived safely (within the week). ATB Adrian

The rules include; 2.2.3 – Factory Division combined rifle and scope new retail ‘dealer price’ (as listed on three or more individual company’s websites/adverts) shall not exceed £3000.00 GBP, the rifle shall not exceed £1500.00 GBP and the optic shall not exceed £1500.00 GBP. I hope that helps, Adrian

Yes, you (Popsbengo, & Roy W) are right, and s3(2) means that it is also an offence for the seller.

Hello, In case it assists the OP, and to confirm what some have said above, there is another specific provision in the Firearms Act 1968 relating to this, at s3(2). The provision says; It is an offence for a person to sell or transfer to any other person in the United Kingdom, other than a registered firearms dealer, any firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or a shot gun, unless that other produces a firearm certificate authorising him to purchase or acquire it or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate, or shows that he is by virtue of this Act entitled to purchase or acquire it without holding a certificate. The term "transfer" is defined within s57 as; “transfer” includes let on hire, give, lend and part with possession, and “transferee” and “transferor” shall be construed accordingly. This means that the sale cannot lawfully take place until the purchaser can show the appropriately authorised firearm certificate, irrespective of the fact that the purchaser might not take immediate physical possession (meaning that paying for it but not taking possession is still not lawful unless you have the appropriate authority on a firearm certificate). I hope that helps. Adrian

Good point, well made!

Hello David, Yes that’s very clear with that wording, as you say. The wording of the condition on my FAC is a little different, which is what could lead to a different interpretation about whether a club should notify the ranges its members use. What is quite clear, again as you pointed out, is that even that interpretation would not actually restrict the use of any range that was safely constructed and adequately insured, it was about whether or not it’s use had to be notified. Anyway, thanks for the detail of the condition wording that you have. Take care, Adrian

Sorry about that! However, to try and assist, subject to the conditions on their FAC the certificate holder can shoot on any range that has been constructed to be safe with the type of firearm they will shoot with there, and subject to there being in place suitable insurance. The point that was probably the confusing one related only to a possible Home Office Club Approval issue, which would not involve the shooter personally directly. Certainly, if it is an issue, then neither the shooter concerned nor their club commits any offence. From what you have said, your certificate allows you to zero on land over which you have permission to shoot (and may not mention ranges at all). If that is the case then you can do that, and the question about clubs is not relevant in your circumstances at all. If your certificate allows you to both zero over land and zero on ranges then the ranges simply have to be safely constructed and there has to be adequate insurance in place, and so long as that is the case you can shoot on any such ranges. The question about clubs is only potentially relevant if your certificate condition for shooting on ranges is subject to you shooting whilst being a member of the club, however the interpretation of “whilst” is the central question over the issue that was being discussed. Whatever the outcome, it doesn’t affect where you can shoot. I am sorry that this is not straightforward and that I may not be making it any clearer! Adrian

Thank you too. Hopefully it will all remain rather an academic point.

Hello David, Club rules are a matter for the club rather than the HO or the police. I appreciate that the HO require the club constitution and rules to be uploaded now as part of a new application for Approval, and previously the police would have collected them on behalf of the HO (as part of the Approval criteria), but this does not mean the HO or police are confirming the constitution and rules are complete in every respect. Also, a failure to notify the HO and police of the use of a range by the club is not an offence, and may not be part of the insurance cover conditions for the club’s insurance. In fact I think that in practice the insurance cover referred to in respect of a range (in relation to the FAC condition) is different from the insurance cover a club may take out, especially if the club does not have a range of its own but only hires range time from a range operator(s). Clarification as to the residual risk discussed above would need to come from the HO, as the risk relates to their view about whether a club has complied with the conditions of HO Approval, if the use of a range by club members had not been notified to the HO and police, even if the argument is that the members were not shooting “as” members of the club, but were shooting “whilst” members in order to comply with their FAC condition. I hope that helps, Adrian

Hello David, Hopefully yours would be the interpretation the HO would adopt in the light of any concerns being raised through the police. I do accept that the likelihood of any of this is very low indeed though. Adrian

Hello Avian, I follow your point about the potential difference between “whilst” and “as” but I think the reason that the FAC condition wording does not include anything about the ranges being the club’s own ranges or other ranges notified by them is because if it did then it would be elevating the conditions of club approval to that of legal requirement (which they are not). What we are agreed on though is that club members can perfectly lawfully shoot on any ranges so long as they are suitably constructed and insured. Even if there is a residual issue for a club it is not an issue in law. Adrian

Hello Popsbengo, Yes, my apologies for the somewhat crossed purposes, but we are certainly in agreement that the common practices are perfectly lawful, even if a complication may exist in the background. Take care, Adrian

If it helps then yes, my background is police firearms licensing. I previously chaired the national policy level group for firearms & explosives licensing, although I retired in 2013. I now work for the UN and OSCE in small arms controls, mostly focussed abroad though. I also RO at The Tunnel as I am a keen target shooter! I think the element in this discussion that may be at cross purposes is that the use of any suitably safe and adequately insured range by a target shooter is perfectly lawful. The point I am making is that there may be a knock on effect for a Home Office Approved Club though. Since this arises in connection with the conditions of the club’s approval, it is not something that is controlled by the law, in the way that FAC conditions are controlled and can be enforced by prosecution for example. So, it is perfectly lawful for a target shooting certificate holder to target shoot on any range safely constructed and adequately insured for the purpose, whether or not a club to which the holder belongs has notified the HO/police of the use of the range. The standard FAC target shooting condition includes that the holder only ever target shoots as a club member. This does not affect where the holder can shoot (so long as it is a range safely constructed etc.). It just means that when they do shoot they are doing so as a club member. The aspect I am referring to is simply that there may be a residual issue for the club regarding compliance with approval conditions (which is not an offence) if the use of the range is not notified. Since it is not an offence for the club not to notify, no one is committing any offence when a target shooting certificate holder heads off and uses a private range and the club doesn’t notify. The police have their s15(7) powers as soon as a club occupies or uses premises (which includes ranges in the open air) but the issue for them is whether they know the ranges are being used by a HO Approved Club and therefore they have those powers there. The backstop to ensure this is supposed to be the requirement that clubs have to notify the HO and police of the ranges they occupy (as their own) or use. As I expect is clear, the likelihood of an issue in regard to this arising is slim (I am aware only of one), but it could be an issue, especially if the land owner doesn’t want the police to have such powers on the private property. So, none of the examples of common practice by target shooters given in this thread contain anything unlawful, a club not notifying range use is not unlawful, it is just that there is the potential for the club to have a HO Approval related concern raised, which I believe is often overlooked (and probably for good reason!). I expect you may reasonably decide that my suggestion of a potential problem is either non existent or is too remote to ever actually be an issue, in which case I apologise for taking up time and space raising it. But if it were ever to arise, at least this thread might help as a starter when considering it further. Thanks, Adrian