AJW7088

Yes, if your FAC condition wording did not/does not include the element that says “and only whilst a member of *club1” then the HO and police would not need to be notified of the range use (as your wording does not restrict you to target shooting as a member of a HO Approved Club only). However, and this is where I think I may have been at cross purposes, the OP had not said exactly what their FAC condition says and yours appears to be different from the standard one. My points about the club notifying the use of ranges only applies to an FAC holder who has the condition wording that includes the “only whilst a member of *club1” element. Adrian

“The issue is not about clubs, it is about a private individual being able to set up his or her own target range. Therefore police entry to HOApproved clubs does nto come into it.“ The overlap with police powers in relation to HO Approved Clubs depends on the private individual’s FAC Condition wording, if the FAC holder can target shoot only as a member of a HO Approved Club.

Hello David, The s15(7) powers are not limited to checking safety aspects but cover the police generally ensuring that the limitations and conditions of the club approval are being complied with, for example that s21 declarations have been signed for a guest day. I entirely agree that a certificate holder is unlikely to object but if the owner/occupier of a private range is not actually a certificate holder or even a member of an Approved Club (however unlikely that might be in practice) then in theory that lever would not be available and so the police have a power instead. The law does not create a category of ranges as “club ranges”, it simply relates to any premises occupied by a club (which I guess are what might colloquially be called club ranges) and any premises used by a club (such as private ranges the club hires for a day). Hopefully I am not at cross purposes here, just trying to indicate that the law and the conditions for HO club approval may allow a little more than is usually thought? Thanks Adrian

I have just read the ShootingUK article which omits to reference the s44 requirement, which is the aspect that leads to the target shooting FAC condition which includes the element of shooting “only” as a member of a HO Approved Club. It is that wording which then leads to the question about whether any range the shooter goes on to use has to have been notified to the HO and police as part of that club’s HO Approval conditions. I think the important aspect to keep in mind on all this is that this has nothing to do with who says the range is safe and who insures it, but is solely to do with the police preserving their power to enter and inspect ranges used by HO Approved Clubs. The power does not relate only to any ranges the club may own or have exclusive use of, because the power relates to premises which are used by the club in addition to , and distinct from, any that are occupied by the club. But for all practical purposes I think your interpretation is the realistic working one. Adrian

Hello Popsbengo and Avian, I think your interpretation is the pragmatic one, and the approach actually likely to be accepted by the police, but I am not sure it is precisely correct. Though that may not matter in practice. As I think you will already know, the standard condition wording derives from the need to meet the requirements of s44 Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and also to preserve the ability of the police to exercise the powers that o mentioned. It is this latter aspect that is often overlooked, including by some police forces. The interpretation I had given is the one that gives the greatest preservation to those powers, which is why that had been my understanding, based on my previous experience. I think that your interpretation is the one that (being more pragmatic) is accepted day to day. However the reason that it is pragmatic is that ranges such as Bisley and The Tunnel (one of the locations I work at as it happens) are already notified to the Home Office and police as being used by at least one HO Approved club, so the police have their powers irrespective of how many members of other clubs then go on to use it. The only time I have come across an issue with this aspect of interpretation has been in connection with a private range where no club made use, and the owner used it for zeroing a rifle possessed for stalking. However when a target shooter wished to make use of it too, the police asked that shooter’s club to declare it so they would have powers of access. Consequently the shooter reverted back to the other ranges already in use and did not use the “new” one. Of course this may be just an isolated case, but the interpretation I have given may be one that police could suggest at some point. I am not aware of any cases where a Court has had to decide if certificate conditions have been complied with, and I don’t think it would get that far if the holder liaised with their FEO from the start. I may we’ll be incorrect (and I certainly think the interpretation I have given is less likely to be encountered in practice), but it may be worth bearing in mind before a certificate holder simply goes ahead to shoot at an entirely new location not already used by another HO Approved Club. I hope that helps?! Thanks Adrian

Hello, Apologies if this is a little dull, and if you are aware of all of it already! The usual FAC condition wording relating to target shooting is similar to; The firearm(s) and ammunition shall be used for target shooting, and only whilst a member of *club1, and only on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim. There are some local variations to the exact wording (such as omitting the second instance of the word "only"). At the section appearing as *club1, the name of a Home Office Approved club is inserted. Consequently you are correct in asserting that there is nothing relating to a "Home Office Approved Range" in either the condition wording or other law. I guess you will already be well aware that the Home Office do not approve ranges anyway, and that the responsibility for their safe construction, operation and insurance against the above types of claim, is the responsibility of the range operator and the range users (depending upon agreements between them - see the HO Circular referenced below). The aspect of the condition wording that is sometimes not fully appreciated is the element regarding "only whilst a member of...". This means that the FAC holder shoots on the range as a member of the HO Approved Club (the use of the word "only" at that point is sometimes clouded by the holder belonging to more than one HO Approved Club, but the fact is that the holder shoots in their capacity as a member of one of them). The HO Approved Club is subject to separate conditions in order to maintain its Approval. One of the conditions is that the Club must notify the Home Office and the police of all of the ranges it uses or intends to use. The condition is usually worded; IMPORTANT NOTE The Secretary of State and the Chief Officer of police MUST be notified if:- a. the club loses its range(s), or intends to use an alternative or additional range; The effect is that before a club member can shoot on a new/additional range, then the club must notify the Home Office and the police (the condition wording is "intends to"). This is because the police then have a power of entry and inspection for that range (s15(7) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988). So, if the holder of an FAC granted with the club related target shooting condition (for some if not all of the rifles held) wishes to shoot on a private range that the club has not already notified to the Home Office and police then the club must make that notification (for which a fee may now be payable). The safe construction and appropriate insurance arrangements must be in place and the FAC holder must satisfy themselves as to that. The HO provided guidance on those subjects by way of a Circular some while ago (HO Circular 31 of 2006). There is therefore a little more than checking the range is properly built and insured, if the FAC holder has the target shooting condition, but the basic premise is correct, the Home Office do not inspect and approve ranges. I hope that helps, Adrian

Hello Nick, I would contact your FEO and speak to them about what you want to do, and how they would prefer you go about it. The FEO is likely to want evidence of you having permission to shoot over land, that the land is suitable for that firearm and that you are safe to be allowed to shoot. I assume you do not already have authority on your FAC to stalk with another rifle and simply want to use this one too (if you do the above would be more straightforward). Different FEOs approach these aspects slightly differently, for example courses they may have expected you to have completed and/or being accompanied. That will all be based on your experience so that’s why it is best to ask. I hope that helps. Others may have better advice than mine. Thanks Adrian

Yes, we have certainly left the EU (31st January 2020) but these rules came into force before we did so (12th December 2019), so we have now been left with them as we go through the transition period, as we have with the previous changes to our domestic law brought about by the EU Firearms Directive. I entirely agree that the expectation on RFDs or anyone else to spot these changes and understand the detail is unreasonable, and I share the view that enforcement is unlikely to be a key priority now we have gone (and didn’t want this amendment in the first pace really). Give the real difficulty for the authorities in proving dates, I can’t see it being very achievable even if someone wanted to enforce it. I hope that the policing expectation will be that RFDs record the additional details if they are present, but have no responsibility for whether they are present or not.

Yes, I think that is right, in terms of any enforcement of these rules, though I believe the Proof Houses are entitled to reject an arm or barrel submitted for proof if it is not properly marked. I recall that the Rules of Proof only refer to a “serial number”, so essential component markings may still not (yet) be caught.

Hello, Unless the Proof Master was able to prove that date of manufacture and/or import into the UK/EU then there would be no way of telling whether the essential components of your firearm each had to be marked. The rules are not retrospective so firearms made or imported before 14th September 2018 are not caught by the new requirement. In any event essential components that should have been marked but haven’t aren’t illegal to possess. The obligation to ensure that they are marked falls to the Member State. The UK now has domestic law requiring the new markings to be recorded by an RFD but if the items have not been marked the RFD could not do that. The rules do not include any requirement for the RFD to create markings, that would have been for the manufacturer to have done. At import the items should have been refused entry if they were unmarked but should have been. That would be why a post above indicates US manufacturers may indeed be applying these markings, as a UK and EU import requirement. In the development of the EU Directive amendment CIP contributed to the discussions, but the decision on exactly what to require fell to the EU Council rather than CIP. I appreciate how poor this situation is, and how difficult it is to identify which essential components need marking (based on knowing when they were made or imported). This is more complex because it is their import into the EU that might matter, not simply import into the UK...

Hello, Point 5 of the HO Circular includes; ”Until EU exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation.” The EU exit negotiations will not be completed before the end of December 2020 (the negotiations are separate from, and subsequent to, the UK having left the EU). Point 5 is therefore saying that during the current negotiations the UK will continue to apply EU legislation. In this instance that is being done through the Firearms (Amendment)(No2) Rules 2019, in particular Rule 2(5). As to there being no briefing for RFDs on these new rules then I am not surprised. I think that the HO had thought UK would have been clear of this negotiation period (because we would have left the EU earlier than we did) and therefore hadn’t planned to need to introduce these new rules. I expect the HO would say their Circular and the Rules themselves are online and should have been read - rather ignoring how anyone would know to do so, save for the occasional references to their introduction by some shooting organisations perhaps. In relation to the apparent lack of marking on essential components currently arriving from within the EU, then if these had actually been manufactured within the EU, or imported prior to 14th September 2018 but had been stored before their subsequent transfer to the UK then they do not need to have been marked. Again, the UK authorities would have to prove the date of manufacture or UK/EU import, which may not be possible.

Sure, and if the authorities wish to take action over a lack of details recorded on an RFD register regarding an essential component then it is necessary for them to prove that the essential component was manufactured or imported into the UK or EU after the 14th September 2018. The authorities are only likely to be able to gain that information from the same sources that the RFD could have done (for example, import documents held by the RFD who imported the item, which may also be available through UK import/border records). If the date of manufacture or import is simply unknown then it would not be possible to prove the alleged offence. These provisions do not introduce a requirement that RFDs must be able to prove dates of manufacture or import, although the chain leading back to that point might be available by working back through RFD registers and the NFLMS (if the firearm had been on certificate at some point previously), accepting that an item may have passed through several registers. If an RFD wanted to try and follow that chain back to answer the date question then they could try, but I am not sure the UK authorities expect that. If one RFD in a chain has ceased to trade then the chain will end there (as far as an enquiring RFD is concerned) I guess. Another triumph of European firearms licensing law...!

With reference to the changes here is a link to the Home Office Circular about them; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/circular-0102019-firearms-regulations-2019-and-the-firearms-amendment-no2-rules-2019/0102019-firearms-regulations-2019-and-the-firearms-amendment-no2-rules-2019 In actual fact the changes to the EU Firearms Directive require each "member state" to ensure the essential components are suitably marked and details recorded. The changes to UK law have had the effect of requiring RFDs to record the new information on their registers, perhaps because the NFLMS is not yet capable of doing so (and that may be because Government thought the UK may have been clear of the EU requirement by this time) . The amended Directive does not specify that all these details also have to be shown on the possessor's permit (an FAC/SGC here), although it may be the case that, as far as possible, the details shown on any one essential component will be the same on each of them for that particular firearm. Where this will get overly complicated is when essential components are changed out and the new one has different details... The new essential component marking requirement applies to firearms manufactured within the UK or EU on or after 14th September 2018 (or those imported into the UK or EU on or after that date). For firearms manufactured or imported before that date then the addition to the details currently recorded would be the country or place of manufacture (if known). In terms of the OP's question, it would seem that if the replacement barrel was manufactured or imported before 14th September 2018 then the new essential component marking requirements do not apply to it (and in any case would not (yet) be shown on a Club FAC). The RFD register only has to record the new marking details for essential components to which the Directive applies, it is not retrospective. If it was manufactured or imported on or after that date then they do apply and it should have been marked. Whilst the minimum font size, alphabetic and numeric formats are specified in the technical specifications to the Directive amendment, the formats for the marking are not, so the markings simply need to comply with the Directive requirement, for example state of manufacture could be shown as UK. I hope this helps?!! Adrian

Absolutely agree that UK firearms law is complex, mysterious and can be inconsistently applied. I would offer that the inconsistency of application is usually a product of the complexity. Here is one of the aspects that causes confusion in the very circumstances that are being asked about; s44 (1) Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 requires that if a firearm certificate holder’s only reason for possession is target shooting, then the certificate holder must be a member of a HOAC specified on the certificate. What the section doesn’t help with is when the certificate holder wishes to use the same firearm for both target shooting and quarry shooting. In such a case the inference of the wording is that the certificate holder does not have to be a member of a HOAC, then specified on the certificate. Because this might then lead to lots of target shooters seeking quarry shooting permissions simply to avoid needing to have a HOAC specified on their certificate (together with membership of it), some police staff might work on the basis that for the target shooting element HOAC membership is needed, and others might not. This may be why the author has seen certificates conditioned for quarry shooting and target shooting without the HOAC aspect. I think the ranges that are being discussed here may include private ranges operated on a commercial basis, as opposed to ranges operated by a HOAC. On the private ranges it may well be the case that one or more HOACs hire them and use them (which then gives the police powers of entry and inspection) but individual certificate holders who have quarry shooting conditions can do so too, for zeroing. The three visit “limit” at one of these ranges is likely to be the range operator’s “protection” against any claim they were allowing target shooting by certificate holders only allowed to zero. As has been commented, the difference between zeroing and target shooting is not defined in UK firearms law, and so would eventually rest with a court to decide. Best approach for the OP is again to ask the FEO about adding target shooting and see what is suggested about HOAC membership, I think. Hope that helps, Adrian

Hello Chris, I am glad that helped, if indeed a little disappointing! You are quite correct in that you can have as many different grips, forends and stocks etc as you like, and sights as well for that matter. I think you would be best speaking to your police FEO about additional relevant components. Unfortunately I think the police view on that will be inconsistent and so it may depend upon the opinion your FEO comes to as to whether what you want to do amounts to “good reason”. It is certainly the case that some certificate holders have additional barrels (in different chamberings) to exchange on their rifle, depending upon shooting task, but I am not sure about other relevant components. No harm in asking and others reading this might be able to help too. Good luck! Adrian

Hello, I will try and help. Section 57 (1) (a) Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) defines a “firearm” as being the whole item (for example a fully assembled and functioning straight pull AR15 based rifle) and then goes on to add, at s57(1)(c), that the term also means any “relevant component part”. The term “relevant component part” is further defined, at s57(1D) as meaning; (a) a barrel, chamber or cylinder, (b)a frame, body or receiver, (c)a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber, This means that each of the items listed above is also a firearm (in law) and if you had it on its own then you would need to have authority to possess it on your firearm certificate. The authority to possess a .223” rifle currently on your certificate means you can possess one complete set of relevant components such as make up the rifle, but if you have a spare of any one of them then that spare relevant component part has to be on your certificate specifically too. Hopefully that is what you were asking about. Apols if I have misunderstood! Adrian

Hello, I am interested in this. Will PM to sort details. Thanks

Hello, Shield (shieldpsd.com) do a universal shotgun rib mount for their RMS/SMS red dot sights. I have used one and the mounting system worked really well. Hope that helps, Adrian

I would like this please. Thanks Adrian

Hello John, My lad is using CCI 400s with his Rem 700 PCR in 6.5 Creedmoor, with no problems. Adrian

In the current NRA Journal (p42) Nic Couldrey, NRA Ranges Manager, states that; ”MoD staff are prohibited from getting involved in the planning of civilian shoots and the placement of targets. As a result access to FFAs was withdrawn two years ago.” He goes on to explain that there is ongoing work to resolve this. I don’t know what occasioned the decision by the DIO. Adrian

S57 1D Firearms Act 1968 specifies the component parts (those which are subject to controls as a firearm in their own right); For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), each of the following items is a relevant component part in relation to a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon— (a)a barrel, chamber or cylinder, (b)a frame, body or receiver, (c)a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber, but only where the item is capable of being used as a part of a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon.

Hello, I don’t believe the range is available for club use. As you may know, operation of the range requires the SW Coast Path diversion to be used (diverts walkers inland around the site perimeter), the closure of Fleet Water (which otherwise entertains fishing) and the closure of a section of Chesil Beach as well as the monitoring of the maritime element of the range danger area. All in all I believe the MoD consider it too impactive to support club use. Happy to be advised otherwise if there is a club shooting there. Adrian