Home Office Opinion - Hornady A-Max

[Elwood]

I received this 15 minutes ago by email.

 

Dear Member,

 

With reference to my earlier email on this subject, it would appear that we

can all "stand easy"!

 

See below for response to question to NRA.

 

 

 

Dear Member of Council,

 

There has been much Email traffic about the alleged re-classification by the

Home Office of Hornaday A Max plastic-tipped bullets as Section

5 prohibited projectiles. This is a target bullet in quite widespread use in

the UK.

 

Please note that the Home Office has made it clear that no such

re-classification has taken place. This rumour appears to have grown out of

a discussion at a local police liaison meeting earlier this year.

 

Please reassure any enquirer that the status of Hornaday A Max bullets has

not changed and they are not prohibited.

 

Many thanks to Mike Eveleigh for clarifying this.

[1967spud]

Dear Member,

 

With reference to my earlier email on this subject, it would appear that we

can all "stand easy"!

 

See below for response to question to NRA.

 

Cheers, Rob

 

Dear Member of Council,

 

There has been much Email traffic about the alleged re-classification by the

Home Office of Hornaday A Max plastic-tipped bullets as Section

5 prohibited projectiles. This is a target bullet in quite widespread use in

the UK.

 

Please note that the Home Office has made it clear that no such

re-classification has taken place. This rumour appears to have grown out of

a discussion at a local police liaison meeting earlier this year.

 

Please reassure any enquirer that the status of Hornaday A Max bullets has

not changed and they are not prohibited.

 

Many thanks to Mike Eveleigh for clarifying this.

 

With best wishes.

 

David J Penn

 

[brown dog]

Ian - who's sending these emails? Who are they sending them to?

 

I'm a member of both BASC and NRA but I'm not getting any 'all-stations' emails.

 

I actually think we're seeing left-hand right-hand here;

and different people are reporting different conversations with different people at the Home Office....and everyone is labelling their particular conversation "the Home Office says.."

[1967spud]

mine ca,me from mik mak guessing ians is the same

[Davy]

The post I made was from BASC to a member of another forum and he is a trusted source.

[Laurie]

The same message has come via the NRA Council to all associated target shooting bodies and judging by the thanks made to Mike Eveleigh, deputy head of the BASC legal team, has obviously also originated there. Bearing in mind the authority and status of BASC's legal people, I cannot see them passing on rumours or duff information, and equally I would imagine that the whoever was liasing from the HO side would be very careful to get their facts straight befopre passing on any advice, rulings, or statements of fact to Mike E.

[terryh]

Good old NRA - not even talking about the right meeting!

 

But on a good note late yesterday I had a call from D&C saying all sorts of mails were flying round yesterday afternoon and it looks like the NSAC aregoing to contest the decision.

 

No legilastion needs to be passed or changed for this to come inot effect so not sure where tihs comment comes inot play?

 

Brgds Terry

[brown dog]

Good old NRA - not even talking about the right meeting!

 

Yup, that's the left-hand right-hand vibe I'm picking up.

And, as I commented earlier too, the BASC 'legislation change' comment quoted earlier is entirely non-sequitur to the issue at hand (and therefore, to me, rings a loud alarm bell; someone making such comment clearly hasn't got a full grasp on the situation).

 

I'm afraid too, that having tried to use the BASC "legal team" (not sure without checking, but I believe none of them are legally trained) for a rifle issue in the past I don't have the faith that others do.

The words 'chocolate'and 'teapot' leap to mind as regards firearms (as opposed to parochial shotgun') issues....

 

Perhaps that's skewing my judgement of: "it's all OK; a former FEO (who I'm sure is a top bloke, but one thing he isn't is a lawyer) at BASC has spoken to 'someone' at the HO". ( Uh huh Well that's it sorted then; none of us would dispute that BASC are the the 'go to' champion and voice of target rifle shooting )

 

Hopefully it will play out as people are wanting to believe.

[Laurie]

none of us would dispute that BASC are the the 'go to' champion and voice of target rifle shooting

 

Couldn't agree more (the tongue in cheek bit that is)! I'm sure that if this was the USA, their NRA would be in the lead and very pro-active in finding out what was going on and sorting it to suit their members' and wider rifle shooting population's interests. Our NRA appears - I say that advisedly as we might not know what they've done or not done - to sit back and let other people take it on board. Of course, they might eventually table it on a sub-committee meeting agenda if it isn't sorted out by somebody else.

 

To go back to the root cause of this - Michael Howard and his personal qualities aside, who personally got us into this mess - I'm 100% with Baldie in his efforts to stop people yacking on about using match bullets on game. Despite everything that's happened with AMaxes, we have yet another thread on the go elsewhere about using target 80gn 0.224s on live quarry. There are some people out there who'll use any such information they pick up to help throttle the shooting sports, but the main problem here is the legal bind that police forces and their firearms teams are in. If somebody brings it to their attention that a particular practice is taking place - such as using the AMax on deer - that appears to suggest that a reclassification is required, they cannot turn a blind eye. The police forces's lawyers will tell them that with the various Acts being full of absolute offences - black/white, no shades of grey - they have no option but to take action unless they wish to find themselves breaking the law.

 

I'm still intrigued though as to the form of action D&C took once advised of the use of this bullet. The AMax was and still is a match type 'non-expanding' bullet under the law as it is set out. The logical course of action on being advised that people were using them on live quarry was to advise all deerstalking FAC holders in their area of this fact and to remind them they are breaking the law if they choose this bullet. I don't care whether they work or not on deer, or whether the legislation is complete nonsense (which it is). That is the law as it currently stands. Under it, a target shooter cannot legally buy and use bullets that have been designed to expand in certain ways for his or her paper shooting. Likewise, a sporting shooter cannot use other models that fall outside of the designed to expand category legally. Pretty straightforward I would have thought! Of course, we know there's hardly any bullet choice out there for deerstalkers!

[brown dog]

Laurie, snc2010 put up a great post explaining the muddle we're all in over where bullets fall between the 2 relevant acts - thought it'd be useful if I copied his post here - it certainly wasn't what was in my head; but it's very clear (although it reads as a bit of a colour-blindness test too ):

 

In the UK there are two main statutes that govern the use of what is known as expanding ammunition for the shooting of deer.

 

The Deer Act 1991, schedule 2, section 5 requires deer be shot with "a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2

 

The Firearms Act 1968, section 5(1A)(f) prohibits "any ammunition which incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/5

 

What this all means is that you must use a "soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet" to stay within the Deer Act but that bullet does not have to be "designed or adapted to expand on impact" (falling under the Firearms Act). For example, Sierra Match King bullets could be described as being hollow-nosed so they are legal under the Deer Act but they are not "designed or adapted to expand on impact" so are not controlled under the Firearms Act. Likewise, a bullet "designed or adapted to expand on impact" that is not "soft-nosed or hollow-nosed" would not be legal to shoot deer with because it does not conform to the Deer Act. It just so happens that many bullets that conform to the Deer Act are also governed by the Firearms Act (and vice versa), which is where confusion arises because people think they've read the rulebook but have actually only read one of the two rulebooks (or just had a mix of the two rulebooks confusedly explained to them).

NB Typically, an exemption to the Firearms Act is made to allow those who shoot deer to have ammunition "designed or adapted to expand on impact.".

 

 

 

 

Hope this helps folk understand the laws that govern our sport.

 

I daren't ask where that leaves NBTs in terms of the deer act

[Laurie]

Thanks for that. Wow, the legislation is an even bigger dog's dinner than I thought! Ultimately, the answer is a clean-up and one that gets rid of the semi-S5 status of expanding bullets. Like many on the forum, I'm not holding my breath on this. Although almost everybody involved wants a repeal of the expanding bullet differentiation, it's going to be low priority for the HO. With so much else wrong, muddled and sometimes downright contradictory in the various sections of the Acts, the HO would probably want to do such a change as part of an overall revision and tidy-up too - a major and very time-consuming exercise and one that has been promised many times over the years and is no closer now than it was in the aftermath of Dunblane.

 

BUT .... the kicker as I see it is the emotive Dum-Dum phrase and public ignorance and sentiment that is easily exploited on this issue. It was a Red-Top newspaper campaigning for 'Dum-Dums'to be banned and supported by some know-nothing Labour MPs that saw Howard give the House of Commons the verbal assurance that he would ban these bullets (not the more sensible assurance that he would look into it!) that got us where we are now. Imagine the furore if the Mirror or Sun learns that the government is quietly minded to let people use these 'barbaric, flesh-tearing Dum-Dum bullets that are illegal under the Geneva Convention' and loads of other such inaccurate crap again!

 

Even the so-called quality newspapers get this wrong. Some years back I read a little piece in the Telegraph's gossip column on the lines of ... the friends of the young Lord Whoever tell me he is a cad - he uses Dum-Dum bullets to kill his deer! There was an apology and correction published the following day of course pointing out that the individual concerned was complying with the law like every other deerstalker and that he would really have been a 'cad' if he hadn't used expanding bullets. It's this sort of unthinking sentimental mentality and complete public ignorance of the subject that's the barrier here.

 

Incidentally, re the AMax, you know and I know that it and the VMax, Ballistic Tip etc are hollow-points with polycarbonate plugs stuck into the aperture for various reasons, but arguably in a legal sense, the AMax is neither soft-point nor hollow-point, and if it's not designed to expand is almost therefore in an FMJ-like category of its own. I don't suggest anybody even thinks of going down that route though - things are messy enough.

 

So, now we have to see what happens, or not, as the case may be! I suspect it is going to be 'no change' for 90% + of British shooters. Unless told specifically otherwise, importers, bullet suppliers, RFDs and shooters will carry on as now selling, loading and using AMaxes for target shooting. But down in the West Country, is the D&C licensing unit going to retract its ruling? If not we'll see a strange one-off regime applying to a single region of the country, and just what is the legal status of its residents there who are shooters in this case?

 

For that matter, in the absence of HO approval / changes to the guidance notes supplied by the HO, does the D&C ruling have any legal status and force at all? That is, in the highly unlikely event of an FEO trying to enforce the ruling, or uniformed officers attempting to arrest somebody for owning / using the 'wrong' bullets would they soon look very silly? At the moment, it seems it's like a form of guidance / advice - we don't think you should sell / use these bullets, but we might not be able to legally enforce it. What a mess!

[TonyH]

.............Even the so-called quality newspapers get this wrong. ................. It's this sort of unthinking sentimental mentality and complete public ignorance of the subject that's the barrier here.

Laurie, in the years I've been observing our shooting legislation, I've concluded that it is not too much of a generalisation to say that the news media always get firearms-related subjects wrong. If you ever see them refer to "calibre .375" you know they almost certainly mean .357, just as a trivial example. Probably like yourself, I spent most of 1996 and some of 1997 seething at the wicked and profoundly stupid mixture of prejudice, ignorance and malice directed at guns and gun-owners in the wake of Dunblane. The worst thing is that the media, and the political class, don't even care that they know next to nothing about guns, when reporting on shooting issues or ramming kneejerk legislation through Parliament.

 

..... down in the West Country, is the D&C licensing unit going to retract its ruling? If not we'll see a strange one-off regime applying to a single region of the country, and just what is the legal status of its residents there who are shooters in this case?.... For that matter, in the absence of HO approval / changes to the guidance notes supplied by the HO, does the D&C ruling have any legal status and force at all? That is, in the highly unlikely event of an FEO trying to enforce the ruling, or uniformed officers attempting to arrest somebody for owning / using the 'wrong' bullets would they soon look very silly? At the moment, it seems it's like a form of guidance / advice - we don't think you should sell / use these bullets, but we might not be able to legally enforce it. What a mess!

Yes indeed - but 'twas ever thus. Our firearms legislation is a ghastly morass of complexity & contradiction of which any self-respecting democracy should be ashamed. Unfortunately, we all know from decades of experience that firearms practices vary astonishingly widely between Forces; that many Forces are fond of imposing their own practices & requirements, then pretending that these have the same force as law; and that it takes considerable courage, and perhaps deep pockets, for an individual gun-owner to stand up and defy extra-legal impositions. The police know this full well, and take cynical advantage of it. Things are not helped by the incompetence, sluggishness, and supine behaviour (one thinks especially of the UK NRA...) of our national shooting bodies. Like others, I long for us to have something at least half as tough, focussed and politically competent as the US NRA. In all honesty I don't think we'll ever have a body like that, though: too many people have tried too many times to get somewhere with this, and failed miserably in the end. Bottom line is there are too few of us to count electorally, in our overwhelmingly urban, sedentary, bunny-hugging society. That's why we have to endure these bizarre, genuinely Kafka-esque episodes about what shape our bullets are; I'd like to think it will be sorted out sensibly, but I won't bet on that.

Tony

[shotgun sam]

Ther is a lot of intresting stuff here I have also contacted BASC and they know about this and say no reliable sourse has been found to confirm amax are now section 5

[Gunsgobang88]

Hi All,

 

I have just spoken to Surrey Firearms Licensing and to the person who was present at the relevant Home Office meeting. In the absence of a definitive Home Office ruling and guidance sent to all involved parties it is business as usual. However, it was suggested that I don't stock up on A-max's as there might be a Home Office ruling in the near future,

 

Regards to all,

 

Alan

[NoEntry]

Resolved see BASC link

 

BASC press release

 

The "former FEO" appears to have done a good job

 

 

Mike

[LONG RANGE CAPT]

Resolved see BASC link

 

BASC press release

 

The "former FEO" appears to have done a good job

 

 

Mike

 

Well done, Mike at BASC is a top bloke and a chap that has done more for UK shooters than anyone else I know.

 

Kind Regards

 

Rob