Loaded magazine transportation question

[bradders]

Why is a magazine any different to a striper clip?

[brown dog]

Why is a magazine any different to a striper clip?

 

You won't know until someone in a wig and a red costume tells you!

 

Remembering logic has nothing to do with this (it's blokes in wigs ) my personal interpretation would be, can the clip directly feed ammo to the breech? Garand clip yes. 5.56 stripper, no.

[John MH]

Does it not seem clear enough that the basic point is the same-theft of the aim bag puts a loaded firearm in the wrong hands?The consequences may be more serious if more shots are subsequently fired,but that is not the point the law is making here.

 

The FAC condition of course applies,as it specifically states,to when the firearm and ammunition are in transit.If you have neither with you in transit,the issue of reasonable precautions for them just does not arise.

 

Some may well find the 'loaded mag' etc somewhat perplexing,but the the law seems to be trying to minimise undesirable events- loaded firearms in the wrong hands-without restrictions that effectively prohibit 'in transit' for the legitimate certificate holder.Seems to me the balance is not unreasonable,and sheer common sense should also be deployed.

 

Gbal

.

 

 

So does the theft of the car, or a potentially a burglary at home, maybe we should all sign up to having our firearms stored in central securely guarded armoury.

 

The issue is what are reasonable precautions, I accept that some Judge somewhere at some point agreed with the Police that a filled magazine with a firearm in a car, boat, donkey cart etc is 'Loaded' even though nonsensical and I suspect there was more to the case than just the fact that a firearm was in close proximity to a filled magazine in a car, boat, donkey cart or whatever. I struggle to see what point you are trying to make, the only way to avoid any chance of your firearm and ammunition falling into the hands of the ill disposed with criminal intent is to not have either in your possession in the first place. The problem being that reasonable precautions are subjective and not measurable so therefore, your, my and anyone else's reasonable may be worlds apart.

 

Thing is, Case Law can be challenged. If you are unlucky enough to find yourself in a position that requires you to do it, I think that would be possible if arguing the toss about what an 'unloaded' condition is and the intent of the FAC holder when transporting. There is a plethora of documentation produced by Subject Matter Experts about what is 'Loaded' and 'Unloaded' in relation to Firearms. If the question is about what are 'reasonable precautions' that is open to debate.

 

And what about stripper clips?

[bradders]

I am currently scanning through this document

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117797/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf

Home Office guidance to police.

 

I can see nothing that says you can not transport loaded ammunition in a detachable magazine, so if it doesn't say you can't, that therefore must mean you can

[brown dog]

Everything's subjective.

"Reasonable", and remember this has to be judged by reasonable people in order for it to be reasonable: A standard for what is fair and appropriate under usual and ordinary circumstances; that which is according to reason; the way a rational and just person would have acted.

 

So actually a reasonable person could be expected to think that it's unreasonable to say that the only way to secure a firearm under usual and ordinary circumstances is not having one.

 

....and the final test of reasonableness will be applied by 12 people (or a board of 4!) purporting to judge you reasonably

[brown dog]

I am currently scanning through this document

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117797/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf

Home Office guidance to police.

 

I can see nothing that says you can not transport loaded ammunition in a detachable magazine, so if it doesn't say you can't, that therefore must mean you can

 

 

Is that a 'waaaaaaaaaaaa'?

 

( If not, read this to understand the difference between Case Law and Statutory Law: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/sls.htm)

[David Hancock]

Sapper - reference your point "So an air rifle in the boot of the car is classed as loaded if the loaded magazine is in a bag in the front passenger footwell as you drive to your permission / range ?"

 

Yes. Loaded.

 

Reference comments from the other chaps, understanding the Firearms Law and applying pragmatic common sense to boot is a belt and braces approach.

 

Why open yourself up to arbitary interpretation. Period.

 

Personally, I have separate locked cases for rifle and ammo - air rifle and C/F - AND, as advised by a well known legal sage - I even keep mags separate in my cleaning bag. Call me paranoid.

 

Agree with Baldie and Matt.

 

All the best.

 

David

[bradders]

13.70 The term “component part” may be held to include (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which the pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture are not considered component parts. The 9th Report of the Firearms Consultative Committee provides additional information on this subject.

 

A magazine is not a "component part" but is an accessory.

It is a storage container

[brown dog]

Mark,

 

Read up on what Case Law is. Link in my preceding post.

[The_Dogge]

I thought it was well known that a loaded magazine is considered a loaded gun, it's only hearsay but a guy at the range told me he was prosecuted for having a "loaded weapon in a public place" when he had the loaded magazine in his car (forgot it was there) but no gun!

[gbal]

So does the theft of the car, or a potentially a burglary at home, maybe we should all sign up to having our firearms stored in central securely guarded armoury.

 

The issue is what are reasonable precautions, I accept that some Judge somewhere at some point agreed with the Police that a filled magazine with a firearm in a car, boat, donkey cart etc is 'Loaded' even though nonsensical and I suspect there was more to the case than just the fact that a firearm was in close proximity to a filled magazine in a car, boat, donkey cart or whatever. I struggle to see what point you are trying to make, the only way to avoid any chance of your firearm and ammunition falling into the hands of the ill disposed with criminal intent is to not have either in your possession in the first place. The problem being that reasonable precautions are subjective and not measurable so therefore, your, my and anyone else's reasonable may be worlds apart.

 

Thing is, Case Law can be challenged. If you are unlucky enough to find yourself in a position that requires you to do it, I think that would be possible if arguing the toss about what an 'unloaded' condition is and the intent of the FAC holder when transporting. There is a plethora of documentation produced by Subject Matter Experts about what is 'Loaded' and 'Unloaded' in relation to Firearms. If the question is about what are 'reasonable precautions' that is open to debate.

 

And what about stripper clips?

John,

I think you are missing key points-the central stronghold idea was brought up and dismissed,thankfully some years ago-I specifically said that the law is not trying to prevent firearms in transit-but surely 'reasonable precautions' are ,well reasonable-it is after all,enlightened self interest not to lose your gear!

Hopefully none of us will find ourselves in a position to challenge 'case law',but I think on this issue ,you would lose-the central point being that if the bad guy has both weapon and ammo,he is more of a threat than without either-no room for manoeuvre on that.And arguing about what is and isn't a magazine etc really is insignificant in the central context of the bad guy posing an immediate clear and present danger etc."ammo and rifle=loaded" seems close enough-remember the crucial issue is to prevent illegal firing of the

rifle! Otherwise,do you prefer "ammo and rifle,but will not be loaded for a few seconds=OK??" Surely not.

 

Some examples from other domains might help (or not-the issue though is what is 'reasonable precautions' etc.One current example is car theft (no firearms)-some insurers will not pay up for a car stolen from the owner's drive,while left unattended while the owner has gone back inside his house-he is deemed not to have taken 'reasonable precautions',esp if the engine is left running 'to warm up'/whatever.Being stolen by a prospective purchaser test driving it is less clear cut-weak if the test drive is unaccompanied,less weak if the theft occurs while the owner is outside the car,to allow the 'purchaser' to move to the driving seat.....was reasonable care taken(eg by removing the ignition keys when leaving the car.....etc etc

 

Yes,interpretations etc may differ,which is one main reason we have a justice/court system etc,where each side can put their case.Is there a better system-if extenuating circumstances etc are allowed...what is it??

But all interpretations and opinions are not equal,and the law is more insulted/stretched/broken by some than others....

 

Of course circumstances come into it,as in a great many law contexts-there are no absolute definitions quite often-nor would we be better with them,always.Undesirable behaviour can be specified,perhaps not all of it operationalised,(do not incite hatred)but good behaviour is generally more open ended...(be tolerant)...on balance,we are frtunate to have (firearms ) legislation that includes discretion/interpretation sometimes,rather than being proscriptive/prescriptive on every aspect.The prudent man would do well to consider the alternatives.

What is the problem,anyhow about firearms and ammunition being in transit,as per the FAC ?One could ask,BASC or FLO.

Stopping for a pee? That will be difficult to legislate,for the solitary traveller.Any suggestions?

Prostate oneself before the judge? :-)

Gbal

[Offroad Gary]

I thought it was well known that a loaded magazine is considered a loaded gun, it's only hearsay but a guy at the range told me he was prosecuted for having a "loaded weapon in a public place" when he had the loaded magazine in his car (forgot it was there) but no gun!

 

Not quite the same but a friend of a keeper friend (also a keeper) had a car crash, no rifle in car but police attending found live .243 round in passenger footwell, with no good reason for it to be there and no excuse meant in this case instant revoke of his FAC for not storing ammo correctly. Don't ever use forgetfulness as excuse, doesn't bode well, and demonstrates unsuitability to posess.

[bradders]

My car got stolen a couple of years ago with 2 guns in the boot.

Actually I was jumped and carjacked by 4 rather unpleasant chaps.

I informed the Police and my firearms dept, who were really only interested in a description of the guns and nothing else.

 

Fortunately I got them back the next day when the f**kers crashed the car into a bus during a chase.

The Police asked me to attend the scene and I collected the firearms from the boot of the car and walked back to mine with them in full view of the passers by on Ilford High Rd.

 

For the record, the guns had been handled during their absence by the perps, but forensics said there was no point swabbing or dusting for prints or DNA, as they hardly ever got anything off "those types of guns"!

[tackb]

Well that escalated quickly !

[bradders]

Well that escalated quickly !

Well I would think that. During all the years peole have been legally shooting in e UK, someone has been stopped with a loaded mag, so there may very well be case law already

[gbal]

13.70 The term “component part” may be held to include (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which the pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture are not considered component parts. The 9th Report of the Firearms Consultative Committee provides additional information on this subject.

A magazine is not a "component part" but is an accessory.

It is a storage container

Indeed,but the real issue is what it contains,which is covered by firearms law etc.

It contains ammunition,when it is loaded-I think taking that on board rather changes the focus of all this.Being loose or contained isn't the main issue-it's being there in an inappropriate place ,without reasonable precaution to prevent it's theft.

 

David,et al make a clear and sensible point-why take risks?Or play semantic silly bugs when the prudent man would just comply with what is enlightened self interest anyhow,given the importance of keeping such stuff out of the wrong hands-is that not the point that is rather being missed?

:-)some magazines are kept on the top shelf....but we need to do better than that!

[John MH]

John,

I think you are missing key points-the central stronghold idea was brought up and dismissed,thankfully some years ago-I specifically said that the law is not trying to prevent firearms in transit-but surely 'reasonable precautions' are ,well reasonable-it is after all,enlightened self interest not to lose your gear!

Hopefully none of us will find ourselves in a position to challenge 'case law',but I think on this issue ,you would lose-the central point being that if the bad guy has both weapon and ammo,he is more of a threat than without either-no room for manoeuvre on that.And arguing about what is and isn't a magazine etc really is insignificant in the central context of the bad guy posing an immediate clear and present danger etc."ammo and rifle=loaded" seems close enough-remember the crucial issue is to prevent illegal firing of the

rifle! Otherwise,do you prefer "ammo and rifle,but will not be loaded for a few seconds=OK??" Surely not.

Some examples from other domains might help (or not-the issue though is what is 'reasonable precautions' etc.One current example is car theft (no firearms)-some insurers will not pay up for a car stolen from the owner's drive,while left unattended while the owner has gone back inside his house-he is deemed not to have taken 'reasonable precautions',esp if the engine is left running 'to warm up'/whatever.Being stolen by a prospective purchaser test driving it is less clear cut-weak if the test drive is unaccompanied,less weak if the theft occurs while the owner is outside the car,to allow the 'purchaser' to move to the driving seat.....was reasonable care taken(eg by removing the ignition keys when leaving the car.....etc etc

Yes,interpretations etc may differ,which is one main reason we have a justice/court system etc,where each side can put their case.Is there a better system-if extenuating circumstances etc are allowed...what is it??

But all interpretations and opinions are not equal,and the law is more insulted/stretched/broken by some than others....

Of course circumstances come into it,as in a great many law contexts-there are no absolute definitions quite often-nor would we be better with them,always.Undesirable behaviour can be specified,perhaps not all of it operationalised,(do not incite hatred)but good behaviour is generally more open ended...(be tolerant)...on balance,we are frtunate to have (firearms ) legislation that includes discretion/interpretation sometimes,rather than being proscriptive/prescriptive on every aspect.The prudent man would do well to consider the alternatives.

What is the problem,anyhow about firearms and ammunition being in transit,as per the FAC ?One could ask,BASC or FLO.

Stopping for a pee? That will be difficult to legislate,for the solitary traveller.Any suggestions?

Prostate oneself before the judge? :-)

Gbal

Clearly the only way to avoid or eliminate the risk of theft and use by the ill disposed is to not have both firearms and ammunition, maybe we should all form syndicates where one party has the firearms and the other has the ammunition and never the twain shall meet except on the field of fire.

[tackb]

Didn't isaldwana go quite badly for us due to over officious control of ammo ?

[bradders]

Didn't isaldwana go quite badly for us due to over officious control of ammo ?

Dunno mate, I'm from Ireland

 

[forbie]

Was told the same years ago by a dealer about the mag situation same logic as the hollow points designed to expand in a pre determined manner count as a loaded round.

[gbal]

Dunno mate, I'm from Ireland

 

Particularly in the 20th century,there seemed to be reports ,perhaps from biased sources,that there might be some illegal use of firearms and ammunition in Ireland.Some discussion of 'illegal' probably took place too.

North Britain was effectively sorted in 1745,but there has been apparently serious talk recently about independence,so that the non problematic firearms situation can be stabilised by controlling air rifle sales.

 

Complex issues indeed.I note that even the enthusiastic shooting community as represented on this forum has not managed to sort out it's differences of definition,or labelling, for what different factions refer to as 'heads',yet others insist are 'bullets'. :-)

 

Gbal

[John MH]

Was told the same years ago by a dealer about the mag situation same logic as the hollow points designed to expand in a pre determined manner count as a loaded round.

I don't see the logic connection, in that case a carboard box of ammunition with a firearm would constitute a loaded firearm. And what about a shop that sells both rifles and ammunition, is a shop not a public place where anyone can walk in?

 

You buy a firearm and ammunition at you local RFD, rifle and metallic cartridge or shot gun and shot gun cartridge, whilst in the shop you pay for both, take possession and by 'case law' definition you have a loaded firearm in a public place; it's rediculous broccoli

[TSG]

I have looked and cannot find the exact case law. In the recesses of my fast fading memory there was a case in the North of the country moving from one shooting location to another with loaded rifles in a vehicle. Loaded in my world also means magazine fitted but not made ready. This may have been subject to an appeal and a judge made comment about loaded magazines. ( when you are stopped by a fresh faced Police officer in the break they are taking from posting pictures of themselves with guns on twatbook, do not quote me!)

In our world a magazine is just a box for carrying the rounds of ammunition but with criminal use of firearms a loaded magazine demonstrates a preparation to use the firearm. If you are unsure don't do it.

[camo304]

Reply i got this morning

Morning Andy,
I see no reason what so ever that this will be a problem as its covered under sec 19 of the Firearms Act.

Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 makes it an offence for someone to have with them a loaded shotgun, a loaded air weapon, or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on the person).

Going to or from your permission is of course lawful and reasonable
BASC

[.300wm]

On this note, where does the law stand on bolt removal for firearms such as the Ruger 10/22? Removing the bolt from a 10/22 is a damn nuisance and requires a screw driver minimum, does this have to be removed for transit?