Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts

Home Office Guidance


Recommended Posts

I note that the latest HO guidance for Rifle clubs has been withdrawn on 14th October.   I assume a new note is about to be launched,  that'll be interesting to see what they have up their sleeve for us...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/firearms-safety

 

This is a worrying to be heading in though!

I'm not so sure.  

The Government position advocates for no serious change to air weapon legislation apart from some around children's uncontrolled access.  Component parts for reloading is a non-issue if you have an FAC in my opinion, just falls into line with primers and powder.  The imposition of higher levels of security on the 50cal lads (and lassies) is problematic but not nearly as draconian as the original desire to ban.  Fair ground miniature rifles ranges are being brought under reasonable FAC control - again I can't see any issue.

I've never subscribed to "thin end of the wedge" ism.  It's a fear but not borne out by evidence.  IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

I've never subscribed to "thin end of the wedge" ism.  It's a fear but not borne out by evidence.  IMHO.

The thin end came when many rifle clubs who had operated successfully for many years under the s11(4) banner were asked if they would like to have a free FAC 'so the police could have knowledge of the firearms out there'.
This was meant to be a blanket license to show who had access to the firearms and storage not a list of the firearms possessed.

Then it changed to slots which needed to be applied for. No longer was the club free to buy and dispose of firearms as it wanted.

Is it still free? How long for?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mattnall said:

The thin end came when many rifle clubs who had operated successfully for many years under the s11(4) banner were asked if they would like to have a free FAC 'so the police could have knowledge of the firearms out there'.
This was meant to be a blanket license to show who had access to the firearms and storage not a list of the firearms possessed.

Then it changed to slots which needed to be applied for. No longer was the club free to buy and dispose of firearms as it wanted.

Is it still free? How long for?
 

so what's the problem there then?  I don't find any issue in complying with a simple system, why should a club be more free than an individual?  It is still free by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is not as free as it was.

The club now has to apply for a slot when it wants another rifle. When it disposes of one rifle it needs to get the slot re-issued. Before all that the club had to do was buy and dispose of as it saw fit and could take advantage of good deals as it wanted. This allowed clubs to operate easily and as gateway organisations to the sport and it should be encouraged.

The FAC was only required it the club wanted firearms other than miniature rifles.

We operate a s11(4) range and offer experiences to non-shooters, many of whom become club members either with us or elsewhere after having a positive experience with us. We wouldn't be able to operate as a club as clubs are not allowed a day membership and that is in effect what we would need if the s11(4) wasn't there. The no-commitment nature of the s11(4) process is part of the attraction for our guests and this could be lost if we have to get an FAC as I would think it wouldn't be granted without being part of a HO club. It is a large part of our business and it is worrying that it could be lost - we have had to shut for the best partof the year as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I see that's a crimp on your business however I do run a HO Approved club and I don't find it much of a burden to buy and dispose of firearms  - not an activity that's done very often.

I don't see anything in the proposals that stops you operating a miniature range, just regularises FAC controls on the operator.  I may have missed it ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is control and control leads to restrictions.

We will be restricted to how and when we buy or sell and we will have to ask permission each time. There is the cost involved in time and money as well.

To be fair it is not like running a HO club, although it can be run on that basis. Our firearms can get a lot of use and are regularly exchanged or scrapped as they wear out or break. The extra time involved with police variations would be huge in our case and the one-for-one variations would be free adding an extra financial and time burden on the police licensing departments for no return.

A permit like the Showmans' Guild or NSRA non-statuary s11 certificate would be a better option if something had to be done and it would just show that the bearer is a bona fide range operator or business. It would be cheaper for the police and require less work from everyone involved from licensing to range operator. It would also mean the holder could continue to operate as they currently do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly an issue for you and possibly others running your sort of operation.  I suggest you send your thoughts to the Government consultation if you haven't already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Joe public will be safer as a result ? I think not ..... I am extremely suspicious in regard to any further restrictions.  I fail to see the logic behind a lot of the proposals.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gazzarM1 said:

And Joe public will be safer as a result ? I think not ..... I am extremely suspicious in regard to any further restrictions.  I fail to see the logic behind a lot of the proposals.....

Have you read the proposal outlines, the "Impact Assessments"?  They detail the logic, you may not agree but there are some good points made along with some of the exaggerated claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have quoted this from the above link......from....Controls on possession of component parts of ammunition.

"Only the main components of ammunition are already controlled (propellants and primers). The possession of propellants is controlled under the Explosives Regulations 2014 which require that, with certain exceptions, anyone wanting to acquire or keep explosives must hold an explosives certificate issued by the police."

As I understand it, I only require an explosives licence to store and transport my Black powder, and not for propellants, or have I misunderstood.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

True ....shooters powder is not subject to the same rules as Black powder.....there is a quantity you can store I think 12.5 kgs before you need to do anything else.

In regard to the consultation yes i have read the impact assessments and still of the opinion that the proposals offer any protection above and beyond what is in place currently .My view on the ''wedge'' is cynical on account of having held both FAC and SGC for over 40 years and suffered first hand as a result of further restrictions. My view is that if you are fit to own firearms why impose further restrictions to what is probably one of the most law abiding in the country?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Silvermachine said:

I have quoted this from the above link......from....Controls on possession of component parts of ammunition.

"Only the main components of ammunition are already controlled (propellants and primers). The possession of propellants is controlled under the Explosives Regulations 2014 which require that, with certain exceptions, anyone wanting to acquire or keep explosives must hold an explosives certificate issued by the police."

As I understand it, I only require an explosives licence to store and transport my Black powder, and not for propellants, or have I misunderstood.

 

No, you are OK and will remain so.  Normal levels of nitro powder require no explosives licence.  Black Powder in any quantity does.

I don't know what the government consultation is referring to by seemingly suggesting otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this cause a complication to Dealers selling brass and bullets by post if you have to show a certificate for the purchase?

some dealers do a hell of a lot of business with this.

This bit:

the possession of component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition should be made an offence.

Already covered by the amount of ammunition of each caliber an individual can keep I would have thought.

I think personally that the parts that go bang are already regulated to the law abiding. I don't see a need for further regulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Wentworth Sporting said:

Would this cause a complication to Dealers selling brass and bullets by post if you have to show a certificate for the purchase?

some dealers do a hell of a lot of business with this.

This bit:

the possession of component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition should be made an offence.

Already covered by the amount of ammunition of each caliber an individual can keep I would have thought.

I think personally that the parts that go bang are already regulated to the law abiding. I don't see a need for further regulation.

I think you are absolutely right - totally unnecessary. But it will be cheap to implement, will be seen to be doing something, will (as always) face very little opposition and just one more of the thousands cuts required to totally eliminate shooting in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU dealer where I get bullets and cases has always required a scan of my UK FAC to be attached to the order, showing the front page and the entitlement page, and will only ship to the address shown on it.

I don't see a problem if that's implemented here.

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Re-Pete said:

The EU dealer where I get bullets and cases has always required a scan of my UK FAC to be attached to the order, showing the front page and the entitlement page, and will only ship to the address shown on it.

I don't see a problem if that's implemented here.

Pete

Exactly,  there's a solution for legitimate users.   A sense of proportion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks

It is fine and dandy to say it does not really matter 'but' if the same requirements are applied to bullets and brass etc. as existing for primers then this will limit how you can purchase those components.

Believe (as I cannot be arsed to dig it out exact wording ) that in the 2003 crime reduction bill it is a requirement to show your FAC to purchase primers and also the type of primer you are buying is applicable for the ammunition listed on your FAC.

Both my useful local(ish) RFD's will only sell primers to you if you have your FAC with you, not a copy which is sensible as they are doing there job/removing potential issues to their business and our past time.

If we are honest the whole thing is really smoke and mirrors to 'look good' , can we obtain the details of how much of the munitions used in crime is hand loaded?? doubtful and what evidence that will be presented will be from a Gov. agency, (Caveat that's not any conspiracy theory just me not being naïve 😉 )

T

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see various issues with this. Two particularly come to mind regarding the last few posts on the thread.

1. I think that ALL additional firearms controls must be fought tooth-and-nail. We have long passed the thin end of the wedge position in the UK and any further controls just represent the thick end passing through, which will eventually just lead to us losing our firearms by incremental controls. In the pre-able to the Consultation, it admits that UK firearms controls are amongst the strictest in the world, but then cannot take the next logical step to demonstrate that these controls have made firearms crime go away. Because patently they haven't. Instead the government is just proposing more and more controls, which will only impact on the legitimate shooters, because the criminals don't care a fig.

2. Specifically with the potential control on cases and bullets the wording really concerns me here. It doesn't say 'manufacture of unauthorised ammunition'. It says 'unauthorised quantities of ammunition'. So if you have 250 rounds on your FAC, that means you can only have 250 bullets, 250 primers, 250 cases and enough powder for 250 rounds; any more that this would allow you to manufacture 'unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition'.  

Triffid

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triffid said:

2. Specifically with the potential control on cases and bullets the wording really concerns me here. It doesn't say 'manufacture of unauthorised ammunition'. It says 'unauthorised quantities of ammunition'. So if you have 250 rounds on your FAC, that means you can only have 250 bullets, 250 primers, 250 cases and enough powder for 250 rounds; any more that this would allow you to manufacture 'unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition'.  

Triffid

Be interesting to see how you would buy 1250 grains, at 5 grains a pop for a .357 magnum.

I would imagine everyone would be acting illegally at a stroke, if this came into force.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triffid said:

2. Specifically with the potential control on cases and bullets the wording really concerns me here. It doesn't say 'manufacture of unauthorised ammunition'. It says 'unauthorised quantities of ammunition'. So if you have 250 rounds on your FAC, that means you can only have 250 bullets, 250 primers, 250 cases and enough powder for 250 rounds; any more that this would allow you to manufacture 'unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition'.  

Triffid

I disagree, it refers clearly to criminal intent in the body of the text.  It is not sufficient to say that being in possession of a quantity of components that exceeds the allowed quantity of assembled ammo is equivalent to the criminal intent to manufacture unauthorised quantities. This is already controlled.   It does mean that being in position of components that one does not have approval for the assembled ammo (say, for me, 9mm para. components), that could be assembled but haven't, would become an offence as it may demonstrate intent to break the law.  Obviously some components are transferable between calibres.

I'd also point out it's a consultation document not the framed law - that's subject to much too-ing and fro-ing before the law is enacted.  It's what's in the law and then the interpretation by the courts that matters.  Let's try and influence that for the better.

I've read through the consultation in detail, I have responded to the on-line survey and expressed my views and concerns with some ideas for consideration.  I suggest others do the same and exercise their democratic rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Triffid said:

I see various issues with this. Two particularly come to mind regarding the last few posts on the thread.

1. I think that ALL additional firearms controls must be fought tooth-and-nail. We have long passed the thin end of the wedge position in the UK and any further controls just represent the thick end passing through, which will eventually just lead to us losing our firearms by incremental controls. In the pre-able to the Consultation, it admits that UK firearms controls are amongst the strictest in the world, but then cannot take the next logical step to demonstrate that these controls have made firearms crime go away. Because patently they haven't. Instead the government is just proposing more and more controls, which will only impact on the legitimate shooters, because the criminals don't care a fig.

2. Specifically with the potential control on cases and bullets the wording really concerns me here. It doesn't say 'manufacture of unauthorised ammunition'. It says 'unauthorised quantities of ammunition'. So if you have 250 rounds on your FAC, that means you can only have 250 bullets, 250 primers, 250 cases and enough powder for 250 rounds; any more that this would allow you to manufacture 'unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition'.  

Triffid

^^^^this

Link to post
Share on other sites

This the salient point, "These" referring to bullets & cases............

" The proposed change would be to make it an offence to possess these without a licence if it can be shown there is intent to use them to make ammunition. "

What isn't clear is "licence".......do they mean an existing FAC, a condition added to an FAC, or a new thing altogether?

Understanding why anyone would want to possess them for any reason other than making ammunition is above my pay scale, but then, what do I know?

Pete

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Lumensmini.png

CALTON MOOR RANGE (2) (200x135).jpg

bradley1 200.jpg

NVstore200.jpg

blackrifle.png

jr_firearms_200.gif

valkyrie 200.jpg

tab 200.jpg

Northallerton NSAC shooting.jpg

RifleMags_200x100.jpg

dolphin button4 (200x100).jpg

CASEPREP_FINAL_YELLOW_hi_res__200_.jpg

rovicom200.jpg



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy