Home Office Guidance

[FB66]

I am with Pops on this one

I've just 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.

FB 66

[Re-Pete]

Me too, and I'm thinking WTF when I read this:

As the number of component parts used in the illegal manufacture of ammunition is estimated to be negligible compared to the number of legally held components, it has been assumed that the restrictions will not impact the size of the legal market.

Well it may well affect the legal market if I can no longer buy bullets in bulk................What planet are these people from, and how much have they paid to "consultants" to come up with this?

Pete

[1066]

Anyone who has been shooting for a long time will know just how many of our basic shooting freedoms we have lost, we are constantly walking backwards. True, some regulation over the last 50 years has made sense, but an awful lot has made little sense and done very little to reduce criminal activity. Most restrictions come under the "seen to be done" banner and of course, legitimate shooter are an easy target, with ineffectual national associations and most shooter seemingly quite happy to sell any other branch of shooting, if it doesn't actually effect them directly, down the river. 

Remember, these new ideas effect a whole raft of shooting related topics, not just reloading.

In a life time of shooting I've see our freedoms eroded from the time when you could buy a shotgun certificate in the post office and buy your shotgun on your mum's mail order catalogue, to a time where it may soon mean it's an offence to have an empty case in your possession or need a variation to buy a new bullet mould.

[Popsbengo]

41 minutes ago, 1066 said:

Anyone who has been shooting for a long time will know just how many of our basic shooting freedoms we have lost, we are constantly walking backwards. True, some regulation over the last 50 years has made sense, but an awful lot has made little sense and done very little to reduce criminal activity. Most restrictions come under the "seen to be done" banner and of course, legitimate shooter are an easy target, with ineffectual national associations and most shooter seemingly quite happy to sell any other branch of shooting, if it doesn't actually effect them directly, down the river. 

Remember, these new ideas effect a whole raft of shooting related topics, not just reloading.

In a life time of shooting I've see our freedoms eroded from the time when you could buy a shotgun certificate in the post office and buy your shotgun on your mum's mail order catalogue, to a time where it may soon mean it's an offence to have an empty case in your possession or need a variation to buy a new bullet mould.

"constantly walking backwards".  Not really  - since 1968 a few changes with one very big negative re pistols , and the lesser impacting issue of self-loading firearms - both over 20 years ago.

MARS rifles were just a pi55 take out of the legislation so were doomed to fall foul especially after knob heads demonstrating just how fast they can fire on YouTube.  I would have been worried if my son or daughter was an armed police officer facing a MARS equipped madman.

Your fear re "it's an offence to have an empty case in your possession or need a variation to buy a new bullet mould." is just far-fetched but I trust you've submitted your consultation feedback expressing this fear?

I for one am very glad that it's not possible to go to the Post Office for a SGC and buy a gun from Mum's mail-order catalogue.  There's plenty of people in my acquaintance I would be horrified to think had access to firearms.

[ds1]

1066, what you say is sadly very true. I made a decision some 20+ years ago after the pistol ban  to get out of the U.K. and move to a European country where I now have my own commercial range, semi-auto everything, ccw, ( full auto is possible if my clients are able to use it, eg police, security companies etc. The  range is full auto certified). It’s also my day job as a professional small arms training instructor  

Fighting this or any firearms licensing  battle in the U.K.  is a hiding to nothing and the rest of the shooting community will happily sacrifice your part of the sport just to be the last to be eaten by the sharks. Re Mars or lever release - if something is not illegal it is then legal until the law is changed of course.

I really admire your work with the Target Master, annealer and we spoke about the pressure seating unit.

Not many will understand this but I don’t want to survive changes or restrictions. I want to leave something behind ( hopefully just not yet) that someone else can build and improve upon. I have made substantial financial and time investments to do what I want - it’s hard to see the incentive to do the same in the U.K. very sadly.

 

[Popsbengo]

49 minutes ago, ds1 said:

1066, what you say is sadly very true. I made a decision some 20+ years ago after the pistol ban  to get out of the U.K. and move to a European country where I now have my own commercial range, semi-auto everything, ccw,....... It’s also my day job as a professional small arms training instructor  

Fighting this or any firearms licensing  battle in the U.K.  is a hiding to nothing and the rest of the shooting community will happily sacrifice your part of the sport just to be the last to be eaten by the sharks. Re Mars or lever release - if something is not illegal it is then legal until the law is changed of course.

Not many will understand this but I don’t want to survive changes or restrictions. I want to leave something behind ( hopefully just not yet) that someone else can build and improve upon. I have made substantial financial and time investments to do what I want - it’s hard to see the incentive to do the same in the U.K. very sadly.

 

Gosh, being chastised regarding the benefit of the shooting "community" sticking together by someone who left the country?  Pardon me if I can't take that too seriously.   I firmly believe in action and campaigning, not in adopting a victim position.

Re MARS,  you are correct,  it was legal, now it's not.  That's due in part to the idiot behaviour of some.

[1066]

59 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

 

Your fear re "it's an offence to have an empty case in your possession or need a variation to buy a new bullet mould." is just far-fetched but I trust you've submitted your consultation feedback expressing this fear?

 

If we were chatting on a range in 1985 and I said "In a couple of years my single shot .22lr Webley target pistol will be banned and placed in the same category as a Vicker machine gun " you would have thought that utterly absurd too.

You may not see the point of MARS rifles and seem not too concerned that they have been banned on a whim because they "look dangerous" or can fire fast, but have you ever seen someone who can really operate a conventional lever action rifle? - Will these be the next to go, or maybe have a stopper in the tube magazine only allowing 5 rounds to be loaded? And of course, a .338Lap is far too dangerous to let a civilian anywhere near one.

[Popsbengo]

1 minute ago, 1066 said:

If we were chatting on a range in 1985 and I said "In a couple of years my single shot .22lr Webley target pistol will be banned and placed in the same category as a Vicker machine gun " you would have thought that utterly absurd too.

You may not see the point of MARS rifles and seem not too concerned that they have been banned on a whim because they "look dangerous" or can fire fast, but have you ever seen someone who can really operate a conventional lever action rifle? - Will these be the next to go, or maybe have a stopper in the tube magazine only allowing 5 rounds to be loaded? And of course, a .338Lap is far too dangerous to let a civilian anywhere near one.

How can you know what I would or wouldn't think?  Please don't presume to know my mind and I will offer you that respect too.

It's this exaggerated worrying that gets me.  Let's get a sense of proportion here.  There have been a small handful of additional restrictions over 52 years since the Act.  I truly regret the loss of hand guns and fully agree it was a political move to assuage public outrage.  I'm a realist, we live in a democracy and we enjoy a sport that has very little public support,  rather than constant carping by some about regulation it's better to engage and influence.

[ds1]

Pops, a few U.K. ladies and gents would say that I have given them the opportunity  to enjoy something the U.K. government took away from them. 

How much has your ‘engage and influence’ been working then? Any chance of repealing any prat of the pistol ban.....no I didn’t think so.

[Popsbengo]

9 minutes ago, ds1 said:

Pops, a few U.K. ladies and gents would say that I have given them the opportunity  to enjoy something the U.K. government took away from them. 

How much has your ‘engage and influence’ been working then? Any chance of repealing any prat of the pistol ban.....no I didn’t think so.

Well done for first point  - I'd enjoy it too.  I was in no way imputing you for leaving the UK

Your second point is a non-sequitur,  it does not follow that failure to overturn a pistol ban (a lost cause) means future proposals can't be influenced (I refer you to the FCSA led success regarding the 50cal banning proposal)

[ds1]

Pops, the river only flows one way regarding U.K. gun laws. There are better people than me who have stayed in the U.K. and given to the sport Bob at SGC springs to mind, he brought the straight pull AR15s to the U.K. market, invested in the cnc machines to make uppers and lowers - no crystal ball but I think without Bob there would have been no AR 15s in the U.K. He then made them lever release, won a court case that they were indeed legal that cost him around 100k I believe and I guess he also had a loads of stress with it. In the end the government just bans it. Yet you call them a ‘pi$$ take’. Where is the incentive to invest time, effort and money into anything where the government change the goal post on any whim they like?

I am pragmatic, I allow local people to use my range for free, I allow the police to use it and I invite U.K. shooters over. This benefits not just me but the local hospitality services and RFDs. Really good luck to people making an effort in the U.K. like SIS and PRL etc .

[gazzarM1]

1 hour ago, ds1 said:

Pops, the river only flows one way regarding U.K. gun laws. There are better people than me who have stayed in the U.K. and given to the sport Bob at SGC springs to mind, he brought the straight pull AR15s to the U.K. market, invested in the cnc machines to make uppers and lowers - no crystal ball but I think without Bob there would have been no AR 15s in the U.K. He then made them lever release, won a court case that they were indeed legal that cost him around 100k I believe and I guess he also had a loads of stress with it. In the end the government just bans it. Yet you call them a ‘pi$$ take’. Where is the incentive to invest time, effort and money into anything where the government change the goal post on any whim they like?

I am pragmatic, I allow local people to use my range for free, I allow the police to use it and I invite U.K. shooters over. This benefits not just me but the local hospitality services and RFDs. Really good luck to people making an effort in the U.K. like SIS and PRL etc .

Could not agree more....we never made the rules and the likes of Bob and others have sought to bring us guns that work within the rules .Yet still the powers that be continue with their agenda.

[Popsbengo]

1 hour ago, gazzarM1 said:

Could not agree more....we never made the rules and the likes of Bob and others have sought to bring us guns that work within the rules .Yet still the powers that be continue with their agenda.

 "the powers that be"  "their agenda"   I think I'll get my coat

[Triffid]

Pops,

If you can't see that 'the powers that be' have got their sights firmly set on taking your .338Lap away from you, then you do indeed need to 'get your coat'.  Please excuse all the cliches.

Triffid

[brown dog]

[Popsbengo]

10 minutes ago, Triffid said:

Pops,

If you can't see that 'the powers that be' have got their sights firmly set on taking your .338Lap away from you, then you do indeed need to 'get your coat'.  Please excuse all the cliches.

Triffid

It's not that "I can't see" as that implies a lack of understanding.  It's that I can see that there's an awful lot of worry and not enough positive action and I don't buy into this "agenda" concern - for sure there are individuals who would do away with shooting but they are not decision makers, just lobbyists like us.  Moaning and fretting isn't an answer, it's defeatist and weak.

[Triffid]

Forgive me if I've mis-understood some of your posts above, but my impression was that you are happy to go along with some of the proposals. And you have done so in some of your response to the consultation. 

Yes, on the face of it, the requirement to produce your FAC when buying bullets & brass doesn't seem that unreasonable or onerous to legitimate holders. But (and to use yet another cliche) this is death by a thousand cuts to our sport. Like I said in my first post, to me the wording could infer that your FAC ammunition allocation includes un-assembled components. Irrespective of the final wording we know from past for that there are some Police forces (the Powers that be) with an anti-gun agenda. And these forces choose to interpret the legislation following this agenda in the absence of statutory guidance from the Home Office.  

There are four facets to this consultation. In none of them is any actual evidence of a problem provided, just speculation. In each of the four facets there is existing law which provides control over the aspect, so additional controls just add un-necessary additional offences (Badgers "Speeding in a Red Car", "Speeding in a Blue car" etc). But at the same time they make life that bit harder for us legitimate shooters.

So what if you had to store your .338 at an RFD? So what if you could no longer buy bullets in excess of your ammunition holding?  So what if people can no longer run minature rifle ranges, So what if air air guns have to be locked up in a gun cabinet? You might accept these in the short term, but I'll tell you exactly what will happen in the future.

Shooting will be strangled.

Triffid

[gazzarM1]

49 minutes ago, Triffid said:

Forgive me if I've mis-understood some of your posts above, but my impression was that you are happy to go along with some of the proposals. And you have done so in some of your response to the consultation. 

Yes, on the face of it, the requirement to produce your FAC when buying bullets & brass doesn't seem that unreasonable or onerous to legitimate holders. But (and to use yet another cliche) this is death by a thousand cuts to our sport. Like I said in my first post, to me the wording could infer that your FAC ammunition allocation includes un-assembled components. Irrespective of the final wording we know from past for that there are some Police forces (the Powers that be) with an anti-gun agenda. And these forces choose to interpret the legislation following this agenda in the absence of statutory guidance from the Home Office.  

There are four facets to this consultation. In none of them is any actual evidence of a problem provided, just speculation. In each of the four facets there is existing law which provides control over the aspect, so additional controls just add un-necessary additional offences (Badgers "Speeding in a Red Car", "Speeding in a Blue car" etc). But at the same time they make life that bit harder for us legitimate shooters.

So what if you had to store your .338 at an RFD? So what if you could no longer buy bullets in excess of your ammunition holding?  So what if people can no longer run minature rifle ranges, So what if air air guns have to be locked up in a gun cabinet? You might accept these in the short term, but I'll tell you exactly what will happen in the future.

Shooting will be strangled.

Triffid

Nailed well and truly

[meles meles]

20 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

"I for one am very glad that it's not possible to go to the Post Office for a SGC and buy a gun from Mum's mail-order catalogue.  There's plenty of people in my acquaintance I would be horrified to think had access to firearms.

Pops, back in those days when it was possible to lay hands on firearms more easily, was there a huge problem with their use in crime? The statistics don't seem to show that. What crime there was using firearms still seemed to be limited, then as now, to a small section of the community that chose to disregard the laws and norms of civilised behaviour, and the occasional, for want of a better description, 'mad man'. We now have far tighter controls on the legitimate ownership of firearms and their impedimenta (even pea shooters !), but has the use of firearms in crime diminished? There seems no statistical evidence of that, perhaps the reverse. So, if restricting the tools hasn't worked, maybe we need to address the underlying causes? Societal attitudes and behaviour ? The proposed legislative changes currently being consulted upon won't do that. They are at best window dressing to allow politicians to appease the opinion formers in the media, at worst they are further step, intentional or otherwise, to restrict the abilities of the law abiding to go about their life and enjoyment thereof. 

If anyone wants enlightenment, pop down to the Public Records Office at Kew (or possibly access them online) and read the minutes of the meetings that led to the first serious firearms restriction in the UK . In the period immediately after WW1, with hundreds of thousands of troops returning home to an economically devastated society with little chance of employment and great political disillusion rife, our elders and betters looked across to the continent , saw revolution in Russia and Germany, similar turmoil in the collapsing Austo Hungarian Empire, strife in France and Benelux and asked themselves if it was really wise to have an armed population if the threat to the status quo was now internal rather than external. Move forward to WW2 and Churchill's post Dunkirk reluctance to open the arms stores and issue every man in the UK with a Lee Enfield from the ample stocks that existed. There was a definite feeling that Halifax and his camp might prevail and make peace with Hitler. It was deemed better to arm the man in the street and Home Guard with little more than a sharp stick until the returning army could be steadied and stiffened, able to address the perceived internal dissent as well as external threats. 

*Wraps tinfoil more tightly around head, scurries underground to avoid the incoming flak*

[Popsbengo]

I seem to have fallen down the rabbit hole and met Badger down there on his way up...   

I do not advocate for the proposed changes, I just suggested that moaning about 'the thin end of the wedgism" was a pointless exercise and lacked any purpose other than to moan together about the big bad "powers that be".  Comforting but lacking in agency.

There is a consultation, it's not going away so it's worth exercising one's opinion in the hope that the final drafting will reflect the wider knowledge of the shooting sports 'community'.  Should that not be sufficient then lobbying one's MP or relevant Minister should follow.

Much easier to moan to fellow travellers on a forum isn't it?

[meles meles]

If it's any consolation, we commented to the consultation first, whinged to our MP second then came here to start preaching to the choir last of all...

[1066]

Here's and interesting read with some of the history to our firearms legislation.

The British Constitution and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Defence | The Ludwig von Mises Centre (misesuk.org)

[Popsbengo]

4 minutes ago, meles meles said:

If it's any consolation, we commented to the consultation first, whinged to our MP second then came here to start preaching to the choir last of all...

I would expect nothing less!

[Viperteks]

On 11/26/2020 at 9:51 AM, 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

Exactly

Not a SINGLE extra law or control has had the SLIGHTEST impact on the ever increasing CRIMINAL use of Firearms....

YET, some people still accept every bit of tripe the Government think up...
Nearly every Scrote in Liverpool is now running about with Glock pistols, huge amount have been smuggled in, yet they were banned for us mere mortals in 1997, go figure.

I am totally against any further restrictions on Legitimate Shooters, we are NOT the problem.

Lancashire Constabulary have now took it upon themselves to threaten FAC/SGC holders with revocation of their Licences if they dare to post pictures of their activities on their personal Social Media, THAT is how bad it is getting...

Thin end of the wedge....that WEDGE is a MILE thick these days - Enough is ENOUGH!

 

[Popsbengo]

6 minutes ago, Viperteks said:

Exactly

Not a SINGLE extra law or control has had the SLIGHTEST impact on the ever increasing CRIMINAL use of Firearms....

YET, some people still accept every bit of tripe the Government think up...
Nearly every Scrote in Liverpool is now running about with Glock pistols, huge amount have been smuggled in, yet they were banned for us mere mortals in 1997, go figure.

I am totally against any further restrictions on Legitimate Shooters, we are NOT the problem.

Lancashire Constabulary have now took it upon themselves to threaten FAC/SGC holders with revocation of their Licences if they dare to post pictures of their activities on their personal Social Media, THAT is how bad it is getting...

Thin end of the wedge....that WEDGE is a MILE thick these days - Enough is ENOUGH!

 

so, what are you doing about it?