Re: Home Office Firearms Consultation
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:20 pm
There is an interesting thread over on UKV at the mo re pre-prepd brass.
A number of comments point towards at least one force that regards pre-primed brass as within the max authorised limit for ammunition. To them, it is intent to manufacture.
This shows the danger of local policy. If you look at LR, this all stemmed from a couple of FLM's taking a personal humbage at technical innovation. Some FLDs are all in favor of shooting. Others appear to sit in the opposite camp.
Back to pre-primed cases, it is a long standing legal position that all four elements have to be assembled together to make a round of ammunition. It does however provide a background re intent to manufacture and why it is important for organizations to stamp out such local policies that have no grounding in law.
Only a few days ago, I read some NPCC guidance on what was local travel re CoVid. Local however is not defined... and the suggestion was that regard should be had to the circumstances. This is clearly always going to fail on enforcement... if local is not defined then travel to exercise is fully legal - it may not be within the spirit, but it is not illegal.
I have heard on several occasions "may be this needs a test case". However, forces are only too aware that this would cost an individual a lot of money (which is not a problem for those funded from tax payers). Also, if you lose then you then have a problem other than just a financial one!!!
A number of comments point towards at least one force that regards pre-primed brass as within the max authorised limit for ammunition. To them, it is intent to manufacture.
This shows the danger of local policy. If you look at LR, this all stemmed from a couple of FLM's taking a personal humbage at technical innovation. Some FLDs are all in favor of shooting. Others appear to sit in the opposite camp.
Back to pre-primed cases, it is a long standing legal position that all four elements have to be assembled together to make a round of ammunition. It does however provide a background re intent to manufacture and why it is important for organizations to stamp out such local policies that have no grounding in law.
Only a few days ago, I read some NPCC guidance on what was local travel re CoVid. Local however is not defined... and the suggestion was that regard should be had to the circumstances. This is clearly always going to fail on enforcement... if local is not defined then travel to exercise is fully legal - it may not be within the spirit, but it is not illegal.
I have heard on several occasions "may be this needs a test case". However, forces are only too aware that this would cost an individual a lot of money (which is not a problem for those funded from tax payers). Also, if you lose then you then have a problem other than just a financial one!!!