JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 The new form of the certificate has been published by the HO and has been effective since 1st December. Pages three and six of the certificate make it clear that ALL sales and acquisitions of ammunition are now subject to notification to the chief officer who issued the certificate. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2970/pdfs/uksi_20132970_en.pdf This is going to be a nightmare, quite frankly. RFD's and police licensing departments will be absolutely snowed under with this rubbish! Also, of course it is an offence not to notify. It should also be pointed out that, as far as I can tell, the Firearms (electronic communuications) order 2011 has still not been implimented as the Home Office has not yet conducted the consultation on accepted methods and has not made a direction as to what methods are allowed, so ALL notifications still need to be made by recorded delivery to comply with the law. Did BASC, et all not spot any of this as part of the consultation on changing the forms? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 I sincerely hope this is an oversight ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beretta28g Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Thats gonna be hell, to notify everytime you buy some bullets/expanding heads. How did BASC allow this. If you could email it through......... Well it would be easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 That's not funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 (edited) I sincerely hope this is an oversight ! If it was the other way round then I'd agree. This, however, is a specific addition to the wording of the previous form of certificate. It was included intentionally. The effect on RFD's will be bad enough but I suspect that if the police are going to collate this information into formal records then some of the less efficient departments will simply grint to a halt! The depressing thing is that it is a total waste of time because at no time do the police know how much of the ammunition has actually been shot rendering the whole system totally pointless. Doesn't apply to a SGC though - can't have the landed gentry inconvenienced too much now can we? J. Edited December 16, 2013 by JonathanL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsdad Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 What are they going to do next - serialise bullets and brass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Thats gonna be hell, to notify everytime you buy some bullets/expanding heads. How did BASC allow this. If you could email it through......... Well it would be easier. Although still a nightmare. Some RFD's will be contacting several forces. I suppose the easiest way to do it would be to have an email list containing the addresses of ALL the licensing departments so you just email all the information to all of them. At least that way you know it's gone to the right one somewhere along the line. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beretta28g Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 I wonder how Certificate holders will be notified of this new arrangements? And i also wonder if theres a special form to fill out to notify the police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 I've just spoken with Mike Eveleigh at BASC Firearms Department. He has advised that BASC are aware of this and other errors which have crept into the guidance notes produced by the Home Office. BASC are in discussion with the HO about the various errors. Its is important to remember that the law does NOT require the reporting of ammunition transfers; its the law that counts not the guidance notes etc. so everyone can breath a sigh of relief. I'm advised that matters will be corrected in due course. webber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 I wonder how Certificate holders will be notified of this new arrangements? And i also wonder if theres a special form to fill out to notify the police? The instruction are contained on the new FAC and te holder is expected to read his FAC. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 (edited) I've just spoken with Mike Eveleigh at BASC Firearms Department. He has advised that BASC are aware of this and other errors which have crept into the guidance notes produced by the Home Office. BASC are in discussion with the HO about the various errors. Its is important to remember that the law does NOT require the reporting of ammunition transfers; its the law that counts not the guidance notes etc. so everyone can breath a sigh of relief. I'm advised that matters will be corrected in due course. webber Yes, I think you're correct here. The notes on the new FAC refer to section 34 of the 1997 Amendment Act as the source of law for the requirement that the certificate holder notify transfers of ammo. However, this is not what section 34 deals with. That section deals with notifications of losses of guns and ammo and also deactivations of guns. Looking likely that the HO has screwed things up. J. Edited December 16, 2013 by JonathanL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 If it was the other way round then I'd agree. This, however, is a specific addition to the wording of the previous form of certificate. It was included intentionally. The effect on RFD's will be bad enough but I suspect that if the police are going to collate this information into formal records then some of the less efficient departments will simply grint to a halt! The depressing thing is that it is a total waste of time because at no time do the police know how much of the ammunition has actually been shot rendering the whole system totally pointless. Doesn't apply to a SGC though - can't have the landed gentry inconvenienced too much now can we? J. Very biased opinion there, I didn't realize it was only the landed gentry that owned shotguns? If you buy ammunition (bullets) then it gets entered on your certificate If you buy shotgun cartridges it doesn't, Is that to benefit the landed gentry also? Silly response in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shotgun sam Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Intresting times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 (edited) Very biased opinion there, I didn't realize it was only the landed gentry that owned shotguns? If you buy ammunition (bullets) then it gets entered on your certificate If you buy shotgun cartridges it doesn't, Is that to benefit the landed gentry also? Silly response in my opinion It's in part because lots of very wealthy and influential people own shotguns. Not all shotgun owners by any means but a large number are. It all goes back to the fact that we are always told that the only reason for control on firearms is public safety which we know isn't true. If there is a public safety issue in controling ammunition then why not shotgun ammunition? It is quite simply illogical that shotgun ammunition is excluded. Shotguns were the number one weapon of choice for violent criminals for absolutely decades yet they are the firearm subject to the lowest form of control if you exclude sub 12ft/lb airguns. The fact that shotgun ammo doesn't get entered on your SGC is beside the point because it doesn't mean that it can't be made a requirement to notify of the supply of it. Entering it on the FAC is pointless anyway if you are going to be made to notify it. It's pretty pointless in any event as an RFD keeps a record of the sale. However, the point is pretty moot now as it seems to be a misunderstanding of the law in the part of whomever drafted and signed off on the new form. J. Edited December 16, 2013 by JonathanL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Keep calm, we are on the case, the item referred to is simply a note (yes its an error too ) and not law David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 There is obviously more than a bit of ambiguity here, and any suggestion that all ammo sales have to be notified in 7 days are stupid, and unworkable from the Firearms depts. point of view. Just the same this situation needs clarification/amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 I would say a FAR FAR greater number of shotgun owners are not landed gentry You seem to justify your comments by saying its not down for shotgun ammunition to be entered because of the fear of upsetting the landed gentry. Of course none of them have FAC do they? It's bad enough the powers that be discriminate against shooters without the type of comment you made, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Keep calm, we are on the case, the item referred to is simply a note (yes its an error too ) and not law David To be fair, it's a note which claims to be a statement of law. One of the notes even cites a purported source of law for the requirement to notify. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Fair enough but a note is a note and not law, but its clear how confusing this can be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Fair enough but a note is a note and not law, but its clear how confusing this can be! It's rather worrying that this sort of stuff is coming up these days, is it not? This is an important offical document which carries the weight of law behind it. Mistakes on it, even in the notes are rather serious. A mistake, as this one, which purports to make a statement of law is unnaceptable. The Home Office were always very on-the-ball regarding firearms matters but they appear not to be at present as this is not the first thing they have messed up. Their current Guide on Firearms Licensing was updated on 1st December to account for the new application forms. Having had a quick scan of it there is an obvious mistake; they have left in the wording from the previous guidance relating to declaring convictions which says that only convictions acquired since the last renewal are required to be decalred. This is incorrect as the new forms make it quite clear that all convictions must be declared on all applications including renewals. This is an even more signifcant error than the incorrect wording on the certificate which is the subject of this thread. Not making a notification of an ammo sale will not get you prosecuted because there is no legal obligation to do so despite the wording on the FAC. Not decalring a conviction on renewal might well get you prosecuted! The fact that the HO guidance on the matter is incorrect is not a defence. There is another matter on which I think the HO are wrong on (to do with how potentially unsuitable club members should be notified to the club) which I have emailed them regarding but as yet have had no reply. Their guidance seems to be illogical. In brief they say that the police should notify the club if the appliant is unlikely to be granted an FAC. However the criteria for getting an FAC is not the same as it is for being a club member, it is more restrictive. It is even more illogical as the whole purpose of an approved club is that a member does not even need their own FAC! There was no reason to change the previous guidance which simply said that the club should be notified if an applicant was deemed to be unsuitable for club membership. The bottom line of all of this is that a club could not logically defend refusing an application on those grounds. The idea of having a constantly updated guide is a good one but only if they get the updates correct. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Yes I do take your point, as do the HO - corrections are on the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul2012 Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 The new form of the certificate has been published by the HO and has been effective since 1st December. Pages three and six of the certificate make it clear that ALL sales and acquisitions of ammunition are now subject to notification to the chief officer who issued the certificate. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2970/pdfs/uksi_20132970_en.pdf This is going to be a nightmare, quite frankly. RFD's and police licensing departments will be absolutely snowed under with this rubbish! Also, of course it is an offence not to notify. It should also be pointed out that, as far as I can tell, the Firearms (electronic communuications) order 2011 has still not been implimented as the Home Office has not yet conducted the consultation on accepted methods and has not made a direction as to what methods are allowed, so ALL notifications still need to be made by recorded delivery to comply with the law. Did BASC, et all not spot any of this as part of the consultation on changing the forms? J. Just so you know my new cert which came on saterday, had a covering letter explaining i could give any notifications either by email and included the email address as well as explaining i can still use the old method of recorded delivery etc. This is Devon and Cornwall by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 Just so you know my new cert which came on saterday, had a covering letter explaining i could give any notifications either by email and included the email address as well as explaining i can still use the old method of recorded delivery etc. This is Devon and Cornwall by the way. As far as I know all departments 'accept' notification by email. The thing which makes that legal is the Firearms (Electronic Communications) Order 2011. That piece of legislation states quite specifically that it is the secretary of state who makes a pronouncment as to what methods of notification are legal, over and above the exisiting one of recorded delivery. This proncouncment may only be made after the relevant consultation period has been undertaken. I am not aware of either of those conditions being fulfilled meaning that email notification is not yet actually legal. I may be wrong and may have missed those two issues but I don't think so. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul2012 Posted December 16, 2013 Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 well as far as I'm concerned if the firearms dept says I can, then I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2013 well as far as I'm concerned if the firearms dept says I can, then I can. What if they told you that you didn't need to bother sending in any notification at all? Or that you needn't bother with a renewal and just to let your tickets lapse? To take things to extremes, what about if they said you could sell your guns to someone without a ticket or that you could practice with them in the street outside your house? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts