Illegal or Legal?

[r1steele]

Surely it's easier to just ring your bloody FEO or firearms office to settle the debate rather than everyone going off hearsay and wives tales or selective reading or misreading of legislation to suit their argument.

 

I'd certainly not be bragging about what you do or don't do without knowing the facts. I know that all my FEO's past and present look on forums. I also know of one guy getting his licence revoked for breaking the conditions of his licence and only got caught as his FEO read what he written and recognised him from his profile picture. Surely it's less hassle to ring up on Tuesday and get it from the horses mouth then we know for definite.

Fair comment but how many FEO's or firearms department actually know enough about firearms legislation? Not enough of them would be my guess.

[bicykillgaz]

Fair comment but how many FEO's or firearms department actually know enough about firearms legislation? Not enough of them would be my guess.

No but you can ask them to make some sort of note about the call on there system and get their name to cover your behind incase anything ever comes of it.

 

It just gets me what people will admit to on an open forum without actually knowing its legal or not. People do get caught out and I'm sure it's not just Lincolnshire's FEO's that know how to use the internet.

 

Plus the two completely contradicting arguments to most these type of legal debates are here for any anti to look at, it doesn't exactly paint us shooters in a good light when some admit to possibly breaking the law.

 

It's just my opinion but if it's a legal question which is a grey area rather than a definite yes or no we're better off ringing BASC or our local office rather than going on speculation, it only cost a phone call and few minutes of time.

[r1steele]

No but you can ask them to make some sort of note about the call on there system and get their name to cover your behind incase anything ever comes of it.

 

It just gets me what people will admit to on an open forum without actually knowing its legal or not. People do get caught out and I'm sure it's not just Lincolnshire's FEO's that know how to use the internet.

 

Plus the two completely contradicting arguments to most these type of legal debates are here for any anti to look at, it doesn't exactly paint us shooters in a good light when some admit to possibly breaking the law.

 

It's just my opinion but if it's a legal question which is a grey area rather than a definite yes or no we're better off ringing BASC or our local office rather than going on speculation, it only cost a phone call and few minutes of time.

The op was talking about an article written in Sporting Gun. The article was written by David Frost from BASC and he stated that it was not illegal to carry a loaded magazine so there is your answer. People continue to argue even when a BASC legal adviser has already given an answer. It is not illegal to carry a loaded magazine.

[station]

David Frost works for BASC - wow.

[r1steele]

David Frost works for BASC - wow.

Sorry, my mistake. He has (as far as I can recall) helped BASC in the past but he is very clued up on firearms law and he wouldn't have written his statements without knowing the facts as opposed to quite a lot of forum members and I for one would take his views against most FEO's/licensing departments as in general they can't seem to agree with guidelines they are given never mind the detailed parts of the firearms act. To be fair you can't expect them to know every detail but some haven't got a clue.

[Steppenwolf]

To be fair you can't expect them to know every detail but some haven't got a clue.

Yes FEO's knowledge can be quite bad of firearms law. I would take the given word of BASC or some other shooting organization's word over any FEO's any given day. This is why this issue is not so black and white especially when we know that some licensing departments are trying to make up law as they go along. If you ring them up asking them on a particular issue they would be like: "but of course it's law!" Not much help.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Steppenwolf

[cleaner4hire]

I have found this a very useful thread. Its always nice when somebody can give a factually based answer to a question.

 

Thanks to all involved

[Pheasant Plucker]

 

Being a member of SACS I'm keen to see their reply, please post up what you can when you receive a reply.

 

Cheers.

I received a reply from SACS which has a rider that its contents cannot be copied or divulged verbatim.

 

However here goes with my take on the problem of what constitutes a "firearm".

 

There is the law, and there is the Home Office Guidance to police, which does not have the force of law. The Guidance always stated clearly in the preamble that it is produced in an effort to assist in the consistent application of the law across the country.

Guidance for the Police is NOT the Law. Suspect it may be but the law in this case is very specific and clear:

 

57 Interpretation - England, Wales and Scotland

E+W+S

(1) In this Act, the expression “firearm” means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged and includes —

(a) any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a lethal weapon as aforesaid or not; and

( B) any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon; and

© any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon;

and so much of section 1 of this Act as excludes any description of firearm from the category of firearms to which that section applies shall be construed as also excluding component parts of, and accessories to, firearms of that description.

 

So under section 57 (1)( B) any component part is deemed a firearm!

 

Also, it has been laboured that if it can be sent by Royal Mail and not via a RFD to RFD transaction then how can it be illegal.

 

Remember, according to the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act, Sections 32 and 33, all transfers of firearms must be face to face unless done by registered RFDs.

So, if you buy a ‘bit’ online or by post, you are breaking the 1997 Act AND THE LAW – but everyone does it and no one has pointed this out to the Home office or ACPO. Remember Internet forums are monitored by the Police - so don't mention it here!

 

Edited April 22, 2014 by Pheasant Plucker

[welsh1]

I received a reply from SACS which has a rider that its contents cannot be copied or divulged verbatim.

 

However here goes with my take on the problem of what constitutes a "firearm".

 

There is the law, and there is the Home Office Guidance to police, which does not have the force of law. The Guidance always stated clearly in the preamble that it is produced in an effort to assist in the consistent application of the law across the country.

Guidance for the Police is NOT the Law. Suspect it may be but the law in this case is very specific and clear:

 

57 Interpretation - England, Wales and Scotland

E+W+S

(1) In this Act, the expression “firearm” means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged and includes —

(a) any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a lethal weapon as aforesaid or not; and

( B) any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon; and

© any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon;

and so much of section 1 of this Act as excludes any description of firearm from the category of firearms to which that section applies shall be construed as also excluding component parts of, and accessories to, firearms of that description.

 

So under section 57 (1)( B) any component part is deemed a firearm!

 

Also, it has been laboured that if it can be sent by Royal Mail and not via a RFD to RFD transaction then how can it be illegal.

 

Remember, according to the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act, Sections 32 and 33, all transfers of firearms must be face to face unless done by registered RFDs.

So, if you buy a ‘bit’ online or by post, you are breaking the 1997 Act AND THE LAW – but everyone does it and no one has pointed this out to the Home office or ACPO. Remember Internet forums are monitored by the Police - so don't mention it here!

 

And around we go again,see my post#53 as to what is considered a component part,and also what is not.A magazine is not considered a component part.

[Breastman]

And around we go again,see my post#53 as to what is considered a component part,and also what is not.A magazine is not considered a component part.

:thumbs:

 

Honest to god i think i've lost IQ points by being part of this thread, and this isn't even a complicated part of the legislation Thank god FAC shotguns and LBF's don't get discussed often here

[Therealchucknorris]

I received a reply from SACS which has a rider that its contents cannot be copied or divulged verbatim.

 

Cheers for interpreting and posting it up, I appreciate you taking the time to do that

[Scully]

I can't believe this thread has made 5 pages! As far as component parts of firearms are concerned then look at it like this; if a magazine was a component part of a firearm then surely you would need authority to possess and variations to buy extra magazines. You don't need either for a magazine.

[CharlieT]

Magazines are NOT component parts.............end of. Everyone from the Home Office, many members of Pigeon Watch to the CPS have deemed this correct.

 

It beggars belief that people who own, use or advise those who do cannot understand the simple words written in the firearms act.

[welsh1]

Magazines are NOT component parts.............end of. Everyone from the Home Office, many members of Pigeon Watch to the CPS have deemed this correct.

 

It beggars belief that people who own, use or advise those who do cannot understand the simple words written in the firearms act.

Sorry i don't quite get what you are trying to say

[ChrisAsh]

Think about this scenario

 

Two guys mucking around on a estate with a air gun

 

They notice a police car at a distance comming with 2s and blues

 

They whip out the mag and give it to guy not holdings the gun

 

The Police arrive and both plead not guilty to having a loaded gun

 

Maybe the law relates to some sort of incident like this

[Pheasant Plucker]

Magazines are NOT component parts.............end of. Everyone from the Home Office, many members of Pigeon Watch to the CPS have deemed this correct.

 

It beggars belief that people who own, use or advise those who do cannot understand the simple words written in the firearms act.

 

Charlie T - You have completely missed the point here!

 

The CPS are NOT "the Law"

 

Police Guidelines is not "Law"

 

The Procurators Fiscal (Scotland) are not "the Law"

 

The current enactment of the Firearms Act IS LAW and under section 57 it DOES NOT EXCLUDE COMPONENTS SUCH AS MAGAZINES - however rediculous it may seem! Yes it needs to be reviewed and SACS have erred on the cautious side by saying to their members to adhere to the wording of the Act - not guidelines, discussion papers, or the CPS's dreams. At the end of the day it will be the Judge who will interpret the Act - no one else.

[Piebob]

Charlie T - You have completely missed the point here!

 

The CPS are NOT "the Law"

 

Police Guidelines is not "Law"

 

The Procurators Fiscal (Scotland) are not "the Law"

 

The current enactment of the Firearms Act IS LAW and under section 57 it DOES NOT EXCLUDE COMPONENTS SUCH AS MAGAZINES - however rediculous it may seem! Yes it needs to be reviewed and SACS have erred on the cautious side by saying to their members to adhere to the wording of the Act - not guidelines, discussion papers, or the CPS's dreams. At the end of the day it will be the Judge who will interpret the Act - no one else.

But it won't get to the judge as the CPS / fiscal won't take it to court, as they don't class detachable magazines as component parts.

[CharlieT]

 

Charlie T - You have completely missed the point here!

 

The CPS are NOT "the Law"

 

Police Guidelines is not "Law"

 

The Procurators Fiscal (Scotland) are not "the Law"

 

The current enactment of the Firearms Act IS LAW and under section 57 it DOES NOT EXCLUDE COMPONENTS SUCH AS MAGAZINES - however rediculous it may seem! Yes it needs to be reviewed and SACS have erred on the cautious side by saying to their members to adhere to the wording of the Act - not guidelines, discussion papers, or the CPS's dreams. At the end of the day it will be the Judge who will interpret the Act - no one else.

I have missed nothing whatsoever.

 

Despite all your protestations nowhere in the Firearms Act does it state that magazines are either a component part or a firearm in their own right. I'm sorry, but if you can't grasp that magazines are a component part then so be it.

 

Firearms law is drafted by the Home Office and it is the Home Secretaries responsibility to oversee its implementation. The Home Secretary instructed the FCC to review component parts and their report was duly presented and commanded by parliament to be printed.

 

Whilst we all agree this report is not an act of Parliament, it is, by its very nature and standing, governments ruling on how magazines should be treated when interpreting the Firearms Act. Magazines are NOT a component part.

 

It is for this reason that a FAC authority/variation is not required to purchase a magazine.

 

Quite why you feel the need to defend SACS incorrect advice, is beyond me. The definition has been published by Parliament. I would suggest you refer SACS to this particular government order.

[Andy H]

As per post 51,

 

The term “component part” may be held (according to case law) as including (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

[GingerCat]

Loaded mags are not loaded firearms, we don t need more posts on this, if they were firearms we couldn't buy them off ticket.

The firearms act is quite clear, who cares what your mates brothers uncle s next door neighbours have to say on it.

Loaded mags are not loaded firearms, we don t need more posts on this, if they were firearms we couldn't buy them off ticket.

The firearms act is quite clear, who cares what your mates brothers uncle s next door neighbours have to say on it.

Law is law and mags are not mentioned so not included.

[r1steele]

 

Charlie T - You have completely missed the point here!

 

The CPS are NOT "the Law"

 

Police Guidelines is not "Law"

 

The Procurators Fiscal (Scotland) are not "the Law"

 

The current enactment of the Firearms Act IS LAW and under section 57 it DOES NOT EXCLUDE COMPONENTS SUCH AS MAGAZINES - however rediculous it may seem! Yes it needs to be reviewed and SACS have erred on the cautious side by saying to their members to adhere to the wording of the Act - not guidelines, discussion papers, or the CPS's dreams. At the end of the day it will be the Judge who will interpret the Act - no one else.

As I and many others have already said, you do no need to have a FAC to buy a magazine therefor it is not classed as a firearm. Anyone can buy or hold one. SACA have got this one wrong.

[keg]

Not sure if it was connected to anyone on here but the question was asked in this week's Shooting Times and the answer was a definitive, in writing, no as in no, it was not illegal.

Edited April 27, 2014 by keg

[LeadWasp]

Just to support the 'magazines are not a component part' argument..............

 

If a component part is one without which the firearm cannot function then, as a gun can function without it's magazine, a magazine cannot therefore be a component part.

 

Though in a plea for patience the whole point of this thread was well meaning, designed to help us keep within the law and avoid a stretch. So thank you to whoever asked the question.

We are largely isolated individuals as a sporting community and without direct, absolute advice places like this forum are one of the few places where someone can ask about a topic that worries them.

Edited April 28, 2014 by LeadWasp

[Alycidon]

Can't think of any reason why I would need to carry a loaded mag in my car - it can't be any longer than 30 seconds to load one up when I arrive at my permissions if the situation demanded it.

 

I'd struggle to give a decent justification if stopped with a loaded mag when on the way somewhere.

 

I recall reading that air rifle and shotgun mags were strangely subject to more stringent controls than a firearm though.

 

 

Moving up a road a short distance from one field to another. I got stopped one night in that situation outside my farm drive, had loaded mag but nothing in rifles chambers. All was well, rifles not even looked at.

 

A

[Countrysports]

Just to clarify a point reference this Magazine Debate.

 

In Northern Ireland a magazine IS definately classified a component part of a firearm as per firearms act 2004(ammended) and is mentioned on the FAC and is a restricted item putting the onus on the FAC holder to ensure that they are in posession of magazines only for firearms that they posess.

 

On the Mainland it IS NOT a component part.

 

In N.I. expanding ammunition is not considered a firearm whereas mainland it is required permission on fac to possess. (again differing legislation. )

 

I think people are getting advice mixed up in relation to where they are located.

 

To r1steele - The SACS advice posted earlier is correct in relation to NI firearms Legislation (see above point ref NI) but may not apply to England as you have pointed out (see above point ref mainland).

 

This should clear up some of the confusion ref magazines depending on where you are located.