Law Commission - Firearms legislation

[brett1985]

Oh yeah, while I'm at it, if .223 is fine for Roe in Scotland, why isn't it in England?

 

now THAT is a very good question....

 

well thought of fella.

[Savhmr]

 

now THAT is a very good question....

 

well thought of fella.

 

'Cause those Celtic Roe are well soft compared with the well 'ard English deer that need a bit more up 'em to drop 'em over

 

It does seem barmy that the kinetic energy considered sufficient for North of the border changes South of the border.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Savhmr

[CharlieT]

 

Oh yeah, while I'm at it, if .223 is fine for Roe in Scotland, why isn't it in England?

 

 

 

'Cause those Celtic Roe are well soft compared with the well 'ard English deer that need a bit more up 'em to drop 'em over

 

It does seem barmy that the kinetic energy considered sufficient for North of the border changes South of the border.

 

Because, amongst others, the BDS objected to it at the time of consultation prior to the RR (Deer) Order 2007 being introduced.

[neutron619]

Because, amongst others, the BDS objected to it at the time of consultation prior to the RR (Deer) Order 2007 being introduced.

 

I hadn't taken up stalking in 2007, so I'm curious - was the argument that if they allowed .223 for roe that the police would then have a field day giving out .223s instead of the already "small-ish" .243s for first deer rifles? I suspect there must have been something political about it?

[CharlieT]

 

I hadn't taken up stalking in 2007, so I'm curious - was the argument that if they allowed .223 for roe that the police would then have a field day giving out .223s instead of the already "small-ish" .243s for first deer rifles? I suspect there must have been something political about it?

As you know, the shooting of deer is governed by the Deer Act and prior to 2007 all deer had to be shot with a minimum caliber of .240. The Regulatory Reform (Deer) Order 2007 made certain ammendments to the Act, one of which was to ammend the minimum caliber for small deer (Muntjac & CWD).

At the time, the Secretary of State sought the view of stakeholders in the consultation process and the British Deer Society took the stance that .220 was not suitable for Roe Deer and lobbied against it's use. The Secretary of State was persuaded by their arguments and therefore the RRO, when it was finalised, reflected this.

It had nothing to do with imput from the police and was no way politically motivated. The BDS took the stance that it was not in the deer's welfare, which is what the deer act is all about and the SS found in their favour.

I should point out that many, many .220 caliber users successfully had their FAC conditions ammended to include these small deer.

 

This is the extract from the RRO, which can be found here.........http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2183/introduction/made

 

.“(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 4(2)(a) above if he uses for the purpose of taking or killing or injuring any Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis) or muntjac deer (Muntiacus reevesi)—

 

(a)a rifle having a calibre of not less than .220 inches and a muzzle energy of not less than 1,356 joules (1000 foot pounds), and

 

(b)a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet weighing not less than 3.24 grammes (50 grains).”.

[neutron619]

As you know, the shooting of deer is governed by the Deer Act and prior to 2007 all deer had to be shot with a minimum caliber of .240. The Regulatory Reform (Deer) Order 2007 made certain ammendments to the Act, one of which was to ammend the minimum caliber for small deer (Muntjac & CWD).

At the time, the Secretary of State sought the view of stakeholders in the consultation process and the British Deer Society took the stance that .220 was not suitable for Roe Deer and lobbied against it's use. The Secretary of State was persuaded by their arguments and therefore the RRO, when it was finalised, reflected this.

It had nothing to do with imput from the police and was no way politically motivated. The BDS took the stance that it was not in the deer's welfare, which is what the deer act is all about and the SS found in their favour.

I should point out that many, many .220 caliber users successfully had their FAC conditions ammended to include these small deer.

 

This is the extract from the RRO, which can be found here.........http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2183/introduction/made

 

.“(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 4(2)(a) above if he uses for the purpose of taking or killing or injuring any Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis) or muntjac deer (Muntiacus reevesi)—

 

(a)a rifle having a calibre of not less than .220 inches and a muzzle energy of not less than 1,356 joules (1000 foot pounds), and

 

(b)a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet weighing not less than 3.24 grammes (50 grains).”.

 

And once again we've "missed"!

 

Firstly, thank you for the information - much appreciated. I don't disagree with the BDS position particularly - in my book, the heavier the bullet, the better, though that's obviously a personal choice.

 

The question I was asking however, was more one of "did the BDS realise that it might make life much harder for stalkers if they had come down on the side of favouring .22 CF's for Roe and did this inform their decision?" Or, was it purely as you described above - welfare considerations only?

 

Anyway - no need to reply if you can't be bothered - I've got enough from you to go off and do my own research, so thanks for that.

[fruitloop]

 

Seems to me that there's little agreement from the few replies about what should or shouldn't be done, but it seems dafet to add to admin burden. Surely the opportunity is to i) leave well alone on the principle if it isn't broken, don't attempt to fix it, but with a few sensible suggestions for simplification where such simplifications place less restriction on applicants and Police without in any way lessening the burden of responsibility on either party, namely;

 

1) end "closed" tickets which are an out-dated idea. If the FEOs were tasked with ascertaining suitability to possess and good reason for use checks, then part of those checks can simply include suitable questioning about the land intended for use and the suitability of the calibre/backstops. They will still have to record or have details of land to which the application relates as due diligence and no getting away from that, and quite rightly so imho. Providing applicants can offer primary land pertaining to an application and use, then it can be left up to the individual about where else said calibres can be used, as with the present open ticket system.

 

This isn't even mentioned or covered in the Firearms Act and is something that the Police (ACPO) themselves have dreamed up.

 

2) Have a more consistent approach country-wide in place of the postcode lottery on how the police interpret guidelines, and better training for FEOs regarding various calibres so the nonsense spouted in certian quarters can be nipped in the bud.

 

Again, not someting covered by the Firearms Act but all to do with the individual Police CC.

 

3) leave bleeding shotguns and cartridge ownership/buying alone. It doesn't need fiddling with!

 

Agreed.

 

4) allow a like for like trade in place of the need for variations

 

The ACPO have been discussing this and seem warm to the idea, looks like it may happen. Again, it is not something specific to the FA.

 

5) End the practice of FEOs stating what ammo you can buy and use. It should be up to me whether I choose to shoot hollow point subs or standard high velocity non expanding, depending on use.

 

This is how it used to be until a few years ago, regrettably I can't see it coming back as the HO would view it as a relaxing of current law.

 

6) remove the weird restrictions on zeroing. I remember my FEO specifically stating that I could have my calibres for vermin control as reasonable need had been established but that the ticket didn't include for "zeroing practice". I politely asked how the hell I then get any rifle hitting point of aim if I couldn't zero the bloody things! Stupid nonsense.

 

He's talking rubbish, see the guidelines. Zeroing does and always has covered reasonable practice.

 

7) Take mods off the FAC. I can't see the point of having to list or apply for a variation when my mod's shot out and needs replacing. It's a consumable item and not dangerous in its own right so I can't see any need for having the additional burden of the admin concerned. I dont need a ticket to buy extra mags for my rifles and they're part of the rifle, so why should I need one for a mod?

 

Agreed, thats something that they could do.

 

8) leave air rifles be. lets have some freedoms remaining. All this "if you haven't anything to fear" **** is just a thin end of a control wedge which is unnecessary and unwanted. Ownership of an air rifle remains a right, not a restricted right. Leave it that way. The current 12ft-lbs is both sensible and adequate. Leave well alone.

 

Agreed

 

9) Agree with Kinetic energy comment re a replacement for "Lethal"

 

Best way forward, and simple.

 

1 I agree that this total tosh needs nipping in the butt .as all land has safe and unsafe areas so how the hell can a fao say otherwise .

 

2 agree

 

3 agree

 

4 why cant rifles be on a similar system to shotguns ?

 

5 agree

 

6 agree

 

7 agree

 

8 agree

 

9 agree

[RossEM]

I'd like to see responsibility for licensing removed fom the respective police forces and granted to a single national firearm licensing authority, staffed by qualified, knowledgeable representatives who apply the legislation in a consistent, logical way. Think of it like the DVLA for firearms. The police don't award driving licenses, so why firearms licenses...?

 

Centralising the responsibility for licensing would also be more cost effective as well as more efficient and consistent.

Definitely, and long overdue.

[fruitloop]

because you not get a dvla type department .what you will get is a profit driven privet contractor who will hike the price up at a wim

[deadeye18]

because you not get a dvla type department .what you will get is a profit driven privet contractor who will hike the price up at a wim

 

true.they would probably make just as many mistakes as the cops do now aswell.

[fruitloop]

We all know who'd get the job if it did go to tender!!!! The wonderful group who gave us the hassle free security services at the games.

Edited July 27, 2015 by fruitloop

[Paul sullivan]

We all know who'd get the job if it did go to tender!!!! The wonderful group who gave us the hassle free security services at the games.

NOOO

[lambhat]

The kinetic energy based definition of "lethal" sounds reasonable, but defining the legal test is not straightforward..

 

First, the proposals in the Paper suggest 2.5J or 1.0J as the limit, which is 1.8 ft/lb and ludicrously low. That starting assumption would need to be reversed in order for the law to be sensible.

 

Second, the real energy level of the firearm is dependent on the ammunition. Suppose someone is caught with a 9mm pistol and some home-loaded ammunition that has so little powder it can only generate 0.9J. That person should be convicted. So the energy level needs to be dependent on what the firearm is capable of, independently of the ammunition it's seized with. That raises other problems. One is that if the energy limit is too low there will be toys that are intended to propel things below the legal energy limit but that are built robustly enough to be capable of operating above the limit. Another is that the main reason for defining the limit by energy is that it is meant to make the process of proving that something is a firearm easier; but if the test is dependent on the theoretical capability of the firearm then an expert would need to give an opinion on whether a firearm is robust enough to operate above the limit, and again there will be borderline cases.

 

A partial solution would be to have a list of calibres that are automatically deemed to be firearms.

Edited July 28, 2015 by lambhat