Smokeless Powder Storage

[fortune]

It seems as if there is a new rule that some rfds and suppliers are using. That you have to show your certificates on purchase of powder. why is FES putting that on their site when it isn't right. Or is it? (Is there a ruling in this law that certificates have to Be shown on purchase? Or is it misinterpretation?

[saddler]

LOTS of misinterpretation around. ...some very deliberate on the part of FEOs.

I had one FEO inform me that BASC had been consulted about, and had fully agreed with, a new change to the law...and that it was now a legal requirement to show sn FAC when buying non-section 5 bullets, i.e. FMJ & OTM/HPM.

No such change HAD taken place....just an underhand FEO stirring the pot.

The same FEO has a long history of similar malicious behavior.

[Underdog]

LOTS of misinterpretation around. ...some very deliberate on the part of FEOs.

I had one FEO inform me that BASC had been consulted about, and had fully agreed with, a new change to the law...and that it was now a legal requirement to show sn FAC when buying non-section 5 bullets, i.e. FMJ & OTM/HPM.

No such change HAD taken place....just an underhand FEO stirring the pot.

The same FEO has a long history of similar malicious behavior.

Had similar, I ask them to show me the statute!

[fortune]

It seems as if there is a new rule that some rfds and suppliers are using. That you have to show your certificates on purchase of powder. why is FES putting that on their site when it isn't right. Or is it? (Is there a ruling in this law that certificates have to Be shown on purchase? Or is it misinterpretation?

I think it would be helpful if an org that should know what the score is should get all of these regs onto a document that could be downloaded and used to combat this nonsense on the spot when the feos come out with this sort of off the cuff remarks. and make it up as you go along stuff that you dont know if it is valid and true or not. Also When this nonsense is trotted out there should be an instant response to the said department asking why this is and what is the justification for it. I think that there was something similar that guns review did some years ago when they were still in operation.

Edited February 7, 2016 by fortune

[Vince Green]

I think it would be helpful if an org that should know what the score is should get all of these regs onto a document that could be downloaded and used to combat this nonsense on the spot when the feos come out with this sort of off the cuff remarks. and make it up as you go along stuff that you dont know if it is valid and true or not. Also When this nonsense is trotted out there should be an instant response to the said department asking why this is and what is the justification for it. I think that there was something similar that guns review did some years ago when they were still in operation.

The editor of Guns Review was a vociferous campaigner against creeping legislation by stealth. Colin Greenwood was his name and he would take them on every time.

 

I can remember many instances of FEOs overstepping their authority in the past but gradually many of the things that started as "interpretations" have become written in stone as time passed. Mentoring is a good example, having arbitary limits on the number of guns you could have is another, they have tried to say you can't have two of the same calibre etc.

 

We do need to stand up to this stuff

[bluesj]

I think its fair to say it would be a good thing if someone with a bit of common looked at the laws relating to firearm owner ship and use and came up with a system that worked and could be understood but that wont ever happen.

[saddler]

I think its fair to say it would be a good thing if someone with a bit of common looked at the laws relating to firearm owner ship and use and came up with a system that worked and could be understood but that wont ever happen.

May already be happening, as there is a review under way in the UK of firearms legislation.

[bluesj]

May already be happening, as there is a review under way in the UK of firearms legislation.

It may but I'm not holding my breath!

It would be nice to think they could do away with some of the rules that don't help law abiding shooters or police and do nothing for public safety and maybe tighten up some of the gaps in the law that could have a public safety issues

[Vince Green]

May already be happening, as there is a review under way in the UK of firearms legislation.

When these reviews have taken place in the past it has resulted in some rather blatent goalpost moving. The guidelines get re-wriiten and things have appeared in them completely undiscussed, things that weren't there before

[rbrowning2]

Vince,

 

being a sad old tog (RIP Terry) with time on my hands I have spent time reading ER2014 and I think FES is correct.

 

Within ER2014 is a list of explosive not requiring a certificate however its states within that list various conditions and condition 15. shown below

applies to smokeless powder, hence why suppliers should ask to see you FAC or SCG.

EXPLOSIVES NOT REQUIRING AN EXPLOSIVES CERTIFICATE

15. The explosive substance smokeless powder which is

 

(a) assigned in accordance with the United Nations Recommendations the U.N. no 0161 or 0509 or which has been recovered from ammunition

or blank ammunition intended for use in firearms;

 

and

 

(b) acquired by a person who either is registered as a firearms dealer under section 33 of the Firearms Act 1968(6)

 

or holds

 

(i) a permit granted under section 7 of that Act(7);

 

(ii) a firearms certificate granted under section 27 of that Act(8);

 

(iii) a shotgun certificate granted under section 28 of that Act(9); or

 

(iv) a permit granted under section 17 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988(10).

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by rbrowning2

[fortune]

This is where the goalposts get moved. There may be a review but who is doing the reviewing and how does this help when a random committee start to modify things as takes their fancy. The lead ammunition group springs to mind. Any sort of foot dragging and retreat isn't acceptable. The people that are making the thousand cuts are not elected and are all on the other side of the discussion as far as I am concerned. I know that David from basc promotes the basc org as a leader of shooters rights but until I see basc actively ripping the backside out of firearms departments and chief constables and reporting what they have done in individual cases and in general terms to the shooting fraternity then what they say is all smoke and mirrors. still if you want overpriced insurance and four mags a year for your £70 then carry on.

 

May already be happening, as there is a review under way in the UK of firearms legislation.

 

 

When these reviews have taken place in the past it has resulted in some rather blatent goalpost moving. The guidelines get re-wriiten and things have appeared in them completely undiscussed, things that weren't there before

 

 

Vince,

being a sad old tog (RIP Terry) with time on my hands I have spent time reading ER2014 and I think FES is correct.

Within ER2014 is a list of explosive not requiring a certificate however its states within that list various conditions and condition 15. shown below
applies to smokeless powder, hence why suppliers should ask to see you FAC or SCG.
EXPLOSIVES NOT REQUIRING AN EXPLOSIVES CERTIFICATE
15. The explosive substance smokeless powder which is

(a) assigned in accordance with the United Nations Recommendations the U.N. no 0161 or 0509 or which has been recovered from ammunition
or blank ammunition intended for use in firearms;

and

(b) acquired by a person who either is registered as a firearms dealer under section 33 of the Firearms Act 1968(6)

or holds

(i) a permit granted under section 7 of that Act(7);

(ii) a firearms certificate granted under section 27 of that Act(8);

(iii) a shotgun certificate granted under section 28 of that Act(9); or

(iv) a permit granted under section 17 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988(10).

So where in that lot does it say that dealers have to request to see a cert. Surely it states the opposite to that interpretation ?
EXPLOSIVES NOT REQUIRING AN EXPLOSIVES CERTIFICATE

[bluesj]

Vince,

being a sad old tog (RIP Terry) with time on my hands I have spent time reading ER2014 and I think FES is correct.

Within ER2014 is a list of explosive not requiring a certificate however its states within that list various conditions and condition 15. shown below
applies to smokeless powder, hence why suppliers should ask to see you FAC or SCG.
EXPLOSIVES NOT REQUIRING AN EXPLOSIVES CERTIFICATE
15. The explosive substance smokeless powder which is

(a) assigned in accordance with the United Nations Recommendations the U.N. no 0161 or 0509 or which has been recovered from ammunition
or blank ammunition intended for use in firearms;

and

(b) acquired by a person who either is registered as a firearms dealer under section 33 of the Firearms Act 1968(6)

or holds

(i) a permit granted under section 7 of that Act(7);

(ii) a firearms certificate granted under section 27 of that Act(8);

(iii) a shotgun certificate granted under section 28 of that Act(9); or

(iv) a permit granted under section 17 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988(10).

So where in that lot does it say that dealers have to request to see a cert. Surely it states the opposite to that interpretation ?
EXPLOSIVES NOT REQUIRING AN EXPLOSIVES CERTIFICATE

 

 

It doesn't as such, it say you don't need an explosives certificate if you have a firearms or shotgun certificate. but how is the person supplying smokeless powder needs to know that you have an explosives certificate or are exempt from needing one because you have a shotgun or firearms certificate

[fortune]

 

So where in that lot does it say that dealers have to request to see a cert. Surely it states the opposite to that interpretation ?

EXPLOSIVES NOT REQUIRING AN EXPLOSIVES CERTIFICATE

 

 

It doesn't as such, it say you don't need an explosives certificate if you have a firearms or shotgun certificate. but how is the person supplying smokeless powder needs to know that you have an explosives certificate or are exempt from needing one because you have a shotgun or firearms certificate

This is where this all goes wrong very easily. Why make another hoop to jump through where it isn't required. The dealer isn't required to ascertain these details.

Edited February 7, 2016 by fortune

[welshwarrior]

My tame FEO said it only applies to amounts over 15kg and thats no different to how it was before. Below 15 kg there is an exemption for shooters provided it is for private use. It is a fire issue only and nothing to do with security. Its an HSE regulation and not a firearms licencing matter. He also said all powder should come with a hazchem sticker on it and a lot doesn't, but as long as its catagory (whatever he said) its OK

 

He also said in his opinion it should be lower, anyone who keeps 15kg of powder in their house mad. He was aware that some authorities are saying these things. .

 

 

this is also incorrect

 

http://www.####.co.uk/page1.pdf

Looking at the items sold the piece of "official" paperwork sent to me came from the same people as they received it from.

[rbrowning2]

If the person accuiring smokeless powder does not fulfil condition 15. Ie they are an rfd have a fac or sgc then they would need to apply for a certificate to acquire so the gun shop by asking to see an fac or sgc is only complying with the er2014 regulations and could refuse to sell it to you.

 

I fail to see how it is a big problem and is no different to buying rifle primers.

 

Yes er2014 is hse regulations but as a gun owner it is the FEO who enforces/polices the regulation on us.

 

If you wasn't real pain look at the track and trace side of the regulation.

 

Rb

Edited February 7, 2016 by rbrowning2