From: James McNair, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>It is also my impression that only some Metropolitan Section 7(3)
>holders had been allowed to load and store ammunition at home and if
>that "privilege" is being withdrawn then soon no one will enjoy it.
Very few people enjoy it , and none , as far as I know are from Met area 5 .
>
>In my opinion, the Home Office and the Police are deliberately twisting
>the Law by acting on the assumption that "not readily available" meant
>not available to the owner outside designated secure centres, when it is
>clear that the 1997 Act intended that to mean not readily available on
>the open market!
>
We have to be careful because if it becomes obvious that , say .455 is
easy to make and so is 'readily available' then any firearm in .455 cal will
be deemed unfit for 7.3 status.
>In your case Steve you are allowed to store and reload 9mm ammunition at
>home for your 9mm rifle and, if the above assumption is correct, then
>you would be breaking the Law if you loaded or bought 9mm ammunition
>INTENDING TO USE IT IN YOUR SECTION 7(3) PISTOL!!!!!
>
>I know that this is not only unenforceable but incredibly stupid,
>because, as you rightly pointed out, having pistols stored in one place
>and ammunition in another is much safer from the public safety point of
>view as the break in into the designated centre will yield no
>ammunition.
But , by making that statement your are making the classic mistake of
ascribing some level of intelligence and rationality and logic to legislation
drawn up by the HO. Past firearm legislation has shown that government
is incapable of acting logically where firearms are involved.
>
>But you are assuming that the Home Office and the Police want to keep
>guns and ammunition safe from criminals and that is where you might be
>wrong, because in their eyes the 1997 Act declared us the untrustworthy
>ones and the only place where we can be trusted to have both pistols and
>ammunition is behind the barbed wire and brick walls of the designated
>centres where we can only shoot each other - and they wish we would!
>
>However, the deliberate misinterpretation of the Law in this instance is
>so obviously wrong that it must be challenged in the courts and
>overturned. The fact that the Met. has fallen in line with the others
>only means that they are all wrong!
Most of firearm law has been applied incorrectly , sometimes with fatal
consequences , as in Dunblane , the snag is to get them to admit it .
>
>Any ideas from our legal eagles as to how we demolish this latest
>injustice and teach them a lesson?
>
>Alex.
>--
>There appears to be a lot of confusion about the differences between
>Section 7(1) and Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act. There is precisely
>nothing in the Act whatsoever that states that ammunition should
>or should not be readily available for a handgun held under Section 7(3)
>of the Act. The Act is completely silent on the issue.
>
There's no confusion really. Section 7.1 says you can keep a firearm
(handgun) at home provided it has some historic interest and ammunition for
its calibre is NO longer commercially available. Section 7.3 allows for
similar firearms to shot at pre-ordained sites provided they are kept and
maintained there.
>The police have the power to attach conditions to your FAC and
>unfortunately you cannot appeal the wording of a condition. The only
>way to appeal is actually on the variation for the gun and the ammunition.
>
>I think the best way to approach this is to write to the
>Firearms Consultative Committee at the Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate,
>London, SW1H 9AT.
You won't get anywhere .
>
>There appears to be an erroneous assumption that handgun ammunition is
>in someway more deadly than rifle ammunition, or is in some way distinctive
>from it which is totally wrong, of course. There is no more danger in
>possessing handgun ammunition than rifle ammunition, especially as it is
>in fact the same thing in many cases.
You're not wrong .
The section 7 scheme highlights the stupidity of the whole Act(1997/98)
IMO. What is the difference between holding , say 45 acp and .303 at
home ??.
Buts that the gov and HO / POLICE for you ............ absolutely no logic ! .
--
Well, obviously there is some confusion because you yourself have gotten
confused in your second paragraph - 7(1) applies to handguns made before
1919 in calibres deemed not to be readily available. 7(3) can apply
to any handgun of historic interest, particular rarity, aesthetic quality
or technical importance.
Also I would not be so dismissive of efforts to convince the FCC and
the HO that this is barmy - any idiot (even the ones in Govt) should
be able to see that storing the ammo with the guns is less secure than
storing the ammo seperately at home.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
