Who Checks Ammo?

[Born Hunter 17,751]

LOL, not recognised as good reason yet in the same breath some departments will support it.... so then obviously recognised.

 

Where's the problem here, it's a legitimate and valid piece of advice. If someone wanted a fox rifle and someone else suggested a 243, not all forces will grant that but that's no reason not to ask.

[danw 1,748]

LOL, not recognised as good reason yet in the same breath some departments will support it.... so then obviously recognised.

 

Where's the problem here, it's a legitimate and valid piece of advice. If someone wanted a fox rifle and someone else suggested a 243, not all forces will grant that but that's no reason not to ask.

All I'm saying on this debate is you got to love Dorset 2000 .22lr, 2000 .224, 1000 .257, 300 9mm it must be because it is such a distance to the nearest RFD lol

[Deker 3,478]

For once I agree wholeheartedly with Deker on this.

 

It's specifically in the guidelines. That said, they are guidelines. But you'll be hard pushed to find a dept that goes against this one as most forces are scared of people holding too much ammo. Ridiculous really as how many shots can someone gone rogue make with a bolt action rifle before they get cut down by the police? Some how I doubt it's in the hundreds or thousands!

 

That said, no harm in applying. Worst they can do is turn it down.

 

I am more than confident this is Law. The guidelines contain many quotes from Firearms legislation, so, much of what they quote is Law, there are of course guidelines as well.

 

There was/is loads of Firearms Legislation, the 1968 was an attempt to combine it all into one Act, but a mass of other Acts (and amendment) have turned up since to complicate matters once again.

 

So, whilst this is definitely listed in the Home Office Police Guidelines, I believe it is a reflection of the Law. But, as I don't have the inclination to spend time digging round the Acts I'll hold back on Law until I/someone can quote the section.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Deker

[Born Hunter 17,751]

 

LOL, not recognised as good reason yet in the same breath some departments will support it.... so then obviously recognised.

 

Where's the problem here, it's a legitimate and valid piece of advice. If someone wanted a fox rifle and someone else suggested a 243, not all forces will grant that but that's no reason not to ask.

All I'm saying on this debate is you got to love Dorset 2000 .22lr, 2000 .224, 1000 .257, 300 9mm it must be because it is such a distance to the nearest RFD lol

 

 

Well, clearly Dorset Police haven't read the guidance. Tut tut!

 

Or have they..... given that repeatedly it states "These amounts are only guides and should not be seen as absolute limits to be applied in all cases.".

 

"Economy of purchase" (buying in bulk because you can get a better price from the dealer) isn't considered acceptable by the Home Office however practicality of an individuals situation clearly is. Which is left to the discretion of the local force to decide.

 

So unless I've missed the part where it states words to the effect of "the practicalities of distance to the nearest dealer should not be taken into account" I can't see where it is advised against?

 

Dan just has to step over the boundary of his estate to get to his local RFD for ammo and I doubt he gets through 2000 22s in a sitting so clearly there's a bit of sensible leniency for practicality applied when considering ammunition allowances.

[Deker 3,478]

LOL, not recognised as good reason yet in the same breath some departments will support it.... so then obviously recognised.

 

Where's the problem here, it's a legitimate and valid piece of advice. If someone wanted a fox rifle and someone else suggested a 243, not all forces will grant that but that's no reason not to ask.

 

You made a statement.......

 

Born Hunter, on 05 Mar 2015 - 3:53 PM, said:

Why not just request a variation on the ammo quantity, you have good reason, then just make a trip to a decent gun shop and buy in bulk?

 

He doesn't have good reason. As has already been mention earlier in this thread when someone was refused for just such reason.

 

Many regions come up will all sorts of bull, some of which may be good and some not so good. The Guidelines/Law make it clear that convenience/economy is NOT a good/recognised reason for bulk buying.

 

Some departments may take pity on him, just like some regions will NOT issue a .22lr for fox, some will tell you the HMR is illegal for geese and one at least issued ME with a SGC for an AUTOMATIC shogun (Not Semi). The regions are a disjointed mess and various attempts have been made to educate them and get them all singing from the same sheet.

 

Nobody has suggested it isn't worth trying, where on earth did you come up with that from, it is not recognised, and if all the regions followed the Law/guidelines nobody would get bulk ammo for that reason, the fact is some are stupid, some don't even know the law themselves as has been demonstrated here many a time and some just invent things!

 

Of course its worth a try, how about this one......can you increase my holding as I just inherited £1000, so if I'm allowed to spend it all on ammo then I won't fritter it away, its just possible some numb nuts would take pity and allow it, but that does not change the fact it is not a good reason, of course he could get lucky, but your statement is inaccurate, it is not a good reason.

 

Edited March 9, 2015 by Deker

[Born Hunter 17,751]

 

LOL, not recognised as good reason yet in the same breath some departments will support it.... so then obviously recognised.

 

Where's the problem here, it's a legitimate and valid piece of advice. If someone wanted a fox rifle and someone else suggested a 243, not all forces will grant that but that's no reason not to ask.

 

You made a statement.......

 

Born Hunter, on 05 Mar 2015 - 3:53 PM, said:

Why not just request a variation on the ammo quantity, you have good reason, then just make a trip to a decent gun shop and buy in bulk?

 

He doesn't have good reason.

 

You seem to be getting very wrapped up in this, many regions come up will all sorts of bull, some of which may be good and some not so good. The Guidelines/Law make it clear that convenience in NOT a good/recognised reason for bulk buying.

 

Some departments may take pity on him, just like some regions will NOT issue a .22lr for fox, some will tell you the HMR is illegal for geese and one at least issued ME with a SGC for an AUTOMATIC shogun (Not Semi). The regions are a disjointed mess and various attempts have been made to educate them and get them all singing from the same sheet.

 

Nobody has suggested it isn't worth trying, where on earth did you come up with that from, it is not recognised, and if all the regions followed the Law/guidelines nobody would get bulk ammo for that reason, the fact is some are stupid, some don't even know the law themselves as has been demonstrated here many a time and some may just decide to invent things!

 

 

Where? Very specifically show me where in the guidance.

 

The Home Office guidance aside, we both agree that individual forces make their own minds up regardless and some at least will view it as good reason and grant the variation.

[Born Hunter 17,751]

 

Why not just request a variation on the ammo quantity, you have good reason, then just make a trip to a decent gun shop and buy in bulk?

 

He doesn't have good reason. As has already been mention earlier in this thread when someone was refused for just such reason.

 

 

 

It's down to the individual force to decide if it's good reason, as stipulated by the HO guidance. I'll happily concede that I'm wrong about the guidance if pointed to the relevant section. But from what I'm reading it's quite clear the individual circumstances are taken into account and the allocation is down to the discretion of the issuing force.

 

It's very clear in the guidance that my 25-06 is acceptable for fox control, yet if I was to remove deer from my 'good reason' I can tell you right now that Nott's would not renew my FAC. That's not proof foxing is not 'good reason' for issuing a 25, it's proof all forces make their own laws up.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Born Hunter

[Deker 3,478]

 

 

 

Where? Very specifically show me where in the guidance.

 

The Home Office guidance aside, we both agree that individual forces make their own minds up regardless and some at least will view it as good reason and grant the variation.

 

 

I certainly would not argue about some of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's down to the individual force to decide if it's good reason, as stipulated by the HO guidance. I'll happily concede that I'm wrong about the guidance if pointed to the relevant section. But from what I'm reading it's quite clear the individual circumstances are taken into account and the allocation is down to the discretion of the issuing force.

 

It's very clear in the guidance that my 25-06 is acceptable for fox control, yet if I was to remove deer from my 'good reason' I can tell you right now that Nott's would not renew my FAC. That's not proof foxing is not 'good reason' for issuing a 25, it's proof all forces make their own laws up.

 

 

 

 

2002 and 2014 Home office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law

 

 

4.8 The bulk purchase of ammunition for the purpose of economy is not acceptable as good reason for possession. Possession of 250 rounds for deer stalking, and possession of 750 rounds for vermin control should generally be regarded as reasonable

 

 

Economy is a term that could be interpreted widely, but the OP is clearly after delivery by post, or a higher allowance for the purpose of economy!

 

Edited March 9, 2015 by Deker

[Born Hunter 17,751]

Ah well, that's economy, not convenience which is what you said. I accepted the HO do not consider it acceptable for economic reasons but it's clear they do allow discretion for practicality reasons (which is more substantial way of saying convenience).

 

Fair play though, I had overlooked the OP saying he considers traveling for 600 rounds impractical for cost reasons. You got me there. My mind just jumped straight in to the physical/logistical practicality of having to travel such a distance regularly. That's what I considered good reason, in addition to me knowing many forces are understanding of individual circumstances.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Born Hunter

[hutchey 147]

Maybe i need to up my limits then

[toxo 160]

Fair play though, I had overlooked the OP saying he considers traveling for 600 rounds impractical for cost reasons. You got me there. My mind just jumped straight in to the physical/logistical practicality of having to travel such a distance regularly. That's what I considered good reason, in addition to me knowing many forces are understanding of individual circumstances.

 

If you read between the lines, I was debating whether or not the bending of the rules would be practical. When passing the distant rfd do you buy 100 or 500 each time?

The greyness or ambiguity of some areas of firearms law sometimes force many of us to think this way and I can't help thinking sometimes it's the way the law likes it. Rather than a strict NO in areas where common sense should prevail, the police just don't enforce so rigorously hence my question about who checks ammo.

[Born Hunter 17,751]

 

Fair play though, I had overlooked the OP saying he considers traveling for 600 rounds impractical for cost reasons. You got me there. My mind just jumped straight in to the physical/logistical practicality of having to travel such a distance regularly. That's what I considered good reason, in addition to me knowing many forces are understanding of individual circumstances.

 

If you read between the lines, I was debating whether or not the bending of the rules would be practical. When passing the distant rfd do you buy 100 or 500 each time?

The greyness or ambiguity of some areas of firearms law sometimes force many of us to think this way and I can't help thinking sometimes it's the way the law likes it. Rather than a strict NO in areas where common sense should prevail, the police just don't enforce so rigorously hence my question about who checks ammo.

 

 

I have a bad habit of only reading the writing between the lines, mate. I knew where you were coming from.

 

Perhaps this spring your permissions are lifting with rabbits and you make a couple of 600 round purchases in a short time frame. Perhaps then you request a variation for a couple thousand for the logistical reasons of buying ammo with such an increased rate of shooting.

 

"Consideration should, however, be given to each shooter’s individual circumstances"

[Deker 3,478]

Ah well, that's economy, not convenience which is what you said. I accepted the HO do not consider it acceptable for economic reasons but it's clear they do allow discretion for practicality reasons (which is more substantial way of saying convenience).

 

Fair play though, I had overlooked the OP saying he considers traveling for 600 rounds impractical for cost reasons. You got me there. My mind just jumped straight in to the physical/logistical practicality of having to travel such a distance regularly. That's what I considered good reason, in addition to me knowing many forces are understanding of individual circumstances.

 

Convenience, your financial position, location, difficulty in finding ammo etc etc

 

(it all comes down to money really!)

 

ATB!

[Born Hunter 17,751]

 

Ah well, that's economy, not convenience which is what you said. I accepted the HO do not consider it acceptable for economic reasons but it's clear they do allow discretion for practicality reasons (which is more substantial way of saying convenience).

 

Fair play though, I had overlooked the OP saying he considers traveling for 600 rounds impractical for cost reasons. You got me there. My mind just jumped straight in to the physical/logistical practicality of having to travel such a distance regularly. That's what I considered good reason, in addition to me knowing many forces are understanding of individual circumstances.

 

Convenience, your financial position, location, difficulty in finding ammo etc etc

 

(it all comes down to money really!)

 

ATB!

 

 

Then bung fifty quid in the biscuit barrel before offering your FEO a biscuit with his coffee!

 

And that little italic quote wasn't in the guidance you quoted, nor have I read it myself. Only the "purchase of economy" which I have accepted all along.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Born Hunter

[Deker 3,478]

 

 

Ah well, that's economy, not convenience which is what you said. I accepted the HO do not consider it acceptable for economic reasons but it's clear they do allow discretion for practicality reasons (which is more substantial way of saying convenience).

 

Fair play though, I had overlooked the OP saying he considers traveling for 600 rounds impractical for cost reasons. You got me there. My mind just jumped straight in to the physical/logistical practicality of having to travel such a distance regularly. That's what I considered good reason, in addition to me knowing many forces are understanding of individual circumstances.

 

Convenience, your financial position, location, difficulty in finding ammo etc etc

 

(it all comes down to money really!)

 

ATB!

 

 

Then bung fifty quid in the biscuit barrel before offering your FEO a biscuit with his coffee!

 

And that little italic quote wasn't in the guidance you quoted, nor have I read it myself. Only the "purchase of economy" which I have accepted all along.

 

 

That was my original wording, like I say, it all comes down to economy when you get behind it.