The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

I presume, as licensing is solely in place for reasons of public safety, there is a documented significant problem with criminals obtaining extra magazines for their illegally held firearms from within the legal UK gun trade?

is this review have anything to do with cambria masscare ? since there were no bans afterwards ! didnt the last inquiry conclude and prove that for once law abiding shooters do not contribute to gun crime

zanes wrote:I presume, as licensing is solely in place for reasons of public safety, there is a documented significant problem with criminals obtaining extra magazines for their illegally held firearms from within the legal UK gun trade?

government saftey i think you find !

law comission purposals

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/upl ... rearms.pdf

I think you have completely misinterpreted that, I don’t think he's suggesting that they be licensable parts and entered on an FAC, primers aren’t entered but you do need to show a FAC in order to buy them.

AJP: Although I wholeheartedly agree with you that any of the rights we currently exercise should be given away, I'm sure that John's comment on UK Shooting News wasn't intended to convey that a licensing requirement for magazines should be introduced. Rather, that it wouldn't be onerous to prove "good reason" for the purchase of magazines - similar to the current system regarding primers.

That being said, I would strongly disagree that any amendment regarding magazine is an appropriate addition to legislation.

Fair comment....but it IS a way of cutting the number of magazines you hold....especially by deeming them a component part?

Blackstuff: From the comments on Gaz's link to the questions.

Chuck wrote: Fair comment....but it IS a way of cutting the number of magazines you hold....especially by deeming them a component part?

How so, you could buy 1 or 100 just the same way as you could buy 100 or 10,000 primers.

Chuck wrote:
Blackstuff: From the comments on Gaz's link to the questions.

Must have been that yardley fellow or that n francis that used to frequent here.

i've just read the componet parts section, and it makes no mation of magazines, what it purpose's is that current home office defination of componate parts enshrined in statute




To maximise clarity and certainty, the FCC’s modified list of component
parts should be enshrined in law, namely:
(1) the barrel, chamber, cylinder;
(2) the frame, body or receivers upper and lower where present in the
complete firearm;
(3) the breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the
charge at the rear of the chamber; and

Provisional proposal 3
3.55
We provisionally propose that as a matter of law a component part will
remain such so long as it is capable of fulfilling its intended function as
part of a firearm.
Do consultees agree?

Provisional proposal 4
3.56
We provisionally propose that the Secretary of State is given the power to
amend the list by way of order.
Do consultees agree

Would stocks be included in that definition I wonder?