Thread: New Updated Arms Code 2017

Originally Posted by stretch

Fucked here we go. What a feed of arse this is.

I'm only up to section 1, and it's immediately wrong. "Can be" vs "has been" is a HUGE difference. Almost any lump of metal "can be" adapted to fire a shot via explosive. FFS.

Plumbers better be getting Firearms Licences by that definition.
35 years ago when I was at university we were "firing" empty 1 litre drink bottles out of 4" PVC pipes using water and dry ice as propellant. By the above defintion that's a firearm - therefore plumbers with PVC pipes need a FAL and hardware stores need 'D' cat FALs.

Hi all, I’ve been lurking here for a while but have been galvanized to join and comment on this thread.
I have blatantly plagiarized the work timattalon and P38 (thanks) and drafted a letter to my MP. I have six specific questions for him at the bottom of the letter but would like some advice from members on the second, scroll down to see.
Any other comments or suggestions gratefully received

Dear David
I am writing with a query as to why the updated Police publication of the Arms code has been altered to reflect requirements that are NOT law.
We are now expected to answer a question when renewing our licenses that is not even closely worded into the Arms Act or any subsequent amendments.
If I were a cynic, I would say that this updated arms code (which I acknowledge is not the Act) has been written in advance of the Firearms review which is currently under consideration and in anticipation of acceptance of the ‘secret’ submission made by the police

On page 41 of the new firearms code it states;

"A firearms license allows the holder to have and use sporting type shotguns and rifles. A license holder may possess any number of sporting-type rifles and shotguns although you will be required to justify the number of firearms you hold when the Police inspect your security. A firearms license is valid for ten years unless revoked or surrendered sooner"

There is no reference in the arms act for an A category license holder to justify what firearms they hold therefore this "justifying" is not legally required and has been added ultra vires into the guide by the Police.

There is no definition of what is justified and what is not, and this is purely a subjective measure which has no place in an official publication.

Is ‘because I wanted it’ a suitable justification?
Is ‘because I am legally entitled to own such a firearm’ a suitable justification?
I am concerned that should I refuse to justify my firearms (as there is no legal requirement to do so) that the police may use that to deny my renewal, perhaps in their view I am no longer ‘fit and proper’ because I have dared to challenge them.

This appears to be another example of the Police overstepping their jurisdiction and trying to write law rather than enforce it.

Perhaps you could remind the Police Commissioner that under the Westminster system of government that;
The legislators make the law,
The judiciary interpret the law,
The Police uphold the law,

Furthermore, changes to the wording of the definition of a firearm has been so poorly worded as to make it meaningless, or, if the wording was intentional, so open to interpretation and subjective measure (that term again) so as to give the police carte blanche to act unilaterally.

Section one, 1a, definition of a firearm.
The term "has been" is now "can be" in the definition of a firearm. The big problem here is ANY piece of steel or metal CAN be adapted to discharge any shot, bullet or projectile by force of explosive. In fact, it does not have to be metal either. You could drill a hole in a piece of wood, fill it with powder and cap it with a projectile and ignite it. So by definition even a piece of wood falls under this description. Look around your office where you are sitting as you read this. Is there any metal tube? (Metal pen, Chair or table legs, gas struts from adjustable chairs, Plastic tubing or plumbing) Because they can be closed at one end and turned into a closed tube, these could now be considered "firearms" by that definition....It is simply that poorly written.

Would you please seek a response from the Minister or Police Commissioner as to the following.
WRT the justification clause;
1. On what basis have the Police added the justification clause to the arms code?
2. Is there any empirical evidence that shows that a justification clause will reduce the illegal use of firearms. Question for the forum. Could the argument be had that less firearms in the legal domain = less firearms in the criminal domain? I am sure I have read a couple of publications that suggest there is no correlation between legally held firearms and illegal use but cannot be sure.

3. Was the Minister aware of the change?

WRT to the definition of a firearm
1. What was the intention of the change of wording from ‘has been’ to ‘can be’?
2. Were the Police aware of the impact of the change of wording?
3. Was the Minister ware of the change of wording?

Yours sincerely