Expanding ammunition.

[sarge4318]

Section 5 expanding bullets are, in law, prohibited ammuntion.

No, ammunition [i]containing[i] expanding bullets are prohibited ammunition (S5(1A)(g)).
FA1968 (as amended) S5(1A)(f)(i) -
Classed as a missile;
"designed to be projected from any weapon and is designed to be, or has been, incorporated in;
(i)any ammunition falling within any of the preceding paragraphs;of ammunition from (1A)(g), not ammunition."

The Act specifically says "not ammunition" when referring to bullets (or missiles of ammunition) in this instance.

It is quite unequivocally the law.

Only when it is correct.

[Dalua]

No, ammunition [i]containing[i] expanding bullets are prohibited ammunition (S5(1A)(g)).
FA1968 (as amended) S5(1A)(f)(i) -
Classed as a missile;
"designed to be projected from any weapon and is designed to be, or has been, incorporated in;
(i)any ammunition falling within any of the preceding paragraphs;of ammunition from (1A)(g), not ammunition."

The Act specifically says "not ammunition" when referring to bullets (or missiles of ammunition) in this instance.

Have you got a link to that? It might be that my source is out of date!

[sarge4318]

It maybe my source is outdated, if it is I apologise.
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27)
I cut and pasted it yesterday from the same source, but today S5(1A)(f)(i) and S5(1A)(f)(ii) are missing and replaced with just S5(1A)(f), this is a 1997 addition to this section of the (2007) act. I cannot find a later update to this section now, or a previous edition with it in. It may be part of the upcoming changes but they are now unavailable.

It does mention that missiles (bullets) are referred to as prohibited ammunition within the act, but constantly refers to "expanding ammunition or the missile for any such ammunition" in regards to possession or transfer, keeping them as separate items. At no point does the Act or the Guidance mention that said missiles need to be treated as ammunition when it comes to transfers, only that if one is allowed the ammunition then one is allowed the missiles as well.

[Dalua]

OK

Using the link you've given, which is I think the current law, S5(2) seems to say that the expanding missiles (or bullets, to normal folk) described in S5(1A)(g) are prohibited ammunition.

If they are prohibited ammunition, they are ammunition, and need to be recorded as such.

I think the Guidance refers to "expanding ammunition or the missile for any such ammunition" together not because they're treated separately, but rather to remind us that they are treated the same!

S5 bullets count towards the holding allowance because they are themselves ammuntion. I can't see how they could be ammunition in the holding allowance, yet not on transfer.

They are either ammunition, or they are not: and the Act seems to say that they are.

[sarge4318]

OK

Using the link you've given, which is I think the current law, S5(2) seems to say that the expanding missiles (or bullets, to normal folk) described in S5(1A)(g) are prohibited ammunition.

S5(1A)(2) says they are referred to in the act as prohibited ammunition, not that they are prohibited ammunition.
Also
S5A(8) further separates the definition of ammunition from the missiles for ammunition.


From your argument that they should be listed as they count towards the ammo limit, what about homeloads (non expanding)? These count towards your limit but don't need to be listed separately.

It would appear that until such time as the courts make a definitive ruling it will always be a contentious issue. Many RFDs don't list them and indeed my FEO has stated that they are not required to be listed. Others would appear to have a different view.

[amc577]

What would all the lawyers do without the perverted genius of parliamentary draughtsmen!

amc577

[Dalua]

S5(1A)(2) says they are referred to in the act as prohibited ammunition, not that they are prohibited ammunition.

If the Act refers to S5 expanding bullets as prohibited ammuntion then they are prohibited ammuntion. There is no other reason in law why they would count toward the ammuntion holding allowance.

Also
S5A(8) further separates the definition of ammunition from the missiles for ammunition.

This bit?
(8)In this section—
(a)references to expanding ammunition are references to any ammunition which incorporates a missile which is designed to expand on impact; and
(b)references to the missile for any such ammunition are references to anything which, in relation to any such ammunition, falls within section 5(1A)(g) of this Act


That isn't separating the missiles from the ammuniton - it's confirming that they're both S5 prohibited ammuntion

From your argument that they should be listed as they count towards the ammo limit, what about homeloads (non expanding)? These count towards your limit but don't need to be listed separately.

Ammuntion is ammunition, whether it's S5 or not.
When you buy it, it is written on your FAC by the vendor and it counts towards your holding allowance. When you make it, it just counts towards your allowance.
S5 expanding bullets are of themselves ammuntion, so when you buy them, the vendor should write them on your FAC, and they count towards your holding allowance.
Nothing, as far as I'm aware, needs to be 'listed separately' - it's all just ammuntion and counts in your holding allowance.

Many RFDs don't list them and indeed my FEO has stated that they are not required to be listed. Others would appear to have a different view.

FEOs do not necessarily have the best reputation as interpreters of Firearms Law - likewise RFDs, who might well find it expedient to obey FEOs.

The law seems to me remarkably clear:
S5 bullets are referred to as in the Act, and therefore are prohibited ammuntion.
As such, they are ammuntion.
As ammuntion, they count towards your holding allowance and should be written on your FAC by folk who in the UK supply you with them.

[majex45]

Just as a point, I believe that expanding ammunition (and their missiles) were made S5 as a result of proposed EU legislation. I believe it was a fear of so called "Dum Dum" ammunition which is prohibited to our armed forces so should (therefore?) be prohibited from civilians.
I don't know whether the rest of the EU carried the legislation through (I would guess not in Germany) but our ever helpful Home Office decided it was a good idea.
The just tacked it onto the 1998 Act as a good opportunity to restrict things a little bit while the mood of the public and the press were on their side.
Then there was the scramble to "exempt" the ammunition from those who need it (like S5 humane dispatch pistols) resulting in legislation that even the Home Office do not understand and in some cases agree is not actually helpful.
I do not know if expanding or armour piercing or incendiary ammunition have ever been used in crime, although I doubt there was a big problem.
The original poster was right - perhaps it is about time our shooting organisations challenged this ineffectual and troublesome bit of legislation. Perhaps we ought to start to "nibble" some rights back, like the Government are always "nibbling" our rights away. Just don't expect any target shooting organisation to back this - divided we fall.

[Eligus]

The amount of diesel I use driving around to collect bullets must be contributing to 'global warming' !

Mind you, there's not much sign of that outside tonight !