Banned
Well both are defined by a certain extent, it has to adhere to the HO club criteria, and their guidance makes their interpretation clear.
So no, no one can just go out and start one because Sect 21 of the acts prevents some, HO rules on clubs would pick up others, and .223 wouldn't be deemed within interpretation.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...l_2016_v20.pdf
18. 5
Whilst there is no legal definition of a miniature rifle, other than one which does not exceed
.23 inch in calibre, it is generally accepted that this refers only to rifles firing .22 rimfire
cartridges (see also chapter 6). Persons using the range are exempt from holding a firearm
certificate only whilst using such miniature rifles and ammunition at such a range or gallery.
Home Office approval can only be granted to a miniature rifle club if it can adhere to the
Home Office’s club criteria.
tlhIngan maH. taHja
Then your mistaken. The security at a club is typically higher than at a home Inc. alarms and secured testing.Originally Posted by SuffolkRifle
Many clubs do hold weapons on site....either the clubs rifles and members equipment too. Monitored systems allow for visual and audio confirmation as well so police can respond with ARU's if required and avoids members having to go on site.
In a battle of wits I refuse to engage with an unarmed person.
To one shot one kill, you need to seek the S. Kill only comes from Skill
Registered User
Are mini-ranges even covered by HO rules ?
Having watched video of the FMJ set up it was a berm about 6' high dug out of some waste ground nothing more
They had some fold flat tables piled up with mags & slabs of ammo while, what looked like the local gangster/drug dealers were hosing away with AR/M4 lookalikes as fast as they could pull the trigger,
didn't look all that HO approved to me.
"Generally accepted" is not a legal definition& nowhere Have I mentioned .223
HMR, WSM & WMR rimfire would be bad enough.
Registered User
Anyone holding a high-powered rifle at home will have security at least as good as their club plus a domestic dwelling is less easy to burgle than an uninhabited building. Have the Home Office never read The League Of Red Headed Gentlemen?
If a shooters on a range want to wear bad clothes and fire black rifles quickly that is not a problem unless they are posing a safety risk. The FMJ case was about a hazard to the public not aesthetics.
Although I agree with the golden rule "Don't draw attention to yourself".
But the most hazardous shooters I have met were middle aged, middle class blokes who have decided that due to decades of "experience" the safety rules are now optional for them...
Last edited by Powderfinger; 29-11-2020 at 12:24 PM. Reason: Missing letter
Registered User
This is the thing that is absolutely idiotic - if it comes to having to have a FAC to run a mini-range, then the airgun 'ranges' will close and not be able to return, so that term does need to be clarified. I did mention that when I filled out the form.
Yes, fairgrounds used to use .22 rimmies (father and uncle can remember using them) but obviously cheaper to use airguns nowadays.
Registered User
I remain curious as to whether any RFD would sell firearms and ammo to someone who turns up and says they run a miniature range unless they were from a well known local organisation (eg cadets) or a known local company (such as a range that operates at game fairs). I would be interested if someone runs a range under the miniature clause could post on here and tell us more.
Registered User
Well the pure fact that the FMJ bloke had iirc 12 rifles & 47,000 rounds in his possession indicates that yes they will
That quantity of sales would keep an otherwise struggling dealer in business.
Registered User
Powderfinger, take a look at what I wrote in post #17 of this thread. In one of the cases I’m aware of the RFD who supplied the firearms was fully aware that the individual involved had already had their certificate revoked. In cases where S11(4) has been misused it’s usually a bit more complicated than someone just rocking up and claiming to “operate a miniature rifle range” and flashing a certificate from The Showmen’s Guild, NSRA, Sportsmans Association or the like to back up their claim. NB such certificates have no legal standing. The FMJ Range was something of an outlier in that their conduct was bound to attract police attention sooner or later.
The problem with S11(4) operations is that the firearms and ammunition that they possess and expend are completely unaccounted for, they disappear from the licensing system.
As I said at post #17, there are organisations that utilise S11(4) correctly and responsibly, they should be permitted to continue doing so. However the section does require revision to at least require proper record keeping and scrutiny as well as an assessment of suitability of operators.
Rutty
Registered User
Presumably the firearms and ammo are recorded in the RFDs out book?
The police inspect those registers and can see who the guns and ammo have been sold to.
Registered User
Click on the link below for a BASC update on the consultation.
https://basc.org.uk/home-office-consultation/
Dodgy Diana User
I have put my views in. (Has everyone on here?)
I agree with the first post above. The exemption made some sense in the past, but now someone has colossally taken the P155: semi-autos, big mags, and all over the net is a big difference from a corner of a fairground with elderly manually-operated .22” shorts. In a way that, as a shooter, makes me quite uncomfortable - how might a non-shooter reasonably feel?
I’m happy to defend various practices that I’m not that comfy with myself. For example, industrial high-end game shooting. I’ve been a member of a (cheap) syndicate, shot walked-up farmed birds, etc. This is not an anti-shotgunner or anti-game shoot thing. It’s a matter of taste and ethics but it falls below my personal threshold for legislation rather than education and self-regulation.
The illegal shooting of raptors or cats also worries me, but does not justify new legislation. It’s already illegal.
I also agree with Bill H’s comments from BASC.
Though I’d add that some of the stuff proposed on fifties is silly. Feels like an attempt to (i) find something minor to change to avoid admitting failure, (ii) build a ladder to climb down by showing that the current system is actually fine, or (iii) show that if there is a problem (there isn’t), the only answer is a ban.
I personally think the whole fifty cal issue is driven by armed response cops who now have body armour that will stop multiple 7.62 AP hits, and have now discovered that they still aren’t invulnerable. Which is understandable as not long ago they were carrying MP5SFs and the threat was 12-bore birdshot, .38” revolvers, and the odd 9mm.
The manually-operated BMG rifle is not a great terrorist weapon. It’s huge and heavy and hard to transport covertly. It needs training and experience to use well. The bad guys might get off two or three effective rounds before the targets have run for cover, then, once ARU/SF turns up, they are toast. The real threat, as seen in France, is SMGs, AKs or VZ58s. To which the cops’ G36Ks and AR variants, backed up by snipers, is a good antidote.
professional hookaduck ringer
Just a quick reminder to everyone this consultation closes shortly. As well as .50 cal and miniature rifle ranges there are proposals on use of airguns on private land and on storage, including having to store pellets separately from air rifles
Remember, the day after this goes through they’ll start work on the next restrictions.
Morally flawed
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote