Add Your Idea

Repeal expanding ammunition legislation

Comment 9th July 2010

  1. As most hunters know, to convert a target bullet to expand more on impact, all they need do is put a cross across the bullet tip. It is also very easy to make a bullet head with raw materials. When a law is un-enforceable then in my opinion it’s time to look at it again.

 

  1. I have been told this legislation is for safety! Surely this is down to the certificate holder and not the type of ammunition s/He uses, and it’s only safe if it is not aimed at another person. Whether a person is hit by an expanding round or a target round it would make little odds to them. All NATO approved ammunition must be of the target type by law. This still drops down terrorists; as a target round an expanding bullet is inherently safer due to its characteristic softer compound. They ricochet less than target bullets.

 

  1. It places a bureaucratic burden not only on the firearms officer and firearms dealer but also on the police who collect and study these records.

 

  1. It makes no sense in placing such a restriction on an inanimate object; if a person is deemed to be safe why does s/He need to go though another set of rules. If this is the case then in my opinion they are not safe to hold a firearm in the first instance.

 

Therefore I see no good reason why this piece of legislation should exist at a time when the police force numbers are to be cut and their workload increased.

">Image source-->

Expanding ammunition legislation is a nonsense piece of bureaucracy designed to limit the number shooters by piecemeal methods. At its conception the first attempt was to ban all expanding rounds (this includes the bullet head), until it was realised that it is illegal to shoot animals without such. The legislators then made it a requirement that each and every firearms certificate holder must have an endorsement on the certificate approving the purchase and limit of such rounds or bullet heads. The only difference externally of expanding and target type ammunition is the fact of the intention of the maker. With some bullets there is no way of telling by looking at them that they are designed for hunting. There is no set standard of “expansion” that a round must adhere to. The general consensus is that the bullet is designed to expand on impact “implying an animal”. Generally all bullets expand; it just depends at what they hit. Manufacturers make bullets for specific purposes but most are dual purpose. When it comes down to implementing the legislation, a firearms officer determines whether the certificate holder complies amongst others things with the requirement of good reason and when purchasing ammunition the firearms dealer makes an entry into the certificate of the purchase.

My beef with all this is that firstly the certificate holder has been interviewed and passed all requirements’ to hold and use a firearm, why do they need a second course of hurdles?

Why does this matter?




  1. As most hunters know, to convert a target bullet to expand more on impact, all they need do is put a cross across the bullet tip. It is also very easy to make a bullet head with raw materials. When a law is un-enforceable then in my opinion it’s time to look at it again.

 

  1. I have been told this legislation is for safety! Surely this is down to the certificate holder and not the type of ammunition s/He uses, and it’s only safe if it is not aimed at another person. Whether a person is hit by an expanding round or a target round it would make little odds to them. All NATO approved ammunition must be of the target type by law. This still drops down terrorists; as a target round an expanding bullet is inherently safer due to its characteristic softer compound. They ricochet less than target bullets.

 

  1. It places a bureaucratic burden not only on the firearms officer and firearms dealer but also on the police who collect and study these records.

 

  1. It makes no sense in placing such a restriction on an inanimate object; if a person is deemed to be safe why does s/He need to go though another set of rules. If this is the case then in my opinion they are not safe to hold a firearm in the first instance.

 

Therefore I see no good reason why this piece of legislation should exist at a time when the police force numbers are to be cut and their workload increased.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea