A technical dilemma

[Deallad]

Following a recent purchase of Sellior and Bellot 223 rem ammunition from my local supplier I had a bit of a shock.

The ammunition comes in a brown cardboard box containing 140 rounds clearly marked 223 rem however on inspection of the headstamp it is marked 5.56 x 45

This is not an issue for me as I have both 223rem and 5.56x45 on my FAC. However if you did not have 5.56x45 on your FAC this could be a technical breach of your FAC

If you was stopped by a stroppy man with a pointed hat who did not like guns you could be arrested for possession of ammunition for which you do not have permission to hold/ own.

Further more if you had been given the cases believing that they were 223rem and reloaded them you could also be arrested for assembling ammunition which you do not have the authority to hold/own.

Your views guys?

Mike

[Shootist]

The onus would be upon the user to ensure his certificate allows both. Most forces allow this as normal.

As an aside I suspect it would be rare for anyone to be arrested for such an offence, although I could see some forces attempting or threatening a prosecution, or more likely using such a threat trying to browbeat the individual concerned into a voluntary surrender of their FAC. An arrest in such circumstances would be highly likely to be unlawful because it would only rarely, indeed of ever, be 'necessary' which is a requirement for an arrest to be made.

As far as the reloading thing goes, I would argue that by resizing the 5.56 in a .223 die I have made the case, and corresponding cartridges into .223 which I think would be hard to argue with. Also, in the event of a prosecution in respect of, say, factory ammunition of the wrong calibre, I suspect that scientific measurements of various chambers of both calibres (my Steyr and my Savage .223s are significantly different in that respect) and of various cartridges of both calibres would reveal that they are essentially identical, at least to the point where a defence team could claim de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles") a legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling matters.

[Tommo]

.....at least to the point where a defence team could claim de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles") a legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling matters....

Class...

[Shootist]

Maybe not. I have no idea what custard and jelly has to do with shooting.

OTOH

There once was a lawyer named Rex
Who was poorly equipped for sex
When charged with exposure
He said with composure
"De minimis non curat lex"