Possession of military ammo

**BBCT** · 02-07-2014, 16:20

Hi guys

I can recall hearing or reading somewhere in the dim past something to the effect that one could be prosecuted for being in possession of military ammo even if in possession of a licenced firearm capable of discharging that ammo unless one can provide proof that it was legally purchased.

Can anybody shed some light on this?

Does it maybe only apply to SANDF ammo and not to the imported Milsurp stuff that some dealers sell?

Thanks
BBCT

**ady** · 02-07-2014, 16:30

Have you done a search of the forum? This has been discussed at length.

**PenDragon** · 03-07-2014, 08:22

"Does it maybe only apply to SANDF ammo and not to the imported Milsurp stuff that some dealers sell?"

AFFIRMATIVE

**Stefan K** · 03-07-2014, 08:43

Reading through the other threads covering this topic it seems that possession of SANDF ammo is not a problem. You may be in possession of any type/make/origin ammo as long as it was acquired legally and you have the required licence. Am I missing something?

**BBCT** · 03-07-2014, 10:57

Since posing the question I have searched the forums (as I should have done in the beginning). As Pendragon says above, the consensus seems to be that it's not OK to have SANDF ammo, but it is OK to have other/imported Milsurp. Opinions do vary however, and it even seems that ammo (re)maunfacturers may have found a way around it by pulling the bullets from SANDF ammo and replacing the powder and/or bullets before selling it on.

But....... unless I've missed something the above still seems to be based more on hearsay than facts. Can any of the clever people out there come up with a reference in the FCA and/or regulations or anywhere else where this is actually stated?

**curious george** · 03-07-2014, 11:09

Why would you want dodgy(quality + origin)sandf/sadf milsurp anyway?

**bronxlive** · 03-07-2014, 11:10

So many people reckon that owning Mill ammo is illegal, but then again 7.62 mill ammo was sold by PMP to the public in the past iirc. I'm not sure about 5.56 though.
The way I understand it, the SANDF's reasoning behind it is that all SA Mill ammo in civvie hands was "stolen", and thus it's more a case of "possession of stolen property".

I have still to hear about anyone getting into trouble for this though.

**bronxlive** · 03-07-2014, 11:11

Originally Posted by curious george

Why would you want dodgy(quality + origin)sandf/sadf milsurp anyway?

What do you mean dodgy quality?

**curious george** · 03-07-2014, 11:16

Originally Posted by bronxlive

What do you mean dodgy quality?

Storage conditions unknown,etc-without even considering any possible qc issues.

**Paul** · 03-07-2014, 11:26

Originally Posted by bronxlive

... the SANDF's reasoning behind it is that all SA Mill ammo in civvie hands was "stolen", and thus it's more a case of "possession of stolen property".

The 'reasoning' whereof you speak is deeply flawed and has led to some serious legal blunders in the not too distant past (some of this blundering is ongoing).

They tried a similar line of bullshit with regards to many, many firearms which they had sold to civilians, and had their arses whipped. You'd think they would learn...