Each application for and cert issued is specific to each firearm.

That's the way it was explained to me on here before but I cannot get my head around it.

By that logic, if you had a .22 pistol license with 500 rounds and a .22 rifle license with 1000 rounds then you'd be in breach of your pistol license if you had 1000 rounds in your cabinet? They absolutely stack, there's no reason as to why it wouldn't.

Regardless of whether they stack (and they may in practise), the above logic doesn't hold up.
In the above the rifle license authorises you to posses 1000 rounds. How does that breach the pistol license?
Same way a rifle license authorising to possess .223 rounds isn't a breach of a 22lr pistol license.

As you are well aware, being something a super will argue about does not mean it's actually the law or rules.
And in practise, they might stack in terms how they are generally treated by 99%.

Say you have 2 rifle in .223, both on licenses that say "the holder is authorised to posses no more than 1,000 rounds". And the guards stop you in possession of 2000 rounds. I'm wondering is there anything in law or on paper that says that you are actually authorised to posses 2000?
There might be, I don't have the wording in front of me. But if not once again shooters left to bear the legal risk of "just the way it is". Gut feeling is the latter.

If one had say 3 shotguns or rifles of the same calibre. Say 100 rounds allowed on each cert. Therefore, only allowed 33.3 rounds for each firearm. That's the logic that some are mentioning here.

You apply for a specific firearm and a specific quantity of ammunition on each specific FCA form. It's either granted or refused. There is no connection to other firearms or ammunition authorised on other certs. I can't understand why there is any confusion over this.

Also if you have for example a suppressor authorised for one specific firearm then you cannot use it on another one, even if it's the same calibre. Again, each application, grant and cert are specific to the firearm on the application.

well i have a 12 gauge Browning U/O the licence for that allows me 500 cartridges, i also have a 12 gauge semi auto and have the licence saying i can have 1000 cartridges for that. Therefore i am more than comfortable having 1500 cartridges in my possession. I use the u/o mainly for clays and the semi for game and vermin, however i do use them for all from time to time and declared that on my applications.

Why would it be 33? If they have a cert that says they can possess 100, then no issue carrying 100 in the field or 100 at the range.
But can he go out in the field with 200? Not sure if the cert covers his ass there.

I understand that each grant is for a specific firearm. I just think the wording could be better. If fact the whole license/reason woukd be better fit shooters generally.

You don't need a law to say that something is permitted.

That’s not really true. It’s much easier to defend yourself by pointing to where the law says so, than by relying on ambiguity that could be twisted against you.

If there was an issue with them stacking then why does my 2nd .22 cert not say 0 rounds as I already have an existing ammo allowance on my first one. 

That doesn’t make sense. Why would it ever say 0 if they didn’t stack?

What does your 2nd cert say?

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. I know you're genuine in your interpretation but we have enough issues with what actually is prescribed by law.

Im not trying to invent new issues. I’m just pointing out that it’s just another aspect of the cert that leave shooters without solid grounding.

I fully appreciate that’s how it’s treated de facto. And I’m not saying people can’t bring 300. I’m simply asking if there’s anything on the cert, or in the law that backs that up.

If a guard pulls you over with 300 in the boot. You were restocking and have licenses but not firearms. Has no firearm experience and decides to be a prick over that says “not more than”. I think clarity is always better than ambiguity, better to avoid court than an easy win.

Maybe I should be more trusting, buts gets up my nose how amateur the licensing is