RFDs = ignorant of the law??

[Sandgroper]

When I started hand loading ammunition, I asked if I should enter it on my FAC - I was told in no uncertain terms that I should not enter anything on my FAC myself except to sign it on receipt.

So as Saddler had said.

[Rearlugs]

Just to muddy it.

When I spoke to my lot about bringing in an S1 shotgun from abroad they insisted on the serial number and having it on my FAC BEFORE I did so. Their attitude was that if I arrived without it on my ticket I had no authority to possess it - even though I had a slot for it. Luckily I had the info to hand so it was not a problem. And it was a personal item under the limit so no tax / duty paid.

Classic example of a Police force making it up as they go along, which is exactly why there are so many grey areas where people have heard different tales or been told different things.


Another good one - which i still do not the legal basis for - is whether it is legal to take a cash deposit on a firearm, for which the intended recipient does not yet have authority to possess (ie a variation slot).

Some RFDs believe, or have been told by Police, that taking a deposit is tantamount to agreeing a contract of sale, and that therefore an unlawful transaction has taken place - even if the firearm never leaves the possession of the RFD.

[Chapuis]

Just to muddy it.

When I spoke to my lot about bringing in an S1 shotgun from abroad they insisted on the serial number and having it on my FAC BEFORE I did so. Their attitude was that if I arrived without it on my ticket I had no authority to possess it - even though I had a slot for it. Luckily I had the info to hand so it was not a problem. And it was a personal item under the limit so no tax / duty paid.

Classic example of a Police force making it up as they go along, which is exactly why there are so many grey areas where people have heard different tales or been told different things.


Another good one - which i still do not the legal basis for - is whether it is legal to take a cash deposit on a firearm, for which the intended recipient does not yet have authority to possess (ie a variation slot).

Some RFDs believe, or have been told by Police, that taking a deposit is tantamount to agreeing a contract of sale, and that therefore an unlawful transaction has taken place - even if the firearm never leaves the possession of the RFD.

I don't think that's a grey area Rearlugs - hence the advisory note placed in the conditions on many certificates about not agreeing to buy something before you have the necessary authority. This advise has been around for years in fact I can recall Colin Greenwood saying it in Guns Review many years ago. Also think of the problems caused when one of the major players went bust a couple of years ago and hundreds of people said they had paid deposits. That one is still trying to be sorted. I also believe that BASC have pointed this out in the past.

[ovenpaa]

Slightly different, 0ur old pistol club had a thing going where non FAC members could pay for all but the last GBP1.00 for a pistol, the club would buy it and it was deemed to be club property albeit with only one user. we had some shooters with 3-4 such handguns and I always wondered why they had never applied for FAC's

[Chapuis]

Not that different really ovenpaa. Bit of a strange one that, I would suspect that they thought that they may not be granted certificates for one reason or another and as long as they didn't apply and get refused they could continue shooting under the club exemption. The pistols would then remain the property of the club although they had contributed the majority of the funds that went towards their purchase. The club officials should have been slightly warey of their motives for doing such a thing in my opinion. Was the club a commercial concern by any chance, or was it a club run by the members for the benefit of the members?

[Rearlugs]

I don't think that's a grey area Rearlugs - hence the advisory note placed in the conditions on many certificates about not agreeing to buy something before you have the necessary authority. This advise has been around for years in fact I can recall Colin Greenwood saying it in Guns Review many years ago. Also think of the problems caused when one of the major players went bust a couple of years ago and hundreds of people said they had paid deposits. That one is still trying to be sorted. I also believe that BASC have pointed this out in the past.

Thats interesting. There are obviously different "communities" of RFDs, and different "communities" of FACs: Out of the thirty or so RFDs I regularly associate with, I only know of two who self-impose the "no deposit" condition. Of the others, all of the ones i have discussed this with have never heard of the issue, or do not think it is a real legal constraint. At least two of these latter (no names, no pack drill) are extremely aux fait with firearms law, to the extent that they are contributors to Home Office consultations.

I have never noticed the FAC condition you mention on the last 300 odd transactions i have made, albeit I admit I usually only notice unusual conditions in passing as i check the other parts.

I mostly deal in Lee Enfields and other historic arms; maybe this condition is focussed on other types of arms and those RFDs that specialise in them?

[Blackstuff]

Those RFD's/FLD's don't appear to understand the difference between the words 'own' and 'possess' and which of them relates to FAC/SGC's??

I own an AR-15 lower receiver, which is languishing at an RFD as i don't have the authority to possess it (Although its debatable as to whether i actually require FAC authority for hat - currently being hammered out with my FLD), the part is still my property, not the RFD's.

[saddler]

Those RFD's/FLD's don't appear to understand the difference between the words 'own' and 'possess' and which of them relates to FAC/SGC's??

I own an AR-15 lower receiver, which is languishing at an RFD as i don't have the authority to possess it (Although its debatable as to whether i actually require FAC authority for hat - currently being hammered out with my FLD), the part is still my property, not the RFD's.

As to the lower receiver...IF the gun in question had been a de-act, what part of the lower receiver would have been drilled/blow-torched/angle-ground, etc.??

NONE of it...to whit, the lower receiver is NOT a pressure bearing part, it has no Proof House stamps on it, etc.

To all intents & purposes, it is a stock that the working pressure bearing parts fit onto

[Chapuis]

I would agree with you Saddler that would be a non pressure bearing part so can be owned and possessed without restriction.

I would also agree than many not all but many RFDs demonstrate a very poor knowledge of firearms laws and as a result put themselves and their customers at risk of prosecution. Perhaps it should be the same as in a few other countries where in order to become a dealer you have to have certain skills and knowledge.

[CDM5]

Sorry to thread hijack but a quick question.

I went to an RFD earlier today to buy some ammo and reloading components.
I bought some some FMJ .303 bullets and what I thought was FMJ .308, however upon getting home I noticed that the .308 bullets are hollow point boat tailed (Privi HPBT Match 168gr). Does that mean it's classed as expanding ammunition?