RFDs = ignorant of the law??

[Rearlugs]

Here is a good one for mini-poll of RFDs:

I found out only last year (from someone in HBSA) that it is a statutory requirement to enter into the RFD register a record of whether a firearm is black powder proof or nitro proof, i.e. the RFD must state "black powder proof" or "nitro proof" as part of the details of each firearm.

I must admit, up to that point I had only ever entered "black powder proof" on the rare occasions when I actually had a black powder weapon (I do, of course make a note of "out of proof" and "proofed date xxx" when applicable). I certainly hadn't written out "nitro proof" hundreds of times in my register. I don't think I know of any RFD who has routinely observed this legal requirement.



p.s. who thinks a skeleton action Lee Enfield is section one or five, unless it is deactivated?

[ovenpaa]

Arghh... I do not note if something is in Nitro Poof in my records and if you check the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 it does not appear to use the words 'nitro' or 'proof'

Rearlugs, do you know where such statutory requirements are documented as the whole RFD thing is a minefield, even something as basic yet essential as record keeping is not truly documented other than 'keep records'

[Blackstuff]

p.s. who thinks a skeleton action Lee Enfield is section one or five, unless it is deactivated?

Apart from if it failed the 12" barrel/24" OAL how else could it be S5?

[bigfathairybiker]

Very interesting thread.

Do RFD's have to do any exams, courses or have qualifications?

Mark

[ovenpaa]

We are not required as RFD's to sit any exams or courses, I am not even required to hold an FAC. Also there is no little bl;ack book on how to be an RFD so it is often open to interpretation and second hand information from other RFD's who may not be sure of where the information came from or even if it is fact or legally binding.

It is a bit of a minefield really....

[Christel]

What you definitely need in order to be approved as a RFD are solid doors and lockable windows, a business plan, very noisy category 3 alarm system (next one up is for banks and the like I believe) and a big menacing looking dog helps.

When we went through the process some 9 months ago that is exactly what was required of us. We had the dog and the windows and the business plan...

That alarm system still freaks me out...I have set it off once unintended, early morning...feck does it make a noise.

BTW, alarm...if anyone is looking to have one installed, it is important that the whole system is wired...wireless means it is not the correct system for a RFD.

[ovenpaa]

Alarms are an interesting point, we had a few quotes and they usually wanted to put a hybrid system in, so part wired and part wireless which seemed fine until the last chap turned up, asked what the alarm was for and then made a phone call to confirm exactly what was acceptable and technically part wireless systems drop everything down a category which is not correct.

The alarm system also has to be monitored, maintained and registered with the Police.

[waterford103]

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

Had an email from Durham FLD this morning saying that they still consider AR lowers as 'component parts' and therefore licenseable. There was no reference to a Firearms Act, only the 2002 guidance;

"Chapter 13 paragraph 13.70 page 76;

The term “component part” may be held to include (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture are not considered component parts.’ "

IMO this is iffy, but its not something i'm willing to press for the sake of getting a better price for the lower

Home Office guidance is just that -- advice .It is not the law ,the LAW says pressure bearing component , the advice is wrong ! The law may only be changed by parliament , the Home Office is not parliament and neither are Chief Constables despite what they might think .

[Sim G]

[quote="waterford103
The term “component part” may be held to include (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture are not considered component parts.’ "[/i]

IMO this is iffy, but its not something i'm willing to press for the sake of getting a better price for the lower[/quote]

Home Office guidance is just that -- advice .It is not the law ,the LAW says pressure bearing component , the advice is wrong ! The law may only be changed by parliament , the Home Office is not parliament and neither are Chief Constables despite what they might think . [/quote]


Home office guidance is "the guide to how the law should be interpreted and enforced." HO guidance is generally the considered opinions of Treasury Solicitors. It is not, "don't eat yellow snow" advice.

And technically, the frame of a pistol or revolver is pressure bearing. The action/body of a bolt rifle is pressure bearing. And the law, can also be changed through precedent and judgement, ie case law. Parliament has the power to introduce law, the courts can amend, change and decree. Chief constables are only charged with enforcing/upholding...

[ovenpaa]

Be careful here because it really is down to interpretation regardless of what is written down. I had reason to speak to the Home Office again quite recently and they did not recognise the term 'Component part' as such in fact a component part is any part of a firearm and they prefer to refer to them as and discuss them as 'Pressure bearing parts'