Distance Sales Sticky

[mag41uk]

If the RFD pays for it then it is regarded as a deposit which is not allowed without a slot.

Until there is a slot there is nothing anyone can do.

Presumably the RFD can just buy it from me. He/she can do with it whatever they want then.

[Blackstuff]

In my experience it has never worked that way, rightly or wrongly. I've seen multiple examples first and second hand of a deposit been taken on to-be-constructed guns (i don't think many gunsmiths would start a project without it ) and guns which are available and for sale being 'reserved' by way of deposit. Realistically its the only way it can work?

[Christel]

I do not agree that realistically that is the only way it can work.

Law clearly states, no slot, no deposit.

The RFD can buy it off you, then he is the one who transfer the gun to the buyer's certificate.

However I do not know of many RFDs who will buy a gun they may or may not be able to sell - there is no guarantee the buyer will get the relevant slot.

Why commission a gun you have no slot for?

[Blackstuff]

Well the number one reason I can think of is FLD delay times!

N.B. For clarity, the way it 'working' in my post was referencing just custom/not yet built guns and 'reserving' guns, not all types of transactions.

[Pete]

I'm having a "deja view" episode here..........years ago, an RFD (now sadly deceased) bought a rifle on my behalf, ie I told him I'd found a rifle and gave him the contact details and the cash, he bought it and sat on it until my slot arrived. Around the same time, I put a deposit on a rifle in a well-known gun shop, and collected and paid the balance when the slot arrived a week or two later.
Anyone know when this became illegal?
I imagine it was quite a blow to the gun trade...

Pete

[dromia]

It has always been illegal however the custom and practice has been different.

I am not sure exactly this came about but I seem to recall the GTA seeking clarity on the laws interpretation as some RFD's were concerned of breaking the law by aiding and abetting people without authority to purchase firearms, the outcome was this agreed interpretation of the law 'tween the trade and the Firearms Certification departments.

I am doing this from memory so not really reliable but I am sure if you go through this thread your question has been covered.