Discount ammunition

[breacher]

Ok then - why does the legislation refer to "purchasing" as well as "possession" ?

If the legislation was only to restrict possession then they would not used the word purchase.

Up to recently on FACs - there were even seperate tables allowing purchase of a certain amount and possession of a certain amount.

The overiding bit of legislation is "only allowed to purchase or possess firearms or ammunition as permitted by certificate". Its right there in the primary legislation. And the fact it uses both words means they see both acts as seperate.

Now whether its enforced is a different question. Rather like the production of a FAC. Thats still a legal requirement even though its not enforced as checks can be made by mobile phone or radio from the roadside.

Legal and unenforced are different things.

Anyway, I am sure the RFD concerned will have the common sense to submit the scheme and get it approved by their FLD in writing - be it a gift voucher scheme or whatever.

Mark my words though - if the shooter and RFD ever enter into a civil dispute ( bankruptcy or other problems ) and the shooter chooses to resort to law to get a refund, this whole scheme WILL be looked at by the authorities higher than the FLD.

[breacher]

Here you go - primary legislation.........

Requirement of firearm certificate
(1)Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person—
(a)to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire,a firearm to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate ;
(b)to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, any ammunition to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate, or in quantities in excess of those so authorised.

Section B is the bit that matters.

"Purchase" - whether it is legal or not relies on that word.

If person A pays person B for ammo but person B stores it for person A - has he "purchased" or "acquired" it ?

That would be or a court to decide. And they would decide whether said payment /gift vouchers or deposits or investments would amount to "purchase or acquire".

[froggy]

Ok then - why does the legislation refer to "purchasing" as well as "possession" ?
If you have an FAC, may I suggest you ask you FO to explain the difference to you if you dont fully grasp the concept . In a broader sense of , may I also suggest you start by trying to understand the basic concept of passing a title of commercial ownership ? You'd really save yourself some time there ...

Anyway, this is getting really silly and since my opinion or for that matter, yours, actually have zero value, if you want to make a meaningful contribution to this "discussion", why don't you ask a lawer, police or a judge ?

[breacher]

May I suggest you start by trying to understand the basic concept of passing a title of ownership ? You'd really save yourself some time ...

Anyway, this is getting really silly and since my opinion or for that matter, yours, actually have zero value, if you want to make a meaningful contribution to this "discussion", why don't you ask a lawer, police or a judge ?

Great - another term to avoid the word purchase ! We can add that to "gift vouchers" "deposit" and "investment" or even "crowd funding" !!!!!!!! What was that other convenient term ? Oh yes "Nice shooters financially helping the nice RFD"

Froggy - I can just see the look on the Judges face when the barrister says "Mr Froggy, I put it to you, you purchased that ammo" and you reply "I was just financially helping the RFD".

Of course. Ignore primary legislation and keep asking someone until you get the answer you like !

And its not opinion - its primary legislation !

If you cannot see primary legislation specifically referring to the question as a meaningful contribution, I dont see what would be !

[breacher]

So how does that work when you have the GTA distance selling rule that seems to say that you cannot buy anything restricted by the firearms act unless you have permission for it on your FAC. Surely buying ammunition over your authorisation even although you don't store it breeches that principle?

My FAC only says I can possess up to x amount. It says nothing about how much I can buy.

My last post addresses just that - how much you can purchase or acquire. Its in the primary legislation.

[froggy]

The law is clear & precise. Never, would I :
a) purchase above my legal limit, (*)
b) posses / be in my possession / access above my legal limit, (*)

The difference is, Breacher, that you speculate without any real/solid knowledge of what you are talking about, where-as, not having either real/solid knowledge, I actually made the enquiry to check it out and educate myself.

So quite frankly, on one side I have the opinion on the matter from the "who" it may concern and on the other hand I have a "I can just see the look..." from someone who doesn't even seem to understand what a title of ownership means, entails and at what moment it is passed.

As far as I am concerned, that sums it up nicely & enuf said from my side


(*) as per the terms of my FAC

[bradaz11]

So how does that work when you have the GTA distance selling rule that seems to say that you cannot buy anything restricted by the firearms act unless you have permission for it on your FAC. Surely buying ammunition over your authorisation even although you don't store it breeches that principle?

My FAC only says I can possess up to x amount. It says nothing about how much I can buy.

My last post addresses just that - how much you can purchase or acquire. Its in the primary legislation.

yeah, and as you yourself point out, we used to have a hold and a purchase amount on our tickets. this has been dropped off the tickets by making out purchase amount the same as our possession amount and removing it from the ticket. there has been no change to the primary legislation, so of course its still going to talk about purchase and possession

[breacher]

Froggy - I am expressing an opinion in a debate. Thats all. And I am basing that opinion on primary legislation.

So, when you got your answer from your FLD - how had you worded your question ? Which of the many terms did you use to describe what you had mind ? Did you ask how their answer could be seen with regard to the paragraph I quoted in legislation ?

Also - little example for you..........

Recently I put in for a few gallery rifle slots on my FAC. I pointed out that I would be stalking in the meantime and would need a temp permit or to retain my fac whilst they arranged new slots. As we both know - it is a requirement of primary legislation, to produce uopn demand your Fac to a constable who finds you with a firearm. So I wanted to be able to comply. The FEO stated it was no longer a requirement as technology had move on allowing roadside checks by phone etc. I pointed out the relevant section and was assured it no longer applied. I declined and asked them to have the manager contact me.

Guess what - manager contacted me and agreed that it IS still a requirement and that he would be "raising the awareness" of the FEOs knowledge on the matter ! He said the FEO had interpreted the legislation and gotten it wrong. He said primary legislation takes precedent until case law is in effect.

Another example - Joe at Gunshop made an enquiry of FLD - got an answer and sold the item. Later buyer moved to another area and his new FLD stated it was illegal !

Another example - person wants to shorten their shotgun barrel to under 24" and add a muzzle brake bringing it back up to 24". He looks at primary legislation which states its ONLY allowed by a RFD who is removing a damaged part of the barrel with the intention of replacing that part and returning it to 24". So thats clear then. Or is it ? What if the owner deliberately damaged the barrel himself in order to make the conversion he wanted, essential ? Nothing in the legislation says whether the damage has to be accidental or deliberate.

And guess what ? Two FLDs gave 2 different answers when asked the same question !!!!


Anyway - loving the debate





By theway....... when I asked the authorities re my proposed .22 modification - I asked my FLD and I asked the Home Office too - when it comes to bread and butter parts of the legislation the FLD are competant but anything unusual can reveal their knowledge is lacking.

I would not be surprised to get a "yes" from one and a "no" from the other !!!!

[breacher]

yeah, and as you yourself point out, we used to have a hold and a purchase amount on our tickets. this has been dropped off the tickets by making out purchase amount the same as our possession amount and removing it from the ticket. there has been no change to the primary legislation, so of course its still going to talk about purchase and possession



No change to primary legislation = still in force.

[froggy]

its still going to talk about purchase and possession
why ? Since, one more time, I only purchase & possess within my FAC limits. Have you actually got a problem with your reading ??

So, let's resume . A question was asked here.
I did not know the answer.
Instead of making a prat of myself with groundless theories, I actually tried to clarify the matter with "who" might know.
Subsequently, I am merely reporting here the conclusions to the querry I made.
I am not having & I am not interested into a debate, especially with someone, who like me, has not got a clue ...

Now, if you are so concerned about it or, feel it is actually relevant to you, which, BTW (*), I strongly doubt, why , instead of waffling on & telling us about your fascinating life stories , don't you make the relevant enquiry for yourself ??

Until then ZZZzzzzz...........




(*) are you actually a RFD tempted ? or interested into buying ammo that way ?
Cos, if neither, why are you interested by this post ?