The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Pete wrote:A while back I bought a barrelled action off a private individual through Guntrader.
A mate who's an RFD sent a copy of his cert to the guy, together with the cash (which I'd given him), and when the kit arrived, he entered it on his stock list, passed it on to me, entered it on my FAC and informed his plod, as did I.
All the seller had to do was ship it and let his plod have the RFD details, so only one RFD was involved in the transfer.
I assume this is still allowed?

Pete

This hasn't been allowed for a long while. It is only recently that the law is being enforced more strictly.
The one selling it has to fill out your FAC, the conditions or notes on the FAC mention Section32 of the FA(A) act 1997 and tell you exactly who has to enter the details on your FAC and what you have to do as the purchaser
Now if the RFD had bought the item and then advertised it for sale and you bought it off the RFD then that would be fine as the RFD is the seller/transferee to you.

"Now if the RFD had bought the item and then advertised it for sale and you bought it off the RFD then that would be fine as the RFD is the seller/transferee to you."

Well, that's effectively what happened, apart from his advertising the item.................the RFD was the seller/ transferee, whichever way you cut it.

Pete

Not in the eyes of the law.

OK, it sounds like you have some experience in gun related legalities...........scenario: I spot something advertised by an individual (ie not an RFD) on Guntrader, I contact the individual to discuss the item and show interest, and then I tell my friendly RFD. He contacts the seller and buys it, as he does with much of his stock.
He then sells it to me.
Please explain how this is illegal under the present legislation.

Pete

The "intent" with which it is purchased.

It's a bit like 'straw purchasing', one who makes a purchase on behalf of another person when the real buyer cannot complete the transaction for some reason or, in this case, wants to circumvent the law and conditions on the license just to make it easier for them.

If "intent" is the key word, I'm surprised there are any RFD's still in business..............
Let's examine it a little further. I ask an RFD to find me a rifle of a particular (legal) type, he agrees.
Some time later, he finds and purchases a suitable rifle, adding it to his stock list. He lets me know, and we complete the sale.
Anything wrong with that?
From what you're saying, having found the rifle, he should then put me in touch with the seller, and I'd have to go face to face.........

Pete

Pete, I would say this was quite acceptable as they have sourced the firearm for you.

But it's possibly not acceptable if I point him in the direction of said firearm first, for example, point out the ad to him ?

I'm going to try and get a legal opinion on this..............

Pete

What I don’t understand is that as what has been described as the correct way of doing things ( if i’ve got it right) for a distance sale

I see a rifle advertised i like , contact seller , agree to buy.
Send my fac to seller, he checks i have authority to purchase and fills it in and tells his licensing dept that he’s done so.
Returns my fac to me
Seller takes rifle to his rfd and it is transferred to my rfd.
I then go to my rfd with my fac that has been completed by the seller and pick the rifle up.

All well and good , bit of a faff and involves possible loss of my fac.

But done this way the rifle effectively has periods where it is on 2 certs or not held on the cert it is entered on.

When the seller fills in my fac, has the rifle then not been transferred to my ownership? Making me technically responsible for its safe keeping, but at that point i’m not in possession and the seller has a rifle that is no longer on his ticket.

Then the seller passes the rifle for transfer to his rfd who then enters it onto his register, but is effectively taking from someone who does’nt legally possess it and now the rifle is on both my fac and the rfd’s register.

Rifle is transferred to receiving rfd and entered in their register and again the rifle is on two certs. I then go to rfd and collect the rifle presenting my fac which has been completed by the seller. At long last the deal is completed.

So if the rifle went missing between the seller selling the rifle and it arriving with me, i’m responsible for a firearm i’ve never taken possession of which was transferred by the sending rfd by someone who on paper has transferred it to me. The rifle will be listed as on my and the rfd’s certs but i would’nt have transferred it to him even though i’m the keeper.

If that is really the way the law says it should be done , it must be a scheme devised by the pg chimps randomly typing. Or have i got it completely wrong? The previously accepted way of doing it or “transfer with intent “ must surely be better.

Apologies if its been covered in last 10 pages , i skimmed the posts and did’nt see.