Selling gun while FAC is away

[CharlieT]

No, he's a

[Dekers]

Guys, come on, time to calm down, there are a few people here I have some time for who have jumped on a bandwagon, you are perfectly entitled to sell a Firearm or Shotgun if you are legally entitled to do so.

 

That does not necessarily mean you have to be holding a FAC/SGC in your hand!

 

ATB!

[39TDS]

It puzzles me that of all the various forums that I visit the one with the most arguing going on is the one that involves guns.

Can't be a good sign can it.

Most threads on here that make it past one page are usually just people arguing after that.

 

Anyway, I asked the question because I had advertised a gun, and then decided to add another calibre to my ticket. Turns out either nobody wants my gun or I priced it too high, either way it matters not that my ticket is away afterall.

[JonathanL]

In the real world, that is exactly how it works.

 

You have more than a bit of arrogance. That is my opinion and doesn't need an act of Parliament to confirm it.

 

No-one has to provide you with anything. They have stated what they believe to be true. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean they have to jump when you demand proof.

 

Seriously, you actually believe that? You belive that someone should be allowed to make statement to the effect that something is illegal and that if you do it you are looking at 5 yars jail on the back of absolutely zero evidence? You also think that it's perfectly acceptable to shout down and berate the person who dares to point out that the originator of the comments is wrong and who dares to ask him to actually back his statement up?

 

It's simple. It's either illegal or it isn't. If it's illegal then there is a section of an Act someone which makes it illegal. Fact is that there isn't!

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Ignore him Gordan ,not worth the effort . Probably a failed lawyer looking for a dock brief .

 

Harnser .

 

So, you can't actually provide any evidence what-so-ever in any shape or form to back up your statement that it is illegal for both buyer and seller to engage in a transaction for the sale of a firearm where the seller is not in physical possession of his cert.

 

If you can then please feel free to provide your legal source. If you can't then be a man and admit it, don't get out the pet-lip when I call you wrong.

 

J.

[Gordon R]

JonathanL -

 

You also think that it's perfectly acceptable to shout down and berate the person

 

I think you have cornered that market. Posters state their honest opinion. This is an internet forum, not a court of law. Posters can say what they like without being answerable to you.

 

You need to calm down a little. You are in danger of making yourself look a little silly - make that more silly.

 

I will add a few smilies to cheer you up. :lol:

[JonathanL]

Posters state their honest opinion.

 

 

So, to clarify is it still your honest opinion that both buyer and seller commit an offence if the buyer buys and the seller sells a firearm when the seller is not in physical possession of his FAC?

 

J.

[Gordon R]

JonathanL - to clarify, is it still your opinion that posters cannot post their opinion, unless they can prove it to be true? :lol:

 

If a seller cannot produce his / her certificate, how does the buyer know that it is legally held? The seller has to cite their certificate details on the buyer's licence. How would the buyer know that they were authentic? It is my opinion that they may or may not be committing an offence. I just happen to believe that it is not worth taking the chance. I think that should be clear enough for even you. If you would take a chance - good luck, but I sincerely believe that would be stupid, although you do seem well qualified.

 

You seem intent on proving a point. I think you have made your point. Pedantic springs to mind.

[JonathanL]

JonathanL - to clarify, is it still your opinion that posters cannot post their opinion, unless they can prove it to be true? :lol:

 

I said no such thing.

 

If a seller cannot produce his / her certificate, how does the buyer know that it is legally held? The seller has to cite their certificate details on the buyer's licence. How would the buyer know that they were authentic?

 

None of this is relevant the point at hand. The statement made was that it is an offence for a buyer to buy and a seller to sell a firearm if the seller is not in physical possession of his FAC. That is untrue, totally, completely and utterly untrue, there are no such offences. If there are then they are very easy to find in the Firearms Acts.

 

To address your specific points, irrelavent as they are. The buyer may well not be able to be sure that it is legal. However, this is beside the point. It doesn't matter if the seller is in illegal possession as the buyer does not commit any offence by purchasing it using an authority on his FAC, even if he knows the guy hasn't got in on cert to begin with. The seller will do but that is a very different offence to simply not being in physical possession of your certificate which is the alleged offence committed.

 

Even if there were such an offence then how likely is it that you would ever be proscuted? I can see the conversation now; Police: 'Excuse me Mr Bloggs but regarding this illegal firearm you got off your mate the other day'... Bloggs: 'yes what abaout it' Police: 'well, you have committed an offence by acquiring it - if you ever have the temerity to dare to bring an unlicensed gun into the control of the most rigerous licensing system on the planet we'll lock you up for a million billion years!' Bloggs: 'Oh, ok, next time soemone offers me an unlicensed firearm that I'm allowed to possess in the first place I'll tell themn to stick it up their a*se.'

 

It is true that they seller has to fill in the buyers cert but that's hardly a major problem. He may have a photocopy of his cert, he may have writendown or even memorised the number. Both parties could call the licensing department to get his cert number.

 

What about someone who doesn't have a cert and is selling the gun on behalf of a deceased estate? That happens all the time. The gun may be with a dealer and the dealer would do the transfer but he's not actually selling it. Does the representative of the estate committ this mythical offence when he accepts money for the gun?

 

It is my opinion that they may or may not be committing an offence. I just happen to believe that it is not worth taking the chance. I think that should be clear enough for even you. If you would take a chance - good luck, but I sincerely believe that would be stupid, although you do seem well qualified.

 

There is no chance to take - it is not an offence! I've pointed this out and so has at least one other person. Have a read through the Firearms Acts and see if you can find anything which creates such an offence. You won't fnd anything.

 

You seem intent on proving a point. I think you have made your point. Pedantic springs to mind.

 

It isn't pedantry. I pursue stuff like this because it annoys me at how much mis-information and untruth there is out there regarding firearms. This is serious **** - the Firearms Acts and all their attendent rules and regulations are complicated and convoluted enough without people introducing even more in form of stuff that isn't correct.

 

It's, very, vey important (at least I think it is) that shooters know what the law says and what it doesn't say and I think it is entirely right and proper that things that are incorrect are corrected at the earliest opportunity. That is the whole point of boards like this - if people aren't allowed to correct stuff that is incorrect then just what is the point of having a place like this?

 

J.

[Gordon R]

Jonathanl - I have read what you have said, albeit in your rather aggressive style, thinking you might be genuine and have something to offer. However this diatribe:-

 

Even if there were such an offence then how likely is it that you would ever be proscuted? I can see the conversation now; Police: 'Excuse me Mr Bloggs but regarding this illegal firearm you got off your mate the other day'... Bloggs: 'yes what abaout it' Police: 'well, you have committed an offence by acquiring it - if you ever have the temerity to dare to bring an unlicensed gun into the control of the most rigerous licensing system on the planet we'll lock you up for a million billion years!' Bloggs: 'Oh, ok, next time soemone offers me an unlicensed firearm that I'm allowed to possess in the first place I'll tell themn to stick it up their a*se.'

 

makes you appear more than a little odd. Your colourful use of the language does you no credit. :no:

 

I will not reply further, as it might encourage you. :rolleyes:

[Beretta28g]

Read Section 5 Of the Home office Guidance to the Police.

[JonathanL]

Jonathanl - I have read what you have said, albeit in your rather aggressive style, thinking you might be genuine and have something to offer. However this diatribe:-

 

 

 

makes you appear more than a little odd. Your colourful use of the language does you no credit. :no:

 

I will not reply further, as it might encourage you. :rolleyes:

 

Oh, give over! There are loads of posts on here with stars all over them but I bet this is he first time you've ever felt the need to comment on it.

 

My style of posting is not at all aggressive. Forthright, perhaps, but not aggressive.

 

So, once again, you haven't even managed to address the points I made. You just resort to slagging me off, rather than actually debating the points at hand. If I'm wrong it's dead easy to prove but you have made absolutely no attempt to do so you just resort to insult and the use of pointless smilies.

 

J.

 

Read Section 5 Of the Home office Guidance to the Police.

 

Which bit are you referring to, specifcally?

 

J.

[Beretta28g]

Section 5

[JonathanL]

Section 5

 

Which bit of section 5? I assume that you are saying that something in there supports what someone here is saying ie: that it says that such an activity is either legal or illegal?

 

J.

[Gordon R]

Against my better judgement - JonathanL - you are an idiot. Grow up.

[JonathanL]

Against my better judgement - JonathanL - you are an idiot. Grow up.

 

And you've just been calling me aggressive and insulting.

 

What is it about pointing out that someone has mad an incorrect statement as to the state of the law that makes me an idiot? As I said before, this is important stuff. Sooters need to know what the actually is and if people are going about handing out opinions then they need to be based on actual fact and not just wild guesswork which is what the original statement amounted to.

 

Actually, your first sentence doesn't even make sense. Against your better judgement as to what? Do you mean that you're actully saying it against your better judgement or your better judgement tells you I'm not an idiot but you're going to call me one anyway?

 

J.

[poontang]

Which bit of section 5? I assume that you are saying that something in there supports what someone here is saying ie: that it says that such an activity is either legal or illegal?

 

J.

 

I suspect he means this bit:

 

5.15 Persons who dispose of firearms or

ammunition otherwise than by way of trade

and business need not register, but all

persons, including dealers, must observe

the provisions of the Act regarding

 

a) persons to whom firearms and ammunition

may be sold or transferred (section 3(2) of

the 1968 Act and section 5(2) of the 1988

Act) namely;

 

1) a person producing a firearm certificate

authorising them to acquire that firearm

or section 1 ammunition;

2) a registered firearms dealer;

3) in the case of a shot gun, a person

with a current shot gun certificate or a

firearm certificate holder who possesses

a section 1 shot gun;

4) in the case of section 2 (shot gun)

ammunition, someone who produces

another person’s valid shot gun

certificate, together with written

authority from the certificate holder

to allow them to purchase or acquire

the ammunition;

5) someone who shows that by virtue of

the Act they are entitled to purchase or

acquire the firearm or ammunition

without a certificate

[CharlieT]

Section 5

Edited March 5, 2012 by CharlieT

[JonathanL]

I suspect he means this bit:

 

5.15 Persons who dispose of firearms or

ammunition otherwise than by way of trade

and business need not register, but all

persons, including dealers, must observe

the provisions of the Act regarding

 

a) persons to whom firearms and ammunition

may be sold or transferred (section 3(2) of

the 1968 Act and section 5(2) of the 1988

Act) namely;

 

1) a person producing a firearm certificate

authorising them to acquire that firearm

or section 1 ammunition;

2) a registered firearms dealer;

3) in the case of a shot gun, a person

with a current shot gun certificate or a

firearm certificate holder who possesses

a section 1 shot gun;

4) in the case of section 2 (shot gun)

ammunition, someone who produces

another person’s valid shot gun

certificate, together with written

authority from the certificate holder

to allow them to purchase or acquire

the ammunition;

5) someone who shows that by virtue of

the Act they are entitled to purchase or

acquire the firearm or ammunition

without a certificate

 

I don't see how that relates to the discussion, to be honest.

 

J.

[poontang]

My dear friend ,the very reason that we have firearms and shotgun certificates is to prove to all and sundry that the guns are legally owned . It would be an offense for you to sell a gun to anybody if they could not first verify that the gun was legal and registered on your certificate,as it would also be illegal for anybody to buy a gun from you if you did not have your certificate . The buyer has to satisfy himself that the gun Doe's actually belong to you by checking your photo on your ticket and the guns serial number . Why dont you do the sensible thing and take a deposit from the proposed buyer and complete the deal when your ticket is returned .

 

Harnser .

 

 

I'm not sure that it would be. What Act creates these offences?

 

J.

 

Sec.3(2)of the 1968 act and Sec.5(2)of the 1988 act.

 

 

I don't see how that relates to the discussion, to be honest.

 

J.

 

I think it's self explanatory really.

 

An FAC must be produced by a person wishing to acquire a firearm or sec.1 ammunition. There are slight differences if purchasing shotgun ammunition, but that isn't what the OP's question was about.

[JonathanL]

Sec.3(2)of the 1968 act and Sec.5(2)of the 1988 act.

 

 

 

 

I think it's self explanatory really.

 

An FAC must be produced by a person wishing to acquire a firearm or sec.1 ammunition. There are slight differences if purchasing shotgun ammunition, but that isn't what the OP's question was about.

 

Nope, you have misinterpreted the Guidance and misread what the OP was actually asking.

 

What we are discussing here is this. Someone has stated that it is i) an ofence to sell a gun to someone if you are not in physical possession of your FAC and, ii) That is an offence to purchase a gun from someone who is not in physical posession of his FAC.

 

Section.3(2) reads

 

'It is an offence for a person to sell or transfer to any other person in the United Kingdom, other than a registered firearms dealer, any firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or a shot gun, unless that other produces a firearm certificate authorising him to purchase or acquire it or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate, or shows that he is by virtue of this Act entitled to purchase or acquire it without holding a certificate.

 

Clearly then, the alleged offences are not contained in that section as it relates to the offence of transferring a firearm to someone who does not produce his FAC/SGC. It does not relate to a transfer from a person who is not in physical possession of his cert.

 

Section 5(2) of the 1988 Act doesn't even relate to firearms at all and is actually about transferring shotgun ammunition.

 

J.

Edited March 5, 2012 by JonathanL

[39TDS]

It's OK.

I decided to use my gun as part ex on a new one instead.

Panic over.

[njc110381]

Spoil sport!

 

I can't see why selling would be an issue. I know my FAC number and date so have no need to copy it from my FAC. A buyer who makes a purchase from someone with no FAC to show could be deemed more than a little daft, but that's not the seller's problem!

 

If I was buying in this situation I'd want to speak to someone in the firearms office of the area the seller was from. But still I can't see how it's actually breaking any law? As long as the buyer has proof that they can lawfully acquire the gun then all is well?

[39TDS]

Spoilsport +1......the FAC is back with me now too.

[cowboy1403]

i`m with jonathan on this and cant see why it took 4 pages for someone to prove him right.