JonathanL Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 i think it`s a case of the CPS deciding is it in the public interest to take things forward.if they go to court over it and loose then all forces would have to accept e-mail as a form of notifacation and they proberly use this as "their paperwork mountain"reason for taking so long to process things. That isn't the case with this though. That sort of thing occurs where a point of law is at issue or something needs defining, or suchlike. In the case of notifications the law is quite clear, having been stipulated in the 1997 Act. That says that the recorded delivery service must be used for all notifications. You are correct in that it is highly unlikely that you would be prosecuted but if you are then you would certainly be convicted. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsonicnat Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 I think something has been missed here: Does it not Have to be SIGNED by BOTH Parties????... otherwise all thats gone before is irrelevant surely:?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) I think something has been missed here: Does it not Have to be SIGNED by BOTH Parties? ???... otherwise all thats gone before is irrelevant surely: ?... NO! The seller makes a signed entry on your certificate in Table 2 Shot Guns transferred, the holder of the S.G.C. has already signed page 1 of the Firearms Form 104 as the USUAL SIGNATURE OF HOLDER. Edited February 20, 2013 by TIGHTCHOKE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salizar Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 fwiw- a quote from the faq`s section of my flo. "Must I notify sales and/or acquisitions? Firearm legislation requires that all notifications must be sent to the above address in writing, including sales or acquisitions abroad; we do accept faxes and e-mail notifications". atb J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabbitbosher Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 fwiw- a quote from the faq`s section of my flo. "Must I notify sales and/or acquisitions? Firearm legislation requires that all notifications must be sent to the above address in writing, including sales or acquisitions abroad; we do accept faxes and e-mail notifications". atb J That may well be the case for Dorset Police , i deal with over 40 Police forces, they all accept different types of notification including Faxes and Emails, like i said before Northants Police have an Online form to fill out, its Brilliant, Fast and efficient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salizar Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 That may well be the case for Dorset Police , i deal with over 40 Police forces, they all accept different types of notification including Faxes and Emails, like i said before Northants Police have an Online form to fill out, its Brilliant, Fast and efficient Yes, that is the case with Dorset, they do accept email notifications. They email a receipt. Certainly easier and cheaper than recorded delivery. I do not know about other areas (although it`s easy to check with them), as I deal with Dorset. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Are you saying that I am wrong? J. I've just found and read this rather entertaining thread and particularly JonathanL's incorrect comments. Jonathan you really should keep up with the law if you are going to argue with everyone and be so dogmatic. A short read of the following Act will make the slice of humble pie you are about to consume appear to be well deserved, bearing in mind the way you put down some of those who posted in this topic. Firearms (electronic communications) Order 2011 Edited February 20, 2013 by CharlieT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabbitbosher Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Firearms (electronic communications) Order 2011 Jonathan you really should keep up with the law if you are going to argue with everyone and be so dogmatic. A short read of the following Act will make the slice of humble pie you are about to consume appear to be well deserved, bearing in mind the way you put down some of those who posted in this topic. :good: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 I'm looking forward to seeing how this goes from here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Sorry CharlieT,was that a link,as it didn't work for me?Unless I've done something wrong,which wouldn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Sorry CharlieT,was that a link,as it didn't work for me?Unless I've done something wrong,which wouldn't surprise me. No, sorry Scully, it wasn't a link. Just a reference to the government order. Posting links is beyond me ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) http://www.legislati...3/contents/made This Order amends the Firearms Act 1968, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (“the Firearms Acts”). The Order enables certain notices which are required to be sent to the chief officer of police under those Acts to be sent by an electronic communication where certain conditions are met. The Order also enables a chief officer of police, the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to send a notice required or authorised by the Firearms Act 1968 using an electronic communication where certain conditions are met. The subject matter of the Firearms Acts is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998, but certain functions under the Firearms Acts, some of which involve the giving of notices, were transferred to Scottish Ministers under the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 1999 Edited February 21, 2013 by markbivvy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) This is what the amendment states; "Amendments to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1974.—(1) The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997(1) is amended as follows. (2) In section 33 (notification of transfers involving firearms)— (a)in subsection (3), for “by registered post or the recorded delivery service” substitute “by permitted means”; (b)after subsection (3) insert— “(3A) A notice is sent by permitted means for the purposes of subsection (3) if it is sent— (a)by registered post; (b)by the recorded delivery service; or ©by permitted electronic means (see section 35A).”. Edited February 21, 2013 by TIGHTCHOKE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) I've just found and read this rather entertaining thread and particularly JonathanL's incorrect comments. Jonathan you really should keep up with the law if you are going to argue with everyone and be so dogmatic. A short read of the following Act will make the slice of humble pie you are about to consume appear to be well deserved, bearing in mind the way you put down some of those who posted in this topic. Firearms (electronic communications) Order 2011 I know about that and, yes, it's been mentioned here previously on other threads. However, if you practice what you preach and read it, you will see that is requires that certain consultations are undertaken before the minister can direct which methods of notification can be adopted. This consultation has not, to my knowledge, been carried out so no direction by the minister can be made, nor has any direction actually been made. If it has then point me to the SI concerned. The Order merely allows alterations to the way in which notifications are made to be implimented. It is not, of its self, an alteration to those methods. Nothing has actually changed other than the fact that the power has been created to allow other methods of communication to be used but no methods have yet been stipulated. This being the case, it remains a legal requirement to make these notifications in writing and sent by recorded delivery. J. Edited February 21, 2013 by JonathanL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 This is what the amendment states; "Amendments to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1974.—(1) The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997(1) is amended as follows. (2) In section 33 (notification of transfers involving firearms)— (a)in subsection (3), for “by registered post or the recorded delivery service” substitute “by permitted means”; (b)after subsection (3) insert— “(3A) A notice is sent by permitted means for the purposes of subsection (3) if it is sent— (a)by registered post; (b)by the recorded delivery service; or ©by permitted electronic means (see section 35A).”. This is only one section of it. There are other criteria which must be satisified before 'permitted electronic means' actually beocme 'permitted'. The minister must publish what those means actually are. To date this has not been done, to my knowledge. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Does anybody know how many people, if any, have been prosecuted for notifying in the incorrect manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Does anybody know how many people, if any, have been prosecuted for notifying in the incorrect manner? As mentioned; probably none and you probably won't be. Doesn't make it legal though. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 JonathanL Like it or not electronics notifications and commerce are here, legal and to stay. I can't be bothered to look it up for you but it is now signed off and legal. M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 So if JL is right that the Order is not yet in force but numerous police forces are publicising this as an acceptable way to notify them, it is very much them that are in the wrong. Seems strange to me that they would misinterpret the law so comprehensively. As BASC were consulted on this as far back as 2004, perhaps they would care to comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 No, sorry Scully, it wasn't a link. Just a reference to the government order. Posting links is beyond me ! No problem.Know what you mean...daughter has to remind me how to post them each time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 JonathanL Like it or not electronics notifications and commerce are here, legal and to stay. I can't be bothered to look it up for you but it is now signed off and legal. M They are here. They are not legal - yet. If you aren't prepared to prove it then have the courtesy not to say it. If I'm wrong then I'll happily accept that but please don't keep telling all and sundry that I am if you aren't prepared to back it up. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 So if JL is right that the Order is not yet in force but numerous police forces are publicising this as an acceptable way to notify them, it is very much them that are in the wrong. Seems strange to me that they would misinterpret the law so comprehensively. As BASC were consulted on this as far back as 2004, perhaps they would care to comment? Lots of forces were saying this well before the 2011 Order. Like I say, email probably a perfectly good way to notify but it isn't legal and I very much doubt anyone would ever be prosecuted for not using recorded delivery. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salizar Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Lots of forces were saying this well before the 2011 Order. Like I say, email probably a perfectly good way to notify but it isn't legal and I very much doubt anyone would ever be prosecuted for not using recorded delivery. J. So why is it not legal to notify my local police firearms department, by email, of the transfer of a firearm. I cannot find any reference to it being not legal. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) So why is it not legal to notify my local police firearms department, by email, of the transfer of a firearm. I cannot find any reference to it being not legal. John Already been discussed at length on this thread. The relevant legislation has been reproduced. Basically, because the 1997 Act says you must do it by recorded delivery. J. Edited February 25, 2013 by JonathanL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 JonathanL Like it or not electronics notifications and commerce are here, legal and to stay. I can't be bothered to look it up for you but it is now signed off and legal. M Four days since you posted this and still no sign of you having the common courtesy of proving what you say or withdrawing it and accepting that you say isn't true. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts