non SGC Borrowing "my" shotgun through another SGC holder

[JonathanL]

Wronggggg.

 

It's not his gun and never has been. very nice of him to buy it for you though.

 

He didn't have the authority to purchase it and, therefore, cannot own it.

 

Enjoy your present.

He does own it as he purchased it. He purchased it illegally but that in its self does not prevent him having legal title to it.

 

J.

[al4x]

He does own it as he purchased it. He purchased it illegally but that in its self does not prevent him having legal title to it.

 

J.

 

who handed over the money for it?

[JonathanL]

There is no issue it has been borrowed by a sgc holder not his friend, if they don't return it then its a simple police matter.

 

In this case jono is simply talking more rubbish than usual but you can't argue with armchair barristers.

 

As said numerous times its an occurrence that happens regularly and it puts no one in illegal possession, or half the parents who buy guns for their off spring would be in trouble and the simple fact is they aren't. If its so clear jono find me a single case where a sgc holder has purchased a gun and held it till a friend gets their certificate. While it is on ticket it is legally held

 

Nope, sorry but you are wrong. Once again, you are confusing possession and the legal examptions to it with 'purchase' which is a completely different concept. Believe me, I do this for a living and it is the reason as to why RFD's don't sell guns to people who do not have certificates. Your phrase 'legally' held is not the point. Yes, the guy who's cert it is on is holding it legally but the guy who purchased it did so illegally. Please try actually read what I have written and get someone to explain it if you don't understand it. That's a far better approach than trying to win an argument by hurling insults.

 

J.

[al4x]

you would never know as a Friggging RFD a person would walk in with a SGC to buy a gun. Hand over money and put the gun on his cert job done. Any private arrangement about holding the gun for a non licensee till he got a sgc would never be known.

 

You talked a load of bull**** on conditions the other day and this you are up the wrong tree alltogether

[JonathanL]

This was the point that I was making earlier and Johnathan L mis understood!

 

No, I didn't. I belive that I agreed with the point.

 

Still, the point is that someone who is not a certificate holder purchased a shotgun. That is an offence as defined in sectrion 2(1). Anyone on here can say differently but they would be wrong.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

who handed over the money for it?

 

I don't know and the OP hasn't actually said who did.

 

It's irrelevant though. If the OP's mate parted with some money, obtained legal ownership of a shotgun and the OP even agrees that his mate is the owner as a recult of those facts then he is undoubtedly the owner.

 

People hand over money all the time in payment for things that they are not going to become the owner of.

 

J.

[Gunnerbob]

JonathanL.... It is totally irrelevant who pays, as I understand it the shotgun was bought from an rfd by a certificate holder, no crime. Again it does not matter if the friend has a "flight of fancy" in stating he owns a shotgun,

 

he does not. The gun is in the safe custody of the legal owner, the certificate holder. Have you considered the implications of a bill of sale ? I think you will find that proves legal ownership, if this is made out to the

 

puchaser, the certificate holder, then there it ends. A v5 only lists the registered keeper of a vehicle....not the legal owner though they can be one and the same, the bill of sale or receipt is proof of ownership.

 

God preserve us from Keyboard Cowboys looking for problems that are not there....

[Twistedsanity]

I had this problem a few months back , the old mob at broomhills sold me a 12g knowing I had no licence and told me they would keep it for me and I could use it only with an instructors supervision , the jury's out as to the legality of it and everyone had their own viewpoint including RFD's who couldn't agree , my FEO chose not to comment on the legality from what I remember , I believe it's to do with posession so you can't legally posess a shotgun without the relevant certificate but ownership is a different matter If a relative dies and leaves me some guns in their will then i own them outright under the law but I need a cert to posess them

[markyboy]

Here pal give him his money back ! Oh you already have so now you own it ? And will sell it to him when he gets a certificate ? Thought so !

 

Problem solved

 

It's now your gun your free to lend him it under supervision ! Until such times he gets a certificate

 

Jonathan ! U bug me !!!!!!!!

[JonathanL]

JonathanL.... It is totally irrelevant who pays, as I understand it the shotgun was bought from an rfd by a certificate holder, no crime. Again it does not matter if the friend has a "flight of fancy" in stating he owns a shotgun,

No, this all obfuscation to try to cover up the real nature f the transaction. Even the OP has said that his mate may have done something he shouldn't and everyone else is trying to concoct some mythical set of circumstances to get the guy out of it.

 

It doesn't matter who actually hands over the payment, or who's certificate it goes on to. The OP's mate has bought a shotgun under a set of circumstances which makes it appear superfically that he hasn't. You can't say that you have done something and then try and invent something to make it look like he hasn't.

 

The fact is that the Act says that it is unlawful to purchase a shotgun if you don't have a certificate. That may be a good thing or a stupidly pointless thing but it is a fact that you cannot avoid. It is not even as though it is an unintended consequence of ambiguous wording because it isn't The word 'purchase' is there quite clearly and serves a specific purpose.

he does not. The gun is in the safe custody of the legal owner, the certificate holder. Have you considered the implications of a bill of sale ? I think you will find that proves legal ownership, if this is made out to the

 

puchaser, the certificate holder, then there it ends.

A reciept is just that - a reciept given in respect of an amount of money handed over. It is not, of its self, a contract not does it denote ownership. It may do but it is not guaranteed to. If a person gives an amount of money in exchange for legal title to a piece of property then he has purchsed it. It does not matter what the seller thought was the case but rather what the purchaser wanted to do. All that has happened in this case is that the purchaser has asked someone else to stand in his place so as to make it appear as though he hasn't purchased it.

 

I bought a printer for my company the other day. I took cash from the company account and used it to purchase the printer. I handed over the money but I never became the owner of the printer and nor did I ever intend to. My company is the owner, the company purchased it not me. Do you understand yet?

A v5 only lists the registered keeper of a vehicle....not the legal owner though they can be one and the same, the bill of sale or receipt is proof of ownership.

Not necessarily, for the reasons stated above.

God preserve us from Keyboard Cowboys looking for problems that are not there....

Believe me this is hardly a problem that isn't there. Doing something which is contrary to sec.2 is a very serious offence. It is the same offence as possessing a shotgun without a certificate. Can you imagine the hassle that is going to cause if the owner decides to apply for a cert and it comes up in conversation during the home visit that he has already purchased a shotgun with the help of his SGC holding mate? I think a prosecution is highly likely inthese circumstances.

 

J.

 

I had this problem a few months back , the old mob at broomhills sold me a 12g knowing I had no licence and told me they would keep it for me and I could use it only with an instructors supervision , the jury's out as to the legality of it and everyone had their own viewpoint including RFD's who couldn't agree , my FEO chose not to comment on the legality from what I remember , I believe it's to do with posession so you can't legally posess a shotgun without the relevant certificate but ownership is a different matter If a relative dies and leaves me some guns in their will then i own them outright under the law but I need a cert to posess them

This is quite true. You do not break the law by owning a shotgun without a cert. You do break it if you purchase one.

 

J.

 

Here pal give him his money back ! Oh you already have so now you own it ? And will sell it to him when he gets a certificate ? Thought so !

 

Problem solved

 

It's now your gun your free to lend him it under supervision ! Until such times he gets a certificate

 

Jonathan ! U bug me !!!!!!!!

So why bother reading the stuff I write then? Is there an ignore function on this board? If so, use it.

 

J.

[Gunnerbob]

So why bother reading the stuff I write then? Is there an ignore function on this board? If so, use it.

 

J.

 

In truth I think we would all do well to ignore you.

[JonathanL]

In truth I think we would all do well to ignore you.

Well, like I say; use the ignore function or just skip over the bits that I write. Why bother making repeated, pontless comments towards someone you who think isn't worth responding to?

 

J.

[Gunnerbob]

Well, like I say; use the ignore function or just skip over the bits that I write. Why bother making repeated, pontless comments towards someone you who think isn't worth responding to?

 

J.

My friend....you are suffering from an over exagerated sense of your own importance....consider yourself ignored !!

[DaveK]

He does own it as he purchased it. He purchased it illegally but that in its self does not prevent him having legal title to it.

 

J.

So who did the seller sell it to? Doesn't matter who's the money was. How the hell can someone have legal title to something that they weren't allowed BY LAW to purchase.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you. In fact no I don't. Life's too short.

Edited March 26, 2013 by DaveK

[DaveK]

So why bother reading the stuff I write then? Is there an ignore function on this board? If so, use it.

 

J.

Same reason as you bother writing the stuff you write. Can't your mother take the keyboard off you and shovit up your .....and lock it away?

 

Methinks the chap is, yet again overcome by the exuberance of his own verbosity.

 

Delusions of adequacy

depriving a village somewhere of it's idiot

Edited March 26, 2013 by DaveK

[oscarsdad]

This thread is very entertaining...some people just keep coming back for more lol!

[JonathanL]

So who did the seller sell it to? Doesn't matter who's the money was. How the hell can someone have legal title to something that they weren't allowed BY LAW to purchase.

Of course you can have legal title to it. The law says that you cannot purchase it without a certificate, not that you are barred from obtaining title to it.

 

J.

 

[DaveK]

Of course you can have legal title to it. The law says that you cannot purchase it without a certificate, not that you are barred from obtaining title to it.

 

J.

 

Oh get stretched you arrogant argumentative gimp. I give up I've taken on an idiot and been beaten by his stupidity. I just hope you're a 1st year Law student as there's still room for you to fail.

 

How in gods name can you have legal title to something you're not allowed to own? How many different ways do all these different people have to put it before you'll get it through your thick skull. Sorry, that'd be INFINITE then.

 

Oh BTW, when I insulted you at the beginning of this post I forgot to mention POMPOUS

Edited March 26, 2013 by DaveK

[Will Poon]

This thread is very entertaining...some people just keep coming back for more lol!

Careful oscarsdad , as you'll be quoted on as well :lol:

Edit... Just gone back a few pages sorry yep he's got to you as well

Edited March 26, 2013 by Willpoon

[JonathanL]

Oh get stretched you arrogant argumentative gimp. I give up I've taken on an idiot and been beaten by his stupidity. I just hope you're a 1st year Law student as there's still room for you to fail.

Been on the drink tonight, have we? Or is it just that you know you have lost the argument so are turning to that well used resort of personal hurling abuse in the desperate hope of hiding the fact?

How in gods name can you have legal title to something you're not allowed to own? How many different ways do all these different people have to put it before you'll get it through your thick skull. Sorry, that'd be INFINITE then.

As I have said many, many times on this thread, and you and others keep ignoring; 'ownership', 'purchase', 'acquisition' and 'possession' are not the same things. This is why section 2 uses all of them as separate concepts; they are not simply different names for ther same thing.

 

It is not the case that you need a certificate to OWN a shotgun. You need one in order to obtain ownership via purchase!!! It says so very, very clearly in the Act, here I'll quote it for you - yet again, just read the parts in red;

 

2 Requirement of certificate for possession of shot guns.

 

(1)Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a shot gun without holding a certificate under this Act authorising him to possess shot guns.

 

Do you understand yet? Possession, purchase and acquisition are separate legal concepts. Therefore, if you possess a shotgun without holding a SGC then you commit an offence; if you acquire a shotgun without holding a certificate you commit an offence; if you PURCHASE a shotgun without holding a certificate you committ an offence! You can committ any of these offences without the involvement of any of the others. So, and just to make sure the message actually gets through the haze of alcohol you've probably consumed in front of the footy tonight - IF YOU PURCHASE A SHOTGUN WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT TAKE POSSESSION OF IT AND NEVER INTEND TO DO SO, YOU COMMITT THE OFFENCE AT SECTION 2(1)

 

You can argue differently, you can argue that black is white if you like, but it will not make you right.

Oh BTW, when I insulted you at the beginning of this post I forgot to mention POMPOUS

Yawn. I've been insulted by better morons that you.

 

J.

Edited March 26, 2013 by JonathanL

[DaveK]

Been on the drink tonight, have we?

No such luck, at work.

 

It is not the case that you need a certificate to OWN a shotgun. You need one in order to obtain ownership via purchase!!! It says so very, very clearly in the Act, here I'll quote it for you - yet again, just read the parts in red;

 

2 Requirement of certificate for possession of shot guns.

 

(1)Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a shot gun without holding a certificate under this Act authorising him to possess shot guns.

 

You can argue differently, you can argue that black is white if you like, but it will not make you right.

So someone else buys it on their certificate on your behalf. Even if it's stored securely, YOU have acquired it which is an offence. I notice you omitted to highlight acquire. It doesn't have to be in your possession to have acquired it and to use your own argument, if you OWN it you have to have acquired it.

 

Yawn. I've been insulted by better morons that you.

 

J.

i don't profess to be good at being a moron (and you should knowb being head shed and all that) and I bet you have and will continue to do so. Now drink your warm milk, put your jammies on and go to bed.

Edited March 26, 2013 by DaveK

[JonathanL]

So someone else buys it on their certificate on your behalf. Even if it's stored securely, YOU have acquired it which is an offence. I notice you omitted to highlight acquire. It doesn't have to be in your possession to have acquired it and to use your own argument, if you OWN it you have to have acquired it.

Well, yes. The word 'acquire' might mean either to acquire ownership or it might mean acquire possession. I'd go with both, either together or separately. The point at hand though was 'purchase', not acquisition, which isn't open to interpretation. If you have purchased something then you have purchased it whether that involves possession, non-possession or whatever definition you give to acquisition. Even if it it is successfully argued that your 'purchase' didn't involve any possession or acquisition it still makes no difference because you have purchased it. End of story.

 

So, the bottom line is that you are now agreeing with me that it is an offence to purchase a shotgun without being the holder of a shotgun certificate because if acquisition and possession are all offences in their own right then so must purchase be as it's part of the same sentence.

 

J.

[DaveK]

Well, yes. The word 'acquire' might mean either to acquire ownership or it might mean acquire possession. I'd go with both, either together or separately. The point at hand though was 'purchase', not acquisition, which isn't open to interpretation. If you have purchased something then you have purchased it whether that involves possession, non-possession or whatever definition you give to acquisition. Even if it it is successfully argued that your 'purchase' didn't involve any possession or acquisition it still makes no difference because you have purchased it. End of story.

 

So, the bottom line is that you are now agreeing with me that it is an offence to purchase a shotgun without being the holder of a shotgun certificate because if acquisition and possession are all offences in their own right then so must purchase be as it's part of the same sentence.

 

J.

With what you've just posted I think you're agreeing with everything you've just appeared to be arguing against. One thinks we are all finally singing offa the same hymn sheet.

[JonathanL]

With what you've just posted I think you're agreeing with everything you've just appeared to be arguing against. One thinks we are all finally singing offa the same hymn sheet.

No, I'm saying what I have always said. I said it in my first reply on this thread. Namely; if you purchase a shotgun and you are not the holder of a shotgun certificate then you commit the offence in section 2(1). Possession and acquisition may or may not be involved but neither of them need to be for you to commit the offence.

 

J.

Edited March 26, 2013 by JonathanL

[DaveK]

No, I'm saying what I have always said. I said it in my first reply on this thread. Namely; if you purchase a shotgun and you are not the holder of a shotgun certificate then you commit the offence in section 2(1). Possession and acquisition may or may not be involved but neither of them need to be for you to commit the offence.

 

J.

Are we married? You always have to have the last word.