non SGC Borrowing "my" shotgun through another SGC holder

[JonathanL]

JonathanL....Lets just assume that not everyone is a pedant and sometimes may not deal in exactitudes, ie "Brought (sic) himself a nice Baikal" he may actually mean that he has provided the funds for the purchase and the sgc holder carried out the transaction...no offence committed. Following your black and white logic if your mum gave you the cash to buy a gun then she has broken the law....lighten up

 

JonathanL....Lets just assume that not everyone is a pedant and sometimes may not deal in exactitudes, ie "Brought (sic) himself a nice Baikal" he may actually mean that he has provided the funds for the purchase and the sgc holder carried out the transaction...no offence committed. Following your black and white logic if your mum gave you the cash to buy a gun then she has broken the law....lighten up

I'm sorry but you can't just start shouting pedant every time someone brings up a point of law - especially when it concerns things like firearms. It seems that every time someone like me raises a point like this it gets put down to pedantry because it might be a point the people haven't heard about before.

 

This is serious stuff though. A conviction for the offence at hand is the same (same section) as a conviction for possessing a gun without a certificate. The maximum penalty for that is five years in prison. Even if you just got away with a fine it's still a very serious crininal conviction.

 

On your specific point though, you are still wrong. If the non-certificate holder provides the funds and obtains legal ownership of the gun then he has purchased it and, hence,. committed the offence contained in section 2(1). Yes, someone else carried out the transaction on his behalf but he has still purchased it.

 

Your last sentence is not necessarily correct either. Yes, if I were buying it for her and legal title were to pass to her then she would committ an offence. If she simply gifted me the money and said I could buy a gun with it then the gun would be mine and no offence would havce been committed. Like I say, Parliament decided the people who do not have SGC's should not be allowed purchase shotguns so created an offence to prevent them doing so.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

A more common occurrence would be a parent/guardian without a cert purchasing on behalf of an under 18 who does hold a cert. Indeed it can be with the under 18's money but as they are under 18 cannot legally purchase it themselves.

This is illegal. The parent cannot buy a shotgun like this. The only legal way for an under 18 to get a gun on to their ticket is to be gifted it or it be bought by someone who has a certificate who acquires it on his certificate and then transfers it to the certificate of the under 18 year old.

However if my OH who does not have SGC lent me £500 (or any other sum of money), and I purchased a shotgun that she could use when we go clay shooting then the gun would mine the debt would be owed to her the physical situation would be the same but it would all be legal. If she were to call in the debt i could sell the gun and repay it..............

Correct.

 

J.

 

I think the offence occurs because the 'mate' in this case,doesn't have a SGC?

Correct, it does.

 

J.

[jayDT10]

If the receipt for the shotgun is in the sgc holders name which it will be then no one has committed any offence , it's just an agreement between friends that does not break any laws what so ever.

[HDAV]

If the receipt for the shotgun is in the sgc holders name which it will be then no one has committed any offence , it's just an agreement between friends that does not break any laws what so ever.

They have just very difficult to prove and even harder to justify an attempt at a conviction..............

[JonathanL]

In a criminal investigation there would be other evidence leaning towards another offence other than possession.

 

Really, it's silly, I'll say this openly, my late father in law has bought at least one of my guns as I, spend a lot of my time, enjoyably albeit, control pests on our farm.

 

Would you, you, prosecute him if he were alive?

 

You've taken your very astute knowledge of the law too literal, barristers spend years studying this, some even take post grad qualifications, yet you pronounce it's black and white.

Yes, but what people are doing here (and on so many other posts regarding firearms laws) is that they are trying to convince themselves that the law says or means something different to what it actually does, usually because it suits their purposes to do so. You see very few posts where put an interpretation on the law which is detrimental to them. People use 'smoke and mirrors' tactics in an attempt to obfuscate matters and muddy the waters - the 'the law is really too complicated to define and can only be done so by learned professionals or via case precident' is a classic example. Because they haven't personally heard of prosecutions it must be that the people in the know must have decided it was ok.

 

There isn't really any trick to defining what an Act of Parliament means. Just read it and apply the normal rules of English. People seem to have this idea in their head that words used in a piece of legislation have some sort of different meaning that only the highly skilled can define. This isn't the case. Just read what the act says without trying to second guess everything. In this particular case the Act says quite clearly and unambiguously that it is an offence to 'purchase' a shotgun without being the holder of a shotgun certificate. I cannot think how that could mean anything else and I don't understand why people try to come up with a convoluted chain of events to try and demonstrate why they haven't done something they shouldn't have. You can't just give something a different name and say that it's something different when it clearly isn't. There is a famous quite from a case regarding the difference between a lease and a licence. Something to the effect of 'A man who manufactures a four-pronged impliment for manual digging has manufactured a fork even though he insists on calling it a spade. Likewise, you cannot engage in a transaction involving a shotgun which has all the elements of a purchase and call it something else.

 

The guy mentioned in the first post has purchased a shotgun without being a certificate holder. He has given an amount of money and as a result of that he has acquired ownership of the gun. It doesn't matter specifically how that transaction was carried out only that it was. The fact that it was transferred from the previous owner into his ownership by being put on to someone elses certificate makes no difference. He purchased it.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

If the receipt for the shotgun is in the sgc holders name which it will be then no one has committed any offence , it's just an agreement between friends that does not break any laws what so ever.

In your, presumably, unqualified opinion.

 

Read the first post, I mean actually read it. The poster said quite clearly that his mate bought the gun. He gave some money and in return acquired legal ownership of the gun. The OP even said that it is his mates property. Just because it is on someone else certificate does not automatically prove that it is the cert holders property.

 

This is precisely the ting, I'm sure, that Parliament wanted to prevent people from doing which is why they used the word 'purchase' to describe something which you are not allowed to do without being a certificate holder.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

They have just very difficult to prove and even harder to justify an attempt at a conviction..............

Apart from the fact that in this case the OP has given a full description of what was done. The fact that something is hard to prove should not be a reason to excuse someone doing it, especially with a very serious offence as the one concerned. Believe me, there is no 'justification' needed for the CPS to prosecute a serious firearms offence. If they want to then they will. They are also very good at getting evidence in 'difficult' cases. The police are very well trained at interviewing people and get convictions in difficult cases all the time.

 

J.

[Gunnerbob]

The guy mentioned in the first post has purchased a shotgun without being a certificate holder. He has given an amount of money and as a result of that he has acquired ownership of the gun. It doesn't matter specifically how that transaction was carried out only that it was. The fact that it was transferred from the previous owner into his ownership by being put on to someone elses certificate makes no difference. He purchased it.

 

J.

No he didn't.......he provided the funds for someone else to purchase it...it's on the purchasers ticket...all legal.

[overandunder2012]

what would worry me is if the unlicensed owner turned up with somebody asking to have his gun to go shooting with them, even if the new shooting buddy has a cert how could you be sure the gun would come back. worrying afternoon maybe?

[JonathanL]

No he didn't.......he provided the funds for someone else to purchase it...it's on the purchasers ticket...all legal.

No, you haven't read, or don't understand, the first post in this thread. The non-certificate holder purchased the gun. Like I said above, you cannot give something a different name and claim that it's something diferent when it isn't. Claiming that because it's on someone elses ticket means that you didn't buy it is just trying to make it seem like it's something it isn't. The OP said quite clearly that his mate bought the gun. He even said that his mate owns it as a result. If he owns it then how did he obtain that ownership? He obtained it by paying for it - hence, he purchased it. It makes no difference that someone else handed over the money or took it onto his SGC. All he did was facilitate the non-SGC holder in purchasing the gun but it is not the case that in doing that that the non-cert holder did not purchase the gun. He did purchase it and that is something which the law specifically prohibits - presumably because it wanted to make sure that shotguns are not available for purchase by people who have not gone through the cert applicatin prcedure.

 

J.

 

J.

[Oli]

what would worry me is if the unlicensed owner turned up with somebody asking to have his gun to go shooting with them, even if the new shooting buddy has a cert how could you be sure the gun would come back. worrying afternoon maybe?

+1

[JonathanL]

what would worry me is if the unlicensed owner turned up with somebody asking to have his gun to go shooting with them, even if the new shooting buddy has a cert how could you be sure the gun would come back. worrying afternoon maybe?

Exactly. It's probably reasons like this why Parliament chose to make it illegal to purchase a shotgun if you don't have a SGC.

 

J.

[overandunder2012]

i wouldn't do it

[Richard V]

Many thanks for the replies (I was suprised there's this many). Maybe I should rephrase "his property" with "He gave me £200, I aquired that particular S2 firearm for the same price, he borrows said firearm in the presence of the owner (me), when the borrower says "you ought to sell that gun for x ammount" I sell my gun for x ammount and give the borrower x ammount". At no time does the borrower have access to my cabinet, knows where my keys are, etc, etc, etc.

 

The only suitable analagy I can think off is when I used to trade precious metals. To buy gold bullion was VAT free, however silver attracted the VAT rate. I could either physically buy the stuff, and pay VAT, or physically buy the stuff through a website/agent and the silver was kept in a vault in London (not EFTs, or shares, etc) while the physical silver was the property of mine, it diddn't attract VAT as it was in somebody elses posession. To take the silver out I had to pay VAT. Now I know VAT and firearm laws are worlds apart, however I'm sure it will say in VAT laws that if I purchased and aquired a product (silver) than I had to pay VAT. Likewise if my mate wanted to take "his" gun out of my posession, then he has to get a SGC.

 

While I encourage him to get a SGC if he's happy with this arrangement then I don't mind helping him out.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Richard V

[JonathanL]

Many thanks for the replies (I was suprised there's this many). Maybe I should rephrase "his property" with "He gave me £200, I aquired that particular S2 firearm for the same price, he borrows said firearm in the presence of the owner (me), when the borrower says "you ought to sell that gun for x ammount" I sell my gun for x ammount and give the borrower x ammount". At no time does the borrower have access to my cabinet, knows where my keys are, etc, etc, etc.

It's like I was saying above in the forks and spades analogy though, you must look at the actual reality of the arrangement as it currently exists regardless of what name you actually give to it. You are actually describing an ownershp situation because although you claim that you would be acting on a suggestion of the other party to sell the gun that isn't actualy the case. It's his property and he can dictate when it's sold. You would actualy be acting on an instruction and not on a suggestion or a request.

 

You've already said that he bought it and that it is his property, you can't really change your mind later on because it's convenient.

The only suitable analagy I can think off is when I used to trade precious metals. To buy gold bullion was VAT free, however silver attracted the VAT rate. I could either physically buy the stuff, and pay VAT, or physically buy the stuff through a website/agent and the silver was kept in a vault in London (not EFTs, or shares, etc) while the physical silver was the property of mine, it diddn't attract VAT as it was in somebody elses posession. To take the silver out I had to pay VAT. Now I know VAT and firearm laws are worlds apart, however I'm sure it will say in VAT laws that if I purchased and aquired a product (silver) than I had to pay VAT. Likewise if my mate wanted to take "his" gun out of my posession, then he has to get a SGC.

Is it perhaps the case that the VAT was only payable upon physical delivery or something?

While I encourage him to get a SGC if he's happy with this arrangement then I don't mind helping him out.

As long as you are aware of the potential risk.

 

J.

[Oli]

Difference is you are entitled to take physical delivery of the investment much like trading a future as until you sell it back you own it, unless it's a derivative but I'm pretty sure there isn't a cfd for shotguns yet in this example he isn't entitled. It's not something I would ask a mate to do for me at the very least it could put a strain on a friendship if you have to tell he can't take it at any point.

[Richard V]

I was entitled to take physical delivery however I had to pay the applicable VAT rate, If I didn't pay the VAT then I wasn't entitled to take the physical delivery, dispite it being my property, replace duty with a SGC and it's a similar sort of thing.

 

I guess it boils down to wheather posession in the act means posessing a S2 firearm with no authority or not supervised by withbody with authority, or the former including the arrangement between us 2. I believed posession is meant to keep a shotgun, as opposed to simply lending it.

 

After the replies on here I might send an anomynous email to a firearms dept. somewhere in the country and/or get professional advice. If they all say we've broke the law then we'll simply terminate with agreement by selling the gun or the guy getting a SGC, and I'll hold my hands up and we're all wiser on here. However the spirit of the act was to prevent bank jobs rather than this example.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Richard V

[JonathanL]

I was entitled to take physical delivery however I had to pay the applicable VAT rate, If I didn't pay the VAT then I wasn't entitled to take the physical delivery, dispite it being my property, replace duty with a SGC and it's a similar sort of thing.

No it isn't. There was not a legal restriction on you legaly purchasing the silver, the VAT simply did not become due until you took delivery. The chap who bought the gun was not legally entitled to do so without a certificate.

 

It is not the case that he only needed a certificate to take possession/delivery, it is the the case that he needed a certificate before he even purchased it regardless of whether he ever intended to even see the gun. If the gun were sitting in a vault like your silver and he purchased it intending that it would never leave the vault until such time as he re-sold it then he would still commit the offence.

I guess it boils down to wheather posession in the act means posessing a S2 firearm with no authority or not supervised by withbody with authority, or the former including the arrangement between us 2. I believed posession is meant to keep a shotgun, as opposed to simply lending it.

You are confusing possession with purchase. Possession means actual, physical possession. Purchase means just that - to buy something. Section 2(1) mentions both possession and purchase as separate entities and makes it quite clear that you can do any one without doing the other. So, if you purchase a shotgun and you do not have a certificate you commit the offence. That applies even if you never see the gun, let alone take physical possession of it.

After the replies on here I might send an anomynous email to a firearms dept. somewhere in the country and/or get professional advice. If they all say we've broke the law then we'll simply terminate with agreement by selling the gun or the guy getting a SGC, and I'll hold my hands up and we're all wiser on here. However the spirit of the act was to prevent bank jobs rather than this example.

No, the 'spirit' of the Act is what it says. Parliament wanted to make it an offence for people to purchase guns without having a certificate. So, they did. Why they decided to do that is irrelevant. It was probably because they wanted as little access as possible to firearms by people who had not undergone the certificate application procedure but who knows. One thing is pretty certain though and that is that it did it and did it intentionally.

 

J.

[Oli]

I was thinking it might be a bit annoying if he tells you not to sell it but you want to get rid...

[DaveK]

As far as I know while it is his gun as he paid for it it's in my custody, which is all above board

 

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.

[al4x]

what would worry me is if the unlicensed owner turned up with somebody asking to have his gun to go shooting with them, even if the new shooting buddy has a cert how could you be sure the gun would come back. worrying afternoon maybe?

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

[Mr Potter]

Richard V, I suspect you are risking not only your own SGC but possibly a spell of enforced absence! I thing what you've done in acquiring a shotgun for a "work colleague" (not even a mate or a friend) is, with a little bit of re-wording, legal. I do know people who have done this sort of thing for mates who want to get their first shotgun a few weeks before their certificate drops onto the doormat. I also know at least two friends who put guns onto their cert from mates who had their guns temporarily removed by the Police investigating alleged domestic disagreements. Police were quite happy to transfer guns to a third party so suggesting it was legal.

 

No I would be worried more about the friend who seems reluctant to obtain a SGC. Plenty of possible reasons given but the only one who really knows is the OP's work colleague. Even if he has given the OP a reason it may not be the truth! I would suspect that he thinks he may not be granted a SGC and that would be worrying.

If said colleague at the end of one of your clay sessions suddenly said "It's my gun, I'm taking it home with me" you have to immediately call the Police (immediately not 72 hours later) and report "your" gun as having been stolen by Joe Bloggs. When Joe Bloggs is apprehended, assuming armed response team don't shoot him!" and tells his tale about ownership I suspect you will be in for a very tough time. If it went to court you may, probably depending on the ability of your defense team, be found not guilty of any offense but you will be at best be considerably out of pocket and will have been without your gun(s) for many many months if not years.

 

So legal, assuming you don't refer to the colleague who "gave" you the money as the owner, probably yes.

 

Moral or ethical, probably not.

 

and with apologies for being blunt, stupid, almost certainly.

 

If I were you I would be trying to formalise a plan to get out of this without upsetting your colleague. If you can't I would, without telling him in advance, sell the gun to a RFD and give him the proceeds. He might not be over impressed but you will have a huge weight off your mind.

 

My two pennies worth.

 

Mr Potter

[wymberley]

This reminds me of the story about muck, a pig and an engineer but also reflects that one shouldn't generalize.

[al4x]

oh gawd Jono has a friend, still at least this time he is erring on the side of caution rather than the last thread that had to be reported and closed to stop him claiming conditions weren't on certificates for any real reason and just shoot what you like

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Richard V, I suspect you are risking not only your own SGC but possibly a spell of enforced absence! I thing what you've done in acquiring a shotgun for a "work colleague" (not even a mate or a friend) is, with a little bit of re-wording, legal. I do know people who have done this sort of thing for mates who want to get their first shotgun a few weeks before their certificate drops onto the doormat. I also know at least two friends who put guns onto their cert from mates who had their guns temporarily removed by the Police investigating alleged domestic disagreements. Police were quite happy to transfer guns to a third party so suggesting it was legal.

 

No I would be worried more about the friend who seems reluctant to obtain a SGC. Plenty of possible reasons given but the only one who really knows is the OP's work colleague. Even if he has given the OP a reason it may not be the truth! I would suspect that he thinks he may not be granted a SGC and that would be worrying.

If said colleague at the end of one of your clay sessions suddenly said "It's my gun, I'm taking it home with me" you have to immediately call the Police (immediately not 72 hours later) and report "your" gun as having been stolen by Joe Bloggs. When Joe Bloggs is apprehended, assuming armed response team don't shoot him!" and tells his tale about ownership I suspect you will be in for a very tough time. If it went to court you may, probably depending on the ability of your defense team, be found not guilty of any offense but you will be at best be considerably out of pocket and will have been without your gun(s) for many many months if not years.

 

So legal, assuming you don't refer to the colleague who "gave" you the money as the owner, probably yes.

 

Moral or ethical, probably not.

 

and with apologies for being blunt, stupid, almost certainly.

 

If I were you I would be trying to formalise a plan to get out of this without upsetting your colleague. If you can't I would, without telling him in advance, sell the gun to a RFD and give him the proceeds. He might not be over impressed but you will have a huge weight off your mind.

 

My two pennies worth.

 

Mr Potter

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