wymberley Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Partly right - it's not just permission you require, you can lend a shotgun to someone you are with who is not a cert holder if you are the land over OR an agent of the landowner e.g the gamekeeper. This is where it becomes grey as some would argue that as someone with shooting permission to control pests you become an agent of the landowner. Some would argue differently. One thing is for sure, the law is not clear but I don't think I would fancy being the one in a test case. I'm afraid not, this is a good example of where the confusion between the laws relating to rifles and shotguns creeps in. Your example relates to rifles. There is no leeway with shotguns; it's the landowner as you call him, but correctly in law, the occupier, and no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsdad Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 I'm afraid not, this is a good example of where the confusion between the laws relating to rifles and shotguns creeps in. Your example relates to rifles. There is no leeway with shotguns; it's the landowner as you call him, but correctly in law, the occupier, and no one else. I stand corrected - I wouldn't lend a gun without seeing the persons cert anyway, just not worth the risk (unless at a section 11 clay ground) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 THE END! you reckon? I can see a 10 page mass debate coming up here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) you reckon? I can see a 10 page mass debate coming up here Yeah, you're right! J. has only just started, I'm bored already, how can you make so much of nothing? It is true to say that the definition of "Occupier" may be debatable, but there are clear guidelines from the Home Office so any prosecution would seem somewhat unlikely, although I freely admit I do not want to be the test case...would it be in the public interest, I think not! Edited March 25, 2013 by Dekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 BS "I bought the shotgun, it is on My SGC, it is mine, it is legal!" THE END! Nobody has illegally bought a shotgun to pass on the a non SGC holder for a bank job! Comments about this guy buying it are incorrect as his cat walked all over the keyboard and somehow managed to input a false message. Next question! Stop being a child. The guy's mate has illegally purchased a shotgun, he's helped him do it and you are fine with that! Do you realise how bad it makes shooters look when threads like this come up and fools like you condone this sort of stuff? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Stop being a child. The guy's mate has illegally purchased a shotgun, he's helped him do it and you are fine with that! Do you realise how bad it makes shooters look when threads like this come up and fools like you condone this sort of stuff? J. Rubbish, report him, send the police round, have him arrested and watch the case fall apart and waste money! The seller thought he was selling it to the SGC holder, obviously: the SGC holder legally bought it and it is his. Which law has been broken? Talk all day, another 9.5 pages to go yet for you! Try and work out who has committed any offence that you or anyone can prove. No offence ever took place! But I'm sure you will be more than happy to spout on for ages telling all the antis that shooters here are breaking the law! Edited March 25, 2013 by Dekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Stop being a child. The guy's mate has illegally purchased a shotgun, he's helped him do it and you are fine with that! Do you realise how bad it makes shooters look when threads like this come up and fools like you condone this sort of stuff? J. jono you're talking more bull than usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canis Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 He has commited an offence pursuant to S.2(1) of the 1968 Act by purchasing the shotgun without holding a shotgun certificate. Who ever sold him it has commited an offence pursuant to S.3(2) for selling a shotgun to a person who is not the holder of a certificate as long as he thought that he was selling it to him and not you. You have probably comitted various offences. J. If they have an SGC or FAC then that is fine. It is a specific offence to purchase a gun without a certificate even if you never intend to take possession of it. J. You say that it is 'perfectly fine' and then use the phrase 'abide by the rules..'. The owner of the gun already has failed to abide by the rules by illegally purchasing the gun. J. The thing is the seller sold the gun to the OP - it weas entered on the OP's certificate -ergo it was not sold to the non cert holder. At the clay ground providing a section 11 (6) is in place the op's friend can use the gun that was bought for him to use. The friend doesn't own the gun however . Its no different top where any of us may of bought a 410 or 20 bore for a son,grandson, nephew etc to use -provided itsd not in their posession outsdide of the clay ground no problem . The only situation where the OP could be lbreaking the law is if the friend is banned from holding firearms under the firearms act , (ie if he has had a lengthy prison sentence in his past or he has had a lesser sentence more recently) If however the friend is simply to tight to get a licence or doesn't have a suitable home to store guns in i dont see a problem . The op lending the gun to another cert holder under the 72 hour rule to then lend to the friend at a clay ground with a sectyion 11(6) is perfectly ok too asasuming that the friend is not banned as above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunnerbob Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Stop being a child. The guy's mate has illegally purchased a shotgun, he's helped him do it and you are fine with that! Do you realise how bad it makes shooters look when threads like this come up and fools like you condone this sort of stuff? J. It matters not one iota who pays for the gun, only that it comes from a sgc holder and is transfered to a sgc holder. With all paperwork and notifications in place...nothing illegal has been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 I understood the OP to mean the gun is on his ticket,but his mate has 'bought' it, meaning mate paid for it.This is what I used to do for my nephew and his mates before they were 15,albeit they did have tickets of their own.All that has happened is OP has a shotgun on his ticket that mate has paid for.Mate has no access to it at all apart from shoot days and in the presence of the SGC holder. As far as I'm aware mate cannot use it at all without the presence of the SGC holder,as otherwise mate would be in posession of an illegally held shotgun,as he has no authority to posess;ie no SGC. Or have I missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunnerbob Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 I think I would be a little more interested in why the friend is reluctant to apply for a certificate..... :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 I think I would be a little more interested in why the friend is reluctant to apply for a certificate..... :unsure: Yes, I wondered that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc0tt Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 My friends ticket is currently being processed. If he purchases a Shotgun, it goes on my ticket, in my cabinet and he only uses it in my presence at a clay ground with a sec. 11 exemption there is nothing remotley illegal. Only that I have funded the shotgun purchase with his money.When his ticket arrives I can transfer to his ticket. Nothing illegal as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 I think I would be a little more interested in why the friend is reluctant to apply for a certificate..... :unsure: There can be many legit explanations for that. For instance - spouse disapproves of having guns in the house or unable to secure a gun safe in a rented home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsdad Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 There can be many legit explanations for that. For instance - spouse disapproves of having guns in the house or unable to secure a gun safe in a rented home. Neither of those reasons would stop you having a certificate though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Neither of those reasons would stop you having a certificate though... Not being able to secure your gun would. And if you wanted to stay married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 There can be many legit explanations for that. For instance - spouse disapproves of having guns in the house or unable to secure a gun safe in a rented home. Neither of which would preclude him from having his own ticke t and storing them with another ticket holder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunnerbob Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 We've been mithering him to get his own SGC however I guess he doesn't want to bother with all that business which that entails, he just seemed happy to borrow my gun until he realised that a left cast gun was much better as he's left handed, now he's got his own gun ableit on my licence which he's going to change into a left handed cast, and he's still happy with the current arrangement. I'm still interested as to why..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Neither of which would preclude him from having his own ticke t and storing them with another ticket holder! You can get a SGC without having a secure method of storing a shotgun? Edited March 25, 2013 by aris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsdad Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 You can get a SGC without having a secure method of storing a shotgun? Yes...you can have a SGC with no guns on it for a start. Or have them stored in another SGCs cabinet with them on both certs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oli Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Before i got into shooting i knew someone who had this arrangement with an SGC holder, the person in question would not have been able to nor should have been allowed to have a gun which is why he was doing it. I wouldnt dream of doing this myself tbh as im sure it could make you liable in some respect if the person in question is of dubious character and there was an accident or incident, even if they dont want to store the guns there is nothing stopping them getting a ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 lol, Plenty jumping to conclusions here then. It sounds like a bit of a roundabout way of giving a mate access to a shotgun, I doubt an feo would be massively impressed but I can't see any laws being broken. I paid for a rifle before having a cert in the past, had it sent rfd to rfd, it was then transferred to a mates ticket, then transferred to my ticket when it came through. So yes you can buy a rifle or shotgun without a licence and still be operating within the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 I'm afraid not, this is a good example of where the confusion between the laws relating to rifles and shotguns creeps in. Your example relates to rifles. There is no leeway with shotguns; it's the landowner as you call him, but correctly in law, the occupier, and no one else. The word 'occupier' and the phrase 'land owner' are not the same thing, legally spo Yeah, you're right! J. has only just started, I'm bored already, how can you make so much of nothing? It is true to say that the definition of "Occupier" may be debatable, but there are clear guidelines from the Home Office so any prosecution would seem somewhat unlikely, although I freely admit I do not want to be the test case...would it be in the public interest, I think not! But you'll pursue the argument for the next 10 pages regardless! J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Rubbish, report him, send the police round, have him arrested and watch the case fall apart and waste money! Why would it fall apart? There is no reasn why it would. It is an offence to purchase a shotgun without a shotgun certificate. You can argue the toss if you like but you'd be wrong. Read section 2 of the Act. It says, quite soecifically and unabigously that it is an offence. The seller thought he was selling it to the SGC holder, obviously: the SGC holder legally bought it and it is his. How you do know what the seller thought? Were you party to the sale or are you just speculating? The poster who started this thread said quite clearly that the person who does not have a certificate bought the gun. He made no bones about it. He even added the statement that it is the other persons property. Which law has been broken? I've told you, S.2(1) of thre Firearms Act 1968. It reads; 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. Try and work out who has committed any offence that you or anyone can prove. The person who purchased the gun committeed the offence. If you can't see how easy it is to prove simply from reading this thred then I think you realy should be keeping quiet. No offence ever took place! A person who does not have a shotgun certificate purchased a shotgun. That is an offence. But I'm sure you will be more than happy to spout on for ages telling all the antis that shooters here are breaking the law! As I said, stop being a child. The original poster twas the person who told the world that his mate broke the law. Anyone who knows anything about the law relating to possessing and acquiring firearms knows that it is an offence to purchase a shotgun without a certificate. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 The thing is the seller sold the gun to the OP - it weas entered on the OP's certificate -ergo it was not sold to the non cert holder. No, this isn't correct. It was entered on the OP's certificate but he didn't buy it, not legally. He says very, very clearly that he didn't buy it because he said that his mate had just bought it and has described it as being his mates property. The seller may have thought he was selling it to the cert holder (or he may not and may have been aware that his mate was the actual buyer) but it is very clear that he did not buy it. In other parts of the world it's called a 'straw man' purchase. It is the practice of using someone who is legally entitled to buy something on behalf of someone who isn't. At the clay ground providing a section 11 (6) is in place the op's friend can use the gun that was bought for him to use. The friend doesn't own the gun however . In the case on this thread he does. The OP said so very clearly. Its no different top where any of us may of bought a 410 or 20 bore for a son,grandson, nephew etc to use -provided itsd not in their posession outsdide of the clay ground no problem . It's very different. In those cases the cert holder is buying it. He is the legal owner. He is not taking money from the other person to buy it nor is the other person handing money over to the seller. The only situation where the OP could be lbreaking the law is if the friend is banned from holding firearms under the firearms act , (ie if he has had a lengthy prison sentence in his past or he has had a lesser sentence more recently) If however the friend is simply to tight to get a licence or doesn't have a suitable home to store guns in i dont see a problem . Which is why so many people fall foul of our stupidly over the top gun laws. The fact remains that the OP's mate bought the gun, he has legal title to it and acquired that title by parting with money. That is a purchase and that is an offence contrary to section 2(1). The op lending the gun to another cert holder under the 72 hour rule to then lend to the friend at a clay ground with a sectyion 11(6) is perfectly ok too asasuming that the friend is not banned as above Correct. J. It matters not one iota who pays for the gun, only that it comes from a sgc holder and is transfered to a sgc holder. With all paperwork and notifications in place...nothing illegal has been done. It does matter. If you purchase a shotgun and you do not hold a certificate then you committ an offence. It matters not that you do not take physical possession of it and you may never even see it during your lifetime but it is an offence. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts