non SGC Borrowing "my" shotgun through another SGC holder

[JonathanL]

I understood the OP to mean the gun is on his ticket,but his mate has 'bought' it, meaning mate paid for it.

And that is an offence. Read section 2(1). People are confusing possession and acquiring with purchase and seem to think they are interchangeable. They are not, they are separate concepts. You can, obviously, commit all three at once but you can commit each individually.

 

J.

[wymberley]

The word 'occupier' and the phrase 'land owner' are not the same thing, legally s

 

J.

Hello, planet Earth here,

 

I thought I'd made that perfectly clear.

[JonathanL]

I think I would be a little more interested in why the friend is reluctant to apply for a certificate..... :unsure:

Well, yes, a very good point. Parliament has decided that it doesn't want people who have not been granted a certificate to purchase shotguns. Hence, it made it an offence to do so. Clearly, there are very reasonable questions to be asked as to why someone who is not willing to go through the application process would want to purchase firearms and it seems entirely reasonable that they not be allowed to. Which is the case at present.

 

J.

[Dekers]

Why would it fall apart? There is no reasn why it would. It is an offence to purchase a shotgun without a shotgun certificate. IT was sold to the holder of a SGC 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.

How you do know what the seller thought? Because the seller sold it to a SGC holder, it isn't rocket science 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.He can say his mother wears pink knickers for all it matters, the shotgun is on HIS SGC

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. He has a SGC, Its on it or haven't you noticed that yet!

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.

A person who does not have a shotgun certificate purchased a shotgun. That is an offence. No he didn't, the person with a SGC purchased the shotgun!

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. He has a certificate

J.

 

And when the nice policeman knocks on his door and says who bought the shotgun he says "I did", end of a case they never had!

 

You don't have a snowball in hells chance of convicting anyone of anything.

 

Go argue with yourself, there is something in your grey matter, that is not connecting with the real world, the next 9 pages are yours!

Edited March 25, 2013 by Dekers

[al4x]

 

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.

 

no one purchased it without a certificate though, a SGC holder bought a gun and lends it to his mate occasionally. Whether he paid for it or not nothing ties him to ownership and the sgc holder wouldn't just let him walk off with it

[JonathanL]

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.

Yes there is. He has purchased a shotgun yet there is a specific provision in law which prevents him doing this. This is why an RFD will not sell you a gun outright until he can see your cert. He might take a sizeable deposit, which is perfectly legal, but if he sells it so that legal title passes to the buyer then he and the buyer have committed offences.

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.

He he has funded the purchase.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

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.

Don't make the mistake that because it happens it's legal. You cannot purchase a firearm without a certificate (subject to certain exemptions).

 

J.

[JonathanL]

And when the nice policeman knocks on his door and says who bought the shotgun he says I did, end of a case they never had!

 

You don't have a snowball in hells chance of convicting anyone of anything.

 

Go argue with yourself, there is something in your grey matter, that is not connecting with the real world, the next 9 pages are yours!

It was NOT sold to a certificate holder. The certificate holder in question states explicitly that it was purchased by someone else. The fact that it was enetered on to his certificate is not the point. The OP's friend parted with money and ended up with legal title to a shotgun. The OP's friend is not a certificate holder. The OP's friend therefore commited the offence described in section 2(1).

 

You don't know what the seller thought. He may have thought that he was selling it to the SGC holder or he may not as they might have said that the other guy paid for it. To ask again, were you party to the sale? If not then you are simply guessing.

 

It matters not who's SGC it is on - that relates only to possession. Purchase and possesion are not the same thing. You commit an offence if you purchase a gun without being a cert holder. The OP has very clearly stated that his mate bought the gun. That is an offence.

 

Have you wondered why the Act uses the word 'purchase'? Don't you think it's just a little bit likely that it was done because they decided that they don't want non cert holders purchasing guns?

 

As I say, this a very well known piece of law and is why RFD's don't sell guns to people who don't have certs even if they never intend to take sole possession. What people are trying to do on this thread is to kid themselves into thinking that the law doesn't actually mean what it says it means. They think if they call a purchase something other that a purchase it ceases to be a purchase. They are wrong.

 

J.

[Muddy Funker]

Don't make the mistake that because it happens it's legal. You cannot purchase a firearm without a certificate (subject to certain exemptions).

 

J.

 

Then clearly Police forces aren't overly concerned about the practice as it's happening daily.

 

You must know that almost every word in a point of law have to be clearly defined.

 

It's not as simple as just copying and pasting sections of the firearms act.

 

The word in the section you're talking about where I can see a grey area is "purchase", just poking around in the dictionary shows that to purchase you have to obtain/aquire and neither of these points are being met if a rifle is sent rfd to rfd. At no time have you obtained or acquired it.

[aris]

Perhaps someone could ask the BASC legal department?

[JonathanL]

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.

 

no one purchased it without a certificate though, a SGC holder bought a gun and lends it to his mate occasionally. Whether he paid for it or not nothing ties him to ownership and the sgc holder wouldn't just let him walk off with it

Well, the first sentence of this thread does a pretty neat job of tying him to the ownership of the gun.

 

You cannot escape the fact that the OP's mate exchanged some money for legal title to shotgun. Whichever convoluted manner in which that actually took place is beside the point, and may may it look like he didn't purchase it, but it still means that he purchased a shotgun. As mentioned, possession is not the same as purchase which is why Parliament used both in the Act. If you purchase a shotgun and you do not have a certificate then you committ an offence. Sorry, but you just do.

 

J.

[maxus77]

simples ring RFD or FEO and ask them to confirm, i read it both ways but would probably lean more towards JonathanL and seller (unknownly still isnt excuse) the buyer and ticket holder have all committed and offence even though they could state storys and different way to get around this

[JonathanL]

Then clearly Police forces aren't overly concerned about the practice as it's happening daily.

It's not though. It's pretty rare that people buy guns which are held on other peoples certs because they have no intention of applying for one. If such a situation came to the notice of the police I'm sure they would start asking questions. If they decided to charge you then I have no doubt that the CPS would pursue a prosecution. Why wouldn't they if an offence has been committed?

You must know that almost every word in a point of law have to be clearly defined.

Well, yes. I fail to see your point though. You do not need to be a QC to read and understand simple English. The Act says, very clearly indeed, that it is an offence to purchase a shotgun if you do not have a certificate. I fail to see how that could mean anything else.

It's not as simple as just copying and pasting sections of the firearms act.

The word in the section you're talking about where I can see a grey area is "purchase", just poking around in the dictionary shows that to purchase you have to obtain/aquire and neither of these points are being met if a rifle is sent rfd to rfd. At no time have you obtained or acquired it.

Purchase has a specific legal meaning. It is the acquisition of legal ownership to a person in exchange for money or moneys worth for it. You do not need to physically take possession of anything in order to purchase or 'acquire' it in law. If I give you an amount of money for something you own and you agree to accept it in exchange for the item then that is a sale and it makes no difference whether I even lay eyes on it, I would still be the legal owner. If that item was a shotgun and I had no certificate then I would committ the offence in section 2(1)

 

J.

[wymberley]

Anyone know if there's any vacancies at Aldershot?

 

We've got one whose qualifications are impeccable.

[JonathanL]

Anyone know if there's any vacancies at Aldershot?

 

We've got one whose qualifications are impeccable.

 

Anyone know if there's any vacancies at Aldershot?

 

We've got one whose qualifications are impeccable.

I assume that refers to me in some way. I also assume that it's some sort of veiled insult as I have no idea what it means.

 

J.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I am still at a loss to understand why one law abiding S.G.C. holder would go out of his way to assist someone by allowing him access to a weapon that he has no right to. A section 11 category clay shoot has that classification to allow novices without guns to experience shooting!

[Bleeh]

Better than what's on the telly, anyhow.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Bleeh

[JonathanL]

I am still at a loss to understand why one law abiding S.G.C. holder would go out of his way to assist someone by allowing him access to a weapon that he has no right to. A section 11 category clay shoot has that classification to allow novices without guns to experience shooting!

The point of contention isn't about access by a non-SGC holder. It is perfectly legal for an owner occupier of land to allow a non-SGC holder to use his shotgun on the land whilst in his presence.

 

The point at issue is the fact that a non-SGC holder has purchased a shotgun. That is not legal. It makes no difference if he never sees it but if he purchases it then he commits an offence.

 

J.

[kyska]

Now, unless I'm being simplistic the whole 'purchase' thing is really a legal out for the CPS who find an illegal firearm and find the person without a cert who bought it. They 'say I'm not in possession' but the offence was purchasing it.

 

I'm not sure the CPS will be that bothered about a mate putting a gun on his cert and let the other mate use it.

 

God, this thread has made my head hurt.

[JonathanL]

Now, unless I'm being simplistic the whole 'purchase' thing is really a legal out for the CPS who find an illegal firearm and find the person without a cert who bought it. They 'say I'm not in possession' but the offence was purchasing it.

 

I'm not sure the CPS will be that bothered about a mate putting a gun on his cert and let the other mate use it.

 

God, this thread has made my head hurt.

No, I think it's more the point that Parliament created the offence precisely for situations like the one in the first post. The situation of Joe Bloggs who, for whatever reason, doesn't want to go through the SGC application procedure who gets a mate who is willing to do so and buy guns for him. Your analogy doesn't really hold water because if they can't prove possession then how do they prove purchase because it doesn't automatically follow that you gained possession by puirchasing it. They would still need to adduce evidence that a purchase took place and just because you posses it doesn't mean you bought it.

 

J.

[Scully]

Have deleted post as I just realised I was talking ********!Op's mate doesn't have SGC does he;a little fact I was forgetting!

Edited March 25, 2013 by Scully

[Gunnerbob]

Hello,

A work colleague has brought himself a nice Baikal, although officially it's mine as it's on my licence as he hasn't got one, in reality it's his property.

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

Edited March 25, 2013 by Gunnerbob

[HDAV]

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.

 

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..............

Edited March 25, 2013 by HDAV

[Scully]

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

[kyska]

No, I think it's more the point that Parliament created the offence precisely for situations like the one in the first post. The situation of Joe Bloggs who, for whatever reason, doesn't want to go through the SGC application procedure who gets a mate who is willing to do so and buy guns for him. Your analogy doesn't really hold water because if they can't prove possession then how do they prove purchase because it doesn't automatically follow that you gained possession by puirchasing it. They would still need to adduce evidence that a purchase took place and just because you posses it doesn't mean you bought it.

 

J.

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.