Rules on storage & access to cartridges....

[SakoQuad]

Hmmm, I'm not sue that the Just Cartridges system is legal. The Act says;

 

5 Restriction on sale of ammunition for smooth-bore guns.

(1)This section applies to ammunition to which section 1 of the principal Act does not apply and which is capable of being used in a shot gun or in a smooth-bore gun to which that section applies.

 

(2)It is an offence for a person to sell any such ammunition to another person in the United Kingdom who is neither a registered firearms dealer nor a person who sells such ammunition by way of trade or business unless that other person—

 

(a)produces a certificate authorising him to possess a gun of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) above; or

 

( B)shows that he is by virtue of that Act or this Act entitled to have possession of such a gun without holding a certificate; or

 

©produces a certificate authorising another person to possess such a gun, together with that person’s written authority to purchase the ammunition on his behalf.

 

When Just Cartridges sell you ammo via the internet you do not 'produce' your certificate to them at the time of the purchase. It would appear that at the point that they sell you them they commit the offence. The fact that you might produce it to the delivery driver is neither here nor there as they have already sold you the ammo and committed the offence.

 

The arrangement for it to be received by someone else who is in possession of your SGC is even more dicey because the Act specifically says that the certificate must be produced by the person purchasing it. It is the cert holder who is purchasing it and not the person receiving it so I don't really see what it accoumplishes.

 

I suppose that they might have something in their T&C's which says that the sale isn't actually complete until such time as they see your cert but that sounds like walking a very thin line especially if the delivery driver isn't their employee or isn't empowered to sell things on their behalf.

 

J.

 

You actually have to provide them with a copy of your cert before you can buy. Have to say I was amazed when the delivery driver happily dropped half a pallet of cartridges onto my drive (12000+) on two occasions without being remotely interested in looking at my original cert though I assumed he did check my signature against the name on the order(s)!

[HDAV]

AFAIK there is no law against being in possesion of section 2 ammunition unless a prohibited person perhaps......

 

 

Just carts operate legally, delivery drivers check very little they deliver a box... The contents are best left unknown.........

 

The law, is not the same as good practice or even accepted practise.

[JonathanL]

You actually have to provide them with a copy of your cert before you can buy. Have to say I was amazed when the delivery driver happily dropped half a pallet of cartridges onto my drive (12000+) on two occasions without being remotely interested in looking at my original cert though I assumed he did check my signature against the name on the order(s)!

 

A copy is not a certificate though. It is a copy of a certificate.

 

The Act is clear; you must "produce" your certificate. If you don't then whomever sells you the cartridges commits the offence, surely?

 

J.

[JonathanL]

AFAIK there is no law against being in possesion of section 2 ammunition unless a prohibited person perhaps......

This is true.

 

 

Just carts operate legally, delivery drivers check very little they deliver a box... The contents are best left unknown.........

 

The law, is not the same as good practice or even accepted practise.

 

The law says that you committ an offence if you sell a shotgun certridge to someone who does not produce a certificate authorising them to possess that type of gun. If you are purchasing online then you are not "producing" your certificate.

 

J.

[goodo123]

At what point is the sale? When you click buy? When the delivery driver gets them? When their delivered? When the money comes out of your bank?..... The whole "you cannot buy without a cert" but "you can be in possession without a cert" seems daft anyway. I think the law needs amending.

[GingerCat]

Without wishing to argue the point, the jc chap was interviewee in a national magzine and covered this point, he stated that it was discussed with police and they were more than happy he complied with the law, I believe u have to scan your licence and send it to them, presumably they file this.

[JonathanL]

.

Edited April 24, 2013 by JonathanL

[JonathanL]

Without wishing to argue the point, the jc chap was interviewee in a national magzine and covered this point, he stated that it was discussed with police and they were more than happy he complied with the law, I believe u have to scan your licence and send it to them, presumably they file this.

 

Argue away! That is what these places are for.

 

The purchaser doen't 'produce' his certificate though, does he? I don't see what the reasoning is behind this is. As I say though, I'm sure I must be missing something.

 

Interestng to see that other people have raised this issue as well.

 

J.

Edited April 25, 2013 by JonathanL

[ChrisAsh]

Nice to understand that some on here would be happy to close down a company selling shotshells by voicing their opinions and trying to cause maybe the police to take action,

 

Why not just remove this thread and let sleeping dogs lie

[JonathanL]

Nice to understand that some on here would be happy to close down a company selling shotshells by voicing their opinions and trying to cause maybe the police to take action,

 

Why not just remove this thread and let sleeping dogs lie

 

No one is trying to close anyone down. Why would the police take any action? They've already said that it's legal so it must be and I must be missing a trick somewhere. However, I've seen nothing posted which contradicts my interpretation on the matter.

 

J.

[al4x]

other than the minor thing the police are entirely happy with the arrangement and the guy is running rather a large business selling bucket loads of cartridges by mailorder.

 

It is interesting that it isn't one of the usual firearms carriers used these days hence the drivers not giving a fig about you being there to sign for them.

[njc110381]

I can see both sides here. Asking the opinion of the police, as we all know, doesn't always result in the rules being followed. Christ, sometimes the firearms department clearly have little to no idea what they're talking about and they're the ones who govern us!

 

I don't have an issue with what they're doing but I can also see the point that J is making.

[JonathanL]

other than the minor thing the police are entirely happy with the arrangement and the guy is running rather a large business selling bucket loads of cartridges by mailorder.

 

Yes, but what is the legal basis behind it which makes the police happy about it? I'm sure there is one but no one has said what it is.

 

It is interesting that it isn't one of the usual firearms carriers used these days hence the drivers not giving a fig about you being there to sign for them.

 

Which, in its self, is rather worrying, is it not? This, surely, is one of the reasons why the Act requires the purchaser to actually produce his original cert at the point of purchase?

 

J.

Edited April 25, 2013 by JonathanL

[HDAV]

 

Yes, but what is the legal basis behind it which makes the police happy about it? I'm sure there is one but no one has said what it is.

 

 

Which, in its self, is rather worrying, is it not? This, surely, is one of the reasons why the Act requires the purchaser to actually produce his original cert at the point of purchase?

 

J.

It's mute, if carts are given then no cert required iirc you can buy all the components to load your own without a cert, you can buy blanks without a cert.

 

The police don't prosecute, the CPS do, the police follow guidance, not like arresting or charging people who are in possession of small quantities of drugs, exceed the speed limit by a small %, etc etc etc

Edited April 25, 2013 by HDAV

[varminter pb]

Nice to understand that some on here would be happy to close down a company selling shotshells by voicing their opinions and trying to cause maybe the police to take action,

 

Why not just remove this thread and let sleeping dogs lie

Yes, this thread has gone in a direction we'd all wish to avoid...... From our fellow shooters too, all to many thinking they're legal experts..... I for one like the fact that cartridges can be collected / received on my behalf on presentation of my SGC.

[GingerCat]

For the love of god, u have to show your cert prior to purchase, I know Jon l that it will be a copy as its scanned but lets face it that has been accepted for ages and is tried and tested, hence ACPO are happy as well as the CPS, they have the legal ability here and not us, it has been discussed and approved. End of.

Totally legal.

Beyond reproach.

Legit.

Get over it.

Also quite useful I hazard a guess.

 

We can all cry about the "point of purchase" but then argue about it being at the time of purchase or the point, neither are defined so we can take the dictionary definition on it, also encompassed usefully. Finer legal mines have disectede it and are quite happy, sleep easy. I will.

[HDAV]

Actually "purchase" in law is very well defined..... There has to be an offer an acceptance and a third bit otherwise no contract so no sale, online it's more distinct than in a shop but it exists....

[Floating Chamber]

I buy them, I reload them, I keep them all over the house, even in the wardrobe. I have a life. End of.

[Charles]

My name is Charles Bull and I own Just Cartridges and developed the business model for it with the approval of Thames Valley Police. I am not a keen lover of forums in general, as wingeing seems to be the order of the day by regular posters who hide behind the anonymity of a pseudonym. People who post should have the confidence to put their name to what they have to say. Just Cartridges gets a lot of flack on Pigeon Watch, usually from people wingeing about our prices and the demise of local dealers. Just Cartridges offer clear pricing and service, it is there for people to use if they wish. None of you have to use us if you don't want to and I am all in favour of supporting your local dealer as we supply a few of those too.<br /><br />Anyway, to the point of this thread. The law under Section 5 of the Firearms (Amendment)Act 1988 is very clear - there is no law against possession of shotgun ammunition and that is why we can send it to any address, anyone can receive it and any carrier who is registered can take it. The law only relates to the purchase and goodo123 makes a good point about when this point exactly is, which is of course arguable and the police agree with this. Is it when you click, pay or take delivery? Either way, a valid SGC has to be produced at some point whenever you think this is. Looking at his other post on voting whether you should need a SGC to purchase, I have just voted no, on the basis that it seems ridiculous to me that you don't need one to possess. But then I would say that wouldn't I? On the other hand, how many shooters would welcome having to have their ammunition written on to their certificate as per section 1 ammo on a FA? Not many I would venture, given the amounts involved and the higher number of transactions required. With regard to the first post on this thread, the ridiculous thing is that section 5(2)©does indeed allow a third party without their own SGC to purchase shotgun ammo using someone else's SGC in conjunction with a letter of authority. Beesley121 is quite correct in being worried about a stolen SGC being used with a forged letter of authority, it would be the easiest thing in the world and also makes a mockery of having your photo on the SGC if someone else is using it. There is also another perfectly legal way that shotgun ammo can be purchased without the need for a SGC or RFD, but I don't need to go in to that here!<br /><br />It took me many years and a great deal of money to persuade the CPS to take us to court, so that we could get clarification. As a result of this court case, we agreed a business model that satisfied the police and have written authority to that effect. I note that a number of other gun shops now offer a similar service to ours, but I can tell you that all of them without exception, if they deliver your cartridges via a remote transaction, are breaking the law. We are not for the reasons I have outlined above. Our system actually exceeds what the law requires and the police agree with us. For our own peace of mind, we also carry out a further security check unrelated to the SGC which I am not about to outline for our competitors. Unfortunately the FAA 1988 was written pretty much before the advent of the internet age. Consumers buying habits have changed forever and very soon they will be researching, shopping and paying with smart phones. With the most recent law relating to all this dating back to an age when you had to physically get in your car and go shopping, business's such as ours have to adapt to these changes whilst at the same time ensuring that they operate within the law. And that is exactly what we have done. The other point is that if you were a criminal wanting to get hold of shotgun ammo for nefarious purposes, would you really try and buy it through a legitimate outlet? I doubt it, as in our case all our transactions are traceable. This may not always be the case with other retailers as there is no law concerning keeping detailed records of transactions for shotgun ammo, unlike Section 1 stuff.<br /><br />Apologies for the length of this post, I don't know if anyone will read it as it is some days old, but hopefully it will set the record straight. I have no doubt that it will upset some of you, but wingeing and abuse is not the answer. Anonymous forums, like Wikepedia, are dangerous places - there is always content from people who maybe don't have all the facts or are just incorrect, that some readers seem to take as gospel. If any of you wish to discuss this further, you can contact me personally via the contact details on our website.

[deershooter]

Why is every rubbishing Just cartridges they offer a service its up to you if you buy from them ,yes some times they are not the cheapest but they nearly allways have what you want with out having to leave your house. I shoot Layvale Supercomps in registered compertition my nearest supplier is 35 miles away a 70 mile round trip costs about £15 in the 4x4 so its a now brainer unless you are passing

 

this has now got silly and should be closed

 

by the way I have no connection with just cartridges and have only been a small customer

 

Deershooter

[varminter pb]

Charles, thank you for your 'first post' and what a valuable one it is too! Not all are rubbishing Just Cartridges, and I found your site / explaination over the authority to purchase extremely helpful, so for that a thumbs up. You'll also see my posts regarding the voting, advising posters of the alternative.... having FAC, who wants limits on cartridge purchases and recording on SGC's.

 

Thought your post warranted some support as the OP. Its just a shame to had to join PW to defend Just Cartridges which operates within the Firearms Laws, we have enough grief from the Anti's trying to impose greater restrictions, lets not give them the opportunity to change the law.

Why is every rubbishing Just cartridges they offer a service its up to you if you buy from them ,yes some times they are not the cheapest but they nearly allways have what you want with out having to leave your house. I shoot Layvale Supercomps in registered compertition my nearest supplier is 35 miles away a 70 mile round trip costs about £15 in the 4x4 so its a now brainer unless you are passing

 

this has now got silly and should be closed

 

by the way I have no connection with just cartridges and have only been a small customer

 

Deershooter

YES, have to agree!

[JonathanL]

Charles, many thanks for your input. Most interesting.

 

You mention that the CPS proscuted you (at your behest from what you have said) in relation to your business model. I take it from that that you were found not guilty. Do you have more info on this? Presumably you argued as to the sale beinbg concluded at a certain point which was legal? What is this point?

 

How are other businessess which operate a similar model breaking the law? Surely they can't be if they are doing the same as yoru self?

 

J.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Well done Charles, good to see the reality of the situation!

[Charles]

Thank you for your post J. I hope you will understand that from a commercial point of view, I am unable to give you the detail you request. But I will give you a little background. It took me 4 years to persuade the CPS to prosecute - they were not keen! The court case related to one specific random transaction for example purposes, I suggested that they may like to take a further 30,000 odd transactions in to consideration at the time! It was agreed in court that in these modern times (bearing in mind the FAA 1988 hadn't kept up)that the actual point of sale was arguable and as long as the security aspect was addressed at some point between ordering and taking delivery, then the terms of the law would be deemed to have been adhered to. Given that all parties agreed that the FAA 1988 had not kept pace with the advance of technology, even the judge agreed that the "law was an ***" in this case and that is a direct quote, not paraphrased. This particularly as although a certificate is required to purchase, it is not required for possession and there are other ways of purchasing that do not require a certificate. In particular section 5 (2) c which as I have said is just ridiculous and as I implied, there is a further way of purchasing which does not require any certification at all, making a complete mockery of section 5 in it's entirety. With regard to your question about other businesses that appear to be operating in a similar way to us, appear is the operative word. If the transaction is 100% remote, it will be illegal, whereas our transactions are not. From a commercial point of view, again I am not prepared to go in to this in any more detail. If I was of a malicious mind, I could just "shop" them for our commercial gain. But I am not, if they want to operate like that, that's fine with me as long as I am happy that our business is conducted according to the law. Live and let live I say, people have to be responsible for their own actions.

[ChrisAsh]

Charles, many thanks for your input. Most interesting.

 

You mention that the CPS proscuted you (at your behest from what you have said) in relation to your business model. I take it from that that you were found not guilty. Do you have more info on this? Presumably you argued as to the sale beinbg concluded at a certain point which was legal? What is this point?

 

How are other businessess which operate a similar model breaking the law? Surely they can't be if they are doing the same as yoru self?

 

J.

Dont you feel a bit stupid asking a business man, what his trade secrets are on a open forum,

 

Realistically you just seem to nit pick at everything and never make a positive contribution just be Mr negative

 

Well Done Charles may your business continue to thrive and fill a need for many shooters

Edited May 6, 2013 by ChrisAsh