New RFD to RFD rules.

[markm]

Anyone else heard about this? Spoke to Bywell Shooting Ground today and double checked with Northumbria FLO.

 

You now have to send off your certificate to the seller, who add the gun to the certificate and posts it back, you then take the gun to a RFD who will do the transfer to the new location, the buyer goes and picks the gun up, being checked its on the certificate.

 

Seems very strange, long winded but true. No idea what that is all about. I suppose the receiving end will be dropping their 'admin' costs now lol.

[bluesj]

That is the way it was ment to be done in the first place

[Scully]

As blues has said, it was always meant to be conducted this way, but in practice largely depends on which way your RFD is willing to do it.

[eddoakley]

Yep that's the way it needs to be done.

Lost a few sales in the last few weeks because people didn't accept that their cert has to be sent to me to fill in.

 

There is a way around it however but it does require a friendly rfd.

 

The seller actually has to fill in the cert of the "buyer" so if the receiving rfd sends the money to the sending one that's sufficient to call them the buyer.

 

Edd

[jam1e]

Is that for commercial sales, and private? I can't see that being very safe from a private sale point of view.... Thinking more about a private sale, (Money wise)... What are the Legal rules, for the seller to prove he or she holds the firearm legally? I know a lot of people will probably shoot me down for this post, but i'd like to know what the "Legal" side of things are in place to prove they're selling a legitimate firearm??

[lister22]

true send your ticket to someone you do not know!

the law is an ***

[bluesj]

true send your ticket to someone you do not know!

the law is an ***

Whats new!

[welshwarrior]

Nothing new it wasn't popular then not popular now.

[KFC]

The way I understand it, firearms transactions are meant to be undertaken face to face which is the reason for RFD's being involved.

 

If it is a private sale then it would have to be face to face so there would be no need to send off certificates.

[CharlieT]

The way I understand it, firearms transactions are meant to be undertaken face to face which is the reason for RFD's being involved.

 

If it is a private sale then it would have to be face to face so there would be no need to send off certificates.

 

Matters not whether it's a commercial sale or a private sale.

 

Same procedure applies if you buy from a distant retailer or private individual.

[Canis]

Question, what is illegal about the usual method -

 

seller surrenders gun to rfd 1,

 

marked "in" Rfd 1's register and and "out" to rfd2.

rfd1 sends gun to rfd 2

Rfd 2 marks gun"into" his register and then "Gives" it to "buyer"

 

My understanding that this may place a degree of responsibility on the dealers particularly with checking the gun is in proof but to be fair they are usually being paid for their services.

 

while i appreciate that the method described by the original poster may protect the dealer/s more is it not further from a face to face sale ?

[CharlieT]

Question, what is illegal about the usual method -

 

seller surrenders gun to rfd 1,

 

marked "in" Rfd 1's register and and "out" to rfd2.

rfd1 sends gun to rfd 2

Rfd 2 marks gun"into" his register and then "Gives" it to "buyer"

 

My understanding that this may place a degree of responsibility on the dealers particularly with checking the gun is in proof but to be fair they are usually being paid for their services.

 

while i appreciate that the method described by the original poster may protect the dealer/s more is it not further from a face to face sale ?

 

Simply because that is not how the rules, as written on your FAC, are worded and as you well know, to break the terms/conditions of a FAC is an offence.

 

Just because RFD's have, in the past, circumvented the rules does not make it legal.

 

The only way it would be legal is if the receiving RFD actually purchased the gun from the seller and then you purchased it from and paid the receiving RFD.

[Scully]

 

Simply because that is not how the rules, as written on your FAC, are worded and as you well know, to break the terms/conditions of a FAC is an offence.

 

Just because RFD's have, in the past, circumvented the rules does not make it legal.

 

The only way it would be legal is if the receiving RFD actually purchased the gun from the seller and then you purchased it from and paid the receiving RFD.

 

I totally agree with this, but ( there's always a but! ) my licensing authority also , if not break, then severely bend, the rules to make matters more straight forward or practical, as does my RFD; and I wont make a song and dance about it because it is working in my favour.

I know, I'm a hypocrite, and you can call me one if you like, but you'd have mistaken me for someone who cared.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

As Scully states above, many of us are lucky to have Licencing Authorities and RFDs that make the best of a poor set up.

[Breastman]

Is that for commercial sales, and private? I can't see that being very safe from a private sale point of view.... Thinking more about a private sale, (Money wise)... What are the Legal rules, for the seller to prove he or she holds the firearm legally? I know a lot of people will probably shoot me down for this post, but i'd like to know what the "Legal" side of things are in place to prove they're selling a legitimate firearm??

 

Which is probably why the authorities have turned a blind eye to it in the past, they know the way it has generally been done is safer and more efficient. No doubt some new boy has joined the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group (FELWG) and is trying to make a name for themselves

Edited October 6, 2016 by Breastman

[Canis]

 

Simply because that is not how the rules, as written on your FAC, are worded and as you well know, to break the terms/conditions of a FAC is an offence.

 

Just because RFD's have, in the past, circumvented the rules does not make it legal.

 

The only way it would be legal is if the receiving RFD actually purchased the gun from the seller and then you purchased it from and paid the receiving RFD.

 

Rules ? The actual wording of the relavent bit of the 1997 ammendment act is as follows :

 

32Transfers of firearms etc. to be in person.

(1)This section applies where, in Great Britain—

(a)a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies is sold, let on hire, lent or given by any person, or

(b)a shot gun is sold, let on hire or given, or lent for a period of more than 72 hours by any person,

to another person who is neither a registered firearms dealer nor a person who is entitled to purchase or acquire the firearm or ammunition without holding a firearm or shot gun certificate or a visitor’s firearm or shot gun permit.

(2)Where a transfer to which this section applies takes place—

(a)the transferee must produce to the transferor the certificate or permit entitling him to purchase or acquire the firearm or ammunition being transferred;

(b)the transferor must comply with any instructions contained in the certificate or permit produced by the transferee;

©the transferor must hand the firearm or ammunition to the transferee, and the transferee must receive it, in person.

 

(3)A failure by the transferor or transferee to comply with subsection (2) above shall be an offence.

What I can't comment on is if there is any case law that that has clarified the provision, the only sensible hole i can see through this legislation is in line with

my read of the above is that while the "method I outlined" only the final transfer of the gun has section 2 of the clause apply because section 1 has suggested the provisions of section 2 do not apply if the person receiving is an RFD .

My read is also that if you receive(as a non rfd ) someones certificate and write the transfer onto that certificate in abstentia you are transfering the gun to them directly and therefore must do so in person under clause 31 2 © the wording being "must hand the firearm to the transferee and the transferee must receive it , in person"

I can appreciate that RFD's may be concerned about being liable for the gun being out of proof may seek a different loophole arroun the act and as a consumer it places both both cert holders at risk as if n RFD where to get in financial trouble or cease trading mid transfer it could be seen that the gun formed part of the companies assets...

If anyone can justify the method of proposed by the OP within the bounds of the F(A)A 1997 ti would be obliged if they could explain how or show the precedent in case law that has clarified the position

[Breastman]

It clearly says in the section of the FA you have posted under 32 (2)(b) that the seller has to comply with the instructions on the buyers certificate, these guidance instructions are on every certificate and point 4 makes it pretty clear that the 'old' (sensible) way of doing things is not correct;

 

[CharlieT]

 

Rules ? The actual wording of the relavent bit of the 1997 ammendment act is as follows :

 

32Transfers of firearms etc. to be in person.

(1)This section applies where, in Great Britain—

(a)a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies is sold, let on hire, lent or given by any person, or

(b)a shot gun is sold, let on hire or given, or lent for a period of more than 72 hours by any person,

to another person who is neither a registered firearms dealer nor a person who is entitled to purchase or acquire the firearm or ammunition without holding a firearm or shot gun certificate or a visitor’s firearm or shot gun permit.

(2)Where a transfer to which this section applies takes place—

(a)the transferee must produce to the transferor the certificate or permit entitling him to purchase or acquire the firearm or ammunition being transferred;

(b)the transferor must comply with any instructions contained in the certificate or permit produced by the transferee;

©the transferor must hand the firearm or ammunition to the transferee, and the transferee must receive it, in person.

 

(3)A failure by the transferor or transferee to comply with subsection (2) above shall be an offence.

What I can't comment on is if there is any case law that that has clarified the provision, the only sensible hole i can see through this legislation is in line with

my read of the above is that while the "method I outlined" only the final transfer of the gun has section 2 of the clause apply because section 1 has suggested the provisions of section 2 do not apply if the person receiving is an RFD .

My read is also that if you receive(as a non rfd ) someones certificate and write the transfer onto that certificate in abstentia you are transfering the gun to them directly and therefore must do so in person under clause 31 2 © the wording being "must hand the firearm to the transferee and the transferee must receive it , in person"

I can appreciate that RFD's may be concerned about being liable for the gun being out of proof may seek a different loophole arroun the act and as a consumer it places both both cert holders at risk as if n RFD where to get in financial trouble or cease trading mid transfer it could be seen that the gun formed part of the companies assets...

If anyone can justify the method of proposed by the OP within the bounds of the F(A)A 1997 ti would be obliged if they could explain how or show the precedent in case law that has clarified the position

 

I use the word "rules" colloquially. As you will have seen from my post, I was refering to the printed word, which has been on there for years, on FAC's.

 

Perhaps you should read it.

[silver pigeon69]

If the seller transfers ownership of the gun to an RFD and that RFD transfers to another RFD, then the last RFD transfers ownership to the purchaser, then surely no rules/laws have been broken?

[bruno22rf]

Wot silver pigeon69 said - that's the way I have always read the situation - if the seller "sells" to his RFD who then "sells" to your RFD - he then "sells" to you for the original price + whatever he charges then job's a goodun.

[Canis]

 

I use the word "rules" colloquially. As you will have seen from my post, I was refering to the printed word, which has been on there for years, on FAC's.

 

Perhaps you should read it.

With respect, read number 4 again . i think you will see this refers (Badly)to the sitiuation of where an RFD sells a gun to a remote Certificate holder using a second rfd to send the gun to for the cert holder to pick the gun up from .and identifies that the selling RFD is responsible for informing the police of the sale rather than the RFD who the cert holder picks the gun up from.( note the words sent or posted to ANOTHER dealer for the buyer to collect in person

 

You are not as a cert holder allowed to transfer a gun to another cert holder except face to face ... clause 32, 2 c of the !997 F(a)a

[mossy835]

as all ways the firearms law is a ***.

[Savhmr]

I spoke with my licencing team about this issue last year and their response was unequivocal, with no get-outs or interpretations possible.

 

You either buy face to face OR you send your certificate to the seller who mus list HIS firearm being sold in YOUR certificate and notify his licencing team of the sale or transfer and send your certificate back to you. He then pays an RFD to take the firearm onto their books and at this point he will have taken payment from you, it is no longer his firearm but yours. It is listed on your certificate.

 

The firearm is sent to your nominated RFD and he can only legally release it to you if you prove by your certificate that you have that firearm listed. Once he is satisfied, he releases the firearm to you and job done. It sounds a heck of lot more complicated than it actually is. In reality it takes no more of your time up and you still only have to visit your RFD once. Being the sensible chaps you are, you simply copy your certificate (informing your team that you are doing this in case it is stolen or goes missing) before sending it off, only use registered special delivery post (and insist on the same at the other end...you pay) and really the risks are low. If a bad'un has duped you, you inform the police, they investigate and you get a duplicate certificate issued to you.

 

The reality is that the risks are very low. There are easier less risky methods open to scroats of identity theft than being stupid enough to try it using a stolen certificate.

 

The wording has been the same for years but the rules have been bent, broken and twisted at every opportunity for years too and the police are simply clamping down on these things. People will hold different opinions but at the end of the day, it's their opinion and not the letter of the law which hasn't changed, and neither has the interpretation of this rule. The GTA and BASC both hold with the letter of the law and I know that the GTA have advised their members to ensure that it is complied with.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Savhmr

[Scully]

If it's true that it is an offence to possess expanding ammunition on a S7 permit, are the police clamping down on this too?

[Walker570]

OK I buy a rifle from an RFD in say Essex, he 'gives' that rifle to my RFD and notifies Essex Police as such. My RFD then 'gives' the rifle to me on production of my FAC and we both notify my Police FEO, what if any laws have been broken? Payment really has nothing to do with it and in these circumstances would be plastic anyway.

I ask this question because I have done as such and my Licensing Office where aware of the transaction.