Buying a gun at distance in a private sale

[bluesj]

I think there is a good chance that we have all done it the sensible common sense way (illegal way) but when did common sense come in the fire arms law

[Walker570]

I'm afraid I will not be posting my FAC to anyone. Law or no law. The transfer of my double rifle was legal and above board as far as my Firearms Licensing Dept., were concerned. The RFD's are simply acting as 'agents'.

[B25Modelman]

Yep, I think in this day and age one would have good cause to argue a case for NOT sending someone you do not know (other than an RFD) a document with your name, address, signature, date of birth, picture and list of all the guns at that premises.

Edited October 31, 2016 by B25Modelman

[markm]

Just done it last week from south London shooting school to Bywell shooting Ground. Bywell told me that the seller MUST fill in your cert. checked with Northumbria police who confirmed this and are tightening up on it.

Sent off my cert, filled in and returned to me, gun handed into SLSS and couriered to BSG. When it arrived showed my cert in Bywell and they handed it over.

Edited October 31, 2016 by markm

[rbrowning2]

Yes, he is, as the transaction is defined by legislation.

However, rather than being inept, I will take advantage of any means which plays to my benefit for as long as those in authority do so.

I am in breach of the terms of my expired tickets as we speak; am I going to point this out to the authorities responsible? What do you think?

Two wrongs do not make it right. Their is a risk just like the post said that the RFD could lose his licence as could the other parties.

 

As this was explained to me their is also the issue with the sales of goods act if the RFD fills the certificate in then he may well then be responsible under the act for any repairs or returns at his expense. Hence momentum is building to do it the proper way.

 

Indeed my RFD who I am luck enough to be a close friend today showed me the very latest October 2016 Gun Trade Association members news letter he recently received and their it is on page 7 a reminder on remote sales guidance for members.

[oowee]

Gosh. I don't like the sound of sending of my ticket to some random seller. I will be in the market for a few rifles and will look nearer to home.

[markm]

Gosh. I don't like the sound of sending of my ticket to some random seller. I will be in the market for a few rifles and will look nearer to home.

I asked my FLO this and his response was

 

1.SGC and FAC owners are very trustworthy.

2. As part of the deal they know your address anyway.

3. If it's not posted back you have their address.

4. It's only a piece of paper at the end of the day. We would simply contact the sellers local force and print you a new one.

 

I was told, be more worried about the description (like new etc) and the money, as they cannot do anything (unless the gun is illegal e.g. - out of proof).

[oowee]

I asked my FLO this and his response was

 

1.SGC and FAC owners are very trustworthy.

2. As part of the deal they know your address anyway.

3. If it's not posted back you have their address.

4. It's only a piece of paper at the end of the day. We would simply contact the sellers local force and print you a new one.

 

I was told, be more worried about the description (like new etc) and the money, as they cannot do anything (unless the gun is illegal e.g. - out of proof).

Yes that's a good few points its not like an e bay purchase.

[Scully]

Two wrongs do not make it right. Their is a risk just like the post said that the RFD could lose his licence as could the other parties.

 

As this was explained to me their is also the issue with the sales of goods act if the RFD fills the certificate in then he may well then be responsible under the act for any repairs or returns at his expense. Hence momentum is building to do it the proper way.

 

Indeed my RFD who I am luck enough to be a close friend today showed me the very latest October 2016 Gun Trade Association members news letter he recently received and their it is on page 7 a reminder on remote sales guidance for members.

If the seller/ buyer or RFD is fearful of getting into trouble then the simple answer is don't do it! There you go, sorted!

We're all responsible for our own actions at the end of the day...aren't we?

[rbrowning2]

Gosh. I don't like the sound of sending of my ticket to some random seller. I will be in the market for a few rifles and will look nearer to home.

That may be the hidden agenda and why the trade has been happy to accept the proper way to encourage you to buy from the local RFD for which they make more money from you than just receiving somebody else's gun for you. Which is ok I guess provided they have what you want at a price you want to pay.

[scarecrow243]

for heavens sake its simple the seller pays the money when both frd holders agree to do the transfer the seller takes the gun to his rfd then informs his f/office he has sold the gun to the rfd then the rfd sends the gun to the buyers rfd who puts it on the buyers certificate then the buyer informs his f/office he has bought the gun from the rfd simples

[Glenlivet]

for heavens sake its simple the seller pays the money when both frd holders agree to do the transfer the seller takes the gun to his rfd then informs his f/office he has sold the gun to the rfd then the rfd sends the gun to the buyers rfd who puts it on the buyers certificate then the buyer informs his f/office he has bought the gun from the rfd simples

....then the gun goes wrong and buyer demands refund from rfd.

[markm]

for heavens sake its simple the seller pays the money when both frd holders agree to do the transfer the seller takes the gun to his rfd then informs his f/office he has sold the gun to the rfd then the rfd sends the gun to the buyers rfd who puts it on the buyers certificate then the buyer informs his f/office he has bought the gun from the rfd simples

Done similar many times in the past. But they (the law) have tightened up on this and RFD's won't do it any more. But hey, maybe Bywell Shooting Ground, South London Shooting School and Northumbria and Met Police have got it all wrong.

 

Even if that is the case. I have my new gun on my certificate and it all went fine.....

[silver pigeon69]

Is this illegal:

Seller transfers gun onto his local RFD's "licence". Sellers RFD transfers gun to buyers RFD's licence. Buyers RFD transfers gun onto buyers licence?

 

I dont think so (but may be wrong??). So, is this the way it could be done, legally, without sending your licence to seller?

[shaun4860]

Is this illegal:

Seller transfers gun onto his local RFD's "licence". Sellers RFD transfers gun to buyers RFD's licence. Buyers RFD transfers gun onto buyers licence?

 

I dont think so (but may be wrong??). So, is this the way it could be done, legally, without sending your licence to seller?

First part is yes it's illegal, second part is no, what if the gun fails to work or is damaged?

 

Who is liable?

 

The way you describe is the way most of us have always done it, ( I have done it many times in the past) but it's the wrong way to do it, if they are indeed tightening the rules then I'm afraid we have to follow them or simply buy a gun locally

 

[timps]

Is this illegal:

Seller transfers gun onto his local RFD's "licence". Sellers RFD transfers gun to buyers RFD's licence. Buyers RFD transfers gun onto buyers licence?

 

I dont think so (but may be wrong??). So, is this the way it could be done, legally, without sending your licence to seller?

 

The problem with this scenario is the wording on the certificate sates ‘selling’ so if you were to receive money from the buyer for the gun this would be classed as selling so yes it would be illegal in terms of the wording but probably very hard to prove based on the paperwork the FEO would see.

 

However the issues would be more to do with consumer law, if the buyer pays you directly then you are actually selling/transferring his gun to the RFD, or receiving money for a gun that you no longer own hence you are open to fraud allegations.

 

The second issue is for the final RFD in the chain they are going to be liable for a transaction they have no part of, they have no idea how it was described or sold. Any subsequent problems and they are ultimately responsible as they have now sold the gun to the buyer and they are legally responsible for the sale.

 

If the seller and the buyer lock horns legally the only recourse for the buyer would be to take the final RFD in the chain to court for selling the gun.

Once the seller has transferred the gun to the first RFD they have no legal recourse to get the money or gun back from the buyer as your transaction is with the first RFD and not the buyer.

 

So it opens up a whole other can of worms should issues arise with the sale.

[silver pigeon69]

 

The problem with this scenario is the wording on the certificate sates ‘selling’ so if you were to receive money from the buyer for the gun this would be classed as selling so yes it would be illegal in terms of the wording but probably very hard to prove based on the paperwork the FEO would see.

 

However the issues would be more to do with consumer law, if the buyer pays you directly then you are actually selling/transferring his gun to the RFD, or receiving money for a gun that you no longer own hence you are open to fraud allegations.

 

The second issue is for the final RFD in the chain they are going to be liable for a transaction they have no part of, they have no idea how it was described or sold. Any subsequent problems and they are ultimately responsible as they have now sold the gun to the buyer and they are legally responsible for the sale.

 

If the seller and the buyer lock horns legally the only recourse for the buyer would be to take the final RFD in the chain to court for selling the gun.

Once the seller has transferred the gun to the first RFD they have no legal recourse to get the money or gun back from the buyer as your transaction is with the first RFD and not the buyer.

 

So it opens up a whole other can of worms should issues arise with the sale.

What if, no money exchanged hands as such, until the buyer collected the gun and paid his local RFD. Then buyers RFD paid sellers RFD and sellers RFD pays seller?? so in theory the sellers RFD is selling the gun on behalf of the seller(as many do).This way every "Buyer" is purchasing from every "seller" as such. i understand the issues that could be encountered due to subsequent problems(these may be overcome by selling the gun as "sold as seen"??), but the legality regarding licenceing law is what i am querying here.

[silver pigeon69]

First part is yes it's illegal, second part is no, what if the gun fails to work or is damaged?

 

Who is liable?

 

The way you describe is the way most of us have always done it, ( I have done it many times in the past) but it's the wrong way to do it, if they are indeed tightening the rules then I'm afraid we have to follow them or simply buy a gun locally

 

I dont understand why its illegal? You can sell a gun to an RFD (or they can sell it on your behalf???) They can sell a gun to another RFD. A RFD can sell a gun to any licence holder?? ( i understand from the post after yours about final buyer paying the seller, but if buyer paid his local RFD, buyers RFD paid sellers RFD, sellers RFD paid seller, would this be legal? also not taking "sale of goods act" into account, just licenceing law)

[timps]

For it not to be illegal you would have to sell or give the gun to the first RFD, this then ceases to become your gun, whatever happens to this gun has nothing at all to do with you from that point on, it is now the property of the RFD to do with as they like.

 

Obviously, the fact you have now just given your gun away for free to an RFD who then has to give it away for free to another RFD is the sticking point most people have with it, but in terms of the Firearms act as long as you have either sold or given the gun to the first RFD you are ok.

 

Obviously the issue of money becomes a big problem with the above for various reasons but none of them are to do with the firearms act.

[B25Modelman]

In all honesty so long as the sellers and buyers local Police FAD are notified and the certs endorsed accordingly I doubt anyone will be hauled over the coals as to how it was done.

[scarecrow243]

ok they way i have said is totally legal if you say the guns condition is 8/10 the rfd that you take the gun to should agree its 8/10 before taking it from you etc etc also the use of pictures or videos shown the gun working etc if the buyer dosent like the gun after that then thats there bad luck. i have used this method for years and have had no complaints what so ever

[timps]

Unfortunately that's not what some RFD's are now saying, they are being threatened with revocation of their RFD certificate if they don't do it the correct way.

 

I doubt the police will be going for private individuals on mass but in certain areas they are putting pressure on the RFD to do it right.

 

In the scenario Silver pigeon 69 gives, as I said in the beginning I doubt the FEO would know it's been done based on paperwork alone but he asked specificity about legality rather than anything else.

 

The trouble is how some RFD's do it ( the first one treats it as a transfer so correctly puts it in his register but doesn't inform the police, the 2nd treats it as a sale and fills out the cert and informs the police) this means the paperwork doesn't always match up and the guns paper trail stops then restarts making the gun harder to trace on paper.

 

My guess is this is what has prompted some forces to act and force it to be done the correct way to avoid mistakes.

[timps]

ok they way i have said is totally legal if you say the guns condition is 8/10 the rfd that you take the gun to should agree its 8/10 before taking it from you etc etc also the use of pictures or videos shown the gun working etc if the buyer dosent like the gun after that then thats there bad luck. i have used this method for years and have had no complaints what so ever

Your way is only legal because you have sold the gun to the first RFD.

 

The RFD has agreed to buy it at that price off you, the end buyer doesn't concern you as it's no longer your gun and you cannot now sell it so the RFD is now responsible for the sale.

Edited November 1, 2016 by timps

[A.J.P.]

One possible way to put the buyer's mind at ease would be for the seller, when contacting their RFD to arrange the transfer, to also agree that the buyer will post the RFD their certificate. That way, the seller can fill it out in the presence of the RFD, and include it with the firearm when it's forwarded on. The seller doesn't need to worry about posting their certificate to someone "on the the internet", and other than the faff of the buyer having to post their certificate in the first place, all's well.

Edited November 1, 2016 by A.J.P.

[scarecrow243]

no its not illegal its just the same if you buy a gun from a dealer in london and get it sent to an rfd in orkney the rfd in orkney puts it on your certificate NOT the rfd in london its the same when rfd dealers trade with each other