Rfd to Rfd

[gotgcoalman]

Just bought a gun from the "other end of the country" and  RFD to RFD should be un problematic.

Nope. I have to post my certificate first so the seller can fill in the details,the RFD will then ship the gun

including my cert in the package.🙄

Apparently this has always been the case although not enforced.

Phoned Durham firearms about it and they said "don't send it"

 They then phoned  my RFD to say it was ok to send it ?

 

 

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

That's how it should be done!

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, gotgcoalman said:

Just bought a gun from the "other end of the country" and  RFD to RFD should be un problematic.

Nope. I have to post my certificate first so the seller can fill in the details,the RFD will then ship the gun

including my cert in the package.🙄

Apparently this has always been the case although not enforced.

Phoned Durham firearms about it and they said "don't send it"

 They then phoned  my RFD to say it was ok to send it ?

 

 

 

You’re right, apparently that’s the way it SHOULD be done, but as you say it’s rarely enforced. 

Ive transferred many guns RFD to RFD and Avalon were the only company to insist on it. Strange that your authority is advising you not to do it! 

Will the seller not ‘sell’ the gun to his local RFD, whom you will then ‘buy’ it from, after which the RFD s wnds it to yours? That’s the way I usually do it. 

[eddoakley]

Covered loads of times.

Durham firearms are advising something which could cost the RFD his certificate. 

The "seller" must enter the gun onto the certificate of the "buyer". No ifs, buts or maybe's. It's a pita but it's the way it has to be done.

If the RFD was to buy it (be the person who actually pays for it) then that raises all sorts of issues with tax and VAT.

Unfortunately we just have to accept that the rules are now being enforced where they previously weren't.

Edd

[gotgcoalman]

Appears Durham firearms are wrong and corrected them selves to my Rfd.

Who then contacted me to tell me to send my cert.

 

 

[Scully]

22 minutes ago, gotgcoalman said:

Appears Durham firearms are wrong and corrected them selves to my Rfd.

Who then contacted me to tell me to send my cert.

 

 

Can you not find one closer to home, at a local RFD for instance? 

I won’t be doing RFD to RFD in future if I have to send off my ticket. 

[gotgcoalman]

just sent my cert via super dooper secure won't get lost mail.

£6.50 🙁

 

 

[rapid .25]

Deffinately won't be sending my cert off to a complete stranger who will then be in possession of my address and details of every shotgun or firearm that I own, 

[grahamch]

Yep this is a pain and just lost me 2 sales from down south.

Looks like will have to take the pittance of a px price l was offered.

[Rewulf]

18 hours ago, eddoakley said:

Covered loads of times.

Durham firearms are advising something which could cost the RFD his certificate. 

The "seller" must enter the gun onto the certificate of the "buyer". No ifs, buts or maybe's. It's a pita but it's the way it has to be done.

If the RFD was to buy it (be the person who actually pays for it) then that raises all sorts of issues with tax and VAT.

Unfortunately we just have to accept that the rules are now being enforced where they previously weren't.

Edd

What if he doesnt buy it, it is just given or transferred to him by the seller , then he just transfers it to the buyer, a sort of ESCROW service, so no issues with tax Vat ect.
Obviously charges for the service, whilst the buyer and seller deal with each other ?

To be honest, I thought this was how it worked anyway ?

[telf]

It is a pain but i recently bought a gun from a lad in kent , sent my license special delivery he filled it in and returned it with the gun , alot of it has to be about trust even though you dont know the op from adam , i cant really see the problem with doing it the way its been done for ages even though it would appear to be the wrong way , the rfd still charges the same money although now he does less

however it would seem that we now have no choice other than to do it the way its supposed to be done

[Old farrier]

44 minutes ago, telf said:

It is a pain but i recently bought a gun from a lad in kent , sent my license special delivery he filled it in and returned it with the gun , alot of it has to be about trust even though you dont know the op from adam , i cant really see the problem with doing it the way its been done for ages even though it would appear to be the wrong way , the rfd still charges the same money although now he does less

however it would seem that we now have no choice other than to do it the way its supposed to be done

Could be worse 

you could have to do it face to face 

[gotgcoalman]

324 miles each way including a ferry ride would make it an expensive gun doing it face to face.🙁

[telf]

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

Could be worse 

you could have to do it face to face 

true , but wouldnt have bought it then 

 

[eddoakley]

7 hours ago, Rewulf said:

What if he doesnt buy it, it is just given or transferred to him by the seller , then he just transfers it to the buyer, a sort of ESCROW service, so no issues with tax Vat ect.
Obviously charges for the service, whilst the buyer and seller deal with each other ?

To be honest, I thought this was how it worked anyway ?

Try to explain that away to the feo and see where it ends...

The "old way" makes much more sense, I don't think anyone has tried to argue that it doesn't and that includes any feos that I have spoke to.

But trying to be smart will eventually end in someone losing their certificate.

I have been asked if someone can "give" me a gun for me to then "give" it to another RFD who can "give" it to someone. Any money changung hands apart from rfd fees would be between the seller and buyer. Basically what you are suggesting? Nobody actually buying or selling as far as firearms licensing are concerned?

Obviously I declined, even when offered double the fee to do it.

Technically there has been no buying or selling so neither RFD nor tother parties have done anything wrong, but we all know it's just cheating and the feo would also know. What could be done about it I don't know but I do know that it's not worth trying to skirt around the rules.

Edd

[Scully]

11 hours ago, eddoakley said:

Try to explain that away to the feo and see where it ends...

The "old way" makes much more sense, I don't think anyone has tried to argue that it doesn't and that includes any feos that I have spoke to.

But trying to be smart will eventually end in someone losing their certificate.

I have been asked if someone can "give" me a gun for me to then "give" it to another RFD who can "give" it to someone. Any money changung hands apart from rfd fees would be between the seller and buyer. Basically what you are suggesting? Nobody actually buying or selling as far as firearms licensing are concerned?

Obviously I declined, even when offered double the fee to do it.

Technically there has been no buying or selling so neither RFD nor tother parties have done anything wrong, but we all know it's just cheating and the feo would also know. What could be done about it I don't know but I do know that it's not worth trying to skirt around the rules.

Edd

I fully agree with the above, but it isn’t an offence to ‘give’ of ‘gift’ a shotgun, and I realise that you’re not inferring it is. The onus would be on the authorities to prove money changed hands. A bit of a dicey manoeuvre if done constantly, I’ll admit,  but now and then it has its place. 

I’ve done the old ‘sell’ to RFD who writes it in his register before ‘selling’ it to the new buyer many times. I get the impression licensing overlooks many things when it suits, but can see this particular door being closed. 

I’m not keen on the idea of sending my ticket to someone I don’t  know.

[Rewulf]

13 hours ago, eddoakley said:

I have been asked if someone can "give" me a gun for me to then "give" it to another RFD who can "give" it to someone. Any money changung hands apart from rfd fees would be between the seller and buyer. Basically what you are suggesting? Nobody actually buying or selling as far as firearms licensing are concerned?

 

1 hour ago, Scully said:

I fully agree with the above, but it isn’t an offence to ‘give’ of ‘gift’ a shotgun, and I realise that you’re not inferring it is. The onus would be on the authorities to prove money changed hands. A bit of a dicey manoeuvre if done constantly, I’ll admit,  but now and then it has its place. 

This is what I meant, I dont see what anyone is doing wrong ?
Lots of RFDs 'hold' a gun for someone, say till the variation comes through, if both parties have reached agreement and the gun has been paid for, the RFD to RFD transfer just stops at one RFD until the FAC/SGC holder is ready to collect and add it on to their ticket.
If the law states that this cannot happen then fair enough, but if thats not the case, then I dont see where theres a problem.
No one is trying to hoodwink firearms or the taxman.

[Brodie]

A question for you Edd,

If I leave a gun with an RFD to sell on commission do I have to go to the shop and sign the buyers cert when it's sold? 

[eddoakley]

1 hour ago, Brodie said:

A question for you Edd,

If I leave a gun with an RFD to sell on commission do I have to go to the shop and sign the buyers cert when it's sold? 

A good question and one that I'm not entirely sure of the answer. But I would say yes, you as the seller would need to sign the buyer's cert.

However as the RFD would already have it booked in as "storage/commission sale" and would be making money from the sale then I would assume that as long as they pay you before they sell then they are the buyer.

If I was selling on commission then I would call you to agree the price (before doing the deal with the new potential buyer) thus deeming the gun sold to me even though I hadn't handed you the cash. Leaving me, as the owner free to sell on.

I will ask my FLO what he thinks about that scenario but I think my solution keeps within the rules and within the "spirit" of them.

Edd

[Newbie to this]

7 minutes ago, eddoakley said:

A good question and one that I'm not entirely sure of the answer. But I would say yes, you as the seller would need to sign the buyer's cert.

However as the RFD would already have it booked in as "storage/commission sale" and would be making money from the sale then I would assume that as long as they pay you before they sell then they are the buyer.

If I was selling on commission then I would call you to agree the price (before doing the deal with the new potential buyer) thus deeming the gun sold to me even though I hadn't handed you the cash. Leaving me, as the owner free to sell on.

I will ask my FLO what he thinks about that scenario but I think my solution keeps within the rules and within the "spirit" of them.

Edd

My take on this is that, the RFD in this case is the seller of said gun as it is a commission sale. Therefore the RFD is the one that should complete the cert.

[Scully]

38 minutes ago, eddoakley said:

 

However as the RFD would already have it booked in as "storage/commission sale" and would be making money from the sale

This is exactly what happens whenever I have done a RFD to RFD transfer. The seller ( from London for example ) gives it to his RFD, who enters it on his register after receiving money to do so. The seller informs his licensing authority that he has sold the relevant shotgun to his RFD. The RFD then sends the gun to the buyers RFD ( in Edinburgh for example ) who then writes it into his register and informs the buyer it is ready to collect, the buyer goes to the RFD and pays him an agreed amount for entering it on his register, and then the RFD enters the gun on the buyers ticket as sold, given, gifted or whatever. 

I understand it's not how it's supposed to be done, but is any part of this illegal? 

[eddoakley]

11 minutes ago, Scully said:

 

I understand it's not how it's supposed to be done, but is any part of this illegal? 

Yes.

Ask BASC and/or firearms licensing.

I did after receiving a warning and the threat of having my RFD removed if I carried out transactions/transfers in that way.

We all know it's better to do it "the old way" but we also know what happens if we don't follow the rules.

 

Edd

[Scully]

12 minutes ago, eddoakley said:

Yes.

Ask BASC and/or firearms licensing.

I did after receiving a warning and the threat of having my RFD removed if I carried out transactions/transfers in that way.

We all know it's better to do it "the old way" but we also know what happens if we don't follow the rules.

 

Edd

What is illegal about it? I'm not about to ask BASC as I'm no longer a member, and I won't ask licensing lest it wakes them up...I may want to do it again sometime. 🙂

[timps]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

This is exactly what happens whenever I have done a RFD to RFD transfer. The seller ( from London for example ) gives it to his RFD, who enters it on his register after receiving money to do so. The seller informs his licensing authority that he has sold the relevant shotgun to his RFD. The RFD then sends the gun to the buyers RFD ( in Edinburgh for example ) who then writes it into his register and informs the buyer it is ready to collect, the buyer goes to the RFD and pays him an agreed amount for entering it on his register, and then the RFD enters the gun on the buyers ticket as sold, given, gifted or whatever. 

I understand it's not how it's supposed to be done, but is any part of this illegal? 

The legality is clause 3 of your certificate which says.

If you are selling a firearm [or shotgun] which will be sent or posted to another dealer for the buyer to collect in person you should complete this table and notify the police. The dealer who actually hands over the firearm should not complete the table or notify the police (except in circumstances which may require police investigation as above).

If you have personally brokered and advertised the sale then that’s the law you and the RFD’s are breaking, if the final RFD brokers, advertises and sells the gun then no law has been broken, like auction house or sale or return.

However, in the case you have outlined the gun has already been sold before the final RFD knows about it therefore you are legally obliged to follow clause 3, in law you can’t pretend you haven’t sold it and the RFD has, that is not the spirit of the above law and any judge would take a dim view of it if it was ever proven that's what you did.

The sticking point for the police is proving you sold it and are now pretending the final RFD did.

It is a gamble, you may or may not convince a jury that everyone is innocent, and they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction which might be very hard with your scenario indeed.

However, Firearms departments can revoke a certificate or RFD without a court case and just on the balance of probabilities.

Therefore, any FEO looking in depth that sees a shooter gifting an expensive gun to an RFD who immediately gifts this gun to another dealer who then gifts that gun to anther shooter in a very short period of time miles apart knows this is not how business make money or work and may revoke on the balance of probabilities if this practice continues without the need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

The money going through the RFD’s books as sold is more believable but this does have tax and liability issues for the RFD’s involved. If the police then link the dots due to looking at the books and finding no commission, no profit and only transfer fees therefore deem the certificate holder brokered the sale personally then you fall foul of clause 3 again.

As an individual certificate holder chance of getting caught are low, as an RFD that is continual doing it the chances are higher, however if the certificate holder has sold the gun to be collected from an RFD in law he can’t pretend he didn’t just to get around the conditions on his cert. Therefore  if you actually admitted to the judge your scenario you would fall foul of the law, but the police trying to prove it might be hard without that admission.

[eddoakley]

A very comprehensive answer (above)

We all know it's a PITA but it's the law and the way it has to be done and I don't see it changing any time soon.

Edd