is it an offence to be in posetion of a rifle bolt

[stalkerboydy]

Out of interest, has anyone actually purchased a replacement bolt? What is the process? Do you have to inform the police of the loss of the old one?

Alex

No but i tried to buy a Trigger Unit for my Sauer 202 " are you a RFD Sir !!!!! No but my FAC is all up todate WHY do to it being a Rifle part it can only be sold to a RFD Yep 100% true

 

[matt_hooks]

Don't agree about the trigger Boydy. It's not a pressure bearing part.

I know a few people who have had to replace bolts for different reasons, and replacing them is not a trivial process. You can't just buy a bolt, fit it, take it away and fire the rifle. (Well, you might be able to fire it, but I'd not be sitting near you when you did)

A bolt needs to be fitted, head space checked and then the whole rifle needs to be submitted to proof testing, as the bolt is a pressure bearing, and therefore a proofed part. A change to any pressure bearing part that might affect the strength or safety of the weapon will require a reproof. A new bolt, if the length isn't exactly the same, might increase the head space making it dangerous.

Is a bolt that's not been fitted to a firearm a "component part"? Well, you can't fire a bolt without the rifle, but I would still suggest that possession of a bolt could be argued to be an offence, and I wouldn't fancy being the test case for it!

 

[dogtired]

A bolt is a component part. Restricted component parts are listed in Law. You can not possess a bolt without lawful authority. (see SD's passim)

To be in lawfull possession, component parts must be named on your FAC as aquired.

The guy can not take a deposit on a firearm unless he has had sight of your legal authority possess.IE a properly conditioned FAC. If he does, he breaks the Law. He can, however, give you a receipt for your cash

A trigger assembly is not a listed component part and therefore does not require authority to possess or an RFD transfer

If you have authorisation to possess a weapon, than possessing individual parts to make that weapon is acceptable...

In this particular circumstance, authority to possess would be via the firearm already being entered on his FAC. If the FAC was simply conditioned for aquiring a firearm, then he would be in illegal possession.

The chap who imported the component parts from the USA did so legally, untill he ordered the frame and the barrel. Both are listed restricted items, and he was then arrested. The seller in the USA, Gunparts, informed UK authorities once they realised what was happening. The UK authorities requested that Gunparts continued with the transaction. This is now irrelevant as the USA Patriot Laws subsequently prevent the export of listed component parts.

If someone holds a listed obsolete calibre firearm, then its component parts are also classified as obsolete. If, as suggested, someone was minded to put that bolt in a licensed firearm, then it form part of that firearm and would have to be entered on to an FAC which was conditioned appropriately.

Remember, guidance can be "interpreted" but Law can not.

 

[Frank Homes]

'Remember, guidance can be "interpreted" but Law can not.'

No need for solicitors or barristers then!

Frank

 

[jamross65]

A bolt is a component part. Restricted component parts are listed in Law. You can not possess a bolt without lawful authority. (see SD's passim)

To be in lawfull possession, component parts must be named on your FAC as aquired.

The guy can not take a deposit on a firearm unless he has had sight of your legal authority possess.IE a properly conditioned FAC. If he does, he breaks the Law. He can, however, give you a receipt for your cash

A trigger assembly is not a listed component part and therefore does not require authority to possess or an RFD transfer

In this particular circumstance, authority to possess would be via the firearm already being entered on his FAC. If the FAC was simply conditioned for aquiring a firearm, then he would be in illegal possession.

The chap who imported the component parts from the USA did so legally, untill he ordered the frame and the barrel. Both are listed restricted items, and he was then arrested. The seller in the USA, Gunparts, informed UK authorities once they realised what was happening. The UK authorities requested that Gunparts continued with the transaction. This is now irrelevant as the USA Patriot Laws subsequently prevent the export of listed component parts.

If someone holds a listed obsolete calibre firearm, then its component parts are also classified as obsolete. If, as suggested, someone was minded to put that bolt in a licensed firearm, then it form part of that firearm and would have to be entered on to an FAC which was conditioned appropriately.

Remember, guidance can be "interpreted" but Law can not.

I disagree with a couple of points here. If you look at the website of HMRC, it makes direct reference to importing rifle component parts and says that it is an offence to import a part that you do not have authorisation to possess. That to me says that providing you have an open slot on your certificate, you are in fact allowed to acquire the component parts to build such a weapon and not simply possess component parts removed from a weapon already in your possession and entered on your certificate. Take for example an engineer with access to the appropriate tooling. He is not prohibited in building a rifle for himself. He can quite legitimately purchase all the component parts for said rifle as he has an open slot for a particular calibre on his certificate. He can then assemble them into a rifle, send it off to the proof house and enter the now complete firearm on his certificate. In fact I don't even think he is required to have it proofed unless he sells it on.

And the last part about not being able to interpret law.... I would argue that the reason so many 'stated cases' arise is down to a courts decision on the interpretation of a law...

 

[klunk]

Why take the risk in the first place when you don't have to? Wait until you get your FAC back, then buy the whole thing. You might want to offer the vendor a small deposit as a gesture of goodwill, but frankly there's there's loads of other rimmies out there for sale if he won't wait for you.
It always rings alarm bells with me when someone tries to 'push' a sale like that. Caveat emptor.

 

[bewsher500]

Remember, guidance can be "interpreted" but Law can not.

the entire legal profession exists to do exactly this

 

[bobjs]

No but i tried to buy a Trigger Unit for my Sauer 202 " are you a RFD Sir !!!!! No but my FAC is all up to-date WHY do to it being a Rifle part it can only be sold to a RFD Yep 100% true

this guy you went to needs to get real.

i have in the past went to a shop not to far away to purchase 3 trigger's, 1 for me and 2 for my mates rifles, all done and dusted with the swipe of a credit card.

who ever he is he is talking out of his A HMMMM.

bob.

as far as the bolt, i have always thought as its a pressure bearing part its controlled as such.

 

[Whitebeard]

I have in the past bought from Midway UK all the parts for a Rem 700 bolt apart from the actuall bolt body without the need for a licence, i also know of a respected northern BR shooter and RFD who purchased complete bolts from PTG in the USA "BEFORE" he became a RFD and no licence was required for this purchase.

Ian.

 

[matt_hooks]

Dog, why can he not take a deposit on the firearm without sight of an FAC?

Ownership of a firearm is not an offence, unless you actually have possession of the firearm.

I could go to a gun shop and quite legally hand over my cash and buy all the guns on the shelf. I would have legal title over them, and therefore "own" them. I could only take possession of them legally if I had an appropriately conditioned firearm, or an RFD certificate. "Ownership" and "possession" are two very different concepts!

So if I wish to hand over a deposit on a firearm without having space on my certificate for it, for example with an RFD to hold a rifle whilst I apply for a variation, that is perfectly legal. This is exactly the same.

 

[dogtired]

Dog, why can he not take a deposit on the firearm without sight of an FAC?

Ownership of a firearm is not an offence, unless you actually have possession of the firearm.

I could go to a gun shop and quite legally hand over my cash and buy all the guns on the shelf. I would have legal title over them, and therefore "own" them. I could only take possession of them legally if I had an appropriately conditioned firearm, or an RFD certificate. "Ownership" and "possession" are two very different concepts!

So if I wish to hand over a deposit on a firearm without having space on my certificate for it, for example with an RFD to hold a rifle whilst I apply for a variation, that is perfectly legal. This is exactly the same.

The main offence, is with the RFD. He can not sell a firearm to someone who does not have legal authority to purchase one. Otherwise he could happily sell all his stock to any old Tom Dick or Harry.
In the buyer's case, the firearm does not have to be "possessed" in the manner in which you are thinking. A closer interpretation of "possession" would be "own". There are a few loop holes, including the mini gallery clauses, but on the whole, its not a game I would like to play.

Where there are plenty of past cases of prosecution for illegal possession (think IRA, without actually "holding" the firearm), I am not aware of any cases where the accused was aquitted of an offence of simply "owning" a firearm without "possessing" it. I am more than happy to be pointed to such though, and always willing to learn

 

[dogtired]

I disagree with a couple of points here. If you look at the website of HMRC, it makes direct reference to importing rifle component parts and says that it is an offence to import a part that you do not have authorisation to possess. That to me says that providing you have an open slot on your certificate, you are in fact allowed to acquire the component parts to build such a weapon and not simply possess component parts removed from a weapon already in your possession and entered on your certificate. Take for example an engineer with access to the appropriate tooling. He is not prohibited in building a rifle for himself. He can quite legitimately purchase all the component parts for said rifle as he has an open slot for a particular calibre on his certificate. He can then assemble them into a rifle, send it off to the proof house and enter the now complete firearm on his certificate. In fact I don't even think he is required to have it proofed unless he sells it on.

And the last part about not being able to interpret law.... I would argue that the reason so many 'stated cases' arise is down to a courts decision on the interpretation of a law...

And you are more than welcome to that view. A quick call to your FLM, or the Home Office, would help you along before you made your decision on whether you should start importing/collecting a bolt, action or chambered barrel on the strength that you have a 308 for aquisition on your FAC.

I do not seek to argue any point/points, but just to put across the information I have gleaned in the past by speaking directly to the law makers, and getting the answers back in writing. I am not saying they are the right answers, just that they are right enough to keep ME safe from prosecution.

At the end of the day, I am always willing to come visit you and I'll even bring a new pack of "Mo Fo's Weekly" for your new mate Bubba to read

As for the placing any reliance on "elf and safety" advice, well, watch how much water that holds when the police come knocking with a 20LB yellow key

 

[dogtired]

the entire legal profession exists to do exactly this

And there is an entire internet of expert advice that will bring nothing but a smile to a judges face

 

[bewsher500]

RFD's take money in return for holding firearms for people who are waiting for FAC variations all the time. In fact it is quite normal for someone to find a rifle they like in a calibre they like, get it held on deposit and then put in for a variation.

Are you implying that the UK RFD trade is breaking the law by doing this?

You wouldn't get insurance on a car you have never seen and then buy one to match, its a mockery that the rules imply that is what we should do for firearms.



I would love to see the CPS prove that the money handed over directly applies to the .308 the RFD has put in the back when no transfer of ownership/possession has taken place, the rifle is still on the RFD's books and the money is an agreement to "hold until proper authority is provided"


What exactly would the charge be?

And there is an entire internet of expert advice that will bring nothing but a smile to a judges face

Is that an admission?

The whole point about firearms law is that it is very grey in places.
I am not suggesting owning a bolt without authority is in that category but the import of components from the US is regulated more by the US than it is by the UK!
just look at the farce of importing expanding ammo from the US. I can have it posted from the US but not within the UK! why dont UK dealers have a subsidiary outside the UK and just post it out to post it back in then!?
I can/can't send a VMax through the post but not an AMax with an identical cross section.

I can buy a moderator/can't buy a moderator/build a moderator/can't build a moderator.
If I machine a tube into the same dimensions as a rifle bolt without a handle, when does it become a bolt?
does a bolt spring by itself constitute a firearms component when it may have come from a different application?

 

[Virbius]

I bought a .243 recently - the RFD took £100 over the phone to secure the rifle knowing that it was subject to a variation on my FAC. When discussing the variation with my FEO he told me to call the RFD and put £100 to secure the rifle until my variation came through.
So it would appear that you do not need the condition to reserve a firearm by placing a depost and it is not unlawful to do so.

 

[jamross65]

I have just sought clarification on this matter from my Firearms Licensing Dept.

They agree it is exactly as I suggested earlier.

Component parts can be possessed providing there is an open authorisation on a FAC to allow the purchase of a rifle that these parts could be used for in its assembly.

The calibre on the FAC will obviously be specified and any barrel purchased would have to be bored in that calibre. The reference to chambering of that barrel was thought by the FLD to be irrelevent becasue the fact the barrel had been bored and rifled for a specific diameter of projectile suggests that the authorisation on an FAC must match it, even if chambering had not taken place to allow the insertion of a round.

Any FAC without open authorisations would not allow for any further possession of component parts, which would obviously include the bolt that started off this discussion.

I would also actually agree with the comment earlier that purchasing firearms within an RFD premises and them remaining there has no bearing on the term posession. Until someone take physical possession or indeed physical control of said items they are not posessed, just owned. Access to these weapons is restricted. An RFD would be entitled to take payment for said weapons and still retain control of them to dispose of in accordance with the new owners instruction. Once the new owner then sorts out his FAC and this shows an authority o possess such calibre of weapon, only then can the RFD release them to the owner.

I am surprised that no-one on here has picked up on the switch barrel scenario involving Blasers as they are so popular with SD members. If you have a 308 and 243 authorisation, you can purchase both barrels to fit to the one action. You could not however purchase any more barrels until you have that authorisation granted on your FAC, nor a new bolt to fit a different case rim size unless you have that slot open on the FAC as well.

I am not a fan of Blasers but on this occasion think they are great for demonstrating the component part issue well!!

 

[Virbius]

Good point on the component part - I have a Sako Quad which I originally had on my FAC as a .17HMR. When applying for the variation for my .243, I stated to my FEO that I would put in for a .22LR barrel as well. My FAC simply states '.22LR ....Barrel'.
I believe there are plenty at my local club who have variations specifically for component parts as they regularly swap for competition use.

 

[bewsher500]

The calibre on the FAC will obviously be specified and any barrel purchased would have to be bored in that calibre. The reference to chambering of that barrel was thought by the FLD to be irrelevent becasue the fact the barrel had been bored and rifled for a specific diameter of projectile suggests that the authorisation on an FAC must match it, even if chambering had not taken place to allow the insertion of a round.

I am not sure they are correct on the "unchambered barrel" bit. Genuinely interested though.
Did they state which bits of the firearms act or HO Guidance he took that from?

An uproofed, unchambered "barrel" is little more than a tube.
At what point does it become a barrel? calibre bore or when rifled?

I have a Sako Quad too.
three barrels are listed and the fourth is listed as an entire rifle.
I have often wondered if I could purchase a 2nd bolt (there are well known issues using one bolt for two rimfire profiles!)

 

[AllThingsShooting]

In Law the bolt is a component part of a firearm. As it is a pressure-bearing part, it is subject to Sect 1 control. Do not take possession of the bolt until the firearm is transferred to you.
The other matters are ones of integrity and confidence. Much sound advice has been offered by out other members.

+1

 

[jamross65]

I am not sure they are correct on the "unchambered barrel" bit. Genuinely interested though.
Did they state which bits of the firearms act or HO Guidance he took that from?

An uproofed, unchambered "barrel" is little more than a tube.
At what point does it become a barrel? calibre bore or when rifled?

I have a Sako Quad too.
three barrels are listed and the fourth is listed as an entire rifle.
I have often wondered if I could purchase a 2nd bolt (there are well known issues using one bolt for two rimfire profiles!)

I would suggest from what they said as soon as it is bored and obviously rifled. Otherwise it is a smooth bore barrel and subject to other legislation... Lets not go there!!!

He certainly felt that the actual chambering of a barrel would not be necessary to class it as a component part, merely adapted to allow a projectile to pass up the rifled bore would render it as being a component part and subject to authority to possess on an FAC.

This is one FLO's interpretation of the legislation as it was mine. Others may disagree to an extent with regards to the barrel. I think the componenet part issue is pretty clear though.