A good thread lubricant a little bit goes a long way.
Moderator Fitting
- Thread starter gazmanthegun
- Start date
This is undiluted horse**** from the Member organisations and ill informed Officers of the law IMO
I have heard it from numerous sources that this is the case, I have even heard of RFDs being given a hard time about this in addition to other issues when under scrutiny.
Never has anyone including the Police been able to point to the case law or section of the Firearms Act that dictates payment terms or deposits or how this impacts lawful authority
My question would be:
1) How can you buy and pay in full for S1, S2 and S5 items at auction without any sight of ANY authority or even ID?
2) How can non certificate holders legally own a firearm that is held in storage?
3) how does one person gift another a firearm that they may not have personal authority to hold? (happens a lot, parents, spouse, partner pays, recipient collects on their lawful authority)
4) How do companies (that do not have specific licenses pay for items that require personal authority to collect?
The ownership is a legal status not a licensing status
In the same sense that the V5 is a the Registered Keeper and NOT (necessarily) the owner
The law (Firearms Act) is built entirely around licensing and authority to possess/ to hold, NOT ownership.
the words, Purchase, Acquire, Hold, Transfer, all have very clear legal definitions.
As usual some of the legal documents around the Law are poorly written with ambiguous statements. This is the primary reason people use case law as the definition.
Auction Houses could not exist if purchase and acquire/Hold were treated as the same
I agree, but the argument is not about ownership but possession. In legal terms possession is split into Actual possession and Constructive, and that's where the waters muddy. The lawyer speak I've read about it is like they could argue black is white and get away with it.
I have never been able to find a reference or definitive answer but keep looking.
I have never been able to find a reference or definitive answer but keep looking.
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
The Act seems pretty definitive though:
" Under sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act, it is an offence for a person “to have in their possession or to purchase or acquire” a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 applies or a shot gun (but not shot gun cartridges) without holding the appropriate certificate."
"possession" does not necessarily mean in their keeping....it can also mean "have free access to...". In this case, there is no free access, as a dealer cannot register the firearm to the applicant without entering it on their certificate. Thus it's understandable why this might be thought of as a grey area and cause confusion. A lot depends on the nature of the deposit. A dealer may take a firearm off general sale if left with a refundable deposit, but that deposit cannot be specifically held as a "purchase agreement" for the specific firearm, otherwise both the RFD and applicant are both in breach of the Act.
Taking off general sale does not mean the firearm is "sold" nor does it mean those paying a deposit for the rfd to hold it have possession or ownership, as it will still be registered to the RFD. I can't see any legal problem if someone wants to pay a dealer to take a firearm off general sale, as either it will not be transferred to the applicant to posses, and they will have their deposit returned (nor will they have free access to it), or they will get their variation and then can pay in full, with the deposit refunded first then paying full price and having it transferred to them (to keep things neat and tidy, tied up in one transaction)
" Under sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act, it is an offence for a person “to have in their possession or to purchase or acquire” a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 applies or a shot gun (but not shot gun cartridges) without holding the appropriate certificate."
"possession" does not necessarily mean in their keeping....it can also mean "have free access to...". In this case, there is no free access, as a dealer cannot register the firearm to the applicant without entering it on their certificate. Thus it's understandable why this might be thought of as a grey area and cause confusion. A lot depends on the nature of the deposit. A dealer may take a firearm off general sale if left with a refundable deposit, but that deposit cannot be specifically held as a "purchase agreement" for the specific firearm, otherwise both the RFD and applicant are both in breach of the Act.
Taking off general sale does not mean the firearm is "sold" nor does it mean those paying a deposit for the rfd to hold it have possession or ownership, as it will still be registered to the RFD. I can't see any legal problem if someone wants to pay a dealer to take a firearm off general sale, as either it will not be transferred to the applicant to posses, and they will have their deposit returned (nor will they have free access to it), or they will get their variation and then can pay in full, with the deposit refunded first then paying full price and having it transferred to them (to keep things neat and tidy, tied up in one transaction)
Thank you @Rory , galvanic corrosion. I couldn’t remember exactly what it was.
Sounds awfully complex
Auction houses take full payment for specific items
You think for a second this would be happening on a grand scale if Possession and Acquisition were not viewed by the Police and under the terms of the Act as clearly Physical possession/acquisition?
Similar threads
