Rfd to Rfd transfers

[mealiejimmy]

It clearly is a question - as many don’t see it that way…and many, many RFD’s are happy to hand over a firearm that has been transferred to them from another RFD yet the origin RFD has never seen the buyers FAC - I see no issue with this as at no point is the firearm handled or issued to someone who isn’t permitted to do so.

Why would we need to send a controlled document (FAC) around the country unnecessarily?? It’s just nonsense.

Regards,
Gixer

Is an FAC a "controlled document" ?
I don't think so, because if it was, the police wouldn't send out your shiny new (unsigned) certificate by second class mail.
My impression is that the procedure, when followed correctly simplifies things for RFDs
A remote seller gives a firearm to his local RFD to send to the receiving RFD - because that is the only legal way in which firearms can be sent
In this situation, the local RFD does not have to enter the firearm in his register since he is not keeping it, but only facilitating its transportation to the receiving RFD
Likewise, the receiving RFD does not need (or want) to enter the firearm in his register, but is only providing a collection point for the buyer.
However, the police want to know who owns (or keeps) the firearm at all times so the seller must inform his local police force of the change in ownership and by writing in the buyers FAC, informs the receiving RFD that the buyer has the authorisation to be given the firearm
The method as you describe it where the receiving RFD writes the details of the sale in the buyers FAC implies that the receiving RFD was the previous owner or keeper of the firearm - which is not the case unless the receiving RFD enters it is his register and lists it as inventory and then shows it coming out of inventory and being sold to the buyer

Cheers

Bruce

 

[shakey jake]

if some one drink drives every friday when they get caught is the defense ive done it for years and never got in trouble before, ok?

 

[tim@tcs]

possibly more to it than just the firearms act, but also sales of goods act? Vat?

I am just pleased that some RFDs are happy to do the process as not all will, make it difficult for them and they may all stop doing it. After all must be more profit in selling a gun then just receiving it and handing it over.

Nothing to stop that happening, I’ve delivered rifles to a mate whose shop is in Derbyshire that he had a buyer for. I sold it to him at trade and we had a night out on the profit

 

[tim@tcs]

A remote seller gives a firearm to his local RFD to send to the receiving RFD - because that is the only legal way in which firearms can be sent

I’m fairly sure that an individual selling can do the part of the first RFD himself and fill in the ticket and ship via parcel force however most post offices would cause a fuss!
I don’t have a parcel force account so I use a neighbouring dealer as we have an arrangement

 

[hw101]

Is an FAC a "controlled document" ?
I don't think so, because if it was, the police wouldn't send out your shiny new (unsigned) certificate by second class mail.
My impression is that the procedure, when followed correctly simplifies things for RFDs
A remote seller gives a firearm to his local RFD to send to the receiving RFD - because that is the only legal way in which firearms can be sent
In this situation, the local RFD does not have to enter the firearm in his register since he is not keeping it, but only facilitating its transportation to the receiving RFD
Likewise, the receiving RFD does not need (or want) to enter the firearm in his register, but is only providing a collection point for the buyer.
However, the police want to know who owns (or keeps) the firearm at all times so the seller must inform his local police force of the change in ownership and by writing in the buyers FAC, informs the receiving RFD that the buyer has the authorisation to be given the firearm
The method as you describe it where the receiving RFD writes the details of the sale in the buyers FAC implies that the receiving RFD was the previous owner or keeper of the firearm - which is not the case unless the receiving RFD enters it is his register and lists it as inventory and then shows it coming out of inventory and being sold to the buyer

Cheers

Bruce

What Bruce describes is a concisely and accurately written summation of how to follow the law. It’s the procedure I’m familiar with and I think he’s correct.

 

[enfieldspares]

What Bruce describes is a concisely and accurately written summation of how to follow the law. It’s the procedure I’m familiar with and I think he’s correct.

Not quite. At least not what I used to do. Which of course doesn't mean that I was correct!

What should happen IMHO is this that the RFDs should enter at the distant end where the thing is sent from the detail on the "in" side of their register the SGC (or FAC) details of the vendor. On the "out" side of their register they should enter the details of the RFD that the thing has been sent to. In the "comments" section of his register he should write such notes as to identify this as an SGC to SGC distance sale via the other RFD. I would have put the words "Seller to Buyer at distance via RFD".

The RFD at the purchaser's end should end in his "in" side the details of the sending RFD on on the "out" side the SGC (or FAC) details of the purchaser with in his "comments" section of his register words again such as "Seller to Buyer at distance via RFD". But he does not notify the buyer's Constabulary. That way the gun is accounted for at all stages and it is also clear that the gun was never part of the RFD's stock at hand.

Then if the purchaser rejects it the RFD at that end has the ability to complete a fresh line...with fresh "in" details and fresh "out" details if the gun is sent back to the original seller (at distance by RFD) and, again, the RFD doesn't have the aggravation of having to notify a disposal back to the seller's Constabulary as all of that has to be done by the purchaser.

It also means that the way I would have done it that the receiving RFD at the purchaser's end will clearly see in his register that until the "out" line is completed that he still has the gun in his keeping awaiting its collection.

 

[MAH]

There is no "interpretation" here - the procedure is clearly set out in your FAC
If you have a local RFD who signs your FAC rather than the seller when you collect the gun, then he is not following the procedure correctly and risks the wrath of the local firearms department

I agree with you @mealiejimmy
And I'd add to your post, to say....

@spanj
It will be very easy for the Firearms Departments to detect that the process has nor been followed correctly, e.g.
The previous registered owner is in Devon, the buyer in Cheshire.. But wait.. who has signed the certificate?
Those who try to shortcut the system will create evidence of their own wrong doing.

M.

 

[VSS]

I think we've all done it the logical way in the past, probably thinking it was the right way, and RFDs have been happy to facilitate this. They don't seem so happy about it now though, and I can't say I blame them with firearms ownership coming under ever increasing scrutiny. So, when you now find yourself having to do it the correct way (ie, send your FAC away to the seller) there's no point grumbling about it. That's the law. Just be grateful that we've had it as easy as we have for so long. Cutting corners isn't so well tolerated as it used to be.

 

[spanj]

I agree with you @mealiejimmy
And I'd add to your post, to say....

@spanj
It will be very easy for the Firearms Departments to detect that the process has nor been followed correctly, e.g.
The previous registered owner is in Devon, the buyer in Cheshire.. But wait.. who has signed the certificate?
Those who try to shortcut the system will create evidence of their own wrong doing.

M.

Lets be clear. I havent set out to do anything wrong here and the last time I bought a firearm at distance was about 15 yrs ago. To me the process is plain daft but the law is the law.

 

[palmer_mike]

There’s nothing illegal about handing in a rifle to an RFD for no charge.

There’s nothing to prevent him transferring it to another RFD

There’s no law against that RFD giving it to you for no charge and signing it into your ticket.

It’s also not a crime for you to send the bloke who used to own the rifle some money

Just sayin

 

[tim@tcs]

There’s nothing illegal about handing in a rifle to an RFD for no charge.

There’s nothing to prevent him transferring it to another RFD

There’s no law against that RFD giving it to you for no charge and signing it into your ticket.

It’s also not a crime for you to send the bloke who used to own the rifle some money

Just sayin

That might just be how four friends would view it

 

[mealiejimmy]

There’s nothing illegal about handing in a rifle to an RFD for no charge.

There’s nothing to prevent him transferring it to another RFD

There’s no law against that RFD giving it to you for no charge and signing it into your ticket.

It’s also not a crime for you to send the bloke who used to own the rifle some money

Just sayin

If you hand a rifle to an RFD without any instructions as to what you want him to do with it and he then sends it to another RFD without your permission then, in my book, that's theft - and there is a law against that.
If you hand a rifle to an RFD and ask him to send it to another RFD, then he can do that.
However, the receiving RFD can't legally sign it on to your FAC unless the person who handed the rifle to the sending RFD has completed table 1 in your FAC and sent the FAC back to you so that you can prove to the receiving RFD that you are now the owner/keeper of the rifle.

Why is this so difficult for some people to understand????

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Liveonce]

if the seller does not see the buyers certificate will not this apply?

2)It is an offence for a person to sell or transfer to any other person in the United Kingdom, other than a registered firearms dealer, any firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of this Act applies, or a shot gun, unless that other produces a firearm certificate authorising him to purchase or acquire it or, as the case may be, his shot gun certificate, or shows that he is by virtue of this Act entitled to purchase or acquire it without holding a certificate.

For a simple life follow the BASC process.

 

[243ack]

I give up.
Crack on chaps.
I'm out.

 

[spanj]

I give up.
Crack on chaps.
I'm out.

Yeah, am actually sorry I posted this as it was only out of frustration. @sikamalc It would be good if there were a delete button …….