sending a sold firearm to a rfd

[bobjs]

is this a load of tosh or what ?

the chap who has purchased my 20 tac contacted his rfd to ask for the details to allow my rfd to send the rifle/ and bits to him.

he says to this chap, you have to send your ticket to Robert, he fills in the details and then sends it back to you, he then sends the rifle to me, you come and collect it and leave with your new rifle etc.



Have I missed this or is this the new norm ?

bob.

 

[deerstalker.308]

That’s the letter of the law yes, is how it should be done, without the rfd taking the gun into their register it should be the seller (ie you) who completes their fac

 

[bobjs]

first time I have ever had to do that, and I for one would not send my cert to anyone ? other than the Firearms department.

bob.

 

[Frank Homes]

Bob,

If you read the back of your certificate, it explains what you have to do.

F

 

[Monkey Spanker]

What happened to the face-to-face transaction bit then?

 

[bobjs]

What happened to the face-to-face transaction bit then?

there is a 250 mile gap.

I have done F2F but if the buyer lives miles away I use an rfd like most people do?

 

[Sinistral]

first time I have ever had to do that, and I for one would not send my cert to anyone ? other than the Firearms department.
bob.

Read item 4 on Part 2 of your FAC.

This procedure mirrors what happens in a face-to-face transaction for both seller and buyer. It may reduce the RFD handling fee, who knows?

 

[Monkey Spanker]

This is the problem when the RFD doesn't actually take legal 'ownership' of the rifle by taking it onto their books! You are effectively selling your rifle to someone you've never met and without a F2F transaction! I would not do this without consulting my FEO as it doesn't sound quite right to me.
MS

 

[simonl]

It's the new norm.
I had the same thing recently & felt slightly uncomfortable about it.
I sent my cert to gg33 & received it back next day by recorded delivery.

 

[simonl]

This is the problem when the RFD doesn't actually take legal 'ownership' of the rifle by taking it onto their books! You are effectively selling your rifle to someone you've never met and without a F2F transaction! I would not do this without consulting my FEO as it doesn't sound quite right to me. MS

My understanding is that you end up getting charged VAT that way

 

[20-250]

As others have said, Bob, this is exactly what you need to do. The face to face bit is covered by the fact that the RFD hands it to them at their end.

 

[Blaser243]

This is all arse about tit.

You take your rifle to your local RFD with your certificate. They do not take legal ownership of it (which could result in a tax issue) but they do take possession of it and they enter it into their register. They then send it to the buyers RFD.

The buyers RFD receives the rifle, enters it into their register. Buyer comes along with his FAC, RFD fills in the requiste part and buyer walks out with rifle.

Job done.

At no point does either RFD own the rifle. They merely possess it. You own it (for practical purposes) until you receive payment for it, and then it belongs to the buyer - regardless of whether at that point it is still with you, your RFD, his RFD or him. Legal title to an item is entirely different from possession under the Firearms Acts.

 

[Bds4roe]

This is all arse about tit.

You take your rifle to your local RFD with your certificate. They do not take legal ownership of it (which could result in a tax issue) but they do take possession of it and they enter it into their register. They then send it to the buyers RFD.

The buyers RFD receives the rifle, enters it into their register. Buyer comes along with his FAC, RFD fills in the requiste part and buyer walks out with rifle.

Job done.

At no point does either RFD own the rifle. They merely possess it. You own it (for practical purposes) until you receive payment for it, and then it belongs to the buyer - regardless of whether at that point it is still with you, your RFD, his RFD or him. Legal title to an item is entirely different from possession under the Firearms Acts.

This means the police loose track of the rifle, it doesnt get notified if they write it in their book. Ticket to ticket is the new norm and works well with a notification of acquisition/disposal at each end.

 

[deerstalker.308]

This is all arse about tit.

You take your rifle to your local RFD with your certificate. They do not take legal ownership of it (which could result in a tax issue) but they do take possession of it and they enter it into their register. They then send it to the buyers RFD.

The buyers RFD receives the rifle, enters it into their register. Buyer comes along with his FAC, RFD fills in the requiste part and buyer walks out with rifle.

Job done.

At no point does either RFD own the rifle. They merely possess it. You own it (for practical purposes) until you receive payment for it, and then it belongs to the buyer - regardless of whether at that point it is still with you, your RFD, his RFD or him. Legal title to an item is entirely different from possession under the Firearms Acts.

Im afraid this is simply not correct and not legal. If an RFD enters it onto their system then you will start to incur charges for lots of admin and they may take commission.
The system, like it or not, does involve you needing to send off your ticket to a complete stranger. I suppose if you wanted to be “safe” you could send it to the rfd and have it completed in the shopso that you weren’t sending it to a total stranger but either way, it is the system.

 

[Blaser243]

Ok, so where in the Firearms Acts this is required?

I've been buying and selling firearms this way for many years with the full knowledge of at least three police forces (from the sending end).

Each RFD that I have used in the past (including this year) has charged me around £25 for their services plus the courier costs. They still don't own the rifle.

Edit: having done a quick bit of research to refresh my memory on this, the process described initially is covered in the (ACPO driven) best practice guides for RFDs. However, that does not make it law.

Ultimately, it is the responsiblity of the final RFD in the chain (the one who gives the firearm to the buyer) to ensure that the buyer has a certificate for the item concerned and to enter details on to it (and for the sake of legal accuracy, writing "transferred" rather than "sold").

 

[simonl]

Ok, so where in the Firearms Acts this is required?

I've been buying and selling firearms this way for many years with the full knowledge of at least three police forces (from the sending end).

Each RFD that I have used in the past (including this year) has charged me around £25 for their services plus the courier costs. They still don't own the rifle.

Edit: having done a quick bit of research to refresh my memory on this, the process described initially is covered in the (ACPO driven) best practice guides for RFDs. However, that does not make it law.

Ultimately, it is the responsiblity of the final RFD in the chain (the one who gives the firearm to the buyer) to ensure that the buyer has a certificate for the item concerned and to enter details on to it (and for the sake of legal accuracy, writing "transferred" rather than "sold").

I did it the 'old fashioned' way several times previously. On my most recent transfer, both RFD's insisted on seller signing my certificate.

 

[EMcC]

You take your rifle to your local RFD with your certificate. They do not take legal ownership of it (which could result in a tax issue) but they do take possession of it and they enter it into their register. They then send it to the buyers RFD.
The buyers RFD receives the rifle, enters it into their register. Buyer comes along with his FAC, RFD fills in the requiste part and buyer walks out with rifle. Job done.

That is exactly what I did less than a week ago.
As soon as my RFD took possession he gave me a receipt which I duly presented to my Firearms Dept to get it struck from my records.
It went from my RFD to the prospective buyers RFD and the buyer then rocked up at his RFD and the transaction took place allowing him to notify his Firearms Dept of his acquisition -Job Done.
At no time was my FC out of my possession, my firearm was not at any time in possession of anybody not entitled to hold it and it ended up with the new owner all legal and above board.

 

[JTO]

Ok, so where in the Firearms Acts this is required?

I've been buying and selling firearms this way for many years with the full knowledge of at least three police forces (from the sending end).

Each RFD that I have used in the past (including this year) has charged me around £25 for their services plus the courier costs. They still don't own the rifle.

Edit: having done a quick bit of research to refresh my memory on this, the process described initially is covered in the (ACPO driven) best practice guides for RFDs. However, that does not make it law.

Ultimately, it is the responsiblity of the final RFD in the chain (the one who gives the firearm to the buyer) to ensure that the buyer has a certificate for the item concerned and to enter details on to it (and for the sake of legal accuracy, writing "transferred" rather than "sold").

Sounds like the safest way to me.
Perhaps the buyer could nominate a RFD for you to send it to. That RFD does not need to see the sender's/seller's certificate, but needs to see the buyer's certificate.

 

[Blaser243]

I did it the 'old fashioned' way several times previously. On my most recent transfer, both RFD's insisted on seller signing my certificate.

It's not "wrong", I agree. But it isn't required by law.

If you have an issue with sending your FAC to someone (and I wouldn't do it myself) then I would find a different RFD. Sounds like there are plenty around who are happy to follow the requirements of the law without acquiescing to unnecessary additional bureaucracy that some police forces are perhaps expecting them to follow.

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Lot of misinformation here I am afraid

1) An RFD HAS to enter the firearm into the register regardless of whether buying it, taking it in for repair, transfer or selling it to you on behalf of someone else as a commission sale.
It being on someone else's ticket already is not a way round that.

2) This has nothing to do with Tax. There is no VAT applicable on used goods, only the margin between buying and selling price. As no price was paid and no payment is taken for the gun it is NOT a sale, no invoice for that sale is due and no tax payable.

Your RFD will still charge you to handle the transfer
(Unless they like us don't charge to receive!)

3) Legal ownership is irrelevant and separating or trying to classify the stages of transfer and any financial transactions is utterly pointless unless someone is contesting the sale of an item they own but someone else has authority to possess.

4) I fundamentally disagree with the practice of sending an FAC/SGC with an open authority through the post. and then sending it back again!
The risk is incredible
Most FACs have very sketchy photos and require no further ID for a purchase

It doesn't take a genius to see how a stolen certificate with an open authority could be used to illegally acquire a firearm

Post Office sorting depots do not have a great track record of performance

I receive an email every month with several pages of lost or stolen certificates
I have even enquired as to the method of loss and how many are lost in the post. "Not known"

5) The interpretation of the relevant sections on your SGC and FAC is largely based on what the GTA have suggested when in discussion with ACPO

It is NOT Firearms law
The wording is full of "should" and "if"

Now read the rest of the SGC or FAC and look at the sections enforceable by law
"MUST" is stated throughout

The legal distinction should/must not be overlooked

6) The practice of receiving RFD signing it onto the receiving individual's FAC/SGC still takes place
If this was enforceable by law do you think for a minute that the Police would not be all over this like a rash prosecuting RFD's?
and do you think RFD's would still do it?