Strange Request For RFD Transfer
- Thread starter Jim xyz
- Start date
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Seems OK to me. As said elsewhere please put away the noose.
In fact I think that it is, in fact, THE LAW! After all if I'm buying from "X" then at the very least under sale of goods and consumer protection the actual seller needs to be the one recorded on MY SGC or FAC.
I purchased, by mail order, a shot gun from A W Rule in Somerset in February 2013. My FAC went to them, they entered its details in Table 2 and sent the shot gun to an RFD near to me in Leicestershire with the SGC being sent back to me. I went to the RFD near to me with the completed SGC and picked up the shot gun.
So my experience is exactly as the RFD in the original post is proposing. But if you ain't happy with that hotel then, as they say, you are welcome to look for another.
When you have to achieve good A-levels, a 5 or 6 year professional degree and hold a registration with a professional body to become an RFD then I will rescind my point!
I appreciate there are fixed costs to running any business, but the variable costs to look at your cert and hand a gun over are practically zero. If one of my clients was going to be out and wanted to deliver a package here I wouldn't charge them for the privilege!
8x57
Distinguished Member
My memory is failing me slightly on this one and I can't seem to find the details but didn't ACPO or was it BASC issue guidance on RFD to RFD transfers some months back? Apparently most have been doing it wrong for years according to ACPO so the matter was brought up in one of their meetings.
Perhaps someone else will have more success in finding the press release than me.
Perhaps someone else will have more success in finding the press release than me.
This has always been so.
One only has to read the instructions written on page 3 (item 3) of ones FAC to see that this is indeed the law.
The note reads............."If you are selling a firearm 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)".
Adamant
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify Wayne leaping to my defence
-D), I think that when Jim says 'the guy selling the rifle is adamant' he means he's certain he's correct - he's not saying 'the guy selling the rifle is Adamant', i.e. me, slightly grumpy bloke from Herefordshire! More a case of 'eats, shoots and leaves'...By the way, I have heard recently that FEOs in a couple of police areas seem to be insisting on this convoluted and potentially risky transfer process - there have been threads on one or two other forums in the last couple of months.
Adamant.
Beretta cocker
Well-Known Member
sooner pay RFD £30 than wonder if I was going to get my cert back
Here we go again. Read to Firearms Guidance to Police version 6, 2013.
5.17 Section 33 of the 1997 Act requires that, within seven days of the transaction, the transferor and transferee must send, electronically (for example, by e-mail or fax) or by recorded or special delivery, notification to the chief officers of police who issued their own certificates. The transferor is the person who originally possessed the gun, and the transferee is the recipient (and it is the transferor who must write the details of the gun and its transfer onto the certificate of the transferee). The notice of the transaction must contain a description of the firearm or shot gun (including any identification number), state the nature of the transaction and give the name and address of the other person concerned.A firearm or shot gun placed with a registered firearms dealer or auctioneer for sale or return is not regarded as a transfer. Notification is only required once the transfer is complete when all three parties notify the police. As the transferor may not know the name of the ultimate transferee, it is sufficient for the transferor only to notify the police of disposal to the dealer or auctioneer.The last sentence says it all.
5.17 Section 33 of the 1997 Act requires that, within seven days of the transaction, the transferor and transferee must send, electronically (for example, by e-mail or fax) or by recorded or special delivery, notification to the chief officers of police who issued their own certificates. The transferor is the person who originally possessed the gun, and the transferee is the recipient (and it is the transferor who must write the details of the gun and its transfer onto the certificate of the transferee). The notice of the transaction must contain a description of the firearm or shot gun (including any identification number), state the nature of the transaction and give the name and address of the other person concerned.A firearm or shot gun placed with a registered firearms dealer or auctioneer for sale or return is not regarded as a transfer. Notification is only required once the transfer is complete when all three parties notify the police. As the transferor may not know the name of the ultimate transferee, it is sufficient for the transferor only to notify the police of disposal to the dealer or auctioneer.The last sentence says it all.
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
Very interesting read.
I'll confess to a wry smile in that some of the posters here have previously taken the stance that on the whole Firearms Legislation is pretty good, works well and there's no justification at all for any change.
The poster is indeed correct - #3 on FACs states what he says and flies in the face of the way most people - and I include individuals, RFDs and certain police forces - actually operate.
So we seem to have a good system that effectively works on a majority vote to ignore inconvenient bits or those parts where everyone is rather confused? Just an opinion, but that doesn't strike me as being good effective law. And is forever open for the powers that be to change their laissez faire ( when it suits ) approach on a whim.
My view remains that the current legislation regarding firearms has become overly complex and is systemically inefficient, too complicate for end users and fails to deliver the safeguards intended. This would be loudly intolerable in many other sphere's.
With regard to transactions, the original changes to the law/ system came about for one simple reason - security. There were instances of nefarious persons being able to acquire firearms by getting hold of legitimate FACs. With no photo identification, it was too easy to make direct purchases. One of the commonest routes to obtaining a FAC was for said nefarious character to advertise a firearm - of the kind they wanted - for sale. A legitimate purchaser would come along and send in their bona fide FAC. The crook would use it to make a purchase and be away before anything was realised. That is the reasoning behind the changes and likely the way in which the process tends to be administered.
As it stands, the effectiveness of the control is compromised because the whole thing has become a poorly drafted hodge-podge of cobbled together statute.
I'll confess to a wry smile in that some of the posters here have previously taken the stance that on the whole Firearms Legislation is pretty good, works well and there's no justification at all for any change.
The poster is indeed correct - #3 on FACs states what he says and flies in the face of the way most people - and I include individuals, RFDs and certain police forces - actually operate.
So we seem to have a good system that effectively works on a majority vote to ignore inconvenient bits or those parts where everyone is rather confused? Just an opinion, but that doesn't strike me as being good effective law. And is forever open for the powers that be to change their laissez faire ( when it suits ) approach on a whim.
My view remains that the current legislation regarding firearms has become overly complex and is systemically inefficient, too complicate for end users and fails to deliver the safeguards intended. This would be loudly intolerable in many other sphere's.
With regard to transactions, the original changes to the law/ system came about for one simple reason - security. There were instances of nefarious persons being able to acquire firearms by getting hold of legitimate FACs. With no photo identification, it was too easy to make direct purchases. One of the commonest routes to obtaining a FAC was for said nefarious character to advertise a firearm - of the kind they wanted - for sale. A legitimate purchaser would come along and send in their bona fide FAC. The crook would use it to make a purchase and be away before anything was realised. That is the reasoning behind the changes and likely the way in which the process tends to be administered.
As it stands, the effectiveness of the control is compromised because the whole thing has become a poorly drafted hodge-podge of cobbled together statute.
Tackleberry270
Well-Known Member
Well done.
RFDs and Auctioneers having been acting on behalf of sellers (individuals or other RFDs) for years and essentially this is what is at the crux of this debate. Does the law need to be changed? .. perhaps. What is certain is that you are not going to be prosecuted for an RFD to RFD transfer with the receiving RFD entering the firearm on to your certificate. There is no need to send your valuable certificate off in the post for this.
When in a hole, it's sometimes best to stop digging. ('Holier than thou' also springs to mind)
So when I order my animal drugs on line can I have them posted to you, and collect them free of charge, I may spend £200 a year with you but will use someone else for my more expensive items.
I believe the BASC have not quite got it right in their advice Q&A. They quote that transfer includes sale, the Guidance to Police ver. 6, 2013, states it differently. It clearly defines that sale is used in conjunction with transfer in the FA Acts and thus they are not the same. See section 2.4 in the Guidance.
I have asked them to clarify this.
The tramp
Well-Known Member
This is really simple really.
Person A, is selling a gun.
Person B, pays person A, and person A takes gun to RFD 1, RFD 1 puts it on his books, thus, transferring it off person A's ticket.
RFD 1 then sends to RFD 2, who puts it on his books, taking it off RFD 1's books.
RFD 2 then puts it on person B's fac, taking off his books.
The gun is now legally on person B's FAC. All it has done, is gone through the RFD's possession.
It's no different really, than me picking up a .308 off bob, putting it on my spare slot, driving to Fred who's 200 miles away, and putting on his ticket and taking off mine, then doing a one 4 one to get my slot back, ok, it's a long winded way, but doable, but far easier via RFD as they have the means of transferring without having to do variations etc.
Person A, is selling a gun.
Person B, pays person A, and person A takes gun to RFD 1, RFD 1 puts it on his books, thus, transferring it off person A's ticket.
RFD 1 then sends to RFD 2, who puts it on his books, taking it off RFD 1's books.
RFD 2 then puts it on person B's fac, taking off his books.
The gun is now legally on person B's FAC. All it has done, is gone through the RFD's possession.
It's no different really, than me picking up a .308 off bob, putting it on my spare slot, driving to Fred who's 200 miles away, and putting on his ticket and taking off mine, then doing a one 4 one to get my slot back, ok, it's a long winded way, but doable, but far easier via RFD as they have the means of transferring without having to do variations etc.
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
TheTramp - if your opening line substituted 'should be' for 'is' I'd completely agree.
But as noted previously the following appears on most certificates - ."If you are selling a firearm 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)".
But as noted previously the following appears on most certificates - ."If you are selling a firearm 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)".
To be fair, the fee doesn't simply cover a few minutes of writing on a piece of paper. The fee goes towards maintaining a dealership. Oh, and the gun must be entered in his register, by law, even if it is signed out to the FAC holder the same day.
-JMS
8x57
Distinguished Member
That's an easy one to answer- the same as always your firearms department. They are the only ones that can remove or delete a firearm from a certificate.
As regards RFD to RFD transfers, I think the crux of the matter is that this was never really envisaged when the firearms acts were originally drafted and that subsequent amendments to the acts have only confused the issue.
Similar threads
