But there is nothing in law to stop one RFD posting to another RFD for stock, and the second RFD putting the gun onto my ticket?
Variation Problem. Beware!
- Thread starter Bertie Leblanc
- Start date
But there is nothing in law to stop one RFD posting to another RFD for stock, and the second RFD putting the gun onto my ticket?
Thats how I always understood it too?
Virbius
Well-Known Member
Thanks David, that at least clears up the legal issue that placing a deposit against a firearm for a (potential) purchase is acceptable - subject to getting the variation approved. It's the integrity of the RFD that may trip you up!
Dalua.... What was the last thing you bought? That is to say paid money for an object supplied by another? As the dictionary says "to obtain in exchange if money. Alternative: Buy". If you went to a supermarket to buy milk, upon exchange if miney for goods, that is a purchase plain and simple.
Parliament saw no need to define a normal daily phrase. As for Pepper, on the contrary, it sets the precedentvthat it sats what it says until its so ambiguous that Hansard may need consultation to see Parliaments intention. The law we are dealing with is unambiguous.
However there are occasions where people look for alternatives. For example if the law said "it is an offence tosell sweets on a sunday" they would argue there was a need for "interpretation" or that anothers reading is only an interpretation. The police do it all the time, they argue about "not being the spirit of the act" " not parliaments intention" and anything else short of stamping their feet.
If the law said "thou shall not vend sugar based capsules on the sabbath" you would expect argument because a sugar based capsule might be an essential medical capsule or a boiled sweet, but does it mean soft centre because capsule implys hollow or does it mean sunday for christians or saturday for the jewish religion? Vend, does it mean sell or pass to another.....etc etc
I rest my case.
Other than circumnavigating the rules. If you get caught it wont help our cause!!
In essence yes an RFD may buy from another Dealer and as and when a customer wants to purchase it, that RFD may effect the sale. Bending the "move" of the gun to avoid procedure where a customer has been identified before the dealer to dealer move would ne naughty.
Last edited:
Incidentally I am Matt, but yes its always best to get impartial advice such as by joining BASC.
. My mistake, with David also being a regular contributor on SD.
Exactly right! I offered money, the supermarket accepted my offer and took the money: thus I bought and they sold the milk. I completed the purchase by taking the milk into my possession.
Anyhow, it sounds as though the meaning of 'to purchase' in this Act is 'to take ownership of in exchange for money' rather than 'to take ownership and possession of in exchange for money'. Is that right?
I'm really not sure that this interpretation is right. It seems to me that the judgement allows the use of Hansard to clarify statute law that would, despite extensive legal argument, remain inadequately clarified unless Hansard were consulted. However, I'm no lawyer.
The case that might be of more moment here seems to be the the previously-mentioned Watts v Seymour 1967, which seems to say that sale of a firearm even without transfer of possession to the buyer is not lawful if the buyer does not have authority to possess the firearm. I can't seem to find adequate detail of that case on the web, sadly.
Hi Matt - with respect, I don't think its quite as simple as this, and thousands of pages and centuries of jurisprudence in the extraordinarily complex area of contract law would point to it not being so simple.
Your example of purchasing milk is an example of a simple transaction where title in the property passes at a clear and defined point, you pay and leave with the milk, both parties are under an understanding that at that point the ownership and title passes - however lets say I ordered my milk & groceries online with Tesco, Importantly, I pay up front and they deliver later that day, at what point do the groceries become mine? when does title in the goods pass? when I pay, or when its delivered? what if its delivered and its the wrong item? what if the ice cream has melted - does risk in the property transfer from buyer to seller at the time of payment or only receipt and inspection?
What if a transaction was illegal, it could easily be argued that no purchase has actually taken place, since such transaction was illegal - if I sell you something I have stolen, then title cannot be transferred, since I did not have the power in law to deliver that title to you.
Again, your example of the sweets is a messy one - if its illegal to sell them on sunday, but I pay you on the saturday and you deliver them on the sunday, was the purchase legal or illegal, conversely I pay you on sunday and you deliver monday, legal or illegal - If I do my shopping online and order alcohol at 6 AM on a sunday morning, was this illegal because the purchase took place outside of licensing hours, or is it ok because delivery only took place inside them?
Its a complex area of law, there's whole books like Chitty on contracts written on this and I, respectfully, don't think you can dismiss what constitutes a purchase as being as simple as buying a bottle of milk!
We can argue till the cows come home (extending the milk analogy) about when a purchase is a purchase, but logically as soon as you have paid for it, its yours! A deposit is not a purchase, it’s an indication of intent to buy, a way of securing goods, but they have not been purchased until the full purchase price has been handed over to the vendor.
Matt has made it clear what the law says, i.e. the law says, it is illegal to purchase a firearm (and shotgun) without a certificate.
Now some of you have clearly indicated that in some cases RFD’s seems to be ‘bending’ the letter of the law. This may or may not be happening but the fact is if you they or anyone else get caught – then it’s not Matt, me, or anyone else on SD you will be debating when a purchase is a purchase but your FEO or in worst case scenario a judge.
Labrat – you asked what happens if you buy on line – well a contract has been made even though the goods are not in your hands you have still purchased them. In your example you have also contracted with the supplier to deliver them in good order
If they arrive damaged or incorrect in any way you are entitled to reject / return for repair, refund or replacement. Indeed you rights to reject are greater with on line transactions than face to face.
Similarly, even in a face to face transaction you can return goods for a replacement if you have purchased the wrong one for example, and certainly if you get it home and its defective in any way and thus not fit for purpose you have a right to a full refund or replacement or repair.
David
Matt has made it clear what the law says, i.e. the law says, it is illegal to purchase a firearm (and shotgun) without a certificate.
Now some of you have clearly indicated that in some cases RFD’s seems to be ‘bending’ the letter of the law. This may or may not be happening but the fact is if you they or anyone else get caught – then it’s not Matt, me, or anyone else on SD you will be debating when a purchase is a purchase but your FEO or in worst case scenario a judge.
Labrat – you asked what happens if you buy on line – well a contract has been made even though the goods are not in your hands you have still purchased them. In your example you have also contracted with the supplier to deliver them in good order
If they arrive damaged or incorrect in any way you are entitled to reject / return for repair, refund or replacement. Indeed you rights to reject are greater with on line transactions than face to face.
Similarly, even in a face to face transaction you can return goods for a replacement if you have purchased the wrong one for example, and certainly if you get it home and its defective in any way and thus not fit for purpose you have a right to a full refund or replacement or repair.
David
That's good to know, and is the answer to the question I posed in post 19, concerning what the meaning of 'to purchase' was in this context.
It seems that a purchase is complete without the purchaser taking possession of the firearm, and is therefore even under that circumstance unlawful unless the purchaser has the relevant FAC/SGC authority.
It seems that a purchase is complete without the purchaser taking possession of the firearm, and is therefore even under that circumstance unlawful unless the purchaser has the relevant FAC/SGC authority.
scrumbag
Well-Known Member
So, how do the police intend to define "Possession" then? Presumably if it is locked up at your RFD then you aren't in Possession so how are you breaking the law?
- For me this just highlights how ridiculous British law is and another of the lack of professionalism in UK Firearms Policing (not saying all are bad but compared to the transparency of and administration of other firearms licensing systems, what a joke!)
ATB,
Scrummy
- For me this just highlights how ridiculous British law is and another of the lack of professionalism in UK Firearms Policing (not saying all are bad but compared to the transparency of and administration of other firearms licensing systems, what a joke!)
ATB,
Scrummy
Virbius
Well-Known Member
I think we're getting a bit carried away here, nad has nothing to do with British Law or UK Firearms Licensing.
If it gets to the point where you are arguing with a Firearms Department or judge on the nuances of Contract Law regarding possession/ownership/title then you are a bit foolish and your impatience is questionable. We have already established that it is OK to place a nominal deposit on a firearm to secure that for future purchase on the understanding of the variation being approved. And if not approved, then deposit is returned/lost/used for some other purchase.
If you push the law to the extreme and have the firearm delivered to your local RFD to be held until your varied FAC has been delivered, and if not approved, then you have wasted yours and other peoples time, cost of the RFD-to-RFD courier and, maybe, the wrath of your Firearms Department.
Otherwise, if approved then at worst it's delayed the process of you getting your firearm by maybe a couple of days? Is it worth taking the risk?
If it gets to the point where you are arguing with a Firearms Department or judge on the nuances of Contract Law regarding possession/ownership/title then you are a bit foolish and your impatience is questionable. We have already established that it is OK to place a nominal deposit on a firearm to secure that for future purchase on the understanding of the variation being approved. And if not approved, then deposit is returned/lost/used for some other purchase.
If you push the law to the extreme and have the firearm delivered to your local RFD to be held until your varied FAC has been delivered, and if not approved, then you have wasted yours and other peoples time, cost of the RFD-to-RFD courier and, maybe, the wrath of your Firearms Department.
Otherwise, if approved then at worst it's delayed the process of you getting your firearm by maybe a couple of days? Is it worth taking the risk?
You do not have to purchase something to be in possession of course. You could give me your rifle to hold - I am in possession of it but it’s not mine in any way shape or form, but we could both be breaking the law...
As the law stands, it is illegal to purchase a firearm (and shotgun) without a certificate, and also illegal to possess without a certificate (excluding the right to borrow under certain circumstances of course)
It’s not worth taking the risk, the consequences are to severe.
David
As the law stands, it is illegal to purchase a firearm (and shotgun) without a certificate, and also illegal to possess without a certificate (excluding the right to borrow under certain circumstances of course)
It’s not worth taking the risk, the consequences are to severe.
David
Yes it matters not that the gun remains with an authorised person or not, it is the principle of full purchase that we are dealing with regard to our thread starter. Section 1(a)&(b) below outlines the offence exactly and includes acquire and possess as well as purchase;
(a) to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate;
(b) to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, any ammunition to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate, or in quantities in excess of those so authorised.
With regard to Watts v Seymour 1967. Section 22(1) relating to (at the time) "persons under 17....may not purchase or hire any firearm or ammunition". The term purchase means to buy and was considered in length. This was a case where a Stacey a youth under 17 asked Seymour if he could purchase a rifle, both Stacey and Seymour being members of a rifle club. Stacey selected a .303 rifle and paid cash for it; he received a reciept stating that the rifle was in the posession of Seymours firm and "taken to the range for use by us". Seymour refused to let Stacey take the rifle away without a permit, but undertook to keep the rifle and bring it down to the range for stacey to use there. Seymour was charged under the Firearms Act 1937 s19 (now Firearms Act 1968 s24).
In short.... the case settled that the prohibition on the sale of firearms imposed by the Act is not avoided by an arrangement that possession of the firearm shall be retained by the seller, and its use by the buyer permitted only on a lawful occasion, eg, as a member of a rifle club.
As for Pepper, yes if the Act is so ambiguous as i said earlier, hasard could be consulted etc. I don't beleive section 1 is ambiguous in any way, it simply states that its illegal to purchase, acquire etc. its very plain language which is why in Seymour ruled that there was a breach of law and that the way in which the firearm was retained was clearly not commensurate with the provision.
See Post #56
A final word on the subject from this department is as follows and as Dalua has given adequate summation in the quote..... I can suggest that he has it correct.
However it doesn't "seem" but rather "it is" (in the case of the firearms Act Section 1(a)&(b)) illegal to "have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire" a firearm (or ammunition) to which Section 1 applies without authority REGARDLESS of whether a transfer has been made to allow physical possession of the firearm/ammunition by the unauthorised person.
Last edited:
However it doesn't "seem" but rather "it is" (in the case of the firearms Act Section 1(a)&(b)) illegal to "have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire" a firearm (or ammunition) to which Section 1 applies without authority REGARDLESS of whether a transfer has been made to allow physical possession of the firearm/ammunition by the unauthorised person.[/QUOTE]
Can I assume:
1) The seller has committed no offence by selling? Or is that covered elsewhere in the act?
2) In relation to a FAC the mere holding of a FAC is enough to satisfy the act, rather than an open slot for the calibre/action in question?
Can I assume:
1) The seller has committed no offence by selling? Or is that covered elsewhere in the act?
2) In relation to a FAC the mere holding of a FAC is enough to satisfy the act, rather than an open slot for the calibre/action in question?
8x57
Distinguished Member
Can I assume:
1) The seller has committed no offence by selling? Or is that covered elsewhere in the act?
2) In relation to a FAC the mere holding of a FAC is enough to satisfy the act, rather than an open slot for the calibre/action in question?[/QUOTE]
Having read post #58 from BASC It would appear that the answer is No to both of you questions.
Last edited:
Similar threads
