Discount ammunition

[breacher]

Froggy - you are taking this a bit too seriously mate. You asked re my background and I told you. Are you telling me that only those who want to join the scheme are welcome in the debate ?

The FACT is that the matter of the scenario you pose has not been tested. But the primary legislation is fairly clear - all that remains is for a court to establish a definition of "purchase" and "possess"

And you witter on about title as if that is the accepted definition of the word purchase for the purposes of the firearms legislation that a Judge would rely on. You did the same with the word "possession".

You tell me that my interpretation of these words is dubious but seem to want your definition accepted as the one that will be relied on. And test case that has not even happened yet !

The legal definition of many words in UK law has different applications depending on whether you are talking about civil law and criminal law. It also differs when applied to housing / property and any other item you care to mention.

None of us know how a Crown Court Judge would define the words purchase or possess at the crown court hearing post RFD or FAC revocation.

Froggy - I never said I have formal qualifications. But I am one of the few if not only, unqualified FAC holders to put a Firearms Head ( Ch Supt ) and Firearms Licensing Manager in the witness box and cross examine them. And I won the case. So, please credit me with some ability in the interpretation of UK firearms Law !! It would appear that in that case my knowledge was better than the two guys running firearms licensing. I was tested once and I won once

IN FACT I BET I AM THE ONLY CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS THREAD WHO HAS ACTUALLY PERSONALLY FOUGHT A FIREARMS CASE IN COURT ! If I was a cynic I would say you talk the talk but I have walked the walk.

TG - I am glad to see that you agree with Sim and myself re the primary legislation appearing on tbe face of it, rendering this proposition illegal.
But re your foreign firearms......UK law applies to UK. It is illegal for you to possess drugs in the UK but if you fly to Amsterdam, UK law does not apply to your possession there.........thats just one example for you.

What makes you think the UK firearms act restricts what firearms you can possess abroad ? Where have you found mention of terrotorial limits in the firearms legislation ?

[TattooedGun]

TG - I am glad to see that you agree with Sim and myself re the primary legislation appearing on tbe face of it, rendering this proposition illegal.
But re your foreign firearms......UK law applies to UK. It is illegal for you to possess drugs in the UK but if you fly to Amsterdam, UK law does not apply to your possession there.........thats just one example for you.

What makes you think the UK firearms act restricts what firearms you can possess abroad ? Where have you found mention of terrotorial limits in the firearms legislation ?

It was a poke at the way in which your whole argument hinges on the "purchase" part of the legislation, whereas the possession of the item is, in my opinion, where the argument in reality lies.

Your whole stance is that you cannot purchase more than you are entitled to, however the same law states you cannot purchase a firearm you are not entitled to.

If you pay for an item you cannot possess, for example, if you pay for a pistol in Jersey, to be kept in Jersey, where you have legal ownership, whilst you are in England, essentially by your logic you are, for all intents and purposes breaking the same law you are suggesting is being broken if you pay for ammunition that will only be supplied by the quantity limits stated on your certificate.

It's all semantics, and as has been mentioned, there are ways and means to do it whilst adhering to the letter of the law.

[froggy]

you are taking this a bit too seriously mate.
Hardly ... just amused by the amout of prose you are producing.
When will your auto-biography hit the shelves ?

You asked re my background
Actually, only if you have any recognized legal qualifications in this field.
It appears you have none.
A friend succesfully tested the field of deact-weapons. So what ... it still does not give him any validity for the matter we are discussing.

You seem to be proud of yourself. Personnally I would not. If I certainly haven't "walked the walk", it is precicely because I am not reckless or foolish and carefully check facts before I do something ...

[breacher]

TG - I am glad to see that you agree with Sim and myself re the primary legislation appearing on tbe face of it, rendering this proposition illegal.
But re your foreign firearms......UK law applies to UK. It is illegal for you to possess drugs in the UK but if you fly to Amsterdam, UK law does not apply to your possession there.........thats just one example for you.

What makes you think the UK firearms act restricts what firearms you can possess abroad ? Where have you found mention of terrotorial limits in the firearms legislation ?

It was a poke at the way in which your whole argument hinges on the "purchase" part of the legislation, whereas the possession of the item is, in my opinion, where the argument in reality lies.

Your whole stance is that you cannot purchase more than you are entitled to, however the same law states you cannot purchase a firearm you are not entitled to.

If you pay for an item you cannot possess, for example, if you pay for a pistol in Jersey, to be kept in Jersey, where you have legal ownership, whilst you are in England, essentially by your logic you are, for all intents and purposes breaking the same law you are suggesting is being broken if you pay for ammunition that will only be supplied by the quantity limits stated on your certificate.

It's all semantics, and as has been mentioned, there are ways and means to do it whilst adhering to the letter of the law.

True. This all rests on how the court ( if there ever is a test case ) define purchase / possess.

As I said previously, a RFD selling gift vouchers would be about the closest thing to plausible out of the many terms mentioned. It would certainly be easier to defend in court than the other ideas !

No - the legislation only applies to what you do in the UK. As does most UK legislation. What you buy and possess abroad is not covered. Same as if you buy drugs in Holland. And leave them there until you return next time. Once back in UK, you still own them but thats not an offence.


Now - after all the negativity..........

If this is just about the RFD being able to pay up front for the big 50k or 100k order etc - there IS an easier way. 2 ways in fact !

1 - With interest rates at their lowest for ages - Rfd takes out loan and pays for bulk purchase. Then he sells the ammo at 10% discount instead of 15% ( example figures ) discount which covers the extra overhead of his interest payments.

2 - He approaches the wholesaler and buys the 100k of ammo on terms such as taking delivery and paying for 10k at a time or whatever. I know the Sec 5 guy I worked for had 30 days to pay with some suppliers and 90 days with others. Ok he was buying 250,000 rounds regularly but the principle is the same.

If this is only about the shooter saving a few percent - there are easier ways than entering into a scenario that MIGHT lead to a test case.

[breacher]

you are taking this a bit too seriously mate.
Hardly ... just amused by the amout of prose you are producing.
When will your auto-biography hit the shelves ?

You asked re my background
Actually, only if you have any recognized legal qualifications in this field.
It appears you have none.
A friend succesfully tested the field of deact-weapons. So what ... it still does not give him any validity for the matter we are discussing.

You seem to be proud of yourself. Personnally I would not. If I certainly haven't "walked the walk", it is precicely because I am not reckless or foolish and carefully check facts before I do something ...

You would not be proud if you had your FAC taken away and managed to defend myself to get it reinstated ? Ok then - thats up to you. I did nothing reckless at all. The FLD illegally revoked - simple as that. And I proved this at court.

We can agree to differ but I am VERY proud that I defended a miscarriage of justice and had it overturned !



We agree on not being reckless. I dont indulge in that neither.

[joe]