'New' firearms transfer/purchase method

[artiglio]

But surely if the firearm was lost in transit after your FAC was filled in, the paperwork would show that it could possibly be in the possession of two different parties. The system of it being transferred to the receiving RFD and then onto your FAC at least maintains an unambiguous audit trail.
Or have I missed something?

[bigfathairybiker]

Point four relates to YOUR FAC as the seller. NOT as the buyer.

Or have I just read it wrong? As the info on your FAC relates to YOU, not the other party.


Mark

[bigfathairybiker]

I've just read the entire thing again... Bloody confusing as the info is actually for someone else reading your FAC!!!

It also uses the word "should" rather than the word "must", which I seem to remember is the key word. ( "must" that is! )

Oh , and they are as titled "guidelines"....


Mark

[Blackstuff]

I've just read the entire thing again... Bloody confusing as the info is actually for someone else reading your FAC!!!

It also uses the word "should" rather than the word "must", which I seem to remember is the key word. ( "must" that is! )

Oh , and they are as titled "guidelines"....


Mark

Good spot. I'll be carrying on as usual then

Just curious as to which method others are/have been using

[Mattnall]

I've just read the entire thing again... Bloody confusing as the info is actually for someone else reading your FAC!!!

It also uses the word "should" rather than the word "must", which I seem to remember is the key word. ( "must" that is! )

Oh , and they are as titled "guidelines"....


Mark

Good spot. I'll be carrying on as usual then

Just curious as to which method others are/have been using

Our local forces would like everyone to do it the way mentioned on the FACs as per the OP but this is not a requirement, just what they would like. Most people do it via the RFD which is the safer method regarding the actual paper license not leaving the owner's hand and not travelling through the potentially problematic mail system.

[Mattnall]

Ok just read a bit more of the latest HO Guidance to the Police (prompted to by another topic) and came across this bit which I'll include again here as it is relevant to this topic and seems to fly in the face of what most people are doing and advocating above.

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).

It would seem the Home Office say RFDs only need to write in their register and out again as the seller/original FAC holder/transferor will be filling out the buyers FAC. I guess if the original owner transfers a firearm to the RFD then the RFD will sell it, otherwise the person advertising the firearm should be the one to fill out the buyer's FAC.

[Mattnall]

"The transferor is the person who originally possessed the gun" would seem to indicate (to me at least) that the RFD is not the original possessor, just the transferor, and the one who advertised it for sale is the original possessor (and should do all the paperwork etc.).

[ovenpaa]

So in simple terms if an RFD sells a firearm directly to a customer he will enter the details on the recipients FAC regardless of of the transaction is local or remote, however if he is accepting the firearm in as transfer for a third party then he need only complete his own register details.

I do wonder if RFD's will ever formally be advised of this change...

[Gaz]

Surely it all hinges on who has possession: once you hand the firearm to your RFD, he then has possession of it. You can't be said to have possession of something if it's in the process of being couriered to the other end of the country under arrangements made by the RFD.

[Sim G]

Surely it all hinges on who has possession: once you hand the firearm to your RFD, he then has possession of it. You can't be said to have possession of something if it's in the process of being couriered to the other end of the country under arrangements made by the RFD.

"Possession is both proprietary and custodial (Distinction from "have with him" in criminal use offences) (Hall v Cotton and Treadwell [1987] 83 Cr. App. R 257 DC)."

Which is why even a really cr@p barrister can make £500 a day arguing such...


Does anyone else not remember how we bought "mail order" pre the 97 Ammendment?

See gun advertised by private seller or dealer, send FAC and payment, get FAC back and postman turns up with your gun, recorded delivery...!

Yes it did go wrong from time to time, but it seems that people really were so much more pragmatic just 20 years ago....