The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

It is common practice to purchase upmarket shotguns (£60,000ish+) purely as an investment and leave them in storage with the gunsmith to be sold in a few years time for a solid profit. The purchaser rarely has a SGC and it is not required.

In law, a number of people can possess the same item at the same time. Case law has shown that you can even steal your own property. A man had a garage fix his car. At night, the car owner, using spare keys, retrieved the car as he did not want to pay the bill. He was convicted. Possession boils down to having a proprietary interest.

Take the garage again, the garage owner can possess another's car as he takes control and has his mechanic perform work. The mechanic also possess the car as he has physical possession and is responsible for it at the time. All the while, the owner still possesses as it's his, bought and paid for.

I suppose in terms of a deposit on a firearm without a vacant slot, would have you coming into possession of the gun unlawfully. You would have a proprietary interest in that firearm. But honestly, who on earth would get their knickers in a twist over such a thing? Ultimately, a firearm is just another commodity. Show me a person who hasn't had to put a deposit on one of those weird and wonderful "got to have that!" moments and as such would never have had the variation for an on the spur of the moment buys...

As for lottery card, booze and fags, there are specific offences under the Licensing Act and the likes, such as "sending a person under the prescribed age limit" etc, that would include "Give the nice lady the money"....

ovenpaa wrote:I used to shoot at a Pistol club that had a few non FAC members who 'owned' handguns. My understanding is they would pay all bar the last tenner and the pistol would then become a club firearm however only they would be allowed to use it and only at the club under club rules. One member had half a dozen or so very nice examples and when we spoke about it one day he said he could see no reason to ever apply for an FAC as he only ever shot at the club and would never need to take the firearms home.

I too was a member of a pistol club that operated the same system

I had this problem a few years ago, at a renewal/variation meeting a few years ago I was asked by my officer (newly transferred to firearms) if I had any particular purchases lined up. I said that I had put a £50 deposit on a new CZ452 which was on order with my local RFD. I was given a severe talking to by this officer and warned I could lose my licence and face a charge of "unlawfully acquiring of a firearm" A statement was taken and it all went quiet for a few days. I then received a letter in the post from the head of my local firearms unit apologising for "the incident" and that having a rifle on order does not constitute ownership. The officer I later learned was transferred to other duties.

A few weeks ago I purchased a Marlin 1894. When filling in my new FAC we realised that it did not start until the 29th of this month. I hadn't noticed when I received my renewal that it did not start until the previous FAC expired. As I could not put the Marlin on my "old" FAC I have to wait until next week to pick it up.

So technically I have purchased a RIFLE for which I'm not entitled to possess.

You could also argue that lodging with an RFD while you get your ticket renewed etc could be illegal as you still own the rifle.
Load of tosh really

Is this about the Dragunov at Dauntsey by any chance? Variation should be through soon

Zilberbak wrote:Without naming names to protect the innocent is it legal to place a deposit on a firearm if you do not have a suitable slot on your FAC?

Furthermore if a deposit is taken and the firearm is deemed "sold" should the firearms dealer not remove the firearm from their website and any other web outlet such as Gunstar or at least show the firearm is under offer?

Surely the dealer is in breach for advertising something that they have already sold?

All the RFD has done is taken a deposit subject to the potential customer obtaining the necessary funds and a slot. Nothing wrong with that - the would be purchaser is no nearer to being in possession than anyone else standing in the RFD's shop browsing his wares.
The firearm isn't "sold" it's being held back on first refusal and the deposit is subject to forfeit.

And even if the purchaser has gone on to legally buy and possess the firearm after obtaining the slot and paying his money the seller is not in breach for advertising the item for sale. Think about it - if that were the case anyone who advertised an item for sale in a magazine would be at risk of breach of advertising standards the moment it was sold because they couldn't possibly control the hundreds of thousands of magazines on shelves or already purchased to have the advert removed from subsequent view. All the seller is required to tell people asking after it that it has already been sold. An advertisement or display is nothing more than an invitation to treat - it's not a contract.

Clearly a purchaser would have redress if something that has already been sold to someone else was also sold to them.

Surely all the above is just common sense?

Dark Skies wrote:
Surely all the above is just common sense?

Ah, the least common commodity of all...

meles meles wrote:

Dark Skies wrote:
Surely all the above is just common sense?

Ah, the least common commodity of all...

Good point