'New' firearms transfer/purchase method

[Mattnall]

But the FAC entry has nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with possession. Anyone can be the legal owner of a gun, whether they've got a ticket or not. However to be in possession of it they either need their own FAC/SGC or need to be under one of the various exemptions (rifle club, estate gun, etc etc).

It makes perfect sense to transfer your legal possession of the firearm to the RFD when you have it couriered away to the new buyer. It's safer as well, as there's less risk of someone dodgy getting hold of your FAC. Would you post your ticket to someone who rang up and said they'd seen your ad on Guntrader?

You are right in that an FAC does not imply ownership. However that is not the issue with the RFDs here.

There is a difference between 'proprietary possession' and 'custodial possession' as it concerns the firearms act.

The RFDs take possession by writing it in their register (the same as if you were handing it to the RFD for repair etc). You as the original owner or seller will need to fill out the buyer's FAC so the receiving RFD can see that the buyer is allowed possession of it when he goes to hand it over.
How does the receiving RFD know for sure that the person that has turned up in his shop with a blank FAC is entitled to possess the particular firearm sent to him from another RFD?

The way the police and the Home Office would like it done is for you as the seller to write it on the FAC of the buyer and the RFDs arrange the transport and temporary storage as required. The RFDs never take ownership but do take possession as seen by them writing the firearm in their registers, the only one(s) allowed to take the firearm out of the shop is the one(s) with it written on their FAC (I know it will still be on the seller's FAC but it would be even if they did the transfer f2f and still will be until a 1-4-1 or renewal, whichever is soonest).

[Blackstuff]

How does the receiving RFD know for sure that the person that has turned up in his shop with a blank FAC is entitled to possess the particular firearm sent to him from another RFD?

The buyer would have the slot on their FAC? Unless they're complete nuggets and have bought the gun before/without getting the variation for it done...

[Chapuis]

Gaz you wrote "Anyone can be the legal owner of a gun, whether they've got a ticket or not".

Actually I don't think that's not strictly true. A bit of a peculiarity in law on this one I believe, as you cannot own a gun in the eyes of the law in this country unless you have legal authority to possess it.

[Chapuis]

Gaz you wrote "Anyone can be the legal owner of a gun, whether they've got a ticket or not".

Actually I don't think that's not strictly true. A bit of a peculiarity in law on this one I believe, as you cannot own a gun in the eyes of the law in this country unless you have legal authority to possess it.

Cretin, that's a double negative.
You know what I mean though.

[Gaz]

I'd be very interested to learn how that works. I'm a bit sketchy on property law, title and all the rest of it. :-)

[Mattnall]

How does the receiving RFD know for sure that the person that has turned up in his shop with a blank FAC is entitled to possess the particular firearm sent to him from another RFD?

The buyer would have the slot on their FAC? Unless they're complete nuggets and have bought the gun before/without getting the variation for it done...

But anyone with a suitable blank slot could turn up. Some weeks I get many of these transfers and it can be a nightmare to keep it all going the right way, especially if some of the details given aren't quite what they should or could be.

What I'm trying to say is, if someone turns up in the workshop with an FAC with the correct calibre, type and serial number of the firearm (either listed as possessed or correctly filled in on Table 1) then I'm likely to let him take the firearm away. The details of the actual transaction (SOLD, GIVEN etc) is left to the original owner.

[Mattnall]

I'd be very interested to learn how that works. I'm a bit sketchy on property law, title and all the rest of it. :-)

Without an FAC a potential FAC holder cannot place a deposit on a firearm as that would infer a claim to the property (at least that is how it was explained to me some years ago), best to pay the dealer/owner a small refundable fee to stop him selling it on to someone else.

[Chapuis]

I'd be very interested to learn how that works. I'm a bit sketchy on property law, title and all the rest of it. :-)

Without an FAC a potential FAC holder cannot place a deposit on a firearm as that would infer a claim to the property (at least that is how it was explained to me some years ago), best to pay the dealer/owner a small refundable fee to stop him selling it on to someone else.

That's my understanding of the situation also Matt. It's based on the premis that it is illegal to sell or buy a firearm without the necessary authority so would be an illegal transaction therefore the contract cannot be upheld in the courts.

It's something that has been mentioned many times in the past by shooting organisations and the sporting press yet many RFDs still take payment or deposits on firearms from persons who don't at that particular time actually have the authority to buy that the firearm. It may also explain why a condition on many firearms certificates including my own says-

"THIS IS NOT A STATUTORY CONDITION BUT ADVISE ON THE LAW. The only firearms(s) which may be acquired by the holder of this certificate are those specified at Part 1 (ii) of this certificate. Permission in the form of a variation of this certificate by the Chief Officer of Police MUST be obtained before the holder of this certificate may acquire any firearm(s) which are not specified at Part 1 (ii) or any firearm(s) in exchange for existing firearm(s) held."

P.S. I have copied this exactly as it is printed on my certificate with no addition parenthesis.

I'm not sure if similar advise is still given on their BASC website, but due mainly to legal problems regarding ownerships of firearms caused by the demise of Litts and deposits and part exchanges agreed by that company just prior to the collapse of the company, BASC actually warned about paying deposits on guns. I know that for myself I would be totally opposed to putting any down payment on a firearm these days untill I have the necessary authority in my hand to actually take immediate possession of a firearm.

[Blackstuff]

But anyone with a suitable blank slot could turn up. Some weeks I get many of these transfers and it can be a nightmare to keep it all going the right way, especially if some of the details given aren't quite what they should or could be.

What I'm trying to say is, if someone turns up in the workshop with an FAC with the correct calibre, type and serial number of the firearm (either listed as possessed or correctly filled in on Table 1) then I'm likely to let him take the firearm away. The details of the actual transaction (SOLD, GIVEN etc) is left to the original owner.

How many times has that actually happened though? Someone has ordered a gun they've paid for and used you as the receiving RFD, the sending RFD hasn't supplied the name/details of the buyer AND then a 3rd person has turned up wanting to buy the same rifle and the rifle intended for the original buyer has been given to the other person!?

[Chapuis]

Thinking on a bit, and perhaps reading too much into it, I wonder if the reason that ACPO and the various police forces are now insisting that FACs are completed by the person/RFD actually selling the firearms and not by receiving RFDs is because of past problems in establishing actual ownership of firearms at any particular time during such "remote selling" transactions??????

I know for a fact that the demise of Litts caused tremendous difficulties in the firearms trade in this country and resulted in widespread repercussions. I am reliably informed that it caused severe problems for the two largest importers/distributors in this country, and for many other firms that they did business with. In fact the very matter was discussed at an ACPO meeting at one time such was the problems it caused nationwide.
Many individuals lost out as a result of depositing guns with the company which were either guns offered for sale on a commission basis or trade ins on new guns not delivered. I don’t believe that there was ever any suggestion that transfers were ever not recorded properly, but I do believe that actual ownership of many of the thousands of firearms that they dealt in over a period of time was disputed causing financial loss.

Perhaps this “new” system, or rather the way it should have been done all along but clarified if you believe ACPO, is a way of making the actual distinction of ownership evident all the way through any transaction especially if a dispute should arise. It may also be a labour saving move by the police forces involved as only one transfer needs to be recorded and not several when middlemen are involved.