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

Your firearms certification department told you that?

dromia wrote:Your firearms certification department told you that?

And if so, did they define the word possess .

Please read, there is no possession, except within the limits set within the terms of individual FAC.
It is not that complicated and a RFD is perfectly entitled to hold a batch for a customer.

So you are agreeing that the amount of ammunition held by the RFD on the purchasers behalf cannot exceed that which is stipulated on the purchaser's FAC?

I neither agree or disagree. I am not interested in being dragged into a pretendy discussion but merely sharing the answer to my question as per the legality.
It is actually very simple - Read my post

If a RFD is insterested, I'll gladly share with him the info I was given .

froggy wrote:This answer I got back was that as long as I dont have possession nor access above the limits set by the terms of my FAC, it is legal.

Froggy - I was referring to the word possession above. As has been discussed, it has different definitions.

Especially when money has changed hands.

Edit - if I was a keen prosecution barrister I would say you do have access above your limits because you can pop in to the RFD and take away a number of rounds putting you above your limit as the RFD does not know how many you have left at home from last collection.

And if bought and paid for - you have acquired - regardless of who is storing them - ie purchase as opposed to possess.

Condition 7 on mine for instance............I may only possess / purchase / acquire ammo authorised by my FAC.

So forget the possession for a min - purchase of more than the limit is a breach. Surely paying for them means you have purchased - regardless of who stores them for you ?

That has been already talked about at great lenght, read the previous posts and save yourself some time ...

froggy wrote:That has been already talked about at great lenght, read the previous posts and save yourself some time ...

I have. Which is why I referred to the several definitions of "possess".

And you now use the word possess as if its definition is clear cut !

Anyway - if you feel you have enough in writing to cover your ass in case another member of the authorities decides on a different definition of "possess" or "acquire", all well and good.

Out of interest - was your enquiry verbal or written ? And was the reply written or verbal ?

Written, but there is no secret to it & no need for some pointless brain masturbation either

a) a shooter deposits some money with a RDF,
b) the RFD uses it as he pleases, including buying a stock of ammo, as it happens,
c) the RFD is understanding of the shooter desire to shoot from the same batch and accepts, informally, to put some asside to the value of the deposit, more or less that is a private matter which ios not legally binding.
d) the ammo is drawn, over time, in batches within the shooter's FAC's limits,

The fact that it is paid with the money previously deposited or with jelly beans part exchange is irrelevant. What is crucial, is that never the shooter has purchased and more importantly hold/has access to more than he is allowed. It is truly that simple & now been confirmed as perfectly legal.

Now that I have shared the all conclusions & advice I was given, if you feel you still have to disagree or need to "define" further some self-explainatory terms, feel free to copy/past those 4 points & clarify them with a lawer, your local force or a judge as I am afraid, I have nothing more to tell you on the subject.

Froggy - we are just debating here !!

If you feel you are not in breach of the firearms act or your fac conditions, then you crack on.

But the fact remains that you are using fancy terms like "depositing" in order to avoid the "purchase" word. And the RFD buys just the sort of ammo that the "depositor" wants but hey thats just a coincidence. Its all very creative.

But good luck to you if thats what you want to do. I know of one RFD who sounds like he wants to give it a run so it will all run smoothly or he will become famous in having case law named after himself.

I do wonder what the "deposit" will be called on his books ? Maybe another convenient term can be used if "deposit" is not ideal ? And maybe yet another word can be used when it comes to HMRC when they want to know what this deposit is !!

I am guessing you will get maybe 10% or even 5% discount for bulk purchasing ( ooops hush my mouth - I meant "depositing" a coincidentally equal amount to the purchase price ) And having said "deposit" tied up with no garenteed return and no failsafe in case of bankruptcy. Worth it ? Hmmmmm I get 10% off my ammo cost for recyclibg the brass. Risk free.

But as I said - crack on - I am just here for the debate :-)