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

I was just after a bit of guidance as my Dad is currently renewing his FAC and seems to have hit a bit of a brick wall. Currently I have all of his guns listed on my ticket as well as my own, he has the same, i.e. all of mine and his on his ticket. We live at separate addresses but are both covered by the same issuing force (Met). Previously both our tickets were cross referenced with similar wording to "may also have have access to all weapons listed on FAC number ".

Last time we renewed, we were told that we would have to list all of them on both certificates. We argued but ultimately it was easier just to do this and that is how they have been listed for the 6 years or so. I renewed last year, same process, same result and no problem but this year we are being told that this is a most unique situation that they have never seen before.

Now, I find it hard to believe that no other father and sons in the UK shoot and both hold FACs at separate addresses. I was just wondering if anyone else is in the same boat and how they went about it. Can I legally shoot what is on his ticket and can he shoot mine? We only shoot targets, no live game. They are saying that they will put restrictions on both of us saying that we can transport each others guns but not shoot them.

All advice greatly received.

Mat

If both members of a Home Office approved club, you have an exemption under s15 Firearms Amendment Act 1988, for the requirements of a certificate if target shooting as a club member or in connection with target shooting.

Their caveat is pretty pointless.

Thank you for the response. That's what I thought but wanted it confirmed.

Cheers
Mat

I cant find any legal basis for the restriction. As a guest you can shoot another clubs & another clubs members firearms, as members of the same club you can posess & shoot each others but only at a club organised shoot. The handle & use restrictions currently only apply to LBR & 50cal as neither can be classed as HO approved club firearms.

All my personal firearms are listed on the clubs FAC (that I hold) because they are stored together but my FAC does not say may be in possession etc of the clubs FAC.

I & my daughter are same both have FACs with own firearms & clause "may have in possession firearms relating to FAC12345". only the fact shes a leftie makes it pointless for me to use them.

I would challenge it - sounds like FLO B$ to me. The shared clause is std procedure, as is a common listing on FACs.

Not unique in any way. I know of several cases, as well as that of club owned firearms being entered on to multiple members fac's as well as the club fac. I know of married couples who have each other's firearms entered on to their individual certificates so they can share the same cabinet.

The salient point is that a firearm certificate is just authority to possess. You can have joint possession for different reasons. For instance you might have the same firearm on two certificates, one for use for deer stalking and on the other for target shooting.

andrew375 wrote:Not unique in any way. I know of several cases, as well as that of club owned firearms being entered on to multiple members fac's as well as the club fac. I know of married couples who have each other's firearms entered on to their individual certificates so they can share the same cabinet.

The salient point is that a firearm certificate is just authority to possess. You can have joint possession for different reasons. For instance you might have the same firearm on two certificates, one for use for deer stalking and on the other for target shooting.

Ditto.

Plus a friend of mine and his son share firearms that can be stored either at one location or the other. The one lives in Somerset and the other in Devon. So unless things have suddenly changed I think that the met FEO is mistaken.

Cheers guys. Much appreciated.

Regards
Mat

As an alternative my wife and I have a condition on our FAC's saying we can also hold firearms held on FAC XXXXX which means we do not have to pay for two variations every time one of us changes something.

Such a condition might be a workable alternative.