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

It’s been decided in case law (although I couldn’t immediately find the link) that paying a deposit equals possession.

Historically, I know lots of people that have broken that "law".

I fail to understand why the title, or ownership, of any item, relates to the carrying, using, storing, etc of a firearm.

That is surely what the Firearms Acts are meant to control & regulate.

Strange world!

Just for debate!

An extract from the Oxford Dictionary.

1.1Law Visible power or control over something, as distinct from lawful ownership; holding or occupancy as distinct from ownership.

Requirement of firearm certificate.

(1)Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person—

(a)to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate;

They quite clearly state that its not just possession but also purchasing or acquiring.

Now, you can argue all you want about what constitutes a "purchase" but that will be down to the Judge ( once you have appealed revocation of FAC and stumped up £5000 to a barrister unless representing yourself ) to decide.

My money is on you having purchased as soon as the seller removes it from sale to anybody else based on an agreement to sell to you whether or not money or deposit have changed hands.

Purchase does not have to include payment or taking possession.

If I was a prosecution barrister I would quote the simple example of mail order. You buy the item. You pay for it. But dont take possession until it arrives in the post. But while waiting for delivery, you have still purchased !

Another example. You want to have a bespoke suit made. You get measured. The tailor makes the suit and you return to collect when ready. So, at the start you have made a purchase and dont yet possess the suit as it does not even exist yet !

How many times have I read that on my FAC? Without considering the potential implications!

Yes, I concur, that condition would appear to preclude reserving a future acquisition, while awaiting a variation. Even if you were confident of the variation being approved.

I have no intention of being a test case. Another example of a daft regulation, is still a regulation.

dazeroo wrote:How many times have I read that on my FAC? Without considering the potential implications!

Yes, I concur, that condition would appear to preclude reserving a future acquisition, while awaiting a variation. Even if you were confident of the variation being approved.

I have no intention of being a test case. Another example of a daft regulation, is still a regulation.

It gets worse.

My knowledge is rusty but............

Any person who does something more than merely preparatry commits an offence under the criminal attempts legislation.

So, if you know its prohibited and go to the RFD with payment and try to "reserve" the firearm, you may just have committed a criminal attempt !

Tenuous ? Maybe. But all it takes is a prosecutor looking to up his conviction rates.........

Yet apparently, with the right contacts, you can still buy a 9mm pistol, or worse, in most Cities.

dazeroo wrote:Yet apparently, with the right contacts, you can still buy a 9mm pistol, or worse, in most Cities.

Hold on a goshdarned minute...........you are telling me criminals dont comply with firearms legislation ????

I believe someone on here uses the signature tag,

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!"

dazeroo wrote:I believe someone on here uses the signature tag,

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!"

sounds like a smart bloke...