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

No, the offence is clearly to FAIL TO COMPLY. There is no definition of 'produce'; given the nature of motoring laws, it is perfectly reasonable to assume there is a sensible time in which to do so. The Act does not say that the FAC should be with the certificate at all times. Furthermore, subsection 2 has provision for another means to prove that the Holder is in fact carrying legally held firearms for which (s)he has correct entitlement, thereby implying that a condition can exist where the Constable needs to secure valid proof of status before the production of the Certificate.

As is usual with such items, case law is required here. I've not got time to trawl through and find some but I'll accept it if it's present, because this is interpretation and a judge is required to rule on such items. There will also be the 'reasonable' item - if I'm shooting 5 minutes away from home, as I often do, then it's reasonable to leave my ticket safely at home. If I'm in Scotland, then it's less reasonable.

Blackstuff - in your example I agree an offence has been committed, because the example kicks off at the PC. My entire point is if I am fair and reasonable about it, then no offence has been committed because I am complying with the officer's request. Key point - behaviour at the time of the request. If I give the Officer a mouthful, then I can hardly be said to be complying, can I?

For what it's worth I recently requested a 1-1 variation and rang Surrey Police who said I could send a photocopy in and keep the original, from memory I believe it actually says that somewhere on the new forms. I had a PSG comp to shoot with a Sec1 shotgun so wanted to make sure there was no problem.

Mr_Logic wrote:No, the offence is clearly to FAIL TO COMPLY. There is no definition of 'produce'; given the nature of motoring laws, it is perfectly reasonable to assume there is a sensible time in which to do so. The Act does not say that the FAC should be with the certificate at all times. Furthermore, subsection 2 has provision for another means to prove that the Holder is in fact carrying legally held firearms for which (s)he has correct entitlement, thereby implying that a condition can exist where the Constable needs to secure valid proof of status before the production of the Certificate.

No, I still believe you are wrong. "Produce" means show the constable there and then. No assumption because of the RTA or whatever else. Produce it, or the constable has the power to seize your gun. Under sub section 2, the other means likewise, would have to be produced, there and then on demand. Failured again to do so, or hinder by preventing the reading of other docs, results in the same. Power to seize, there and then.

Subsection 2:

If a person upon whom a demand is made under this section fails to produce the certificate [or document] or to permit the constable to read it, or to show that he is entitled by virtue of this Act to have the firearm, ammunition or shot gun in his possession without holding a certificate, the constable may seize and detain the firearm, ammunition or shot gun and may require the person to declare to him immediately his name and address.

The term 'or document' is not defined explicitly, though it was inserted to comply with European legislation. in this case, a photocopy of the certificate shows that the person is authorised to hold the firearms in question. Added to which co-operation with the Officer means that the person is complying with all demands and producing a document clearly showing their entitlement to the firearms.

My own take on this is that there is both sufficient doubt for a seizure not to be considered unlawful, but the person has not committed an offence by not having the original on their person. Like I said, it needs case law - your interpretation or my interpretation is all well and good, but without case law to give a judge's ruling on the wording, we can go round in circles forever.

Mr_Logic wrote:Subsection 2:

If a person upon whom a demand is made under this section fails to produce the certificate [or document] or to permit the constable to read it, or to show that he is entitled by virtue of this Act to have the firearm, ammunition or shot gun in his possession without holding a certificate, the constable may seize and detain the firearm, ammunition or shot gun and may require the person to declare to him immediately his name and address.

The term 'or document' is not defined explicitly, though it was inserted to comply with European legislation. in this case, a photocopy of the certificate shows that the person is authorised to hold the firearms in question. Added to which co-operation with the Officer means that the person is complying with all demands and producing a document clearly showing their entitlement to the firearms.

My own take on this is that there is both sufficient doubt for a seizure not to be considered unlawful, but the person has not committed an offence by not having the original on their person. Like I said, it needs case law - your interpretation or my interpretation is all well and good, but without case law to give a judge's ruling on the wording, we can go round in circles forever.

Thats the bloody problem Tom. Its a statute so it was signed in parliament and as such should be complied with to the letter.

Thing is, no bugger can work out what the letter is. It is a maze, intentionally so to keep the coppers/us confused and the wigs in Bentleys and port!!

Think about it Sim.

If you cannot produce an FAC the officer can theoretically sieze you firearms.

What is the difference between you having said firearms in your cabinet, or out on the range?

Zip. You have them in your posession....wherever they are?

Given your absolute interpretation (right or wrong), how then can any authority ask you to send your license in, but still hold?

Should you not be surrenderring the firearms because without that FAC physically in your mits you cannot hold?

No, of course not, its not workable and is down to interpretation....by any party. More pertinently, you have been asked to hand your FAC in for checking/destruction for which they will give you a shiny new one. It is not being surrenderred or your rights to hold being relinquished, it is merely a certificate of this fact.

So, you are still a "temporarilly uncertified" FAC holder....or an FA holder, you aint goit a cert...you have sweet FA....see what I did there?

Now, what they should do is send you a temp cert for you to return your FAC on receipt, but that would slow things down even more and bugger up their stats....so the current system suits us all, if only they could all agree and publish it as an amendment etc.

I do carry my FAC because I dont shoot in the county in which I am licensed, so I have no idea how a Surrey or Dorset officer might react...if they have any available.

It would make common logical sense that if you send your FAC in you copy it and carry a copy.

(oddly I scanned mine and it did not have "copy" or whatever all over it...wierd)

And i thought this guy was just a comic book character



Just to try to bottom this out with the context of the OP first post; yes there is a technically a risk which exists from you not being able to produce your original certificate to an officer while you're in possession of your firearms, however, the likelihood of you actually getting in any kind of trouble for it are so remote you can take the risk as practically zero. You can further mitigate the risk by keeping a copy of your certificate on you while your original is in for variation.

Blackstuff, wind your neck in please.

Now now guys, lets not go off topic.

Mr_logic, don't be so sensitive. It was obviously posted in Jest, I don't think Blackstuff actually made the comic either!

Thanks everyone for the input on this, apparently its a legal minefield, but as yet one that has not resulted in any actual prosecution, so I think I'll be safe. Considering my club is about 10 mins from my house, its unlikely I'll be stopped at any point anyway, so I should be all good.

Without the aggressive posts earlier in the thread, I'd be inclined to agree.

Blackstuff wrote::lol: Every, single, time, this comes up someone reckons it isn't



Section 48 (4) of the Firearms Act 1968 tesnews :55:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

Wrong.

And it is not down to interpretation either.

The officer can demand production.

If you cannot do so, he can seize. But he cannot arrest you unless you ALSO refuse to identify yourself etc

This came up in day one of Met Police training on firearms.

What also came up was common sense - if you are in a car registered to you, carrying other id in your name etc then its unlikely you cannot produce due to being unlicenced.

And the procedure was to seize and then issue a form ho/rt1 amended to require FAC. You then handed back firearms upon later production.

In legislation, it invariably mentions arrest if there is a power. Definitions may be open to interpretation but powers of arrest are not.

As has been metioned by Chris, if FEO took your licence for variation and then prosecuted you for it being in their possession it would be a farce.