Getting a New Gun Delivered RFD to RFD

[Kungfugerbil]

^ That's the 'pellpax' model, seems to work for them!

[dromia]

The important thing is that a sales invoice must be generated by the Glasgow dealer and the Truro dealer .
The invoice sale price is unimportant and in reality does not even need to be paid .

It could cause a bit of head scratching by HMRC , but if the dealers do make the payment to each other there is an audit trail that will keep HMRC happy (ish)

That isn't remote selling though, that is selling the gun on to every one in the chain not Mr A selling the gun to Mr B, different from the sell and transfer that this interpretation of the law applies to. Yes it avoids B sending his ticket to A but to be honest B sending his ticket to A and just doing the transfer through the dealers seems a lot less hassle.

What happens if one of the dealers who has "bought" the gun in the chain and just decides to keep it, other than loosing their reputation, what legal recourse would Mr A and Mr B have to recovering the firearm?

[Chapuis]

The important thing is that a sales invoice must be generated by the Glasgow dealer and the Truro dealer .
The invoice sale price is unimportant and in reality does not even need to be paid .

It could cause a bit of head scratching by HMRC , but if the dealers do make the payment to each other there is an audit trail that will keep HMRC happy (ish)

That isn't remote selling though, that is selling the gun on to every one in the chain not Mr A selling the gun to Mr B, different from the sell and transfer that this interpretation of the law applies to. Yes it avoids B sending his ticket to A but to be honest B sending his ticket to A and just doing the transfer through the dealers seems a lot less hassle.

What happens if one of the dealers who has "bought" the gun in the chain and just decides to keep it, other than loosing their reputation, what legal recourse would Mr A and Mr B have to recovering the firearm?

Or the gun is faulty a dispute develops and redress is sought through the small claims court procedure.
In the case of a private sale it may be a case of buyer beware where as if a dealer or dealers are involved that may a different matter altogether.

[MistAgain]

The important thing is that a sales invoice must be generated by the Glasgow dealer and the Truro dealer .
The invoice sale price is unimportant and in reality does not even need to be paid .

It could cause a bit of head scratching by HMRC , but if the dealers do make the payment to each other there is an audit trail that will keep HMRC happy (ish)

That isn't remote selling though, that is selling the gun on to every one in the chain not Mr A selling the gun to Mr B, different from the sell and transfer that this interpretation of the law applies to. Yes it avoids B sending his ticket to A but to be honest B sending his ticket to A and just doing the transfer through the dealers seems a lot less hassle.

What happens if one of the dealers who has "bought" the gun in the chain and just decides to keep it, other than loosing their reputation, what legal recourse would Mr A and Mr B have to recovering the firearm?

There will always be the risk of a rogue dealer , the risk of that is no greater with the system I have suggested than it would be with the "official do it this way system"

As for the firearm being not as described or faulty , the risks are exactly the same regardless of what system is used .

On the plus side , no chance of an FAC getting lost in the post .
No chance of a wannabe jihadi finding out who has what sort of guns .
And of course no chance of an FAC holder making a mess of filling in another persons FAC.

[Chapuis]

On the contrary MistAgain should the firearm be not as described or faulty who would the buyer make the claim against doing it the way you suggest?

As regards the seller making an error when filling in the FAC I can tell you that over the years I have seen far more errors made by RFDs than individuals, including entering an entirely wrong serial number on a certificate and also on another occasion entering the wrong makers name.

[Pete]

On this topic, am I right in believing that an RFD can nominate a non RFD non FAC holder to be his agent for the purpose of shipping firearms around?
I had occasion to send a rifle for rebarreling, and the gunsmith organised a collection/delivery.
I handed the cased gun to a man in a white van (who had a piece of paper with TNT logo with my address on it), and was asked "What is it?"
"er, it's a rifle" I replied. There was a place on the form with Description next to it.........it was empty. He scribbled "gun" on it, and went on his way.
Had I not known the smith, I would have had second thoughts about handing it over, but as it turned out, all was well.
(And it REALLY shoots )

Pete

[Rockhopper]

Only too and from the proof house:

"6.44 Under section 58 (1) of the 1968 Act any person carrying firearms to or from the proof houses is exempt from the provisions of the Act, so long as the firearms are being carried for the purposes of proof."

TNT must have some kind of official permission to carry firearms:

"6.38 Section 11(1) of the 1968 Act exempts from the certificate requirement a person carrying a firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies, or shotguns, under the instruction of another person who holds a certificate and for that other person’s use for sporting purposes only. It does not entitle the bearer to use the firearm or shotgun. The courts have found that this exemption does not extend to unaccompanied possession of the firearms concerned, for example by a chauffeur transporting the firearms from one town to another, in which instance a certificate or permit would be required. Where the person doing the carrying is under eighteen, the exemption only applies if the certificate holder is eighteen or over – as per the amendment inserted by SI 2010/1759."

[MistAgain]

On the contrary MistAgain should the firearm be not as described or faulty who would the buyer make the claim against doing it the way you suggest?

.

The contract is between the seller and the buyer . The fact that there are two RFD's in the supply to the buyer chain would only be significant if the firearm was out of proof or even unproofed .

So if the buyer and seller used the "legal" method of transfer the buyer would have the firearm entered on their FAC when they went to collect the firearm .
If the firearm was visibly not as described they could refuse to accept it and try to resolve the problem with the seller . If no solution could be reached the buyer would need to resort to court action against the seller .

But if the method that many have been using for years was used the situation would be exactly the same .

I have no doubt that Tradings Standards would consider one or both the RFD's to be the ones who would be required to resolve or compensate the buyer , but then i remember that Trading Standards once told me that the Sale of Goods Act had supremercy over the various Proof Acts .

[ovenpaa]

In theory any RFD in the supply chain should stop the transaction of the firearm is out of Proof. We had a rifle arrive a couple of years ago without any apparent evidence of Proof and it stopped with us until things were cleared up.

[IainWR]

On this topic, am I right in believing that an RFD can nominate a non RFD non FAC holder to be his agent for the purpose of shipping firearms around?
I had occasion to send a rifle for rebarreling, and the gunsmith organised a collection/delivery.
I handed the cased gun to a man in a white van (who had a piece of paper with TNT logo with my address on it),

See S9(1) Firearms Act 1968. TNT are a "carrier".