Just heard from reputable source. Reportedly in hock to the tune of £20m. If you know of anyone with guns etc in storage it might be an idea to contact them.

I thought they were making good money providing exotic weaponry to the MOD. A sad day if this is true.

This is accurate I have been told by a reliable source that they have been browing from left hand to pay right hand for a number if years.

Just the Browning account they owe £800,000+ !

so much for this being a trade secret!

griff

On another forum, I read that this may all be down to one person. I feel sorry for those who have downpayments on kit and rifles, as they'll have to retrieve it through their card companies or deal with the bailifs.

My mates just been down there and the place was shut and he's got £500 down on a gun.

I don't think that the shooting ground is affected it might be in different ownership.

I don't think that the shooting ground is affected, it might be in different ownership. I also heard that the figure might be nearer £30m. Difficult to see how a business that size can lose so much.

Bad cash flow/accounting and over stretching the credit limit will just about do it......

I am also informed today that deals have been going on for at least 3 weeks with three of the largest dealers in UK unloading stock below cost. I wonder if this is legal if it is known that the company is going into receivership

Probably not, as it is the legal duty of the directors to act in the best interests of the shareholders and unless the shareholders are all directors this is unlikely to have been the result of such activity.

The word is that the liquidators will be opening the shop again before long and there may be the odd bargain to be had!

Would you tell us foreigners from the continent who LITTS is or was?

LITTS of Newport,Gwent,the UK.s largest sporting gun dealer.
Thats their quote from their full page ad in this months Sporting Rifle.2 more pages in Shooting Gazette.
A lot of top drawer kit !
Well the bigger you are the harder you fall !

I heard that all the good stock i.e. pairs, sideplates and london guns have gone weeks ago to Avalon, Wards and Sportmans already

Speaking to a couple of dealers this seems to havebeen going on for a while.

Any of the good stuff has/will be taken by the trade leaving the rest for firesale/auction I would think.

I'm glad I didn't put the depo down on the Chapuis they had!!

Rgds,
FB

quote:

My mates just been down there and the place was shut and he's got £500 down on a gun.

Oops! This is ILLEGAL! You cannot put down a deposit on a gun as the, you are then the owner, and possession without valid authority to possess is an offence.

I would very very careful how your friend proceeds on this. OK if a shot gun and he/she has a certificate, but not if a firearm and they have no "authority to acquire".

Sounds legal to me.

1. It is possible to own something without being in possession of it.

2. Putting down a deposit does not transfer title.

quote:

Oops! This is ILLEGAL! You cannot put down a deposit on a gun as the, you are then the owner, and possession without valid authority to possess is an offence.

I would very very careful how your friend proceeds on this. OK if a shot gun and he/she has a certificate, but not if a firearm and they have no "authority to acquire".

Look up Watts v Seymour and also Sullivan v Caithness.

The offence of "possessing a fiream" under the Firearms Act does not require physical possession. Merely that the possessor has "title" to the goods.

In the case of Watts v Seymour the success of a prosecution under the Firearms Act depended on whether property in a firearm had passed. It was held that property had passed from the accused salesman, and that the accused had therefore infringed the law.

It is merely enough that there is transfer of property in the goods from seller to buyer. Delivery is not an essential element.

In Sullivan v Caithness even though the firearm was kept at the property of another the person who had "title" was deemed to have possession and not the person who had control of the premises on which the gun was kept.

See also Firearms Act s3 as amended by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 Sch 2

"The prohibition on the sale of fireams imposed by this section is not avoided by a collateral arrangement that possession of the firearms shall be retained by the seller..."

Vulgarly calling what others post "bullshit" without being fully aware of the specifics of firearms case law in the UK merely makes you look like an arsehole.

We live and learn. Thanks ES.

I can't claim any familiarity with British jurisprudence (other than being a great fan of Witness for the Prosecution with Marlene Dietrich), but "placing a deposit" would appear to be entering into a contract to purchase, not actually consummating a purchase. The contract would be revocable through failure of one or the other party to the contract to perform, thus no sale has taken place and the would-be buyer cannot be regarded "in possession" (even when possession is an out-of-body experience .

Under English Law there are three elements:

Offer: You offered your gun for sale at £500.00
Acceptance: They accepted
Consideration: They gave you £100.00 deposit.


The contract is formed. A "contract to purchase" is just another name for "a contract". Title to the gun passes to them. You now can only sue for the £400.00 they owe you, you can't "get the gun back" unless you specified retention of the gun until full and final payment is made.

An "option to purchase" is different.

You gun is for sale for £500.00
You offer, for the payment of £100.00 the right or "option to purchase" the gun for £400.00.
When you receive the £100.00 the other person does not own the gun. They have no title to it. They have only the right to purchase it at £400.00.

You, the seller can be sued by them to make you sell the gun to them at £400.00. But if they decide not to buy it whilst you can keep the £100.00 paid you can't make them buy it.

Enfieldspares,

While what you say may well be the letter of the law, most RFD's accept a deposit to hold a rifle while the purchaser sorts out the variation on his FAC.

I've done this myself in the past, and the FLO concerned was aware and happy with the situation..

I wonder how many people have been prosecuted for actually having done this?

Also, you stated:

"In Sullivan v Caithness even though the firearm was kept at the property of another the person who had "title" was deemed to have possession and not the person who had control of the premises on which the gun was kept."

Surely that means a mate could store his legally held firearm in my cabinet as according to the above he still has "possession" of it?

Regards,

Pete

quote:

I wonder how many people have been prosecuted for actually having done this?

Well clearly man in the case stated!

In NI, the police will not process your application for a variation until you supply a bill of sale from your dealer, for the specific firearm you intend to acquire, this must include a serial number.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

No! Possession can be both proprietory and custodial as in Hall v Cotton.

So in the circumstances above where an RFD physically retains a rifle against a deposit and pending the buyer getting the appropriate variation on his FAC, does the Law view that both people are in legal possession of the rifle, but in different ways?

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
Well clearly man in the case stated!

If you say so..Obviously us lesser mortals don't know the full details nor circumstances of that case other than what you quoted...

Very interesting stuff I might add; as long as your not on the receiving end though!

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:


An "option to purchase" is different.

You gun is for sale for £500.00
You offer, for the payment of £100.00 the right or "option to purchase" the gun for £400.00.
When you receive the £100.00 the other person does not own the gun. They have no title to it. They have only the right to purchase it at £400.00.

So, every gunshop in the land effectively offers an 'Option to purchase' - rather than accepting a 'Deposit'.

Semanatics - when the intent and result are the same!

Rgds Ian

The problem is it is "the semantics" that land you in court!

The acid test regarding "possession" in the case of the gunshop "purchase" is one of title to the goods.

In other words if you, the buyer, drop dead the next day - before you have your Firearm Certificate varied to allow acquisition or posession - who does the gun belong to? To the gunshop? No! They have "sold" it to you. Is it part of your estate? Yes. Your heirs interest in law is in the gun not the £500.00 you've paid the shop.

So you "possess" it.

Watts v Seymour involved a commercial "shooting centre". The gun was paid for in full by a member who did not have a Firearm Certificate authorising acquisition or possession of such a gun. It remained at all times at the said "shooting centre". It could only be accessed and used by that member when he attended the "shooting centre".

Yet the law held that he was, nevertheless, in "possession" of it and that the owner of the "shooting centre" had also, therefore, illegally transferred a gun to a person not lawfully entitled to be in possession of it!

So the guy had no physical possession except when he was there, it never left the "shooting centre", it was kept under lock and key by the owner of the said place, the guy couldn't get access to it to use at the place unless the owner unlocked it for him, he couldn't remove it from the place, etc., etc., yet "the semantics" did for them.

ES

Many thanks for the instruction - I have not followed the cases you cite, assuming you are accurate.

My point was that the 'option to purchase' is still a legal method of 'reserving' a firearm pending variation. Historically, the trade have referred to this as a 'deposit'.

My reading of your initial post was that such a practice (deposits) was illegal - I now understand that you were clarifying the circumstances under which a gun can legally be 'reserved' for a customer.

Rgds Ian

Am I right to understand that:

If someone pays a deposit then they have an option to buy.

Subsequently they seller retracts his offer to sell, but until full payment has been recieved title doesn't pass over. The retraction of the OTS is pureley a hedge to the vendor that he doesn't over sell his product.

As I understand it through my trading of options and credit risk, the purchase of an option does not constitute purchase of the underlying. It also does not preclude the buyer from the loss of his option premium due to a change in value of the reference asset. In this instance I'm not sure the reference asset should be available through the recivers.
Basically if the seller of an option defaults I don't think that the holder has any claim on the asset unles it is exchange traded. An option is an agreement to potentially enter into a transaction by two (or more) parties. If one of those parties ceases to exist due to default then the option is worthless, and the premium is lost.

If there is a charge on the assets then the receivers have to take this into account but that is different.

When I spoke to Litts about the Chapuis, they asked for £500 for them to hold the gun pending my variation. If the variation was OK I could purchase the gun for the balance. If the variation failed I would get my Depo back. I don't think that arrangement counts as consideration.

My corporate law is a bit (VERY)rusty, but there is also a difference between Title and Beneficial Ownership to consider. Beneficial ownership of an asset can be had without Title.

Hi Chaqps, intersting discussion, ES do you have the full citation for the cases you mention? I would very much like to look through them.

Regards,

Amir

Very Eloquently put Fallow Buck

I've had a look at the two cases mentioned, and don't see the relevance of these to the question here of a deposit paid for a gun to a company now in default. Both cases were to define illegal possesion of firearms by individuals who had no licence, (SGC or FAC) in place. In both case there were no funds outstanding on the guns in question, and no other claim to ownership. More to the point both defendants had direct access to the guns and were able to use them at their convenience.

In this instance no access for use is available to someone who has paid a deposit.

However there was a paragraph in Sullivan v Earl of Caithness [1976] that may be relevent to some points brought up in the thread.

The Act (FAA 1968) itself contains no definition of the word ‘possession’. This is not unusual in statutes creating this type of criminal offence. As a result, as Lord Parker CJ said in Towers & Co Ltd v Gray [1961] 2 QB 351 at 361, ‘The term “possession†is always giving rise to trouble.’ He then went on to quote briefly from a speech of Earl Jowitt in the earlier case of United States of America v Dollfus Mieg et Cie SA [1952] AC 582 at 605:

‘The person having the right to immediate possession is, however, frequently referred to in English law as being the ‘possessor’ - in truth, the English law has never worked out a completely logical and exhaustive definition of “possessionâ€.’
. . . Looking at the context of the word ‘possession’ in s 1 of the 1968 Act in the present case, I have no doubt that one can be in possession of a firearm even though one is at a place other than that at which the firearm physically is. To agree with the justices’ decision in the present case would in my view effectively be to equate the word ‘possession’ in s 1 with custody, and this I am satisfied would be wrong.


Pete,

Your friend could not put his rifle into your cabinet for a prolonged period of time if you were not licenced to be in possession of that firearm. Exceptions to this rule are when for example you visit me and put your rifle in my cabinet for safekeeping while we are out to dinner. This would be covered by your condition to make reasonable efforts to secure your gun when you are away from home or traveling.

In the above case I didn't find out if the Earls mother hada licence for the guns in question.

My father cannot have access to my cabinet that contains his guns as he as no Section 1 FAC. As such he is not allowed a key and I have to provide him his gun when requested.

But I digress.

For the deposit paid, the gent will have to file a claim with the receivers with a receipt in line with all the other creditors. He may get lucky if he can talk to the liquidators and find if the gun itself is still available but I would think it is a long shot.

I have also had a look at the two cases mentioned but am not sure they are particularly relevant, as FB points out it is probably not a question of possession until the full consideration is paid.


In the case of "reserving" a firearm, the people i've spoken to think it's a bit of a grey area. On the one hand possession of a firearm that one is not licensed to hold is illegal. On the other hand paying a consideration for something is merely to enter into a contract to purchase that thing in accordance with the terms of that contract. For you to have purchased the thing all the terms in the contract must be fully executed.

1.—(1) Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an Requirement
offence for a person— of firearm
certificate.
(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;
(b) to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire,
any ammunition to which this section applies without
holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or
otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate, or
in quantities in excess of those so authorised.

Section 1 of the 1968 act above provides that it is illegal to purchase a firearm without authority in the form of FAC in force at that time.

It is similarly illegal for someone to sell a firearm to someone who is not authorized to acquire one.

This will all hinge on the word “deposit†FB is correct to say that whatever the precise legal arrangement of the holding of the firearm pending your variation it called in common parlance a deposit and therefore whilst a court would tend towards the common sense definition of any word ( the so called “Golden Rule†of statutory interpretation) in this case the buyer and seller have a rather unique arrangement.

I have not been able to find case law on this precise issue but from first principles I would stick my neck out and say:

1. that the firearms act does not specifically forbid entering into a contract to purchase a firearm,
2. that to contract to purchase something that you may not legally purchase results in an unenforceable contract in case of default but enforcement does not normally arise as the RFD and FAC holdr are “on the same side†so to speak

3. that until the terms of the contract have been fully executed the firearm does not enter into your possession, unless you physically take possession of it, (see the case FB quoted, it says “right to immediate possessionâ€) although if you have paid part of the consideration you are an unsecured creditor of the company
4. the status of the “deposit†part consideration is unclear in the case law In my view you are purchasing an option in that you have for a consideration purchased the right to first refusal with terms in that contract to be entitled to a full refund of that consideration in the event of you fulfilling certain conditions, in this case purchasing the firearm when you are authorized to do so.

Sorry if I’m rambling a bit, in conclusion it is a dodgy area of law but one that the courts are likely to take a pragmatic view on depending on the circumstances of the case; if it’s a straight deal you are unlikely to be prosecuted. This is probably why no one has been done so far.

Just to digress very slighty and thinking about the definition of "possession". Is possession of a valid FAC fuly satisfied by having one at home or do you actually physically have to carry it whilst out stalking?

I regard the potential for loss or damage of the FAC whilst crawling around the countryside too big a risk and currently compromise by having the full FAC in my car but I carry a small laminated card with the details of my FAC and SGC should I be requested for them whilst stalking away from my vehicle.

possession of the ceritficate in itself doesn't mean anything, the certificate is there to show that you have authority to own, shoot, etc.

Practically however, no certificate + out of office hours = confiscated guns