I recently represented a firearms dealership which specialises in developing high performance firearms and their accessories specifically designed for competitive shooters. Unfortunately, their local police licensing authority took issue with the dealer or his servants testing their products in a competition environment using firearms from their dealership register and under the authority of the RFD certificate. It became clear from my research in that case that this is a widespread practice amongst dealers who manufacture and develop firearms for the competition market, and so I thought it would be worth exploring the issue in this column.
Unfortunately, as with other areas of firearms licensing, a lack of clarity in the legislation has led to inconsistencies amongst police forces in their interpretation and the approach they adopt. The legal position as to what activities firearms dealers and their servants may engage in is found in section 8 Firearms Act 1968. This provides that a registered firearms dealer or their servant may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of that business.
While the statute does not mention dealers/ servants firing or testing firearms, it is universally acknowledged that they do in the course of manufacturing and repairing firearms. Indeed, there is nothing in legislation which defines or limits the meaning of the phrase “the ordinary course of business”. Consequently, the most logical approach to determining what would fall within the scope of the ordinary course of a particular dealer’s business is to consider how the nature of that business is described on their RFD certificate, and any associated conditions recorded on the certificate.
In this particular case, the description of the dealership’s business on their RFD certificate included, amongst other things, “Manufacture, marketing, demonstration, testing, analysis, research & development of firearms/shotguns and component parts”. The dealership had rapidly become a market leader in the development and supply of firearms and accessories designed for use in competitive shooting. The dealer therefore believed that testing of firearms and accessories in a competition environment, as part of the process of researching and developing new products for their target market, was within the ordinary course of their business.
However, the police force involved disagreed. They did not accept that it was either legal, or necessary, to carry out any testing within a competition environment. This was despite us providing reports from a number of highly experienced expert witnesses expressing the firm view that it is essential to test firearms in the conditions under which they are designed to be used to ensure that they will perform with the required level of precision, speed and reliability, much like testing a racing car under development on the racing track in real race conditions. By contrast, the police licensing authority maintained they had obtained advice from a specialist barrister confirming their view that it would not in any circumstances be legal for a dealer or their servants to rely on the authority of their RFD certificate to test firearms within competition. However, despite repeated requests, that legal opinion was never disclosed to us.
Ultimately, a settlement was reached in the appeal. As a result, the differing arguments were not fully aired or tested in court, and so there has therefore been no definitive court ruling or judgement on the issue. It is therefore a case of waiting until, and I suspect when rather than if, it becomes a matter of contention again and leads to further litigation.
As a practical tip, dealers intending to engage in business activities as part of the RFD business which you anticipate your local police force might regard as a stretching the interpretation of the phrase “ordinary course of business” may wish to engage in early discussions with your licensing authority with a view to reaching a mutual understanding. Putting matters in writing via email is well advised so that there is documented record, should it be required at a later date, of what has and has not been agreed.