Airsoft guns are air weapons?

[Pseudotectonic]

I should preface this is entirely within the context of Firearms Act 1968, in particular the offences related to air weapons.

And that all this time I had the impression that airsoft is not air weapons.

But I am raising this question because I saw this. The police website says airsoft guns are air weapons.

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/fi/af/firearms-licensing/air-weapons/

If airsoft is air weapon, it would become illegal to gift minors airsoft, so will gifting them plastic BBs, under s 24(2). I saw some prior discussions here but cannot find any concrete conclusion. Most websites out there seem to suggest it is ok to gift airsoft to someone under 18, implying that airsoft is not air weapon. I also had the believe that gifting airsoft to under 18 is ok. But if airsoft is air weapon then it would be illegal.

It also says you must be above 18 to hire one. So under 18 cannot hire rentals? (What about paintball?)

CPS considers paintball guns as air weapons.

Pouring over the Firearms Act it doesn't give any indication either way. The definition of air weapon in Firearms Act s 1(3)(b) does not really exclude airsoft, like how airsoft is excluded from firearms. One can say the wordings of Firearms Act would imply air weapon is a subcategory of firearm (e.g. section titles, subsection structures), therefore by virtue of airsoft not being a firearm it is automatically excluded from the air weapon definition, but this is not super explicit, can definitions be interpreted like this? (Any experts of statutory interpretation?)

Interestingly, the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015 would explicitly exclude any air weapon that is not a firearm, and airsoft which is not a firearm would qualify. So airsoft is certainly not air weapon in Scotland at least for licensing purposes. However, the Act also implies that there are air weapon that is not firearm ("the expression [air weapon] does not include ... an air weapon which is not a firearm").

The dictionary meaning of "air pistol" and "air rifle" and "air gun" would literally include airsoft because of the use of compressed air. Therefore unless air weapon as defined in s 1(3)(b) is strictly a subcategory of firearm, it is possible to count airsoft as air weapon, similar to how airsoft is also imitation firearm.

One can argue, if it applies to paintball, it should similarly apply to airsoft, so if paintball is air weapon, so is airsoft?

Tangentially, are airsoft fields operated the same way as paintball fields? Particularly in rentals to under 18s?

 

[Tackle]

While technically your correct, it all comes back to "grey" areas, in particular power output.

Like most things it usually takes a legal precedent for the government to take action in implementing or altering laws.

For us it's unlikely to be on the basis of power output, most of the gats we use would implode if we tried to get them up to near lethal output levels.

The only other real issue that could affect us in the future is the realism of the kit we use, & again there'd have to be a precedent set in order to trigger a government response, either a massive increase in the number of specifically airsoft rifs in crimes, in particular violent crimes or crimes against the establishment,  bank robberies etc, 

Or an increase in cop versus airsoft rif fatal shootings, in which case coroners & the like call for further restrictions against their availability. 

The similarities between our kit & air weapons is primarily mechanical, pistons displacing air etc, but it is ridiculous that it's much easier to purchase a much higher power air rifle or pistol, that can also be as realistic as real steel, than it is our pot metal & plastic low power toys.

I for one don't feel there's any benefit in publicly admitting that on paper we technically are the same, because if "they" go after them, they might tar us with the same proverbial brush.

But that's only my opinion. ?

 

[Cannonfodder]

I'd say no as section 57A has specific exemptions for airsoft guns not to be classed as firearms 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57A

 

[BigAl]

It's all a mess the hole system needs revamping.  Sadly if they ever do get round to it,  it will probably only turn out to be bad news for the shooting sports.  They will invariably take the opportunity to ban or make it harder to get some items.

 

[Tackle]

 They will invariably take the opportunity to ban or make it harder to get some items.

That's why we need to stockpile now, like those crazy yank preppers lol?

 

[BigAl]

That's why we need to stockpile now, like the crazy yank peppers lol?

I would, but my shelves are all still full of toilet rolls left over from lockdown.  

 

[Rogerborg]

Eh. I'd always go by the statute.

S22 (1) purchase or hire is only for firearms.

S22 (4) possession of an air weapon or ammunition, OK, they got us. But 23 (1) and (3) supervision will apply at any airsoft site. Transporting to and from site without a 21+ adult is problematic, but only if you're actually caught with it. At that point, you need your "reasonable excuse" for S19 possession of an imitation (realistic or otherwise) and once you've produced that and calmed the copper down, you'd have to be phenomenally unlucky to be prosecuted.

S24 (4) Gifting air weapons to under 18, OK, got us again. So, don't gift it, retain ownership and lend it under supervision, as per S24 (4) (b) / S23.  We can update our advice to mums and dads.

Just keep doing what we've been doing, and we'll be fine, not fined.

 

[Tommikka]

Paintball guns are ‘low powered air weapons’ as far as legislation is concerned

(Even when CO2 powered - originally Scotland considered paintball sites to be committing section 5 offences as CO2 was used, whereas the rest of the UK accepted CO2 use as a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the law - that interpretation loophole was subsequently rectified)

 Airsoft was under the umbrella of low power air weapons, but that changed with the 57a amendment as noted by @Cannonfodder- for compliant Airsoft guns

Paintball falls into many grey spots in the legislation, with interpretations from the Home Office backing up paintball - but interpretations are always subject to change at any time 

 

[Tommikka]

It also says you must be above 18 to hire one. So under 18 cannot hire rentals? (What about paintball?)

Being an under 18 rental player on a paintball or Airsoft site would be subject to a parent/guardian/responsible adult counter signing their waiver, and within the ‘loan’ element.

 

[Rogerborg]

would be subject to a parent/guardian/responsible adult counter signing their waiver

I can't think how those silly things would be relevant to the criminal situation. They're barely worth the paper they're written on for civil liability.

within the ‘loan’ element.

By which we mean S24 (4) (b), "to part with the possession of an air weapon or ammunition for an air weapon to a person under the age of eighteen". It doesn't appear to matter if it's a loan within a family, or hire from a site: just handing an air weapon to someone under 18 triggers it.  However, S23 supervision then kicks in - an eye has to be kept on them.

What's interesting is who is doing that supervision on the field. If it's not a parent or guardian, it would have to be the marshals. I wonder if sites and marshals are aware of this, and agree to take on that responsibility. And even if they're supervising site hire guns, are they supervising under-18 players who aren't otherwise being supervised?  How would they even know who's under 18? ?

 

[Pseudotectonic]

The practice of loaning the rental to the parent/guardian, rather than the kid, may be just to cover any potential repair or replacement costs. Waiver can be useful for catching some responsibilities in a case of negligence. And it would be rather convenient if the site only needs to deal with the parent/guardian at the reception for the rental and waiver forms.

For s 24(4)(b) "to part with the possession", yeah it doesn't actually matter whether the parent or the site is doing the "parting", because the kid will be supervised regardless therefore perfectly legal. But loaning to the parent might give the site an extra layer of defence in an astronomically unlikely prosecution. "We didn't give it to the kid, we gave it to the parent, see this rental form, and then the parent gave it to the kid" Although in reality the RIF is probably handed to the kid directly (which is almost impossible to prove). So the rental form can perhaps give the site operator a very tiny assurance in relation to this offence.

The supervision will have to be by the refs (who has to be 21+). The whole purpose of supervision (for the Act) seems to be s 23(1) to make sure no missile goes beyond the premise. But, actually, maybe there is entirely no need for s 23(1) supervision, because there is s 23(3): if the kid is over 14, he can have with him the air weapon on private premises with consent of the occupier (i.e. the site). This should free up the 21+ requirement for refs, although they will still be responsible for beyond premise shots under s 21A(1A) because they are supervising on private premise (sharing responsibility with the kid I suppose, who also committed offence, because the kid cannot offload the offence via s 23(1) any-premise-supervision). And if the kid is under 14, then he needs the supervision.

There is no provided age-related defence for the supervisor in a shooting beyond premise offence, like the "parting with possession" offence has a defence of reasonable ground of belief of the person is over 18. So they will have to just make sure everyone under or above 18 is not shooting beyond premise. Which would be an offence for an 18+ player to do anyway. There is a defence for everyone that is if the other premise the BB went into had given general consent, so if the site had spoken to their neighbours prior then perhaps this can be sorted, with some sort of private arrangement.

Nonetheless all these are exceedingly unlikely, and only if airsoft is not excluded from air weapon, which I think is still very debatable.

The more I look at Firearms Act, the more it reads like air weapon is considered a type of firearm therefore would exclude airsoft. And that the s 57A airsoft exclusion is broad general exclusion from the entire Act which I think was the intention. And that the two definitions of air weapon and airsoft within Firearms Act would seem incompatible, because air weapon typically fire metal bullets, while airsoft is exclusively plastic pallets, and forms its own separate ballistic category within Firearms Act. The fact that they all use air, or has the word air-, is irrelevant next to the legal definitions; they all use metal bodies too, but mere similarities cannot be the reason one type is another. My point is, "an air rifle, air gun or air pistol (key words from the Act)" and "airsoft" cannot be understood to be the same thing, or one type can also be another; the former has certain calibres of metal pallets (as a matter of fact), the latter has certain calibres of plastic pallets (as a matter of legal definition), they are of entirely different constructions, they have entirely different uses, therefore the two categories, as legally defined, and as intended by the Act, should not overlap. Phew.

(Although airsoft can still be imitation firearms, because of appearance.)

One can go on to argue, if there is a spring powered airsoft that uses a 24 inch (~ 600 mm) smooth bore barrel and only has one manual loading BB slot, it would fit the definition of shot gun within Firearms Act (even a better fit than "air weapon"), but of course that particular airsoft spring rifle would still be airsoft and not a shot gun. And that shot gun would be still firearm. The exact same logic should apply to air weapon. The mere fact that some air weapon is technically not firearm should be irrelevant for the purposes of Firearms Act, which airsoft is excluded from. In the cases of shot gun vs air weapon vs airsoft, where the legal definitions are unclear, conventional "common sense" understanding of these classifications should apply, or at least takes priority over minor technicalities.

(I am not entire sure. Googling statutory interpretation now...)

 

[TrooperX]

Am I right in thinking that air rifles and air pistols are not subject the same RIF rules that airsoft guns are?  As in you don't need a specific defence (eg UKARA, re-enactment, etc) to buy an air rifle/pistol, you just need to be over 18?  At least that's what one firearms dealer I visited stated.  And there are plenty of air rifles and air pistols out there that look as realistic as any airsoft gun.

 

[BigAl]

That is correct as airguns where already covered by the 1967 Fireams Act when the VCRA came into being.  So despite some guns being available as airsoft guns and airguns with the only difference being ammo fired and velocity. despite them being more powerful thus dangerous airguns do not need a defence.  As I said UK Firearms law is a mess.

 

[Rogerborg]

if the kid is over 14, he can have with him the air weapon on private premises with consent of the occupier (i.e. the site)

Oh, good spot.

The more I look at Firearms Act, the more it reads like air weapon is considered a type of firearm therefore would exclude airsoft

It's a peculiar one, it could be (and lawyers would) argue it either way.

And there are plenty of air rifles and air pistols out there that look as realistic as any airsoft gun.

Yes, and it's a huge, and rather silly mess.  Spot the firearm, the air weapon firearm, and the non-firearm air weapon here.

View attachment 78995

 

[TrooperX]

Yes, and it's a huge, and rather silly mess.  Spot the firearm, the air weapon firearm, and the non-firearm air weapon here.

View attachment 78995

Exactly!  It’s all very odd.

One thing I recently found out is that if you have under 18s in your house, air rifles/pistols must be locked away.  Not necessarily a safe but they must be kept in a locked cupboard or room (or maybe chained up so they can’t be used by a minor)

 

[Tommikka]

Exactly!  It’s all very odd.

One thing I recently found out is that if you have under 18s in your house, air rifles/pistols must be locked away.  Not necessarily a safe but they must be kept in a locked cupboard or room (or maybe chained up so they can’t be used by a minor)

Since 2023

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-weapons-a-brief-guide-to-safety-jan-2011

The police recommend a gun cabinet etc, but the law is about ‘reasonable precautions’ to secure them

This is due to a fatality of a young child.

Note that this is not just if you have under 18s residing, but also at any time that an under 18 may visit

 

[Cannonfodder]

One thing I recently found out is that if you have under 18s in your house, air rifles/pistols must be locked away.  Not necessarily a safe but they must be kept in a locked cupboard or room (or maybe chained up so they can’t be used by a minor)

Tbh that just sounds like common sense. Something that unfortunately isn't that common anymore 

 

[TrooperX]

Tbh that just sounds like common sense. Something that unfortunately isn't that common anymore 

I had my own .22 air rifle that was stupidly (quite possibly illegally) overpowered when I was around 14/15 in the late 80’s.  Used it unsupervised many times.  My brother shot himself in the foot with it and I accidentally shot a hole in my neighbours greenhouse.  My old man was a copper at the time too!  I guess that was a lack of common sense back then too, but society also wasn’t so hot on health and safety.

 

[Cannonfodder]

I mean more of a lack of common sense in adults who should know better. When it comes to teenagers/kids I'd half expect them to be up to dumb stuff, I know I did alot of things which looking back could've gotten me killed or seriously injured

 

[TrooperX]

I mean more of a lack of common sense in adults who should know better.

Absolutely.  I meant in the adults too.  My parents should have known better back then.  I was suggesting that lack of common sense isn’t necessarily a new thing.  Back then it didn’t seem to exist in a lot of ways hence all the public safety announcements that were common at the time - give room to cyclists when driving and the “clunk click” seatbelt ads are a couple that spring to mind.

Sorry, I’m straying way off topic now.