VCRA & retailers undermining it

[Airsoft-Ed]

Frank said in his statement something to the effect of; airsoft guns will still be classed as they currently are, just because they'd be sold and traded via an RFD wouldn't make them anything any closer to air weapons or actual firearms.

I think making changes so that two tones are done away with and the law can actually be enforced can only be a good thing. So long as it doesn't change how I can buy and sell my RIFs I'm all for it, and it doesn't look like there'll be any changes to that on my end at all with the exception of private importing, which I've never done. However, I understand a ban on private importing to mean, importing which has nothing to do with an RFD, I see no reason why you wouldn't be allowed to import via an RFD, which will then post it on to you. Or indeed, for an RFD to import something on your behalf - I don't have any issues with that at all.

Additionally, the very fact that Firesupport currently isn't an RFD gives me confidence that Firesupport aren't trying to twist the whole thing in their favour somehow, even they'll have to make changes and register themselves if their proposals are ever eventually acted on. On top of that, Firesupport becoming an RFD but not actually selling any air or real firearms helps support Frank's claim that I mentioned above, airsoft guns will be no closer to being classified as real or air weapons, as Firesupport will be considered a true RFD that stocks real and air weapons. It's just a title, not a literal translation of the business. They will be an RFD, that does no mean they will sell firearms - which airsoft guns are not.

Really, they could do with calling Registered Firearms Dealers something different, at least amongst the airsoft community, if not legally, because I think people are taking the name and attaching a literal definition, without actually thinking about how it might just be a name stuck to something, without it really having real implications. People seem to be thinking, "If my RIFs can only be sold by RFDs, then that must mean that airsoft guns are being classified as firearms" there's nothing written anywhere that suggests that. I think Frank just meant it in a sense that airsoft guns might benefit from being sold and traded in a way that's similar to air guns, just with more lax postage restrictions. Which on the whole, is actually less restricting than airsoft currently is - the only thing stopping anyone from buying an air gun, is their age if they're under 18. When they buy it the shop takes their name and address for a record, they hand over the money and that's that. Guns can then be traced to some extent.

I don't see it as tighter controls either, because as it stands so far, from what people have said, it's no tighter than it is now. It's simply a way to keep track of who has what and where, nothing about that is controlling, there's no "you can't have that particular gun because...". I would rather there be some record of who owns what and where they are, than it just be a gigantic guessing game where people who breach the act can't actually be called out on it.

Everyone's always said UKARA was pointless and massively flawed, but now there's the chance to alter it, no one wants to accept the (totally not concrete whatsoever) proposals.

Plus, all this stuff about second hand sales needing to be done using RFD monitored resources; I'm sure they'll be a way that a forum could be classed as 'RFD monitored' so I doubt anything will even change in that respect either.

 

[Ian_Gere]

No Ed, no mate, just no.

What is an airsoft licence? We get plenty of noobs wanting one, eh? We get plenty of experienced airsofters referring to them casually too, right? Why?

Because people associate needing some piece of paper before they can do something with an actual licence.

So we will know that there is no connection between airsoft guns which also happen to be RIF's and items which are legally defined as firearms, but what will the genpop think? They will think that airsoft guns are firearms because they can only be sold by firearms dealers. Will anybody in the wider population notice that Fire Support don't also sell Air Weapons and Firearms? How will they notice? A load of guns on a wall is just that, how does Joe Public know what they are?

So the connection becomes normalised. What will happen the next time the Daily Fail want to whip up a banmob to take people's attention away from something more serious which the govt ought to be doing something about/differently/not doing/etc.? Some bellend will make a vid like the one currently on yt and the next thing you know, you'll have to have a firearms licence to own airsoft guns.

Legislation creep, Ed. It's a real thing, mate, not just a theoretical phenomenon in the study of politics. First they came for the assault rifle owners and I said nothing because I was not an assault weapon collector...*

It doesn't matter that you have so far not bothered to import an RIF. The fact that you can, easily, keeps the price in the UK down, because the retailers know that Poland is in the EU and doing a roaring trade...

*Personally I don't want people in Britain freely walking around with assault weapons, but I also don't believe that the majority of law abiding people should be penalised because nutters can't be trusted. Nutters can't be trusted, that's a fact of life. It has nothing to do with the legal status of potentially lethal items. All it ought to mean is that items with which it is very easy to take life ought to be kept very secure.

 

[JoW.]

Really, they could do with calling Registered Firearms Dealers something different, at least amongst the airsoft community, if not legally, because I think people are taking the name and attaching a literal definition, without actually thinking about how it might just be a name stuck to something, without it really having real implications. People seem to be thinking, "If my RIFs can only be sold by RFDs, then that must mean that airsoft guns are being classified as firearms" there's nothing written anywhere that suggests that. I think Frank just meant it in a sense that airsoft guns might benefit from being sold and traded in a way that's similar to air guns, just with more lax postage restrictions. Which on the whole, is actually less restricting than airsoft currently is - the only thing stopping anyone from buying an air gun, is their age if they're under 18. When they buy it the shop takes their name and address for a record, they hand over the money and that's that. Guns can then be traced to some extent.

An RFD is a specific legal status that allows a business to trade in firearms, ammunition and components (eg primers). To become an RFD, you must apply as a business entity to the police responsible for your area (pay your 150.00) and demonstrate to them, 1) you have a need for RFD status, 2) you have adequate security for storage of firearms and ammunition. You could, for instance, say that you have customers ready and waiting to buy .22LR GSG-5s, have a business plan demonstrating that your business is viable, or otherwise show that your business is impeded by not being an RFD due to specific requirements (eg you don't want to sell S1 firearms, but you want to sell ammo, and no distributor of live ammo can deal with you if you don't have RFD status). It's not a matter of branding.

If you were talking about an 'airsoft RFD' with no legal standing, there would be no substantive difference to the situation as it stands now with UKARA, and therefore no point in pursuing this line of enquiry.

 

[Airsoft-Ed]

I think the public are oblivious enough and the weapons/toys we use stigmatised enough for adding other firearms related terms to the mix to barely make any difference. 'RIF' is hardly a term the public are going to smile about, what stigma does 'RFD' realistically add?

Anyway, as I tried badly to explain, I think Frank intended it to mean we use the same sort of system as air rifles i.e. - If you've over 18 you can buy one.

What his proposal doesn't mention, is how, when postage isn't going to be restricted, nobs will be kept from just buying RIFs instead of IFs and some paint. I imagine there'll always have to be some sort of "3 trips = trust" sort of thing going on; similar to UKARA because the only way to prove anyone is an airsofter aside from that, in a way that can be quickly checked for the sake of an online sale, is to introduce a licensing system and I do think that licensing is a horrible idea.

The thing to remember, is that whatever happens, it won't be for a long while. Airsoft is large enough in the UK, with enough people routing for it, for the HO to not be able to just ban it over night because they feel like it because the stick they'd get from our 20k+ community would not be good for them.

In my opinion, we ought to keep the current system, but two tones ought to be removed from the equation entirely. They are 'the' loop hole - "I fancy robbing a bank, hey look I'll buy this blue assault rifle and paint it"

Get rid of that.

Then make it so that kids can get UKARA from 12 years and up - since that's the youngest age I've encountered sites allowing kids to play - but leaving it so you still can't buy until you're over 18. However, I think the adults legally bound to the child with UKARA, ought to be able to use said child's UKARA to buy a RIF for the child.

That way, only airsofters are getting RIFs and every purchase will be linked to an accountable adult. Nobs who want replicas won't be able to get airsoft guns without going 3 times and getting UKARA or otherwise proving their entitlement to the skirmisher's defence.

The thing is, that's never going to happen, because even though kids as young as 12 are ending up with replica assault rifles anyway, at least now they're brightly coloured.

We all know that it's the image and not the capacity of these "weapons" that's the issue at hand. You could rob someone without pulling the trigger, and that is the danger they pose to the public.

What would be a lot easier, is if we just classed it as a derivative of paintball but called it hardball or something. We'd probably be left alone then.

The fact that the VCRA was dealt with in the way that it was in the first place is utterly ridiculous.

Frank has basically put his foot in the door to ensure airsofters are part of the debate. It was going to happen eventually, two tones being buyable by any Tom, Dick or Harry with some get rich quick scheme were inevitably going to cause an issue. So why not recognise that fact because the bomb goes off, and ensure that whatever changes there may be, are at least on par with how the situation currently is - in our favour.

 

[chris555]

This response is worthy of cameron the fact is imports from outside the eu will be blocked with the large amount of choice that comes with it we dont need this crap and firesupport are creating problems if guns come under the same legisation as airguns the laws get much much tighter and we all suffer

 

[M_P]

Yeah the only real thing I'd have huge issues with is not being able to import, that'd suck big time.

 

[JoW.]

I disagree that there is even a debate, or a rush for a 'place at the table'. Frank's statement included the information that the ACPO (and by extension, the HO, since the ACPO are happy to put this in writing) are of the opinion that Trading Standards should enforce the VCRA rules about RIFs because of the selling angle, and Trading Standards think that it is a HO matter because VCRA refers to criminal behaviour. Neither department seems to be suggesting that RIFs are themselves harmful or seeking consultation on legislation to ban them, but I defer to those who are in the know to put me right. Both organisations see the untenability of RIF rules in VCRA since the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show that the RIF was purchased by a non-qualifying person (ie someone without a defence), and, without the ability to license (it categorically cannot happen for all the reasons I have already gone into) there is no specific way of determining who is and is not a qualifying person to a sufficient degree to prosecute.

The HO cannot legally sanction any one method of becoming a qualifying person to own a RIF, be that UKARA or anything else. Anyone can be a qualifying person by virtue of doing the minimum to prove that they are 1. a museum, 2. re-enacting, 3. making a film or tv program, 4. acting in a theatrical production (S37 defences). Note that airsofting is not actually listed. The Secretary of State at the time may have specified the hoops UKARA should jump through to become one of the undefined other interests within 'powers of the Secretary of State to admit other defences', but this is hardly enshrined in the legislation as it stands.

As such, it sounds like a really BAD idea to give the impression that there is a crisis stemming from the sale, import or manufacture of RIFs, the objects. VCRA is proscribing a lifestyle choice, not identifying and criminalising actual harm to society. Mr Hypothetical A. Uncharismatic-But-Law-Abiding may have a collection of low powered airsoft RIFs in his wardrobe, and he might show them off to the girl he just met online with the result she finds him creepy (we all know it is possible to show a friend an airsoft gun without being threatening), but should his acquiring a few more RIFs be a crime? Should we give any grist to the notion that, not only do we think VCRA has accomplished something positive for airsoft, but it need to regulate acquisition even more?

The 'crisis' is, and always has been, what people do with the RIFs, all of which is already legislated for (discussed already). VCRA does not have the scope to deal with nobs, since the legislation with regard to RIFs has nothing to do with behaviour. Under VCRA, you could be a really nice guy, great seller, no criminal record whatsoever, sell the RIF to a non-qualifying but law abiding genpop person and be criminalised for it.

As far as perception of airsoft goes, you cannot legislate away poor personal taste, only poor behaviours (largely done already). A nob with a generally bad attitude who happens to have a roomful of RIFs, but never actually threatens anyone or behaves in an anti-social manner with RIFs may project a really bad image of owners of airsoft guns, and you would still not be justified in taking away his ability to acquire airsoft RIFs because he hasn't committed any crimes, just poor judgement in personal presentation. VCRA is no answer to this, no legislation can be.

(I didn't watch the YT video, but if it involved shooting members of the general public, their property or something else illegal, then he's just documented his own criminal activity. Stupid, but it happens sometimes. If it is like a Dirty Sanchez reel where they do dumb things to each other in private, then they should be allowed to do dumb things to each other in private. I think genpop are able to identify general stupidity as such, and, as always, there will be a fraction of hysterical people doing hysterics.)

((Just as an indication of how different attitudes towards guns have become since Blears/Clarke: In those days, if you had someone do a Birdie (if you remember, Derrick Bird went on a killing spree), they would have searched out ways of banning guns, citing the tragedy as a reason to do so. Instead, they have accepted that for however many millions of legal FAC and SGC holders one will go mental once a decade, and inserted additional provisions to probe about domestic circumstances (from partner or neighbours) and mental health (from GP).))

 

[Ian_Gere]

I think the public are oblivious enough and the weapons/toys we use stigmatised enough for adding other firearms related terms to the mix to barely make any difference. 'RIF' is hardly a term the public are going to smile about, what stigma does 'RFD' realistically add?

Anyway, as I tried badly to explain, I think Frank intended it to mean we use the same sort of system as air rifles i.e. - If you've over 18 you can buy one.

It's not any stigma I'm talking about, Ed. It's the seemingly innocuous belief that you need a licence to own an airsoft gun / RIF. It doesn't matter what people who wouldn't know an RIF from an R-sole think they are called, what I'm drawing attention to is the idea that you need a licence to have one. We know you don't, but the genpop think you do. How difficult would it be for the HO to get it through parliament that the only way to combat the threat posed by RIF's is to licence them...? You know, when people already think you need a licence?

So that's the current perception. If the law changes, how many people will actually pay a lot of attention to the details? All the genpop will remember is "BB guns can only be sold by Registered Firearms Dealers", which makes perfect sense, because you need a licence for them, since that law a few years ago... the VR... RV... I dunno, Violence Reduction or summat...

So once the really small businesses are out of the picture and those retailers who manage to qualify as RFD's have seen their incomes rise because 1/2 their competition has been wiped out and they're no longer worried that if they put their prices up much further people will make the effort to find out exactly what it costs and what you need to do to import RIF's from Hong Kong and, before they even discover that it's actually very simple, discover that you can import from the EU without any tax or hassle of any kind, how much opposition will these retailers put up to an actual licence, if the govt decide that it will be cheaper for the HO if said retailers manage the licencing scheme, in the same way they do UKARA now, and can charge a small admin fee for doing so... captive market much?

Something to consider here mate is that Skirmish are UKARA registered as a site, but they cannot get the sales side of the business registered, despite the fact that they are selling RIF's perfectly legally, and that this aspect of their business is expanding with the website. Why wont UKARA register the sales arm (which for whatever tax and liability issues, like many small businesses, is a separate company from Skirmish Airsoft Nottingham (or whatever their official location actually is lol) as a member of UKARA? Because they do not have retail premises! Er... there are dots swirling in my mind and the lines between them seem to be coming into focus as a picture...

Other than that, what he (JoW.) said^^ except this - don't be so sure that just because the law as it stands will not allow for the licencing of airsoft guns, be they RIF's or no, because they do not meet the power level required in previous legislation, that a licence is not a very real possibility. Trikes used to be classed as bikes for licence and road tax purposes, but there was some complication over the road legal status of the machines themselves, I forget but probably to do with what parts of an MOT to apply or something. All it needed was some common sense to sort it out. What happened? They banned them. The ones currently on the road could not have their legal status revoked, but they could and did make it illegal to make more. All it takes is a sentence inserted into existing licencing legislation and that's it, we will need to justify our desire to take part in a legal hobby. We will have the possibility of having our licences revoked should we annoy anybody who has the power to do so...

 

[chris555]

apart from the major retailers killing competition and banning imports its bad news because the general public wont give a monkeys about fps limits or whatever all they will see is things that look like guns already the qu's at work are don't you need a licence and is that legal. disturbing things and asking the home office to answer questions could just see a outright ban as they say you cant manage and we don't have the resources to police toy guns best ukara is just left alone and we don't kick the hornets nest for greed.

 

[Ian_Gere]

Too late, Chris. When Frank emailed ACPO to find out what their position on retailers flouting the VCRA (allegedly) was, that was the size 10 firmly inside the vespalogical domicile. Now that the official police position is that a piece of law currently on the books is unenforceable, a timetable has started which must, at some unknown point down the line, inevitably result in a change to that legislation.

What we need to convince our lawmakers of is that the trying to clarify or simplify bad law will just take up thousands of hours deliberation only for whatever legislation may come out of it to be back in the same situation some more years hence. The reason that is the case is that an airsoft gun is not a weapon. End of story. The most sensible course of action is to repeal the sections of the VCRA which apply to RIF airsoft guns and simply vigorously apply the laws which existed previously to control criminal behaviour involving RIF's of any sort, because the only other way to balance the legal status of airsoft guns with their potential for harm is to create a special category of RIF's "airsoft RIF's" which themselves, regardless of ownership, are exempt from the VCRA as it stands (which would make a mockery of the sections which would be left applying to deactivated guns, non-firing replicas etc).

 

[chris555]

In that case what we need is a third independant body that has nothing to do with the retailers they could take a small fee for membership and make buying of rifs that much easier this could then be reconised like a re enactors society all frank is trying to do is get complete control of the market i also think we should boycot fire support for doing this

 

[JoW.]

If the government becomes convinced there is a problem, they will take the legislative and administrative POV. The reasoning will follow that it would be easier to ban all RIFs than to license them. The choice government will have is this: license and do at least three, very complex things: 1) create a universally applicable test for licensable RIFs, 2) create criteria to test licence holders for (mental health, etc), 3) determine an appropriate body or class of bodies responsible for licensing (as they will not grant a monopoly to specific organisations, so this would have to be the police, who are unwilling to add RIF licensing to their responsibilities). Or ban and only do point 1). Being government, they will always choose the easier option, and this is why I say airsoft licensing is categorically never going to happen; Ian's trike example is another manifestation of the same mentality.

(Actually, I take that back. Two-tones ARE the government's answer to airsoft licensing. They asked airsofters, 'what do you do?'. Airsofters replied, 'We shoot at each other with RIFs.' They replied, 'Well, if that's what you do, you don't need it to be a realistic imitation, do you?' Airsofters replied, 'The guns are only available as realistic imitations.' They said, 'OK, paint over 50% of your gun with a bright colour and you can still shoot each other with the guns that are available on the market.' And there you have the evolution of the two-tone.)

The status quo at the moment is that RIFs are legal to possess, so the onus is on the anti-gun lobby to prove otherwise. Should the anti-gun lobby succeed in convincing the government that the status quo is incorrect (as happened in 2005-7), the burden of proof will be on those who own RIFs to show that they are positive and worthy of remaining legal (also happened in 2005-7). Policymakers do accept that GCN and Mothers Against Guns have a single agenda bias, but if 'pro-gun' interests join in requesting more regulation, policymakers will conclude that there is a consensus to restrict or regulate.

Frank's communication with the ACPO, if this has happened, will hopefully not go much further, since it will most likely serve to convince the HO that airsoft retailers are the only weak point for enforcement of VCRA with regard to RIFs. He may end up with even more suggestions for regulating airsoft-retailing-to-airsofters in order to keep the defence granted by the Secretary of State (but not specifically mentioned in the legislation), but the legislation will not change for museums/films/tv/theatre/re-enactment because nobody from these sectors has demonstrated that there are any problems enforcing existing RIF laws. If pressed, these sectors will step up to defend their defence because they realise the importance of defending all legal concessions with regard to firearms, which is pretty ironic, since the airsoft community which also regularly uses RIFs is so incapable of doing so. I suspect, at worst, all Frank's communication will do is end up scuppering airsoft as a defence if he manages to convince them the airsoft sector is the weak point with regard to enforcement on RIFs.

Welcome, two-toning as the only way to airsoft. Blurghhh.

(Personally, I think including the international airsoft scene in the VCRA discussions might have been a far more productive approach. If French, Swedish, Finnish etc airsofters want to come over to play big games and since they would only have RIFs to do so, airsofters in the UK could argue that the whole UK airsoft scene suffers detriment by eliminating the international airsofters' ability to come and go to do a perfectly legal activity. Maybe that would have been one way to make RIFs intrinsic to the activity of airsoft. Hey ho, I wasn't in the selling gunz game so nobody really asked me.)

((Having gone over to the dark side (target shooting) and gained a measure of distance, I have to say the logic behind the VCRA in relation to RIFs is fuzzier than ever. What interest is served by banning sales/imports/manufactures of RIFs? If an adult wants to buy and collect them as wall hangers because 'they look cool', that is perfectly acceptable. I can't see where it was proven that this activity has posed one iota of harm to society. If someone wants to threaten someone with them or shoot someone who doesn't consent to being shot (stupid YT video), that's a crime that would benefit from enforcement. I almost would go so far as to say the Pakistani market traders in those days selling to over-18s could even argue a racial bias in the law against their livelihood.))

Chris, you don't actually need anything further to buy RIFs, so long as you find a retailer to sell them to you (plenty of those in the EU, and HK if you can be bothered to put together a letter for Customs). If you get pulled up for buying (acquisition-not by importing-and possession is not illegal), and you can demonstrate that you something else to prove you are active in a qualifying S37 defence activity, be it insurance (Country Cover Club offer public liability, legal cover and some other shooting related cover to individual shooters, re-enactors, airsofters for about 35.00 a year, I'm not affiliated with them), attendance or membership of a club or society, or even a bag of camo kit and webbing that suffices to demonstrate some form of historical re-enactment, you will find that prosecution of you as the importer, or the person who sold to you, if they are UK based, is highly unlikely.

 

[Lozart]

I, for one, would love to see the proof that 80% of the violent crime was being carried out with RIFs as a class of object. Not bananas or pencils in pockets (that's for Keith Bottomley, Firearms Guru at the Home Office, now retired), not air pistols that look like P99s (this is an actual firearm), not deactivated firearms, not illegal firearms. Actual R-I-Fs. I suspect they might have collated many of those figures from incidents of threatening behaviour with a firearm (a well established crime) and, possibly, incidents of firearms being carried in a public place when they must be carried in a fully concealing bag (Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003). As such, this figure is suspect in its applicability to RIFs.

Apologies for it being a Daily Fail link but: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206510/Violent-crime-figures-14-rise.html specifically this bit:

Separate data on firearms crime in 2002-2003 showed a huge rise in the use of replica weapons.

Imitation firearms were used in 1,815 recorded crimes - a jump of 46% year-on-year.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206510/Violent-crime-figures-14-rise.html#ixzz2kGGDQusj

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Now granted that doesn't reflect the 80% I mentioned which was in an interview with an ACPO bod (can't find it - sorry).

Now bearing in mind that those figures would have been from the period leading up to the introduction of the VCRA they are relevant to the discussion. Splitting hairs about wether or not they are RIFs or IFs is irrelevant. In the eyes of the general public at large there IS no difference. The only distinction most people could make is between something that looks like a gun and a bright orange NERF gun. And even that's pushing it for some people.

 

[Ian_Gere]

OK Loz, but that still doesn't tell us what percentage of those imitation firearms were airsoft guns, or deactivated, or looky-likies... as I remember the argument back then, one of the principal concerns was that a particular type of legal looky-likey was very easy to convert into a real 9mm pistol - I don't know how, I expect you'd need to import a barrel, probably illegally but a damn sight easier to do than to illegally import a whole pistol.

I get it that the genpub do not know the difference, but in terms of framing law there has to be a definite problem which the law seeks to solve. Yeah, we know that an airsoft RIF could be used to threaten people, but without evidence that they are being used in this way, its all just hot air and certainly no basis for inconveniencing law abiding citizens going about their legal business. I mean pushchairs could be used to block the public highway - if parents wanted to make it impossible to drive around their neighbourhood, they could legally dawdle around in the road all day bringing traffic to a complete standstill... but unless there is evidence of people doing this, there is no reason to bring in a law restricting the use of pushchairs in roads.

Now that may sound like reductio ad absurdam, but it isn't. I mean it's guns were talking about here, not pushchairs, right? No. An airsoft gun is not a weapon. Not of any sort. Not under any legally definable circumstances which recognise it as different from any other ad hoc object with which a person could attack another. They both have precisely the same status under law when it comes to determining how dangerous they are. Why this is important is that there was already a law which dealt with threatening people with what appears to be a real firearm but isn't, in the Firearms Act, where it should be. There is no reason to make more law simply because something which is illegal starts happening more often, it's obviously just time to start applying the law strictly and more vigorously.

 

[jcheeseright]

Not only that, the daily fail have put the stats up in such a way that they appear much worse than they really are. A 46% rise year on year sounds incredible, but if only 1% of the crimes were with imitation firearms to begin with... That means year on year it went up to 1.46%. Not exactly the end of the world!

To clarify also, the legal definitions between RIF and IF didn't exist til the VCRA was drawn up in 2006.

 

[Raptors Spider]

In some ways I think this is a debate that was bound to occur at some point due to the vague nature of the defence in the VCRA.

I must say the original email, and the resulting "clarification" - and it's very careful wording lead me personally to believe that Firesupport were looking to tailor any future development to ensuring that airsofter in the UK lost access to internet sales from overseas. On those grounds alone I am left with no option but to be sceptical on their motives.

On what we could do to improve the current situation.

The issue time and again comes down to the player not the retailer. How do we identify legitimate airosfters. If we can solve that then we solves nearly all the issues;

• Who has a reason for possessing a RIF
• Who a retailer can be sure they can reasonably sell a RIF to
• Who may reasonably import a RIF

I do not think that any move to include RIF with firearms is helpful for the future of airsoft, even if in name only by lumping it under RFD requirements. The moment we allow that then they become considered a type of firearm.

So, how do we identify airsofters? Eventually there will be some form of registration, whether a license, voluntary database, site membership or revamp of UKARA. These things cost money to run. So either with the players put up and pay or we let the retailers run it as at present and they will always look after their own business interests first. (Please note I do not blame them for this, they are commercial entities that must make a profit to survive!). Either way we the players eventually foot the final bill anyway so why not take the vested interests out as much as possible?

 

[Lozart]

The Home Office numbers are available if you really want to trawl through them (exercise your Google-Fu and I'm sure you'll find them). I think though, much like rifle and shotgun owners in the wake of the Hungerford shootings we are guilty of assuming that other people outside of airsoft either know or care that there is a difference between a convertible replica, an imitation firearm and a RIF. That's why we need to be careful about how we as a community police ourselves and how we react to legal measures imposed upon us. We ARE a tiny minority in society so we need to act accordingly. The powers that be may well not want all the extra hassle of having to separate out the legitimate airsofters from the nobs that want to run around waving a Glock at their mates so it becomes a far easier job for the plod on the street to just lump them all in together and say that nobody is allowed to have any sort of imitation firearm, defence or no. By and large all the airsofters I know and have dealt with come from a reasonable background, have a fair degree of intelligence and understand that you should and shouldn't do certain things when it comes to imitation guns. The law has to deal with all the others which unfortunately usually means legislating for the lowest common denominator.

 

[Lozart]

From the 2006/07 Home Office statistical bulletin of Crime in England and Wales:

Imitation weapons were used in 2,493 offences in 2006/07, 24 per cent or 782 offences
fewer than in the previous year after substantial increases since 1999/00. BB guns/ soft
air weapons accounted for four fifths (83%) of these offences.

 

[Lozart]

Rest of the document is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/17_07_07_crime.pdf

 

[JoW.]

The report also states 782 fewer offences (committed with any imitation firearm) are recorded between 2006-7 in comparison to 2005-6. The 83% of offences involving an airsoft gun/BB gun boils down to around 2069 recorded offences for the year, not including those committed with air weapons. So, in the year in which VCRA took effect, they managed to get 782 fewer offences against the previous year. 2069 BB/airsoft gun offences is a remarkably low figure to justify removing the right of good citizens to sell and import airsoft RIFs. In the same report, over 1m violent offences are attributable to the influence of alcohol.

Airsoft is a minority. So is being Islamic. It is wholly unreasonable to suggest that a minority should be made to suffer because of its status as a minority, if the minority is doing absolutely nothing to harm society. The presumption of innocence before guilt should guarantee that a thing should be shown to be harmful before it is proscribed, not that all things should be proscribed unless they are shown not to be harmful. I always thought I was living in a regime where innocence was the default presumption. We must not let this distinction become eroded, and although the authorities (executive) would like to have us believe otherwise to make their job easier, we should be fighting from the standpoint that a bona fide airsofter = law abiding citizen (less the odd speeding ticket, I suppose), and should therefore not suffer these draconian restrictions to their rights.

Between the enactment of VCRA in November, 2006 and the regulation coming into force to allow any body with 3rd party Public Liability Insurance a defence for acquiring RIFs on 1 October, 2007, technically, selling a RIF to anyone other than a reenactor, museum, film/tv/theatre was committing an offence.

If you are in doubt as to how the RIF rules define the defence, the 2007 regulations show that the requirement is to have 3rd Party Public Liability Insurance in place to qualify. If you purchase insurance for airsofting, either by yourself or through participating in an organised and insured game, you qualify for the defence. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are not an airsofter for the sale of the RIF to you to be illegal. If you don't have insurance and you are with one other who does, you may also qualify for the defence http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2606/contents/made (or VCRA 2007 into Google)

.