-
Hi Guest. Welcome to the new forums. All of your posts and personal messages have been migrated. Attachments (i.e. images) and The (Old) Classifieds have been wiped.
The old forums will be available for a couple of weeks should you wish to grab old images or classifieds listings content. Go Here
If you have any issues please post about them in the Forum Feedback thread: Go Here
Unclear Law or Topic
- Thread starter J9CKx
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
sp00n
Supporters
- Mar 27, 2013
- 2,210
- 874
Intent is not a defence, you have to prove that you do use it for airsoft, which is why we have UKARA etc
Loki7491
Members
- Oct 29, 2013
- 135
- 38
Section 37(2) lists the main defences.
Section 37 (5) and in conjunction with (6) are where the Airsoft part lives in UK law.
Section 37 (1) is the part which shows his intent to use it for Airsoft is more than legally safe.
37Specific defences applying to the offence under s. 36
(1)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 36 in respect of any conduct to show that the conduct was for the purpose only of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified in subsection (2).
(2)Those purposes are—
(a)the purposes of a museum or gallery;
(b)the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances;
©the production of films (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)_see section 5B of that Act);
(d)the production of television programmes (within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)_see section 405(1) of that Act);
(e)the organisation and holding of historical re-enactments organised and held by persons specified or described for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(f)the purposes of functions that a person has in his capacity as a person in the service of Her Majesty.
(3)It shall also be a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 36 in respect of conduct falling within subsection (1)(d) of that section to show that the conduct—
(a)was in the course of carrying on any trade or business; and
(b)was for the purpose of making the imitation firearm in question available to be modified in a way which would result in its ceasing to be a realistic imitation firearm.
(4)For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in subsection (1) or (3) if—
(a)sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(5)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6)That power includes power—
(a)to make different provision for different cases;
(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
©to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.
(7)In this section—
“historical re-enactment” means any presentation or other event held for the purpose of re-enacting an event from the past or of illustrating conduct from a particular time or period in the past;
“museum or gallery” includes any institution which—
(a)has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation, display and interpretation of material of historical, artistic or scientific interest; and
(b)gives the public access to it.
Section 37 (5) and in conjunction with (6) are where the Airsoft part lives in UK law.
Section 37 (1) is the part which shows his intent to use it for Airsoft is more than legally safe.
37Specific defences applying to the offence under s. 36
(1)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 36 in respect of any conduct to show that the conduct was for the purpose only of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified in subsection (2).
(2)Those purposes are—
(a)the purposes of a museum or gallery;
(b)the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances;
©the production of films (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)_see section 5B of that Act);
(d)the production of television programmes (within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)_see section 405(1) of that Act);
(e)the organisation and holding of historical re-enactments organised and held by persons specified or described for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(f)the purposes of functions that a person has in his capacity as a person in the service of Her Majesty.
(3)It shall also be a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 36 in respect of conduct falling within subsection (1)(d) of that section to show that the conduct—
(a)was in the course of carrying on any trade or business; and
(b)was for the purpose of making the imitation firearm in question available to be modified in a way which would result in its ceasing to be a realistic imitation firearm.
(4)For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in subsection (1) or (3) if—
(a)sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(5)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6)That power includes power—
(a)to make different provision for different cases;
(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
©to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.
(7)In this section—
“historical re-enactment” means any presentation or other event held for the purpose of re-enacting an event from the past or of illustrating conduct from a particular time or period in the past;
“museum or gallery” includes any institution which—
(a)has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation, display and interpretation of material of historical, artistic or scientific interest; and
(b)gives the public access to it.
- Thread starter
- #7
This is why I was unsure, but I should be fine playing at a site with it won't I? the fact I purchased two tone but received a RIF isn't illegal therefor I can play?
Loki7491
Members
- Oct 29, 2013
- 135
- 38
Technically whoever sold it to you could be in trouble UNLESS:
1. You are over 18
AND
2. They are convinced in their own mind that you are genuine and wish to use it for Airsoft (or one of the other defences above)
Two tone need never exist.
UKARA need never exist.
If UKARA disappeared over night it would only impact internet sales and delay telephone sales. Two tone are for those unable or too impatient to prove to the satisfaction of the retailer that they are 18+ and which to play Airsoft.
1. You are over 18
AND
2. They are convinced in their own mind that you are genuine and wish to use it for Airsoft (or one of the other defences above)
Two tone need never exist.
UKARA need never exist.
If UKARA disappeared over night it would only impact internet sales and delay telephone sales. Two tone are for those unable or too impatient to prove to the satisfaction of the retailer that they are 18+ and which to play Airsoft.
sp00n
Supporters
- Mar 27, 2013
- 2,210
- 874
Prove you are a historical re-enacter, just saying you are or you intend to be is not a defence.
Most re-enacters are members of a historical re-enactment society, that is there defence, the fact that they already participate etc.
Like you say ukara is not perfect, but it works
Most re-enacters are members of a historical re-enactment society, that is there defence, the fact that they already participate etc.
Like you say ukara is not perfect, but it works
Loki7491
Members
- Oct 29, 2013
- 135
- 38
I can prove to you I am an airsofter without the use of UKARA.
Photos of me in game.
The Facebook groups I am active in.
People willing to vouch for me.
The industry movers and shakers I know.
The difference is, if I wish to buy from somebody who doesn't know me they need to be happy I am an airsofter. Usually a quick chat on the phone will prove I am in the know. The sort of knowledge and slang that you can't really fake.
UKARA is useful for distant and new sales but it is by no means a legal requirement or authority. The VCRA sections 36 - 41 are laws that govern purchase and manufacture (the two main main things we deal with) and UKARA is not mentioned.
The laws have been in effect for 10 years now - I am baffled as to why there is still so much uncertainty to them.
Photos of me in game.
The Facebook groups I am active in.
People willing to vouch for me.
The industry movers and shakers I know.
The difference is, if I wish to buy from somebody who doesn't know me they need to be happy I am an airsofter. Usually a quick chat on the phone will prove I am in the know. The sort of knowledge and slang that you can't really fake.
UKARA is useful for distant and new sales but it is by no means a legal requirement or authority. The VCRA sections 36 - 41 are laws that govern purchase and manufacture (the two main main things we deal with) and UKARA is not mentioned.
The laws have been in effect for 10 years now - I am baffled as to why there is still so much uncertainty to them.
I love how you've ignored the OP's question Loki7491.
Simply, it is not an offence for a person over the age of 18 to purchase a realistic imitation firearm. There is no provision relating to ownership and there is no provision relating to turning a realistic imitation firearm into a realistic imitation firearm.
Therefore you can do whatever you like (except sell) to your legally purchased and legally owned RIF. And being an airsofter is entirely irrelevant.
And before anyone goes off on one explaining how actually S.36(1) actually doesn't say that you can't turn a RIF into a RIF, consider how many people that could criminalise. A defence does not make you innocent of a crime.
Although your question is answered above, it's a bit aloof.
Simply, it is not an offence for a person over the age of 18 to purchase a realistic imitation firearm. There is no provision relating to ownership and there is no provision relating to turning a realistic imitation firearm into a realistic imitation firearm.
Therefore you can do whatever you like (except sell) to your legally purchased and legally owned RIF. And being an airsofter is entirely irrelevant.
And before anyone goes off on one explaining how actually S.36(1) actually doesn't say that you can't turn a RIF into a RIF, consider how many people that could criminalise. A defence does not make you innocent of a crime.
Last edited by a moderator:
Loki7491
Members
- Oct 29, 2013
- 135
- 38
Loki7491
Members
- Oct 29, 2013
- 135
- 38
Having been in the industry for over 20 years, having run a shop and a site and having lobbied the government when all this was proposed prior to it coming into force and living through the change, I can assure you my information is correct.
My very Liberty depended on me knowing this to prevent jail time.
I am not disagreeing with Spoon (entirely). His post a #2 if factually correct. I am merely disagreeing with what he considers to be a defence.
Retailers (and private sales for that matter) need to show due diligence. They need to be satisfied the buyer is over 18 and the purchase is INTENEDED for use as per one of the legal defences.
A few years ago at the NAE Zero One sold a RIF to anybody attending the weekender who was over 18. They felt they could reasonably argue in court that buying a RIF at the UKs largest event was proof enough they wanted a RIF for airsofting purposes and that here in lies the crux of it.
The seller needs to be satisfied that if called in to court to face the beach they can prove they believed the purchaser was over 18 and wanted the RIF for purposes allowed by a defence. There are many shops today who help propagate the myth that UKARA is law and refuse to sell without a membership. Some do this because even 10 years since the introduction of the laws they are ignorant to it and others because it is protection for them. They can prove they checked the database.
My very Liberty depended on me knowing this to prevent jail time.
I am not disagreeing with Spoon (entirely). His post a #2 if factually correct. I am merely disagreeing with what he considers to be a defence.
Retailers (and private sales for that matter) need to show due diligence. They need to be satisfied the buyer is over 18 and the purchase is INTENEDED for use as per one of the legal defences.
A few years ago at the NAE Zero One sold a RIF to anybody attending the weekender who was over 18. They felt they could reasonably argue in court that buying a RIF at the UKs largest event was proof enough they wanted a RIF for airsofting purposes and that here in lies the crux of it.
The seller needs to be satisfied that if called in to court to face the beach they can prove they believed the purchaser was over 18 and wanted the RIF for purposes allowed by a defence. There are many shops today who help propagate the myth that UKARA is law and refuse to sell without a membership. Some do this because even 10 years since the introduction of the laws they are ignorant to it and others because it is protection for them. They can prove they checked the database.
While the law does allow for the sale of RIFs to person's the seller believed to intend to carry out activities covered by the defences, in all practical respects and purposes this this basically means that the defence is only applicable to purchasers which can prove a historical accession of those criteria (defences).
Thanks to the Home office accepting UKARA, generally speaking historical (for the purposes of airsoft) means "within 12 months".
If this was not the case then it would simply be a defence to say "yes" or "check a tickbox" as one does when accessing adult material online or a question in a shop.
As you correctly point out the seller has to believe the defence accurately and sincerely applies - but if intent alone was sufficient (the alternative being: intent with evidence of past activities) then UKARA would not have been approved by the home office.
Not saying UKARA is the be all and end all, only that it is the only real statutory interpretation which we have for understanding the operation of VCRA s.37 (2)(e) and related regulations.
In effect thus, both answers are correct (absent case law), but in either case the seller is the one which has to face the music in court.
Thanks to the Home office accepting UKARA, generally speaking historical (for the purposes of airsoft) means "within 12 months".
If this was not the case then it would simply be a defence to say "yes" or "check a tickbox" as one does when accessing adult material online or a question in a shop.
As you correctly point out the seller has to believe the defence accurately and sincerely applies - but if intent alone was sufficient (the alternative being: intent with evidence of past activities) then UKARA would not have been approved by the home office.
In effect thus, both answers are correct (absent case law), but in either case the seller is the one which has to face the music in court.
Last edited by a moderator:
Loki7491
Members
- Oct 29, 2013
- 135
- 38
UKARA has no place in law.
That is bullshit perpetuated by Frank at Firesupport (chair of UKARA and by the dribbling mutants at Zero One (the owners of the database)
UKARA is a helpful tool for sure - BUT IT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING above any other form of reasonable checks.
If I want to sell to you and I check you out online (forums / Facebook, etc and I get a feel for you being legit, that has as much legal standing as a UKARA check.
That is bullshit perpetuated by Frank at Firesupport (chair of UKARA and by the dribbling mutants at Zero One (the owners of the database)
UKARA is a helpful tool for sure - BUT IT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING above any other form of reasonable checks.
If I want to sell to you and I check you out online (forums / Facebook, etc and I get a feel for you being legit, that has as much legal standing as a UKARA check.
Reasonable, lol. How can you call any checks "reasonable" without a frame of reference. It's like you didn't even read my post. I was talking about the home office's approval of UKARA's rules! Not the existence of UKARA. Without UKARA there would be no context for a "reasonable check".
I can see we're talking across each other here (rather than disagreeing). You want to bash UKARA and I want to point out that without it we'd have no approved frame of reference for how to demonstrate the defence in VCRA s.37 (2)(e).
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
