If an operable RIF is outside the definition of "airsoft gun" does it require a defence?

[Sacarathe]

Speaking of single action and manufacturer semi auto airsoft guns only (and then only those designed to be within the PCA airsoft definition) which have hypothetically been modified for above 2.5J (the highest muzzle force permitted by PCA) at point of sale, which would enter the air gun/pistol/rifle category and become limited firearms.

Thus as firearms (speculatively unable to be classes as airsoft guns under that exception), their status as realistic imitations (since that VCRA definition does not require them to be actually imitating something) is to my mind in doubt.

If they are thus firearms - as being a firearm always supercedes being an imitation - such guns would not require a VCRA defence if sold face to face by the restrictions on airguns firing above 2.5J.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/part/2/crossheading/imitation-firearms VCRA 2004

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun_laws#United_Kingdom

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/1 Section 1(3) FA 1968

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/3/part/6/crossheading/firearms/enacted PCA 2017

What do you guys think?

Serious question re definition, not serious question about the actual point of sale - but that said if someone knows to to spring change this could be true.

I am aware that airsoft shops are oftent not registered firearms dealers so don't throw this at me.

 

[SeniorSpaz87]

Hmm... interesting point. I have gotten my VSR to shoot at around 720-730 FPS, which is approaching 22. caliber FPS (generally 900 FPS). I also know a guy here in the states who has the M200, and according to him the C02 bolt for it makes it shoot around 800 FPS...

 

[jcheeseright]

I would say that yeah it qualifies as a low power air weapon and would not require a defence under the VCRA since it's already covered by other legislation. 

 

[GiantKiwi]

Hmm... interesting point. I have gotten my VSR to shoot at around 720-730 FPS, which is approaching 22. caliber FPS (generally 900 FPS). I also know a guy here in the states who has the M200, and according to him the C02 bolt for it makes it shoot around 800 FPS...

The Shell eject M200 is a little bit hotter than that on the CO2 bolt, a mate bought one as a collector piece, it was doing roughly 650FPS with 0.43's, which is somewhere in the region of 8.4J.

 

[PT247]

yup, if it isn't an imitation it is a real thing so not an airsoft gun... once classed as a firearm though I don't think it can be un-classed as one.... not sure on the insurance implications of this if you wanted to skirmish it!

 

[Nick G]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread here , but it seems to be answering my question. Just to clarify , my L96 which I have built to be pretty much smack on the legal limit of 2.5 joules is now a bit hot for my local site. I can down spring it but am tempted to push and see just how powerful I can make it. My understanding is that as soon as it passes 2.5j it then becomes an air rifle and is subject to the limits set for those 12ftlbs which I think works out at about 16 j. There is no way I will get close to that, I'd never be able to cock the thing for a start ! So am I ok from a legal point of view ?

 

[Immortal]

Regardless of the legality (I have no idea); I would have thought there must be a terminal point where a BB has a maximum power limit for it's shape, size and weight. It happens with air rifles where the max power limit is breached for the ammo and the pellet tumbles, etc. Could save yourself some time and google it as I'm sure it would have been done before as far as max power. Depends if you're shooting BBs meant for airsoft of course...

 

[PT247]

why not just buy an air rifle?

 

[Samurai]

Isn't this the case now?

FPS Limits


FPS limits have been set for airsoft weapons capable of firing 2 or more BBs with a single trigger pull. This limit has been set to 1.3j, or 370fps using a 0.20g BB.

FPS limits have also been set for single shot airsoft weapons. This limit is 2.5j or 519fps using 0.2g.


Weapons above the limits are classed as Section 5 firearms


Weapons that are not within the above stated limits are classed as Section 5 firearms and require a license to own. This will make it a very serious offence to own fully auto airsoft gun capable of 370+fps (consider DMRs soft locked to semi with mosfet) or Sniper Rifles over 520fps.

 

[Jedi_Master]

 So am I ok from a legal point of view ?

The law is the law, as soon as you go over the legal limit it is not an airsoft gun covered by any defence.

What you do in the privacy of your house/shed/workshop is up to you but realise that if you test the gun outside and, for example, Mrs Miggin’s cat gets hit by a BB and she complains then you are potentially opening yourself to more trouble than it is worth.

 

[Rogerborg]

It looks like you're seeking logical consistency across a Jackson Pollock splattering of statutes.

Why can't something be both a RIF, as defined in one Act, and a firearm as defined in another (or even in another section of the same Act)? 

Are you under the impression that if you make the argument that it has to be either one or the other, that a CPS hell bent on prosecuting "gun crime" will agree?

What I will say is that airgun sellers don't seem to give a stuff about openly selling non-airsoft steel BB RIFS.

 

[PT247]

What I will say is that airgun sellers don't seem to give a stuff about openly selling non-airsoft steel BB RIFS.

That is NOT a RIF, that is an air rifle, which is a firearm, so it is not an imitation.

 

[Rogerborg]

That is NOT a RIF, that is an air rifle, which is a firearm, so it is not an imitation.

Again: why can't it be a firearm and a realistic imitation firearm?

If you're trying to apply common sense or consistent logic to our statute book, I wish you the best of luck.  The police by and large know only a small part of the law.  They get a few weeks training on it (which could have been decades ago), and if they've made Sergeant or higher might have picked something up from the Blackstones handbooks.  The CPS or Fiscal will selectively apply whatever specific statute and section they think best fits whatever they want you to plead guilty to.  If you think that act or section is nullified or superseded by something else, that's for you to argue, not them.

The VCRA S38 definition of RIF is: "an imitation firearm which has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique".

Forget what you've read elsewhere.  For the purposes of prosecuting with or defending against that definition, a RIF is:

"an imitation firearm is not to be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only by an expert; on a close examination; or as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it."

and

"real firearm mean a firearm of an actual make or model of modern firearm (whether existing or discontinued)"

Putting that together:

The MP5K is a actual make and model of real modern firearm.

That airgun is not easily distinguishable from the real firearm MP5K. Therefore, according to S38, it is a realistic imitation of that real firearm.  The plain fact that it obviously is intended to be a realistic imitation of the real MP5K would pass the man on the Clapham Omnibus test.

Ah hah, you say, but being a real firearm itself means that it can't also be a S36/S38 realistic imitation.

Well, why not?  That is is not one of the criteria for disqualifying it as being a realistic imitation firearm.  De-activated firearm. Antique.  It is neither. Parliament, who are surely aware of the existence of real firearm airguns, could have chosen to exclude airguns or real firearms from also being RIFs.  They did not do so.  So hang him, your honour, string the bugger up.

I'd very much like to see some case law on this, but I don't believe that we have any.  Absent that, we're both speculating: me on what the prosecution would argue, you on the defence.  I hope that it's a good long while before we find out with whom the judiciary would agree.

 

[Nick G]

why not just buy an air rifle?

Because I don't want one. I am just interested in the exercise of seeing how far I can take it from a teching angle. I don't plan to skirmish it so I am assuming it would be classed as an air rifle based on power output.

 

[PT247]

your post

An air rifle is a firearm, therefore it isn't an imitation firearm, it might well look like a different firearm to what  it actually is, but it is still a firearm. I think you are confusing imitation for replica, that gun in your link is a replica of an MP5, but it is still a firearm, we are not talking quantum physics here, it is not Schrodinger's cat, it is a firearm, not an imitation.

"Manufacturing" a firearm, which is what you would basically be doing by converting an airsoft RIF into an airgun, is quite naughty, def keep it within the walls of your house if you do do it.

 

[Rogerborg]

An air rifle is a firearm, therefore it isn't an imitation firearm

And what says that something that's defined as an airgun firearm by one piece of legislation can't also be considered to be a realistic imitation of a firearm, for the purposes of a different piece of legislation?

Is it something in VCRA 2006 S36 - S38 that I've missed, or an explicit provision in another statute, or case law?

 

[Immortal]

I think it's that it isn't imitating a firearm realistic or not, it has simply has become a firearm in it's own right regardless of looks.

LOL... is a pen gun still a pen? Or is it a pen when it's not loaded? Mind blown....

 

[PT247]

it can't be an imitation if it is a real... am done, if you don't get that then I can't explain it any simpler for you.

 

[Rogerborg]

I think it's that it isn't imitating a firearm realistic or not,

It very clearly is imitating, and is intended to imitate, a particular make and model of real firearm.  That's the definition in S38.

it has simply has become a firearm in it's own right regardless of looks

And it is also a firearm for the purposes of other legislation.

If you believe otherwise, I'd genuinely like to know why.

 

[Immortal]

I'm not sure what to add that hasn't been said really. I'd hazard a guess that one piece of legislation will trump the other. Other than that I have no idea!