Rogerborg

Why can only one apply? And what does "highest" mean? I'd appreciate it if we could make an effort to distinguish between talking about opinion (what we think ought to happen), statute law (what the government said should happen), and case law (what actually happened when it reached a court).

It's a tricky one. You can consent to accepting risk and being reasonably harmed (combat sports, piercings, surgical procedures, being shot with bits of plastic), but you can't agree to waive liability for negligence that results in death or personal injury (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S65) in any trader/consumer relationship. It's fuzzier on a personal level, I'm not sure of the case law on that. I should clarify that I think it's best for all involved if there is someone who has a clear duty of care, and is explicitly insured for that risk. I'd hate to see any individual be left holding the liability bag should the worst happen. Ah, my bad, I didn't realise it was private land. With permission? I wonder who squealed on them.

I wish we didn't live in a litigious society, it's only lawyers who really profit. But sadly it's the reality that when someone loses their life, mobility or income, it very quickly becomes an issue of "There's must be a claim, even without blame." The significant case law is Volwes v Evans and the Welsh Rugby Union, where an unpaid volunteer referee was held liable for an injury to an amateur player. The Rugby Union's insurers ended up footing the bill, but mostly because courts like to award against the deepest pockets just on the practicality (if not fairness) of it. I'd get something on record that there is no organiser, marshalling or refereeing, and that everyone is participating as peers and solely responsible for their own actions.

I love his version of "CYMA owners".

Mmm, I'm not risk averse, and it's fine to do what you want with consent on private land. Public land, no matter how remote, is a huge no-no, as these muppets found out. However, liability is always worth bearing in mind. It'll all be handshakes and gentleman's agreements until someone breaks a leg, impales themselves on a rusty spike, or takes some balls to the eye, and then it'll be a question of "Who pays my mortgage?". You cannot contractually waiver away liability for death or personal injury. Generally you'd go after the deepest pockets. What I'd imagine would happen is that Crippled Cathy would sue the scrapyard for some failure in a duty of care (unsuitable use of the site, site was hazardous, site was responsible for checking gnus for hotness if they were going to let airsoft run there) , their PLI insurer (hopefully they have one) will initially say "Go away, not covered", and it'll end in a legal wrangle. If it gets to court the bench will say "You're not strictly liable, but you've got money, so pay up, then recover it from your client", the insurer would go after the site, and the site might then go after whoever was organising the games. Either way, it could get messy, drag on for years, and end up coming out of individuals' pockets. It'll be fine until it's not, of course.

To the point where he's messaging about for-sales from years ago. But you'll have to post it, and he's only got £300 to give himself a birthday present. I feel such a connection to him now, I'm really rooting for him on his quest.

It seems to be a complete lottery whether you fall foul of the law, much like playing informal games at a local scrapyard.

Until it's in my hands, it's the seller's goods, and their problem, not mine. I have no interest in how the seller sent it or what's happened to their item. I certainly have no control over whether they put a UKARA number on it, or declared it honestly, which Border Farce seem to be picking up on now. That said, I've been lucky up to now, and the one hiccup I've had was a stock that never even made it out of Chyna - easy enough for AliExpress to make the call in my favour when the seller didn't bother resending, refunding, or even letting me know. I'd certainly agree with the statement about not ordering anything from anywhere outside the UK at the moment unless you can afford to lose it. It seem like Border Farce have got a real throbber on for seizing anything even remotely assault-toy related being sent to individuals, legality or defences be damned.

To be clear, what follows is an attempt to dig to the truth, not a dig at you. I am striving to be technically correct - the best kind of correct. That's not what VCRA S38 says. The word belief or believes does not appear all, and it explicitly, unambiguously, without a doubt does require a RIF to look like a "real firearm". I "quote" this because that's what it says, and it goes on to define what "real firearm" means, using the phrases "actual make and model of modern firearm" / "actual modern firearm", and further defines "modern firearm" as distinctively post 1870. That's distinct from the Firearms Act 1968 definition of "imitation firearm" which is much broader: “imitation firearm” means any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57 The Firearms Act 1968 definition applies to possession in public. The VCRA definition applies to importation, sale, manufacture or modification, which is what we're interested in here. We disagree over whether there is an exclusionary conflict, or whether both can apply. It seems that Border Force think the latter. Policing and Crime Act 2017 makes an exception for airsoft guns only for the purposes of the Firearms Act 1968. There is no general exemption from other firearms legislation. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/3/section/125/enacted So that's neither here not there for any consideration of the VCRA. Border Farce clearly didn't get that memo though, and I - reluctantly - agree with them. The law says what the law says, and it only says that "de-activated firearms" cannot be RIFs. They're free to interpret it any way that they like, and it's going to take a court to decide. I hope that they turn out to be wrong. Agreed, it does say "imitation firearm". But sadly, among the plethora of other definitions, it doesn't actually define "imitation firearm", and most particularly it doesn't provide an exclusive either/or distinction between "imitation firearm" and "firearm" (only "de-activated firearm"). As per that MP5 PDW airgun above, if you showed that to the aforementioned non expert and asked "Is that an imitation of a real firearm?" then what other answer would they give than "Yes, of course it is." And it is. It really is. It's quite deliberately an imitation of a specific firearm, and the intent of the legislation is to keep those out of the hands of people who don't have a specific purpose that requires them. It's also a firearm in and of itself. The crux is whether a court will hold that it can be both, and until we get that verdict from the High Court or above (Magistrates' verdicts can be persuasive but don't set precedent), we're just not going to know.

The Firearms Act 1968 definition of "imitation firearm" is broad, but the VCRA 2006 definition of "realistic imitation firearm" is narrower. It also has a clanger that doesn't prevent a real firearm (e.g. an air gun) from also being a realistic imitation firearm. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/38 38 Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm” (1) In sections 36 and 37 “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which— (a) has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and (b) is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique. (7) In this section — “real firearm” means— (a) a firearm of an actual make or model of modern firearm (whether existing or discontinued); or (b) something falling within a description which could be used for identifying, by reference to their appearance, the firearms falling within a category of actual modern firearms which, even though they include firearms of different makes or models (whether existing or discontinued) or both, all have the same or a similar appearance. Now, someone applying common sense would think that it's obvious that a real firearm can't be an imitation, but a pedant - i.e. Border Farce - would say "Ah, but if Parliament had meant that, they've have said it. Look, they excluded de-activated firearms, but not live ones." This is an airgun firearm. It's also - by a Man on the Clapham Omnibus standard - a realistic imitation of a real non-airgun firearm. Why can't it be both? There's nothing in the strict letter of the law that prevents it, and the spirit of the law is that selling something that looks like needs a better reason than "They want it." - which is all that's required for air guns in England and Wales. Yes, I know, ID required. But that doesn't speak to the purpose which they intend to put it to. They didn't. As above, just because it is a firearm doesn't mean that it can't also be a realistic imitation firearm. Opinions on this vary, but the reality is that Border Farce are in the position to make it stick. I'm not saying this is fair, having to jump through two hoops at once, but when have bureaucrats ever cared about that? To channel Ayn Rand, the question is not who is going to let them; it's who is going to stop them.

Wow, that's harsh. It might be fun to fire in with a pre-emptive small claim against them, and start racking up your litigant-in-person costs. Although a couple of things to bear in mind: 1) A defence to the offence of importing a RIF is not a licence to do so. Border Farce have traditionally chosen to treat it as one, but there's nothing that compels them to keep doing that. 2) Per rants passim, I actually agree with Border Farce that an object can be both a real firearm (including an airgun firearm) and a realistic imitation firearm. Laws aren't either/or, and the State can pick and choose which one it wants to apply. That said, realistic imitation firearm is well defined, and it has to be a copy of a real extant firearm, not just a gun-shaped object. Snow Wolf Pulse Rifles, for example, are not RIFs. Either way, I fear they'll only settle down when the courts start giving them a smack.

Good news. I shudder to think what uses were intended for those seized RIFs - it's not like it's hard to get a defence.

Breakfast, lunch and dinner of champions.

A letter? Like, tattooed on dinosaur skin? What does it say? Is it offering you an opportunity to prove your innocence, or just telling you "Ha ha, it's ours now, criminal"? Normally I'd ejaculate "Start dispute NAOW", but my understanding is that PayPal will go by the available tracking status (I await correction on that). Can you see that status? Ultimately, it's the sender's property and problem until it's delivered to you, so I wouldn't even get them involved, I'd just await confirmation on the best time to start the PayPal refund. I wouldn't even mention Border Farce, just "item not received, gibs monies".

Great work all round. I'm starting to get performance anxiety about my gobs of hot melt glue and Poundland rattle can black now.

No, see, what I like isn't an addiction, it's wholesome virtue. This is easy to understand, your brain is just clogged with bread and pasta. Same with airsoft. My highly realistic imitation firearms are laser accurate and an investment. Your silly toy gnus are over-priced trinkets that will break then burn your house down then call your insurance company and claim that you started the fire yourself for the money.

<Thread derail> At this point, I wouldn't touch anything with sugar in it, and no, not even "fruit sugars". With the possible exception of arena speedsoft, airsoft just isn't that intense, and healthy humans (or even me) do not need to burn significant amounts of carbs for energy. I went all day Sunday on ham salad and peanuts (for the salt) plus copious amounts of water, job done. No peaks or crashes, no feeling of hunger or bloating, no brain fuzz, and now I can reach past doughnuts to get to the cabbage without feeling any urge to gorge on empty calories. If you find that hard to believe, that's your addiction speaking.

And "Oh yeah m8, plus PayPal fees, m8". Do we reckon Harry1 is dreaming about having an M4 posted to him?

Oh, that often happens, but I'm kvetching about taking a skin-breaking burst in the side of the face after shouting, waving, then walking away with my gun held over my head and still waving, with no other players anywhere near me. Sometimes it really is just a case of a complete nobwaffle deciding to send another burst downrange for giggles. But they had some classic bantz, finished that really crucial phone call, and got to smoke the best cigarette ever. Hah, I'm rocking the keto bro lifestyle now. Carbs are Satan's spooge, get them behind thee. Memeing aside, I really would recommend low carbs, it's amazing how addictive and unnecessary they are, and how much better you can feel and perform without sugar rushes and crashes.

Huh, I hadn't thought of going wide widebore. My mind was in the 6.01 - 6.08mm range, not the "carrot down a corridor" level. Might be worth a try, but they don't come cheap versus just throwing a lower powered spring in. How quick is your change?

Mmm, I used to do steel historical reenactment, and lost teeth and fingernails to that without complaint. But the goal was always to minimise pain and injury, and due to the hand-to-hand nature of the activity, anyone who couldn't or wouldn't restrain themselves was very quickly identified and invited to sod off. Airsoft however lends itself to rogues, with some degree of anonymity and plausible deniability, and the ability to inflict pain without serious injuries meaning it's usually shrugged off. I'd really like to see much more pro-active marshalling on MEDs, overkill, or shooting dead players: and no, it's not "just part of the game", it's the difference between everyone having a good day, and only the sociopaths going home with a grin on their faces.

Mmm, I never used to be bothered about MEDs until I started running a BASR and DMR (not at the same time, pedants). Now all I see is players disregarding MED and ROF, and it never being picked up on by marshals, even when you point it out. It's a very slippery slope - once you see someone else taking the piss with them, there's always a temptation to get a few metres closer, or twitch your finger a bit quicker.

I'd suggest that TaiwanGun do it as well. Or at least I bought a CYMA M4 from PatrolBase which was likely wholesold from TaiwanGun with a cut spring that was bang on 1.1J. There was almost no pre-tension on it, but it worked just fine. And, sure, you can have a gun that shoots beautifully out to the maximum range for its energy, then make it less accurate with a hotter spring. But you can also add a hotter spring and retain or improve the consistency. Why settle for one? Airsoft guns do not run on magic: if you want the maximum possible range, you need to be shooting your chosen BB weight fully hopped at the site limit. It's not sufficient, but it is necessary.

I'm guessing it's that G&G 308 MBR AEG. If so, I agree, you're not going to get that sort of energy drop just from the barrel, and neither would I suggest trying to make the air seal worse. If you want to turn it into site (and actually legally) legal AEG, I'd be throwing an M100 spring in and taking it from there.