Airsoft guns are air weapons?

[Tackle]

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

Growing up on council estates in London, one thing that springs to mind was all the times we be in a 4ft square tower block lift, & from nowhere one of your mates would drop a monster banger etc on the floor at your feet, & everyone's trying to climb the shiny steel wall to get away from it ?, any wonder most of us have got tinnitus now?.

Good times lol????

 

[Cannonfodder]

That sounds like exactly the sort of thing I would've done 

Sorry, I’m straying way off topic now.

Isn't that normal for here?

 

[Pseudotectonic]

Ok after looking up statutory interpretation, it seems there are various rules the judge can use for interpretations, but it is up to the judge to decide which rule to use. And among these rules, the only way airsoft is considered air weapon is if it is taken using the Literal Rule and selectively with certain English dictionaries and not others, and very selectively on words, and without considering the generally understood conventional classifications. Meaning even with this method the judge will have to quite purposefully go out of his way to interpret airsoft as air weapon, which should never happen.

• Paperback Oxford English Dictionary says "Air rifle" (or "air pistol") is defined as: a gun which uses compressed air to fire pellets. And then "pellet": a piece of small shot or other lightweight bullet. - Origin Old French pelote 'metal ball'.
  

• Cambridge Dictionary online says "air rifle" is: a gun [...] uses air pressure to fire a pellet (= small metal ball).
  

And when using other methods i.e. Golden Rule or Mischief Rule or Purposive Approach, then airsoft should logically be excluded. The exclusion of "airsoft" (as a class of barrelled weapon with certain ballistic characteristics) from "firearm for the purposes of this Act" should extend to "firearm [and shot gun and air weapon] ..." because that should be the more accurate meaning within context, and for the purposes of the introduction of the exclusion as a general exclusion to the Act.

And generally, I think any judge would select the easiest method of interpretation, and the "general exclusion" method is the most straightforward, and would require the least interpretation gymnastics from the judge.

To say "airsoft is air weapon" would require the judge (actually, firstly, the prosecutor) to make a technical judgement to explain how a particular airsoft rifle uses compressed air or air pressure therefore it is air weapon, and why metal pellet is irrelevant to such a definition. Which should be easily defended with above by the defendant (or his solicitor).

So I guess we should be safe for now.

 

[Rogerborg]

I'd hope so, and it's not something that's going to bother me when following the first rule of airsoft.

Although as always it will take case law to decide. Remember that if you catch an unlucky chain of copper, prosecutor, and bench, you can get a conviction for having an under-scale bright orange plastic springer on you that even the arresting constable described as a "toy".

 

[BigAl]

Growing up on council estates in London, one thing that springs to mind was all the times we be in a 4ft square tower block lift, & from nowhere one of your mates would drop a monster banger etc on the floor at your feet, & everyone's trying to climb the shiny steel wall to get away from it ?, any wonder most of us have got tinnitus now?.

Good times lol????

Pardon?

 

[The_Lord_Poncho]

Spot the firearm, the air weapon firearm, and the non-firearm air weapon here.

View attachment 78995

Top - air gun (based on the semi-only selector)

middle - firearm (H&K logo on the folding stock)

bottom - airsoft (process of elimination)

actually - just spotted the bottom one too only has semi. But loads of white text safety blurb printed on both the top and bottom options, so those must be the more dangerous ones. Oh, wait, hang on....

 

[BenJackson]

Ok after looking up statutory interpretation, it seems there are various rules the judge can use for interpretations, but it is up to the judge to decide which rule to use. And among these rules, the only way airsoft is considered air weapon is if it is taken using the Literal Rule and selectively with certain English dictionaries and not others, and very selectively on words, and without considering the generally understood conventional classifications. Meaning even with this method the judge will have to quite purposefully go out of his way to interpret airsoft as air weapon, which should never happen.

• Paperback Oxford English Dictionary says "Air rifle" (or "air pistol") is defined as: a gun which uses compressed air to fire pellets. And then "pellet": a piece of small shot or other lightweight bullet. - Origin Old French pelote 'metal ball'.
  

• Cambridge Dictionary online says "air rifle" is: a gun [...] uses air pressure to fire a pellet (= small metal ball).
  

And when using other methods i.e. Golden Rule or Mischief Rule or Purposive Approach, then airsoft should logically be excluded. The exclusion of "airsoft" (as a class of barrelled weapon with certain ballistic characteristics) from "firearm for the purposes of this Act" should extend to "firearm [and shot gun and air weapon] ..." because that should be the more accurate meaning within context, and for the purposes of the introduction of the exclusion as a general exclusion to the Act.

And generally, I think any judge would select the easiest method of interpretation, and the "general exclusion" method is the most straightforward, and would require the least interpretation gymnastics from the judge.

To say "airsoft is air weapon" would require the judge (actually, firstly, the prosecutor) to make a technical judgement to explain how a particular airsoft rifle uses compressed air or air pressure therefore it is air weapon, and why metal pellet is irrelevant to such a definition. Which should be easily defended with above by the defendant (or his solicitor).

So I guess we should be safe for now.

Airsoft guns are not "air weapons" under the Section 57A.

This changes when we breach the "lethal" power limits as described.

If this is a bolt action gun then this becomes an air rifle by legal definition, which unless you're in Scotland, won't get you in any hot water for ownership, but a site would be screwed if somebody complained of an injury and it was discovered you were over the limits and had technically injured them with an air rifle.

The same can be said for fully automatic airsoft guns, although once these surpass the specified limit, they become Section 5 firearms, meaning there's no legal variation between your airsoft gun, and a completely bog standard real M240B. 

As already stated, the UK firearms law is incredibly poorly written, with far too many overlaps and grey areas.

 

[Rogerborg]

Airsoft guns are not "air weapons" under the Section 57A.

I'm baffled by why that would be.  All that 57A says is:

An “airsoft gun” is not to be regarded as a firearm for the purposes of this Act.

Anything beyond that is inference and (absent case law) assumption, not explicit.

As already stated, the UK firearms law is incredibly poorly written, with far too many overlaps and grey areas.

115% agreement.

 

[novioman]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned in an early post. If airsoft guns are legally airguns then mail order delivery wouldn’t be possible, it would have to be RFD transfer to RFD with all the associated costs, delivery by an approved courier as some shops offer with airgun sales, or physically collecting face to face from the shop. 
As mail order is allowed  I presume that airsoft guns aren’t legally classed as airguns.

 

[Neptune]

I'm baffled by why that would be.  All that 57A says is:

An “airsoft gun” is not to be regarded as a firearm for the purposes of this Act.

Anything beyond that is inference and (absent case law) assumption, not explicit.

Air weapons are firearms as they exceed the one joule limit, therefore airsoft guns are not air weapons, because they aren't firearms.

As stated above by novioman, it's the reason why Section 31 & 32 of the VCR Act 2006 doesn't apply to airsoft guns.

 

[EDcase]

Air weapons are firearms as they exceed the one joule limit

Air rifles up to 12ft/lb (16.25J) are allowed with no restrictions apart from being over 18.

Its ironic that more dangerous toys are easily sold over the counter or even by specialist mail but our 1j toys need a registry.

Airsoft has its own little caveat in the law.

 

[Neptune]

Well the limit for airsoft is 1.3 joules (378fps w/ 0.2g) for auto, or 2.5 joules (518fps w/ 0.2g) for semi, but yes the VCR Act aspect of it makes no sense.

 

[Rogerborg]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned in an early post. If airsoft guns are legally airguns then mail order delivery wouldn’t be possible, it would have to be RFD transfer to RFD with all the associated costs, delivery by an approved courier as some shops offer with airgun sales, or physically collecting face to face from the shop. 

That's a great point. However...

As mail order is allowed 

Perhaps better to say that nobody has yet prohibited it.

As stated above by novioman, it's the reason why Section 31 & 32 of the VCR Act 2006 doesn't apply to airsoft guns.

Hasn't been applied, yet.

I really, really hope that we don't get a test case for this, particularly in Scotland.

 

[novioman]

That's a great point. However...

Perhaps better to say that nobody has yet prohibited it.

Hasn't been applied, yet.

I really, really hope that we don't get a test case for this, particularly in Scotland.

Let’s not get pessimistic,  no reason why they should at the moment.

 

[Tommikka]

All ‘air weapons’ fall within firearms legislation, and this was the case when the VCRA was put into place and airsoft would at that time have sat in firearms legislation as ‘low power air weapons’ within the 6 and 13 ft lbs limit 

Subsequently compliant airsoft guns within joule limits have been specifically cleared of being firearms 

Paintball remains in firearms legislation, and Home Office guidance is being nice to pajntballers - as long as people aren’t dickheads with dodgy imports and/or dodgy projectiles.

There are some very grey interpretations, focused on frangibility & lethality - which will (and has) put people in serious trouble with the use of other projectiles 

To date I am not aware of any issues with the need for RFDs (Except for various ‘issues’ experienced by the original Scottish paintball sites who had major legal problems and firearms prosecutions)

The UKPSF keeps on the case to protect (responsible) paintballers and the legislation change on the definitions for airsoft covers airsoft

There is always the danger of a politician getting uppity, and that has happened a lot in Scotland - but both airsoft and paintball have been doing well - including since before airsoft was airsoft 

 

[Neptune]

Hasn't been applied, yet.

...Because that's not the law, it's not as if the police and courts forgot to enforce it.

Yes a blind judge could rule airsoft guns as air weapons and thus a firearm, in the same way they could rule that a sausage roll is a car and is subject to vehicle exercise duty. But in the absence of such hypotheticals becoming reality, airsoft guns are not air weapons.

I should also point out that if Section 57A of the Firearms Act was somehow nullified and airsoft guns became air weapons, it would remove airsoft guns from Section 36 of VCR Act, because it doesn't apply to firearms. Meaning two tones would cease to exist and RIFs as we know them would actually become more prevalent to the general public.

 

[Tommikka]

...

I should also point out that if Section 57A of the Firearms Act was somehow nullified and airsoft guns became air weapons, it would remove airsoft guns from Section 36 of VCR Act,

In which case the VCRA didn’t apply to airsoft for the decade of 2007 to 2017 before section 57a was produced, and there was no need for the statutory instrument to add the airsoft skirmisher defence 

...because it doesn't apply to firearms..

I would have tended to agree as an airgun is a firearm and an airgun that looks like a ‘proper firearm’ couldn’t be both a firearm and an imitation firearm ….. but a case went to court and @Rogerborgwon the argument that we would be on opposing sides of with a gentleman’s agreement to agree to disagree 

But case law now says otherwise - a firearm can be an imitation firearm

Licenced firearms are controlled via the licence and certificate processes

Categories of firearms are available by other controls, such as low powered air weapons sold face to face / via RFDs, and other categories aren’t controlled other than self policing good practice by parts of the industry - such as paintball retailers that follow UKPSF recommended guidelines 

….. and courtesy of the section 57a exemption a category of what would be low powered air weapons are not subject to controls but the industry has a potential liability under which retailers protect themselves as a collective under the UKARA and other similar schemes (or don’t protect themselves and take risks against personal high fines and loss of good faith in the industry with fake defences

 

[Rogerborg]

Yes a blind judge could rule airsoft guns as air weapons and thus a firearm

The problematical definition would be air weapons but not firearms. It would be a perverse interpretation given the definitions in FA 1968 Section 1(3)(b) , and the "air weapon / other firearm" in S19.

The only thing giving me slight pause - and given the particular loathing for gun-shaped toys North of the border - is the meaning of "air weapon" in Section 1(4)(a) of the Air Weapons Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015.

"an air weapon which is not a firearm (within the meaning of section 57(1) of the 1968 Act)"

That refers to the 1J lethal barrel limit.  This legislation was written before the Policing and Crime Act 2017 and so couldn't have referenced the S57A exemption for airsoft guns.

But PCA 2017 didn't amend the Scottish legislation to say "57(1) or 57A", and neither has Holyrood now that 57A exists.  Can Westminster legislation amend Scottish Acts?  Don't know!  But if I were working for the Procurator Fiscal (presumably after having traded my soul to Satan for a bag of Tangfastics), I'd bang the table and say "Ah hah!  That clearly shows that Westminster-and-or-Holyrood meant to draw a distinction between <=1J airsoft guns, which are neither firearms not air weapons, and >1J airsoft guns which are not firearms but which are lethal barrelled air weapons for the purposes of the Scottish Act.  Hang him, your honour! Hang him, then send him to Barlinnie!"

It would be a preposterous thing to claim, and I present it as such. There would be no reasonable prospect of conviction unless you misrepresented the law and/or manipulated the evidence, which is exactly what the Scottish Fiscal has form for doing with airsoft guns.

 

[Neptune]

In which case the VCRA didn’t apply to airsoft for the decade of 2007 to 2017 before section 57a was produced, and there was no need for the statutory instrument to add the airsoft skirmisher defence

It did apply, because Section 57 of Firearms Act (definition of a firearm) was amended in 2017 that would have encompassed airsoft guns, but they created Section 57a (airsoft exemption) at the same time, this was done using Policing and Crime Act 2017.

 

[Tommikka]

It did apply, because Section 57 of Firearms Act (definition of a firearm) was amended in 2017 that would have encompassed airsoft guns, but they created Section 57a (airsoft exemption) at the same time, this was done using Policing and Crime Act 2017.

I know 

I was commenting on your claim that the VCRA would not apply to airsoft guns if section 57a was removed

Airsoft guns were low powered air weapons, which were within the Firearms legislations scope