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

[Tommikka]

Why?  it still meets all the criteria of S38, it doesn't meet either of the exclusions.

I'm stymied as to how I can ask this in a different way without repeating myself, but what is it that makes you believe that falling under one act means that it can't also fall under another?

Section 38 still references ‘imitation’ so I still would assert that an air weapon is a firearm and therefore a firearm that looks like another firearm is still a firearm in its own right.  

I don’t claim that coverage in one act exempts from another, only that an air weapon firearm isn’t an imitation.  

I do believe that paintball guns can fall within both firearms and the VCRA - that was also the opinion of the Association of Chief Constables when they made a study enquiry with RAP4 UK.  They considered the RAP4 realistic range to be RIFs which was an obvious conclusion but also that any of the Black Paintball guns could be considered RIFs.  On the feedback advice they were given RAP4UK introduced their own free scheme and a two tone option.  This caused ripples across Paintball retailers and slowly was forgotten about until a few years ago and MagFed importing retailers asked the question again via  the UKPSF.

Scenario: you sell a scally an airsoft gun that looks like an MP5K, and an airgun that looks like an MP5K.  They use them for intimidation in a robbery - dual wielding, bruv - and are caught.  You are fingered for selling them those two objects.

The police decide to charge you for two counts of supplying a realistic imitation firearm under S36, using the definition in S38.  CPS prosecute.  You're in the dock.  You have no S37 defence.  What do you say?

....... is more dangerous.......

With one RIF airsoft gun and one airgun the prosecution of two counts under the VCRA would be wrong - guilty of one, not guilty of the other

The more dangerous element of an airgun isn’t a matter of the VCRA

The violent crime element is the act by the scallies, but the VCRA sections are there for the specifics of selling a RIF

 

[Tommikka]

.......

S38 does not apply to de-activated firearms.

If it doesn't apply to any other firearms (airguns or otherwise), why doesn't it say so?

Deactivated firearms look like an oddity in the VCRA as they appear to be a firearm in sections of an act about imitation firearms.

But the Firearms act also has the section that states a deactivated firearm is no longer a firearm.  That statement would then mean that by no longer being a firearm a deact it would meet the RIF definitions under the VCRA, so the included reference specifically excludes deacts from the VCRA.

You cannot, the VCRA came along after the firearms and airgun laws , as such the fact that an airgun is a replica of a real gunpowder propelled weapon is irrelevant as it it is in the eyes of the law an airgun.  The VCRA does not and cannot be made to apply to airguns, firearms rated or otherwise.

Prior firearms legislation doesn’t trump the VCRA due to timing, if there is a conflict then the newer legislation would take priority.

I consider that the VCRA doesn’t apply to airguns/air weapons that are valid firearms as they are real as opposed to imitation.

But the VCRA can and does apply to airguns that are not “firearms rated” - airsoft BBs are propelled by air.  

 

[Rogerborg]

I consider that the VCRA doesn’t apply to airguns/air weapons that are valid firearms as they are real as opposed to imitation.

I appreciate you phrasing it as an opinion rather than a fact., but is there any basis for that consideration in statute or case law?

If it's speculation, that's fine, as it's all we've got to go on.  I'd just like us to be clear when we're stating an opinion (mea culpa), and when we can provide a citation.

I don’t claim that coverage in one act exempts from another, only that an air weapon firearm isn’t an imitation

Why can't it be both?

 

[Tommikka]

I appreciate you phrasing it as an opinion rather than a fact., but is there any basis for that consideration in statute or case law?

If it's speculation, that's fine, as it's all we've got to go on.  I'd just like us to be clear when we're stating an opinion (mea culpa), and when we can provide a citation.

Why can't it be both?

My citations are as per my bigger post with quotes, but with the references are:

[SIZE=14pt]VCRA[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Part 2 weapons[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Section 28.3 Definition of “dangerous weapons”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Section 38.1 defines  “realistic Imitation firearm”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Section 38.7 a&b. Deactivated firearms[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt](On the basis that the firearms act states a deactivated firearm is not a firearm, which would render it as a RIF without these paragraphs- ensuring that it is a true deactivation rather than any other imitation[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]There is no definition of an “imitation firearm” within the VCRA, so I regret to the Firearms act[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Firearms act [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]section 57.1 definition of a “firearm”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Section 57.3 definition of an “imitation firearm”[/SIZE]

I wouldn’t say it can’t be both, other parts of the VCRA covers different weapons which have existing legislation and ‘new’ ( now Over 10 years old) offences under the vcra, but with no definition of an imitation in the VCRA then I take the firearms acts definition and claim that a weapon under the firearms act is a firearm and therefore not subject to being an imitation or realistic imitation even though in the English language definition it could be a firearm that imitates another firearm 

PS the big writing isn’t shouting, just copy & paste!

 

[Rogerborg]

That's well reasoned, I have nothing to retort with.

 

[AshOnSnow]

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...

Remember that the UK law defines by muzzle energy, not projectile speed.
 

So an airsoft gun shooting 720fps on .20g is roughly 3.5ft lbs.

A .22 calibre air gun will shoot up to 12 ft lbs in the UK before needing a firearms certificate.

A subsonic .22LR will shoot around the 100 ft lbs mark.

And a .22 Hornet will shoot around the 750 ft lbs mark.

 

[SeniorSpaz87]

Remember that the UK law defines by muzzle energy, not projectile speed.
 

So an airsoft gun shooting 720fps on .20g is roughly 3.5ft lbs.

A .22 calibre air gun will shoot up to 12 ft lbs in the UK before needing a firearms certificate.

A subsonic .22LR will shoot around the 100 ft lbs mark.

And a .22 Hornet will shoot around the 750 ft lbs mark.

Yea thats all true, I was just referring to raw hitting power of the BB, not the joules as you are looking at. I was just stating that airsoft guns can get powerful enough to do some damage.

 

[AshOnSnow]

Yea thats all true, I was just referring to raw hitting power of the BB, not the joules as you are looking at. I was just stating that airsoft guns can get powerful enough to do some damage.

Sidenote, you can now get AR15s in the UK on standard firearms licenses chambered in the 350ft/lb .22WMR

 

[jcheeseright]

Yea thats all true, I was just referring to raw hitting power of the BB, not the joules as you are looking at. I was just stating that airsoft guns can get powerful enough to do some damage.

The joules ARE the hitting power, force = mass*acceleration.  FPS is largely irrelevant without the mass, a feather hitting you at 100fps will hurt a lot less than a brick hitting you at 100fps.  

An Airsoft gun shooting at 1000fps even with a .45 g BB won't be to do any real damage, short of hitting an eye.