Import of a airsoft gun

[Rogerborg]

Interesting that they have referenced paintball in permitted activities along with airsoft.

Click to shrink...

I'd call it rather curious, and wonder what's behind that belief.

Home Office circular 031 / 2007 only mentions airsoft.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-violent-crime-reduction-act-2006-commencement-no-3-order-2007-firearms-measures

I always get twitchy reading that, as it's neither Act nor Regulation, it could vanish off of the interwebs at any point, or a court could simply decide not to find it persuasive given that it doesn't actually claim to be the direction of the relevant Secretary of State.

 

[Tommikka]

I'd call it rather curious, and wonder what's behind that belief.

Home Office circular 031 / 2007 only mentions airsoft.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-violent-crime-reduction-act-2006-commencement-no-3-order-2007-firearms-measures

I always get twitchy reading that, as it's neither Act nor Regulation, it could vanish off of the interwebs at any point, or a court could simply decide not to find it persuasive given that it doesn't actually claim to be the direction of the relevant Secretary of State.

Click to shrink...

…. And of course all subject to interpretation in court.

A Home Office circular can always be removed and no longer be current, or replaced by different interpretation 

In paintball we have two differing official interpretations:

1) Association of Chief Constables (or whatever it was called at the time) considered that every paintball gun they saw during a visit to a retailer was potentially a RIF. (This retailer didn’t sell bling speedball, but it did include black hopper fed paintball guns)

They took no action, but suggested that the retailer ‘do something’ in case they came back formally and went to court.

The company created their own membership scheme 

Therefore you can argue that paintball guns are IFs or RIFs depending on whether then comply with VCRA colours 

2) Home Office in response to the UKPSF held that in principle paintball guns are low powered air weapons and therefore not imitations, but with lots of caveats subject to court interpretation and also raised the option that if the VCRA was found to apply then UKPSF membership might be accepted as a defence.

The LPAW  ‘exemption’ contradicted with airsoft guns as the newer firearms act definition exempting UK legal airsoft from firearms legislation didn’t exist.

Now that definition is there then there is a distinction to support LPAW non imitation.

All quite grey, and I’m always happy that offenders with dickhead activity get dealt with under other suitable legislation rather than ‘responsible’ players falling foul of a court day turning into a test case.

I don’t worry too much about legislative elements - it’s the rug being pulled out in circulars or court interpretations that are more likely to have an impact, which could be sudden 

 

[Rogerborg]

low powered air weapons and therefore not imitations

Click to shrink...

Do you have a reference for that position?  It would be handy (for paintballers and air gunners) but I'm still struggling to see why they are exclusive, and why the same item can't be covered by two different Acts at the same time.

Motor vehicles, for example, fall into a plethora of conflicting and overlapping definitions in multiple Acts, Regulations and case law, which are applied as it suits the State rather than us.

 

[Tommikka]

Do you have a reference for that position?  It would be handy (for paintballers and air gunners) but I'm still struggling to see why they are exclusive, and why the same item can't be covered by two different Acts at the same time.

.

Click to shrink...

https://m.facebook.com/UKPSF/posts/532643633518379

This was back in 2015, and covers a few questions so it does drift, and also precedes extra airgun certificates in Scotland and the joule changes in airsoft 

View attachment 79745

View attachment 79747

On the matter of lookalike firearms, we’ll disagree

But I do get your point 

 

[Rogerborg]

View attachment 79748

I know, I know, ask the Firearms section at the Home Office.

It's all a bit bonkers when you apply a moment's thought. There are sellers in the UK who will flog you (for example) an SRS with a spring that puts it over 2.5J, i.e. technically an air gun firearm, not an airsoft gun. 

Strictly speaking, they wouldn't then need a RIF defence for that (but should be following air gun laws, not that they do).  But they do need a RIF defence for selling the exact same object with a fractionally less powerful spring in it.

Although strictly strictly speaking, because it's not based on a specific real world firearm, it's not actually a RIF at all.  Even though by any reasonable-person (non legal) definition it is, and sellers do ask for a defence.  Unless the spring inside it puts it over 2.5J. In which case apparently the outside stops looking like a real gun, even though it has now become a real (air) gun.

I know, I know... firearms legislation. ?

 

[EDcase]

On a slightly different tangent but just as ridiculous, I saw a complaint by a guy who couldn't buy an airsoft RiF even though he was FAC registered! ?

 

[Rogerborg]

On a slightly different tangent but just as ridiculous, I saw a complaint by a guy who couldn't buy an airsoft RiF even though he was FAC registered! ?

Click to shrink...

Mental, isn't it?  Similarly in Scotchland, even if you've got a SGC or FAC, you still have to get (and pay for) a separate loicence to own an air gun.  They'll give you a discount on it, mind, if you get or renew it at the same time as a SGC.  I'm sure that ScotPlod must know how pointless that all is.