Ordering From Hk to the UK

[Rogerborg]

My local post office staff always suggest ticking the gift/other box when sending stuff abroad whenever I have gone in there. 

I'm surprised to hear that they're advising you to make a fraudulent declaration.  What sort of goods are you regularly sending aboard that aren't gifts?

I am curious to know more about the ukara with regards to have received a rif as a gift from someone, what are the grounds in this circumstance?

Are you sitting comfortably?

As @Tommikka says, the VCRA 2006 doesn't apply to gifts, and nor does it apply to purchasing within the UK.  It does however apply to importing.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/36

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he manufactures a realistic imitation firearm;

(b) he modifies an imitation firearm so that it becomes a realistic imitation firearm;

(c) he sells a realistic imitation firearm; or

(d) he brings a realistic imitation firearm into Great Britain or causes one to be brought into Great Britain."

And no, convincing a foreign seller to put "gift" on the package doesn't somehow cancel out that you're causing one to be brought in.  "Gift" isn't a defence, it's just not listed as an offence.

The defences are listed in VCRA Section 37, except they're not really, since airsoft was added only as a later amendment following lobbying, and airsoft isn't actually mentioned in the law directly.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2606/regulation/3/made

"It shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence under section 36 of the 2006 Act or under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to that Act for the person charged with the offence to show that his conduct was for the purpose only of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified in paragraph (2).

(2) Those purposes are—

(a) the organisation and holding of permitted activities for which public liability insurance is held in relation to liabilities to third parties arising from or in connection with the organisation and holding of those activities;"

Do you see airsoft there?  Nope, because it's not.  It appears in a Home Office circular, 031 / 2007

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

"The regulations provide for two new defences. The first is for the organisation and holding of airsoft skirmishing. This is defined by reference to “permitted activities” and the defence applies only where third party liability insurance is held in respect of the activities."

Then it describes a scheme suggested by the defunct Association of British Airsoft which is effectively the UKARA scheme.

It's important to note that UKARA is, and always has been, a scheme run by and for the benefit of airsoft retailers, not for players or private sellers.  It provides one way of providing the retailer with a defence, but it's not the only way: the defence is simply to show (and yes, it's a prove-your-innocence defence) that you've sold it for the purpose of airsoft skirmishing at an insured site.

Anyone over 18 is currently free to purchase, or attempt to purchase, imitation firearms, realistic or otherwise, with or without being able to provide the seller with a defence.  However, importation into the UK requires showing a defence, such as airsoft skirmishing, or theatrical use.

The reason that we get twitchy when it looks like people who haven't skirmished yet are attempting to do an end run around the VCRA is that airsoft sales are hanging by a thread.  That Home Office circular is advisory. It's not law, either statute or regulation.  I'd hope that a court would find it persuasive, but the only name on it is one Sam Hardy who appears to be a mid level paper pusher, not an elected official of any kind.  It could be changed or withdrawn at any time, on a whim, by pretty much anyone else in the Home Office able to produce and publish a circular. It would not even require Ministerial involvement since there's none listed on the original circular.

tl;dr version - the sale, importation, manufacture or modification of realistic imitation firearms for airsoft use could be criminalised literally at the stroke of a pen.

There are regular incidents of the police getting involved with airsoft guns, with or without justification.  If you saw the story about the guy livestreaming himself going shouty-mental in a flat in April and having his door put in by armed police, those were airsoft guns: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/22/dockside-armed-police-respond-man-firing-machine-gun-balcony/

Likewise I've seen a video recently of what appears to be teenagers airsofting in public woods and abandoned buildings, and twatting around while they're at it.

It's incidents like those that are going to get responsible owners punished, so the tl;dr version of the tl;dr version is - play airsoft at an insured skirmish site, then you'll be in a much better position to understand why we don't want our hobby put at risk by people who haven't done that yet.

 

[Cr0-Magnon]

@Rogerborg - Going a bit off-topic but in theory could a private individual two tone one of their RIF's if selling to someone without a defence?

 

[Rogerborg]

@Rogerborg - Going a bit off-topic but in theory could a private individual two tone one of their RIF's if selling to someone without a defence?

Don't see why not, it's exactly what retailers do.  It's not an offence to convert RIF to IF, nor to sell an IF to anyone over 18.

There's no specific permanence mentioned, but I'd expect any prosecution to look to firearms statutes which refer to "readily convertible".  As in, spraying it, yes; wrapping it in camo tape, that's having a laugh.

Although strictly speaking, if someone sells or gifts you a camo-taped IF and you take the tape off to reveal a RIF, that's an offence right there on the spot.

As the OP says, the letter of this law can be somewhat silly when you think about the realities of it, but not blatantly breaching it is what keeps RIF sales going.

 

[Tommikka]

@Rogerborg - Going a bit off-topic but in theory could a private individual two tone one of their RIF's if selling to someone without a defence?

Entirely the right thing to do

 

[GeorgePlaysAirsoft]

The defences are listed in VCRA Section 37, except they're not really, since airsoft was added only as a later amendment following lobbying, and airsoft isn't actually mentioned in the law directly.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2606/regulation/3/made

"It shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence under section 36 of the 2006 Act or under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to that Act for the person charged with the offence to show that his conduct was for the purpose only of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified in paragraph (2).

(2) Those purposes are—

(a) the organisation and holding of permitted activities for which public liability insurance is held in relation to liabilities to third parties arising from or in connection with the organisation and holding of those activities;"

Do you see airsoft there?  Nope, because it's not.  It appears in a Home Office circular, 031 / 2007

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

"The regulations provide for two new defences. The first is for the organisation and holding of airsoft skirmishing. This is defined by reference to “permitted activities” and the defence applies only where third party liability insurance is held in respect of the activities."

I fucked up the quote thing...

Then it describes a scheme suggested by the defunct Association of British Airsoft which is effectively the UKARA scheme.

It's important to note that UKARA is, and always has been, a scheme run by and for the benefit of airsoft retailers, not for players or private sellers.  It provides one way of providing the retailer with a defence, but it's not the only way: the defence is simply to show (and yes, it's a prove-your-innocence defence) that you've sold it for the purpose of airsoft skirmishing at an insured site.

Anyone over 18 is currently free to purchase, or attempt to purchase, imitation firearms, realistic or otherwise, with or without being able to provide the seller with a defence.  However, importation into the UK requires showing a defence, such as airsoft skirmishing, or theatrical use.

The reason that we get twitchy when it looks like people who haven't skirmished yet are attempting to do an end run around the VCRA is that airsoft sales are hanging by a thread.  That Home Office circular is advisory. It's not law, either statute or regulation.  I'd hope that a court would find it persuasive, but the only name on it is one Sam Hardy who appears to be a mid level paper pusher, not an elected official of any kind.  It could be changed or withdrawn at any time, on a whim, by pretty much anyone else in the Home Office able to produce and publish a circular. It would not even require Ministerial involvement since there's none listed on the original circular.

tl;dr version - the sale, importation, manufacture or modification of realistic imitation firearms for airsoft use could be criminalised literally at the stroke of a pen.

Sort of. That is the defence in the VCRA, "2007 No. 2606 Regulation 3" refers to the Statutory Instrument which (subsequent to the passage of the VCRA) granted the defence. The Home Office circulatory is an Explanatory Memorandum, which is / are "provided by the relevant government department with all instruments subject to procedure. They provide a clear explanation of what part of  the law the instrument is changing and why" - in other words it puts it in plain English. Why re-enactment is mentioned "by name" but not airsoft is unclear - I am minded to think its simply a matter of recognition - not everyone (in government or otherwise) would recognise re-enactment, but I'd guess that more people (in government or otherwise) would recognise that term then they did "airsoft". 

It may be of (minor!) reassurance to note the specific SI was signed off by the then Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing Tony McNulty.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2606/made/data.pdf?view=extent 

It's correct that the explanatory memorandum has no legal basis, but in the absence of any other clarification about what is meant by "permitted activities" it seems likely that it would be drawn upon. But  I assume / hope we will never know. In any case I don't think the threat to airsoft is that the SI fails to specifically mention the word "airsoft".

As for removing the SI (the worst case situation, I reckon) - I'm really not sure. Section 4.12 of this document may give some clues:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/pdfs/StatutoryInstrumentPractice_5th_Edition.pdf 

My view with ensuring the future of airsoft as we know it: 

• As individuals we should behave with the assumption that we will have to explain and demonstrate our conduct with reference to the  "defence" - I can't comment whether importing the RIF is "breaking the law", or "illegal", or both, or none - but I basically assume that its illegal anyway, we just have a "get out of jail free card"
  
• As a community we should be promoting the exclusive use of RIFs, not IFs at skirmishes / permitted activities, whilst recognising the barriers for new and and especially younger players. There's no real reason to see an IF at a skirmish at all, with the exception of that historical gun thing the details of which I've forgotten! Point is - ABA were successfully able to convince the Home Office that it was essential for airsoft that we use realistic imitation firearms. It's probably never going to happen but you can imagine Priti Patel turning up a skirmish, seeing someone having a great time with an IF and asking "well do they really need RIFs?"
  

Just my 2p  - not trying to start an argument. 

 

[blocks1]

@Rogerborg - Going a bit off-topic but in theory could a private individual two tone one of their RIF's if selling to someone without a defence?

Thank you, this is the spirit of the topic...

So many Karen's out there just assume that I'm trying to pull a fast one. We definitely live in an era where you are guilty until proven innocent. 

So if a gun is a licensed replica, is that the same as a non licensed replica when it comes to ukara? 

These are just toys after all. Before someone jumps down my throat there's nothing stopping someone painting the slide on a real firearm to make it look like an imitation. 

All I'm doing is trying to make sense of the situation here as I am completely new to Airsoft. 

 

[Tommikka]

Thank you, this is the spirit of the topic...

So many Karen's out there just assume that I'm trying to pull a fast one. We definitely live in an era where you are guilty until proven innocent. 

So if a gun is a licensed replica, is that the same as a non licensed replica when it comes to ukara? 

These are just toys after all. Before someone jumps down my throat there's nothing stopping someone painting the slide on a real firearm to make it look like an imitation. 

All I'm doing is trying to make sense of the situation here as I am completely new to Airsoft. 

Not a licenced or unlicenced replica.

It would be a RIF or an IF

RIF = Realistic Imitation Firearm, and requires a defence under the VCRA.

IF = Imitation Firearm and does not require a defence.

Core defences under the VCRA could be for theatrical or film use, museums, re-enactment or within the duties of a crown servant.  The defences of all but re-enactment would most likely be evidence of an appropriate organisation, and that it is genuine and appropriately insured.

Re-enactment could be the organisation or individual members showing their membership & insurance.

Airsoft comes under skirmishing via statutory instrument and the law does not explicitly specify what a defence is but expects the guidance to be followed. UKARA membership requirements are in line with the guidance (because the scheme was formed as part of the consultation and collaboration.

A criminal could paint a firearm, but it would still be a firearm.  It would be rendered useless to a criminal as painting it as a two tone IF would lessen the fear factor of the firearm.  Violent crime is often based on the fear of the weapon, actually shooting it is a different matter. If you are planning to shoot your victim then you aren’t worried about what they think it looks like.

The police encountering a two tone IF are still going to look at it.

Painting just the slide is not good enough, even though that is clearly common for airsoft pistols.  The majority, eg over 50% must be one of the VCRA compliant bright colours.  A pistols slide is less than 50% of its body.

Airsoft RIFs and IFs are not toys, many also have the words ‘this is not a toy’ on them.

They fire projectiles and must be treated with the appropriate respect

Not everything that is ‘played’ with is a toy

 

[Rogerborg]

So many Karen's out there just assume that I'm trying to pull a fast one.

We don't need to assume anything beyond what you're told us here and elsewhere: you've already obtained a RIF without offering the seller a defence; you're interested in obtaining more before fulfilling the criteria for UKARA; and you haven't actually played airsoft yet.  You may intend to, and nobody here has said that you don't, but - unless you've got a game booked - you've done nothing to demonstrate that intent.

Now, you've done nothing illegal or wrong, but your actions thus far are what gives people who do play airsoft some concern that you might end up doing something rash with what you've already obtained.

Best thing all round would be if you played before trying to expand your collection further.  For one thing, it's great fun.

We definitely live in an era where you are guilty until proven innocent. 

We do, and I abhor such laws, but that's the way the VCRA is written.  The requirement is to show a defence, not simply to claim good intentions.  I don't like that, but it could be worse.

So if a gun is a licensed replica, is that the same as a non licensed replica when it comes to ukara? 

Irrelevant.  The only criteria is whether a non-expert viewing it from a distance would consider it a realistic imitation of a real firearm of a type made after 1870.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/38

Strictly speaking, imaginary guns like a Thunder Maul, XR-5 or a Pulse Rifle replica don't meet that definition, and some retailers will sell them without a defence, even in black/grey/drab.

However, I'm not entirely sure that a court employing the Man on the Clapham Omnibus standard would agree.

These are just toys after all.

Assault-style toys though, which gets Karens frothing to speak to the manager of the country and have them banned.

And they're only exempted from being classed as firearms by some legal contortions. As many of us have found, it's all too easy to do some tuning and accidentally end up with an air rifle (bad news in Scotland) or a Section 5 prohibited firearm (bad news everywhere).

Before someone jumps down my throat there's nothing stopping someone painting the slide on a real firearm to make it look like an imitation. 

Indeed, and apocryphally that's been done a few times, particularly in Murca where some States just require an orange tip.  Not of that much relevance to us though since we usually want to go the other way.

All I'm doing is trying to make sense of the situation here as I am completely new to Airsoft.

It is hard to get a grasp on how, and particular why it works the way it works. And as you've found, the law doesn't actually stop anyone getting a RIF, it just reduces your choice a little.

Playing airsoft at a proper skirmish site will answer a lot of these questions for you.  And sites tend to run bring-and-buys, or other players will be happy to sell their toy guns on to someone at the site.

Plus, did I mention that it's great fun?

 

[Uncle Pauly]

If it helps anyone to know, I’ve been ordering from both Hong Kong and Taiwan recently with zero delays to shipping.

Seems to be ‘business as usual‘ at the moment.

 

[Rogerborg]

If it helps anyone to know, I’ve been ordering from both Hong Kong and Taiwan recently with zero delays to shipping.

Seems to be ‘business as usual‘ at the moment.

Air mail shipping too?  I hope so, for importers like @ak2m4 as well.

 

[Uncle Pauly]

Air mail shipping too?  I hope so, for importers like @ak2m4 as well.

Parts from Samoon and Rainbow8 both arrived within 7-10 days (presumably via air mail... or speed boat!? ?).

 

[Tommikka]

If it helps anyone to know, I’ve been ordering from both Hong Kong and Taiwan recently with zero delays to shipping.

Seems to be ‘business as usual‘ at the moment.

Air mail shipping too?  I hope so, for importers like @ak2m4 as well.

I buy from Hong Kong etc too, but I only buy certain items that I would trust to come from Asia, and also that I am prepared to wait for (even before Covid19)

My newest received item was ordered on 28 July and received on 8 August, most items have taken between one and two months.

My worst pending item was ordered mid June, I have tracking that it left Hong Kong late June and the estimated delivery changed to 25 August due to Covid delays,  I'm awaiting that date to claim a refund assuming its lost, but I  have a couple of items turn up after being refunded.  I have had no issues with customer service quibbles 

 

[Asomodai]

So many Karen's out there just assume that I'm trying to pull a fast one. We definitely live in an era where you are guilty until proven innocent. 

Gaslighting to try and shift the idea of you clearly trying to get around not having an easily proveable defense and trying to avoid import duty.

 

[Cr0-Magnon]

Gaslighting

I started using this term a while back and nobody knows what I'm talking about! Happy to see it used here.

 

[Asomodai]

I started using this term a while back and nobody knows what I'm talking about! Happy to see it used here.

Its a useful word considering most men are narcissists! Myself included

 

[Cannonfodder]

Didn't the OP say he's under 18 in another thread? If so they can't import IFs or RIFs

As for assuming you're trying to "pull a fast one", well l if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck then the chances are it's a duck 

 

[Rogerborg]

Didn't the OP say he's under 18 in another thread?

Not that I can see. You may be thinking of that 15-going-on-16 year old trying some "If I pretend I'm my dad, hop in a DeLorean and take my mum to the high school dance in 1955..." wheeze.

I think OP here is basically well intentioned and understandably frustrated with the legislation.

Although until he actually plays airsoft, we won't know.

Gaslighting

There you go with your imaginary words again.

 

[Cannonfodder]

Not that I can see. You may be thinking of that 15-going-on-16 year old trying some "If I pretend I'm my dad, hop in a DeLorean and take my mum to the high school dance in 1955..." wheeze.

Fair enough, I must've been getting the threads muddled up. My apologies