Parents buying RIFs for under 18's who play regularly.

[Jam_Man]

Double post shenanigans

 

[Jam_Man]

"Put it this way if a man walks into an airsoft shop and wants to buy a RIF just to hang on his wall and never play airsoft are you saying thats perfectly legal?"

Yes he's breaking no law, he's over 18, now the question should be, will the store sell it to him. Probably not if he can't argue his case of being one of the aforementioned defenses, those are the guidelines put in place to protect retailers. This is why there is so much confusion regarding RIF and IF.

You misunderstand me, the original question was about law, that's what i have posted the actual law. UKARA is not law, it is a database designed, built and managed for retailers so they can keep track of sales, so if audited they can show who they were sold to. Yes a valid defence in almost all cases is now required, but that can be anything from 1 receipt, 1 photo, 1 signed diary. The only stipulation is a valid defense (again don't misunderstand, that is for the retailer not government law). The original boy even though 17 can prove he is an active skirmisher, he knows the owner of the store, the parents are over 18, the sale is good in my eyes. Now another store might have stricter rules requiring photo membership or signed reciepts. You see where the confusion comes in.

ALways remember UKARA is not law it's a retailers database.

Edit - Sorry final point (apart from i apologise to anyone, i'm not arguing, please do not take my points personally) The final sale is at the discretion of the store, valid defense or not. If the store want to sell you a RIF, as long as you are over 18 they can and do i might add, it's just most won't to protect there business.

I am not talking about Ukara, I know Ukara isnt law, I bought my own RIFS prior to getting on the database by proving I played Airsoft. I also know about Patrolbase's scheme, Ive posted it on here before too.

What you are saying is very contradictory.

You state above that the man who walks into the shop the store its "probably not" legal if he cant prove a defence. Either being over 18 is the only legal requirement or its not, and Im pretty sure a defence is required, even if not UKARA levels.

I dont know why you say that is only for retailers protection, because if the law says they can sell RIFS and the only requirement is the buyer is over 18 then they would get in no trouble for not checking for one.

Going around in circles to be honest and detracted from the original issue so Ill let anyone else confirm Im wrong but my understanding is its illegal to sell a RIF to anyone without a valid defence, whether thats one game of airsoft or being part of a re-enactment etc.

 

[sokar666]

I am not talking about Ukara, I know Ukara isnt law, I bought my own RIFS prior to getting on the database by proving I played Airsoft. I also know about Patrolbase's scheme, Ive posted it on here before too.

What you are saying is very contradictory.

You state above that the man who walks into the shop the store its "probably not" legal if he cant prove a defence. Either being over 18 is the only legal requirement or its not, and Im pretty sure a defence is required, even if not UKARA levels.

I dont know why you say that is only for retailers, because if the law says they can sell RIFS and the only requirement is the buyer is over 18 then they would get in no trouble for not checking for one.

Going around in circles to be honest and detracted from the original issue so Ill let anyone else confirm Im wrong but my understanding is its illegal to sell a RIF to anyone without a valid defence, whether thats one game of airsoft or being part of a re-enactment etc.

You seem to be mistaking guidelines set down by retailers/sellers to protect there businesses and interpreting it as law. Read the VCRA law which is for the sale of RIF's. It is not a statutary requirement if they do not want to check if any of the valid defences are indeed valid. It is just that most stores and even seller's have now become accustomed to doing, as i said previously to protect themselves if one of there sale's show's up as a weapon used in a crime. The only actual written law, is being 18 and over, that has always been and it always will be. The whole valid/proof of defence is to keep the government sweet, so they do not make any new law's and tighten the restrictions. But make no mistake if you walked into firesupport, patrolbase, a convention, a stall at a field, your friend selling you one, they have the final say, if they want to check for a valid defence they can do so, if they don't that is there prerogative, as long as the person is over 18. We have just become accustomed to being checked for a valid defence that we think it's law.

 

[AshOnSnow]

And would you class a parent having an under 18 who plays regularly a defence ?

To be honest whether its right or not I personally think that would make sense.

No, I would not. Now, if said under 18 was there in the store with a site membership and such like with them, that would be a different matter. But a parent just walking into an airsoft shop and saying "my son plays at so and so, I want to buy him a gun" would not be a defence in any way shape or form. At least in my opinion. I would certainly err on the side of caution.

 

[Jam_Man]

You seem to be mistaking guidelines set down by retailers/sellers to protect there businesses and interpreting it as law. Read the VCRA law which is for the sale of RIF's. It is not a statutary requirement if they do not want to check if any of the valid defences are indeed valid. It is just that most stores and even seller's have now become accustomed to doing, as i said previously to protect themselves if one of there sale's show's up as a weapon used in a crime. The only actual written law, is being 18 and over, that has always been and it always will be. The whole valid/proof of defence is to keep the government sweet, so they do not make any new law's and tighten the restrictions. But make no mistake if you walked into firesupport, patrolbase, a convention, a stall at a field, your friend selling you one, they have the final say, if they want to check for a valid defence they can do so, if they don't that is there prerogative, as long as the person is over 18. We have just become accustomed to being checked for a valid defence that we think it's law.

And you arent explaining why a shop would need to protect themselves if its not the law.

It is illegal to sell alcohol to Under 18s, so a store just has to prove they are asking for ID, if it were as you suggest thats all an airsoft retailer would need to do to protect themselves.

"21. For airsoft skirmishing, the guidelines suggest that:

• new players must play at least 3 times in a period of not less than 2 months the 2 months before being offered membership;

• membership cards with a photograph and recognised format will be issued for production to retailers;

• a central database will be set up for retailers to cross-check a purchaser’s details; and

• a member’s entry on the database will be deleted if unused for 12 months.

(Home Office (09/10/2013): The above is not a statutory requirement but is a process that assists retailers in checking that purchasers are genuine airsoft skirmishers so that the defence outlined under the act can apply. The BAC fully adheres to these guidelines.)"

Thats what you posted earlier.


When I read that it doesnt say having a defence is a guideline at all, it says the rules that define what an airsofters defence actualy is are guidelines.

To me that still says a RIF can only be sold to an over 18 who will use it for airsoft skirmishing (ignoring for a moment the other defences like re-enactment).

It sets out guidelines that it should be 3 times in 2 months etc, but that is just a guideline as we know because Patrolbase sell after just one game as they consider that a defence. That doesnt mean that having to need a defence is just a guideline though.

I think you are seeing the word guideline and applying it to the entire process rather than just the part that defines what a defence is.

Happy to be proven wrong but you are far from convincing me.

 

[Jam_Man]

I contacted the guys at Ukara as whilst Ukara isnt the law they obviously have a good understanding of what it is.

They confirmed that being over 18 is not a legal reason to buy a replica on its own, a defence is required.

What constitutes 'The defence' is the part that is subject to guidelines, its not a guideline that someone should really have a defence, its a legal requirement.

 

[Sacarathe]

And you arent explaining why a shop would need to protect themselves if its not the law.

It is illegal to sell alcohol to Under 18s, so a store just has to prove they are asking for ID, if it were as you suggest thats all an airsoft retailer would need to do to protect themselves.

"21. For airsoft skirmishing, the guidelines suggest that:

• new players must play at least 3 times in a period of not less than 2 months the 2 months before being offered membership;

• membership cards with a photograph and recognised format will be issued for production to retailers;

• a central database will be set up for retailers to cross-check a purchaser’s details; and

• a member’s entry on the database will be deleted if unused for 12 months.

(Home Office (09/10/2013): The above is not a statutory requirement but is a process that assists retailers in checking that purchasers are genuine airsoft skirmishers so that the defence outlined under the act can apply. The BAC fully adheres to these guidelines.)"

Thats what you posted earlier.


When I read that it doesnt say having a defence is a guideline at all, it says the rules that define what an airsofters defence actualy is are guidelines.

To me that still says a RIF can only be sold to an over 18 who will use it for airsoft skirmishing (ignoring for a moment the other defences like re-enactment).

It sets out guidelines that it should be 3 times in 2 months etc, but that is just a guideline as we know because Patrolbase sell after just one game as they consider that a defence. That doesnt mean that having to need a defence is just a guideline though.

I think you are seeing the word guideline and applying it to the entire process rather than just the part that defines what a defence is.

Happy to be proven wrong but you are far from convincing me.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/24A

24ASupplying imitation firearms to minors

(1)It is an offence for a person under the age of eighteen to purchase an imitation firearm.

(2)It is an offence to sell an imitation firearm to a person under the age of eighteen.

(3)In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) it is a defence to show that the person charged with the offence—

(a)believed the other person to be aged eighteen or over; and

(b)had reasonable ground for that belief.

I think this section is crystal clear. (not disagreeing with the Jam_man.)

I think the store above is being very clever, prosecutions/conviction don't come down to just whether you have a defence or not, but many factors including the public interest.

Does anyone think it's in the public interest for this store to be prosecuted? The only gain is deterrence, but as far as breaking the law goes I think this store has acted very cleverly. But illegally? Yes. Damaging to the hobby? Yes.

But a moral wrong - which so much of the law is based on? No.

Harm to anyone but all present and future airsofters? No.

Do I think they should be reported to the authorities? Yes - but only to see that it stops, not to have them sanctioned.

We all know this law is bogus as any 18 year old can buy a two tone IF and then buy the parts which are two-toned from the same shop, give them to someone with an actual defence (shop staff) - and then give them to anyone. Of course in the example the staff can say "no it's mine now".

 

[Jam_Man]

Indeed after the long debate on the over 18s thing the facts to me are:

1. It illegal to sell to Under 18's

2. Its illegal to sell to anyone over 18 unless they have a defence.

So the shop have interpreted that having a son who plays airsoft is the parent's defence, and whether that would stand up in court is in my opinion doubtful although you can see why they would think it was acceptable.

 

[Iisjreg]

Exactly. The defence is the holding of a "permitted activity" (airsoft) but the law does require sufficient evidence. If they can prove the son is airsofting, then it's fine.

Sec 37 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/37)


4. ... a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in subsection (1) ... if—

(a)sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.



&

[SIZE=10.5pt]The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (Realistic Imitation Firearms) Regulations 2007 added[/SIZE]

(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2606/regulation/3/made)

[SIZE=10.5pt]Regulation 3: (additional defences)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]2. 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; )[/SIZE]

EDIT: It's also worthy to note the explicit need for public liability insurance. This (generally) restricts the activities to commercial sites rather than back yard shooting.

 

[Albiscuit]

Interesting point...

The RIF laws ARE open to interpretation.

Personally I think the retailer has not done anything wrong. They are obviously satisfied the gun will be used responsibly for its intended purpose (which is all the restrictions are in place to cover) and are happy to have the sale.

Ok, they may have stretched the wording to allow a sale. But the restrictions are there for the store and as long as the retailer can justify to themselves and ultimately to someone asking questions their decision in this case that is all that matters.

It seems a very unique situation though. I doubt the store in question would do this for many people!! (well I hope not anyway)

 

[Iisjreg]

(well I hope not anyway)

Why? Surely, if there's proof that it's being used legitimately, then there's no problem?

Minors are able to operate RIFs perfectly fine but selling to the parent of an airsofter adds in a level of responsibility which a minor doesn't have.

 

[Jam_Man]

Why? Surely, if there's proof that it's being used legitimately, then there's no problem?

Minors are able to operate RIFs perfectly fine but selling to the parent of an airsofter adds in a level of responsibility which a minor doesn't have.

All that matters is what the law deems to be acceptable. Selling to an under 18 regular airsofter via a parent sounds like a common sense thing to do, law doesnt always equal common sense though.

If it is ok though I dont know why anyone uses a two tone at a skirmish, even U18s shouldnt need to.

 

[Albiscuit]

Why? Surely, if there's proof that it's being used legitimately, then there's no problem?

Minors are able to operate RIFs perfectly fine but selling to the parent of an airsofter adds in a level of responsibility which a minor doesn't have.

I believe common sense on behalf of the retailer should prevail over profiteering. I agree with this instance, but its a clear sounding case. If anything the retailer has lost a tenner by not charging to two tone

I would hope the retailer would be as thorough or not as helpful to the average person walking in because as annoying as the restrictions are, there are certainly grey areas and ways around buying a RIF without UKARA and dubious retailers would only damage the reputation of Airsoft.

Even though playing the three games and getting UKARA etc can be annoying I feel its a good clear way of monitoring and the more people signed up the bigger base we have for better legislation and furthering the sport (or just keeping it alive)

 

[Iisjreg]

The key thing is that it's not illegal for a minor to own or use a RIF, only to buy one.

So if an adult of (hopefully) greater responsibility and experience makes the informed decision to buy one for a minor, then that's up to them (obviously, within the restrictions of the accepted defences). If a minor needed a RIF for legitimate video production (e.g. see the huge number of teen youtubers*), the parent should be able to buy it for them.

I dont know why anyone uses a two tone at a skirmish

- UKARA and marketing, as per the previous posts above. Retailers are saving themselves effort.

Now, I don't think UKARA, BAC, etc. are a bad thing - they are easy and useful. It's just that they can confuse the situation.

* snigger

 

[Sacarathe]

So long as the gun remains legal property and possession of the parents, I don't see a problem with this.

But if the parents gift the gun to the child (before they turn 18), the shop has no defence if it is used in a crime.

Its sh*t like this which makes me glad airsoft guns don't have serial numbers.

 

[Iisjreg]

How do you retain legal possession of a RIF?

EDIT: Sorry, that was a bit curt. What I mean is, how is it any different (to the retailer) if the parent was on UKARA and they gifted a RIF to their child.

 

[ImTriggerHappy]

Simple fact is if people keep circumventing the law/guideline or the spirit of the law/guideline then eventually some governmental do gooder is going to get through a bill that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.

Instead of arguing about what is 100% correct in the writing remember that the spirit of the law counts and a Judge can still make a judgement if you find a loophole.

The shop was in the wrong the parents had no defence so shouldn't have been able to purchase it. If that kid now shoots someone or gets caught messing around with it the street it can potentially open up a can of worms that would be negative for the whole industry.

All the circumventing and tit for tat arguments about it on the internet are just highlighting how flawed it all is and in the end its us that will get affected for the worse. Yes its not a perfect system but it works for the most part so lets all use it with a bit of common sense.

Anybody who thinks the shop did a good thing and made a sensible decision well then frankly your stupid. When we all have to use two tones or fill out forms and have checks combined with a nice licence fee we will all reminisce about how good it was before a few idiots f*cked it up.

EDIT;

Before anybody comments about the VCRA giving guidelines not laws thats the nice way of saying do what we want before we give you no choice.

 

[Jam_Man]

The key thing is that it's not illegal for a minor to own or use a RIF, only to buy one.

So if an adult of (hopefully) greater responsibility and experience makes the informed decision to buy one for a minor, then that's up to them (obviously, within the restrictions of the accepted defences). If a minor needed a RIF for legitimate video production (e.g. see the huge number of teen youtubers*), the parent should be able to buy it for them.

- UKARA and marketing, as per the previous posts above. Retailers are saving themselves effort.

Now, I don't think UKARA, BAC, etc. are a bad thing - they are easy and useful. It's just that they can confuse the situation.

* snigger

Retailers arent saving themselves any effort if this method was legal. This shop arent having to bother with either as long as the under 18 gets his parents to buy it for hm. To be fair in this particular case the shop owner knew him and did know he played so there is no suggestion he would be as open to selling to everyone.

The reason the rest of the retailers go through the UKARA/proven defence and two tone process is because they have to, not because its better for them.

 

[Iisjreg]

Arguing "spirit" of the law is even worse than arguing interpretations of the law.

Obviously, the intention is to reduce violent crime. Playing 3 games in 2 months only provides one, easy way to justify a sale of an item which could be used in violent crime.

The UKARA's FAQs say that "it would appear that there is no problem of a gift from an eligible purchaser to a minor". Is it really that different if the parent does have their own, separate defence?

If a dad wasn't an airsofter but had a 17 year old that had been airsofting every week for several years, contributed to the community and had a popular youtube channel but wanted a non-two-tone gun, then it's circumventing the spirit of the law to buy them one?

I don't know exactly what that store did but can see an argument for legitimacy. Or maybe I am a stupid idiot f*cking up the industry with my words and thoughts.

 

[ImTriggerHappy]

There is no argument for legitimacy otherwise "mommy and daddy who never play airsoft but want to make Timmy happy" would be mentioned in the VCRA.

I have played airsoft for fairly long time and have seen one scare story after another about legislation change and its obvious eventually things will get harder for the airsoft industry and its players. All the hippie pc MP's need is enough proof the guidelines/laws are not working and that will give them the leverage they need to change things.