Sorry, I thought it was. ?
I have nothing more to add, now. I submit my will to the retail overlords. I'll do whatever they say.
Last edited by a moderator:
Parents buying RIFs for under 18's who play regularly.
- Thread starter Jam_Man
- Start date
I have nothing more to add, now. I submit my will to the retail overlords. I'll do whatever they say.
It's quite easy: "son, here is a your gun for airsoft, I am legally responsible for this item (due to the promises made to substantiate the seller's defence) until you're 18 when you can have this for your birthday. If you lose it or sell it before then I'm going to have to report it missing to the shop and the police."
Simply put, if it's used in a crime the retailer will have no defence and will try to throw the parent under the bus/sue them for fraud. Might even be able to slip a goods and services by deception (which ignores whether the seller was actually decieved) in there.
Last edited by a moderator:
What complete and utter nonsense, do not post things if you have no clue what your talking about.
It is legal for a 10 year old to own an airsoft gun, it is legal for a 14 year old to fire an airgun (air rifle), it is legal for an 18 year old to buy an airsoft gun.
It is legal for anyone to sell an airsoft gun, again anyone, absolutely anyone. Why do you think the new guidelines were put into place, so they could continue to keep selling. The son was gifted the gun (no law broken) with or without defense makes no difference, he was gifted the gun, again no law broken. The store didn't bother to check for proof of defense/UKARA which is of course there choice as stated in guidelines it is not a statutary requirement, so again no law broken. The parents were over 18 and so legally old enough to buy airsoft guns, again no law broken. If the son decides to commit a crime, he is liable no one else, he commited the crime, regardless who gave him the gun.
Please do not spout rubbish just to confuse people further.
Last edited by a moderator:
ImTriggerHappy
Supporters
- Feb 25, 2015
- 5,374
- 2,228
Think you are getting confused with difference between an Imitation Firearm and a Realistic Imitation Firearm.
Yes anyone over 18 can buy an airsoft gun as long as its a two tone but to buy a RIF you are meant to a have defence as well as being over 18. So while the parents were over 18 they had no legitimate or provable defence.
The VCRA quite clearly states a seller must have a proof of defence to sell a RIF or they are committing an illegal act.
You don't need UKARA you can sell to a fellow airsofter as you see him play but a shop cant do that which is why UKARA came about. His parents saying he plays airsoft is not a defence.
What the shop did was wrong its simple.
My god can people not read;
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT 2006 (COMMENCEMENT No3) ORDER 2007
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.)
Not a statutary requirement, they are just guidelines put into place for reatilers to continue to sell, if the store wishes to ignore them or enforce them is there choice, they have the final say on if they want to check for defense, it is not a legal requirement, i repeat not a legal requirement, how is that so difficult to understand. Stores check because it's easy not because it's law, but if they so wish they do not have to, they are not breaking the law so stop saying they are, they will receive no repurcusions, the only people who are liable is the person commiting the crime with said gun, no one else, again no one else.
I've lost count how many times i've repeated this and still everyone doesn't get it.
Edit - After re-reading your post, again stop giving false information, they seller does not require a proof of defense to sell, anyone can sell, it is the seller's responsibility to check of the buyer is legally allowed to buy, if they wish to check for defenses/UKARA that is there choice, the only legal requirement is being over 18, everything else is at the discretion of the seller, again see above.
Edit - I'm going to put this as simply as i can for the hard of hearing as it is now becoming quite tiresome. If you wish to buy RIF you must be a minimum of 18 years and over (used to be 17 until changed) THAT IS THE LAW. Now, if you wish to buy a RIF and are over 18 years of age you MAY be asked to prove that you are an active skirmisher, in a re-enactment or historical group or work within movies/tv, there are others that i can't remember of the top of my head. If you cannot prove the above the store has the right to refuse sale and or give the choice to have your gun painted 51% of a bright colour. Now if you cannot prove the above the store has the final say on the matter, that is there choice and there choice alone, no one elses as stated within the VCRA guidelines, see that word guidelines, not law, because it is not satutary. anyone over the age of 10 can own a RIF and anyone under 18 years of age can be gifted a RIF as long as no money has been transferred again thast is the law. Please do not mistake laws for guidelines put into place by retailers to allow them to continue to sell and for us to continue to enjoy our hobby.
Last edited by a moderator:
Erm... I'm no lawyer but the actual legislation, not the guidelines, makes it an offence to sell a realistic imitation firearm. So how did you figure this?
Agreed but surely this is a separate issue?
jcheeseright
Supporters
- Jun 14, 2012
- 4,280
- 2,261
Wrong. Stop reading the info on the UKARA page and read the actual LAW:
36 Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms
(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;
©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.
(2)Subsection (1) has effect subject to the defences in section 37.
(3)The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a)provide for exceptions and exemptions from the offence under subsection (1); and
(b)provide for it to be a defence in proceedings for such an offence to show the matters specified or described in the regulations.
(4)Regulations under subsection (3) may—
(a)frame any exception, exemption or defence by reference to an approval or consent given in accordance with the regulations;
(b)provide for approvals and consents to be given in relation to particular cases or in relation to such descriptions of case as may be specified or described in the regulations; and
©confer the function of giving approvals or consents on such persons specified or described in the regulations as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under subsection (3) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6)That power includes power—
(a)to make different provision for different cases;
(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
©to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.
(7)A realistic imitation firearm brought into Great Britain shall be liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts.
(8)In subsection (7) “the customs and excise Acts” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2).
(9)An offence under this section shall be punishable, on summary conviction—
(a)in England and Wales, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or with both; and
(b)in Scotland, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or with both.
(10)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in subsection (9)(a) of this section to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
(11)In this section “realistic imitation firearm” has the meaning given by section 38.
I'm fairly sure you're talking about Imitation Firearms (e.g. 2 tones) for which the only statutory requirement is that the buyer be over 18, for a Realistic Imitation Firearm there are extra requirements. Those requirements are 'woolly' but as you can see above they are 100% backed up by statute.
ImTriggerHappy
Supporters
- Feb 25, 2015
- 5,374
- 2,228
Actually its you who can't read. Read section 36 of the VCRA. It clearly states that it is illegal to sell a RIF unless the buyer has a defence that is outlined within the VCRA.
Been over this so many times on here its ridiculous.
I thought we were talking about seller's defences (which is the buyer's defence as we term it), when did this become about another subject?
If you can't discuss things properly there is no need for ad hominem behaviour.
I think the law is wrong and that RIFs should require licensing. But the cost makes it unfeasible.
Last edited by a moderator:
The issue is that the purchaser disposed of the gun right after buying it, and if they planned that disposal then that means they were lying when they said it would be used for airsoft.
Because they can't know what it will be used for because it's not theirs! And they knew when they said it would be used for airsoft that they weren't going to be responsible for it because they planned said disposal.
There is no way a shop can substantiate that as a defence if the shop made the sale knowing the purchaser was going to dispose of it.
This knowledge invalids the defence as it means the shop knew the purchaser was not in a position they claimed to be in (able to provide a defence). It's simply not reasonable (legally); to say as defence to selling a realistic imitation firearm: "the purchaser said that third party X would use it for airsoft."
Any proof presented that third party X (the son) will use the gun for airsoft is only proof that the purchaser (parent) believes that third party X will use it for airsoft, and third party X is not a party to the transaction - thus cannot make legal guarantees/representations (to the seller).
.
Under the statute the defence (VCRA s.37) only applies to the purchaser (Z) presuming that when s.36 (1) (c ) says "sell" it only means that it applies to parties to the contract of sale. The defence says "to be used for" which can can interpret as "to be used by Z for" because what else could it mean? If it didn't mean that then anyone without a defence could use this "I'm buying it for third party, he plays airsoft" argument.
EDIT: Well shite, I think I just nuked the relevance of the father/son relationship. Age too. Though I do honestly think that if the parent retained title (responsibility) this might stand up as a defence to sales to parents for use by their children. But it's a slippery slope, and not one I'd care to support.
Because they can't know what it will be used for because it's not theirs! And they knew when they said it would be used for airsoft that they weren't going to be responsible for it because they planned said disposal.
There is no way a shop can substantiate that as a defence if the shop made the sale knowing the purchaser was going to dispose of it.
This knowledge invalids the defence as it means the shop knew the purchaser was not in a position they claimed to be in (able to provide a defence). It's simply not reasonable (legally); to say as defence to selling a realistic imitation firearm: "the purchaser said that third party X would use it for airsoft."
Any proof presented that third party X (the son) will use the gun for airsoft is only proof that the purchaser (parent) believes that third party X will use it for airsoft, and third party X is not a party to the transaction - thus cannot make legal guarantees/representations (to the seller).
.
Under the statute the defence (VCRA s.37) only applies to the purchaser (Z) presuming that when s.36 (1) (c ) says "sell" it only means that it applies to parties to the contract of sale. The defence says "to be used for" which can can interpret as "to be used by Z for" because what else could it mean? If it didn't mean that then anyone without a defence could use this "I'm buying it for third party, he plays airsoft" argument.
EDIT: Well shite, I think I just nuked the relevance of the father/son relationship. Age too. Though I do honestly think that if the parent retained title (responsibility) this might stand up as a defence to sales to parents for use by their children. But it's a slippery slope, and not one I'd care to support.
Last edited by a moderator:
AndyGif290368
Members
- Jul 12, 2016
- 120
- 0
Well the only way this thread will ever end is to throw the shop and parents under the bus and let the law courts decide by reporting it. At least there will be a court case on the books to inform us to the current legal interpretation of the law.
The shop contravened VCRA s.36 (1) (c ) - though it's entirely possible they thought they had a defence, on the basis of my previous post, they don't.
If the purchaser retained legal title to the RIF, that's when it should go to court. The OP of this thread has not said that:
Last edited by a moderator:
Legally that wouldn't work because the offence doesn't say "sells for money". Nice try though.
Last edited by a moderator:
ImTriggerHappy
Supporters
- Feb 25, 2015
- 5,374
- 2,228
As you have so far accused people of being illiterate, deaf, cognitively impaired and frankly just been down right irritating are you going to say sorry now and except you were very wrong?
HI, I'm 15 years old and im rather new, i have played 2 games in the last 2 months which is required for a site membership which as of a week from now i will have. I have bought all the gear i want/need but left the guns for last. Now im all for realism and authenticity and i feel a two tone gun would ruin my immersion. i am looking at buying the ASG Cz805 at £349.99 and the TM 1911 MEU at £124.99. Yes this is a lot of money for my first gun I'll be owning but i am familiar with the sport now and have the money too so i would like the best in my price range. I am just wondering if it is illegal for my dad to buy me the guns without a two tone service applied and it be legal, Also i am looking to order it online which could also be a hindrance. So could somebody help me out please?
Last edited by a moderator:
springs
Members
- Aug 24, 2013
- 143
- 7
unless your dad holds a UKARA Membership or another form of defence then he wouldn't be able to purchase the weapon either.
P
PT247
Guest
He would have to become a regular player and play no less than 3 games in a minimum of 2 full months, just like everyone else does who wisjhes to be UKARA registered.
Oh that makes sense then, as i said before i don't want to be ruining a new rifle with a two tone color scheme. But as i am new i dont want people at my local site confronting me about having an RIF at 15 years old and being new to the sport
Similar threads
