Problem selling a rif

[Enid_Puceflange]

View attachment 95262

 

[1967PF44]

But surely, irrespective of gdpr, if you or I sign up for Ukara (mine lapsed years ago, another story) , we're giving our consent for what I consider to be very small snippets of information to be confirmed, in order to prove a defense & get that elusive rif. 

As the saying goes, "the end justifies the means", & anyone that disagrees with it should probably not bother signing up, or if changes in laws affect its lawfulness (such as gdpr coming in years after ukara's inception), which I'm guessing is what your concerned with, then have your entry deleted. 

Job done ? 

While I'm sure your probably right that UKARA infringes gdpr (I'm definitely no expert), the majority of airsofters rely on it for rif sales in all forms, & would probably rather keep it in its current "grey" form than potentially lose it completely without an alternative ready to take its place. 

I think your missing what I’m

actually saying - and you are right in almost all of what you’ve say - when you sign up you are agreeing to share the information held (crucially your player status) with the subscribing retailers - what your not agreeing to is sharing that player status with the general public - because that status in law is considered to be “sensitive data” to some individuals it may be very sensitive and it being revealed to a non entitled member of the public maybe harmful .  As I have said from the outset I provided my details to the seller- knowing that he was likely to obtain the information- potentially unlawfully, but I didn’t care as I wanted to buy his offerings - when he didn’t then use the information supplied - it sparked a curiosity? And I like a discussion to asked the questions - the problem is that some muppets on the internet get involved in things they have no expertise and when someone who has experience/expertise and genuine knowledge of a topic he is written off as a liar lol 

 

[Rogerborg]

to some individuals it may be very sensitive

In general, yes. In this case, come on, let's be serious.  De minimis non curat lex.

 

[1967PF44]

In general, yes. In this case, come on, let's be serious.  De minimis non curat lex.

It moved a long time ago from a specific case discussion to a more general discussion- however - in my specific case I do some work for organisation that have clients particularly sensitive to firearms - my involvement in airsoft would not align with their moral standing and if revealed to them it would almost certainly cost me financially quite a bit- that said in reality the source of any leak of information to them is highly unlikely to be a UKARA data breach lol. 

its been an interesting discussion -  quite eye opening - the level of ignorance and offensive aggression in this forum 

 

[Tommikka]

The "frangibility" argument is the one I keep hearing in respect of paintball guns "markers", although I'm still wondering what their case law is on that, since that word doesn't appear in the Firearms Act definition of "a barrelled weapon of any description from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than one joule at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged."

Those gel blasters clearly are realistic imitation firearms, and are intended to be so.

And the only argument I've seen put forward for why airguns can't be realistic imitations firearms is because they're actual firearms. That's not an interpretation I agree with (why can't they be both?), but even by that standard, claiming that gel blasters aren't firearms means it wouldn't apply.

The thing is, it's not really a serious issue, since they are by any reasonable common sense interpretation even less lethal than airsoft guns, and can be used for the same purposes.  It's just that they haven't been blessed with a Holy Circular from the Home Office saying so yet.

I don't wish them ill, but...

View attachment 95223

We agree to disagree on a few of the fine points, and ideally we can continue on that basis as it would ultimately be a court case that answers the question of interpreting legislation on those points.

For ‘frangibility’ there is no reference in the legislation, but it is on that point that the home office have corresponded with the UKPSF referencing ‘frangibility’ of a paintball in line with ‘lethal barrelled weapons in legislation.

On that basis Gel blasters would sit in with frangibilty, but as you say they would need to be a firearm 

‘Firearm’ and ‘gun’ are thought to be dirty words, but they do carry the ‘protection’ of being defined in legislation and don’t require licences/certificates …. (Except of course NI & Scotland with other categories & requirements)

’Marker’ is a term I dislike, it was ‘popularised’ by Americans on a PC basis and has an incorrect urban history that it was the original name in paintball 

(As soon as we went away from actual oil based paint they ceased to have their ‘marking’ function and had always been ‘paint marking guns’ / ‘paint marking pistols’ etc

Its either pointless if people I know what it is or a secret code to hide from the scary word ‘gun’, and if you’re using that secret code then it can backfire because the other party then sees a gun

You have a good argument that a firearm could be a realistic imitation of another firearm, but I’ll still argue against it … and of course, have done on the basis that a firearm is a firearm and not an imitation of a firearm which might look like another firearm 

‘Realistic’ of course being in the definition that someone might think it is real, which brings in fictional guns as opposed to looking the same as a real one

 

[SBoardley]

I think your missing what I’m

actually saying - and you are right in almost all of what you’ve say - when you sign up you are agreeing to share the information held (crucially your player status) with the subscribing retailers - what your not agreeing to is sharing that player status with the general public - because that status in law is considered to be “sensitive data” to some individuals it may be very sensitive and it being revealed to a non entitled member of the public maybe harmful .  As I have said from the outset I provided my details to the seller- knowing that he was likely to obtain the information- potentially unlawfully, but I didn’t care as I wanted to buy his offerings - when he didn’t then use the information supplied - it sparked a curiosity? And I like a discussion to asked the questions - the problem is that some muppets on the internet get involved in things they have no expertise and when someone who has experience/expertise and genuine knowledge of a topic he is written off as a liar lol 

Lol

It moved a long time ago from a specific case discussion to a more general discussion- however - in my specific case I do some work for organisation that have clients particularly sensitive to firearms - my involvement in airsoft would not align with their moral standing and if revealed to them it would almost certainly cost me financially quite a bit- that said in reality the source of any leak of information to them is highly unlikely to be a UKARA data breach lol. 

its been an interesting discussion -  quite eye opening - the level of ignorance and offensive aggression in this forum 

Lol

Hope I organisation’s clients grammar spellcheck punctuation paralegal. 

 

[1967PF44]

Lol

Lol

Hope I organisation’s clients grammar spellcheck punctuation paralegal. 

Fortunately I don’t actually have to write shit for that particular client … and it’s not connected to my paralegal work….lol so we are all goodest

 

[Rogerborg]

the level of ignorance and offensive aggression in this forum 

Eh.  Everyone loves a bit of drama. We've had this discussion a few times and know that it ends nowhere, so we're finding fun in other ways.  There's no real griefing involved: note that @Tommikka and I respectfully disagree on the firearm-and/or-RIF issue.

If I really wanted to be rude, I'd ask how much of your career was spent in Traffic, or Professional Standards. But rest assured that I'd never sink that low.  

 

[1967PF44]

Eh.  Everyone loves a bit of drama. We've had this discussion a few times and know that it ends nowhere, so we're finding fun in other ways.  There's no real griefing involved: note that @Tommikka and I respectfully disagree on the firearm-and/or-RIF issue.

If I really wanted to be rude, I'd ask how much of your career was spent in Traffic, or Professional Standards. But rest assured that I'd never sink that low.  

I spent a fair amount of time arguing with Traffic and a lot of time “with” professional standards lol (is that what you meant ??)! Rapidly approaching the point however where I’ve been away longer than the 19years plus I was in 

 

[1967PF44]

Realistic’ of course being in the definition that someone might think it is real, which brings in fictional guns as opposed to looking the same as a real one

This is another interesting discussion actually, for an imitation firearm to be a “Realistic” imitation Firearm, it must actually be a copy of a Real firearm produced by an actual firearms manufacturer- the famous star wars blasters produced for airsoft are in fact not RIFS. And do not require the seller of them to verify a defence. 
 

it’s all made even more complex (and confusing for airsofters) by the fact That the term “Imitation Firearm”  is defined differently for the purposes of the Firearms Act, 1968 (the principal licensing and criminal ownership legislation) and the Violent Crimes a Reduction Act, 2006  which deals with importation, selling manufacture and modification. 

If I recall correctly “Realistic Imitation Firearms”  are not mention at all in the FIrearms Act 1968, and I believe under that Act an “Airsoft Gun”  which has a specific legal definition cannot be an “imitation firearm”,  I say that as in all my years of experience in enforcement roles, I am yet to come across any legislation where 1 item can be two different defined things in the same legislation.   This principle of not being able to be two different legally defined things however I am less certain of, however a Police firearms expert agrees with me. 
 

“Realistic” in the definition in the VCRA2006 ONLY relates to size, shape and principal colour. (See section 38(1), 38(2) and 38(3) -  imitation Firearms for that Act, are specifically define pd to be imitations of “REAL modern Firearms”. 

the “Realistic” concept only relates to the offences of selling, importation, manufacturing and modification. 
 

The only mention of “imitation firearm”  in the 1968 Act, is at Sections 16-20 ? (There may be others) Which the part of the Act that prescribes the various offences involving imitation firearms, possession with intent to cause fear, commit crime, resist arrest, in public without reasonable excuse….etc 

For those offences  “IF” is defined very simply as “any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm”  (at the time of the offence and not at any other time- and it can be based on the perception of a witness and not necessarily based on expert testimony) (unlike. RIF which requires expert testimony to prove the article) 

This definition covers all sorts of things e.g 2 pieces of pipe taped together poking out a bag to give the impression it’s a shotgun during a robbery, but not someone making the shape of a gun with their fingers in their pocket (case law references are here https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms) 

Right must sleep, that was going to be a short explanation highlighting the confusion caused by the two separate pieces of legislation, with differing definitions, but became very detailed and referenced knowing how much evidence some individuals want on this forum. 
 

if the legal stuff really interests anyone, I do enjoy the discussion feel free to PM

 

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

Certainly an interesting discussion; and I say that as someone who was once in an episode of Juliette Bravo.  

 

[Rogerborg]

[Stuff about IF vs RIF and FA versus VCRA]

Wow, absolutely bang on: let's keep this one. ?

‘Realistic’ of course being in the definition that someone might think it is real, which brings in fictional guns as opposed to looking the same as a real one

Well, no, for the reasons @1967PF44covered. I'm sure we've been over this before.  Firearms Act "imitation firearm" uses the Man on the Clapham Omnibus[*]standard.  But VCRA "realistic imitation firearm" very specifically requires it to be an imitation of an actual make and model of (modern) firearm.

Strictly speaking, there's no offence committed by selling an APS UAR, but it would be an offence (without a reasonable excuse) to possess it in public.

[*]Remember we had that chap declaring that he was going to take a bus to airsoft sites while open-carrying a Snow Wolf M41A because everybody should know that it wasn't a real gun? ?

 

[Tiercel]

Tl;DR nobody cares, just like spraying your two tones black.

Over the years Ive been doing this I reckon Ive bought well into triple digits of various toy guns from here, I think I've maybe once been asked for a UKARA number to which I gave them my several years out of date one as I dont bother with UKARA anymore due to not buying brand new guns. Same with selling on here, I've never bothered asking for UKARA because I cant be bothered to go through the hassle of trying to validate it, do you look & sound like an airsofter and have a track record of posting on here? Cool, I reasonably believe you're an airsofter and that'll do for me.

Nobody who wants to commit C R I M E S is going to waste their time trying to buy an airsoft gun from here, when they can just go to their local Cash n Carry dodgy market stall and pick up a CO2 pellet pistol for £50 with no questions asked. 

 

[Tommikka]

This is another interesting discussion actually, for an imitation firearm to be a “Realistic” imitation Firearm, it must actually be a copy of a Real firearm produced by an actual firearms manufacturer- the famous star wars blasters produced for airsoft are in fact not RIFS. And do not require the seller of them to verify a defence. 
 

it’s all made even more complex (and confusing for airsofters) by the fact That the term “Imitation Firearm”  is defined differently for the purposes of the Firearms Act, 1968 (the principal licensing and criminal ownership legislation) and the Violent Crimes a Reduction Act, 2006  which deals with importation, selling manufacture and modification. 

If I recall correctly “Realistic Imitation Firearms”  are not mention at all in the FIrearms Act 1968, and I believe under that Act an “Airsoft Gun”  which has a specific legal definition cannot be an “imitation firearm”,  I say that as in all my years of experience in enforcement roles, I am yet to come across any legislation where 1 item can be two different defined things in the same legislation.   This principle of not being able to be two different legally defined things however I am less certain of, however a Police firearms expert agrees with me. 
 

“Realistic” in the definition in the VCRA2006 ONLY relates to size, shape and principal colour. (See section 38(1), 38(2) and 38(3) -  imitation Firearms for that Act, are specifically define pd to be imitations of “REAL modern Firearms”. 

the “Realistic” concept only relates to the offences of selling, importation, manufacturing and modification. 
 

The only mention of “imitation firearm”  in the 1968 Act, is at Sections 16-20 ? (There may be others) Which the part of the Act that prescribes the various offences involving imitation firearms, possession with intent to cause fear, commit crime, resist arrest, in public without reasonable excuse….etc 

For those offences  “IF” is defined very simply as “any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm”  (at the time of the offence and not at any other time- and it can be based on the perception of a witness and not necessarily based on expert testimony) (unlike. RIF which requires expert testimony to prove the article) 

This definition covers all sorts of things e.g 2 pieces of pipe taped together poking out a bag to give the impression it’s a shotgun during a robbery, but not someone making the shape of a gun with their fingers in their pocket (case law references are here https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms) 

Right must sleep, that was going to be a short explanation highlighting the confusion caused by the two separate pieces of legislation, with differing definitions, but became very detailed and referenced knowing how much evidence some individuals want on this forum. 
 

if the legal stuff really interests anyone, I do enjoy the discussion feel free to PM

Wow, absolutely bang on: let's keep this one. ?

Well, no, for the reasons @1967PF44covered. I'm sure we've been over this before.  Firearms Act "imitation firearm" uses the Man on the Clapham Omnibus[*]standard.  But VCRA "realistic imitation firearm" very specifically requires it to be an imitation of an actual make and model of (modern) firearm.

Strictly speaking, there's no offence committed by selling an APS UAR, but it would be an offence (without a reasonable excuse) to possess it in public.

[*]Remember we had that chap declaring that he was going to take a bus to airsoft sites while open-carrying a Snow Wolf M41A because everybody should know that it wasn't a real gun? ?

VCRA Section 38 does state ‘real firearm’, but does not exclude unreal / sci fi firearms etc.  With 38.7a covering an actual real firearm, but 38.7b the ‘appearance of a category of firearms’

If someone sees it and thinks it is real then it meets the VCRA definition of a RIF unless it gets covered as an IF by the design age, colour or size

(Star Wars wasn’t the best example as their blasters are real firearms with extra things - Sterling SMG, Mauser, MG34 etc, but others could be those from Aliens etc which are ‘unique’ sci fi guns but still tend to have a basis on real designs … the pulse rifle being part Spas shotgun in a shroud)

The underlying solution is of course to bag them in public and never find out what the law thinks it is

Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm”

38

(1)In sections 36 and 37 “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which—

(a)has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and

(b)is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique.

(2)For the purposes of this section, an imitation firearm is not (except by virtue of subsection (3)(b)) to be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only—

(a)by an expert;

(b)on a close examination; or

(c)as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it.

(3)In determining for the purposes of this section whether an imitation firearm is distinguishable from a real firearm—

(a)the matters that must be taken into account include any differences between the size, shape and principal colour of the imitation firearm and the size, shape and colour in which the real firearm is manufactured; and

(b)the imitation is to be regarded as distinguishable if its size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic for a real firearm.

38.7

In this section—

• “colour” is to be construed in accordance with subsection (9);
  
• “de-activated firearm” means an imitation firearm that consists in something which—
  
  
  
  
  (a)
  was a firearm; but
  
  
  
  
  (b)
  has been so rendered incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile as no longer to be a firearm;
  
  
  
  
  
• “real firearm” means—
  
  
  
  
  (a)
  a firearm of an actual make or model of modern firearm (whether existing or discontinued); or
  
  
  
  
  (b)
  something falling within a description which could be used for identifying, by reference to their appearance, the firearms falling within a category of actual modern firearms which, even though they include firearms of different makes or models (whether existing or discontinued) or both, all have the same or a similar appearance.
  
  
  
  
  

 

[Hudson]

VCRA Section 38 does state ‘real firearm’, but does not exclude unreal / sci fi firearms etc.  With 38.7a covering an actual real firearm, but 38.7b the ‘appearance of a category of firearms’

If someone sees it and thinks it is real then it meets the VCRA definition of a RIF unless it gets covered as an IF by the design age, colour or size

(Star Wars wasn’t the best example as their blasters are real firearms with extra things - Sterling SMG, Mauser, MG34 etc, but others could be those from Aliens etc which are ‘unique’ sci fi guns but still tend to have a basis on real designs … the pulse rifle being part Spas shotgun in a shroud)

The underlying solution is of course to bag them in public and never find out what the law thinks it is

Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm”

38

(1)In sections 36 and 37 “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which—

(a)has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and

(b)is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique.

(2)For the purposes of this section, an imitation firearm is not (except by virtue of subsection (3)(b)) to be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only—

(a)by an expert;

(b)on a close examination; or

(c)as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it.

(3)In determining for the purposes of this section whether an imitation firearm is distinguishable from a real firearm—

(a)the matters that must be taken into account include any differences between the size, shape and principal colour of the imitation firearm and the size, shape and colour in which the real firearm is manufactured; and

(b)the imitation is to be regarded as distinguishable if its size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic for a real firearm.

38.7

In this section—

• “colour” is to be construed in accordance with subsection (9);
  
• “de-activated firearm” means an imitation firearm that consists in something which—
  
  
  
  
  (a)
  was a firearm; but
  
  
  
  
  (b)
  has been so rendered incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile as no longer to be a firearm;
  
  
  
  
  
• “real firearm” means—
  
  
  
  
  (a)
  a firearm of an actual make or model of modern firearm (whether existing or discontinued); or
  
  
  
  
  (b)
  something falling within a description which could be used for identifying, by reference to their appearance, the firearms falling within a category of actual modern firearms which, even though they include firearms of different makes or models (whether existing or discontinued) or both, all have the same or a similar appearance.
  
  
  
  
  

TBF, the pulse rifle is just a Thompson in a body kit.

 

[Cannonfodder]

Imo theres a simple way to determine if an airsoft gun is a rif. Ask yourself if waving it around in your local post office wod be a wise idea

 

[you can`t shoot me]

Imo theres a simple way to determine if an airsoft gun is a rif. Ask yourself if waving it around in your local post office wod be a wise idea

So you think you would be fine waving about an if at your local post office?

 

[Tackle]

Imo theres a simple way to determine if an airsoft gun is a rif. Ask yourself if waving it around in your local post office wod be a wise idea

Exactly, irrespective of the "technicalities" all it takes is one person to make a call "I'm scared, man with a gun" or words to that effect, & the police response would likely be overwhelming. 

Even if the "gunman" hasn't attempted to use the if/rif in the commission of a crime, if the attending plod feel its realistic enough to cause fear or distress, then they'll likely apply whatever charge they think fits & pass the buck to the cps. 

If they then push the matter, you gonna have to pray the beak is an airsoft fan, but don't hold your breath lol. 

We have these discussions every few months-ish, & the seasoned players always push the "JUST BE SENSIBLE" approach, but ultimately, if you play silly games, you will win silly prizes ?

View attachment 95285

 

[1967PF44]

I don’t think anyone in the discussion disagrees about the instant consequences of the public waving of an imitation - and that offence is actually very straightforward (as explained) and the article doesn’t even have to resemble a gun - as said two pipes taped together resembling a shotgun barrel is an “imitation firearm”  for the purposes of the 1968 Firearms Act

 

[Rogerborg]

38.7b

A clause that only a lawyer could love.  It's just begging for some juicy "What Parliament meant to say was..." case law.

TBF, the pulse rifle is just a Thompson in a body kit.

Nonsense, the Thompson doesn't shoot 10mm explosive-tip caseless standard light armour-piercing rounds.  

So you think you would be fine waving about an if at your local post office?

We know for a fact that sitting outside a bank with a bright orange springer - that everybody in the case agrees is a "toy" - can get you prosecuted and convicted.