VCRA & retailers undermining it

[Ian_Gere]

@JoW.: You seemed to be saying that the way forward was for us to get our own personal insurance and that then we would be compliant with the VCRA without need for site membership and UKARA, hence UKARA and two-tones could go the way of the dodo. Of course I wouldn't sue over being injured during a skirmish, but I wouldn't sue over being injured by anything unless I was so fucked up that I needed the money for quality of life which the NHS & benefits could not provide. However, I believe that my attitude is rapidly falling by the wayside, as far as the genpop is concerned, and Site PL Insurance is a whole different ball game to semi or actually mandated individual insurance.

It's about perception again - the insurance a Site needs is a business expense which could sink the site's company if it were ever to be claimed against, due to the increase in premiums which would follow, whereas insurance which you have to have as an individual is well known to be a racket anyway so, in many people's eyes, you may as well screw anything out of them that you can get (it's viewed as a victimless crime to make outright fraudulent claims, laying it on thick to get more money when you are actually hurt is par for the course I think). And this is where ambulance chasers come in... and those wankers that phone you up asking if you've been involved in an accident in the last 5yrs.

@Russe11: requiring a CRB check would not be a step in the right direction at all, exactly the opposite. Criminals who want an RIF to commit crime would still get them through unscrupulous dealers, 2nd hand, buying stolen goods, or just stealing them themselves. A CRB check would be another hoop that we law abiding people would have to jump through for no good reason. That's the thing to grasp mate - there is no epidemic of crime which only drastic measures out of all proportion to how dangerous an airsoft gun is can succeed in tackling, and the kinds of crime which you can commit with an RIF are not very serious anyway, when compared to actual attacks on people: the whole thing was a witch hunt in the first place and, now that the make-work legislation which came out of it has been shown up for the bad, unenforcible, possibly illegal, mess that it is, the absolute last thing we need is to start again where the last whipped up skewed debate left off and acquiesce to, call for even, even more restriction.

How would requiring a CRB check work with private imports? 2nd hand sales? Sales of parts which could be used to manufacture an RIF but are not themselves an RIF? How would it work with legal precedent? James mentioned kitchen knives; if it is reasonable to require a CRB check before a person may buy an airsoft gun, then based on the numbers and seriousness of criminal offences committed with kitchen knives, cutlery shops must be registered, only after proving they can keep knives in a secure safe, and individuals would need to meet progressively more stringent requirements to own anything sharper than a potato peeler.

 

[jcheeseright]

I've given myself some nasty cuts with a potato peeler.

 

[Russe11]

There is a slight difference between kitchen knives and RIF's. Although both can be used to commit crimes, it is obviously not possible to restrict the purchase of kitchen knives.

The issue of how much damage an airsoft gun can do is not relevant. The point is that they look like real guns and being held at gunpoint is rather an unpleasant experience for most people. Which would you prefer, fill out a form online and pay £5, or someone you care about gets held at gunpoint and robbed?

We do need systems in place to ensure the wrong people do not have RIF's. At the same time they need to be simple to understand and cause the minimum of hassle for us.

 

[JoW.]

In most shooting activities (hunting, targets) you are allowed or required to self insure which you do by joining an association which includes insurance in its membership. That permits the holders of the guns (licensed and police approved if they are Sec 1 guns), or not licensed if they are low powered air guns, to take part in and organise their own activity. The test for airsoft requires an organised activity (which means permissions are sought from land owners, there is insurance to meet third party public liability as in someone who is not a participant who is suing, signs are put up to warn people that an airsoft game is going on so the police know what to expect).

The scenario I am thinking of is if I had lots of private land or booked private land with (let's say, a) farmer, insured members could come and shoot, provided they pre-register and send in proof of insurance, much in the same way a hunter who is given permission to shoot low powered airguns on the farmer's land who has insurance is able to carry on his activity. These members should still count as airsofters, given that they would be using airsoft guns to shoot at each other just as if they were playing at a UKARA site. The law has to account for these less formal arrangements as well, UKARA suits the way some people get to go out airsofting, but not all.

 

[jcheeseright]

why do we need a system in place to prevent someone from getting hold of a RIF? There is ALREADY legislation in place regarding people being threatened with firearms, preventative law is a folly and an erosion of our civil liberties, there is no real danger posed by airsoft guns and brandishing one in public is already a crime.

The minimum amount of hassle would be to make them available for purchase to anyone who wants one, unfortunately the poorly thought out and rushed VCRA stuffed us on that front, adding in a CRB check for new gun purchases wouldn't help since if someone wants to get hold of a RIF then they will, in much the same way that if someone wants to get hold of a real gun, they will.

You're saying how would I feel if someone I cared about were held up at gunpoint and robbed? I'd feel pretty crappy about that, but it's already a crime and someone can be held up and robbed with a knife.

Controlling the distribution of something because it's easy to do so is flat out retarded, as is the assumption that a CRB check to get an airsoft gun will stop criminals from getting them. I'm sure that in the small amount of crimes there are committed with imitation firearms most of those guns haven't been bought from responsible retailers after the criminal has attended 3 games, become a site member and registered themselves on the UKARA database. I'm pretty sure that those imitation weapons will have been bought from dodgy market traders and from sporting goods shops selling them as air pistols. Those retailers are already breaking the law and adding in an EXTRA layer of paperwork isn't going to stop that.

 

[jcheeseright]

and here it is, official response from UKAPU:

[SIZE=medium]UKAPU Response to recent events[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I think it fair to say that the recent events have been well publicised. I am of course referring to the leaked email from Frank Bothamley to other UKARA members containing ideas on how to rework the VCRA.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I hope to address the issues raised in the email from a UKAPU perspective but also I want to avoid casting aspersions and name calling as it is counterproductive.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Firstly, I want to deal with the manner in which it was brought to light. Whilst I have a huge amount of respect for [/SIZE]‘Yossers airsoft oddesy’ I believe the manner in which the story was broken was guaranteed to result in a vitriolic outrage in the online airsoft community. This could have been as counterproductive and as damaging as the contents of the email itself. I hope that ‘Yosser’ can take something from this experience as well as the retailers, Mr. Bothamley and the wider airsoft community.

[SIZE=medium]Secondly; we should bear in mind that the email contained ideas. These were not proposals that had been submitted to the Home office and accepted, they were not new laws they were just ideas. It is important that this is remembered.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]If these are submitted to the HO or the ACPO as they stand purely through others inaction as Mr. Bothamly alludes to then that would be another matter and one that UKAPU would fight as we do not agree with the recommendations in their entirety.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So let[/SIZE]’s deal with the email

1. [SIZE=11pt]Mr. Bothamley approached the HO and the ACPO over 12 months ago. As Chairman of UKARA and dealing with issues relating around the VCRA then that is his prerogative to do so as the breaches of the VCRA he was reporting were not being dealt with. Due to the nature of these discussions, a heads up and some feedback to the other associations (and to the UKARA members) would have been a matter of common courtesy, and would be in line with the coordinated approach that we have agreed upon.[/SIZE]
2. [SIZE=11pt]Any proposal that further limits the rights of players to purchase RIF[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]’[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]s places the control of second hand sales and personal imports into the hands of retailers is not something we would condone and would fight against it. There is no evidence that private imports and second hand sales are causing a problem.[/SIZE]
   
3. [SIZE=11pt]Mr. Bothamley's call for RIF[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]’[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]s to be sold through airgun weapon RFD[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]’[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]s is just that. It is not asking for reclassification of airsoft guns to airgun status just that they be sold via a checkable source. This isn[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]’[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]t necessarily the end of the world as it would do away with some of the less than honest retailers. It could have an impact on some of the smaller shops but it is for them to decide if gaining RFD status is worthwhile. It makes checking a whole lot easier for both the police and trading standards however.[/SIZE]
   
4. [SIZE=11pt]UKARA would be defunct. Whilst the database and the association have been proven to be less than perfect and there are persistent accusations of new retailers being denied fair access, it has worked for the most part. It[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]’[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]s not perfect, and I believe that the database should be controlled independently, probably by sites, and with free access for all, in line with the original assertions that [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]“[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]it would not be a closed system[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]”[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]. With the system proposed by Mr. Bothamley, all that would be required would be proof of age. This would I think put us back to pre VCRA days, with RIFs available to all and thus all the problems that were perceived to exist prior to he VCRA would In effect exist once more.[/SIZE]
   
5. [SIZE=11pt]The proposals for the withdrawal of second hand sales and personal imports as outlined in Mr. Bothamley's Email concern us the most. If he wishes to follow the model for airgun sales then these should remain unregulated and UKAPU would fight for this right to remain.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The result of this rather negative situation is that it has promoted discussion. Let[/SIZE]’s hope that the outcome is more interest from players, sites and retailers in how they are represented. Bear in mind that, at the moment, we are doubtful that changes to these law are on the table.

[SIZE=medium]–[/SIZE]The main point of UKAPU is that it’s a way to get your voice heard. As we will be speaking to ACPO and the Home Office in the near future, would members want us to support changes to the VCRA or not? Would you prefer to see reforms from within the community? If you do want to see changes in the VCRA and specific defence, what would you like to change? Do you feel that the VCRA is fundamentally working? Is it workable and enforceable and are problems with enforcement even an issue for the airsoft community, or the duty of the Police and Government? Please feel free to contact me directly at [SIZE=medium][email protected][/SIZE][SIZE=medium] or join the discussion on our forum if this has made you think about our hobby[/SIZE]’s future.

[SIZE=medium]Phil Bucknall[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]UKAPU Chairman[/SIZE]

I think he's succinctly put there exactly what I and a lot of others have been trying to get across. Barring the restrictions on second hand sales and personal imports I think the proposed changes make a lot of sense, it appears UKAPU feel the same.

If you want a voice in this, join UKAPU and make your views known to the board.

 

[Ian_Gere]

There is a slight difference between kitchen knives and RIF's. Although both can be used to commit crimes, it is obviously not possible to restrict the purchase of kitchen knives.

Ah, but it is and we do. You must be 18 to buy them. We also restrict the use of them to reduce the chance that they may be used in a criminal offence: it is an offence to carry an object with a blade or point longer than 3 inches in public. The main difference between an airsoft gun and a kitchen knife is that it is much easier to hurt someone with the latter and that is not a hypothetical possibility, there are tens of thousands of offences committed every year with domestic knives.

The issue of how much damage an airsoft gun can do is not relevant. The point is that they look like real guns and being held at gunpoint is rather an unpleasant experience for most people.

The potential for actual bodily harm is massively relevant, since the only offences which can be committed with RIF's are those involving making threats. Indeed having real, or what you believe to be real, guns pointed at you is unpleasant, as is being held up at knife point, and being threatened with a baseball bat. You know what's worse though, don't you? Actually being attacked, even with somebody's bare hands.

Which would you prefer, fill out a form online and pay £5, or someone you care about gets held at gunpoint and robbed?

That is what is known in formal debate, or logic, as a false dichotamy. In fact, if I did fill out the form and pay my fiver, that would not preclude someone I know, nor I, from being held up at gunpoint. Nor if I and every RIF owner refuse does it mean that we, anybody we know, or any given individual, will be held up at gunpoint: it just means that that particular means of attempting to reduce the incidence of crimes, which any single individual already has a vanishingly small possibility of suffering from anyway, is not being tried, not that others may not be tried.

We do need systems in place to ensure the wrong people do not have RIF's. At the same time they need to be simple to understand and cause the minimum of hassle for us.

Well, you're on shaky legal ground there, because the presumption of innocence is hugely important to UK Law, being based as it is on English Common Law. It has to remain the case that a person who has committed an offence previously is deemed innocent unless and until s/he is proved to have committed a further offence, because otherwise the system of adversarial trial would be so imbalanced as to be pointless, but furthermore the entire basis upon which our justice system depends would be demolished: the belief that once a person has been punished they are able to rejoin society.

That said, there are systems in place to ensure that criminals do not have guns of any sort - if you have been imprisoned for a crime you cannot own a gun. What could be simpler than that? The Firearms Act already covers everything which a person may do with an RIF, be it airsoft gun or whatever, and we also have a whole raft of laws against various types and degrees of threatening people, robbing them, burgling them where threats are involved, extorting money, demanding it with menaces, and sexual assault. What could be simpler than "everything which anyone might do improperly with an RIF is already an offence so let's leave it at that"? It is messing with that which has brought us to the current situation, which, remember, the ACPO say cannot be enforced. There was no similar complaints about the Firearms Act, or any of the laws I just mentioned...

 

[JoW.]

If you want a voice in this, join UKAPU and make your views known to the board.

You just have to join the forum. To join UKAPU via their form, you need a...UKARA number.

 

[jcheeseright]

yes you do, but if you just join the forum you're not contributing to their membership statistics and are effectively just a lone voice shouting into the aether.

lobbying organisations and representative bodies gain their clout from membership numbers, if UK airsoft can be seen and proved to be a large and viable community of responsible people we have a voice in this whole cock-up. If you're just a member of their forum you're involved in the discussion for sure, but you add no weight to any proposals or arguments that are put forward.

In short, join UKAPU, it's a fiver and as a player's union they represent US, players - not the retailers.

 

[Ian_Gere]

Thanks for putting that up, James. I know that few people are concerned with what appears to be an innocuous change, that without changing the status of airsoft guns, we restrict their sale to RFD's. Personally I'm extremely frustrated by that - as I said earlier, legislation creep is a very real phenomena and should be resisted in every twist and turn. Yeah, I am likening it to all of the negative ideas associated with snakes, because the process is based on fundamental dishonesty.

It is the belief of some people that nobody can be trusted to get on with their own business unless their potential for action is hedged around with so many rules that their own free will is left with no other choice than to do whatever the rule maker's philosophy ascribes to that 'classification' of person. This is authoritarianism, the real political opposite of liberal ideologies/instincts. Of course the fundamental flaw with any society based on authoritarian ideas has been expressed throughout history and is very simple: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guards themselves? And this is where the opposites really clash, because the liberal believes that it is better that the guilty go unpunished rather than the innocent be punished mistakenly or corruptly, but the authoritarian has to simply accept the potential for corruption and call that the price of a better way of life than the "chaos" which ensues from imperfectly controlled populations.

However, when do you ever hear this expressed as the reason for a particular law? Never. Even when, as with so many sections of both recent Public Order Acts, it is seemingly purely renaming offences which were previously on the books. In fact legislation creep often operates in the shadows, lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut, hidden like a snake in the grass and willing to writhe and contort into any convoluted shape to avoid the obstacles of logic and legal precedence. In the appendices and the legalese then, where threatening a person used to be a form of Common Assault and the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the defendant's behaviour was threatening to the victim, it is superseded by the entirely reasonable sounding Threatening Behaviour, until you realise that in the general preamble of the whole Act it states that it shall be no defence to claim that any behaviour covered later within the Act could not affect anyone because there was nobody there other than the defendant.

No matter how ridiculous it may sound, it is therefore possible to prosecute somebody for Threatening Behaviour based on their having told one or more witnesses that they had practiced Karate Katas out in the open somewhere. But the law is never applied in such ways, which the majority of the framers did not intend, or perhaps even know was being included, eh? Well, the law which was brought in to prevent terrorists from planning attacks by putting the police under surveillance is being regularly used by The Met to prevent people from filming officers whose conduct is at best sloppy and at worst illegal.

If we allow the sale of airsoft guns to be declared worthy of the same degree of scrutiny as firearms, even though it may take a long time, the normalisation of the connection will finally lead to greater restrictions on airsoft guns, as if they are weapons. In the meantime, the fact that non-weapons have been deemed so worthy of scrutiny will be latched onto by those who wish to see other things restricted, a la "You can only threaten someone with an RIF but you can't just buy it anywhere. How can it make sense for X to be freely available when you could do Y with it?"

Mark my words you young'uns...

 

[CaptainSwoop]

Someone mention a CRB to buy a RIF?

Who is going to pay for the CRB?

WHat do you take as a 'Pass' or do you just refuse a RIF to anyone who has anything on their CR ?

That's going into a whole can of worms we want to avoid!

 

[Big Joe]

Someone mention a CRB to buy a RIF?

Who is going to pay for the CRB?

WHat do you take as a 'Pass' or do you just refuse a RIF to anyone who has anything on their CR ?

That's going into a whole can of worms we want to avoid!

I think using a CRB wouldn't be very smart, as things stay on your record for a long time, we'll certain things anyway.

So you may have matured, or whatever but convictions will still be able to be seen, then obviously refused to but RIF.