VCRA & retailers undermining it

[jcheeseright]

In many ways I agree with Ian, more legislation is not necessarily the way to go.

 

However, if the changes to existing legislation result in less regulation for consumers and the end of 2-tone guns then I could potentially get behind it.

 

If nothing else, I'm hoping for clearer rules, a definitive set of laws which clearly lay down who can buy a RIF and who can sell them one. Hopefully that'll be everyone over 18 who wants one an UKARA will be no more.

[Airsoft-Ed]

http://frenchie35.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/frothies-they-frothing/

I think Frenchie's more than nailed it.

[JoW.]

There is absolutely no call for RIFs to be included as restricted items requiring RFD transfer. To support this would be total folly. When you are in the airsoft community, the RIF takes on the importance of a real firearm because you are trying to hit someone with it. When you look at the RIF as an object in its own right, it is about as much a firearm as a cardboard cutout of a firearm or a banana shaped like a firearm. This is not an object that can withstand any legal test for being dangerous enough to license or control. No license = no possible legislatable and enforceable control. The proposal is an own goal for retailers, plain and simple.

 

I think the fact the ACPO see the VCRA (in and of itself; sales of RIFs to under 18s, publicly displaying them where you shouldn't and threatening behaviour with them is already covered in other legislation) as unenforceable and are not willing to take it further is positive. It is an accurate reflection of the imbecility of the provisions in the VCRA.

 

If you don't want to purchase a two tone, all you need do is show you are purchasing it for the purposes of making a film (for example), plain and simple (this is even written in specifically, and the definition of what a film constitutes is very liberal). If you want to do away with two tones, stop calling yourself an airsofter and call yourself an amateur film enthusiast.

[evilfree]

http://www.ai-mag.com/blog/2013/11/07/jumping-the-gun/

[Rock-climby-Dave]

I agree with some of the points you raise, Ian, and certainly some on frenchies blog.

 

I would, however be very surprised to see RIFs 'relegalised' so that they are unrestricted completely.

 

UKARA Does not now, has never, nor can ever work flawlessly. It NEEDS changing, to me at least, these proposals are a deregulation of the humble RIF. I agree that they shouldn't be lumped into Firearms, but is having them only sold by people who regularly handle firearms and who can pass on safety knowledge to the consumer really such a bad thing? I mean, how often are there accidents involving firearms? very few. How often are RIFs fucked around with? Very often. Having some of that sensibility can't harm our reputation as a sport.

 

Also, is it possible that, as chariman of UKARA, Frank has become bored of people flaunting the law which he has helped to input originally. Is it possible he intended for this to leak to prompt debate on the subject? It's well overdue and even if Frank doesn't follow through, I'm sure there are many more airsofters that are going to start coming out against unenforceable regulation.

[JoW.]

Being a current NRA qualified RCO, I can tell you there is, in fact, negligible crossover between real firearms and airsoft handling safety, and it is not the sort of thing an RFD dealing primarily with real firearms will be able to advise on. Shoot at people wearing safety glasses with a (real) firearm? Unthinkable. Advice about ammunition? No common knowledge base whatsoever. What calibre to choose? What MOA should I expect from my TM VSR?

 

An RFD coming from live firearms is only going to be interested in the safety angle of licensable arms. Responsible handling of airsoft guns from the public point of view boils down to keep it in a fully enclosed bag until you are where you intend to use it, be it airsofting, filming, stage or re-enacting. Travelling with a loaded magazine and BB in the chamber of a bagged airsoft gun with a ME of less than 1 ft lb will not land you in hot water unless you gun bag is so shite that the BB escapes, and even if you would hit someone with it, it is not assault with a firearm.

[Raptors Spider]

Ok when kicking off this thread I included the proviso "if true, then players need to voice their opinions, loudly."

 

​several things occurred from reading the email that lead me to being unhappy with it.

 

1. The chair of UKARA had been discussing with ACPO for a year before going back to UKARA members.
2. It seeks to prevents any purchasing unless via a UK RFD. So no imports, no second hand sales unless "monitored" by RFDs
3. It moves airsoft RIF ever closer to firearm status

 

It appears to be entirely geared towards protectionism of the UK retailers and completely fails to address the fundamental issue with this matter. The need for identifying airsofters. If we can achieve this is a clear and unambiguous way then we can ensure that sales of any kind, new, second hand or imports are only received by airsofters. It would be simple to state whether someone in possession of a RIF is an airsofter and apply sanctions in cases where retailers or those owning RIFs break the rules.

 

Under no illusion that this is a simple problem. But giving ever tighter control of airsoft to a smaller and smaller pool of UK retailers is not the answer.

 

 

[jcheeseright]

That's not how I read the email at all, clearly Frank has been contacting APCO to try and get someone to enforce the law as trading standards and police were both recommending each other! The end result is that in the last month the police have admitted that the law is unenforceable and frank is now asking the UKARA membership (retailers, as players we are not members) for suggestions and feedback on his initial ideas.

 

This was clearly an INTERNAL communication between UKARA members and was not intended for public eyes, as such it hasn't been worded in a way to stop the internet airsoft police squad going off on one because their reading comprehension isn't up to scratch.

 

 

See here for a response which I believe should calm any fears.

http://www.ai-mag.com/blog/2013/11/07/jumping-the-gun/

 

Boycotting Fire-support will not help anyone at all, try and remember that it's someone's business and livelihood which could be destroyed by crappy rumours and selectively publishing parts of an email we were never even supposed to see. Someone's kids are fed off the back of that business, someone's mortgage is paid with the profits from it. Assuming that fire support are the 'big bad' is frankly (lol, see what I did there) nonsense. Despite what people may think the UK airsoft market really isn't worth that much money and even the bigger stores fire-support, zero-one, land warrior etc are still 'small businesses'.

[Liam Porter]

Fire-Support just posted on Facebook, regarding the issue:

 

https://www.facebook.com/Firesupportffz/posts/10151968820066858

 

 

 

Statement about the VCR suggested changes.

The email was a private email canvassing UKARA retailers for an opinion of what we could suggest as a way forward with the VCRA if it were to be changed.

The leaked publication by the Blog run by Yosser has done potentially more damage to airsoft than anyone can imagine. Should the fact that the Police raised concerns about enforcement get into the Press then you should be more worried about the consequences of any ukara discussion about VCRA changes, which in our view would be to help airsoft not destroy it.

This is our livelihood destroying the industry is the last and furthest thing from our minds.
World domination is also of no interest to us, we just want to be able to sell RIFs on a level playing field along with all the other people that sell RIFS.

The sole aim of the ukara discussion was to try and get illegal sales stopped.
These illegal sales all though great for new players are harming airsoft and are getting worse each year.

UKARA has no power to stop anyone doing anything, it is in effect a very useful method for players who are members of an insured airsoft site to buy a RIF without any hassles or delays. You buy a gun, we check you can buy it in seconds, without the system you could wait weeks to get your new purchase as it relies on the sites being available to vouch for you and a retailer being able to see a copy of the site insurance to make sure it is valid. (another discussion I think)

The email sent was seeking a majority view from UKARA members for a way forward and was not the message that was going to be passed to the Home Office.

Once the members had a majority view of what we wanted to say at this point we would have passed on our views to the Home office to add to the collection of views that they are gathering.

At NO point did it state that RIFs should be treated as Air Weapons.
It did not suggest banning internet sales
It did not suggest banning second hand sales
It did not say sales should be face to face
It did not say posting guns should be illegal

These are all assumptions by people reading between the lines or just didn't read the email properly.

All we (Firesupport) suggested was that a simple way for RIF sales to be controlled was that only RFD Air Weapon sellers should be able to sell RIFs to anyone over 18.
NOT THAT RIFS ARE AIR WEAPONS.
A simplistic view but it was just a suggestion of something that would be easy to control.
Becoming an RFD is a reasonably simple process (Firesupport are not RFDs).

You need to realise that should any change take place that it would take a long while and also involve all interested groups in a consultation process just like the original VCR Bill.
At no point were UKARA considered as a sole input to a change, the Home Office would not allow it and the Home Office would have had the Gun Trade Association (A major lobbying force in government circles) up in arms with law suites etc.

As this is now in open view, discussions are taking place with sites groups and player reps for their views.
Should opinions be formed by these groups, the site groups and player reps should then register an interest with the home office and put their group suggestions forward.

Thanks
Frank

 

 

So, as expected, it's people reading things wrong and making assumptions. From what Frank has said above, it seems pretty reasonable.

[JoW.]

I'm sorry, but this is just a bad idea. It says two things: 1) The retailers are having a tiff with each other and want the police to help them find a way to settle this (not going to happen and looks mighty immature), 2) There is a group of people out there who want tighter regulation of ALL RIFs (a non-firing wooden replica would also be swept up in this). To the police, or anyone not in the know about airsoft, an Airsoft Association rates the same as the Gun Control Network because both have an opinion on the subject of gun control. The only answer legislators could come up with that can withstand the test of universality is 'ban all RIFs'. Note that the VCRA does not distinguish between RIFs that shoot pellets and RIFs that can't. There never was an intention for a provision to distinguish an airsoft RIF for special treatment, and they WILL NOT write one in, ever. Air pistols that look like realistic copies of H&K pistols (or any other firearm) are not RIFs by virtue of the fact they meet the legal definition/test for firearms, so they will always be capable of being legislated for differently. Never mistake the similarity of airsoft RIFs and the slightly more powerful air guns. The first is not a firearm due to the essential property of lethality and can never be included in firearms legislation.

 

By all means, if you want to end up with no airsoft at all, go down this route.

[Lozart]

Let's not forget that the whole raison d'etre of the VCRA and controls on RIFs was due to something around 80% of violent crime being carried out using replica firearms. It's not about applying the same regulation to plastic guns as to real ones it's about making it harder for ne'er do wells to stroll into a shop, buy a £50 plastic Glock and then scaring the bejeesus out of some old lady in a sub Post Office. The Home Office could give two shits about the sport/hobby that has grown up around these toy guns. They're only interested in protecting the public from crims and helping to stop SO19 from double tapping a kid with a cap gun. If the ACPO and/or the Home Office decide the whole thing is too difficult to manage and that the best/easiest thing to do is an outright ban then that's what we'll get.

In many ways making a big public noise about the whole thing just brings it squarely into focus for the powers that be who may well decide that the tiny percentage of the population that enjoy running around the woods dressed as soldiers aren't going to make all that much difference come election time compared to the number of people in the sink estates of the country who see what LOOKS like a real gun in some kids ADIDAS tracky bottoms and shit themselves.

 

Added to which it very much appears that the internet has done what it does best - kneejerked about an ill-informed comment and got all of a lather about something that may not even happen.

 

I for one will carry on buying from Fire Support, but I will voice an opinion on tighter regulation IF it becomes a serious possibility.

[Ian_Gere]

http://frenchie35.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/frothies-they-frothing/

 

I think Frenchie's more than nailed it.

Yeah, he said exactly what I did, except at greater length (amazingly enough) and with a familiarity with the names and dates which I could never have remembered even had I known them in the first place

If you don't want to purchase a two tone, all you need do is show you are purchasing it for the purposes of making a film (for example), plain and simple (this is even written in specifically, and the definition of what a film constitutes is very liberal). If you want to do away with two tones, stop calling yourself an airsofter and call yourself an amateur film enthusiast.

Exactly, and if you want to be able to commit an act of terrorism in the UK and are concerned that you may not be able to travel from your lair (hideout?) to your chosen venue without being arrested with your weapons, simply paint your real firearms 51% bright orange and wrap them in bin liners or something: you'll be just fine!

UKARA Does not now, has never, nor can ever work flawlessly. It NEEDS changing, to me at least, these proposals are a deregulation of the humble RIF. I agree that they shouldn't be lumped into Firearms, but is having them only sold by people who regularly handle firearms and who can pass on safety knowledge to the consumer really such a bad thing? I mean, how often are there accidents involving firearms? very few. How often are RIFs fucked around with? Very often. Having some of that sensibility can't harm our reputation as a sport.

How is having them only sold by Registered Firearms Dealers not lumping airsoft guns in with firearms, Dave? People fuck about with RIF's? So what? People fuck about with baseball bats far more often. The point which really needs to be grasped is that an airsoft gun is not a weapon, nor can it be used as an improvised weapon as successfully even as a plank, unlike many other items. It may look like a weapon, but using it in such a way that anybody outside an airsoft venue may reasonably believe that that is what it is, was already a criminal offence before the VCRA 2006 changes.

 

As Frenchie said, there is no problem that needs solving, so no need for any law to solve it. Having some sensibility that an airsoft gun could take your eye out is obviously a good thing, as is having the sense to realise that brandishing it in public may get you shot by the police, but it is not necessary to delegate the responsibility for instilling such sensibility into airsoft gun customers to RFD's. Any retailer who sells airsoft guns ought to be reminding people of that, if for no other reason than to cover themselves from being sued if somebody gets hurt and wants to claim that they didn't know how dangerous the things could be. The same info is also in whatever paperwork/manual comes with them from the manufacturer.

 

Yes, some people are complete bellends, but we cannot stand for law being framed to try to prevent every instance of absolute bellends getting hurt/hurting others at the unreasonable expense of sensible people. This is not how the regulation of other potentially dangerous things is approached. Cars for eg: every year there are thousands of incidents, despite all the regulations. If we were to apply the same degree of concern to preventing car accidents caused by bellends doing something they have been told not to, which ought to be bloody obvious to them anyway, hardly anyone would be allowed to drive. And let's remember, cars get people killed regularly - there has never yet been an incident in the UK where an airsoft gun has got anyone killed and just because that has happened elsewhere, there is no reason to believe it will happen here. British coppers are not unemployed soldiers who grew up in a society where, if you see a kid with what appears to be a gun, it probably is...

[JoW.]

Stickups with actual firearms painted to look like two tones make muggings so much more acceptable (!!!)

 

I, for one, would love to see the proof that 80% of the violent crime was being carried out with RIFs as a class of object. Not bananas or pencils in pockets (that's for Keith Bottomley, Firearms Guru at the Home Office, now retired), not air pistols that look like P99s (this is an actual firearm), not deactivated firearms, not illegal firearms. Actual R-I-Fs. I suspect they might have collated many of those figures from incidents of threatening behaviour with a firearm (a well established crime) and, possibly, incidents of firearms being carried in a public place when they must be carried in a fully concealing bag (Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003). As such, this figure is suspect in its applicability to RIFs.

 

VCRA tries badly to address sales of non-firearm RIFs and has not succeeded in doing so because the RIFs in question are below licensable thresholds. Apart from looking like a realistic firearm, a RIF has as about much standing in law as a sheet of blank paper, only the paper could cut you. This is what makes VCRA in relation to RIFs such bad law, and I am not surprised the ACPO is pretty much saying the same. VCRA is the enemy, it should be campaigned against, because it has achieved nothing other than chilling the rights of any law abiding person to purchase a RIF.

 

All the actual crimes you could commit with a RIF are already covered by existing legislation - threatening behaviour, sale to under 18s (ASBA, 2003), having a RIF uncovered in public view (ASBA, 2003). All the objections airsofters have about idiots getting and using RIFs irresponsibly have already been covered. Airsofters should remember that they do not have a monopoly on wanting RIFs either, and it is ridiculous to maintain that a law abiding collector of RIFs who has never once threatened or hurt anyone should rightly be prohibited from purchasing another one because of the harm caused to society by a RIF - an object which is not dangerous enough by itself to rate licensing.

 

(If the combination of Hazel Blears and Charles Clarke would not have been inhabiting the Home Office, I have serious doubts the VCR could even have been concocted, such were the days)

 

Now, how about some historical re-enactment of the Social Movement Known As Airsofting in the UK, ca 2005?

[jcheeseright]

^ what he said.

[Ian_Gere]

Also I want to add that at no point have I misread, read between the lines, misquoted, nor misrepresented anything which has been written in this debate, by Frank or anyone else. My opinion is that I profoundly disagree with the entire concept of treating our toys/sports equipment as if they are in any way linked with firearms whatsoever.

 

80% sounds like a terrifyingly large statistic, Loz, but 80% of what? Not 80% of violent crime, not even 80% of violent crime involving guns (although the actual figures of such gun crime and also compared to other crime, recently, before 2006, and the trends throughout the 90's, would be important evidence in considering whether there is a problem of sufficient magnitude that we should consider it worthy of particular concern), no we are talking about 80% of those offences involving a gun in which the perpetrator was arrested (otherwise how would we know whether the gun was fake or not?).

 

Hmmm... seems that RIF's are not proving to be such a massive problem then, eh? Of those arrested with firearms, 80% were fake and didn't prevent the police arresting them, nor result in a shooting incident involving armed police (or we would have heard about it).

[Airsoft-Ed]

Frank said in his statement something to the effect of; airsoft guns will still be classed as they currently are, just because they'd be sold and traded via an RFD wouldn't make them anything any closer to air weapons or actual firearms.

I think making changes so that two tones are done away with and the law can actually be enforced can only be a good thing. So long as it doesn't change how I can buy and sell my RIFs I'm all for it, and it doesn't look like there'll be any changes to that on my end at all with the exception of private importing, which I've never done. However, I understand a ban on private importing to mean, importing which has nothing to do with an RFD, I see no reason why you wouldn't be allowed to import via an RFD, which will then post it on to you. Or indeed, for an RFD to import something on your behalf - I don't have any issues with that at all.

Additionally, the very fact that Firesupport currently isn't an RFD gives me confidence that Firesupport aren't trying to twist the whole thing in their favour somehow, even they'll have to make changes and register themselves if their proposals are ever eventually acted on. On top of that, Firesupport becoming an RFD but not actually selling any air or real firearms helps support Frank's claim that I mentioned above, airsoft guns will be no closer to being classified as real or air weapons, as Firesupport will be considered a true RFD that stocks real and air weapons. It's just a title, not a literal translation of the business. They will be an RFD, that does no mean they will sell firearms - which airsoft guns are not.

Really, they could do with calling Registered Firearms Dealers something different, at least amongst the airsoft community, if not legally, because I think people are taking the name and attaching a literal definition, without actually thinking about how it might just be a name stuck to something, without it really having real implications. People seem to be thinking, "If my RIFs can only be sold by RFDs, then that must mean that airsoft guns are being classified as firearms" there's nothing written anywhere that suggests that. I think Frank just meant it in a sense that airsoft guns might benefit from being sold and traded in a way that's similar to air guns, just with more lax postage restrictions. Which on the whole, is actually less restricting than airsoft currently is - the only thing stopping anyone from buying an air gun, is their age if they're under 18. When they buy it the shop takes their name and address for a record, they hand over the money and that's that. Guns can then be traced to some extent.

I don't see it as tighter controls either, because as it stands so far, from what people have said, it's no tighter than it is now. It's simply a way to keep track of who has what and where, nothing about that is controlling, there's no "you can't have that particular gun because...". I would rather there be some record of who owns what and where they are, than it just be a gigantic guessing game where people who breach the act can't actually be called out on it.

Everyone's always said UKARA was pointless and massively flawed, but now there's the chance to alter it, no one wants to accept the (totally not concrete whatsoever) proposals.

Plus, all this stuff about second hand sales needing to be done using RFD monitored resources; I'm sure they'll be a way that a forum could be classed as 'RFD monitored' so I doubt anything will even change in that respect either.

[Ian_Gere]

No Ed, no mate, just no.

 

What is an airsoft licence? We get plenty of noobs wanting one, eh? We get plenty of experienced airsofters referring to them casually too, right? Why?

 

Because people associate needing some piece of paper before they can do something with an actual licence.

 

So we will know that there is no connection between airsoft guns which also happen to be RIF's and items which are legally defined as firearms, but what will the genpop think? They will think that airsoft guns are firearms because they can only be sold by firearms dealers. Will anybody in the wider population notice that Fire Support don't also sell Air Weapons and Firearms? How will they notice? A load of guns on a wall is just that, how does Joe Public know what they are?

 

So the connection becomes normalised. What will happen the next time the Daily Fail want to whip up a banmob to take people's attention away from something more serious which the govt ought to be doing something about/differently/not doing/etc.? Some bellend will make a vid like the one currently on yt and the next thing you know, you'll have to have a firearms licence to own airsoft guns.

 

Legislation creep, Ed. It's a real thing, mate, not just a theoretical phenomenon in the study of politics. First they came for the assault rifle owners and I said nothing because I was not an assault weapon collector...*

 

It doesn't matter that you have so far not bothered to import an RIF. The fact that you can, easily, keeps the price in the UK down, because the retailers know that Poland is in the EU and doing a roaring trade...

 

 

*Personally I don't want people in Britain freely walking around with assault weapons, but I also don't believe that the majority of law abiding people should be penalised because nutters can't be trusted. Nutters can't be trusted, that's a fact of life. It has nothing to do with the legal status of potentially lethal items. All it ought to mean is that items with which it is very easy to take life ought to be kept very secure.

[JoW.]

Really, they could do with calling Registered Firearms Dealers something different, at least amongst the airsoft community, if not legally, because I think people are taking the name and attaching a literal definition, without actually thinking about how it might just be a name stuck to something, without it really having real implications. People seem to be thinking, "If my RIFs can only be sold by RFDs, then that must mean that airsoft guns are being classified as firearms" there's nothing written anywhere that suggests that. I think Frank just meant it in a sense that airsoft guns might benefit from being sold and traded in a way that's similar to air guns, just with more lax postage restrictions. Which on the whole, is actually less restricting than airsoft currently is - the only thing stopping anyone from buying an air gun, is their age if they're under 18. When they buy it the shop takes their name and address for a record, they hand over the money and that's that. Guns can then be traced to some extent.

 

An RFD is a specific legal status that allows a business to trade in firearms, ammunition and components (eg primers). To become an RFD, you must apply as a business entity to the police responsible for your area (pay your 150.00) and demonstrate to them, 1) you have a need for RFD status, 2) you have adequate security for storage of firearms and ammunition. You could, for instance, say that you have customers ready and waiting to buy .22LR GSG-5s, have a business plan demonstrating that your business is viable, or otherwise show that your business is impeded by not being an RFD due to specific requirements (eg you don't want to sell S1 firearms, but you want to sell ammo, and no distributor of live ammo can deal with you if you don't have RFD status). It's not a matter of branding.

 

If you were talking about an 'airsoft RFD' with no legal standing, there would be no substantive difference to the situation as it stands now with UKARA, and therefore no point in pursuing this line of enquiry.

[Airsoft-Ed]

I think the public are oblivious enough and the weapons/toys we use stigmatised enough for adding other firearms related terms to the mix to barely make any difference. 'RIF' is hardly a term the public are going to smile about, what stigma does 'RFD' realistically add?

Anyway, as I tried badly to explain, I think Frank intended it to mean we use the same sort of system as air rifles i.e. - If you've over 18 you can buy one.

What his proposal doesn't mention, is how, when postage isn't going to be restricted, nobs will be kept from just buying RIFs instead of IFs and some paint. I imagine there'll always have to be some sort of "3 trips = trust" sort of thing going on; similar to UKARA because the only way to prove anyone is an airsofter aside from that, in a way that can be quickly checked for the sake of an online sale, is to introduce a licensing system and I do think that licensing is a horrible idea.

The thing to remember, is that whatever happens, it won't be for a long while. Airsoft is large enough in the UK, with enough people routing for it, for the HO to not be able to just ban it over night because they feel like it because the stick they'd get from our 20k+ community would not be good for them.

In my opinion, we ought to keep the current system, but two tones ought to be removed from the equation entirely. They are 'the' loop hole - "I fancy robbing a bank, hey look I'll buy this blue assault rifle and paint it"

Get rid of that.

Then make it so that kids can get UKARA from 12 years and up - since that's the youngest age I've encountered sites allowing kids to play - but leaving it so you still can't buy until you're over 18. However, I think the adults legally bound to the child with UKARA, ought to be able to use said child's UKARA to buy a RIF for the child.

That way, only airsofters are getting RIFs and every purchase will be linked to an accountable adult. Nobs who want replicas won't be able to get airsoft guns without going 3 times and getting UKARA or otherwise proving their entitlement to the skirmisher's defence.

The thing is, that's never going to happen, because even though kids as young as 12 are ending up with replica assault rifles anyway, at least now they're brightly coloured.

 

We all know that it's the image and not the capacity of these "weapons" that's the issue at hand. You could rob someone without pulling the trigger, and that is the danger they pose to the public.

What would be a lot easier, is if we just classed it as a derivative of paintball but called it hardball or something. We'd probably be left alone then.

The fact that the VCRA was dealt with in the way that it was in the first place is utterly ridiculous.

Frank has basically put his foot in the door to ensure airsofters are part of the debate. It was going to happen eventually, two tones being buyable by any Tom, Dick or Harry with some get rich quick scheme were inevitably going to cause an issue. So why not recognise that fact because the bomb goes off, and ensure that whatever changes there may be, are at least on par with how the situation currently is - in our favour.

[chris555]

This response is worthy of cameron the fact is imports from outside the eu will be blocked with the large amount of choice that comes with it we dont need this crap and firesupport are creating problems if guns come under the same legisation as airguns the laws get much much tighter and we all suffer

[M_P]

Yeah the only real thing I'd have huge issues with is not being able to import, that'd suck big time.

[JoW.]

I disagree that there is even a debate, or a rush for a 'place at the table'. Frank's statement included the information that the ACPO (and by extension, the HO, since the ACPO are happy to put this in writing) are of the opinion that Trading Standards should enforce the VCRA rules about RIFs because of the selling angle, and Trading Standards think that it is a HO matter because VCRA refers to criminal behaviour. Neither department seems to be suggesting that RIFs are themselves harmful or seeking consultation on legislation to ban them, but I defer to those who are in the know to put me right. Both organisations see the untenability of RIF rules in VCRA since the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show that the RIF was purchased by a non-qualifying person (ie someone without a defence), and, without the ability to license (it categorically cannot happen for all the reasons I have already gone into) there is no specific way of determining who is and is not a qualifying person to a sufficient degree to prosecute.

 

The HO cannot legally sanction any one method of becoming a qualifying person to own a RIF, be that UKARA or anything else. Anyone can be a qualifying person by virtue of doing the minimum to prove that they are 1. a museum, 2. re-enacting, 3. making a film or tv program, 4. acting in a theatrical production (S37 defences). Note that airsofting is not actually listed. The Secretary of State at the time may have specified the hoops UKARA should jump through to become one of the undefined other interests within 'powers of the Secretary of State to admit other defences', but this is hardly enshrined in the legislation as it stands.

 

As such, it sounds like a really BAD idea to give the impression that there is a crisis stemming from the sale, import or manufacture of RIFs, the objects. VCRA is proscribing a lifestyle choice, not identifying and criminalising actual harm to society. Mr Hypothetical A. Uncharismatic-But-Law-Abiding may have a collection of low powered airsoft RIFs in his wardrobe, and he might show them off to the girl he just met online with the result she finds him creepy (we all know it is possible to show a friend an airsoft gun without being threatening), but should his acquiring a few more RIFs be a crime? Should we give any grist to the notion that, not only do we think VCRA has accomplished something positive for airsoft, but it need to regulate acquisition even more?

 

The 'crisis' is, and always has been, what people do with the RIFs, all of which is already legislated for (discussed already). VCRA does not have the scope to deal with nobs, since the legislation with regard to RIFs has nothing to do with behaviour. Under VCRA, you could be a really nice guy, great seller, no criminal record whatsoever, sell the RIF to a non-qualifying but law abiding genpop person and be criminalised for it.

 

As far as perception of airsoft goes, you cannot legislate away poor personal taste, only poor behaviours (largely done already). A nob with a generally bad attitude who happens to have a roomful of RIFs, but never actually threatens anyone or behaves in an anti-social manner with RIFs may project a really bad image of owners of airsoft guns, and you would still not be justified in taking away his ability to acquire airsoft RIFs because he hasn't committed any crimes, just poor judgement in personal presentation. VCRA is no answer to this, no legislation can be.

 

(I didn't watch the YT video, but if it involved shooting members of the general public, their property or something else illegal, then he's just documented his own criminal activity. Stupid, but it happens sometimes. If it is like a Dirty Sanchez reel where they do dumb things to each other in private, then they should be allowed to do dumb things to each other in private. I think genpop are able to identify general stupidity as such, and, as always, there will be a fraction of hysterical people doing hysterics.)

 

((Just as an indication of how different attitudes towards guns have become since Blears/Clarke: In those days, if you had someone do a Birdie (if you remember, Derrick Bird went on a killing spree), they would have searched out ways of banning guns, citing the tragedy as a reason to do so. Instead, they have accepted that for however many millions of legal FAC and SGC holders one will go mental once a decade, and inserted additional provisions to probe about domestic circumstances (from partner or neighbours) and mental health (from GP).))

[Ian_Gere]

I think the public are oblivious enough and the weapons/toys we use stigmatised enough for adding other firearms related terms to the mix to barely make any difference. 'RIF' is hardly a term the public are going to smile about, what stigma does 'RFD' realistically add?

 

Anyway, as I tried badly to explain, I think Frank intended it to mean we use the same sort of system as air rifles i.e. - If you've over 18 you can buy one.

It's not any stigma I'm talking about, Ed. It's the seemingly innocuous belief that you need a licence to own an airsoft gun / RIF. It doesn't matter what people who wouldn't know an RIF from an R-sole think they are called, what I'm drawing attention to is the idea that you need a licence to have one. We know you don't, but the genpop think you do. How difficult would it be for the HO to get it through parliament that the only way to combat the threat posed by RIF's is to licence them...? You know, when people already think you need a licence?

 

So that's the current perception. If the law changes, how many people will actually pay a lot of attention to the details? All the genpop will remember is "BB guns can only be sold by Registered Firearms Dealers", which makes perfect sense, because you need a licence for them, since that law a few years ago... the VR... RV... I dunno, Violence Reduction or summat...

 

So once the really small businesses are out of the picture and those retailers who manage to qualify as RFD's have seen their incomes rise because 1/2 their competition has been wiped out and they're no longer worried that if they put their prices up much further people will make the effort to find out exactly what it costs and what you need to do to import RIF's from Hong Kong and, before they even discover that it's actually very simple, discover that you can import from the EU without any tax or hassle of any kind, how much opposition will these retailers put up to an actual licence, if the govt decide that it will be cheaper for the HO if said retailers manage the licencing scheme, in the same way they do UKARA now, and can charge a small admin fee for doing so... captive market much?

 

Something to consider here mate is that Skirmish are UKARA registered as a site, but they cannot get the sales side of the business registered, despite the fact that they are selling RIF's perfectly legally, and that this aspect of their business is expanding with the website. Why wont UKARA register the sales arm (which for whatever tax and liability issues, like many small businesses, is a separate company from Skirmish Airsoft Nottingham (or whatever their official location actually is lol) as a member of UKARA? Because they do not have retail premises! Er... there are dots swirling in my mind and the lines between them seem to be coming into focus as a picture...

 

Other than that, what he (JoW.) said^^ except this - don't be so sure that just because the law as it stands will not allow for the licencing of airsoft guns, be they RIF's or no, because they do not meet the power level required in previous legislation, that a licence is not a very real possibility. Trikes used to be classed as bikes for licence and road tax purposes, but there was some complication over the road legal status of the machines themselves, I forget but probably to do with what parts of an MOT to apply or something. All it needed was some common sense to sort it out. What happened? They banned them. The ones currently on the road could not have their legal status revoked, but they could and did make it illegal to make more. All it takes is a sentence inserted into existing licencing legislation and that's it, we will need to justify our desire to take part in a legal hobby. We will have the possibility of having our licences revoked should we annoy anybody who has the power to do so...

[chris555]

apart from the major retailers killing competition and banning imports its bad news because the general public wont give a monkeys about fps limits or whatever all they will see is things that look like guns already the qu's at work are don't you need a licence and is that legal. disturbing things and asking the home office to answer questions could just see a outright ban as they say you cant manage and we don't have the resources to police toy guns best ukara is just left alone and we don't kick the hornets nest for greed.

[Ian_Gere]

Too late, Chris. When Frank emailed ACPO to find out what their position on retailers flouting the VCRA (allegedly) was, that was the size 10 firmly inside the vespalogical domicile. Now that the official police position is that a piece of law currently on the books is unenforceable, a timetable has started which must, at some unknown point down the line, inevitably result in a change to that legislation.

 

What we need to convince our lawmakers of is that the trying to clarify or simplify bad law will just take up thousands of hours deliberation only for whatever legislation may come out of it to be back in the same situation some more years hence. The reason that is the case is that an airsoft gun is not a weapon. End of story. The most sensible course of action is to repeal the sections of the VCRA which apply to RIF airsoft guns and simply vigorously apply the laws which existed previously to control criminal behaviour involving RIF's of any sort, because the only other way to balance the legal status of airsoft guns with their potential for harm is to create a special category of RIF's "airsoft RIF's" which themselves, regardless of ownership, are exempt from the VCRA as it stands (which would make a mockery of the sections which would be left applying to deactivated guns, non-firing replicas etc).