VCRA & retailers undermining it

[chris555]

In that case what we need is a third independant body that has nothing to do with the retailers they could take a small fee for membership and make buying of rifs that much easier this could then be reconised like a re enactors society all frank is trying to do is get complete control of the market i also think we should boycot fire support for doing this

[JoW.]

If the government becomes convinced there is a problem, they will take the legislative and administrative POV. The reasoning will follow that it would be easier to ban all RIFs than to license them. The choice government will have is this: license and do at least three, very complex things: 1) create a universally applicable test for licensable RIFs, 2) create criteria to test licence holders for (mental health, etc), 3) determine an appropriate body or class of bodies responsible for licensing (as they will not grant a monopoly to specific organisations, so this would have to be the police, who are unwilling to add RIF licensing to their responsibilities). Or ban and only do point 1). Being government, they will always choose the easier option, and this is why I say airsoft licensing is categorically never going to happen; Ian's trike example is another manifestation of the same mentality.

 

(Actually, I take that back. Two-tones ARE the government's answer to airsoft licensing. They asked airsofters, 'what do you do?'. Airsofters replied, 'We shoot at each other with RIFs.' They replied, 'Well, if that's what you do, you don't need it to be a realistic imitation, do you?' Airsofters replied, 'The guns are only available as realistic imitations.' They said, 'OK, paint over 50% of your gun with a bright colour and you can still shoot each other with the guns that are available on the market.' And there you have the evolution of the two-tone.)

 

The status quo at the moment is that RIFs are legal to possess, so the onus is on the anti-gun lobby to prove otherwise. Should the anti-gun lobby succeed in convincing the government that the status quo is incorrect (as happened in 2005-7), the burden of proof will be on those who own RIFs to show that they are positive and worthy of remaining legal (also happened in 2005-7). Policymakers do accept that GCN and Mothers Against Guns have a single agenda bias, but if 'pro-gun' interests join in requesting more regulation, policymakers will conclude that there is a consensus to restrict or regulate.

 

Frank's communication with the ACPO, if this has happened, will hopefully not go much further, since it will most likely serve to convince the HO that airsoft retailers are the only weak point for enforcement of VCRA with regard to RIFs. He may end up with even more suggestions for regulating airsoft-retailing-to-airsofters in order to keep the defence granted by the Secretary of State (but not specifically mentioned in the legislation), but the legislation will not change for museums/films/tv/theatre/re-enactment because nobody from these sectors has demonstrated that there are any problems enforcing existing RIF laws. If pressed, these sectors will step up to defend their defence because they realise the importance of defending all legal concessions with regard to firearms, which is pretty ironic, since the airsoft community which also regularly uses RIFs is so incapable of doing so. I suspect, at worst, all Frank's communication will do is end up scuppering airsoft as a defence if he manages to convince them the airsoft sector is the weak point with regard to enforcement on RIFs.

 

Welcome, two-toning as the only way to airsoft. Blurghhh.

 

(Personally, I think including the international airsoft scene in the VCRA discussions might have been a far more productive approach. If French, Swedish, Finnish etc airsofters want to come over to play big games and since they would only have RIFs to do so, airsofters in the UK could argue that the whole UK airsoft scene suffers detriment by eliminating the international airsofters' ability to come and go to do a perfectly legal activity. Maybe that would have been one way to make RIFs intrinsic to the activity of airsoft. Hey ho, I wasn't in the selling gunz game so nobody really asked me.)

 

((Having gone over to the dark side (target shooting) and gained a measure of distance, I have to say the logic behind the VCRA in relation to RIFs is fuzzier than ever. What interest is served by banning sales/imports/manufactures of RIFs? If an adult wants to buy and collect them as wall hangers because 'they look cool', that is perfectly acceptable. I can't see where it was proven that this activity has posed one iota of harm to society. If someone wants to threaten someone with them or shoot someone who doesn't consent to being shot (stupid YT video), that's a crime that would benefit from enforcement. I almost would go so far as to say the Pakistani market traders in those days selling to over-18s could even argue a racial bias in the law against their livelihood.))

 

Chris, you don't actually need anything further to buy RIFs, so long as you find a retailer to sell them to you (plenty of those in the EU, and HK if you can be bothered to put together a letter for Customs). If you get pulled up for buying (acquisition-not by importing-and possession is not illegal), and you can demonstrate that you something else to prove you are active in a qualifying S37 defence activity, be it insurance (Country Cover Club offer public liability, legal cover and some other shooting related cover to individual shooters, re-enactors, airsofters for about 35.00 a year, I'm not affiliated with them), attendance or membership of a club or society, or even a bag of camo kit and webbing that suffices to demonstrate some form of historical re-enactment, you will find that prosecution of you as the importer, or the person who sold to you, if they are UK based, is highly unlikely.

[Lozart]

 

 

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.

 

 

Apologies for it being a Daily Fail link but: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206510/Violent-crime-figures-14-rise.html specifically this bit:

 

Separate data on firearms crime in 2002-2003 showed a huge rise in the use of replica weapons.

Imitation firearms were used in 1,815 recorded crimes - a jump of 46% year-on-year.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206510/Violent-crime-figures-14-rise.html#ixzz2kGGDQusj

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Now granted that doesn't reflect the 80% I mentioned which was in an interview with an ACPO bod (can't find it - sorry).

 

Now bearing in mind that those figures would have been from the period leading up to the introduction of the VCRA they are relevant to the discussion. Splitting hairs about wether or not they are RIFs or IFs is irrelevant. In the eyes of the general public at large there IS no difference. The only distinction most people could make is between something that looks like a gun and a bright orange NERF gun. And even that's pushing it for some people.

[Ian_Gere]

OK Loz, but that still doesn't tell us what percentage of those imitation firearms were airsoft guns, or deactivated, or looky-likies... as I remember the argument back then, one of the principal concerns was that a particular type of legal looky-likey was very easy to convert into a real 9mm pistol - I don't know how, I expect you'd need to import a barrel, probably illegally but a damn sight easier to do than to illegally import a whole pistol.

 

I get it that the genpub do not know the difference, but in terms of framing law there has to be a definite problem which the law seeks to solve. Yeah, we know that an airsoft RIF could be used to threaten people, but without evidence that they are being used in this way, its all just hot air and certainly no basis for inconveniencing law abiding citizens going about their legal business. I mean pushchairs could be used to block the public highway - if parents wanted to make it impossible to drive around their neighbourhood, they could legally dawdle around in the road all day bringing traffic to a complete standstill... but unless there is evidence of people doing this, there is no reason to bring in a law restricting the use of pushchairs in roads.

 

Now that may sound like reductio ad absurdam, but it isn't. I mean it's guns were talking about here, not pushchairs, right? No. An airsoft gun is not a weapon. Not of any sort. Not under any legally definable circumstances which recognise it as different from any other ad hoc object with which a person could attack another. They both have precisely the same status under law when it comes to determining how dangerous they are. Why this is important is that there was already a law which dealt with threatening people with what appears to be a real firearm but isn't, in the Firearms Act, where it should be. There is no reason to make more law simply because something which is illegal starts happening more often, it's obviously just time to start applying the law strictly and more vigorously.

[jcheeseright]

Not only that, the daily fail have put the stats up in such a way that they appear much worse than they really are. A 46% rise year on year sounds incredible, but if only 1% of the crimes were with imitation firearms to begin with... That means year on year it went up to 1.46%. Not exactly the end of the world!

 

To clarify also, the legal definitions between RIF and IF didn't exist til the VCRA was drawn up in 2006.

[Raptors Spider]

In some ways I think this is a debate that was bound to occur at some point due to the vague nature of the defence in the VCRA.

 

I must say the original email, and the resulting "clarification" - and it's very careful wording lead me personally to believe that Firesupport were looking to tailor any future development to ensuring that airsofter in the UK lost access to internet sales from overseas. On those grounds alone I am left with no option but to be sceptical on their motives.

 

On what we could do to improve the current situation.

 

The issue time and again comes down to the player not the retailer. How do we identify legitimate airosfters. If we can solve that then we solves nearly all the issues;

• Who has a reason for possessing a RIF
• Who a retailer can be sure they can reasonably sell a RIF to
• Who may reasonably import a RIF

I do not think that any move to include RIF with firearms is helpful for the future of airsoft, even if in name only by lumping it under RFD requirements. The moment we allow that then they become considered a type of firearm.

 

So, how do we identify airsofters? Eventually there will be some form of registration, whether a license, voluntary database, site membership or revamp of UKARA. These things cost money to run. So either with the players put up and pay or we let the retailers run it as at present and they will always look after their own business interests first. (Please note I do not blame them for this, they are commercial entities that must make a profit to survive!). Either way we the players eventually foot the final bill anyway so why not take the vested interests out as much as possible?

[Lozart]

The Home Office numbers are available if you really want to trawl through them (exercise your Google-Fu and I'm sure you'll find them). I think though, much like rifle and shotgun owners in the wake of the Hungerford shootings we are guilty of assuming that other people outside of airsoft either know or care that there is a difference between a convertible replica, an imitation firearm and a RIF. That's why we need to be careful about how we as a community police ourselves and how we react to legal measures imposed upon us. We ARE a tiny minority in society so we need to act accordingly. The powers that be may well not want all the extra hassle of having to separate out the legitimate airsofters from the nobs that want to run around waving a Glock at their mates so it becomes a far easier job for the plod on the street to just lump them all in together and say that nobody is allowed to have any sort of imitation firearm, defence or no. By and large all the airsofters I know and have dealt with come from a reasonable background, have a fair degree of intelligence and understand that you should and shouldn't do certain things when it comes to imitation guns. The law has to deal with all the others which unfortunately usually means legislating for the lowest common denominator.

[Lozart]

From the 2006/07 Home Office statistical bulletin of Crime in England and Wales:

 

 

Imitation weapons were used in 2,493 offences in 2006/07, 24 per cent or 782 offences

fewer than in the previous year after substantial increases since 1999/00. BB guns/ soft

air weapons accounted for four fifths (83%) of these offences.

[Lozart]

Rest of the document is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/17_07_07_crime.pdf

[JoW.]

The report also states 782 fewer offences (committed with any imitation firearm) are recorded between 2006-7 in comparison to 2005-6. The 83% of offences involving an airsoft gun/BB gun boils down to around 2069 recorded offences for the year, not including those committed with air weapons. So, in the year in which VCRA took effect, they managed to get 782 fewer offences against the previous year. 2069 BB/airsoft gun offences is a remarkably low figure to justify removing the right of good citizens to sell and import airsoft RIFs. In the same report, over 1m violent offences are attributable to the influence of alcohol.

 

Airsoft is a minority. So is being Islamic. It is wholly unreasonable to suggest that a minority should be made to suffer because of its status as a minority, if the minority is doing absolutely nothing to harm society. The presumption of innocence before guilt should guarantee that a thing should be shown to be harmful before it is proscribed, not that all things should be proscribed unless they are shown not to be harmful. I always thought I was living in a regime where innocence was the default presumption. We must not let this distinction become eroded, and although the authorities (executive) would like to have us believe otherwise to make their job easier, we should be fighting from the standpoint that a bona fide airsofter = law abiding citizen (less the odd speeding ticket, I suppose), and should therefore not suffer these draconian restrictions to their rights.

 

Between the enactment of VCRA in November, 2006 and the regulation coming into force to allow any body with 3rd party Public Liability Insurance a defence for acquiring RIFs on 1 October, 2007, technically, selling a RIF to anyone other than a reenactor, museum, film/tv/theatre was committing an offence.

 

If you are in doubt as to how the RIF rules define the defence, the 2007 regulations show that the requirement is to have 3rd Party Public Liability Insurance in place to qualify. If you purchase insurance for airsofting, either by yourself or through participating in an organised and insured game, you qualify for the defence. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are not an airsofter for the sale of the RIF to you to be illegal. If you don't have insurance and you are with one other who does, you may also qualify for the defence http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2606/contents/made (or VCRA 2007 into Google)

.

[Ian_Gere]

OK Loz, you have me: there is a legitimate concern. The question still remains however, how concerned should we be? Of the 2,069 how many were instances of serious arrestable offences, like demanding money with menaces, aggravated robbery, threats to kill, etc., how many were public order type situations, where someone was just nobbing about and quite rightly got pulled for it, and how many were cases where the perp was arrested for something else and happened to have an RIF on them?

 

More importantly, even if say 2000 were serious crimes, how does that compare to crimes of the same sort committed without any imitation guns, and with real firearms? Because I feel that a great number of people in the justice racket would be unemployed if 2000 were a considerable percentage of a year's serious crime in the UK...

[Moose87]

Basically at the end of the day the way i see it. airsoft uses toys!! as that is what they were invented as and that is what they are. if you look through the statistics which i havent as im fairly sure im right, more crimes are committed using knives, other stabby things and blunt instruments than are committed with guns or imitation firearms. they are persecuting yhe smallest minority of the violent crimes area to be seen to be doing something. just seems like alot of argueing over something which contributes the smallest minority of crimes commited. i.thinking the whole UKARA thing has worked to reduce crimes committed and made it more difficult to purchase airsoft weapons. but if someone wants a gun or a RIF.they will find a way. and the VCRA has made that difficult for non airsofters so why make it hard for airsofters to play their hobby. if they make it difficult or more expensive. both of which seem likely than lots of businesses will go under and the sport will die.

[Lozart]

You are both correct in what you say as to the letter of the law and so forth. I don't for one minute want you to think that you're not correct there. BUT - saying that as a minority we're the same as Muslims is WAAAAAYY off the mark. You would have one hell of a job trying to convince anyone in the general populace that you should have the same right to carry a realistic imitation firearm as having a basic human right to practice your own religion.

 

The one thing that everyone seems to be missing is that the statistics only tell part of the story. Public opinion is a fickle thing and policy is usually governed by opinion and politics NOT pure statistics. Gun ownership is an emotive issue (be it real or imitation) and one that even the boldest of Police Commissioners doesn't want to touch with a bargepole. If the general public thinks that realistic imitation firearms are a real and credible threat to their safety then they will bring the pressure of their narrow minded views to bear in an almost lemming like frenzy to be seen to be "doing the right thing". It's what keeps the tabloids in business! Added to that the more that we as a community feel it necessary to voice our objections to a change in legislation that hasn't even happened is MORE likely to make the policy makers sit up and take notice at which point the uninformed politicos that run the show could very easily target our hobby as an easy vote winner and ban them outright.

 

There is a time and a place for lodging objections and when we're there then I for one will do so, but that time is not now. Nobody likes someone going off half cocked (pun totally intended).

[Moose87]

i dont know about anyone elses area but i have never heard of any using a rif in a crime and i have lived in several differant areas of the uk

[Lozart]

i dont know about anyone elses area but i have never heard of any using a rif in a crime and i have lv

 

 

Sorry but that's a proper head in the sand kind of attitude. The figures state that it happens, I have a mate in the TSG in South London that has seen it happen. I've never been mugged, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[Moose87]

i didnt say it never never happens but i ment its not in the papers so it.cant.be a major public concern therefore its not a huge.concern. we all.know that the tabloids love to grab a story and.blow it out of proportion so if we all havent heard of rif robbings than it can be a major concern. i have a friend in kent police and he has told.me about murders. i have a misses who has told me about child abuse and non of that reaches the.papera even tho its a weekly if not daily occurance. im just saying persepective people. retailors crying abouy an insignificant thing. get a grip

[Lozart]

I think we're starting to argue about the same thing so I'm going to leave this alone for now. I'd be interested to see what the actual final result of all this is though.

[Ian_Gere]

I take your point about comparing minorities (even though it wasn't me that brought it up lol): prima facae it does seem a bit much. However when you think about it a little more deeply, there are similarities which are worth pondering. All of the Abrahamic religions contain practices which modern society considers barbaric and inhumane, even though some of them continue.

 

Although we in Europe do claim as a human right the ability to practice a religion without hindrance, persecution, or prejudicial treatment, we do so only within the framework of civil law. If you want to stone somebody to death for lying with a woman on a Wednesday before first washing in rain water and sacrificing a dog bollock, you can fuck off elsewhere and take your demented religion with you... It is not the right to carry a RIF which we as an airsofting minority are claiming, rather we as innocent people are claiming the human right to be left alone to mind our own business, within the framework of civil law.

 

I agree that we need to be careful about making the wrong type of stink, possibly at the wrong time, but then again, when will you know the right time? When the govt. issue a white paper announcing their intent to change the law and the tabloids get hold of it like a mental person with a rubber chicken and do whatever they can to wring something of interest out of it? I suggest that would be too late.

 

The problem we face is that nobody speaks for us as a united voice, but i'm not sure there is a united voice to speak for, nor am i convinced that just because traditionally one voice gets more done than several, we are best served by going that way. However, we need to be very clear about one thing: UKARA does not speak for airsofters, it speaks for certain retailers more than others, but it has a direct line to the likes of ACPO and the Home Office. If we're not careful we'll end up with another business led stitch up which will be fed to us as a good thing because the alternative is banning...

 

I say the alternative which is most credible is the Firearms Act and repealing Section 36-7 of the VCRA. If the govt really have to be seen to be doing something new, ie they cant spin the repeal as a species of excellence through learning from mistakes, they should add something to the firearms act about knowingly selling replica firearms to minors or something of the sort...

[Lozart]

Ian - some good points there. I agree that it is a very fine line to tread between making a pre-emptive stink and being too late and I honestly don't know the answer. Maybe UKAPU needs to get its teeth into the matter or at least make itself and the general airsoft community aware of the ongoing process (I honestly don't know if they even have any teeth as such having only recently become aware that such an organisation even existed). I think that part of the issue seems to be the nature of the revelation from Franks email. Not just the content (which has been largely misrepresented) but the fact that it was an insider discussion between retailers that could lead to a situation less than beneficial to the consumers (ie us) - a sort of "we know something you don't" kind of thing of you will.

[Moose87]

erm maybe someone can inform me but hasnt this.kcked off because the head of the UKARA has sent a letter out. it.begs the reason of why.is anyone taking views of law from a business man. hes never going to suggest things which restrict hs business. even if it.seems like he maybe... unless hes a friggin idiot then he wouldnt so there must be an angle for the ukara.

[jcheeseright]

Ian - some good points there. I agree that it is a very fine line to tread between making a pre-emptive stink and being too late and I honestly don't know the answer. Maybe UKAPU needs to get its teeth into the matter or at least make itself and the general airsoft community aware of the ongoing process (I honestly don't know if they even have any teeth as such having only recently become aware that such an organisation even existed). I think that part of the issue seems to be the nature of the revelation from Franks email. Not just the content (which has been largely misrepresented) but the fact that it was an insider discussion between retailers that could lead to a situation less than beneficial to the consumers (ie us) - a sort of "we know something you don't" kind of thing of you will.

 

At the moment UKAPU have very little in the way of clout because people aren't signing up as members. The more names they have on their membership list the more hitting power they'll have as a lobbying body, there's strength in numbers.

[JoW.]

BUT - saying that as a minority we're the same as Muslims is WAAAAAYY off the mark.

 

 

Public opinion is a fickle thing and policy is usually governed by opinion and politics NOT pure statistics. Gun ownership is an emotive issue (be it real or imitation) and one that even the boldest of Police Commissioners doesn't want to touch with a bargepole. If the general public thinks that realistic imitation firearms are a real and credible threat to their safety then they will bring the pressure of their narrow minded views to bear in an almost lemming like frenzy to be seen to be "doing the right thing".

 

 

Added to that the more that we as a community feel it necessary to voice our objections to a change in legislation that hasn't even happened is MORE likely to make the policy makers sit up and take notice at which point the uninformed politicos that run the show could very easily target our hobby as an easy vote winner and ban them outright.

 

It is 100% not the same thing, being Muslim and being an airsofter, with the exception of the numerical fact that both are minorities in population terms. However, the fact of being a numerical minority is not by itself a reason to suggest that you should behave subserviently when you are being challenged in the course of law abiding activity. I was objecting to your earlier observation that airsofters should realise they are a minority interest and should behave as such. Criminal law is there to provide sanctions against certain behaviours, not minority interests, whatever they should be.

 

Public opinion is emotive, but that should not lead to a 'hide and hope they don't notice us' approach. The more people that know about airsoft gaming, the safer the hobby will be from ignorance. The GCN and their ilk exist to pump their propaganda through tabloids, which is why tabloids are not trusted sources of reliable news, something which genpop should be given credit for as well. However, airsofters would be better off with politicos if they would behave and declare with all honesty that there is nothing criminal or unsavoury about airsoft itself, not giving the impression that airsoft is niche and an outcast hobby. LARP used to be considered vaguely strange and fringe, but these days, LARP is mainstream enough to hit the BBC news with positive reporting. Paintball is similar, but now also beyond question as a part of society's broad palette. Airsofting should work at heading in the same direction.

 

The replies are not about canvassing politicos to do something about a problem that doesn't exist. They are here because Frank issued a challenge to come up with opinions in his open letter.

 

ps if it would help stop the off-topic spiral introducing Muslims has managed to create, substitute cricket players in there instead, with their devilish cricket bats. I think Muslims have been very hard done by thanks to the 'War on Terror' reporting. Around this time last year, there was some vandalism involving war graves where it was hinted by the tabloids - shock, horror - that some UK based Muslim extremists were behind it all. In the end, it turned to be some feckless 17 year old white male who went on TV to apologise profusely. A lot of wild talk surrounds the topic of Islam and Muslims, thanks to the reporting of extremism and terror in the world at large, cynically linked by terrorists to faith; without the unremitting efforts of people to educate the genpop about Islam, the spiral of sensationalist rubbish would go unchallenged.

[Lozart]

I wasn't suggesting a policy of "hide and hope they don't notice us". I was saying that we need to pick our battles. If we make a bunch of fuss having gone off half cocked we're likely to be dismissed as a bunch of weirdos playing at being soldiers. If however we get the facts straight and approach the matter appropriately we have more chance.of being heard.

[JoW.]

I totally get behind that one. I'm annoyed that Frank seems to have gone off half-cock, making representations to the ACPO about sales not going through UKARA's framework. Looking at the legislation text post -2006 (not something I had done before), it seems a much clearer solution has already been implemented for the benefit of players that avoids cartelisation which was always the danger with UKARA. The requirement to be insured for a defence allows for gaming, back garden plinking (yes, you can get insurance for that), collecting, re-enacting and other legal activities that don't come readily to mind. It also means the person looking to use a defence has to submit his or her full details on an insurer's proposal form to be kept on the underwriter's database so this person cannot 'buy and disappear', lessening the likelihood that the gun is bought for the purposes of crime. (That is, if they aren't already on their club list/UKARA database.) It isn't perfect, the principle is still unsound that a RIF is dangerous enough to restrict its sale or import, but not dangerous enough to restrict ownership. But it neatly cuts out the possibility of cartels or restricting RIFs only to a small group of specified purposes (when the non specified purposes are not criminal).

 

I hope the ACPO are going to see the representations as an attempt to build a cartel on the back of regulations, as the insurability of the activity is clearly deemed to be the test to settle the matter of defence in the 2007 Regulations. As such, it hopefully will not go anywhere, more likely produce a backwash for UKARA rather than anything for airsofters in general.

 

(couple of edits for grammar and spelling - a roomful of screaming kids never did great things for mental activity)

[chris555]

The biggest problem is the uk publuf have been conditioned to hate anything that even looks like a gun ajd any ban wouod have support thanks to fire support we have to get this sorted quick before harm happens so does anyone know what is happening now and what we can do to affect the reaults i do not like the retailers having total control here