UKARA Alternative

[SgtTalbert]

^ this goes to show what I often point out, most people (including airsofters and the police) have no idea about what the laws surrounding airsoft actually say.

 

For the record Mike, you don't need a defence to own or buy a RIF if you're over 18, only to sell, manufacture or import them, so don't worry! You certainly don't NEED to be registered with any organisation like the UKARA. Though your police friend is right to point out that common sense - carrying them properly and not waving them around - is the best way to ensure that you never get into any bother.

 

EDIT: Purely out of nosiness, since you don't seem to be with any organisation, where did you buy your RIFs from?

 

I understand your nosiness, however, according to his profile, the 'rifs' are two tone so therefore he just needs to be 18, which again based on his profile he is over that age

[Mack]

Ok guys, time to take a step back!

I'm reasonably new to Air soft and as such I dam we'll confused over this defence lark.

So to any really new person to Air soft this is going to melt there brain as it is mine.

 

So let me get this straight not only do we have UKARA, we now have BAC and the up and coming project Luther, and any other I may have missed.

Also I have spoken to a neighbour whom is police armed response office and I was speaking to him told him I had air soft RIF's.

His reply was good for you, can I have a look?

He had a look, then had a go with them in my back garden.

I told him that I wasn't in the UKARA.

Reply, what's that then!

Explained to him about these organisations

His reply was oh I see, it basically comes down to a few things.

1. Carry them in a suitable case when transporting them.

2. Don't wave them around in public or our next chat won't be so friendly and what I'm aiming at you will hurt a lot more than a 6mm bb.

I said to him Should I be worried that I have none of the so called defences, although I only use my RIF's when training with Army cadets.

He then told me that is my defence.

 

 

I understand your nosiness, however, according to his profile, the 'rifs' are two tone so therefore he just needs to be 18, which again based on his profile he is over that age

 

To be fair to Longshot he did say RIF'S twice

 

Two tones are considered IF's

[SgtTalbert]

Yeah true, in my mind though chucking paint on a rifle doesn't not make it a replica, it just means its a replica with paint on it

 

Either way, potential 'witch hunt' averted

[Russe11]

I think QR codes are not error free enough to go with yet - if it goes wrong it will be admin intensive to sort out. A barcode is bombproof these days.

I am a Cinema manager and we do print at home tickets which have both a barcode and a QR code printed on them. We then use scanners to check the ticket and I can tell you that it is a lot easier to scan the QR code, it's much more reliable than a barcode, especially if printed on someones own printer.

 

Regarding the controversial issue of the 2 months, 3 games issue, why does the new system even have to deal with it? If a retailer wants to only sell to people who have played 3 games in 2 months then they can query the database and see if their customer has done this. If the retailer wants to just look at what games a player has attended and use their common sense, why can't they do that? If this is a system to replace UKARA then lets replace UKARA rather than just take control of UKARA from the retailers. Market forces and discussion with the relevant authorities will then be able to move the goal posts in our favour. Leave it up to the retailer to decide who they sell to but keep a database they can check. Also forget raffles and stuff, use any extra money to advertise the sport and lobby the government.

 

Oh and where does UKAPU stand on all this?

[Ian_Gere]

^^I sit corrected. One time I had a QR Code nightclub event ticket that was intended to be shown on our phones and scanned by FoH - mine wasn't the only one that didn't work, but more worked than didn't. Could they sort it out? Could they fuck! If it wasn't for the fact that one of my mates was shagging the promotion team (that isn't a grammatical error), I'd have had to lurk outside for an hour or two, or give up and go somewhere else.

[Russe11]

Neither QR or Barcodes is 100% but QR codes work better with inkjet printers for example as the width of the bars varies from printer to printer but QR codes work on the placement of black and white squares so are less problematic. Having it on your phone would be even worse as a lot depends on the quality of the screen.

[Mike1971]

EDIT: Purely out of nosiness, since you don't seem to be with any organisation, where did you buy your RIFs from?

 

My M4 from Zero one was in two tone when I got it, and my sig P229 was gained privately.

 

I work with other cadet instructors whom like me are fire arms trained, have there own Rif's and have never been to an air soft site either.

I have been speaking to my CO this morning and asking him about all these defence organisations etc.

He told me to show him my MOD 90, so I did.

There you go there's your defence, he added wether you are in uniform or not and carrying your weapons systems in an appropriate case and you get stopped, your ID should be enough to send him on his way.

Also if I was carrying them chances are I will be heading to MOD property.

 

I'm a lot happier now.

[Airsoft-Ed]

Just to clear something up from a while ago.

The buyer is the one who needs the defence, but their need for it, is for the sake of the retailer/seller.
I, as a buyer, must be able to prove to the seller that I am a skirmisher. Proving that I am one, is my defence against prosecution under the VCRA.
However, if they sell to me without being confident that proof is there, it's the seller who's breaking the law.

You don't need a defence to sell, so saying that a defence is for sellers is just confusing semantics.

Similarly, from a business point of view, we can't really advertise the fact that our system is going to allow people to sell and buy RIFs based on the sellers satisfaction.
What you're all suggesting is that we just allow people to see the list of people's attendance, so people can make their own minds up whether the person is "safe" to sell to.
I agree, I think that's a good idea and I think we'll probably facilitate it.

However, using it in that way will remain an unwritten thing and we won't be trying to sell the system by it.

To me, personally, it sounds like we're saying we acknowledge and are doing nothing to try to stop how it might allow people to buy RIFs with no viable defence, because some people feel that 0 games but Luther membership is a suitable defence.

So we will say that 3 in no less than 2 IS what the requirements are to sell what we would consider legitimately.
But, as is the case now, people will ignore that and sell to people regardless, and we will provide the data to check people's attendance if they so wish and the person provides their ID number.

Does that make sense?

Maybe once the system is up and running, if it looks to be over taking UKARA or the other alternatives substantially enough then we could look into what the minimum accepted requirements would be from the Home Office.

It's still very early days and these are just my thoughts, haven't run it by the team.

[typefish]

Just to clear something up from a while ago.

 

The buyer is the one who needs the defence, but their need for it, is for the sake of the retailer/seller.

I, as a buyer, must be able to prove to the seller that I am a skirmisher. Proving that I am one, is my defence against prosecution under the VCRA.

However, if they sell to me without being confident that proof is there, it's the seller who's breaking the law.

 

You don't need a defence to sell, so saying that a defence is for sellers is just confusing semantics.

 

Similarly, from a business point of view, we can't really advertise the fact that our system is going to allow people to sell and buy RIFs based on the sellers satisfaction.

What you're all suggesting is that we just allow people to see the list of people's attendance, so people can make their own minds up whether the person is "safe" to sell to.

I agree, I think that's a good idea and I think we'll probably facilitate it.

 

However, using it in that way will remain an unwritten thing and we won't be trying to sell the system by it.

 

To me, personally, it sounds like we're saying we acknowledge and are doing nothing to try to stop how it might allow people to buy RIFs with no viable defence, because some people feel that 0 games but Luther membership is a suitable defence.

 

So we will say that 3 in no less than 2 IS what the requirements are to sell what we would consider legitimately.

But, as is the case now, people will ignore that and sell to people regardless, and we will provide the data to check people's attendance if they so wish and the person provides their ID number.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Maybe once the system is up and running, if it looks to be over taking UKARA or the other alternatives substantially enough then we could look into what the minimum accepted requirements would be from the Home Office.

 

It's still very early days and these are just my thoughts, haven't run it by the team.

 

I agree with this. Hence my idea for giving a ranking of the potential purchaser, heavily (50%) based on the 3 in 2 recommendation.

 

Match at least a 3 in 2 you will get 100%.

Be consistent with your airsoft (once a month?) and you'll also easily get 100%.

 

Now to get this working... !

[Longshot]

Ed, you seem to know a lot about airsoft, but with all due respect I don't think you're fully grasping how the law is written (as badly written as it is). Rather than going on one of my customary rants I'm just going to post a quote, which I believe is wrong, followed by a question.

 

 

I, as a buyer, must be able to prove to the seller that I am a skirmisher. Proving that I am one is my defence against prosecution under the VCRA.

 

 

If it is the case that a buyer needs a 'defence against prosecution' can you please tell me what crime it is that they could be prosecuted for?

[jcheeseright]

like Ed's said, this one largely comes down to semantics (although Longshot is right), the buyer provides the seller with a defence against prosecution for selling a RIF. So the buyer must be able to prove they're legit which is the defence that the seller needs to not be breaking the law. In that sense you could argue that in order to provide the seller with a defence, the buyer must have a defence to provide!

 

The law is poorly written and difficult to explain, certainly to a new player and while it's not technically correct, the buyer having the defence is at least functionally correct in that the end result is identical.

[jcheeseright]

EDIT: Purely out of nosiness, since you don't seem to be with any organisation, where did you buy your RIFs from?

 

My M4 from Zero one was in two tone when I got it, and my sig P229 was gained privately.

 

I work with other cadet instructors whom like me are fire arms trained, have there own Rif's and have never been to an air soft site either.

I have been speaking to my CO this morning and asking him about all these defence organisations etc.

He told me to show him my MOD 90, so I did.

There you go there's your defence, he added wether you are in uniform or not and carrying your weapons systems in an appropriate case and you get stopped, your ID should be enough to send him on his way.

Also if I was carrying them chances are I will be heading to MOD property.

 

I'm a lot happier now.

 

Being firearms trained and holding a MOD90 doesn't give you an exemption to the VCRA, that said, ownership of a RIF is entirely legal as is transporting one from one place to another (doesn't matter what those two places are).

 

For further evidence of the above, walk into an airsoft shop with your MOD90 and try and buy a RIF... you won't get far!

[Ian_Gere]

The buyer is the one who needs the defence, but their need for it, is for the sake of the retailer/seller.

I, as a buyer, must be able to prove to the seller that I am a skirmisher. Proving that I am one, is my defence against prosecution under the VCRA.

However, if they sell to me without being confident that proof is there, it's the seller who's breaking the law.

 

You don't need a defence to sell, so saying that a defence is for sellers is just confusing semantics.

It isn't just semantics, Ed. The misunderstandings involved are fundamental to why the situation for us as players is the way it is. I know a lot of people are going to switch off in a moment and think 'oh, that's just Ian banging on about licences again... pedant/nit-picker/weirdo/loser/bellend!' or the like, here it is anyway because who knows, maybe this arrangement of words will be the syntax that makes the lightbulb go on for some people:

 

Under the law the buyer doesn't need anything. It is the seller who has the problem. It is illegal to sell RIF's full stop. If selling RIF's is a big part of their business, they have a big problem. Sellers are however provided with a specified defence against prosecution which is when the buyer belongs to one of the groups/categories of people specified in another paragraph. Now here is the point at which the confusion arises and TBF the Home Office have not made it any easier and, in fact, may well have misunderstood what the wording of the law actually means.

 

The law puts the onus on the seller to ascertain that the buyer is a reenactor/filmmaker/etc and there is space for the Home Secretary to add people and/or circumstances regarding whom/which the specified defence will apply, without the need for the Act to be returned to parliament to be amended, and airsofters have been so added... but still, the defence is is the seller's, relating to any potential prosecution for selling. That's all nice and clear, right? Enter UKARA. An association of retailers which intends to allow members to easily check that the defence applies to any transaction they are about to make.

 

Then there has been discussion between UKARA and the HO which has resulted in the definition of an airsofter as someone who skirmishes at a site with public liability insurance and has a level of commitment defined by having played 3 times in not less than 2 months and not more than 12 months. And here is where the confusion begins, because all of a sudden, in practice, the onus has switched to the buyer to prove they are "entitled" to be regarded as belonging within the groups specified within the Act and its allowed additions, in order to have the privilege of going about their lawful business.

 

Not surprising when you consider that this has resulted from a retailers' initiative. But isn't it just a different form of words, ie semantics? No it bloody isn't! As it stands it's no wonder that so many people think that a UKARA registration is a licence, because it operates as one. UKARA has a de facto monopoly on ways which retailers can use to find out if they could be prosecuted for any particular sale or not, therefore players must have it too. Who has the whip hand? Yeah, UKARA. But the law was not worded that way. Under the letter of the law it is we the players who ought to have the whip hand, because it is our money which creates the business and our willingness to participate at sites with public liability insurance which satisfies the HO/UKARA scheme.

 

Still don't see there's a meaningful difference worth making a song and dance about? Consider this: a video of a person skirmishing is proof that they are reenacting some battle/conflict/skirmish or other. The why, where, when, under what circumstances are actually irrelevant in the face of the fact that seeing a person doing what the defence specifies they must, in order for the defence to apply to a sale made to that person, would be damn difficult to overturn in court as sufficient care taken, due diligence, by the seller. Where is the evidence, especially if the vid has been deleted? Where the evidence is in so many other court cases, in the testimony of witnesses: "Yes m'lud, I did email Mr. R. E. Tailor a video of me skirmishing and my mate Mr. R. Softer, who is also a witness, was in the video too." Case closed. Except that it wouldn't get that far because the CPS would save the waste of money. No need for UKARA or site membership.

 

Now I have no problem with 3in>2 as a sensible threshold, although I do think it should not be the only threshold or set in stone, nor do I have a problem with public liability insurance as a definition of an organisation, although I also think that clubs/teams who organise events on sites which already have the insurance should be recognised, nor do I have a problem with the necessity of players to provide retailers with such info as the retailer needs to satisfy themselves they have a defence, because without such info the sale could not go ahead...

 

...but who retains the whip hand is crucial. We cannot currently say "UKARA is restrictive to small would be retailers and its existence makes it difficult to complain to an ombudsman about the way imported RIF's do/don't clear HM Customs and the undefined handling fee which couriers charge on parcels which are stopped, because it's not as if the situation means that RIF's are unavailable, it's just that the whole combination keeps the price artificially high, so I'm going to take my business elsewhere." We need an "elsewhere" and that could be Luther. Our player focussed "elsewhere" however needs to have a framework which stops it becoming a new monopolistic entity, otherwise we will become the next problem...

 

 

Edit to add: I don't want Luther to have the whip hand in order that my personal grievances with the status quo can be addressed - I want us all, as individuals, to regain the whip hand - the power which being able to vote with our feet ought to bring. So the proposed voting has to be the way forward. I mean, if Luther becomes something like a Union, then issues such as poor customer service, misleading descriptions/spec sheets, and all that lovely stuff we are all to often called upon to advise about, may be addressable via threats/actual sanctions...

[Esoterick]

Ian, you do ramble in some of your longer posts but that was actually very well written.

[Ian_Gere]

I'm practising to be understood by the masses, Rick. It's like going back to uni and considering how to write the introduction to a thesis. One "bellend" and one "bloody"... not quite fit for full public consumption, but no "fucks", "arses", or "wankers", so that's improvement and of course the main issue: don't assume that everyone must know how one idea relates to the next because, even if it is blindingly obvious, that depends upon the reader having the same facts at their fingertips which you have and having understood the import you are drawing upon...

[Kaza66]

Big update guys!

 

- The Project Luther website has now gone live - Built by our very own Leon (503) in record breaking time. The site will allow you to keep up to scratch with everything that's going on in and around PL. It also allows you to register your interest and be contacted when the project gets all the way off the ground.

 

Thanks for all the support and help guys, we appreciate it.

 

Kieran.

 

http://projectluther.com/

[M_P]

Probably worth putting a link up then...

[Kaza66]

Apologies!!

 

http://projectluther.com/

[typefish]

:words:

 

Finely written piece.

 

All we just need to do now is make reading this mandatory for all people in Airsoft, heh.

[Ian_Gere]

^^Thank you, typefish. There's more where that came from lol!

 

Leon had me going over the WIP mission statement he has put together. I just finished that so he has access to it in my Dropbox - once the committee has had its say and we have the sense of everything which needs to be included, I can write it with a bit of style, as above, if the committee thinks I'm the man for the job.

[NickM]

For my 2p's worth,

 

I like the idea of your service, especially as you won't be sticking rigidly to the 3 in >2 system rather offering a way of logging.

 

I would be interested in taking on your system but it would depend on how many sites were registered and using your system, I see it as being a much more efficient system than the now 2 other types of defence as their weak points are sites that are not efficient at passing on defence details and incorrectly entered details.

 

I would see my use of PL as a skirmish diary/log that I could share with any potential sellers I was interacting with be it retailers or private sellers.

 

My issues with UKARA;

It took over 2 months to get my details uploaded so I could purchase RIF's using their system, either this was the fault of the site or whoever it was at UKARA (personally I believe it was both). PL solves this by either instantly uploading my skirmish that day or the information being downloaded when the scanning device is next on line.

 

When the details were entered they haven't been entered correctly and changing them has basically been impossible. PL could solve this by using the first site to check ID and Address details with your membership stuff to confirm. If you move perhaps details on your site could be amended and again confirmed by the next skirmish site you use. This would be an advantage because I move quite regularly so being able to keep my defence during this process would be nice.

 

I hate being tied to one site for any reason, I've been fairly good at roving the many local sites around me, and the one I have my UKARA through currently really only gets as much of my business to keep my UKARA current. PL would allow some skirmishers more freedom if they only play once a month say but don't want to play the same place every time.

 

UKARA can be a pain in the neck for a private seller to check details of a defence. PL could solve this by having some kind of one use code that would allow sellers to log into my skirmish log, check my defence and make some kind of record of having done so at that point. (Not that prosecution is likely but if I was selling I would like some kind of backup should the fuzz knock on my door that I had done the checks I was supposed to).

 

My issue with BAC

UCAP plays 3 sites two running twice a week, the sandpit gets over 100 players regularly, so lets say there are 150 emails every week asking for validation of a skirmish entry on BAC, the site owner will have to open 150 emails, check their own records 150 times and click accept 150 times to confirm attendance for that player. That will get old fast. PL removes that by simply scanning cards and uploading details to your website as and when an internet connection is established.

 

Overall I'd love to see your system working, and will keep up to date on this with interest.

[Longshot]

Finely written piece.

 

All we just need to do now is make reading this mandatory for all people in Airsoft, heh.

I doubly agree with this, firstly it was a very good piece and secondly everyone should have to read (something like) this.

 

This is one of the things I think Luther could do to really help airsofters' understanding, perhaps as part of their 'yet to be decided' paperwork that they send out. It doesn't have to be anything major, and I don't want to break the bank or go all 'Union' here, but a simple description of what the law says, what it means and why Luther is a good idea (including the 3 in 2 recommendation).

 

I know not everyone would read it, but more might if it was concise and posted out to keep for reference rather than just being on a FAQ part of a website.

 

For my part I'd happily take a stab at writing it if anyone at Luther wants me to. I already have a word document that I wrote ages ago that pretty much sums it up, including links to all the relevant websites of government legal documents.

[fivezerothree]

For my 2p's worth,

 

I like the idea of your service, especially as you won't be sticking rigidly to the 3 in >2 system rather offering a way of logging.

 

I would be interested in taking on your system but it would depend on how many sites were registered and using your system, I see it as being a much more efficient system than the now 2 other types of defence as their weak points are sites that are not efficient at passing on defence details and incorrectly entered details.

 

I would see my use of PL as a skirmish diary/log that I could share with any potential sellers I was interacting with be it retailers or private sellers.

 

My issues with UKARA;

It took over 2 months to get my details uploaded so I could purchase RIF's using their system, either this was the fault of the site or whoever it was at UKARA (personally I believe it was both). PL solves this by either instantly uploading my skirmish that day or the information being downloaded when the scanning device is next on line.

 

When the details were entered they haven't been entered correctly and changing them has basically been impossible. PL could solve this by using the first site to check ID and Address details with your membership stuff to confirm. If you move perhaps details on your site could be amended and again confirmed by the next skirmish site you use. This would be an advantage because I move quite regularly so being able to keep my defence during this process would be nice.

 

I hate being tied to one site for any reason, I've been fairly good at roving the many local sites around me, and the one I have my UKARA through currently really only gets as much of my business to keep my UKARA current. PL would allow some skirmishers more freedom if they only play once a month say but don't want to play the same place every time.

 

UKARA can be a pain in the neck for a private seller to check details of a defence. PL could solve this by having some kind of one use code that would allow sellers to log into my skirmish log, check my defence and make some kind of record of having done so at that point. (Not that prosecution is likely but if I was selling I would like some kind of backup should the fuzz knock on my door that I had done the checks I was supposed to).

 

My issue with BAC

UCAP plays 3 sites two running twice a week, the sandpit gets over 100 players regularly, so lets say there are 150 emails every week asking for validation of a skirmish entry on BAC, the site owner will have to open 150 emails, check their own records 150 times and click accept 150 times to confirm attendance for that player. That will get old fast. PL removes that by simply scanning cards and uploading details to your website as and when an internet connection is established.

 

Overall I'd love to see your system working, and will keep up to date on this with interest.

I'm really glad that you see the benefits. We believe that all the hype that BAC received on Facebook is false,it's just airsofters liking the premise of an alternative but if sites are still hesitant about accepting our system, then BAC has no hope in hell.

[M_P]

just gonna put this out there, I know longshot will disagree but whatever.

 

I think that project Luther SHOULD make a hard fast ruling on amount of times skirmishing, similar to the 3 in over 2 from ukara.

Otherwise its likely to end up with many retailers having different requirements or people not knowing whether they will be able to order an RIF from various retailers- it would lead to more confusion I think which is the opposite of what P:L is trying to do.

No one took huge exception to UKARA's requirements, and you could still do them at different sites etc, but if you leave it up to retailers to decide on what each accepts etc then it will fragment the system.

Purely my opinion, just putting it out there.

[Mike1971]

Being firearms trained and holding a MOD90 doesn't give you an exemption to the VCRA, that said, ownership of a RIF is entirely legal as is transporting one from one place to another (doesn't matter what those two places are).

 

For further evidence of the above, walk into an airsoft shop with your MOD90 and try and buy a RIF... you won't get far!

Yep, I know, so buy a two tone and a bit of fairy power spray later and all is good.

 

So basically the law on air soft rif's is more grey than the sky over the south of England.