would this be OK?

[team flex]

A) to do three skirmishes, then get my dad to apply for a UKARA. I don't think it would be but just wanted to check.

 

B ) My dad do 3 skirmishes and then get UKARA, and then buy an RIF. could I then borrow his RIF for skirmishes? If he can prove he has a defence?

 

 

Also, how do UKARA stop people borrowing other peoples UKARA. For instance, I am 14, and a mate of mine has UKARA (he is 18). How can people be stopped by simply making an account with the UKARA'S name, filling in details, buying gun and then putting UKARA number in?

Finally, how do BAC stop people buying RIF's with other peoples UKARA. I'm guessing they check the details?

Thanks for answering these quick questions

[Qlimax]

you do not require UKARA yourself to use a RIF. UKARA is simply to buy one nothing else. So if your dad bought it you can use it all day long on a site. Look at it this way when you go on a site and have a rental that is a RIF and you don't need UKARA for a rental

 

BAC are pointless you mustn't have read my recent investigation thread about BAC also to note that BAC has nothing to do with UKARA what so ever. Also using someone else's UKARA is all fine and well but if you add your details or even their details and use a different delivery address you wouldn't receive the RIF as it'll only be posted to the address in which the UKARA is registered to so if you on the sly used your mates UKARA it would be delivered to him.

[Longshot]

A) No. Whoever is over 18 and has played the games in the right time is the one whose details the site will send to UKARA.

 

So yes. If your dad plays the games he can then get on the UKARA database. He could buy a RIF using his UKARA approved details (or by providing another form of defence at the time of buying) after which he can let you borrow it or even just straight up give it to you permanently (but he can't sell it to you until you're 18).

 

Generally speaking retailers who use the UKARA database system say they will only send the RIF being purchased to the name and address that matches the one held on the UKARA database, which is why you can't 'borrow someone's UKARA number' and use it against your name and address.

 

Finally BAC and UKARA are two different systems. Plus who cares about BAC? They made one mistake and now they're burned for life!

[Longshot]

Qlimax ninja strikes!

[Qlimax]

Qlimax ninja strikes!

Don't quite get this.

[Finius]

Don't quite get this.

 

He means you got there first

[team flex]

ok thanks for the info

[two_zero]

Unless I am much mistaken, the law is not that you play 2+ games in 2+ months. it is that you skirmish regularly and that you can get the RIF to keep your hobby realistic or something in those lines. Therefore I can not see how someone who have just skirmished enough to get a UKARA number and then quits can legally buy a RIF?

But assuming he intended to keep playing and legally acquire a RIF. Then he can legally give it to you, as long as it is truly a gift (for example bday, religious holidays etc..) and he gets nothing in exchange what so ever. No money, items, services etc. I would then assume that he'd get one for himself as well. anyway, this is my take on it.

[Longshot]

Unless I am much mistaken, the law is not that you play 2+ games in 2+ months. it is that you skirmish regularly and that you can get the RIF to keep your hobby realistic or something in those lines. Therefore I can not see how someone who have just skirmished enough to get a UKARA number and then quits can legally buy a RIF?

 

You're partially right. The law doesn't mention a set number of games or a set amount of time, but also (contrary to popular opinion) doesn't mention 'airsoft,' 'regular' or 'skirmishing' either.

 

If people took the time to actually read the law they'd see how ridiculously vague it actually is. All it actually states (which has then been used to create the 'airsoft defence') is that someone can have a defence against prosecution for selling a RIF if they are providing the RIF:

 

"for the purpose of... the acting out of military or law enforcement scenarios for the purposes of recreation"

 

and that this is taking place in a setting:

 

"for which public liability insurance is held in relation to liabilities to third parties."

 

It literally is as vague as that!

 

So technically nobody needs anything like UKARA or to prove anything about playing 'regularly.' In fact, technically, you don't even have to have played airsoft ever before to be able to provide a defence for the seller. Example: if I have a mate who has never played airsoft before but has signed up at my site to play this Saturday for the first time I can legally sell him a RIF based on the wording of the law (as seen above) and have a defence, since I am confident that I am selling him the RIF 'for the purpose' of playing airsoft at an insured site (which meets those legal requirements).

[two_zero]

So technically nobody needs anything like UKARA or to prove anything about playing 'regularly.' In fact, technically, you don't even have to have played airsoft ever before to be able to provide a defence for the seller.

This is what I am getting at. But to buy a RIF once you play your last game surely is not legal or at least not in line with how the law was meant to be interpenetrated?

[Longshot]

Ah, I see your point. Yes, I suppose you could say that just because someone has played for three months is no guarantee they'll ever play again, so why should they get a 'pass' for the following nine months under the UKARA system?

 

I suppose it comes down to the seller's level of comfort in establishing their defence - after all, it's the seller who is breaking the law and facing the potential consequences, not the buyer. To meet the legal requirements by simply checking UKARA is therefore tantamount to saying: 'well, I assumed he was buying it for airsoft since he played airsoft a few times at some point in the last year,' which, when put that way, seems a little weak! After all, you could be selling a RIF to someone who has a UKARA number but hasn't played airsoft in nine months and perhaps never intends to play again, and it's hard to marry that up with the wording of the law.

 

I'd say your far more in-keeping with the law by selling a RIF to a new guy who's never played before but is at your site that day to play a game, technically speaking. Since you can be pretty sure that you are 'providing the RIF for the purposes of airsoft at an airsoft site' (which is the plain English version of the law) in that case, but you really can't be sure of that just because someone gives you a UKARA number.

 

On the other hand, it's a matter of practicalities. If we took the law that way then only face-to-face sales at sites on game days could really count as being worthy of having the defence. That would kill airsoft sales, and therefore probably airsoft. This is the very reason why UKARA was formed and argued for the 'airsoft defence' in the first place, and why the 'UKARA defence' has effectively been accepted by everyone as a result.

 

PS. I love the word "interpenetrated." I'm totally going to find a way to fit that into conversations as work tomorrow!

[Mr Monkey Nuts]

Haven't you just bought a gun? Stop worrying about RIFs and go out and enjoy it.

[team flex]

Haven't you just bought a gun? Stop worrying about RIFs and go out and enjoy it.

I understand what you mean, but I find it all very vague and wanted to clear up a few things.

[DX115FALCON]

I find it all very vague and wanted to clear up a few things.

Vague pretty much covers the VCRA with regards to airsoft, to be honest

[Lord_Metile]

To be honest we should be happy for all this. If it weren't for this, airsoft would be illegal in the UK.

[Longshot]

^ I see what you're trying to say, but that's a bit like the government randomly banning porn with the Violence and Porn Reduction Act (VPRA) as a knee jerk response to the public's feeling that people who watch porn are somehow more likely to commit violent crimes and that therefore porn should be banned, only for them to then write a random clause into the Act later saying something like 'it is a defence against prosecution for someone to watch porn if they are watching it to recreate sexual feelings that might otherwise be performed on themselves by a third party,' and then for you, seven years later, to say: "to be honest we should be happy for all this. If it weren't for this we wouldn't be able to have a wank."

[cavninja]

Longshot, lovin' the "Tommy Tank" comment! Priceless! lol

Thank you for a very simple and clear explanation of UKARA and how it affects retailers and player, it being clearly geared towards purchasers.

As a newbie, my initial comment on VCRA, is what is it trying to reduce? Is there a significant amount of data to suggest that the sale of RiFs is linked to criminality? Is there data to support RiFs being used in criminal acts?

If so, i would have thought that there is enough legislation and policing powers in place to deal with criminals, who would be conducting criminal behavior, with or without a RiF, regardless.

I can understand the aspiration of the sport as a whole to prove its bona fides, is this what the UKARA data base provides?

Surely legitimate and recognized ID would be sufficient to purchase a RiF? If there's a problem, they have your details?!

Likewise for playing, just produce legitimate proof of ID? That way, the site owners and retailers have your details, should there be an issue and if you need to demonstrate your usage, you can point the authorities to them?!

The use on legitimate sites. where they have the appropriate insurance and you aren't going to scare the public with RiFs is a no brainer, I would have thought and hoped that our politicians, legislators and Police have much more pressing matters to deal with?!

[Longshot]

^ I think you need to understand the timeline of events (and silly decisions) that have led to the present day situation in order to answer a lot of that. Essentially it went something like this:

 

- 2006: The government decides (probably after a long consultative process that included reading a lot of the Daily Mail) that they can 'reduce violent crime' by banning toy guns that look 'realistic.' They decide that they can't really force everyone to give back the toy guns they already have, so they don't make owning them illegal. They also realise that nobody is probably going to realise or care if they made buying them illegal, so they don't do that either. Instead they just make it illegal to sell, import or manufacture them. They also seem to think nobody needs them for anything useful at all, though another quick consultation (this one seems to effectively been a brainstorm they made on a piece of A4) leads them to the conclusion that some people might need them, but the only people who might possibly have any decent use for realistic toy guns are people working in film, TV or stage, re-enactors or people who the Queen asked to go and buy them as part of their job. So they give these guys a 'pass,' and essentially add in to the new law that these guys will be breaking the law like everyone else, but they can't be prosecuted for doing so. The Violent Crime Reduction Act (VCRA) 2006 is passed. Job done, everyone's happy. Or so they think.

 

- Early 2007: Airsoft retailers kick off. "Oh my days blud!" They shout. "What dem man gone done?" They (leading retailers like Zeroone, Airsoft World, Landwarrior, etc.) form a group: The United Kingdom Airsoft Retailers Association (UKARA), because forming a group and getting an acronym instantly makes you feel like you've got big boy pants on. They get a sit-down with the lawmakers and explain what airsoft is and how their livelihoods will be severely affected when the new law comes into play in October. The lawmakers pretend they know what UKARA are talking about whilst they're actually saying to each other: "Oh, I say! 'Airsoft?' How ridiculously absurd!" They show their confusion (and the fact that they seem to think that these UKARA chaps are some sort of tribal lords who have complete control over all airsoft events and retail in the UK) by getting the Home Secretary to add another 'defence' to the list. By the time they get round to this they've actually forgotten what airsoft is, so they just write it down as something to do with "military and law enforcement scenarios." They then reassure themselves that it's all going to be cool because the UKARA tribal council has agreed to set up a database of people they trust and they're only going to sell to them. Obviously, since the UKARA are the only people who are ever going to sell anyone realistic looking toy guns, there will never be any problems ever.

 

- October 2007: Virtually all violent crime in the UK is ended thanks to the VCRA.

 

- 2007-Present: 99% of airsofters have literally no clue what the VCRA and UKARA are all about. They keep arguing about what 'defences you need to buy' without realising that this makes no sense whatsoever. They quote stuff that the UKARA has made up, like "regular skirmisher," as if it was something to do with the actual law. Additionally, 99.9% of UK politicians and police also have no idea what the VCRA and UKARA are all about, however most people on airsoft forums are convinced that 'we're being watched,' 'our sport in under threat,' 'the Home Secretary has us under scrutiny,' etc. This is all true. Teresa May does nothing all day but read airsoft forums in the hope of gathering enough evidence to finally shut us down.

 

I hope that helps.

[Lozart]

I feel it only fair to point out that the last post may contain traces of sarcasm, irony and possibly peanuts.