Policing and Crime Bill 2015-16 - This is now (mostly) the law as part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017

[Kastrioti]

On 2/6/2017 at 9:08 PM, Sacarathe said:

"meanwhile in parliament govt seeks to reclassify tens of thousands of toy guns as firearms."

 

Yeah this has always peeved me off. Why do they spend money, time and resources banning toys? Surely there are more profit-making noble things the HO/gvmnt could do? 

 

Is it really the case that people in this country are so gun-phobic ( for want of the real word ), that they'll ban anything that looks like a real gun?

 

"Oh, I know what will really lower gun crime: banning toys that can't be converted into guns, but look like them, so the general public think we're doing something"

 

The worst part is that people have been shooting each other at over 370 fps in full auto over the pond for years now. What, is it just that our friends in America won't die of getting shot by a 380 fps RIF with .2s and we can, hence the lethal limit criteria? What's their secret? CBS? Burgers? Metallica?

[Sacarathe]

1 hour ago, Kastrioti said:

The worst part is that people have been shooting each other at over 370 fps in full auto over the pond for years now. What, is it just that our friends in America won't die of getting shot by a 380 fps RIF with .2s and we can, hence the lethal limit criteria? What's their secret? CBS? Burgers? Metallica?

 

Come now, if our convention was 450fps auto and 600 fps on .2 single you know the yanks would have 550 and 800.

[lemon191]

13 hours ago, Kastrioti said:

 

"Oh, I know what will really lower gun crime: banning toys that can't be converted into guns, but look like them, so the general public think we're doing something

There's your answer , it looks good on paper to the masses who don't know any better,  the media get headlines to sell and the government get to pat themselves on the back because the think they have done something good. That and I think they are just ignorant to anything outside of what they like to do in their spare time. 

[lasbrisas]

On 2/1/2017 at 4:28 PM, MarksmanHarry said:

Better hold of on upgrading to HPA a bit longer then. This needs clarifying.

My thoughts as I was thinking of going down the HPA route, and the shop I know well warned me about this and to hold off until there is more clarification.

[Andyraven]

So what about paintball? are they not getting a cap? seems abit unfair when they can fire upto 12ft/lbs thats about 16.0 joules right or am i wrong?

 

just seems to me that Airsoft is getting the Sh*tty end of the stick. just because our guns look more real.

 

[Sacarathe]

7 hours ago, Andyraven said:

So what about paintball? are they not getting a cap? seems abit unfair when they can fire upto 12ft/lbs thats about 16.0 joules right or am i wrong?

 

just seems to me that Airsoft is getting the Sh*tty end of the stick. just because our guns look more real.

 

http://www.bzpaintball.co.uk/paintball-guns-paintball-markers

 

http://www.rap4uk.com/Paintball-Guns-s/1.htm

 

Plenty of RiFs there.

 

I have no idea why these stores appear to not adhere to VCRA though. I assume its because every member of the public can distinguish paintball guns from Airsoft RIFs and Real guns by sight.

[ghostwalker]

Suppose the fact that most pb guns  have big hoppers on top, differentiates them and makes them less realistic. 

I was about to buy an hpa rif a few weeks ago, but like many. I am now going to either wait or just pick up a new AEG. It's a shame they can't get this cleared up quickly, but that's the British law making system for you. 

[Sacarathe]

5 hours ago, ghostwalker said:

Suppose the fact that most pb guns  have big hoppers on top, differentiates them and makes them less realistic.

 

Really? That doesn't seem to be the case at point of sale.

 

Yes it is, I've put aside funds for a PR-15 Ver 2. Hoping I'll actually be able to buy it.

[Kastrioti]

Also you've got the fact that they're going on the whole "lethality" basis, and that- in their eyes requires the projectile to have a chance of penetrating skin. A big paintball ( Pressure = Force / Area ) that is liquid filled and gelatin (I think) cased has a very low chance of penetrating skin compared to a solid 6mm BB. However they fail to see that even at 500 FPS, in most instances you'll only get a welt because of how quickly the BB loses energy as it flies, and how the faster it goes, the more resistive forces act against it; hence losing more kinetic energy in a shorter period of time. 

[Andyraven]

10 hours ago, Kastrioti said:

Also you've got the fact that they're going on the whole "lethality" basis, and that- in their eyes requires the projectile to have a chance of penetrating skin. A big paintball ( Pressure = Force / Area ) that is liquid filled and gelatin (I think) cased has a very low chance of penetrating skin compared to a solid 6mm BB. However they fail to see that even at 500 FPS, in most instances you'll only get a welt because of how quickly the BB loses energy as it flies, and how the faster it goes, the more resistive forces act against it; hence losing more kinetic energy in a shorter period of time. 

 

i get they're going the "lethality" route but...

 

 

[Kastrioti]

Damn, well I've never seen something like that before. That paintball must've been frozen or something, but I agree with you. 

 

I think it's also got something to do with the public awareness surrounding paintball, and the lack of awareness surrounding airsoft. They can mess around with airsoft all they like, but if paintball were banned, it'd be all over the news, and people would be upset.

 

Then again, the health and safety parade are trying to "encourage children to header the ball less" in football because players who've headed the ball a lot have brain damage nowadays so god knows what will come next.

 

No more running because it causes bad knees in old age?

No more standing around? Reminds me of George Carlin.

[Sacarathe]

If only ballistic gel wore clothes.

[DarkAssassin]

So do we have a definitive answer about this yet or is it all just conjecture at this point, I ask as I spent more than 1k on a HPA weapon I have not yet used in the field.

[DarkAssassin]

Oh and that video was horrific by the way!

[Tommikka]

On 17/02/2017 at 0:00 AM, Andyraven said:

So what about paintball? are they not getting a cap? seems abit unfair when they can fire upto 12ft/lbs thats about 16.0 joules right or am i wrong?

 

just seems to me that Airsoft is getting the Sh*tty end of the stick. just because our guns look more real.

 

Under this bill I believe that paintball still gets covered in the firearms act by the frangibility of paintballs.

(I'll get to that video later!)

 

Airsoft benefits with the vcra and the firearms act amendment with the specific airsoft entries.

 

But 'reball' rubber Paintball's have always been a bit dodgy.  Legal under the air weapons 12 foot pounds for rifles or 6 foot pounds for pistols.  Paintball guns in general are not rifles, but are 'gallery guns'

Under this amendment reballs probably fall into the 1.3 joules category, because they aren't frangible so don't have the get out clause.

Reballs are used by some players for shooting practice and in shooting gallery setups, but there are some sites that run reballs and have been keeping their head down in the sand

 

 

[Tommikka]

On 17/02/2017 at 7:10 AM, Sacarathe said:

http://www.bzpaintball.co.uk/paintball-guns-paintball-markers

 

http://www.rap4uk.com/Paintball-Guns-s/1.htm

 

Plenty of RiFs there.

 

I have no idea why these stores appear to not adhere to VCRA though. I assume its because every member of the public can distinguish paintball guns from Airsoft RIFs and Real guns by sight.

Some in paintball have buried their heads in the sand with regard to vcra and ignore that a rif is not an absolute definition but as seen in the eyes of the beholder

Irrespective of hopper etc

 

when the act was just a bill the ukpsf did not fight for paintballs position on rifs as it would have been a losing battle, the majority of paintball has and had no realism requirements.  There was a small milsim community, but they used what equipment was available, and played in a milsim style.  A couple of people built very realistic custom guns

A small number of real looking guns were available to buy, primarily imported at great expense from rap4

rap4uk was formed which left the risk at customs to the importing retailer rather than the buyer

 

Rap4uk were informally visited by the association of chief constables with a fact finding study.  No surprise that they indicated that much of the stock would be considered rifs, but there was a surprise about how many of the classic paintball guns could be considered rifs. Rap4uk were advised to think about the situation and come up with something to cover themselves

They created a voluntary membership scheme and offered a 2 tone option (as rap 4 had been born in the police/military training market they already had a blue & orange range). They were criticised in paintball until they pointed out the circumstances of the visit

 

More recently with magfed being born there are clear rifs and the paintball retailers went to the ukpsf to raise the issue with the home office.

The home office looked at them and gave a two part answer (subject to being tested in court) 

1) that the firearms act & paintball frangibility may trump the vcra and paintball is fine for realistic guns

2) that membership schemes may allow for a skirmisher type defence; either by retailers or ukpsf membership

(as the vcra refers to airsoft skirmishing rather than skirmishing then it's really stretching the legislation to apply a membership scheme to paintball)

 

To date incidents with paintball guns have been dealt with based on the other crimes or antisocial activities taking place, and not as a firearms or vcra offence

One not very well know case was attempted suicide by cop.  A formerly well known paintballer who built custom guns went off the rails and wanted to end it.  Fortunately he made a goodbye cruel world call to his ex and she reported the situation to the police saving his life.  There was a full on armed police siege but no shooting 

[Tommikka]

On 18/02/2017 at 0:00 AM, Andyraven said:

 

i get they're going the "lethality" route but...

 

 

This has been a well used video and despite the descjription isn't paintball

 

It is a paintball gun, but is shooting 'less than lethal' balls, which are very illegal here, but are openly available in South Africa and the US

 

It has been said to be a rubber reball but would have to be shot at a major velocity to penetrate skin, and is most likely one of the balls with a solid internal ball and a rubber skin.  These are designed to break windows to allow subsequent pepper balls to be fired in

[Tommikka]

You may ask what a paintballer is doing here .... I'm primarily a scenario paintballer but have played every form of paintball in the uk and am also an event photographer

My team are also event organisers who run both scenario paintball events and airsoft events 

 

I'm one of those paintballers who sees paintball and airsoft as similar activities of people that like to go out and play shooting at their mates

[Sacarathe]

59 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

More recently with magfed being born there are clear rifs and the paintball retailers went to the ukpsf to raise the issue with the home office.

The home office looked at them and gave a two part answer (subject to being tested in court) 

1) that the firearms act & paintball frangibility may trump the vcra and paintball is fine for realistic guns

2) that membership schemes may allow for a skirmisher type defence; either by retailers or ukpsf membership

(as the vcra refers to airsoft skirmishing rather than skirmishing then it's really stretching the legislation to apply a membership scheme to paintball)

 

Please elaborate on this insanity, I fail to understand what the projectile fired has to do with something being a RIF - deactivated firearms are RIF and they don't fire anything..

 

[Andyraven]

2 hours ago, Tommikka said:

Paintball guns in general are not rifles, but are 'gallery guns'

 

 

 

why isnt an Airsort gun classed a  "gallery Gun" then?

they share the same characteristics as a painball gun.

 

definition of gallery gun:  a type of firearm designed for indoor shooting.

 

 

[Tommikka]

4 hours ago, Andyraven said:

 

why isnt an Airsort gun classed a  "gallery Gun" then?

they share the same characteristics as a painball gun.

 

definition of gallery gun:  a type of firearm designed for indoor shooting.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure.  Strictly speaking paintball is too large a calibre at 0.68" (and airsoft would be right at 6mm for a small calibre)

I believe that paintball crept into the legal definition of gallery gun as a smooth bore and got away with being over calibre and being able to shoot at people through frangibility

 

Airsoft could possibly make those claims, but has since been exposed with a seperate definition in legislation, and may have stumbled with shooting people with a solid ball, albeit at a non lethal power

 

[Tommikka]

6 hours ago, Sacarathe said:

 

Please elaborate on this insanity, I fail to understand what the projectile fired has to do with something being a RIF - deactivated firearms are RIF and they don't fire anything..

 

Deactivate firearms aren't RIFs because they are real and aren't 'realistic imitations'

 

I'm not entirely convinced on lethality/frangibility bypassing the vcra myself either.  But the ukpsf do posess a letter from the home office which will assist any retailers if they need to defend themselves in court

The home office argument in the letter is to classify a paintball gun as a firearm under the firearms act, which then means it isn't an IF or a RIF if it's already a firearm.  But then classify it as non lethal due to frangibility 

 

https://m.facebook.com/UKPSF/posts/532643633518379

 

 

 

I have been asked several questions over the past 6 weeks about the increase in the number of “more realistic” paintball markers being used. Just to clarify this is NOT a UKPSF quest against the Magfed style of play as has been suggested on some forums – I have a Magfed group who regularly use my site.

Please feel free to check this with Alex Munroe to see if I support his style of play. – These are questions raised by members who have expressed concern over “realistic type markers”.

The last thing the world of paintball needs is for a marker to be confiscated and possible legal action pursued against a paintballer for possession of a Realistic Imitation Firearm (RIF). What is needed is to clarify the law and have in the possession of the UKPSF a letter that should support a player in case of legal action.
These are extracts from the letter I recently received from the Firearms section at the Home Office.

“I appreciate your concerns with the status of the items and the need to clarity on the application of the law in relation to paintball markers

I thought it would be helpful if I outline that the definition of a firearm is any lethal barrelled weapon. Most air weapons, despite being below the 6 and 12 ft/lb limit are still lethal, but are exempt from certificate procedure. It therefore seems appropriate that any paintball gun that is an air weapon, and providing it discharges a paintball with energy of less than 12ft/lbs would be exempt from firearms certificate procedures.

The test to establish whether a weapon is Realistic Imitation Firearm (RIF) is based on lethality. Using the Home Office advice of 2.3 Joules for a single shot and 1 Joule for a multi shot, we believe that it is more than likely that they would be regarded as potentially lethal. However, the weapons would still be exempt as air weapons (assuming they are less than 12 ft/lbs as covered above) but are actually firearms rather than RIFs”

From several communications I have had over the years with the Firearms section they have always pointed out that “The Forensic Science Service’s view is that, as long as the muzzle energy of the projectiles fired from a paintball marker are below 6 ft/lbs for a pistol and 12 ft/lbs for a rifle, they do not meet this definitions (this is reference to Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968) This is because the frangible nature of the projectile means that it will break up on impact rather than penetrate the skin. It cannot therefore be regarded as lethal.”

From these communications I believe that the “Realistic” paintball markers if fired below the levels mentioned above and firing a frangible paintball will not be classed as “Realistic Imitation Firearm”.

As with all advice offered by the Home Office “Only a court of law can make a definitive judgement on the legality but in the absence of a judgement we will maintain our view”

[Sacarathe]

Quote

The test to establish whether a weapon is Realistic Imitation Firearm (RIF) is based on lethality.

 

I don't know where you got this as it's completely untrue.

 

A RIF can be as dangerous as a baseball bat and still be a RIF.

[Tommikka]

2 hours ago, Sacarathe said:

 

I don't know where you got this as it's completely untrue.

 

A RIF can be as dangerous as a baseball bat and still be a RIF.

As I said, I'm not convinced by the interpretation and I don't feel that lethality is within the VCRA.  (Lethality is within the firearms act). It makes more sense when they are refering to paintball guns as an air weapon under the firearms act which would classify paintball as a form of firearm and thus not a RIF.

 

The link is the source, which is the UKPSF (national recognised body for paintball) making a statement and providing the quote from the Home Office which was in response to the UKPSFs query on RIFs in paintball. 

 

 

 

 

[Sacarathe]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/3/part/6/enacted

s.57(1)(c)

I hope it airsoft suppressors are not prohibited by this.

 

Hopefully it's saved by PCA2017 S.57B.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/3/part/6/enacted