Parents buying RIFs for under 18's who play regularly.

[Jam_Man]

I contacted the guys at Ukara as whilst Ukara isnt the law they obviously have a good understanding of what it is.

 

They confirmed that being over 18 is not a legal reason to buy a replica on its own, a defence is required.

 

What constitutes 'The defence' is the part that is subject to guidelines, its not a guideline that someone should really have a defence, its a legal requirement.

[Sacarathe]

 

 

And you arent explaining why a shop would need to protect themselves if its not the law.

 

It is illegal to sell alcohol to Under 18s, so a store just has to prove they are asking for ID, if it were as you suggest thats all an airsoft retailer would need to do to protect themselves.

 

"21. For airsoft skirmishing, the guidelines suggest that:

• new players must play at least 3 times in a period of not less than 2 months the 2 months before being offered membership;

• membership cards with a photograph and recognised format will be issued for production to retailers;

• a central database will be set up for retailers to cross-check a purchaser’s details; and

• a member’s entry on the database will be deleted if unused for 12 months.

(Home Office (09/10/2013): The above is not a statutory requirement but is a process that assists retailers in checking that purchasers are genuine airsoft skirmishers so that the defence outlined under the act can apply. The BAC fully adheres to these guidelines.)"

Thats what you posted earlier.

When I read that it doesnt say having a defence is a guideline at all, it says the rules that define what an airsofters defence actualy is are guidelines.

To me that still says a RIF can only be sold to an over 18 who will use it for airsoft skirmishing (ignoring for a moment the other defences like re-enactment).

It sets out guidelines that it should be 3 times in 2 months etc, but that is just a guideline as we know because Patrolbase sell after just one game as they consider that a defence. That doesnt mean that having to need a defence is just a guideline though.

I think you are seeing the word guideline and applying it to the entire process rather than just the part that defines what a defence is.

Happy to be proven wrong but you are far from convincing me.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/24A

 

 

24ASupplying imitation firearms to minors

 

(1)It is an offence for a person under the age of eighteen to purchase an imitation firearm.

 

(2)It is an offence to sell an imitation firearm to a person under the age of eighteen.

 

(3)In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) it is a defence to show that the person charged with the offence—

 

(a)believed the other person to be aged eighteen or over; and

 

(b)had reasonable ground for that belief.

 

I think this section is crystal clear. (not disagreeing with the Jam_man.)

 

I think the store above is being very clever, prosecutions/conviction don't come down to just whether you have a defence or not, but many factors including the public interest.

 

Does anyone think it's in the public interest for this store to be prosecuted? The only gain is deterrence, but as far as breaking the law goes I think this store has acted very cleverly. But illegally? Yes. Damaging to the hobby? Yes.

 

But a moral wrong - which so much of the law is based on? No.

 

Harm to anyone but all present and future airsofters? No.

 

Do I think they should be reported to the authorities? Yes - but only to see that it stops, not to have them sanctioned.

 

 

We all know this law is bogus as any 18 year old can buy a two tone IF and then buy the parts which are two-toned from the same shop, give them to someone with an actual defence (shop staff) - and then give them to anyone. Of course in the example the staff can say "no it's mine now".

[Jam_Man]

Indeed after the long debate on the over 18s thing the facts to me are:

 

1. It illegal to sell to Under 18's

2. Its illegal to sell to anyone over 18 unless they have a defence.

 

So the shop have interpreted that having a son who plays airsoft is the parent's defence, and whether that would stand up in court is in my opinion doubtful although you can see why they would think it was acceptable.

[Iisjreg]

Exactly. The defence is the holding of a "permitted activity" (airsoft) but the law does require sufficient evidence. If they can prove the son is airsofting, then it's fine.

 

 

Sec 37 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/37)

4. ... a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in subsection (1) ... if—

(a)sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

 

&

 

The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (Realistic Imitation Firearms) Regulations 2007 added

(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2606/regulation/3/made)

 

Regulation 3: (additional defences)

 

2. a) the organisation and holding of permitted activities for which public liability insurance is held in relation to liabilities to third parties arising from or in connection with the organisation and holding of those activities; )

 

EDIT: It's also worthy to note the explicit need for public liability insurance. This (generally) restricts the activities to commercial sites rather than back yard shooting.

[Albiscuit]

Interesting point...

 

The RIF laws ARE open to interpretation.

 

Personally I think the retailer has not done anything wrong. They are obviously satisfied the gun will be used responsibly for its intended purpose (which is all the restrictions are in place to cover) and are happy to have the sale.

Ok, they may have stretched the wording to allow a sale. But the restrictions are there for the store and as long as the retailer can justify to themselves and ultimately to someone asking questions their decision in this case that is all that matters.

 

It seems a very unique situation though. I doubt the store in question would do this for many people!! (well I hope not anyway)

[Iisjreg]

(well I hope not anyway)

 

Why? Surely, if there's proof that it's being used legitimately, then there's no problem?

 

Minors are able to operate RIFs perfectly fine but selling to the parent of an airsofter adds in a level of responsibility which a minor doesn't have.

[Jam_Man]

 

Why? Surely, if there's proof that it's being used legitimately, then there's no problem?

 

Minors are able to operate RIFs perfectly fine but selling to the parent of an airsofter adds in a level of responsibility which a minor doesn't have.

 

All that matters is what the law deems to be acceptable. Selling to an under 18 regular airsofter via a parent sounds like a common sense thing to do, law doesnt always equal common sense though.

 

If it is ok though I dont know why anyone uses a two tone at a skirmish, even U18s shouldnt need to.

[Albiscuit]

 

Why? Surely, if there's proof that it's being used legitimately, then there's no problem?

 

Minors are able to operate RIFs perfectly fine but selling to the parent of an airsofter adds in a level of responsibility which a minor doesn't have.

 

I believe common sense on behalf of the retailer should prevail over profiteering. I agree with this instance, but its a clear sounding case. If anything the retailer has lost a tenner by not charging to two tone

I would hope the retailer would be as thorough or not as helpful to the average person walking in because as annoying as the restrictions are, there are certainly grey areas and ways around buying a RIF without UKARA and dubious retailers would only damage the reputation of Airsoft.

 

Even though playing the three games and getting UKARA etc can be annoying I feel its a good clear way of monitoring and the more people signed up the bigger base we have for better legislation and furthering the sport (or just keeping it alive)

[Iisjreg]

The key thing is that it's not illegal for a minor to own or use a RIF, only to buy one.

 

So if an adult of (hopefully) greater responsibility and experience makes the informed decision to buy one for a minor, then that's up to them (obviously, within the restrictions of the accepted defences). If a minor needed a RIF for legitimate video production (e.g. see the huge number of teen youtubers*), the parent should be able to buy it for them.

 

I dont know why anyone uses a two tone at a skirmish

 

- UKARA and marketing, as per the previous posts above. Retailers are saving themselves effort.

 

Now, I don't think UKARA, BAC, etc. are a bad thing - they are easy and useful. It's just that they can confuse the situation.

 

 

* snigger

[Sacarathe]

So long as the gun remains legal property and possession of the parents, I don't see a problem with this.

 

But if the parents gift the gun to the child (before they turn 18), the shop has no defence if it is used in a crime.

 

Its sh*t like this which makes me glad airsoft guns don't have serial numbers.

[Iisjreg]

How do you retain legal possession of a RIF?

 

EDIT: Sorry, that was a bit curt. What I mean is, how is it any different (to the retailer) if the parent was on UKARA and they gifted a RIF to their child.

[ImTriggerHappy]

Simple fact is if people keep circumventing the law/guideline or the spirit of the law/guideline then eventually some governmental do gooder is going to get through a bill that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.

Instead of arguing about what is 100% correct in the writing remember that the spirit of the law counts and a Judge can still make a judgement if you find a loophole.

The shop was in the wrong the parents had no defence so shouldn't have been able to purchase it. If that kid now shoots someone or gets caught messing around with it the street it can potentially open up a can of worms that would be negative for the whole industry.

All the circumventing and tit for tat arguments about it on the internet are just highlighting how flawed it all is and in the end its us that will get affected for the worse. Yes its not a perfect system but it works for the most part so lets all use it with a bit of common sense.

 

Anybody who thinks the shop did a good thing and made a sensible decision well then frankly your stupid. When we all have to use two tones or fill out forms and have checks combined with a nice licence fee we will all reminisce about how good it was before a few idiots f*cked it up.

 

EDIT;

Before anybody comments about the VCRA giving guidelines not laws thats the nice way of saying do what we want before we give you no choice.

[Jam_Man]

The key thing is that it's not illegal for a minor to own or use a RIF, only to buy one.

 

So if an adult of (hopefully) greater responsibility and experience makes the informed decision to buy one for a minor, then that's up to them (obviously, within the restrictions of the accepted defences). If a minor needed a RIF for legitimate video production (e.g. see the huge number of teen youtubers*), the parent should be able to buy it for them.

 

 

- UKARA and marketing, as per the previous posts above. Retailers are saving themselves effort.

 

Now, I don't think UKARA, BAC, etc. are a bad thing - they are easy and useful. It's just that they can confuse the situation.

 

 

* snigger

 

 

Retailers arent saving themselves any effort if this method was legal. This shop arent having to bother with either as long as the under 18 gets his parents to buy it for hm. To be fair in this particular case the shop owner knew him and did know he played so there is no suggestion he would be as open to selling to everyone.

 

The reason the rest of the retailers go through the UKARA/proven defence and two tone process is because they have to, not because its better for them.

[Iisjreg]

Arguing "spirit" of the law is even worse than arguing interpretations of the law.

 

Obviously, the intention is to reduce violent crime. Playing 3 games in 2 months only provides one, easy way to justify a sale of an item which could be used in violent crime.

 

The UKARA's FAQs say that "it would appear that there is no problem of a gift from an eligible purchaser to a minor". Is it really that different if the parent does have their own, separate defence?

 

If a dad wasn't an airsofter but had a 17 year old that had been airsofting every week for several years, contributed to the community and had a popular youtube channel but wanted a non-two-tone gun, then it's circumventing the spirit of the law to buy them one?

 

I don't know exactly what that store did but can see an argument for legitimacy. Or maybe I am a stupid idiot f*cking up the industry with my words and thoughts.

[ImTriggerHappy]

There is no argument for legitimacy otherwise "mommy and daddy who never play airsoft but want to make Timmy happy" would be mentioned in the VCRA.

 

I have played airsoft for fairly long time and have seen one scare story after another about legislation change and its obvious eventually things will get harder for the airsoft industry and its players. All the hippie pc MP's need is enough proof the guidelines/laws are not working and that will give them the leverage they need to change things.

[Iisjreg]

...would be mentioned in the VCRA.

 

Sorry, I thought it was. 😊

 

I have nothing more to add, now. I submit my will to the retail overlords. I'll do whatever they say.

[Sacarathe]

How do you retain legal possession of a RIF?

 

EDIT: Sorry, that was a bit curt. What I mean is, how is it any different (to the retailer) if the parent was on UKARA and they gifted a RIF to their child.

 

It's quite easy: "son, here is a your gun for airsoft, I am legally responsible for this item (due to the promises made to substantiate the seller's defence) until you're 18 when you can have this for your birthday. If you lose it or sell it before then I'm going to have to report it missing to the shop and the police."

 

 

Simply put, if it's used in a crime the retailer will have no defence and will try to throw the parent under the bus/sue them for fraud. Might even be able to slip a goods and services by deception (which ignores whether the seller was actually decieved) in there.

[sokar666]

 

It's quite easy: "son, here is a your gun for airsoft, I am legally responsible for this item (due to the promises made to substantiate the seller's defence) until you're 18 when you can have this for your birthday. If you lose it or sell it before then I'm going to have to report it missing to the shop and the police."

 

 

Simply put, if it's used in a crime the retailer will have no defence and will try to throw the parent under the bus/sue them for fraud. Might even be able to slip a goods and services by deception (which ignores whether the seller was actually decieved) in there.

What complete and utter nonsense, do not post things if you have no clue what your talking about.

 

It is legal for a 10 year old to own an airsoft gun, it is legal for a 14 year old to fire an airgun (air rifle), it is legal for an 18 year old to buy an airsoft gun.

 

It is legal for anyone to sell an airsoft gun, again anyone, absolutely anyone. Why do you think the new guidelines were put into place, so they could continue to keep selling. The son was gifted the gun (no law broken) with or without defense makes no difference, he was gifted the gun, again no law broken. The store didn't bother to check for proof of defense/UKARA which is of course there choice as stated in guidelines it is not a statutary requirement, so again no law broken. The parents were over 18 and so legally old enough to buy airsoft guns, again no law broken. If the son decides to commit a crime, he is liable no one else, he commited the crime, regardless who gave him the gun.

 

Please do not spout rubbish just to confuse people further.

[ImTriggerHappy]

What complete and utter nonsense, do not post things if you have no clue what your talking about.

 

It is legal for a 10 year old to own an airsoft gun, it is legal for a 14 year old to fire an airgun (air rifle), it is legal for an 18 year old to buy an airsoft gun.

 

It is legal for anyone to sell an airsoft gun, again anyone, absolutely anyone. Why do you think the new guidelines were put into place, so they could continue to keep selling. The son was gifted the gun (no law broken) with or without defense makes no difference, he was gifted the gun, again no law broken. The store didn't bother to check for proof of defense/UKARA which is of course there choice as stated in guidelines it is not a statutary requirement, so again no law broken. The parents were over 18 and so legally old enough to buy airsoft guns, again no law broken. If the son decides to commit a crime, he is liable no one else, he commited the crime, regardless who gave him the gun.

 

Please do not spout rubbish just to confuse people further.

Think you are getting confused with difference between an Imitation Firearm and a Realistic Imitation Firearm.

 

Yes anyone over 18 can buy an airsoft gun as long as its a two tone but to buy a RIF you are meant to a have defence as well as being over 18. So while the parents were over 18 they had no legitimate or provable defence.

The VCRA quite clearly states a seller must have a proof of defence to sell a RIF or they are committing an illegal act.

You don't need UKARA you can sell to a fellow airsofter as you see him play but a shop cant do that which is why UKARA came about. His parents saying he plays airsoft is not a defence.

What the shop did was wrong its simple.

[sokar666]

Think you are getting confused with difference between an Imitation Firearm and a Realistic Imitation Firearm.

 

Yes anyone over 18 can buy an airsoft gun as long as its a two tone but to buy a RIF you are meant to a have defence as well as being over 18. So while the parents were over 18 they had no legitimate or provable defence.

The VCRA quite clearly states a seller must have a proof of defence to sell a RIF or they are committing an illegal act.

You don't need UKARA you can sell to a fellow airsofter as you see him play but a shop cant do that which is why UKARA came about. His parents saying he plays airsoft is not a defence.

What the shop did was wrong its simple.

My god can people not read;

 

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT 2006 (COMMENCEMENT No3) ORDER 2007

21. For airsoft skirmishing, the guidelines suggest that:

• new players must play at least 3 times in a period of not less than 2 months the 2 months before being offered membership;

• membership cards with a photograph and recognised format will be issued for production to retailers;

• a central database will be set up for retailers to cross-check a purchaser’s details; and

• a member’s entry on the database will be deleted if unused for 12 months.

(Home Office (09/10/2013): The above is not a statutory requirement but is a process that assists retailers in checking that purchasers are genuine airsoft skirmishers so that the defence outlined under the act can apply.)

 

Not a statutary requirement, they are just guidelines put into place for reatilers to continue to sell, if the store wishes to ignore them or enforce them is there choice, they have the final say on if they want to check for defense, it is not a legal requirement, i repeat not a legal requirement, how is that so difficult to understand. Stores check because it's easy not because it's law, but if they so wish they do not have to, they are not breaking the law so stop saying they are, they will receive no repurcusions, the only people who are liable is the person commiting the crime with said gun, no one else, again no one else.

 

I've lost count how many times i've repeated this and still everyone doesn't get it.

 

Edit - After re-reading your post, again stop giving false information, they seller does not require a proof of defense to sell, anyone can sell, it is the seller's responsibility to check of the buyer is legally allowed to buy, if they wish to check for defenses/UKARA that is there choice, the only legal requirement is being over 18, everything else is at the discretion of the seller, again see above.

 

Edit - I'm going to put this as simply as i can for the hard of hearing as it is now becoming quite tiresome. If you wish to buy RIF you must be a minimum of 18 years and over (used to be 17 until changed) THAT IS THE LAW. Now, if you wish to buy a RIF and are over 18 years of age you MAY be asked to prove that you are an active skirmisher, in a re-enactment or historical group or work within movies/tv, there are others that i can't remember of the top of my head. If you cannot prove the above the store has the right to refuse sale and or give the choice to have your gun painted 51% of a bright colour. Now if you cannot prove the above the store has the final say on the matter, that is there choice and there choice alone, no one elses as stated within the VCRA guidelines, see that word guidelines, not law, because it is not satutary. anyone over the age of 10 can own a RIF and anyone under 18 years of age can be gifted a RIF as long as no money has been transferred again thast is the law. Please do not mistake laws for guidelines put into place by retailers to allow them to continue to sell and for us to continue to enjoy our hobby.

[tinkle60]

It is legal for anyone to sell an airsoft gun, again anyone, absolutely anyone. Why do you think the new guidelines were put into place, so they could continue to keep selling. The son was gifted the gun (no law broken) with or without defense makes no difference, he was gifted the gun, again no law broken. The store didn't bother to check for proof of defense/UKARA which is of course there choice as stated in guidelines it is not a statutary requirement, so again no law broken. The parents were over 18 and so legally old enough to buy airsoft guns, again no law broken.

 

Erm... I'm no lawyer but the actual legislation, not the guidelines, makes it an offence to sell a realistic imitation firearm. So how did you figure this?

 

If the son decides to commit a crime, he is liable no one else, he commited the crime, regardless who gave him the gun.

 

Agreed but surely this is a separate issue?

[jcheeseright]

My god can people not read;

 

VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT 2006 (COMMENCEMENT No3) ORDER 2007

21. For airsoft skirmishing, the guidelines suggest that:

• new players must play at least 3 times in a period of not less than 2 months the 2 months before being offered membership;

• membership cards with a photograph and recognised format will be issued for production to retailers;

• a central database will be set up for retailers to cross-check a purchaser’s details; and

• a member’s entry on the database will be deleted if unused for 12 months.

(Home Office (09/10/2013): The above is not a statutory requirement but is a process that assists retailers in checking that purchasers are genuine airsoft skirmishers so that the defence outlined under the act can apply.)

 

Not a statutary requirement, they are just guidelines put into place for reatilers to continue to sell, if the store wishes to ignore them or enforce them is there choice, they have the final say on if they want to check for defense, it is not a legal requirement, i repeat not a legal requirement, how is that so difficult to understand. Stores check because it's easy not because it's law, but if they so wish they do not have to, they are not breaking the law so stop saying they are, they will receive no repurcusions, the only people who are liable is the person commiting the crime with said gun, no one else, again no one else.

 

I've lost count how many times i've repeated this and still everyone doesn't get it.

 

Edit - After re-reading your post, again stop giving false information, they seller does not require a proof of defense to sell, anyone can sell, it is the seller's responsibility to check of the buyer is legally allowed to buy, if they wish to check for defenses/UKARA that is there choice, the only legal requirement is being over 18, everything else is at the discretion of the seller, again see above.

 

Wrong. Stop reading the info on the UKARA page and read the actual LAW:

 

36 Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he manufactures a realistic imitation firearm;

(b)he modifies an imitation firearm so that it becomes a realistic imitation firearm;

©he sells a realistic imitation firearm; or

(d)he brings a realistic imitation firearm into Great Britain or causes one to be brought into Great Britain.

(2)Subsection (1) has effect subject to the defences in section 37.

(3)The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a)provide for exceptions and exemptions from the offence under subsection (1); and

(b)provide for it to be a defence in proceedings for such an offence to show the matters specified or described in the regulations.

(4)Regulations under subsection (3) may—

(a)frame any exception, exemption or defence by reference to an approval or consent given in accordance with the regulations;

(b)provide for approvals and consents to be given in relation to particular cases or in relation to such descriptions of case as may be specified or described in the regulations; and

©confer the function of giving approvals or consents on such persons specified or described in the regulations as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(5)The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under subsection (3) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(6)That power includes power—

(a)to make different provision for different cases;

(b)to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and

©to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as he thinks fit.

(7)A realistic imitation firearm brought into Great Britain shall be liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts.

(8)In subsection (7) “the customs and excise Acts” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2).

(9)An offence under this section shall be punishable, on summary conviction—

(a)in England and Wales, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or with both; and

(b)in Scotland, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or with both.

(10)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in subsection (9)(a) of this section to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(11)In this section “realistic imitation firearm” has the meaning given by section 38.

I'm fairly sure you're talking about Imitation Firearms (e.g. 2 tones) for which the only statutory requirement is that the buyer be over 18, for a Realistic Imitation Firearm there are extra requirements. Those requirements are 'woolly' but as you can see above they are 100% backed up by statute.

[ImTriggerHappy]

My god can people not read;

Actually its you who can't read. Read section 36 of the VCRA. It clearly states that it is illegal to sell a RIF unless the buyer has a defence that is outlined within the VCRA.

 

Been over this so many times on here its ridiculous.

[Sacarathe]

What complete and utter nonsense, do not post things if you have no clue what your talking about.

 

It is legal for a 10 year old to own an airsoft gun, it is legal for a 14 year old to fire an airgun (air rifle), it is legal for an 18 year old to buy an airsoft gun.

 

It is legal for anyone to sell an airsoft gun, again anyone, absolutely anyone. Why do you think the new guidelines were put into place, so they could continue to keep selling. The son was gifted the gun (no law broken) with or without defense makes no difference, he was gifted the gun, again no law broken. The store didn't bother to check for proof of defense/UKARA which is of course there choice as stated in guidelines it is not a statutary requirement, so again no law broken. The parents were over 18 and so legally old enough to buy airsoft guns, again no law broken. If the son decides to commit a crime, he is liable no one else, he commited the crime, regardless who gave him the gun.

 

Please do not spout rubbish just to confuse people further.

 

I thought we were talking about seller's defences (which is the buyer's defence as we term it), when did this become about another subject?

 

If you can't discuss things properly there is no need for ad hominem behaviour.

 

I think the law is wrong and that RIFs should require licensing. But the cost makes it unfeasible.

[Sacarathe]

The issue is that the purchaser disposed of the gun right after buying it, and if they planned that disposal then that means they were lying when they said it would be used for airsoft.

Because they can't know what it will be used for because it's not theirs! And they knew when they said it would be used for airsoft that they weren't going to be responsible for it because they planned said disposal.

There is no way a shop can substantiate that as a defence if the shop made the sale knowing the purchaser was going to dispose of it.

This knowledge invalids the defence as it means the shop knew the purchaser was not in a position they claimed to be in (able to provide a defence). It's simply not reasonable (legally); to say as defence to selling a realistic imitation firearm: "the purchaser said that third party X would use it for airsoft."

Any proof presented that third party X (the son) will use the gun for airsoft is only proof that the purchaser (parent) believes that third party X will use it for airsoft, and third party X is not a party to the transaction - thus cannot make legal guarantees/representations (to the seller).

 

.

 

 

 

Under the statute the defence (VCRA s.37) only applies to the purchaser (Z) presuming that when s.36 (1) (c ) says "sell" it only means that it applies to parties to the contract of sale. The defence says "to be used for" which can can interpret as "to be used by Z for" because what else could it mean? If it didn't mean that then anyone without a defence could use this "I'm buying it for third party, he plays airsoft" argument.

 

 

EDIT: Well shite, I think I just nuked the relevance of the father/son relationship. Age too. Though I do honestly think that if the parent retained title (responsibility) this might stand up as a defence to sales to parents for use by their children. But it's a slippery slope, and not one I'd care to support.