If an operable RIF is outside the definition of "airsoft gun" does it require a defence?

[Sacarathe]

Speaking of single action and manufacturer semi auto airsoft guns only (and then only those designed to be within the PCA airsoft definition) which have hypothetically been modified for above 2.5J (the highest muzzle force permitted by PCA) at point of sale, which would enter the air gun/pistol/rifle category and become limited firearms.

 

Thus as firearms (speculatively unable to be classes as airsoft guns under that exception), their status as realistic imitations (since that VCRA definition does not require them to be actually imitating something) is to my mind in doubt.

 

If they are thus firearms - as being a firearm always supercedes being an imitation - such guns would not require a VCRA defence if sold face to face by the restrictions on airguns firing above 2.5J.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/part/2/crossheading/imitation-firearms VCRA 2004

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun_laws#United_Kingdom

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/1 Section 1(3) FA 1968

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

 

What do you guys think?

 

Serious question re definition, not serious question about the actual point of sale - but that said if someone knows to to spring change this could be true.

 

I am aware that airsoft shops are oftent not registered firearms dealers so don't throw this at me.

 

 

[SeniorSpaz87]

Hmm... interesting point. I have gotten my VSR to shoot at around 720-730 FPS, which is approaching 22. caliber FPS (generally 900 FPS). I also know a guy here in the states who has the M200, and according to him the C02 bolt for it makes it shoot around 800 FPS...

[jcheeseright]

I would say that yeah it qualifies as a low power air weapon and would not require a defence under the VCRA since it's already covered by other legislation. 

[GiantKiwi]

4 hours ago, SeniorSpaz87 said:

Hmm... interesting point. I have gotten my VSR to shoot at around 720-730 FPS, which is approaching 22. caliber FPS (generally 900 FPS). I also know a guy here in the states who has the M200, and according to him the C02 bolt for it makes it shoot around 800 FPS...

 

The Shell eject M200 is a little bit hotter than that on the CO2 bolt, a mate bought one as a collector piece, it was doing roughly 650FPS with 0.43's, which is somewhere in the region of 8.4J.

[Guest PT247]

yup, if it isn't an imitation it is a real thing so not an airsoft gun... once classed as a firearm though I don't think it can be un-classed as one.... not sure on the insurance implications of this if you wanted to skirmish it!

[Nick G]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread here , but it seems to be answering my question. Just to clarify , my L96 which I have built to be pretty much smack on the legal limit of 2.5 joules is now a bit hot for my local site. I can down spring it but am tempted to push and see just how powerful I can make it. My understanding is that as soon as it passes 2.5j it then becomes an air rifle and is subject to the limits set for those 12ftlbs which I think works out at about 16 j. There is no way I will get close to that, I'd never be able to cock the thing for a start ! So am I ok from a legal point of view ?

[Immortal]

Regardless of the legality (I have no idea); I would have thought there must be a terminal point where a BB has a maximum power limit for it's shape, size and weight. It happens with air rifles where the max power limit is breached for the ammo and the pellet tumbles, etc. Could save yourself some time and google it as I'm sure it would have been done before as far as max power. Depends if you're shooting BBs meant for airsoft of course...

 

 

[Guest PT247]

why not just buy an air rifle?

[Samurai]

Isn't this the case now?

Quote

FPS Limits

FPS limits have been set for airsoft weapons capable of firing 2 or more BBs with a single trigger pull. This limit has been set to 1.3j, or 370fps using a 0.20g BB.

FPS limits have also been set for single shot airsoft weapons. This limit is 2.5j or 519fps using 0.2g.

Weapons above the limits are classed as Section 5 firearms

Weapons that are not within the above stated limits are classed as Section 5 firearms and require a license to own. This will make it a very serious offence to own fully auto airsoft gun capable of 370+fps (consider DMRs soft locked to semi with mosfet) or Sniper Rifles over 520fps.

 

[Jedi_Master]

9 hours ago, Nick G said:

 So am I ok from a legal point of view ?

 

The law is the law, as soon as you go over the legal limit it is not an airsoft gun covered by any defence.

 

What you do in the privacy of your house/shed/workshop is up to you but realise that if you test the gun outside and, for example, Mrs Miggin’s cat gets hit by a BB and she complains then you are potentially opening yourself to more trouble than it is worth.

[Rogerborg]

It looks like you're seeking logical consistency across a Jackson Pollock splattering of statutes.

 

Why can't something be both a RIF, as defined in one Act, and a firearm as defined in another (or even in another section of the same Act)? 

 

Are you under the impression that if you make the argument that it has to be either one or the other, that a CPS hell bent on prosecuting "gun crime" will agree?

 

What I will say is that airgun sellers don't seem to give a stuff about openly selling non-airsoft steel BB RIFS.

[Guest PT247]

7 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

What I will say is that airgun sellers don't seem to give a stuff about openly selling non-airsoft steel BB RIFS.

That is NOT a RIF, that is an air rifle, which is a firearm, so it is not an imitation.

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, PT247 said:

That is NOT a RIF, that is an air rifle, which is a firearm, so it is not an imitation.

 

Again: why can't it be a firearm and a realistic imitation firearm?

 

If you're trying to apply common sense or consistent logic to our statute book, I wish you the best of luck.  The police by and large know only a small part of the law.  They get a few weeks training on it (which could have been decades ago), and if they've made Sergeant or higher might have picked something up from the Blackstones handbooks.  The CPS or Fiscal will selectively apply whatever specific statute and section they think best fits whatever they want you to plead guilty to.  If you think that act or section is nullified or superseded by something else, that's for you to argue, not them.

 

The VCRA S38 definition of RIF is: "an imitation firearm which has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique".

 

Forget what you've read elsewhere.  For the purposes of prosecuting with or defending against that definition, a RIF is:

 

"an imitation firearm is not to be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only by an expert; on a close examination; or as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it."

and

"real firearm mean a firearm of an actual make or model of modern firearm (whether existing or discontinued)"

 

Putting that together:

 

The MP5K is a actual make and model of real modern firearm.

 

That airgun is not easily distinguishable from the real firearm MP5K. Therefore, according to S38, it is a realistic imitation of that real firearm.  The plain fact that it obviously is intended to be a realistic imitation of the real MP5K would pass the man on the Clapham Omnibus test.

 

Ah hah, you say, but being a real firearm itself means that it can't also be a S36/S38 realistic imitation.

 

Well, why not?  That is is not one of the criteria for disqualifying it as being a realistic imitation firearm.  De-activated firearm. Antique.  It is neither. Parliament, who are surely aware of the existence of real firearm airguns, could have chosen to exclude airguns or real firearms from also being RIFs.  They did not do so.  So hang him, your honour, string the bugger up.

 

I'd very much like to see some case law on this, but I don't believe that we have any.  Absent that, we're both speculating: me on what the prosecution would argue, you on the defence.  I hope that it's a good long while before we find out with whom the judiciary would agree.

[Nick G]

18 hours ago, PT247 said:

why not just buy an air rifle?

Because I don't want one. I am just interested in the exercise of seeing how far I can take it from a teching angle. I don't plan to skirmish it so I am assuming it would be classed as an air rifle based on power output.

[Guest PT247]

1 hour ago, Rogerborg said:

 

your post

An air rifle is a firearm, therefore it isn't an imitation firearm, it might well look like a different firearm to what  it actually is, but it is still a firearm. I think you are confusing imitation for replica, that gun in your link is a replica of an MP5, but it is still a firearm, we are not talking quantum physics here, it is not Schrodinger's cat, it is a firearm, not an imitation.

"Manufacturing" a firearm, which is what you would basically be doing by converting an airsoft RIF into an airgun, is quite naughty, def keep it within the walls of your house if you do do it.

[Rogerborg]

13 minutes ago, PT247 said:

An air rifle is a firearm, therefore it isn't an imitation firearm

 

And what says that something that's defined as an airgun firearm by one piece of legislation can't also be considered to be a realistic imitation of a firearm, for the purposes of a different piece of legislation?

 

Is it something in VCRA 2006 S36 - S38 that I've missed, or an explicit provision in another statute, or case law?

[Immortal]

I think it's that it isn't imitating a firearm realistic or not, it has simply has become a firearm in it's own right regardless of looks.

 

LOL... is a pen gun still a pen? Or is it a pen when it's not loaded? Mind blown....

[Guest PT247]

it can't be an imitation if it is a real... am done, if you don't get that then I can't explain it any simpler for you.

[Rogerborg]

1 minute ago, Immortal said:

I think it's that it isn't imitating a firearm realistic or not,

 

It very clearly is imitating, and is intended to imitate, a particular make and model of real firearm.  That's the definition in S38.

 

 

1 minute ago, Immortal said:

it has simply has become a firearm in it's own right regardless of looks

 

And it is also a firearm for the purposes of other legislation.

 

If you believe otherwise, I'd genuinely like to know why.

[Immortal]

I'm not sure what to add that hasn't been said really. I'd hazard a guess that one piece of legislation will trump the other. Other than that I have no idea!

[Rogerborg]

25 minutes ago, PT247 said:

it can't be an imitation if it is a real...

 

Why can't it be both, for the purposes of different pieces of legislation which classify the same object in different ways?

 

For example, a wheeled thing that you pedal with your feet can be a bicycle, or it can be a vehicle, or it can even be a carriage, depending on whether you're reading RVLR, RTA, TSRGD or the Highways Act 1835 and Taylor v Goodwin 1879.  Matching the criteria for the purposes of one law doesn't stop it matching different criteria for the purposes of another law.

 

 

Quote

am done, if you don't get that then I can't explain it any simpler for you.

 

I believe that you've made an assertion, or a statement of belief phrased as fact, rather than an explanation.

 

An explanation would cite a statute, regulation, or case law.

 

 

Let's do a thought experiment.

 

Let's take that airgun, which we all agree is a firearm, and plug the barrel or otherwise gut it and render it inoperable.

 

At that point, it is a de-activated firearm, yes?

 

Now let's read S38 (1) (b) which explicitly says that being a de-activated firearm is one of the two explicit conditions that mean that it's not a realistic imitation firearm.  Are we on board?

 

Now wind the clock back 2 minutes to before it was plugged and read that section carefully.  Is it exempted by dint of being a (non de-activated) firearm? 

 

If it is, why doesn't S38 say so?  It goes to the trouble of exempting de-activated real firearms.  Why doesn't it just exempt all real firearms, de-activated or otherwise?  That would have required fewer words.

 

At that point, we're into looking in our crystal ball to speculate on what Parliament might have meant to say, but didn't.

[Tommikka]

Under firearms legislation the definition of ‘firearm’ is not restricted to only those that work with an explosive propellant (the fire part)

It includes many others, such as air weapons.

Airguns to the appropriate power levels are unlicensed (in most of the UK)

 

Back in the olden days when paintball arrived in the UK it ran on CO2 and didn’t fit into the right definition.  In England the police ignored that, but in Scotland the police stuck to the exact letter of the law and kept raiding Scottish Paintball sites and prosecuting for firearms

offences.

Subsequent action legalised CO2 powered air weapons

 

Under the VCRA a RIF is ‘realistic’ but does not have to be in the eyes of an expert. The definition does not mean a RIF looks like an existing firearm.

 

This is why firearms legislation allows air weapons to look like other ‘real’ guns, and the VCRAs RIF/IF definitions don’t apply as they are not imitations under the definitions

 

 

 

Firearms legislation also includes things that don’t look like firearms in any way - if they meet the definitions (the common example being tasers disguised as phones etc)

[Guest PT247]

Jeez.... it isn't deactivated, therefore it is a firearm. It is an air rifle, therefore it is a firearm.... converting it to something different will change what it is, but then it becomes not what it is now, it becomes what it is converted to. What matters is that upping the power of an airsoft RIF is manufacturing a firearm. At the point it has the muzzle energy to be classed as a firearm it is no longer a RIF.

[Rogerborg]

18 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

The definition does not mean a RIF looks like an existing firearm.

 

That's almost exactly what it does say.

 

I quoted it (nearly) verbatim above, and linked to it so that we can discuss what it actually says.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

This is why firearms legislation allows air weapons to look like other ‘real’ guns

 

Which firearms legislation explicitly says that?  Which case law clarifies it?

 

Or dare I assume that's an assumption?

 

 

Quote

and the VCRAs RIF/IF definitions don’t apply as they are not imitations under the definitions

 

That looks rather like a circular argument.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that you're wrong.  Heck, I'd like it if you were right.  But I wouldn't want to be the first to have to argue it in front of a bench without some case law or persuasive judgements in my corner.

[Tommikka]

Firearms legislation doesn’t explicitly cover any look alike. It defines using the way that each ‘firearm’ works (e.g. a self contained round on the face of it is a classic bullet, but includes Brocock air pistols as they have a self contained  ‘air round’.   Legal air pistols became section 5 firearms overnight.  They are generally considered illegal in the UK today, but can be held on a licence if someone went through the process.

 

The VCRA isn’t particular to it looking like a ‘real gun’

Just that it looks real enough to an observer, and that if Joe Bloggs thinks it’s real then it is a RIF (which prevents calling in an expert in court who would say that it doesn’t look like a real gun)

Under the VCRA a “real firearm” is an actual real firearm and something that’s broadly like one.

 

I need to head out and do some stuff, so I’ll have to check back in again for parts that would exclude air guns from the Imitation side of the VCRA

Deactivations are an oddity in my mind with their explicit element in the VCRA.  That’s not necessary as far as I’m concerned becuase they would be a real firearm and covered if the deactivation was compliant. I suspect that an interested party asked the question about deacts in the consultations (or the corridor chats that happen between politicians in the background)

 

In sections 36 and 37 “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which—

 

(a)has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and

 

(b)is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique.

 

(2)For the purposes of this section, an imitation firearm is not (except by virtue of subsection (3)(b)) to be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only—

 

(a)by an expert;

 

(b)on a close examination; or

 

(c)as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it.

 

 

 

 

 

• “real firearm” means—

  (a)

  a firearm of an actual make or model of modern firearm (whether existing or discontinued); or

  (b)

  something falling within a description which could be used for identifying, by reference to their appearance, the firearms falling within a category of actual modern firearms which, even though they include firearms of different makes or models (whether existing or discontinued) or both, all have the same or a similar appearance.