Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MisterG

VCRA Defences

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

So as I understand it, these are the defences under VCRA:

 

Those purposes are—

(a)the purposes of a museum or gallery;

(b)the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances;

(c)the production of films (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)_see section 5B of that Act);

(d)the production of television programmes (within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)_see section 405(1) of that Act);

(e)the organisation and holding of historical re-enactments organised and held by persons specified or described for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(f)the purposes of functions that a person has in his capacity as a person in the service of Her Majesty.

 

Maybe it's down to interpretation, but I don't see any defence for skirmishing.  Does it fall under (b) or (e).

 

Cheers

 

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skirmishing is the defense. Being able to prove that you're an active player is enough to allow the purchase of a RIF providing you're 18+  

 

What you've listed are alternative defenses. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (Realistic Imitation Firearms) Regulations 2007
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/20072606.htm

 

The regulations provide for two new defences. The first is for the organisation and holding of airsoft skirmishing. This is defined by reference to “permitted activities” and the defence applies only where third party liability insurance is held in respect of the activities. The second new defence is for the purpose of display at arms fairs, defined in the regulations by reference to “permitted events”.

  1. The regulations also specify the persons who can claim the defence for historical re-enactment. This is restricted to those organising or taking part in re-enactment activities for which third party liability insurance is held.

  2. For manufacturers, importers and vendors to claim one of the defences, they must be able to show that their conduct was for purpose of making realistic imitation firearms available for one of the reasons specified in the defences above. How they should satisfy themselves of this will vary from case to case and it might be advisable for them to keep a record of this for each transaction. In some cases they could ask to see, for example, a letter from the commissioning film or television company.

In others, for example an importer, they might want to rely on orders from a supplier to the film industry. For re-enactments, it would be advisable to ask to see any membership card and to check that either the individual or the re-enactment society holds the required insurance. For airsoft skirmishing, the Association of British Airsoft is putting in place arrangements to allow retailers to check that individual purchasers are members of a genuine skirmishing club or site. The key elements of these arrangements are:

  • new players must play at least 3three times in a period of not less than two months the two months before being offered membership
  • membership cards with a photograph and recognized format will be issued for production to retailers
  • a central database will be set up for retailers to cross-check a purchaser’s details
  • a member’s entry on the database will be deleted if unused for 12 months.
  1. The defence for airsoft skirmishing can apply to individual players because their purchase of realistic imitation firearms for this purpose is considered part of the “holding” of a skirmishing event.

  2. Section 38 defines a ‘realistic imitation firearm’ as an imitation firearm which has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm. ‘Imitation firearm’ is defined in section 57(4) of the Firearms 1968 as ‘any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm…whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/04/2018 at 23:36, MisterG said:

(f)the purposes of functions that a person has in his capacity as a person in the service of Her Majesty.

 

So does this mean any person in the service of Her Majesty has that as a defence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, StephenMcC said:

 

So does this mean any person in the service of Her Majesty has that as a defence?

No, this is to allow HM Forces, the police, ambulance, and fire services, as well as government departments, and the palace to purchases these items as part of their duties, as part of an internal authorization structure, generally you log a  request, and this is passed up the chain to someone who has sufficient authorization. 

With the exception of the police, who have been known to use simulation level bb guns, and the home office which tests air guns. These are usually real firearms and ammo for testing, training, or operational purposes, or deactivated ones in the case of civilian departments to teach proper firearms handling training in case someone finds one as part of the diplomatic service, aid working, in the course of emergency response duties, or as part of ministerial or royal duties where some idiot CPO has dropped one. 
 

so unless you have the signature of someone with statutory authorization, you're not off the hook, it can also only be used to buy items on behalf of the government, as is a bit of legal wrangling to prevent a conflict between crown (government) employees duties and the law.

Being found in personal possession of such an item without authorization would still be illegal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vulpiness said:

someone with statutory authorization

 

Where would we find those statutes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Where would we find those statutes?

I'm not sure, there are allot of them, but they're the acts that allow a department to submit statutory instruments acts of parliament which allow councils, devolved governments, and agencies like the DVLA to past secondly legislation in a specific area.

But basically it means that only people the head of department sees fit to authorize such a procurement can do so, so this might be the permanent sectary, or a specific internal entity.

But I'm told by Military heritage (a Canadian company that sells swords, and 19th century firearms) this is what determines if the purchase is "in the course of duty", so I've you're a civil servant and you ask for procurement rights, and someone not authorized to give approval does so, they're on the hook for it, not the guy on the frontline. 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vulpiness said:

I'm not sure, there are allot of them, but they're the acts that allow a department to submit statutory instruments acts of parliament which allow councils, devolved governments, and agencies like the DVLA to past secondly legislation in a specific area.

But basically it means that only people the head of department sees fit to authorize such a procurement can do so, so this might be the permanent sectary, or a specific internal entity.

But I'm told by Military heritage (a Canadian company that sells swords, and 19th century firearms) this is what determines if the purchase is "in the course of duty", so I've you're a civil servant and you ask for procurement rights, and someone not authorized to give approval does so, they're on the hook for it, not the guy on the frontline. 



 

In the context of the VCRA defence “in the service of her majesty” doesn’t fall within a statutory instrument.

Its part of the original VCRA legislation, many of the items you originally refered to wouldn’t fall in the VCRA and RIFs at all.

 

Its not necessary to have authority under a statutory instrument to authorise procurement.  It depends on what you are doing.

In my time I’ve spent a lot of taxpayers money, the most at one time certainly wasn’t by statutory instrument - I tracked down a way to get what we needed, got the OK from my brigadier but the real authority from the chief finance officer.

 

A couple of years later I sourced more money for continuing the same item - by scribbling a quick calculation on a post it note for my general, he took that to ECAB (the army executive board) and walked out with that funding.  I don’t believe that he would have shown them the post it, but took that as the basis as his argument to bid for funding

 

 

 

I used to regularly sign off payments by my staff, (the biggest one being one bill at £250k per month) with them having the delegated authority to spend and me being final sign off.

 

A statutory instrument is secondary legislation, which comes with the authority of parliament.

Its not the only source of authority 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

In the context of the VCRA defence “in the service of her majesty” doesn’t fall within a statutory instrument.

Its part of the original VCRA legislation, many of the items you originally refered to wouldn’t fall in the VCRA and RIFs at all.

 

Its not necessary to have authority under a statutory instrument to authorise procurement.  It depends on what you are doing.

In my time I’ve spent a lot of taxpayers money, the most at one time certainly wasn’t by statutory instrument - I tracked down a way to get what we needed, got the OK from my brigadier but the real authority from the chief finance officer.

 

A couple of years later I sourced more money for continuing the same item - by scribbling a quick calculation on a post it note for my general, he took that to ECAB (the army executive board) and walked out with that funding.  I don’t believe that he would have shown them the post it, but took that as the basis as his argument to bid for funding

 

 

 

I used to regularly sign off payments by my staff, (the biggest one being one bill at £250k per month) with them having the delegated authority to spend and me being final sign off.

 

A statutory instrument is secondary legislation, which comes with the authority of parliament.

Its not the only source of authority 

I was speaking more broadly than just the VCRA.

SI aren't used for procurement, per say but as part of the act that allow such authority to a department also comes with a whole raft of other, shall we say, "competencies" as I understood. 

But you would be better placed than me to answer that, I look a law degree, but it was a very basic one and sometime ago. 

What was your role, were you MOD, army procurement or Field officer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Vulpiness said:

I was speaking more broadly than just the VCRA.

SI aren't used for procurement, per say but as part of the act that allow such authority to a department also comes with a whole raft of other, shall we say, "competencies" as I understood. 

But you would be better placed than me to answer that, I look a law degree, but it was a very basic one and sometime ago. 

What was your role, were you MOD, army procurement or Field officer? 

MoD Civil Service

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm. The reason that I asked is that an SI can't modify or even clarify primary legislation unless the primary legislation explicitly anticipates it doing so (usually with something along the lines of "the Secretary of State may...").

 

So I suspect that there isn't a list of the functions / people in the service of Her Majesty who are explicitly OK to buy RIFs, and that it would come down to someone on the public purse to assert their right, and a judge or jury to decide on it.

 

Did I mention how much I loathe vague legislation that requires case law to clarify it?  Someone generally has to suffer in order to divine Parliament's intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

Mmm. The reason that I asked is that an SI can't modify or even clarify primary legislation unless the primary legislation explicitly anticipates it doing so (usually with something along the lines of "the Secretary of State may...").

 

So I suspect that there isn't a list of the functions / people in the service of Her Majesty who are explicitly OK to buy RIFs, and that it would come down to someone on the public purse to assert their right, and a judge or jury to decide on it.

 

Did I mention how much I loathe vague legislation that requires case law to clarify it?  Someone generally has to suffer in order to divine Parliament's intent.

I think, and don't quote me, it goes something like "the secretary of state for x may buy guns for the department, and people he considers worthy of authorization" 

It sucks, they recently lynched a guy in court for cutting off people's nipple, and modifying ears, and other avant guard body modifications, after he was paid to do so. It's a fucking joke, local rabbi's still cutting forskins off with no consent, no problem though....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vulpiness said:

I think, and don't quote me, it goes something like "the secretary of state for x may buy guns for the department, and people he considers worthy of authorization" 

It sucks, they recently lynched a guy in court for cutting off people's nipple, and modifying ears, and other avant guard body modifications, after he was paid to do so. It's a fucking joke, local rabbi's still cutting forskins off with no consent, no problem though....  

This is a very big deviation from the thread, but the case concerned spent years going back and forth.

It was nothing to do with consent, He was prosecuted for GBH on the level of body modification which went to surgical levels far beyond tattoos and piercings, he is not licenced (i expect that nobody is) and it didn’t help for him to be using out of date medical products etc

 

It was the first case of its nature with regard to body modification but on a very specialist subject not suitable for a family forum there was a case in the 80s 

 

This established in court that consent was not a legal defence for wounding and ABH

This case included what could be considered body modification 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...