do i need a ukara to own a rif gun

[[email protected]]

do i need a ukara licence to own a realistic airsoft gun

[Tommikka]

2 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

do i need a ukara licence to own a realistic airsoft gun

No

Possession / ownership is not subject to the VCRA

 

There isn’t a licence, it’s proof of a ‘defence’ as defined by the VCRA and is protection for the seller

[Gepard]

[Rogerborg]

@Tommikka ended the thread, but if you tell us what you actually want to achieve, perhaps we could help you.  Perhaps not, but you won't know unless you ask.

[AshOnSnow]

[This post has been removed due to excessive stupidity]

[Rogerborg]

6 hours ago, AshOnSnow said:

2. Ownership of a RIF is always illegal.

 

Eh. Ownership of a RIF not illegal, and neither is purchasing or attempting to purchase if you're over 18.

 

 

Quote

3. Only certain people can claim a defence against the legislation.

 

Well, sellers (importers, manufacturers, IF -> RIF modifiers) need, and can claim a defence, not buyers.  We as buyers can provide the evidence that they need to adduce their defence.  I mean, in principle.  In practice, I'd wonder if it's ever been prosecuted, given that some airgun sellers are openly flogging high energy metal-BB shooting RIFs without any apparent defence beyond crossed fingers. 🤞

 

 

Quote

5. You may apply to the UKARA (United Kingdom Airsoft Retailers Association) database of active skirmishers if you meet the requirements for playing a certain number of games across a certain timescale (someone remind me?)

 

http://ukara.org.uk/#player

 

 

"Player registration is free, to become a registered airsoft player you are required to take part in three games at the same UKARA registered game site over a minimum of two months, e.g. the third game being 56 days or more after the first.

You must be over 18 years of age, live within the UK and able to provide identification such as Passport, Drivers License or Bank Statement."

 

Sadly, my local site ignores the 56 days and interprets it as 2 full calendar months, I suspect because it's simply easier for them to check, i.e. if your first day was May 4th (Star Wars Day) then they won't process your form until you've played on or after July 4th (Revolting Colonial Day).

 

 

Quote

7. A valid VCRA defence will permit you to purchase a realistic imitation firearm.

 

It'll permit the seller to adduce a defence to the offence of selling it, which isn't quite the same thing.  The buyer, if over 18, is always permitted to buy, and practically speaking it's up to the seller what they consider to be a valid VCRA defence.  We know of at least one hooky defence that's apparently been abused to sell to under-18 players, which I won't promote.

 

 

Quote

8. You must always accept that RIFs are always illegal, and if used for a crime will be treated as firearms, and can always be taken from you as per the Violent Crime Reduction Act, and it is your responsibility to prove a valid defence against this act.

 

Again, possession in private is (for now) legal.  Possession in pubic will come under Firearms Act 1968 S19.  Our "reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on [us])" means a reason for that specific instance.  UKARA (or any other seller defence) is not a reasonable excuse for actually having the thing in public [*].  I'd opine that it's reasonable if you're at or in transit to or from a skirmish or other organised shooting event, or transporting it for sale (with a defence) or repair.

 

I do make a point of having booking information or a Facebook "going to event" to hand when transporting my toy guns.  Better to have it and not need it than the other way around.

 

 

All that said, I'm going to guess that OP is 14 and that's the last we'll hear from him.

 

 

[*] which in case law tends to be held to mean any place to which the public enjoys a general right of access.  In Scotchland, for example, right to roam means that even privately owned land can be and is regularly infiltrated by members of the public and so the definition of private versus public might not be as clear as you'd imagine.

[KendoKhan]

On 18/09/2018 at 02:21, AshOnSnow said:

One analogy I like to use: Claiming a defence against the VCRA being a skirmisher is much like being a police officer responding to an emergency call - it’s still illegal to break the speed limit and run through red lights, but the driver has the DEFENCE of being a trained response driver attending to an emergency which is recognised in law. They still broke the law speeding, but have a valid defence. If the police officer was not response trained and not authorised to drive on blue lights, they will be subject to prosecution for the offences.

 

This made me laugh hard, I know it's only an analogy but bit rich comparing possession and transportation of RIFs to a bobby with a response ticket. 

[Rogerborg]

It's also technically incorrect - the worst kind of incorrect - as RTRA 1984 S87 creates an exemption, not a defence.  The speed limit doesn't apply to the vehicle, no offence is committed, and no defence is required.

[jcheeseright]

On 18/09/2018 at 02:21, AshOnSnow said:

1. No such thing as a UKARA License.

2. Ownership of a RIF is always illegal.

3. Only certain people can claim a defence against the legislation.

4. You must meet the VCRA requirements for such a defence.

5. You may apply to the UKARA (United Kingdom Airsoft Retailers Association) database of active skirmishers if you meet the requirements for playing a certain number of games across a certain timescale (someone remind me?) and can then be able to come under the airsoft skirmishing and re-enactment defence against the VCRA.

6. You must always be an adult if you wish purchase an realistic or non-realistic imitation firearm. (eg a black Glock-style BB gun or a bright orange Glock-style BB gun respectively)

7. A valid VCRA defence will permit you to purchase a realistic imitation firearm.

8. You must always accept that RIFs are always illegal, and if used for a crime will be treated as firearms, and can always be taken from you as per the Violent Crime Reduction Act, and it is your responsibility to prove a valid defence against this act.

 

One analogy I like to use: Claiming a defence against the VCRA being a skirmisher is much like being a police officer responding to an emergency call - it’s still illegal to break the speed limit and run through red lights, but the driver has the DEFENCE of being a trained response driver attending to an emergency which is recognised in law. They still broke the law speeding, but have a valid defence. If the police officer was not response trained and not authorised to drive on blue lights, they will be subject to prosecution for the offences.

 

An airsoft player who is a regular skirmisher and recognised as such is still breaking the law by purchasing a realistic imitation firearm, but has the DEFENCE of being registered as a skirmisher which is recognised in law. If the airsoft player does not meet the requirements for a VCRA defence, they will be subject to prosecution for the offences.

 

Not any old person can stick blue lights on the front of his car and drive 100mph and get away with it.

Not any old person can buy a RIF and get away with it.

 

 

Was this post designed to be utterly incorrect? 

[koppel]

I think the problem is that the VCRA was your typical Labour era law, i.e. it was extremely badly drafted & no-one could reasonably know how it works until it gets tested in court & precedents are set. I've not heard that any cases have in fact been brought.

[Rogerborg]

It's not a party-political issue: everyone wants to be seen to be thinking of the children.

 

But I would agree that it's a particularly loathsome law where guilt is assumed until innocence is proven.

 

That's bad in principle because on a plain reading of S36, the offence is unconditional.  The police / Border Farce could investigate, arrest, detain and seize RIFs without having to consider a defence.  It's only after charge and prosecution that a defence can be adduced and the harm undone.

 

In practice, Border Farce policy is to consider a defence as though it were a licence to import, but that's by their grace, not by any obligation, and they're free to avoid their own advice at any time.

 

And the CPS or Fiscal should not recommend charging where there's no reasonable chance of a conviction.  But you could have said the same about the Facebook airsoft picture case in which the State went in mob handed and took it to trial and the chap only got off because his brief spotted that they'd tampered with the evidence.  If they hadn't done so, the Sheriff was minded to convict.

 

Bad laws don't become better just because they're not regularly used, and VCRA S36 is a very bad law.  In part that's because as far as we're aware, it's not been used against any wrong 'uns, so it serves only to inconvenience the law abiding.