Border Force Seizure

[Cr0-Magnon]

Just received a letter from BF stating that they've seized a RIF (GBB Pistol) I purchased from Hong Kong retailer. I did specifically instruct the retailer to show my UKARA number on the outside of the package. Whether or not they've done this, I don't know. However I should imagine they've also declared it as "toy parts" or something like they usually do.

I paid via Paypal, so do I have a case for claiming the full-amount back?

 

Also has this happened to anyone else and they've successfully fought it? Doesn't really seem worth it for £150 (especially if I can get a refund).

[Rogerborg]

A letter? Like, tattooed on dinosaur skin?

 

What does it say?  Is it offering you an opportunity to prove your innocence, or just telling you "Ha ha, it's ours now, criminal"?

 

Normally I'd ejaculate "Start dispute NAOW",  but my understanding is that PayPal will go by the available tracking status (I await correction on that).  Can you see that status?

 

Ultimately, it's the sender's property and problem until it's delivered to you, so I wouldn't even get them involved, I'd just await confirmation on the best time to start the PayPal refund.  I wouldn't even mention Border Farce, just "item not received, gibs monies".

 

 

[Adolf Hamster]

is it worth contacting border force to ask what the problem is? if it's as simple as they haven't put your ukara number on the package they might be fine once you've told them?

 

otherwise wasn't it @Asomodai had one of his guns seized and eventually got it?

[Cr0-Magnon]

[novioman]

This happened to me, got visits from the police and everything. Border Force are out of control since the New Year. Got a refund from PayPal luckily, but had to fight hard not to have a entry against my name on the police computer system. 

[Impulse]

Jeeeez, I'm suddenly glad I resisted the temptation to buy some pistols from HK. This is ludicrous!

[Cr0-Magnon]

This is actually the second time it's happened. I also got three police officers turning up at my office. 

 

The conversation went like this:

 

Police: Why have you tried to import a RIF?

Me: Because I'm a UKARA registered airsofter.

Police: Oh cool, some of the guys from the station are airsofters. You're obviously not dodgy. Have a good day.

 

[Shamal]

2 minutes ago, Cr0-Magnon said:

This is actually the second time it's happened. I also got three police officers turning up at my office. 

 

The conversation went like this:

 

Police: Why have you tried to import a RIF?

Me: Because I'm a UKARA registered airsofter.

Police: Oh cool, some of the guys from the station are airsofters. You're obviously not dodgy. Have a good day.

 

Good job they didn't look under the desk. 😉

[Cr0-Magnon]

1 hour ago, Shamal said:

Good job they didn't look under the desk. 😉

 

Now I'm actually trying to think what I've got under my desk.....

[Asomodai]

3 hours ago, Cr0-Magnon said:

Just received a letter from BF stating that they've seized a RIF (GBB Pistol) I purchased from Hong Kong retailer. I did specifically instruct the retailer to show my UKARA number on the outside of the package. Whether or not they've done this, I don't know. However I should imagine they've also declared it as "toy parts" or something like they usually do.

I paid via Paypal, so do I have a case for claiming the full-amount back?

 

Also has this happened to anyone else and they've successfully fought it? Doesn't really seem worth it for £150 (especially if I can get a refund).

Same happened to me with the same letter you received, had UKARA on it and all. Mine was seized as part of a random search.  Contact BF over the phone with whatever number you can rustle up. Get the name of the officer whos dealing with your case. State that you have a valid UKARA number and that it should be written on the box, give them the number over the phone. It could take a couple of months but I got my Real Sword T97 eventually. If you've done nothing wrong then there shouldn't be a problem. 

[MiK]

The next burning question is ….

 

Since @Cr0-Magnon is now a criminal of the vilest and foulest nature, should we be asking @proffrink to cancel him before anyone besmirches our good names ????

 

 

 

 

seriously tho - fucking border force monkeys not having a scooby-doo what Airsoft is all about, but they will let a container full of drooogs in without a problem …..

[novioman]

This happened to me, got visits from the police and everything. Border Force are out of control since the New Year. Got a refund from PayPal luckily, but had to fight hard not to have a entry against my name on the police computer system. 

[Tackle]

20 minutes ago, MiK said:

The next burning question is ….

 

Since @Cr0-Magnon is now a criminal of the vilest and foulest nature, should we be asking @proffrink to cancel him before anyone besmirches our good names ????

 😜

[novioman]

This has happened to a number of my club mates, they have purchased airguns from Europe, had them seized and wrongly listed as RIF’s. Even parts of airguns are being seized. One friends FEO got involved and told BF they were wrong to seize airguns as they come under the firearms 1968 act, and can never be a RIF as they are legally low powered off ticket firearms. Made no difference, they still destroyed the gun. 

[Rogerborg]

Wow, that's harsh.  It might be fun to fire in with a pre-emptive small claim against them, and start racking up your litigant-in-person costs.

 

Although a couple of things to bear in mind:

 

1) A defence to the offence of importing a RIF is not a licence to do so.  Border Farce have traditionally chosen to treat it as one, but there's nothing that compels them to keep doing that.

 

2) Per rants passim, I actually agree with Border Farce that an object can be both a real firearm (including an airgun firearm) and a realistic imitation firearm.  Laws aren't either/or, and the State can pick and choose which one it wants to apply.  That said, realistic imitation firearm is well defined, and it has to be a copy of a real extant firearm, not just a gun-shaped object.  Snow Wolf Pulse Rifles, for example, are not RIFs.

 

Either way, I fear they'll only settle down when the courts start giving them a smack.

[Tommikka]

It should be resolvable with your UKARA details, and worth a look at the recent update from@mightyjebus

 

Border Force likely to be getting grumpy over the non-defenced imports 

 

[Adolf Hamster]

 

8 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

That said, realistic imitation firearm is well defined, and it has to be a copy of a real extant firearm, not just a gun-shaped object.  Snow Wolf Pulse Rifles, for example, are not RIFs.

 

i was under the impression RIF was pretty much anything covid karen would look at and think "that's a gun", except pre 1875 designs (ie not very good guns)

 

for example the aps uar, as whilst we might go "well technically...." but the whole point is that a non-gun nerd would still identify it as such

 

as for air guns, surely their defence for being an RIF is by dint of being firearms, ie it's not imitating it simply is.

[Neptune]

39 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

2) Per rants passim, I actually agree with Border Farce that an object can be both a real firearm (including an airgun firearm) and a realistic imitation firearm.  Laws aren't either/or, and the State can pick and choose which one it wants to apply.  That said, realistic imitation firearm is well defined, and it has to be a copy of a real extant firearm, not just a gun-shaped object.  Snow Wolf Pulse Rifles, for example, are not RIFs.

 

Where did Border Force state it was a firearm?

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, Adolf Hamster said:

i was under the impression RIF was pretty much anything covid karen would look at and think "that's a gun", except pre 1875 designs (ie not very good guns)

 

The Firearms Act 1968 definition of "imitation firearm" is broad, but the VCRA 2006 definition of "realistic imitation firearm" is narrower.  It also has a clanger that doesn't prevent a real firearm (e.g. an air gun) from also being a realistic imitation firearm. 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/38

 

38 Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm”

(1) 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.

 

(7) In this section —

“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.

 

Now, someone applying common sense would think that it's obvious that a real firearm can't be an imitation, but a pedant - i.e. Border Farce - would say "Ah, but if Parliament had meant that, they've have said it. Look, they excluded de-activated firearms, but not live ones."

 

 

Quote

 

as for air guns, surely their defence for being an RIF is by dint of being firearms, ie it's not imitating it simply is.

 

This is an airgun firearm.  It's also - by a Man on the Clapham Omnibus standard - a realistic imitation of a real non-airgun firearm.

 

 

Why can't it be both?  There's nothing in the strict letter of the law that prevents it, and the spirit of the law is that selling something that looks like needs a better reason than "They want it." - which is all that's required for air guns in England and Wales.

 

Yes, I know, ID required. But that doesn't speak to the purpose which they intend to put it to.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Neptune said:

 

Where did Border Force state it was a firearm?

 

They didn't. As above, just because it is a firearm doesn't mean that it can't also be a realistic imitation firearm.  Opinions on this vary, but the reality is that Border Farce are in the position to make it stick.

 

I'm not saying this is fair, having to jump through two hoops at once, but when have bureaucrats ever cared about that?

 

To channel Ayn Rand, the question is not who is going to let them; it's who is going to stop them.

[Tommikka]

Rogerborg & I agree to disagree on the  position of lookalike airguns 

 

He argues the case that looking like a ‘real’ gun can render them RIFs, but I argue that the status of airguns/air weapons in firearms legislation renders them a firearm thus cannot be an IF/RIF under the VCRA

If the border force letter there are a series of ‘ors’ in the references

 

The VCRA doesn’t require a RIF to look like a real firearm, but that someone may believe that it is a real firearm. (The paragraph stating that it must not need an expert to confirm it’s not real). Therefore basing on a fictional design isn’t an exemption 
 

 

 

In earlier versions of legislation there was the possibility that an airsoft gun could be an air weapon, which conflicted with the VCRA imitation status.  There have been amendments which include treating airsoft guns as exempt from firearms legislation providing they comply with power limits etc

 

In paintball it’s less black & white.  A paintball gun is an air weapon, which caused difficulties in Scotland due to operating on co2 (in England a blind eye was turned) until the legislation was changed 

(And in later years flagged worries about Scotland’s air weapon certificate)

This would mean that paintball guns must operate within 12 ft pounds, or pistols at 6 ft pounds - many events would run a lower velocity limit for this.

There were arguments that all or the majority of paintball guns failed to qualify as an air rifle thus would be overpowered and should be limited to 6ft pounds. Case law gave 300 and a bit fps as a velocity limit and may avoid the 6 ft pounds problem 

The Home Office and UKPSF have corresponded a lot over the years and there are a number of interpretations of how the various legislation & case law effect paintball - including the VCRA

The VCRA answer isn’t absolute - it covers that paintball guns may be low power air weapons, thus firearms and VCRA exempt and RIF/IF can be ignored, but they added that if tested in court it may be treated as in or out of the VCRA and that UKPSF membership may or may not be considered good enough for a VCRA defence - ideally I prefer the former as a lawyer could easily separate paintball from airsoft skirmishing and void any VCRA defence

 

The Home Office have made it clear that their interpretations for paintball rely on the frangible nature of the paintball - so if you shoot something else then you’ll be treated as an air weapon and must not fall foul of too much energy

In the VCRA a RIF is an imitation that is realistic, therefore a firearm isn’t an IF or RIF, there are also the colour, size and design age elements that allow qualification as an IF

(eg Joe Bloggs thinks it looks like a real gun, but it’s small enough to overule their first impression - but that doesn’t mean Mr Chav hasn’t committed other offences waving it around in Mr Bloggs face)

 

VCRA section 38:

1)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.

 

 

[Rogerborg]

To be clear, what follows is an attempt to dig to the truth, not a dig at you.  I am striving to be technically correct - the best kind of correct.

 

11 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

The VCRA doesn’t require a RIF to look like a real firearm, but that someone may believe that it is a real firearm. (The paragraph stating that it must not need an expert to confirm it’s not real). Therefore basing on a fictional design isn’t an exemption 

That's not what VCRA S38 says.  The word belief or believes does not appear all, and it explicitly, unambiguously, without a doubt does require a RIF to look like a "real firearm".  I "quote" this because that's what it says, and it goes on to define what "real firearm" means, using the phrases "actual make and model of modern firearm" / "actual modern firearm", and further defines "modern firearm" as distinctively post 1870.

 

That's distinct from the Firearms Act 1968 definition of "imitation firearm" which is much broader: “imitation firearm” means any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm. 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57

 

The Firearms Act 1968 definition applies to possession in public.  The VCRA definition applies to importation, sale, manufacture or modification, which is what we're interested in here.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

In earlier versions of legislation there was the possibility that an airsoft gun could be an air weapon, which conflicted with the VCRA imitation status.

 

We disagree over whether there is an exclusionary conflict, or whether both can apply.  It seems that Border Force think the latter.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

 There have been amendments which include treating airsoft guns as exempt from firearms legislation providing they comply with power limits etc

 

Policing and Crime Act 2017 makes an exception for airsoft guns only for the purposes of the Firearms Act 1968. There is no general exemption from other firearms legislation.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/3/section/125/enacted

 

So that's neither here not there for any consideration of the VCRA.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

The VCRA answer isn’t absolute - it covers that paintball guns may be low power air weapons, thus firearms and VCRA exempt

 

Border Farce clearly didn't get that memo though, and I - reluctantly - agree with them.  The law says what the law says, and it only says that "de-activated firearms" cannot be RIFs.

 

They're free to interpret it any way that they like, and it's going to take a court to decide.  I hope that they turn out to be wrong.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

In the VCRA a RIF is an imitation that is realistic, therefore a firearm isn’t an IF or RIF

 

Agreed, it does say "imitation firearm".  But sadly, among the plethora of other definitions, it doesn't actually define "imitation firearm", and most particularly it doesn't provide an exclusive either/or distinction between "imitation firearm" and "firearm" (only "de-activated firearm").

 

As per that MP5 PDW airgun above, if you showed that to the aforementioned non expert and asked "Is that an imitation of a real firearm?" then what other answer would they give than "Yes, of course it is."

 

And it is.  It really is. It's quite deliberately an imitation of a specific firearm, and the intent of the legislation is to keep those out of the hands of people who don't have a specific purpose that requires them.

 

It's also a firearm in and of itself.

 

The crux is whether a court will hold that it can be both, and until we get that verdict from the High Court or above (Magistrates' verdicts can be persuasive but don't set precedent), we're just not going to know.

[RavenUK]

This is exactly why I have avoided buying RIFs from retailers in other countries, especially china as I don't think they even bother to check and just ship the product out. 

[Samurai]

29 minutes ago, RavenUK said:

This is exactly why I have avoided buying RIFs from retailers in other countries, especially china as I don't think they even bother to check and just ship the product out. 

They don't need to check. Importing is your responsibility (and offence), not the seller's.

[Neptune]

By the way, when did you order this @Cr0-Magnon? And did it reach Heathrow or Coventry?

[Cr0-Magnon]

5 hours ago, Neptune said:

By the way, when did you order this @Cr0-Magnon? And did it reach Heathrow or Coventry?

 

Ordered on 13th May and it's been at Langley/Heathrow since 21st May.