Problem selling a rif

[Rogerborg]

Normally I'd get all <ackchually> over this, but just for once I'm going to take a higher level view:

 

OP lost a sale and created this drama through being overly paranoid, because nobody cares.

 

Police forces and Trading Standards don't care.  Nobody is enforcing this.  No private seller is ever, in practice, going to be asked to provide a defence.

 

Even if they were, there are no standards for it.  A simple declaration by the buyer about the intended use would satisfy the letter of the law.  UKARA, and all equivalent schemes, are suggestive, not prescriptive.

 

Given any evidence that the buyer is a regular airsoft player, I'd have no qualms at all about selling to them.

 

Oh, and nobody is going to care about GDPR complaints either.  Not while there are feelings being hurt on Facebook.

[Tackle]

1 hour ago, Rogerborg said:

Normally I'd get all <ackchually> over this, but just for once I'm going to take a higher level view:

 

OP lost a sale and created this drama through being overly paranoid, because nobody cares.

 

Police forces and Trading Standards don't care.  Nobody is enforcing this.  No private seller is ever, in practice, going to be asked to provide a defence.

 

Even if they were, there are no standards for it.  A simple declaration by the buyer about the intended use would satisfy the letter of the law.  UKARA, and all equivalent schemes, are suggestive, not prescriptive.

 

Given any evidence that the buyer is a regular airsoft player, I'd have no qualms at all about selling to them.

 

Oh, and nobody is going to care about GDPR complaints either.  Not while there are feelings being hurt on Facebook.

Got to admit I kinda feel the same way, but knowingly telling players, especially noobs, that no one really bothers is generally frowned upon.

(unless a "real" crime is committed using an airsoft rif, & even then I don't think the plod have tried very hard to track the source of said rif🤔). 

In fact I might even admit to pm'ing a few noobs that hated their two tones but were worried who may come after them if they got busy with a can of matt black........ If your sensible, no one, ever. 

 

But if I have a rif for sale, I will consider looking at the buyers profile content, if it looks immature or confrontational, I'll likely decline a sale😏, after all, I don't want to be "that guy", the one who messes it up for the rest by selling to someone who clearly is a liability , as while the plod don't seem too concerned, coroners are a different matter. 

[Tommikka]

12 hours ago, Tackle said:

 

 

Think back to the days when in order to buy a firearm privately, you were expected to mail your certificate to an unknown seller & hope he wasn't a crook, that was some fucked up shit that makes gdpr look positively bulletproof lol. 

…. Major tangent …..

 

I used to work with someone who’s ‘hobbies’ included deer management and being the police POC to finish off deer on the side of the road.

Most of his shooting was by camera, but he always had a rifle & ammunition locked in the appropriate safes in the back of his pickup

 

When he discovered that I made trips out to the regional offices and would sometimes be passing a specialist gun shop he would get his orders in and either try to come with me for items that had to be purchased in person or sent me with his certificate or just his ID when it could be picked up by anyone 

 

Funnily his preferred hunting and target grade ammunition’s were classified the other way around, and needed extra documentation to purchase hunting grade that he would just use for target practice and less documentation to purchase target grade which he would use for hunting kills (Because he considered that grade more finely accurate and gained cleaner/more humane kills)

 

 

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, Tackle said:

knowingly telling players, especially noobs, that no one really bothers is generally frowned upon

 

It's true though. I don't encourage or assist buyers to obtain RIFs without a genuine airsoft defence, but neither am I going to pretend that it's a problem for them to do so given the number of private and business sellers who don't care.

 

Is telling the truth a problem? "Nobody cares" also means that nobody is monitoring this forum in order to cry "Ah hah!  Shenanigans! Remove their defence!", because they could prove that with a few test purchases.

 

In fact, gel blaster sellers could be prosecuted right now, given that they don't enjoy the airsoft defence. And yet... https://gelsoft.co.uk/gelsoft-rifles.html

[Tommikka]

15 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

 

 

In fact, gel blaster sellers could be prosecuted right now, given that they don't enjoy the airsoft defence. And yet... https://gelsoft.co.uk/gelsoft-rifles.html

….. and on their information / FAQ page they refer to frangibility plus that they are not replicas ….

 

Frangibility has been paintballs get out clause for many years on the basis that they are air weapons / firearms and therefore not replicas, but a recent review by a barrister on behalf of the UKPSF recommended no longer relying on that one.

The are selling realistic colours and with orange tips, which does not exempt from RIF definition.  Unless they are sufficiently under sized then they have made a rod for their own back by claiming not to be RIFs, but have also slipped in the word ‘skirmishing’

 

Australia and parts of the US have problems with gel blasters, so there’s an industry here that’s potentially going to grow and be used by people/children who get themselves into areas that could cause issues 

 

 

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, Tommikka said:

….. and on their information / FAQ page they refer to frangibility plus that they are not replicas ….

 

The "frangibility" argument is the one I keep hearing in respect of paintball guns "markers", although I'm still wondering what their case law is on that, since that word doesn't appear in the Firearms Act definition of "a barrelled weapon of any description from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than one joule at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged."

 

Those gel blasters clearly are realistic imitation firearms, and are intended to be so.

 

And the only argument I've seen put forward for why airguns can't be realistic imitations firearms is because they're actual firearms. That's not an interpretation I agree with (why can't they be both?), but even by that standard, claiming that gel blasters aren't firearms means it wouldn't apply.

 

The thing is, it's not really a serious issue, since they are by any reasonable common sense interpretation even less lethal than airsoft guns, and can be used for the same purposes.  It's just that they haven't been blessed with a Holy Circular from the Home Office saying so yet.

 

I don't wish them ill, but...

 

[1967PF44]

On 30/08/2022 at 00:15, Tackle said:

My understanding is that they "share" feck all, you supply a UKARA number, ideally with a name & postcode, the helpful retailer will confirm if the ukara is still active & that all 3 snippets of information match, nothing more, so it's hardly a data breach, coupled with the fact that in order to get your ukara "licence" (😜), you willingly supplied this information to potentially numerous third parties. 

As a seller, they need to be convinced that your a bona fide airsofters, & the truth is some sellers need more convincing than others, but going down the ukara route also gives them the assurance that UKARA details match with PayPal & delivery address. 

Again, referencing the fact its the school Holidays, in 21 years of playing & forum memberships, pre & post vcra I've seen too many stories of sprogs trying to work the system to get their pubescent mitts on rifs. 

As I stated before, the rules aren't perfect & we may not all like & agree with them, buts it's all we've got so if anyone gets their panties in a twist over gdpr etc, don't register shit & it won't be a problem, but likewise don't be surprised if some people won't sell to you if your even the slightest bit cagey about stuff. 

 

Think back to the days when in order to buy a firearm privately, you were expected to mail your certificate to an unknown seller & hope he wasn't a crook, that was some fucked up shit that makes gdpr look positively bulletproof lol. 

They “share” your status “active” “inactive” “void” or no trace .. and it’s that status that is the “sensitive data” in law 

[Tackle]

3 hours ago, 1967PF44 said:

They “share” your status “active” “inactive” “void” or no trace .. and it’s that status that is the “sensitive data” in law 

But surely, irrespective of gdpr, if you or I sign up for Ukara (mine lapsed years ago, another story) , we're giving our consent for what I consider to be very small snippets of information to be confirmed, in order to prove a defense & get that elusive rif. 

As the saying goes, "the end justifies the means", & anyone that disagrees with it should probably not bother signing up, or if changes in laws affect its lawfulness (such as gdpr coming in years after ukara's inception), which I'm guessing is what your concerned with, then have your entry deleted. 

Job done ? 

While I'm sure your probably right that UKARA infringes gdpr (I'm definitely no expert), the majority of airsofters rely on it for rif sales in all forms, & would probably rather keep it in its current "grey" form than potentially lose it completely without an alternative ready to take its place. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tackle said:

But surely, irrespective of gdpr, if you or I sign up for Ukara, we're giving our consent for what I consider to be very small snippets of information to be confirmed, in order to prove a defense & get that elusive rif. 

As the saying goes, "the end justifies the means", & anyone that disagrees with it should probably not bother signing up, or if changes in laws affect its lawfulness (such as gdpr coming in years after ukara's inception), which I'm guessing is what your concerned with, then have your entry deleted. 

Job done ? 

While I'm sure your probably right that UKARA infringes gdpr (I'm definitely no expert), the majority of airsofters rely on it for rif sales in all forms, & would probably rather keep it in its current "gray" form than potentially lose it completely without an alternative ready to take its place. 

I think you should leave it there. You are always going to loose, arguing with idiots on the internet is a mugs game.

They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience ( I’m channeling Samuel L Clemens )

[Tackle]

28 minutes ago, rocketdogbert said:

I think you should leave it there. You are always going to loose, arguing with idiots on the internet is a mugs game.

They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience ( I’m channeling Samuel L Clemens )

I make you right 🤣

[Enid_Puceflange]

[1967PF44]

3 hours ago, Tackle said:

But surely, irrespective of gdpr, if you or I sign up for Ukara (mine lapsed years ago, another story) , we're giving our consent for what I consider to be very small snippets of information to be confirmed, in order to prove a defense & get that elusive rif. 

As the saying goes, "the end justifies the means", & anyone that disagrees with it should probably not bother signing up, or if changes in laws affect its lawfulness (such as gdpr coming in years after ukara's inception), which I'm guessing is what your concerned with, then have your entry deleted. 

Job done ? 

While I'm sure your probably right that UKARA infringes gdpr (I'm definitely no expert), the majority of airsofters rely on it for rif sales in all forms, & would probably rather keep it in its current "grey" form than potentially lose it completely without an alternative ready to take its place. 

I think your missing what I’m

actually saying - and you are right in almost all of what you’ve say - when you sign up you are agreeing to share the information held (crucially your player status) with the subscribing retailers - what your not agreeing to is sharing that player status with the general public - because that status in law is considered to be “sensitive data” to some individuals it may be very sensitive and it being revealed to a non entitled member of the public maybe harmful .  As I have said from the outset I provided my details to the seller- knowing that he was likely to obtain the information- potentially unlawfully, but I didn’t care as I wanted to buy his offerings - when he didn’t then use the information supplied - it sparked a curiosity? And I like a discussion to asked the questions - the problem is that some muppets on the internet get involved in things they have no expertise and when someone who has experience/expertise and genuine knowledge of a topic he is written off as a liar lol 

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, 1967PF44 said:

to some individuals it may be very sensitive

 

In general, yes. In this case, come on, let's be serious.  De minimis non curat lex.

[1967PF44]

52 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

In general, yes. In this case, come on, let's be serious.  De minimis non curat lex.

It moved a long time ago from a specific case discussion to a more general discussion- however - in my specific case I do some work for organisation that have clients particularly sensitive to firearms - my involvement in airsoft would not align with their moral standing and if revealed to them it would almost certainly cost me financially quite a bit- that said in reality the source of any leak of information to them is highly unlikely to be a UKARA data breach lol. 

 

its been an interesting discussion -  quite eye opening - the level of ignorance and offensive aggression in this forum 

[Tommikka]

22 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

 

The "frangibility" argument is the one I keep hearing in respect of paintball guns "markers", although I'm still wondering what their case law is on that, since that word doesn't appear in the Firearms Act definition of "a barrelled weapon of any description from which a shot, bullet or other missile, with kinetic energy of more than one joule at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged."

 

Those gel blasters clearly are realistic imitation firearms, and are intended to be so.

 

And the only argument I've seen put forward for why airguns can't be realistic imitations firearms is because they're actual firearms. That's not an interpretation I agree with (why can't they be both?), but even by that standard, claiming that gel blasters aren't firearms means it wouldn't apply.

 

The thing is, it's not really a serious issue, since they are by any reasonable common sense interpretation even less lethal than airsoft guns, and can be used for the same purposes.  It's just that they haven't been blessed with a Holy Circular from the Home Office saying so yet.

 

I don't wish them ill, but...

 

We agree to disagree on a few of the fine points, and ideally we can continue on that basis as it would ultimately be a court case that answers the question of interpreting legislation on those points.

 

For ‘frangibility’ there is no reference in the legislation, but it is on that point that the home office have corresponded with the UKPSF referencing ‘frangibility’ of a paintball in line with ‘lethal barrelled weapons in legislation.

On that basis Gel blasters would sit in with frangibilty, but as you say they would need to be a firearm 

‘Firearm’ and ‘gun’ are thought to be dirty words, but they do carry the ‘protection’ of being defined in legislation and don’t require licences/certificates …. (Except of course NI & Scotland with other categories & requirements)

 

’Marker’ is a term I dislike, it was ‘popularised’ by Americans on a PC basis and has an incorrect urban history that it was the original name in paintball 

(As soon as we went away from actual oil based paint they ceased to have their ‘marking’ function and had always been ‘paint marking guns’ / ‘paint marking pistols’ etc

Its either pointless if people I know what it is or a secret code to hide from the scary word ‘gun’, and if you’re using that secret code then it can backfire because the other party then sees a gun

 

 

You have a good argument that a firearm could be a realistic imitation of another firearm, but I’ll still argue against it … and of course, have done on the basis that a firearm is a firearm and not an imitation of a firearm which might look like another firearm 

‘Realistic’ of course being in the definition that someone might think it is real, which brings in fictional guns as opposed to looking the same as a real one

 

 

[SBoardley]

4 hours ago, 1967PF44 said:

I think your missing what I’m

actually saying - and you are right in almost all of what you’ve say - when you sign up you are agreeing to share the information held (crucially your player status) with the subscribing retailers - what your not agreeing to is sharing that player status with the general public - because that status in law is considered to be “sensitive data” to some individuals it may be very sensitive and it being revealed to a non entitled member of the public maybe harmful .  As I have said from the outset I provided my details to the seller- knowing that he was likely to obtain the information- potentially unlawfully, but I didn’t care as I wanted to buy his offerings - when he didn’t then use the information supplied - it sparked a curiosity? And I like a discussion to asked the questions - the problem is that some muppets on the internet get involved in things they have no expertise and when someone who has experience/expertise and genuine knowledge of a topic he is written off as a liar lol 

Lol

2 hours ago, 1967PF44 said:

It moved a long time ago from a specific case discussion to a more general discussion- however - in my specific case I do some work for organisation that have clients particularly sensitive to firearms - my involvement in airsoft would not align with their moral standing and if revealed to them it would almost certainly cost me financially quite a bit- that said in reality the source of any leak of information to them is highly unlikely to be a UKARA data breach lol. 

 

its been an interesting discussion -  quite eye opening - the level of ignorance and offensive aggression in this forum 

Lol

Hope I organisation’s clients grammar spellcheck punctuation paralegal. 

[1967PF44]

2 hours ago, SBoardley said:

Lol

Lol

Hope I organisation’s clients grammar spellcheck punctuation paralegal. 

Fortunately I don’t actually have to write shit for that particular client … and it’s not connected to my paralegal work….lol so we are all goodest

[Rogerborg]

4 hours ago, 1967PF44 said:

the level of ignorance and offensive aggression in this forum 

 

Eh.  Everyone loves a bit of drama. We've had this discussion a few times and know that it ends nowhere, so we're finding fun in other ways.  There's no real griefing involved: note that @Tommikka and I respectfully disagree on the firearm-and/or-RIF issue.

 

If I really wanted to be rude, I'd ask how much of your career was spent in Traffic, or Professional Standards. But rest assured that I'd never sink that low.  

[1967PF44]

1 hour ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Eh.  Everyone loves a bit of drama. We've had this discussion a few times and know that it ends nowhere, so we're finding fun in other ways.  There's no real griefing involved: note that @Tommikka and I respectfully disagree on the firearm-and/or-RIF issue.

 

If I really wanted to be rude, I'd ask how much of your career was spent in Traffic, or Professional Standards. But rest assured that I'd never sink that low.  

I spent a fair amount of time arguing with Traffic and a lot of time “with” professional standards lol (is that what you meant ??)! Rapidly approaching the point however where I’ve been away longer than the 19years plus I was in 

[1967PF44]

8 hours ago, Tommikka said:

Realistic’ of course being in the definition that someone might think it is real, which brings in fictional guns as opposed to looking the same as a real one

This is another interesting discussion actually, for an imitation firearm to be a “Realistic” imitation Firearm, it must actually be a copy of a Real firearm produced by an actual firearms manufacturer- the famous star wars blasters produced for airsoft are in fact not RIFS. And do not require the seller of them to verify a defence. 
 

it’s all made even more complex (and confusing for airsofters) by the fact That the term “Imitation Firearm”  is defined differently for the purposes of the Firearms Act, 1968 (the principal licensing and criminal ownership legislation) and the Violent Crimes a Reduction Act, 2006  which deals with importation, selling manufacture and modification. 

 

If I recall correctly “Realistic Imitation Firearms”  are not mention at all in the FIrearms Act 1968, and I believe under that Act an “Airsoft Gun”  which has a specific legal definition cannot be an “imitation firearm”,  I say that as in all my years of experience in enforcement roles, I am yet to come across any legislation where 1 item can be two different defined things in the same legislation.   This principle of not being able to be two different legally defined things however I am less certain of, however a Police firearms expert agrees with me. 
 

“Realistic” in the definition in the VCRA2006 ONLY relates to size, shape and principal colour. (See section 38(1), 38(2) and 38(3) -  imitation Firearms for that Act, are specifically define pd to be imitations of “REAL modern Firearms”. 

 

the “Realistic” concept only relates to the offences of selling, importation, manufacturing and modification. 
 

The only mention of “imitation firearm”  in the 1968 Act, is at Sections 16-20 ? (There may be others) Which the part of the Act that prescribes the various offences involving imitation firearms, possession with intent to cause fear, commit crime, resist arrest, in public without reasonable excuse….etc 

 

For those offences  “IF” is defined very simply as “any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm”  (at the time of the offence and not at any other time- and it can be based on the perception of a witness and not necessarily based on expert testimony) (unlike. RIF which requires expert testimony to prove the article) 

 

This definition covers all sorts of things e.g 2 pieces of pipe taped together poking out a bag to give the impression it’s a shotgun during a robbery, but not someone making the shape of a gun with their fingers in their pocket (case law references are here https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms) 

 

Right must sleep, that was going to be a short explanation highlighting the confusion caused by the two separate pieces of legislation, with differing definitions, but became very detailed and referenced knowing how much evidence some individuals want on this forum. 
 

if the legal stuff really interests anyone, I do enjoy the discussion feel free to PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

Certainly an interesting discussion; and I say that as someone who was once in an episode of Juliette Bravo.  

[Rogerborg]

7 hours ago, 1967PF44 said:

[Stuff about IF vs RIF and FA versus VCRA]

 

Wow, absolutely bang on: let's keep this one. 👍

 

 

16 hours ago, Tommikka said:

‘Realistic’ of course being in the definition that someone might think it is real, which brings in fictional guns as opposed to looking the same as a real one

 

Well, no, for the reasons @1967PF44covered. I'm sure we've been over this before.  Firearms Act "imitation firearm" uses the Man on the Clapham Omnibus[*] standard.  But VCRA "realistic imitation firearm" very specifically requires it to be an imitation of an actual make and model of (modern) firearm.

 

Strictly speaking, there's no offence committed by selling an APS UAR, but it would be an offence (without a reasonable excuse) to possess it in public.

 

[*] Remember we had that chap declaring that he was going to take a bus to airsoft sites while open-carrying a Snow Wolf M41A because everybody should know that it wasn't a real gun? 🙄

[Tiercel]

Tl;DR nobody cares, just like spraying your two tones black.

 

Over the years Ive been doing this I reckon Ive bought well into triple digits of various toy guns from here, I think I've maybe once been asked for a UKARA number to which I gave them my several years out of date one as I dont bother with UKARA anymore due to not buying brand new guns. Same with selling on here, I've never bothered asking for UKARA because I cant be bothered to go through the hassle of trying to validate it, do you look & sound like an airsofter and have a track record of posting on here? Cool, I reasonably believe you're an airsofter and that'll do for me.

 

Nobody who wants to commit C R I M E S is going to waste their time trying to buy an airsoft gun from here, when they can just go to their local Cash n Carry dodgy market stall and pick up a CO2 pellet pistol for £50 with no questions asked. 

[Tommikka]

10 hours ago, 1967PF44 said:

This is another interesting discussion actually, for an imitation firearm to be a “Realistic” imitation Firearm, it must actually be a copy of a Real firearm produced by an actual firearms manufacturer- the famous star wars blasters produced for airsoft are in fact not RIFS. And do not require the seller of them to verify a defence. 
 

it’s all made even more complex (and confusing for airsofters) by the fact That the term “Imitation Firearm”  is defined differently for the purposes of the Firearms Act, 1968 (the principal licensing and criminal ownership legislation) and the Violent Crimes a Reduction Act, 2006  which deals with importation, selling manufacture and modification. 

 

If I recall correctly “Realistic Imitation Firearms”  are not mention at all in the FIrearms Act 1968, and I believe under that Act an “Airsoft Gun”  which has a specific legal definition cannot be an “imitation firearm”,  I say that as in all my years of experience in enforcement roles, I am yet to come across any legislation where 1 item can be two different defined things in the same legislation.   This principle of not being able to be two different legally defined things however I am less certain of, however a Police firearms expert agrees with me. 
 

“Realistic” in the definition in the VCRA2006 ONLY relates to size, shape and principal colour. (See section 38(1), 38(2) and 38(3) -  imitation Firearms for that Act, are specifically define pd to be imitations of “REAL modern Firearms”. 

 

the “Realistic” concept only relates to the offences of selling, importation, manufacturing and modification. 
 

The only mention of “imitation firearm”  in the 1968 Act, is at Sections 16-20 ? (There may be others) Which the part of the Act that prescribes the various offences involving imitation firearms, possession with intent to cause fear, commit crime, resist arrest, in public without reasonable excuse….etc 

 

For those offences  “IF” is defined very simply as “any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm”  (at the time of the offence and not at any other time- and it can be based on the perception of a witness and not necessarily based on expert testimony) (unlike. RIF which requires expert testimony to prove the article) 

 

This definition covers all sorts of things e.g 2 pieces of pipe taped together poking out a bag to give the impression it’s a shotgun during a robbery, but not someone making the shape of a gun with their fingers in their pocket (case law references are here https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms) 

 

Right must sleep, that was going to be a short explanation highlighting the confusion caused by the two separate pieces of legislation, with differing definitions, but became very detailed and referenced knowing how much evidence some individuals want on this forum. 
 

if the legal stuff really interests anyone, I do enjoy the discussion feel free to PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Wow, absolutely bang on: let's keep this one. 👍

 

 

 

Well, no, for the reasons @1967PF44covered. I'm sure we've been over this before.  Firearms Act "imitation firearm" uses the Man on the Clapham Omnibus[*] standard.  But VCRA "realistic imitation firearm" very specifically requires it to be an imitation of an actual make and model of (modern) firearm.

 

Strictly speaking, there's no offence committed by selling an APS UAR, but it would be an offence (without a reasonable excuse) to possess it in public.

 

[*] Remember we had that chap declaring that he was going to take a bus to airsoft sites while open-carrying a Snow Wolf M41A because everybody should know that it wasn't a real gun? 🙄

VCRA Section 38 does state ‘real firearm’, but does not exclude unreal / sci fi firearms etc.  With 38.7a covering an actual real firearm, but 38.7b the ‘appearance of a category of firearms’

 

If someone sees it and thinks it is real then it meets the VCRA definition of a RIF unless it gets covered as an IF by the design age, colour or size

 

(Star Wars wasn’t the best example as their blasters are real firearms with extra things - Sterling SMG, Mauser, MG34 etc, but others could be those from Aliens etc which are ‘unique’ sci fi guns but still tend to have a basis on real designs … the pulse rifle being part Spas shotgun in a shroud)

 

The underlying solution is of course to bag them in public and never find out what the law thinks it is

Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm”

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.

(3)In determining for the purposes of this section whether an imitation firearm is distinguishable from a real firearm—

(a)the matters that must be taken into account include any differences between the size, shape and principal colour of the imitation firearm and the size, shape and colour in which the real firearm is manufactured; and

(b)the imitation is to be regarded as distinguishable if its size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic for a real firearm.

 

 

 

 

38.7

In this section—

• “colour” is to be construed in accordance with subsection (9);

• “de-activated firearm” means an imitation firearm that consists in something which—

  (a)

  was a firearm; but

  (b)

  has been so rendered incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile as no longer to be a firearm;

• “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.

[Hudson]

21 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

 

VCRA Section 38 does state ‘real firearm’, but does not exclude unreal / sci fi firearms etc.  With 38.7a covering an actual real firearm, but 38.7b the ‘appearance of a category of firearms’

 

If someone sees it and thinks it is real then it meets the VCRA definition of a RIF unless it gets covered as an IF by the design age, colour or size

 

(Star Wars wasn’t the best example as their blasters are real firearms with extra things - Sterling SMG, Mauser, MG34 etc, but others could be those from Aliens etc which are ‘unique’ sci fi guns but still tend to have a basis on real designs … the pulse rifle being part Spas shotgun in a shroud)

 

The underlying solution is of course to bag them in public and never find out what the law thinks it is

Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm”

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.

(3)In determining for the purposes of this section whether an imitation firearm is distinguishable from a real firearm—

(a)the matters that must be taken into account include any differences between the size, shape and principal colour of the imitation firearm and the size, shape and colour in which the real firearm is manufactured; and

(b)the imitation is to be regarded as distinguishable if its size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic for a real firearm.

 

 

 

 

38.7

In this section—

• “colour” is to be construed in accordance with subsection (9);

• “de-activated firearm” means an imitation firearm that consists in something which—

  (a)

  was a firearm; but

  (b)

  has been so rendered incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile as no longer to be a firearm;

• “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.

TBF, the pulse rifle is just a Thompson in a body kit.