URGENT UPDATE

[Finius]

I was discussing with some of my local legally experienced colleagues today. After much discussion we have decided that at no point may an under eighteen own an RIF or IF unless it was purchased legally pre-VCRA.

 

The under eighteen may still use an RIF or IF purchased by parents for skirmishing, however may not at any point legally take ownership of the item.

 

This is NOT literally stated within the VCRA, however we have come to the consensus that a court may interpret this as part of the intention of the VCRA, it is thus completely viable that should an under eighteen, or the guardians of an under eighteen be taken to court, the excuse of "it was a gift" may not stand.

 

Overall, this makes no change to the realistic situation that many U18's face (parents must buy kit for them to use), however in the courtroom, the real world is barely a consideration compared to the intentions of parliament and the wording of a document. It is also a very flimsy legal point, but it's not worth risking it over the words "my parents let me use it to play with, but they own it".

 

Will be confirmed ASAP.

[M_P]

Interesting, I know nothing about courts or anything but I can see some truth in that.

 

Also, I have a question for you, it doesn't make sense making another thread so I'll ask it here.

What happens if the two tone paint was rubbed of through use of a gun, this has happend to my younger brothers friend, should he repray it or what?

[TPI]

I can answer that yes he should if unregistered

[Deva]

Well it's no longer and IF but an RIF, but the continued use proves he is a regular airsofter, which makes things a bit stupid really.

 

With rgds to the original post, I'm not sure I see sense in it. People are forever getting through much smaller loopholes and people are being let off with more and more. Do you really think that when ownership wasn't mentioned in the act that those compiling it didn't consider it? As far as I was aware the main aims of the points which cover airsoft was to restrict the sale and purchase of RIF's and IF's, no?

 

That is my viewpoint on how I see it, although I do agree that under 18's shouldn't be able to get their hands on RIF's/IF's at all, except site rentals. There might be many responsible under 18's but there is also a lot of idiots too, and since there is no way of differentiating then the minority spoil it for the majority.

[Tristan Orr]

"Minority spoil it for the majority." this is so true, but number of friend that have asked how to get a RiF and I have asked them why? To which the reply is so I can shoot this cat or what ever. Is a joke, this is a sport not some bloody pest control!

[M_P]

Well it's no longer and IF but an RIF, but the continued use proves he is a regular airsofter, which makes things a bit stupid really.

 

Thats why I didn't know what to tell him, it kind of contradicts itself.

To be honest, people will always break the law, and the thing is, I've never once heard of a court case about rif's and if's so people aren't worried, I think they shoulf make it clearer and actually do something about those who are breaking the law

[TPI]

Some one said something about loopholes and they are their so someone can be prosecuted if they dont quite fit nice an dandy in one spot

[Sheepshearer98]

My dad gave me a gat, but it was sprayed? what happens there?

 

Also what if you buy a Two Tone that is obviously sprayed, but you dont own it, you just use it at skirmished?

[Deva]

Make new threads for these questions guys, we don't want to move off the original topic too much.

[Finius]

I can see why people think this is a fairly nonsensical view to take, however I'd like to clarify some of our reasoning behind it.

 

1. The intention of the VCRA is the reduction of violent crime, youths are responsible for a lot of knife and gun crime, often due to exploitation, making it harder for under eighteens to own these things DOES go toward the overall aim of the act.

 

2. The intention of the section regarding the purchase etc by under eighteens is aimed at preventing U18's owning them, otherwise, why not simply let them have UKARA and buy RIFs with parental consent. It's simply a very covert way of saying it, the court would see this as the intention and would uphold it.

 

The reason I wouldn't worry about this "change" too much is simple. If you are under eighteen, the only legal way to get an IF or RIF is to have you parents gift it to you. If they're buying you it out of the kindness of their hearts, it's not much more bother to simply maintain that they own it - there is no reason you cannot consistently use it, look after it etc, as long as, when question, both you and your parents state that they have all legal rights as owner (i.e. to sell, destroy, modify etc), and that you only do anything with it that they permit you to do.

 

At the end of the day, the bonus to legal safety of both yourselves and the sport far outweighs the potential bad that could be caused by us getting strung up for something like this.

 

I am still waiting to see one of the Cov Uni law lecturers for a second opinion.

[M_P]

Hang on, I just remembered seeing a letter from someone who helped make the vcra (itd forget his name) about how under 18's can get guns, I'm sure he advised gifting them.

Not completely sure but i'll try and find it

[Finius]

When the VCRA was designed, we worked heavily with the Home Office to get hold of access for under eighteens, and IFs were the answer. It was never made clear though whether minors should be able to own, or whether it was simply an avenue by which their parents could let them play and this is the issue here.

 

The logic for this comes not from the legislation and this is something many people dislike about British law. The written document is not important as a whole. The courts may interpret it however they feel the Government that created the law intended. It is clear that under eighteens are not intended to purchase, it is not mentioned that giving them one is specifically okay (no allowances stated, merely restrictions), so it is implied that the government intended to prevent minors having them. Whilst this cannot work retroactively (so if you were under eighteen when the VCRA came into force you cannot be made to give up IF or RIF you had before that time), it could be perceived that way with subsequent purchases.

 

As I have said, this is incredibly vague law, however, vague law is the type that can sting people the hardest. The advice I offer is just that, it is advice, because I'm not qualified, this could be one of those cases where there really is no real cause for any alarm, but like I said above, all this is, is a case of knowing what to do if the police ask. I feel for the relative difficulty of leaving an IF or RIF in parental possession, and telling the police that much, you're really helping to avoid a much greater difficulty. I'm not saying that under eighteen's need to destroy their guns, but that their parents retain ownership.

[M_P]

Fair enough, save hassle I guess- I can't see any reason not do the above