trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

[dragunovgeorge]

there are a few threads touching on this subject however i can not find one with a final aswer to it

situation:

- 2 airsofters decide to make a trade of rifs

- 1 airsofter may have a DEFENCE (key word here) the other may not

- THE KEY POINT IS THAT THEY DONT BOTH HAVE A DEFENCE !!



as an after point id like to add i do have a defence, i am both a rehular skirmisher (once at least 3 weeks) and i hold UKARA for purchasing new RIFS

I just want to know where i stand if i were to go into a trade and the other person did not hold a DEFENCE


AND PLEASE CAN WE KEEP THIS SHORT AND SWEET, I WANT A FINAL ANSWER =D

[madwelshman]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

if over 18, no defence to the VCR bill, then two tone

seller does not need defence to sell, only confidence that the buyer has defence to own, simples

[Panoptes]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

/end thread.

[Skolob]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

The simple view would be when trading you are giving a gun in exchange for money or goods. The fact that the trades are going on similtaneously is irrelevant, both sides would have to check that they can trade their weapon.

You could interpret them having a gun to trade as proof that they have bought a gun in the past, but that on its own would be a bit iffy as you don't know how they obtained it.

[madwelshman]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

interpretation is no defence... keep it simple, if no defence to the vcr, two tone (over 18)

You "could" be brought to explain your actions in the eyes of the law, do you think "well he had a gun, so he must have been an airsofter" would wash? meh, i'd air on the side of caution.

[Johnno]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

I have RIFs pre VCRA but no current defence so would not expect anyone to swap with me unless I was getting a 2 tone in exchange. Even though I'm pushing 50 and class my self as "responsible" it wouldn't be fair on the other Party if they fell foul of the Law :-(

[dragunovgeorge]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

before this goes any futher then id like to thank you guys for keepin it relatively simple =p

so would this be a fair statement

NO YOU CANNOT TRADE RIFS UNLESS BOTH HAVE DEFENCE ?


and im choosing to use DEFENCE not ukara as my term of choice

[Fil]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

A trade is just both people making a sale so they both need to be satisfied that they can defend that sale if they were ever investigated for it. So no you cannot trade RIFs if one of the traders can't defend their 'sale'.

[madwelshman]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

correct

What you class as defence is up to you, i.e. a letter from his nan, or 1000 photos at numerous events showing him airsofting...

I would not accept the first one personally... but i'd quite happily trade with someone who I PERSONALLY trusted was an airsofter, given photographic evidence.

Remember, as you know, the defence is that the person is a skirmisher, not that he is a member of such and such site of whatever UK*£% organisation... you just need to be able to confidently say (should the need arise) to a court of law, "I believed him to be a skirmisher because _____ (add reason why)" if it sounds a weak reason to you... then it will sound pathetic to the authorities!

[dragunovgeorge]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

thanks guys XD

i think everyone is agreement lol

thanks to you all =]

[madwelshman]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

now if the Gran was baking cookies.....

[Fil]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

thanks guys XD

i think everyone is agreement lol

thanks to you all =]

Just important to keep in mind that unless they're under 18 the buyer isn't going to have to 'defend' their purchase to the police/courts, it's the seller who needs to defend the sale.

[dragunovgeorge]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

so thats why i need to make sure they have a suitable defence in the same way i would to satisfy me makin a sale then?

[Fil]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

Yes, it's the seller who commits the offence so it's them who needs the defence. Which usually means getting some evidence from the buyer that they are a skirmisher.

[seansamurai1]

Re: trade DEFENCE clarification wanted (no arguements, just a final answer)

A reasonable defence could be a face to face at the persons house and they have their gear on display, not just guns either.