A discussion with quoted legislation?

[B.E.N.]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

I see where you are coming from, I too have met some 'speshul' people on the field.
The thing is though is that the reasonable defence has been fulfilled, its exactly the same as giving your site organisers details so someone can prove you are a skirmisher by phoning them.

Yep, but I guess at least with UKARA, we know who is responsible for green lighting the oddballs!

What if there was some system in place that would allow to register your defence and be allowed to use ANY shop in the UK hassle free? That would be an awesome plan..... what if that same system could be used to protect retailers and show due dilligence in the vetting of customers? Now we are getting somewhere...........

Isn't this just UKARA? (Or what that the sarcasm?)

[Aitch]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

The above in my opinion is wholly wrong (tackles post! just my opinion I'm not opening the debate), having lived through all the VCRA I believe only holding membership to a site with 3PLI or a skirmish diary stamped on game days at a site/s holding 3PLI satisfies the defence but that's just how I interpret our defence, but make your own minds up, until someone is put in the dock for a selling offence we'll never know,

For airsoft skirmishing, the Association of British Airsoft is putting in place arrangements to allow retailers to check that individual purchasers are members of a genuine skirmishing club or site. The key elements of these arrangements are:

new players must play at least 3three times in a period of not less than two months the two months before being offered membership
membership cards with a photograph and recognized format will be issued for production to retailers
a central database will be set up for retailers to cross-check a purchaser's details
a member's entry on the database will be deleted if unused for 12 months.


22. The defence for airsoft skirmishing can apply to individual players because their purchase of realistic imitation firearms for this purpose is considered part of the "holding" of a skirmishing event.

since the ABA do not exist the UKASGB/UKARA/UKAPU are the main stakeholders representing the hobby, the central database mentioned there was what saved our RIFs (damn those evil UKARA types :p) whilst I do think they're (UKARA) a cartel they're still the easiest/quickest way to prove your defence, one that 'guvmint' and customs are happy with (including skirmish diaries "Individual players" covers those) but you need a paper trail, a mate vouching for you doesn't quite leave one and to me it's quite clear what does satisfy our defence,

The above quoted excerpt is from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-u...2007/031-2007/ our defence is there in black in white.

[Fizzy]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

I've already effed the Team Captain off enough and would quite like a spot on the uni team for the next comp if I've not already upset him too much

If I were you, I'd p*** him off even more by demanding he step down as team captain, because if he can't even understand the basics of how RIF purchases work, he's not worthy of being team captain

[loki7491]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

That was the sarcasm my friend.

On the "other place" i was a sceptic through ignorance. Between a mixture of research and Frank actually giving up his time to discuss things, the ignorance was washed away.

What UKARA was set up for and what they do are to a high standard, there is / was a misunderstanding among Joe Public of what that remit is - it is the ignorance of others that now needs addressing, such as these two legal eagles, UKBA, the home office.....

[tackle]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

Tackle... What paper trail or accountability does "i pointed him to a teammate who was very well known in the airsoft community, who in turn vouched for me as a bona fide player" have in the eyes of the law?
NONE.

having discussed this very matter with a retailer yesterday who has been a member of the ukara system, who paid his £300+ fee, only to find that will only give him access to a database, with no guarantees to the accuracy of the information on it, nor any support from those who manage the system should he find himself in position whereby use of the system led to somebody not genuinely entitled to purchase a rif, & & who then goes on to use said rif in a criminal manner..........I THINK I'D RATHER TAKE MY CHANCES WITH A MATE OF GOOD STANDING WHO HAS MY BACK NO MATTER WHAT.
& apparently so would the mod i mentioned, a well known chap with many years of experience in our sport, & who understands that the onus is on him to feel assured & take reasonable precautions that the person he privately sells a rif to is a legitimate airsofter.

me, if i enter in to a deal with someone who has an interest in one of my rifs (which is rare 'cos i hoard my precious), i usually research not just his site affiliation, but also his post history, both here & on other forums if possible, & if i detect a chance that he's either underage or a total fuckwit who shouldn't be trusted to wipe his own arse, then i withdraw from the deal.
therefore satisfying myself that i've taken reasonable precautions should i need to form a legal defence.

ultimately nothing is watertight when you have a legal system run by dim witted nonces who just happened to go to the "right" public school, they all end up in either the judiciary or parliament usually.

IMHO

[Aitch]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

Show me/us where a person of good standing is a valid defence? the notes are here, the ones that will be referred to if someone goes to court http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-u...2007/031-2007/

cheers.

[Fizzy]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

Show me/us where a person of good standing is a valid defence? the notes are here, the ones that will be referred to if someone goes to court http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-u...2007/031-2007/

cheers.

Obviously no one really knows what would happen, but I agree with you & BEN. The term "Regular Skirmisher" although somewhat undefined, is referenced to attending a skirmish site with 3rd party PLI. Obviously the more 'watertight' way of that being validated is by the site themselves, rather than some bloke saying "yeah, I saw him at XXXXX"

Of course, being registered on the UKARA database, as you mention tackle, has no guarantee of accuracy. As I've said many times in the past, you could play your 3 games in no less than 2 months, have your site membership number registered on the UKARA database, not play again for 11 months and 29 days, and then go out and buy a RIF. So having played only once in nearly 12 months, are you still a 'regular skirmisher'? I'd certainly argue not!

[Caveira]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

Show me/us where a person of good standing is a valid defence? the notes are here, the ones that will be referred to if someone goes to court http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-u...2007/031-2007/

cheers.

And nowhere there does it say that this would be invalid either. There is NO definition of what an acceptable defence is in any of the legislation, implementation orders or guidance notes. The only thing mentioned is the ABA scheme, and as that is for retailers (and they no longer exist anyway, which isn't stated to be compulsory.

What your link does say, though, is:

"21. For manufacturers, importers and vendors to claim one of the defences, they must be able to show that their conduct was for purpose of making realistic imitation firearms available for one of the reasons specified in the defences above. How they should satisfy themselves of this will vary from case to case and it might be advisable for them to keep a record of this for each transaction."

If I know a person who I've skirmished with regularly and is a reliable and trustworthy person, and they advise me that a buyer is a regular player who they personally know, then that's good enough for me. I'd make a note of the time and date of the conversation, plus who it was with, and keep those details incase I need to defend my decision to sell. It is, at the end of the day, my decision and it's my balls on the line if I get it wrong. I don't see that as any different to calling up a site owner and asking them if a person is a regular player there.

As the legislation makes no definate definition of who we can sell to, or what evidence we need, then it's up to each of us as individuals to make a value judgement under the specific circumstances at the time.

There is enough bullshit spread about this subject already; UKARA is the law, it's a licence, you must be a site member somewhere, you must play regularly at one specific site etc etc etc. Don't muddy the water more!

[tackle]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

Of course, being registered on the UKARA database, as you mention tackle, has no guarantee of accuracy.

is there a requirement for ukara retailers to see valid i.d when someone purchases a rif ?.
i ask 'cos i went through a bit of a buying frenzy a few years ago, using at least 3 ukara retailers, & at no time was i asked for anything other than my ukara reg no.
would be very easy to use someone elses details to purchase rifs, in fact this was a known scam if you purchased a RS firearm via mags etc, you were required to send your details, including your FAC to the seller, only to find he was a convicted psycho who could then purchase guns over the counter in your name........you couldn't make it up.

p.s. to my last post.
i would rather there was national register, with certain requirements met to be on it, possibly held at police stations, whereby those who are on the register can check whether other bods are on the register....i would happily pay a reasonable fee towards this rather than the ukara system of playing & registering with insured sites.
yes, it is a bit big brother, but surely given the number of heated debates there have been on this matter, this one included, would indicate that something else is needed to reassure the bona fide players, & also weed out some of the "speshul" people involved.

i might be getting old & the body isn't always willing, but i still get a rush when playing, & i don't want it taken away from me just because people don't understand or care about the consequences of ignoring the confusing & "flexible" vcra legislation pertaining to airsoft.

[Caveira]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

i would rather there was national register, with certain requirements met to be on it, possibly held at police stations, whereby those who are on the register can check whether other bods are on the register....i would happily pay a reasonable fee towards this rather than the ukara system of playing & registering with insured sites.
yes, it is a bit big brother, but surely given the number of heated debates there have been on this matter, this one included, would indicate that something else is needed to reassure the bona fide players, & also weed out some of the "speshul" people involved.

I couldn't agree more. I've been saying for years that if some form of licence was introduced then the amount of dodgy deals done here, and on other sites and forums, would fall through the floor. As long as the fee was sensible, then the only issues would come from people with something to hide. There are too many countries where airsoft is either banned, or very heavily restricted, and we don't want to join them!

[Aitch]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

There will never be a register of players, no licensing, back when the VCRB was being discussed that was made clear, which is why it's such a mess now, site membership or skirmish diary is the method that was noted, no others
You could compile a list of questions I'm sure they could be asked/answered at the next home office meeting? but they've likely been asked before,
There is no flexible legislation pertaining to airsoft only a guideline defence should someone be prosecuted for selling RIFs to someone not holding a defence to buy as mentioned in the guidance a site membership etc, there is no other method/s mentioned for our defence,
The farther we get from when the VCRA came in to force the more varied folks "defences" get, it's not skirmishers faults the blame rests with retailers (not UKARA)
It's a shame we didn't get an exemption as they're not open to interpretation, but in my opinion the guidance notes set by the Home Office shouldn't be either.

[tackle]

Re: A discussion with quoted legislation?

on that note, time for a deep breath & a return to normality, just like we do every time a post like this pops up........& carry on enjoying what we do, with a pinch of common sense & a big dose adrenaline............cheers guys, whatever your views...........Mark