UKARA Rules...

[jagillham]

Re: UKARA Rules...

*Waits to hear the penny drop*

UKARA is a scheme set up by shops, to ensure they don't get punished for selling to people they should not....

[robobo]

Re: UKARA Rules...

I know what UKARA is.

My question mainly was if the VCRA doesn't apply to purchasing, which someone has said in this thread, how come Joe Bloggs won't get sold a gun in any respectable Airsoft shop?

Why did I have to wait two months and have played at least three times before I could start to purchase RIF's again after a five year break from Airsoft?

If i'm wrong feel free to put me in my place

As stated above. I don't claim to be the all knowing of the law.

[jagillham]

Re: UKARA Rules...

Because of the reason above - the shop needs to prove you are entitled to be sold to. They would be committing an offence.

[robobo]

Re: UKARA Rules...

Because of the reason above - the shop needs to prove you are entitled to be sold to. They would be committing an offence.

That is exactly how I have always seen it as well.

I now leave this never ending debate

[snuff]

Re: UKARA Rules...

Because of the reason above - the shop needs to prove you are entitled to be sold to. They would be committing an offence.

What is the offence?
UKARA was formed as a response to the drafting of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill in 2006 which later became an Act of Parliament.

UKARA is an association of UK Airsoft Retailers brought together to protect themselves from prosecution and enable a safe method of selling Realistic Imitation Firearms ( RiF's ) to the largest of the permitted purchaser groups in the UK, Airsoft Players.The onus is on the seller of a RiF to make sure they only sell to a legitimate purchaser, prosecution could result as a failure to do this.

The Governments desire was to have a third party system in place which would track sales to legitimate purchasers of RiF's, checking their eligibility.
If the RiF is used sensibly then surely no offence would arise?
If the retailers have set UKARA up then they are effectively "shooting" themselves in the foot by selling without proven defence..when it comes crashing down on us we know how to apportion blame.

[jagillham]

Re: UKARA Rules...

You joking right?

Read the VCRA 2006!

All in favour of having to have read the VCRA before being allowed to play?

[Fil]

Re: UKARA Rules...

That is exactly how I have always seen it as well.

I now leave this never ending debate

If that's how you see it then why are you getting confused between purchasing and selling?

I'll speak to the copper who told me this and get back on it, but I would assume that the charge would be something along the lines of conspiracy to obtain etc.

Having thought about it since I asked I imagine you could probably get prosecuted under the fraud act for gaining something by false representation. Probably should have made it clearer in my earlier post about it being legal to purchase that I was assuming the buyer would be acting in a legal fashion but I see your point that you could get in trouble by breaking other laws.

[snuff]

Re: UKARA Rules...

You joking right?

Read the VCRA 2006!

All in favour of having to have read the VCRA before being allowed to play?

Yes sorry m8 I was looking at UKARA for guidance not the VCRA( I couldn't get back on again last night hence the delayed reply).
Surely someone could sticky a reasonable explanation and guide.

Hypertexting links such as VCRA chapter 2 section 36 to explain the law regarding RiF's.
And then also the same with UKARA which explains why we are allowed to circumvent the act using what we call "defence" which is UKARA.

As I see it then the act was put in place to reduce violent crime,unfortunately airsofting has been implicated due to RiF's.
To get around this retailers devised a system (UKARA) allowing genuine airsofters the ability to buy RifF's once thet have proven defence.
If then retailers decide to sell without proven defence then they are 5hitting on their own door step effectively and as I said they will have themselves to blame.
I wait to be corrected.

[Caveira]

Re: UKARA Rules...

Hypertexting links such as VCRA chapter 2 section 36 to explain the law regarding RiF's.
And then also the same with UKARA which explains why we are allowed to circumvent the act using what we call "defence" which is UKARA.

UKARA IS NOT the defence. Being a regular airsofter at sites which have 3rd party liability insurance is, despite what UKARA would like you to believe. As you yourself pointed out, UKARA is simply about protecting retailers.

Also, we're not allowed to circumvent the law. We're still comitting an offence, it's just that there's a standing defence we can rely on if needed. Look at it like punching someone in the street; you'd be guilty of an offence regardless, but if you are proved to be acting in self defence then you can't be convicted.

[No1_sonuk]

Re: UKARA Rules...

Also, we're not allowed to circumvent the law. We're still comitting an offence, it's just that there's a standing defence we can rely on if needed. Look at it like punching someone in the street; you'd be guilty of an offence regardless, but if you are proved to be acting in self defence then you can't be convicted.

No. It's actually more like punching someone who's attacking your girlfriend. Your defence is provided by someone else needing help.

Let me try to put this as simply as possible:

WRT sales:

1 ) Assuming the buyer is over 18, the SELLER is the one committing the offence.

2 ) In order for them not to be prosecuted, the SELLER needs to be able to prove a defence.

3 ) That defence is that the buyer has a legitimate reason to need the RIF. This is where the confusion starts.
Most people assume that the buyer needs the defence. This is not so. The buyer needs to able to provide a defence for the seller. Legally, that's entirely different.

4 ) If someone sells a RIF to someone without a legitimate reason, the SELLER (NOT the buyer) can be prosecuted.
This assumes the buyer didn't falsify the claim of legitimacy. In that case, the buyer could be prosecuted (probably for illegally obtaining a RIF). The seller probably wouldn't be prosecuted, assuming the seller had reasonable belief the buyer was legit.

WRT manufacture and importing:

1 ) The person manufacturing or importing the IF/RIF is the one committing the offence, and in order for them not to be prosecuted, they need to prove a defence.

The "Airsoft Defence":

As far as airsoft is concerned, the person needing to provide the defence being a member of a site with third party insurance meets the requirements laid down in "The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (Realistic Imitation Firearms) Regulations 2007"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

Specifically para 3(2)(a):

Defences to an offence under section 36 of the 2006 Act or under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to that Act

3.—(1) It shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence under section 36 of the 2006 Act or under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to that Act for the person charged with the offence to show that his conduct was for the purpose only of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified in paragraph (2).

(2) Those purposes are—

(a)the organisation and holding of permitted activities for which public liability insurance is held in relation to liabilities to third parties arising from or in connection with the organisation and holding of those activities;
(b)the purposes of display at a permitted event.

According to section 2 of that document;

“permitted activities” means the acting out of military or law enforcement scenarios for the purposes of recreation;

That is what covers airsoft.

[Caveira]

Re: UKARA Rules...

No. It's actually more like punching someone who's attacking your girlfriend. Your defence is provided by someone else needing help.

I was generalising, not looking at purchasing/selling in specific, and trying to show the difference between excemption/circumvention and having access to a standing defence.

Having said that, it's a very nice way to look at the sellers side of things as seen from the purchasers point of view.

[Sam-Beta]

Re: UKARA Rules...

No. It's actually more like punching someone who's attacking your girlfriend. Your defence is provided by someone else needing help.

Let me try to put this as simply as possible:

WRT sales:

1 ) Assuming the buyer is over 18, the SELLER is the one committing the offence.

2 ) In order for them not to be prosecuted, the SELLER needs to be able to prove a defence.

3 ) That defence is that the buyer has a legitimate reason to need the RIF. This is where the confusion starts.
Most people assume that the buyer needs the defence. This is not so. The buyer needs to able to provide a defence for the seller. Legally, that's entirely different.

4 ) If someone sells a RIF to someone without a legitimate reason, the SELLER (NOT the buyer) can be prosecuted.
This assumes the buyer didn't falsify the claim of legitimacy. In that case, the buyer could be prosecuted (probably for illegally obtaining a RIF). The seller probably wouldn't be prosecuted, assuming the seller had reasonable belief the buyer was legit.

WRT manufacture and importing:

1 ) The person manufacturing or importing the IF/RIF is the one committing the offence, and in order for them not to be prosecuted, they need to prove a defence.

The "Airsoft Defence":

As far as airsoft is concerned, the person needing to provide the defence being a member of a site with third party insurance meets the requirements laid down in "The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (Realistic Imitation Firearms) Regulations 2007"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

Specifically para 3(2)(a):

According to section 2 of that document;
That is what covers airsoft.

Cheers for that, your post actually cleared up a lot of the confusion surrounding the issue. Very helpful stuff.

[snuff]

Re: UKARA Rules...

UKARA IS NOT the defence. Being a regular airsofter at sites which have 3rd party liability insurance is, despite what UKARA would like you to believe. As you yourself pointed out, UKARA is simply about protecting retailers.

Also, we're not allowed to circumvent the law. We're still comitting an offence, it's just that there's a standing defence we can rely on if needed. Look at it like punching someone in the street; you'd be guilty of an offence regardless, but if you are proved to be acting in self defence then you can't be convicted.

I understand the defence is as regular airsofters we can use RiF's but UKARA makes it easier to prove rather than having to go through the process of proving defence every time,surely we are circumventing the law by honest means and not in a bad way?

[No1_sonuk]

Re: UKARA Rules...

I understand the defence is as regular airsofters we can use RiF's but UKARA makes it easier to prove rather than having to go through the process of proving defence every time,surely we are circumventing the law by honest means and not in a bad way?

This is a never-ending circular argument, no one will never get through to the "UKARA-bashers" that retailers defending their interests also benefits the players.

[Caveira]

Re: UKARA Rules...

I understand the defence is as regular airsofters we can use RiF's but UKARA makes it easier to prove rather than having to go through the process of proving defence every time,surely we are circumventing the law by honest means and not in a bad way?

This is a never-ending circular argument, no one will never get through to the "UKARA-bashers" that retailers defending their interests also benefits the players.

In fairness I don't think that was UKARA bashing. If anything, it was support for them as part of the status quo.

I'm still not happy with the use of "circumventing", though, in this context. The definition of this is "To avoid or get around by artful maneuvering" and that makes it seem like we have found a way to break the law, or to ignore it, that we aren't supposed to have. Our defence is a 100% legal, government intended, system which allows us to break this one single law under very limited circumstances. It's like the difference between tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal). The words may mean very similar things, but in the wrong hands (ie the daily wail etc) they could come back and bite us really hard in the ass!