Is this legal

[magslap]

Re: Is this legal

responsible minor:
i call it taking a risk.
if a minor has membership and you want them to have rifs then i guess thats your belief.

sorry, i meant if you want them to get hold of rifs via a non member...then thats your belief (forgot to word it correctly and ive just had my sedatives so im going to pull out of this conversiotn or my possts will look like something worded by the gavernment )

[No1_sonuk]

Re: Is this legal

do you beleive a minor should in some way be able to reaceive what is classed as a weapon? not a brightly coloured toy,but something that LOOKs like a real weapon?...............when not last week one member on here posted about shooting a neighbours window,and he wasnt even a minor.

You're posting like a 2-tone doesn't have exactly the same performance as a RIF.

All the answers as to why this is technically legal are on the earlier pages of this thread. Go read them..

[magslap]

Re: Is this legal

were not talking about performance.
were talking about looks,what makes a rif,a rif,and an if,an if....nothing to do with performance.

i beleive this conversation is going nowhere,some agree its ok,others dont.
i just beleive that it might be a bad move..........only time will tell.

i hope im wrong.

[Fil]

Re: Is this legal

were not talking about performance.
were talking about looks,what makes a rif,a rif,and an if,an if....nothing to do with performance.

To be honest I don't think most people are really concerned about the difference between a RIF and a RIF that had been sprayed to make it an IF. To them a gun is a gun and a minor could cause just as many problems or act just as irresponsibly with a two tone IF as they could with a RIF.

[Xsite]

Re: Is this legal

do you beleive a minor should in some way be able to reaceive what is classed as a weapon? not a brightly coloured toy,but something that LOOKs like a real weapon?

Yes, I do.

If they can prove they are a skirmisher, there is no legislation that stops a junior owning a rif, no legislation that stops them using a rif, no legislation that stops them importing a rif, no legislation that stops them selling a rif, no legislation that stops them manufacturing a rif and no legislation that stops them being given a rif.

The only further restriction on under 18's is section 40 that stops them buying one or somebody selling them one, the whole of the defence applies to them, it's not age specific, it's just section 40 that's different.

It's fairly clear that some don't want juniors to have rif's at all and think the legislation says this. Others have a different interpretation of the act and believe something that is supplied "for the purposes of" means the purchaser must be the user. I don't agree with either of these views.

The only way this can actually be defined in law is a court case. While I am confident what we do is within the law (or we wouldn't do it) and I don't believe the cps would get anywhere past a brief glance of the paperwork before it got confined to the "wasting our time and we don't stand a chance of getting his one through" pile, I will write to the Home Office and once again ask them for their opinion on the scheme and see if in their view it stands scrutiny. Previous conversations had the response "you seem to be taking reasonable precautions" were not in writing, so I will endeavour to get it in writing so I can show people.

[Caveira]

Re: Is this legal

The only way this can actually be defined in law is a court case. While I am confident what we do is within the law (or we wouldn't do it) and I don't believe the cps would get anywhere past a brief glance of the paperwork before it got confined to the "wasting our time and we don't stand a chance of getting his one through" pile, I will write to the Home Office and once again ask them for their opinion on the scheme and see if in their view it stands scrutiny. Previous conversations had the response "you seem to be taking reasonable precautions" were not in writing, so I will endeavour to get it in writing so I can show people.

That's all we can ask, thank you.

[magslap]

Re: Is this legal

edited my post.
as ill wait for the outcome.

[jonny lovegrove]

Re: Is this legal

@xsite,please understand....i said,by way of receiving one from a non member or somone who does not come under the protection,somebody who does not skirmish and is not a member of any 3rd party insured club.thats what is making me want to understand how it works.
why does everyone cut out all the meaning.thats what people seem to be unsure about it including myself.

Was answered earlier, adult (no airsoft background) satisfies the age requirement.
Junior member has the defence to own said RIF. im sure tim will either answer in more detail or you can look back at his previous posts.
Edit: due to others editing their posts i add this note: the quote was legitimate

[Xsite]

Re: Is this legal

@xsite,please understand....i said,by way of receiving one from a non member or somone who does not come under the protection,somebody who does not skirmish and is not a member of any 3rd party insured club.thats what is making me want to understand how it works.
why does everyone cut out all the meaning.thats what people seem to be unsure about it including myself.

magslap

Your posts give the impression juniors shouldn't have rif's. If that isn't your view, then sorry, my misunderstanding but that's the way it looks.

This comes down to an extremely simple point, does "for the purposes of" mean the end user must be the end user or not. Must the buyer also be the user or can we sell to the parent of the junior member as they are over 18 and the rif is being sold to them, for the junior and therefore being sold 'for the purposes of".

That's it, does the phrase mean that or not.

[No1_sonuk]

Re: Is this legal

This thread is going in circles.

Tim, I suggest you contact a mod to get this thread locked until you can update.

[magslap]

Re: Is this legal

magslap

Your posts give the impression juniors shouldn't have rif's. If that isn't your view, then sorry, my misunderstanding but that's the way it looks.

This comes down to an extremely simple point, does "for the purposes of" mean the end user must be the end user or not. Must the buyer also be the user or can we sell to the parent of the junior member as they are over 18 and the rif is being sold to them, for the junior and therefore being sold 'for the purposes of".

That's it, does the phrase mean that or not.

the phrase means that yes.
that a rif is being sold to somone without a defence for the use of a completly different person whos defence is...borderline (my own opinion).
i do agree with no1_sonuk,lets wait and see.

and apologies for not making myself clear.....i wasnt actually joking about the sedatives (i have a condition at the mo)and admit i might go off direction or not put all the details in properly.

[Fil]

Re: Is this legal

the phrase means that yes.
that a rif is being sold to somone without a defence for the use of a completly different person whos defence is...borderline (my own opinion).

But the point is that buyers don't have a defence, it's the seller who the defence applies to and the defence is about the purpose for the seller's conduct, i.e. the purpose for which they made the sale. So the question really boils down to is there a difference between the purpose of a sale to someone who will use a RIF directly to skirmish and a sale to someone who is buying a RIF for a third party to use to skirmish. It's not the who that's important, it's the why and in both case the why is the same imo.

[magslap]

Re: Is this legal

i guess i do understand what your saying,but it just doesnt feel right to me.
and as ive already said,time will tell,this is only my opinion and im just a skirmisher,not a lobbeyer or mp or anything that would make a difference that way.
and its not me that you have to convince.

if a shop/site such as xcite says its ok then it must be,i more than accept that tim must(does) know more than me.

im just saying that to me,it doesnt feel right.
tim has done more than enough,by accepting that some are uncomfortable with it,and is hopefully going to prove us wrong so we can all eat humble pie.

the only problem that will really make me upset is if my feeling was right......i would love to be wrong in this case.

[Aitch]

Re: Is this legal

someone mentioned 'technically legal' above, they see the Xsite system as 'technically legal' I can accept how theey get that conclusion, what peaves me is how others aren't allowed to state they think it is TECHNICALLY illegal,

I'm glad Xsite is taking steps to get clarification on this, but what happens if the home office say it is infact illegal to do so?

[Fil]

Re: Is this legal

someone mentioned 'technically legal' above, they see the Xsite system as 'technically legal' I can accept how theey get that conclusion, what peaves me is how others aren't allowed to state they think it is TECHNICALLY illegal

They can but they should be able to present a reasoned argument for why they think that to be the case.

That's legal because the weapon never actually enters your possession until you're on one of their sites. It is held under their provision until you pass the necessary 3 games deal. Making it completely fair and legal.

If you've purchased the gun then I don't see what difference it makes if it remains in the care of someone else or not for the purposes of the defence. The defence has to be applicable at the time the sale is made, not at some later point when the retailer deems you can take the gun home.