VCR/UKARA - does it work.

[Chowder Head]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

For everyone who has been talking about setting up an airsofting body then check this out:

http://www.aoba.org.uk/

[ratty1968]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

I'm not saying that UKARA doesn't work.
The whole idea of setting up a body thats represents the player is to make life easier.
If we, as players, have a recognised scheme that uses a photo id card, that involves UKARA, the police, retailers and sites, then life is so much easier.
1. Pulled by the police whilst going to or coming from a site? Instead of having you AEG's taken ( yes, this does happen) until you can prove your defense you show your card.
2.You attend a site or event where you're not known as a regular, and want to buy an AEG, the card has your details on.
3. Similar senario to 2, but with retailers on a face to face level.
I for one would welcome this, hence working towards it.
Ratty

[t0astie]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

I'm not saying that UKARA doesn't work.
The whole idea of setting up a body thats represents the player is to make life easier.
If we, as players, have a recognised scheme that uses a photo id card, that involves UKARA, the police, retailers and sites, then life is so much easier.
1. Pulled by the police whilst going to or coming from a site? Instead of having you AEG's taken ( yes, this does happen) until you can prove your defense you show your card.
2.You attend a site or event where you're not known as a regular, and want to buy an AEG, the card has your details on.
3. Similar senario to 2, but with retailers on a face to face level.
I for one would welcome this, hence working towards it.
Ratty

Yeah I'm behind you on this one, I would be behind making it madatory as well, a kind of lisence if you will. Then the criminals could be easily segregated from legitimate skirmishers. ie if they got the gun off the black market illegally then they are nothing to do with airsoft or the sport. I know it's naive to think that people still won't want to get all RIFs banned because they will always, regardless of anything done. But at least a lisence means that it is easy to see what's legitimate and what isn't stgraight from the off.

[Caveira]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

Same thing....


We're defended agains't the act, or were exempt.... Same.

Wrong. It is illegal to sell a RIF to anyone, to import them or to manufacture them. Full stop.

What we have is a standard defence that we can use IF we prove it applies to us. The offence is still committed, but it's not considered to be an issue that would be prosecuted.

It's like punching somebody in the face. That is ALWAYS illegal, but if you do it in self defence then you have a reasonable defence you can rely on.

This is the main problem with the scheme as it is at the moment. If you read the act itself, there is nothing in it that allows the sale, import and manufacture of RIFs for skirmishing. What there is is the statement that the secretary of state can grant additional defences to those that are actually in the act. Airsofting is not a defence in the act, it is an additional defence granted by the secretary of state. As such, it simply needs a letter signed by him/her and our defence has gone. As the defence is an "add-on", the law would not need to be changed and parliament would not need to be involved at all.

[bravotwozero]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

Rockin'robin....

I meant us as skirmishers, as skirmishers we're exempt, or defended against the act.

[Caveira]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

Rockin'robin....

I meant us as skirmishers, as skirmishers we're exempt, or defended against the act.

There is a huge difference between exempt and defended.

We are not exempt and it would just take a political mood-swing for us to lose the defence.

ex·empt
(g-zmpt)
tr.v. ex·empt·ed, ex·empt·ing, ex·empts
1. To free from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject: exempting the disabled from military service.
2. Obsolete To set apart; isolate.
adj.
1. Freed from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject; excused: persons exempt from jury duty; income exempt from taxation; a beauty somehow exempt from the aging process.
2. Obsolete Set apart; isolated.
n.
One who is exempted from an obligation, a duty, or a liability.

In civil proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the common law, a defendant may raise a defence (or defense) in an attempt to avoid criminal or civil liability. Besides contesting the accuracy of any allegation made against him or her in a criminal or civil proceeding, a defendant may also make allegations against the prosecutor or plaintiff or raise a defense, arguing that, even if the allegations against the defendant are true, the defendant is nevertheless not liable.

To stick to my example above, just because you are allowed to hit someone in self defence doesn't mean that you are exempt from the assault laws.

Or, just because sporting events are treated differently regarding assault (boxing, martial arts, rugby, AIRSOFT etc), doesn't mean that you can walk down the road and shoot people with a cheap market springer, let alone a 350fps AEG.

[dope_on_a_rope]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

The important thing to take from the defence aspect, is that it's not up to the police to prove your guilt. It's up to you to prove your innocence. If you cannot show to a reasonable degree that you're defended against the act, then you're not.

Rockin'-Robin: I can't tell you how good it is to see someone who understands more than I do. It's truly a pleasure to see people are well informed about this.

[Caveira]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

Exactly. This is an absolute offence, that is, an offence which has no defence other than those specified in the act, or named by the home secretary if the act allows for additional defences (which is what we have).

The problem with this, from our point of view, is that the defence is an issue of law and not one of fact. The police do not decide issues of law, so if there is doubt, this will go to court as only a judge can decide issues of law. If a judge finds against a registered skirmisher for some reason, this could become Ratio Decidendi (the reason for decision) and set legal precedent that removes the defence. A judge cannot usually overturn legislation, but they can find that home office guidelines do not apply, and that is what we have.

[Havocide]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

Exactly. This is an absolute offence, that is, an offence which has no defence other than those specified in the act, or named by the home secretary if the act allows for additional defences (which is what we have).

The problem with this, from our point of view, is that the defence is an issue of law and not one of fact. The police do not decide issues of law, so if there is doubt, this will go to court as only a judge can decide issues of law. If a judge finds against a registered skirmisher for some reason, this could become Ratio Decidendi (the reason for decision) and set legal precedent that removes the defence. A judge cannot usually overturn legislation, but they can find that home office guidelines do not apply, and that is what we have.

Why dont you go direct to the home office and find out the correct answer.

Problem solved.

[dope_on_a_rope]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

Not that simple. British law is based as much on precedent as it is on interpretation. You may think it's all strait fact. Unfortunately, it's usually more complicated than that.

[Caveira]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

Exactly. Women have retired 5 years earlier than men for generations, then 1 person took 1 case to court and 1 judge forced the law to be re-written by saying it was wrong.

A letter to the home office would only clarify the situation as far as the government is concerned on a specific day. They could change their mind 30 seconds after the reply was sent. Not to mention, the first case that comes up, a judge can bugger it up for all of us.

[Havocide]

Re: VCR/UKARA - does it work.

Exactly. Women have retired 5 years earlier than men for generations, then 1 person took 1 case to court and 1 judge forced the law to be re-written by saying it was wrong.

A letter to the home office would only clarify the situation as far as the government is concerned on a specific day. They could change their mind 30 seconds after the reply was sent. Not to mention, the first case that comes up, a judge can bugger it up for all of us.

Then as has been stated before its time for players to do something about it.

There is nothing or I should say...was nothing protecting our sport.