Two tones?

[Caveira]

Re: Two tones?

i earnt the defence,the shop uses it to keep himself legal....doesnt matter how you try to word,its the same thing.

Whatever you argue,an u18 cannot have a defence ,because if they did,it would contradict the law that says u18 cant buy(or be sold ) guns .
So having a defence and being under 18 is about as much use as a rat in tampon factory.they can be gifted a rif....but where that rif must come from should be somone 18 or over with a valid defence.

the defence is against all of section 36, not just purchasing. For f**ks sake, open your eyes!

[magslap]

Re: Two tones?

A suggestion for you:

Get a dictionary.

Open it up.

Look up VCRA.

Use the dictionary to work out what all the big confusing words mean.

Try to work out the difference between the numbers 36 and 40.

Come back when you've done your homework.




FFS, the defence is against more than just buying/selling. It's against all the offences in section 36, but not against section 40 which covers age. So, put in words that are as short as possible for you, an under-18 cannot purchase as that also breaches section 40, but they can do all the other things that are in section 36. That is what the law says, but a court may interpret things differently if and when a case comes to trial. In the meanwhile, all we can do is go on the strict wording of the law.

The defence is not in VCRA, it's in the imitation firearms regulations. Those regulations give us our defence against section 36 and do not mention age in any way. They also don't give us any defence against section 40. They do say that to take advantage of the defence you must be a player at a site that has third party liability insurance, but does not say anywhere that you must actually be a site member. 3 games in no less than 2 months and membership at a site are UKARA requirements.

so in your last statement.....an under 18 cannot purchase?????????????????????
WTF have i been saying???????????????????????????????????????????? ???????
.they dont have to mention age in every little thing.its common sense,if you run a shop..would YOU sell to a gun to an under 18 if they had a club membership????

[magslap]

Re: Two tones?

the defence is against all of section 36, not just purchasing. For f**ks sake, open your eyes!

we are talking about purchasing,.....would YOU sell a rif or even an if to an u18???????????????

[Caveira]

Re: Two tones?

so in your last statement.....an under 18 cannot purchase?????????????????????
WTF have i been saying???????????????????????????????????????????? ???????
.they dont have to mention age in every little thing.its common sense,if you run a shop..would YOU sell to a gun to an under 18 if they had a club membership????

No I wouldn't, because regardless of our defence under section 36, it is still an offence for them to purchase under section 40.

You are confusing the issue of the defence with the issue of under-18 sales. The defence is against section 36 (import/manufacture/modification AND purchase), but there is a specific offence against under-18 purchasing that is nothing to do with section 36. So, if you can rely on the defence then you can import, manufacture and modify as they are covered in section 36. If you are 18 or older then you can also purchase a RIF as you are able to rely on the defence granted against section 36 and you don't breach section 40. If you are not able to rely on the defence against section 36, then you can only buy a two tone.

You seem to be suggesting that the FACT that age is mentioned in section 40 means that it must also apply to section 36 which would mean that this principle would also work the other way round. That would mean that by being 18 you wouldn't need a defence against section 36 so don't need to be a skirmisher to purchase a RIF. Sections in laws are designed to be read in isolation, unless the law says otherwise.

[Caveira]

Re: Two tones?

we are talking about purchasing

No, we are talking about the defence.

YOU very clearly stated that an under-18 cannot have any defence.

[magslap]

Re: Two tones?

No I wouldn't, because regardless of our defence under section 36, it is still an offence for them to purchase under section 40.

.

i rest my case.

[Caveira]

Re: Two tones?

i rest my case.

Which case is that?

The case that an under-18 can't purchase or the case that an under-18 can't have a defence against section 36? They're two different things as all of us have to have a defence against section 36 AND be 18 or over to purchase a RIF.

If you're resting your case against me saying that an under-18 can purchase in contravention of section 40, then please point me to a single post where I've said that this is acceptable. I promise you that you won't find one.

If, on the other hand your resting on an under-18 not having access to a defence against section 36, then how do you explain these?:

an u18 cannot have a defence

they dont have to mention age in every little thing.

[No1_sonuk]

Re: Two tones?

I just searched the UKSI that contains our defence.
The following are NOT found ANYWHERE in the document: "40", "age", "18", "purchase", "buy", or "sell".
It refers only to Sections 36, 36, and 38 of the VCRA (and the corresponding parts of Schedule 2, which is the part of the VCRA applying the same law to Northern Ireland), not Section 40. As I stated above, the number 40 doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the UKSI, not at all, in ANY context.

[Caveira]

Re: Two tones?

I just searched the UKSI that contains our defence.
The following are NOT found ANYWHERE in the document: "40", "age", "18", "purchase", "buy", or "sell".
It refers only to Sections 36, 36, and 38 of the VCRA (and the corresponding parts of Schedule 2, which is the part of the VCRA applying the same law to Northern Ireland), not Section 40. As I stated above, the number 40 doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the UKSI, not at all, in ANY context.

Perfect example.

Some people just can't see that the "defence" relates to more than just purchasing and forget the basics.

You must be 18 to purchase an imitation firearm (section 40).

You must be 18 to purchase a realistic firearm because realistic firearms are a type of imitation firearms (no, IF doesn't mean two tone, it means any imitation realistic or otherwise) (sections 36 AND section 40).

You do not need to be able to rely on the "defence" (or the purchaser does, whichever way you want to put it) if you are buying a non-realistic imitation firearm (section 40).

You do need to be able to rely on the "defence" (etc etc) to buy a realistic imitation firearm (section 36).

You do need to be able to rely on the defence to import, modify or manufacture (section 36).

Our defence specifically says:

"Defences to an offence under section 36 of the 2006 Act or under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to that Act3.—(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."

And:

"In these regulations—the “2006 Act” means the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006;“permitted event” means a commercial event at which firearms or realistic imitation firearms (or both) are offered for sale or displayed;“insurance” means a contract of insurance or other arrangement made for the purpose of indemnifying a person or persons named in the contract or under the arrangement;“permitted activities” means the acting out of military or law enforcement scenarios for the purposes of recreation; and“third parties” includes participants in, and spectators of, permitted activities and historical re-enactments (as the case may be) and members of the public."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

This is our defence. As No1_sonuk very clearly says, there is no mention of age anywhere in there as age is an offence for the purchasing of ANY imitation firearm (realistic or not) under section 40. Our defence does not protect us against section 40 in any way, nor was it intended to. Equally, section 40 does not apply to the non-purchasing parts of the regulations which are covered by section 36 (import etc etc).

[Planemo]

Re: Two tones?!?!!

.....how exactly anybody believes airsoft will survive without young players is completely beyond me......

I can't subscribe to the 'under 18's are the lifeblood of airsoft' theory when all I see at my local site are over 18's. Site numbers average between 60 and 90. I would estimate under 18's making up less than 10% of those numbers. I don't personally know an airsofter under 18 either.

I would point out that I have no issue with under 18's airsofting whatsoever, I just get slightly irritated when it's suggested that under 18's are the new messiah for the future of airsoft.

[FullMetalAsh]

Re: Two tones?

simple fact that IF's even EXIST. sounds really stupid. i've not heard about any of this, can somone give me some articles to read regarding the potential changes to replica laws because of IFs?

Quoting half a post often makes things sound stupid. What I mean is that these Anti Gun Lobbyists feel that if we can use IF's to the same effect as Realistic Imitations then why do we need RIF's at all? And there isn't any official documentation on the subject as far as I know, but then I never did say that the laws WERE changing, just that some people feel they should, as is often the case with new legislation. It's part and parcel of living in a capitalist democracy. If you don't like the freedom to express your opinions and to vote on things, I think North Korea might be right up your street. Please actually read my post before you label it stupid next time.

Also, @Magslap, it is illegal to SELL (note the word SELL) any imitation firearm, whether it's Barbie Pink or Gunmetal Grey to ANYBODY under 18. Nobody is questioning that. However, what is being said is that it is still possible for Under 18's to claim the defence that we use for skirmishing, as if they show up to the site and are covered by the third party insurance, they are using their airsoft guns for the "permitted activities" mentioned in the actual document, and ergo are entitled to use a Realistic Imitation Firearm. However, if they had purchased said RIF themselves, they would have committed an illegal act because of the fact that they are not old enough to buy ANY imitation firearm, regardless of colour. If they had been gifted the RIF from a person who can claim the defence and who is over 18 (note, not necessarily a registered UKARA member, as UKARA membership ISN'T a legal requirement, it's just helpful. As long as the original purchaser can prove they were entitled to buy the gun) then that is totally legal, as long as it is only used for the activities that are "permitted" within the defence against the Violent Crimes Reduction Act that is used.

Caveira or No1_sonuk, feel free to correct me as you see fit as in my eyes you two seem to be the most savvy about this topic that I've seen in this thread so far!

[Caveira]

Re: Two tones?

What I mean is that these Anti Gun Lobbyists feel that if we can use IF's to the same effect as Realistic Imitations then why do we need RIF's at all? And there isn't any official documentation on the subject as far as I know

This is a direct quote from the "EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT 2006 (REALISTIC IMITATION FIREARMS) REGULATIONS 2007 2007 No. 2606":

"The Gun Control Network was opposed to providing a defence for the purposes of airsoft skirmishing on the basis that this would undermine the ban on the supply of realistic imitation firearms."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...PjYBsQ2tLJ0QPA

[baddbaz]

Re: Two tones?!?!!

all this was covered under the thread about xsite letting nonskirmishing adults buy for under 18 registered skirmishers . ie their children .

[FullMetalAsh]

Re: Two tones?

This is a direct quote from the "EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT 2006 (REALISTIC IMITATION FIREARMS) REGULATIONS 2007 2007 No. 2606":

"The Gun Control Network was opposed to providing a defence for the purposes of airsoft skirmishing on the basis that this would undermine the ban on the supply of realistic imitation firearms."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...PjYBsQ2tLJ0QPA

Wow, I've never even read that article. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it just highlights the point that our defence isn't as 100% solid as we'd like it to be! Thanks for the heads up on that document, time to bury my nose in it for a little bit.

[Fil]

Re: Two tones?

This is a direct quote from the "EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT 2006 (REALISTIC IMITATION FIREARMS) REGULATIONS 2007 2007 No. 2606":

"The Gun Control Network was opposed to providing a defence for the purposes of airsoft skirmishing on the basis that this would undermine the ban on the supply of realistic imitation firearms."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...PjYBsQ2tLJ0QPA

Surely that quote relates to something that was brought up and dismissed by the Home Office before the final drafting and signing of the regulations that provided us with the 'airsoft' defence?

On a different note I was interested to read the regulatory impact assessment for the VCRA and specifically the parts setting out what options were felt could be used to limit access to imitation firearms and which options were settled on. A number of options were set out but the important 2 were the restriction of sales to persons under 18 and the ban of the sale, import and manufacture of realistic imitation firearms as it was these 2 options which were settled on as the best way to achieve their aims for the VCRA. The interesting bit however is that if you read option 3 they clearly identify that this option would still allow the purchase of imitation firearms by parents for use by their children where they wished to do so. It would therefore seem to me that the purchase of IFs by parents for children under 18 was an expected consequence of the legislation and not some loophole that was missed.