Can I get other people with UKARA to give me a RIF?

[Nutster]

From what I remember blue is no longer a 2tone colour as it's the colour used for police training weapons, etc. Though don't see where the problem is with that. :huh:

 

[Brunix001]

Applies to RIF's as well.

From our sticky thread:

Can my parent buy me an airsoft gun?

They can buy an IF but not a RiF unless they are a member of an insured game site, although if you are under 18 you can be given or win a RIF or IF.

However this is a bit of a loophole in my opinion and I'd agree with Nutster, I don't think a 13 year old can carry the responsibility of having one due to their maturity - especially anything skirmishable as they have a lot more power behind them.

Does this mean that my parents can buy me an RiF if neither are members of the UKARA or am i going to have to get a two-tone?

 

[Adam3088]

Does this mean that my parents can buy me an RiF if neither are members of the UKARA or am i going to have to get a two-tone?

Last post: 21 May 2011 - 11:26 AM

That's some necromancy right there.

Do they have a valid defence for buying a realistic imitation firearm? If not then they can only buy an IF, which would be two tone.

 

[TheGrover]

King of the necro-post.

If your parents have a defence (ie. UKARA) they may buy one and GIVE it to you. The law gives that ANYONE buying an RIF must have a defence, such as UKARA or other recognised by the Home Office

Give the VCRA, its amendment and its guidance notes a read, its free (obviously) and is the single best point of info.

 

[Brunix001]

Last post: 21 May 2011 - 11:26 AM

That's some necromancy right there.

Do they have a valid defence for buying a realistic imitation firearm? If not then they can only buy an IF, which would be two tone.

King of the necro-post.

If your parents have a defence (ie. UKARA) they may buy one and GIVE it to you. The law gives that ANYONE buying an RIF must have a defence, such as UKARA or other recognised by the Home Office

Give the VCRA, its amendment and its guidance notes a read, its free (obviously) and is the single best point of info.

Ok, another thing is:

What is the difference between an RiF and an IF(two-tone)?

Are they just differently coloured or is there something else like lower FPS and poorer overall quality. Does a two-tone perform any differently than an RiF

If not how much of the gun needs to be coloured/clear to be considered a 2-tone?

 

[n1ckh]

A RIF & IF are the same, obviously the higher end ones are more expensive

To class as an IF, it has to be 51% of a bright colour, usually blue, orange or green and its the same for a clear IF

 

[TheGrover]

To class as an IF, it has to be 51% of a bright colour, usually blue, orange or green and its the same for a clear IF

Not correct. Nowhere in any legislation is any "51% rule" mentioned. True, it almost universally satisfies the VCRA, but the only requirement is that it appear unrealistic. No public servant is going to measure your IF to check that 51 percent of the visible surface area is painted, and a replica might still look realistic if the first 51 percent you cover when you carry or use is painted bright colours.

It comes down to common sense and the "reasonable person" argument

 

[n1ckh]

Good point on that grover and i completely understand but I didn't say it was a law or regulation

I'm quoting what has been said when looking online at rifles etc when I started

I was answering the OP's question when he asked what the difference was between the 2 and how much needs to be coloured/clear

 

[Chock]

Whilst it is indeed true that there is no mention of any 'percent rule' in the VCR Act text with regard to two toning, the text of the Act actually does infer that 'at least 51 percent' is what is meant by its ruling. Specifically, the legislation states that the means to be taken into account in determining if something is or is not an IF, should include, differences in size, shape and principal colour in comparison to the real thing it is based upon, the text also stating that size, shape and principal colour can also be so unrealistic when compared to a real firearm, as to not require one to be an expert in order to be able to make such a benign identification. Since 'principal' can only mean 'the larger part of', then we must conclude that if a gun is painted with at least 51 percent of its area in an unrealistic colour, it is indeed in compliance with at least the letter of the law, if not entirely with its spirit.

Of course it is a silly, ill thought out bit of legislation anyway, which - much like a lot of legislation - was about winning an election rather than making us safer, and a law which, like most laws, only really impacts those who have no intention of breaking any laws in the first place. After all, if spraying just a bit over half of a real Armalite rifle bright orange, is genuinely enough to allow someone to wander about with the thing without triggering any calls to the police, then we're in big trouble. :lol:

 

[Brunix001]

Would this be considered an IF (two-tone)?

If I bought a gun painted similarly, shipped it to the UK and the police found out about it would I be fined/get the gun taken from me?

http://i674.photobucket.com/albums/vv108/RUDORF/DSC01168.jpg

If it is not considered an IF (two-tone) can you recommend any websites which sell high quality two-tones?

 

[Zak Da Mack]

If you ship a gun into the UK, it is always more or less going to get spotted by customs. I wouldn't class that as two-tone as it's not two-tone enough.

There are loads of great websites which can give you a quality gun and will two-tone it for you. Take a look at proairsoftsupplies, zeroone. Anything without "just" or "bbguns" in the name.

If you're at starting airsoft, take a look at G&G rifles, I vouch for them and I'm pretty sure that everyone else on this forum will as well.

 

[Sitting Duck]

or get this 5-tone gun then:

http://www.evike.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=22&products_id=42979

you could wave that around and nobody would give it a second thought

A nerf gun would look more lethal

IGNORE the above crap - it IS still an airsoft gun and would need ukara to buy/import

(just being silly as per usual)

The regulations are there and we have to abide by them, some might seem a bit ott

but it is there for everybody's sake including you....

There are things you can do, ukara if 18, get a IF and "change" it - though this is dodgy ground

Plus this subject is brought up time and time again and all that

Still - be thankful you not living Australia for example where airsoft is banned down under

After a little thought the GunDam SRC 5 tone gun may in theory not need ukara as it certainly not a RIF looking aeg

(unless kids & clowns go to war)

But I would not be surprised if you ordered it from evike then you get a request for UKARA or they will threaten to paint it ffs

(yeah if you can then 2-tone it midnight black & dark graphite grey please)

Once more ignore my crap - maybe not need a ukara for gundam but will deffo need to be 18+ etc...

(who knows - who cares - who reads my posts anyway)

 

[n1ckh]

That's excellent he could take it on rainbow with Geoffrey, George and bungle pmsl

 

[Sitting Duck]

and you can play with your "twanger", slap zippy, teach george something if you have unlimited patience

and tell bungle just how gay/camp he really sounds (always thought star wars C3PO batted for other team too)

soz going way way off topic as per usual

 

[Chock]

Would this be considered an IF (two-tone)?

If I bought a gun painted similarly, shipped it to the UK and the police found out about it would I be fined/get the gun taken from me?

http://i674.photobucket.com/albums/vv108/RUDORF/DSC01168.jpg

If it is not considered an IF (two-tone) can you recommend any websites which sell high quality two-tones?

Rather than relying on the answers on this thread, you should take a look at the legislation for yourself, since you need to stay on the right side of the law in order to avoid a potential fine and/or imprisonment. Ignorance of the law has never been considered a suitable defence for any criminal activity, and there is no guarantee that anyone who replies on this thread is giving you the correct information, even though most will at least be trying to do so. Nevertheless, if you are considering getting hold of any sort of weaponry, you should certainly make an effort to be aware of the legalities for yourself, in order to be absolutely sure of your defence. You can read the legislation for yourself at this link, I'd recommend paying particular attention to Sections 36 through to Section 41:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/part/2/enacted

You should also be aware that laws can change and be amended. Provision is generally made within the text of any UK legislation to allow the authorities to make changes and amendments to existing laws with minimal difficulty, providing such changes are not especially radical. This is quite a common occurrence with laws relating to firearms, since there is always new weaponry coming along, which the law then has to take into account, so be aware of the fact that the VCR Act does get added to and amended from time to time.

Here is the most recent amendment list for the VCR Act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/part/2

Once you are familiar with the laws, you will know exactly what you can and cannot do without breaking the law, which is certainly the most sensible way to go, since a fine and prison sentence is unlikely to be fun. In short, you would be foolish to rely solely on some strangers on a forum telling you their personal interpretation of the law to keep you out of the court room, because it won't.

Having looked at the VCR Act, I daresay it will not take you long to spot that there are plenty of loopholes, gaps and stupid bits of the law which are not very well thought out! This is usually because such laws get fired through Parliament in response to a what is a popular subject in the newspapers that year, as some MP or other tries to make a name for themselves on the back of the issue, rather than the law actually being well thought out. So don't rely on the misplaced conception that the law is based on common sense, because it quite often appears to be based on anything but common sense.

Historically, knee-jerk reactions from particularly the tabloid press in the UK has on occasion led to changes to firearms laws in the UK which have in fact been counter-productive, some of which have even meant that the number of illegal weapons out there on the streets has increased dramatically. A recent example of this would be when Brocock produced an air pistol revolver which used a self-contained air cartridge system (known as BACS). That particular Brocock pistol could be converted into a weapon capable of discharging .22 centre-fire ammunition, although frankly making that conversion was not as easy as the media actually made out, since it required a lathe, plus some skill in using one, and also required one to be able to get hold of .22 ammunition too. Most people who were not into the sport of shooting air guns had never heard of Brocock's pistol, but it became common knowledge when the tabloids started to make a big furore out of it, and predictably enough, as they do when a record or movie is threatened to be banned, the sales of Brocock pistols went through the roof, with eventually over 80,000 of them being sold in the UK.

So, in 2003, the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (which was effectively the prototype for the Violent Crimes Reduction Act) decreed that the Brocock pistol (and indeed all self-contained air cartridge system weapons) had to be either handed in, or put on a firearms certificate. Of course since the Government offered no compensation to those handing in their firearms, hardly anyone bothered to do so, and so what that 2003 law effectively did, was put a crapload of illegal firearms out there which the Government had no way of tracking. It is known that there were around 80,000 Brococks sold in the UK, but only around 6,000 of them were put onto firearms certificates, but there were nowhere near 74,000 of them handed in, which means that unless everyone who bought one dutifully destroyed it and said nothing about having done so, then there must be literally thousands of them out there. I've no doubt that there are people out there who quite legally bought a Brocock prior to 2003, which is now sat unloved in a drawer, and who are blissfully unaware of the change in its legal status. But the law would not care about that, which tells you all you need to know about the law not being based on common sense, but also tells you why you need to make an effort to stay aware of any changes which might be made to it when you have any sort of weaponry in your possession.

Since in his day, you could go to the local ironmonger's and buy a .50 Bulldog revolver with no licence whatsoever, Charles Dickens was certainly not referring to firearms laws when he had Mr Bumble say that: 'the law is an ass, a idiot!', but he did nevertheless have the sentiment right enough. But as stupid as the law may be on occasion, you should still make an effort to not only stay on the right side of it, but also to be seen to be staying on the right side of it. And you should make that your responsibility.