[email protected]
Members
- Sep 17, 2018
- 5
- 0
do i need a ukara licence to own a realistic airsoft gun
do i need a ukara to own a rif gun
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
No
Possession / ownership is not subject to the VCRA
There isn’t a licence, it’s proof of a ‘defence’ as defined by the VCRA and is protection for the seller
Rogerborg
Supporters
- Aug 22, 2017
- 9,190
- 6,049
Eh. Ownership of a RIF not illegal, and neither is purchasing or attempting to purchase if you're over 18.
Well, sellers (importers, manufacturers, IF -> RIF modifiers) need, and can claim a defence, not buyers. We as buyers can provide the evidence that they need to adduce their defence. I mean, in principle. In practice, I'd wonder if it's ever been prosecuted, given that some airgun sellers are openly flogging high energy metal-BB shooting RIFs without any apparent defence beyond crossed fingers. ?
http://ukara.org.uk/#player
"Player registration is free, to become a registered airsoft player you are required to take part in three games at the same UKARA registered game site over a minimum of two months, e.g. the third game being 56 days or more after the first.
You must be over 18 years of age, live within the UK and able to provide identification such as Passport, Drivers License or Bank Statement."
Sadly, my local site ignores the 56 days and interprets it as 2 full calendar months, I suspect because it's simply easier for them to check, i.e. if your first day was May 4th (Star Wars Day) then they won't process your form until you've played on or after July 4th (Revolting Colonial Day).
It'll permit the seller to adduce a defence to the offence of selling it, which isn't quite the same thing. The buyer, if over 18, is always permitted to buy, and practically speaking it's up to the seller what they consider to be a valid VCRA defence. We know of at least one hooky defence that's apparently been abused to sell to under-18 players, which I won't promote.
Again, possession in private is (for now) legal. Possession in pubic will come under Firearms Act 1968 S19. Our "reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on [us])" means a reason for that specific instance. UKARA (or any other seller defence) is not a reasonable excuse for actually having the thing in public [*]. I'd opine that it's reasonable if you're at or in transit to or from a skirmish or other organised shooting event, or transporting it for sale (with a defence) or repair.
I do make a point of having booking information or a Facebook "going to event" to hand when transporting my toy guns. Better to have it and not need it than the other way around.
All that said, I'm going to guess that OP is 14 and that's the last we'll hear from him.
[*]which in case law tends to be held to mean any place to which the public enjoys a general right of access. In Scotchland, for example, right to roam means that even privately owned land can be and is regularly infiltrated by members of the public and so the definition of private versus public might not be as clear as you'd imagine.
Last edited by a moderator:
This made me laugh hard, I know it's only an analogy but bit rich comparing possession and transportation of RIFs to a bobby with a response ticket.
Rogerborg
Supporters
- Aug 22, 2017
- 9,190
- 6,049
It's also technically incorrect - the worst kind of incorrect - as RTRA 1984 S87 creates an exemption, not a defence. The speed limit doesn't apply to the vehicle, no offence is committed, and no defence is required.
jcheeseright
Supporters
- Jun 14, 2012
- 4,280
- 2,261
I think the problem is that the VCRA was your typical Labour era law, i.e. it was extremely badly drafted & no-one could reasonably know how it works until it gets tested in court & precedents are set. I've not heard that any cases have in fact been brought.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rogerborg
Supporters
- Aug 22, 2017
- 9,190
- 6,049
It's not a party-political issue: everyone wants to be seen to be thinking of the children.
But I would agree that it's a particularly loathsome law where guilt is assumed until innocence is proven.
That's bad in principle because on a plain reading of S36, the offence is unconditional. The police / Border Farce could investigate, arrest, detain and seize RIFs without having to consider a defence. It's only after charge and prosecution that a defence can be adduced and the harm undone.
In practice, Border Farce policy is to consider a defence as though it were a licence to import, but that's by their grace, not by any obligation, and they're free to avoid their own advice at any time.
And the CPS or Fiscal should not recommend charging where there's no reasonable chance of a conviction. But you could have said the same about the Facebook airsoft picture case in which the State went in mob handed and took it to trial and the chap only got off because his brief spotted that they'd tampered with the evidence. If they hadn't done so, the Sheriff was minded to convict.
Bad laws don't become better just because they're not regularly used, and VCRA S36 is a very bad law. In part that's because as far as we're aware, it's not been used against any wrong 'uns, so it serves only to inconvenience the law abiding.
But I would agree that it's a particularly loathsome law where guilt is assumed until innocence is proven.
That's bad in principle because on a plain reading of S36, the offence is unconditional. The police / Border Farce could investigate, arrest, detain and seize RIFs without having to consider a defence. It's only after charge and prosecution that a defence can be adduced and the harm undone.
In practice, Border Farce policy is to consider a defence as though it were a licence to import, but that's by their grace, not by any obligation, and they're free to avoid their own advice at any time.
And the CPS or Fiscal should not recommend charging where there's no reasonable chance of a conviction. But you could have said the same about the Facebook airsoft picture case in which the State went in mob handed and took it to trial and the chap only got off because his brief spotted that they'd tampered with the evidence. If they hadn't done so, the Sheriff was minded to convict.
Bad laws don't become better just because they're not regularly used, and VCRA S36 is a very bad law. In part that's because as far as we're aware, it's not been used against any wrong 'uns, so it serves only to inconvenience the law abiding.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
