Reselling Gun - Defence?

[SomeBlokeWithNoMoney]

I recently injured my legs and haven't been able to play airsoft for a fair bit but a friend recently gave me an old boneyard gun of his. I was wondering if I was to rebuild it and then sell it would I need a defence to actually sell it on?

 

[Spectre77]

The main purpose of the defence is to validate one as having legitimate need to possess an RIF. With that in mind, I see no reason why you would need a defence in order to sell one. 

 

[Guest]

No, your obligation is to ensure the person you are selling it to is over 18 and has a defence.

 

[Rogerborg]

I see no reason why you would need a defence in order to sell one. 

Click to shrink...

Because it's the seller that's committing the offence (and always committing an offence) by selling a RIF, not the buyer.

However, you won't "need" a defence unless the State takes an interest in the sale.

In the vanishingly unlikely event that it does, then yes, you'll want to be able to adduce a defence.

Defences are:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/37

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2606/regulation/3/made

Practically speaking, it wouldn't bother me at all as long as the buyer seemed like a sensible chap or lady-chap who could demonstrate a track record of airsofting or was asking airsoft related questions about the RIF.  Buyers offering to swap an X-Box or whatevs for your shootiest looking shooter, mate, would be invited to jog on.

 

[Spectre77]

And yet, none of the law you cited provide any provision for private transfer anyway.

 

[Rogerborg]

And yet, none of the law you cited provide any provision for private transfer anyway.

Click to shrink...

OP was gifted the RIF, that's fine.  But he's asking about selling it.  That's not, by the letter of the daft law.  It makes no distinction between commercial and private sales.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/36

 

[Spectre77]

Yes, I know, I mean that you posted the defences in S37, but in terms of sale, private or commercial, they have no bearing on offences commited under S36 as far as I can tell. They provide only for the conducting of business wherein the business is the act of making them not RIF's.

 

[Tommikka]

O

Yes, I know, I mean that you posted the defences in S37, but in terms of sale, private or commercial, they have no bearing on offences commited under S36 as far as I can tell. They provide only for the conducting of business wherein the business is the act of making them not RIF's.

Click to shrink...

Section 36 subsection 1 & 2 :

 
A person is guilty of an offence if—



(a)he manufactures a realistic imitation firearm;



(b)he modifies an imitation firearm so that it becomes a realistic imitation firearm;



(c)he sells a realistic imitation firearm; or



(d)he brings a realistic imitation firearm into Great Britain or causes one to be brought into Great Britain.



(2)Subsection (1) has effect subject to the defences in section 37.

Section 36 absolutely covers the sale of RIFs in line with the section 37 defences - and no distinction between private or commercial sales

 

[Rogerborg]

Beat me to it.  I can see any ambiguity there.

 

[Tommikka]

Beat me to it.  I can see any ambiguity there.

Click to shrink...

Unless the seller is female/transgender/undecided/cannot be bound by gender identity

Unless unless there is a legal qualification that ‘he’ is all inclusive abbreviation for he/she/whatever 

 

[Spectre77]

Yes, I read this. This is to say that a person is guilty of an offence under section 36 by selling an RIF, with regard to the provisions of section 37 in exception to the provisions of S36. But section 37 DOES NOT PROVIDE A DEFENCE IN THE SCENARIO RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD. It provides no defence for sale, private or commercial. So what I am trying to say, is

"What justification is there for their citation if they are fundimentally useless to the OP due to his inability to fulfill the requirements of a defence under section 37"

 

[Rogerborg]

OP hasn't said to whom he might sell the RIF.  It could be to a museum or gallery; for the purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances; the production of films; the production of television programmes; the organisation and holding of historical re-enactments; for the purposes of functions that a person has in his capacity as a person in the service of Her Majesty.  In that case he's covered by section 37.

If he sell to an airsofter, he's covered by the defence in VCRA 2006 (RIF) Regulations 2007 section 3, the mysterious "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", which it turns out is airsoft.

 

[Spectre77]

Lets be sensible, he's selling it to an airsofter for the purpose of airsoft. I was operating on that assumption because that's going to be the case 99.5% of the time, to assume otherwise is an unnecessary obfuscation of an evident truth.

If that which you have quoted is intended to be the part which related to airsoft, then well, ya know, bang me backwards and call me shirly, you lot need to get rid of your law-makers before they make anything else so vague. I thought the purpose of legalese was to make it so something had no wiggle room, but you could drive a train through that hole.... But that was my initial point anyway, he doesn't really need a valid defence in the normal sense of the word (IE: an active UKARA number ) in this scenario becasue he already has one so long as the person to whom he is tranferring the gun has valid defence.

 

[Albiscuit]

As stated earlier, unless the state gets involved its just on you as the seller to ensure your not selling it to a numpty!! 

Theres very little reason for any come back from any legal viewpoint to you however just be sensible with your sale, dont sell it from the back of your car to some bloke in the pub.

Subsections and going around in circles with letter of the law is great but bloody confusing. Just make sure you are satisfied the buyer is a genuine skirmisher or collector for your own piece of mind and enjoy the profit.

 

[Albiscuit]

I thought the purpose of legalese was to make it so something had no wiggle room, but you could drive a train through that hole.... 

Click to shrink...

Nah its so the bloody lawyers, judges and other high brows can argue for days and days and charge by the hour  

 

[Spectre77]

Then we're back to the same question aren't we? If we take it as a given that such vaugery in section 37 is meant to validate airsoft as a defence for the purpose of section 36, and he DOES end up selling to the aforementioned numpty, then by the letter of the law he does not have a defence. What I'm trying to say is that the defence in question is only validated when the transaction occurs to the buyer who is substantiated as a legitimate airsofter by the letter of the law (ie: they have a valid defence). Following that train of logic, the OP doesn't need his own defence, outside of validating the defence of the buyer, which in term extends him protection as a seller, becasue he's selling for a legitimate purpose per section 37. In conclusion, I'de say we have differing ide's of what 'do I need a defence' implies.

And yeah, it's amazing how something can be so cut and dry yet so drags out and debated and reinterpreted .

 

[jcheeseright]

Since purchase of a RIF is not a crime the buyer cannot have a defence.  The buyer provides the seller with a defence against prosecution for selling a RIF by proving to them that they are a legitimate player, the SELLER's defence is that they sold the RIF for the purposes of the 'permitted activity'.  

 

[Spectre77]

Ok, so, difference in overall implimentation, but we can agree that as long as the buyer has UKARA or is involved in something else specified by S37, then the OP doesn't actually have to do anything aside from check that, yes? Cause thats the impression I got that he was asking, something like "Do I need UKARA as a seller".

 

[Albiscuit]

The OP shouldnt have to do anything other than satisfy him or herself that the buyer has a relevant defense, such as a UKARA, Site Membership etc...

 

[Tommikka]

There’s a bit of use of the word ‘defence’ as to the definition of ‘a defence’ under the VCRA and a seller defending themselves from prosecution under the act

The OPs question was answered very early on:

No, the OP does not need a VCRA defence to sell, but the OP is legally obliged under the act to ensure the buyer has a ‘defence’ as defined by the act.  Failure to satisfactorily cover themselves can place them at risk of prosecution and a large figure sum affecting their wallet.  

(For the purposes of the OP having originally received the RIF.

Either the giver handed it to the OP because they are an airsofters even though they have an injury- ticks the VCRA box, or the intent was always to rebuild and sell for one of the acts ‘defence’ purposes. Again ticks the VCRA box in line with any manufacturer or retailer who doesn’t need to be a skirmisher as they build, import, buy etc for the purpose of selling to a customer who would be expected to have a defence)