51% rule

[Wegalaxy]

So I hear alot online about to buy an airsoft gun two tone it needs to be 51% a bright colour. When i look online on retail websites, alot of 2 tone pistols do not match this criteria as they are 45% a bright colour or 47% a bright colour. Is it illegal to buy and own these Airsoft pistols??? 

Or does it not mention the 51% rule in law but only the "principal colour"?

Thanks

[mp5a4]

That's the law, but yes, a lot of retailers don't adhere to it, and you personally won't get any problems with buying one of those 43% a bright colour (pistol slide for example) IFs.

[Wegalaxy]

Thanks for the reply. So the law definitely does not state the 51% rule??? And it doesn't matter if the pistol it a little under 51% in regards to owning it?

Thanks

[Wegalaxy]

@mp5a4

[Tommikka]

17 minutes ago, Wegalaxy said:

Thanks for the reply. So the law definitely does not state the 51% rule??? And it doesn't matter if the pistol it a little under 51% in regards to owning it?

Thanks

 

Short version -  no

Unless other legislation applies (you’re a criminal forbidden from possessing, or are irresponsible in public etc) then you’re all good

 

 

The VCRA requires a ‘principal colour’ to be one of the listed bright colours

(VCRA section 38)

 

Thats generally interpreted as >50% to be the principal colour

 

But as a buyer it’s not your problem, any VCRA sales offence is committed by the seller

 

It’s up to them to worry about potentially needing to justify an IF sale

 

The VCRA does not cover possession, and the only offence you may make under the VCRA is modifying an IF into a RIF (which may not be an offence if your intent remains to play airsoft skirmishing on insured sites)

[Wegalaxy]

Thanks @Tommikka, so there is definitely no law prohibiting someone from owning a Airsoft pistol which is say example 40% blue. Which was sold as a 2 tone online?

Thanks

[Neptune]

11 minutes ago, Wegalaxy said:

Thanks @Tommikka, so there is definitely no law prohibiting someone from owning a Airsoft pistol which is say example 40% blue. Which was sold as a 2 tone online?

Thanks

Correct. The law covers the selling of said item, not purchasing or possession.

 

So even if 40% bright blue isn't legal, it's the sellers problem, not yours. Be aware conversion is also covered by the law, so removing the blue paint if it's not being used for airsoft or another valid defence is illegal.

 

With regards to the "principal colour", it would need to be tested in court, after all 'principal' is not necessarily the same as 'majority' (51%). What is the main or leading part of a pistol for example? The slide? The frame? It gets a bit philosophical. As long as people aren't taking the piss, it will probably stay out of the courts.

[Wegalaxy]

@Neptuneso if i bought the 40% blue pistol. This would still class as a IF??? Thanks

[Tommikka]

20 minutes ago, Wegalaxy said:

@Neptuneso if i bought the 40% blue pistol. This would still class as a IF??? Thanks

The retailer is likely to be selling a 40% blue pistol as an IF

Whether or not it is legally an IF is a different matter

Just as with the cases of buyers who have bought expecting an IF but an unpainted black RIF arrived 

[Wegalaxy]

So if it legally classes as a RIF when it arrives via post, can I legally own it still if I don't have a ukara?

Thx

[Tommikka]

18 minutes ago, Wegalaxy said:

So if it legally classes as a RIF when it arrives via post, can I legally own it still if I don't have a ukara?

Thx

Yes

[Rogerborg]

And "yes" to the next dozen times you ask again.

 

If you're 18 or over, then you can buy, or attempt to buy, a RIF with the UK, and own it.  You  aren't committing an offence by doing that, so you don't need any defence, or to worry about it in any way.  If you can get your hands on it, you're good to own it.

 

Please do be aware that possession of any RIF or IF in public is an offence unless you have (and can prove) a "reasonable excuse". The standard for that is very low: one piece of case law mentions "playing cowboys and indians".  If you're at, or on your way to or from, an airsoft skirmish, you're good.

[Wegalaxy]

Thanks 

I appreciate it. I deem this case solved. 

 

[John_W]

The law is actually contradictory. It insists on the predominantly bright colour, but also states a Rif is indistinguishable from a real firearm:

By someone who is not an expert (without defining expert).

Without close examination (again not defined).

Without attempting to load and fire it (OK, that bit works).

So, if our "not expert" thinks a RIF painted 25% bright pink is not a firearm, which part of the act applies?

 

[Tommikka]

4 minutes ago, John_W said:

The law is actually contradictory. It insists on the predominantly bright colour, but also states a Rif is indistinguishable from a real firearm:

By someone who is not an expert (without defining expert).

Without close examination (again not defined).

Without attempting to load and fire it (OK, that bit works).

So, if our "not expert" thinks a RIF painted 25% bright pink is not a firearm, which part of the act applies?

 

Not a contradiction as ‘indistinguishable’ is referenced to the size/colour exceptions of 3b

 

 

 

 

(2)For the purposes of this section, an imitation firearm is not (except by virtue of subsection (3)(b)) to be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only—

(a)by an expert;

(b)on a close examination; or

(c)as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it.

 

(3)In determining for the purposes of this section whether an imitation firearm is distinguishable from a real firearm—

(a)the matters that must be taken into account include any differences between the size, shape and principal colour of the imitation firearm and the size, shape and colour in which the real firearm is manufactured; and

(b)the imitation is to be regarded as distinguishable if its size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic for a real firearm.

[Pseudotectonic]

36 minutes ago, John_W said:

The law is actually contradictory. It insists on the predominantly bright colour, but also states a Rif is indistinguishable from a real firearm:

By someone who is not an expert (without defining expert).

Without close examination (again not defined).

Without attempting to load and fire it (OK, that bit works).

So, if our "not expert" thinks a RIF painted 25% bright pink is not a firearm, which part of the act applies?

 

IF and RIF are two distinct catagories, the law basically says, if it looks real (i.e. black), it is RIF, unless it is two-tone (one of the "bright" colours), then it is considered unrealistic by law, therefore it is not an RIF but an IF.

 

If someone thinks 25% bright pink is not a firearm... it does not matter what someone thinks, because legally, it does not fulfil the criteria to be regarded as "unrealistic".

[John_W]

1 hour ago, Pseudotectonic said:

 

If someone thinks 25% bright pink is not a firearm... it does not matter what someone thinks

Surely it does mater what someone thinks? If that someone is "not an expert" and thinks that 25% bright pink isn't a firearm, then 36 (2) (b) applies...

[Pseudotectonic]

48 minutes ago, John_W said:

Surely it does mater what someone thinks? If that someone is "not an expert" and thinks that 25% bright pink isn't a firearm, then 36 (2) (b) applies...

I think you mean s 38(2)(b), which needs to be read in conjunction with s 38(3)(a), also, "imitation firearm not being regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only on a close examination" does not provide that imitation firearm can be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm on a close examination, only 38(3)(a) has that provision.

[Rogerborg]

17 hours ago, John_W said:

The law is actually contradictory

 

The law in this area is an ass, three types of mule, and eleventeen varietals of pony-and-trap.

 

We really need a comprehensive consolidation and consistency-check of all firearms and firearms related legislation, although that's very unlikely to play out in our favour.

 

[Tommikka]

2 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

 

 

We really need a comprehensive consolidation and consistency-check of all firearms and firearms related legislation,

 

Absolutely

2 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

although that's very unlikely to play out in our favour.

 

It might do, it might not ….

 

But I’ll happily deal with grey areas and potential contradictions with a degree of common sense, be happy with fools who fall foul of common sense getting pragmatic handling from the police and avoid definitive legal decisions in the meantime