Replica Weapon Debate

[thedawnpatrol]

Can anyone tell me why is ok to sell REAL weapons but not Replica (toy) ones?

 

I was very supprised recently to be told that I can not advertise for sale, a cluster of MDF & steel tubing made to look slightly like a .30 Cal machine gun, yet it is ok to sell the real thing live, (if you hold a ticket) or a Deact. to anyone?

 

Surely if you can only hit someone over the head with a replica or a deact, I know which I would prefer!

 

 

Jules

 

[AlienFTM]

It looks perfect, so it must be fake. Everybody knows that all weapons scuff very quickly and the edges go silver where the coating comes off.

[Tony B]

The answer to that one is the Imperial War museum, god bless'em. They spent several thousands pounds on a legal argument that de acs were not REPLICAS. Fortunately they got it past as the outcome would have been most museums loosing their collections. The whole thing is a dogs******* anyway. Before the act anyone using anything in the pursuit of crime, with the intent to convince it was a real firarm, you got shot, or at best ten years. This load of poo just complicates matters beyond measures. changed the rules so little S**** could buy electric soft air guns to shoot up buses, or paintball guns, and having been hit by both whilst driving well :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Great War truck]

Jules

 

I am a bit uncertain as to whether you are actually allowed to make that, let alone sell it. I better have a look at the realistic firearms Act again.

 

Tim (too)

[Mark]

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=38&topic=5793.0

 

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=38&topic=5445.0

 

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=38&board=1.0

[thedawnpatrol]

Today, I was in a department store in Oxford, and saw a damn good toy Colt 45 @ £4.99

OK, it was plastic, but a coat of realistic paint and..................now thats a replica!

OK, I am getting deep here,

 

Surely to be a replica of something, it has got to be the same as the original, so it should fire if that is what the original or pattern does................so if it is made from wood and can not do what the original does, it can not be a REPLICA ?

 

I know I do not need to convince you guys, but any thoughts?

 

Jules

[Marmite!!]

Today, I was in a department store in Oxford, and saw a damn good toy Colt 45 @ £4.99

OK, it was plastic, but a coat of realistic paint and..................now thats a replica!

OK, I am getting deep here,

 

Surely to be a replica of something, it has got to be the same as the original, so it should fire if that is what the original or pattern does................so if it is made from wood and can not do what the original does, it can not be a REPLICA ?

 

I know I do not need to convince you guys, but any thoughts?

 

Jules

 

 

 

Imitation firearms

 

Section 36 - Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms

 

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;

© 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.

 

Section 38 - Meaning of a Realistic Imitation Firearm

 

 

A realistic imitation firearm means an imitation firearm which -

(a) has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical

purposes, from a real firearm; and

(b) is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique.

For the purposes of this section, an imitation firearm is not (except by virtue of paragraph (b)

above) 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

© as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it.

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.

 

Today, I was in a department store in Oxford, and saw a damn good toy Colt 45 @ £4.99

OK, it was plastic, but a coat of realistic paint and..................now thats a replica!

 

A person is guilty of an offence if

 

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

[morris c8 fat]

 

There were and still are laws to prevent and prosicute any one of these offences. That are not used by the courts. Mod Edit. please leave Politics at home

 

[hardyferret]

Why don't we just weigh everything in for scrap? (the price is good ) Get a nice pair of plastic sandals and a cheesecloth shirt, grow our hair, eat lentils get a boyfriend live on handouts :roll: Oh forgot hit the weed :nut: And join the ban everything brigade. Then without us lot in the way, they can 'forget' history appeasing our European partners :whistle:

 

Yup :evil: that should alienate me from at least 50% of our countries merry population

 

Crazy you can have a real deact, but not the replica :dunno: :dunno:

 

Hardyferret Red meat, strong drink, which way did the hounds go?? :-D :-D

 

 

[Tony B]

Unfortunately this is a case where polotics has made us, who have have been following a perfectly legal pastime for years suddenly worry are we criminals? The draughting of this is so loose its incompetent.

[ArtistsRifles]

Bit of an over -estimate there mate - more like 15%. Unfortunately it's that 15% who are allegedly in charge.... :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

[Marmite!!]

Unfortunately this is a case where polotics has made us,

 

 

Maybe so but this is not the place to discuss politics.... this is a debate about what is/is not legal...

 

[Tony B]

Yes but its draughted so badly, how will we know if what we are doing is legal? I have de acs, fine no problem. I also have an airsoft SA80 for the 101, is that legal? Also a plastic P38 and MP40 where do they fall? If when I'm at a show am I doing a 'Theatrical performance'? After all I'm trying to present the vehicles 'Typically as they would have been at the time of there service'.

[50 cal ( † RIP † )]

i thought this was a forum a place to discuss BOTH sides of the story where is a good place to dicuss politics your not on there side are you safari?

[Marmite!!]

Yes but its draughted so badly, how will we know if what we are doing is legal? I have de acs, fine no problem. I also have an airsoft SA80 for the 101, is that legal? Also a plastic P38 and MP40 where do they fall? If when I'm at a show am I doing a 'Theatrical performance'? After all I'm trying to present the vehicles 'Typically as they would have been at the time of there service'.

 

 

Tony,

 

the only person who can answer that for you with any clarity is a FAO so advice would be to contact your local FAO & have a chat, get any advice he gives in writing. The information given on this forum is for the most part peoples opinions & interpretation of the law & HMVF will in no way be held responsible how you use such information...

 

23. Section 38 defines a “realistic imitation firearm” as an imitation firearm which has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm. “Imitation firearm” is defined in section 57(4) of the Firearms 1968 as “any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm…whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile”. The term “real firearm” is defined in section 38(7) as either a firearm of an actual make or model of a modern firearm, or a generic modern firearm. The term “modern firearm” is defined in subsection 8 as a firearm other than one whose appearance would tend to identify it as having a design and mechanism of a sort first dating before 1870. The effect of this definition is that realistic imitations of pre-1870 firearms are not caught by the new offence. Deactivated firearms and antique imitations (such as old dummy rifles used for drill practice) are expressly excluded from the definition of realistic imitation firearm and are therefore not affected by the new offence either.

 

24. Whether an imitation firearm falls within the definition of a realistic imitation firearm should be judged from the perspective of how it looks at the point of manufacture, import or sale and not how it might be appear if it were being misused - for example, in the dark and from a distance. Subsection 2 provides that an imitation firearm should not be regarded as distinguishable from a real firearm if only an expert can tell the difference or the difference is only apparent on close examination or as a result of attempting to load or fire it. Subsection 3 provides that in determining whether an imitation firearm is realistic, its size, shape and principal colour must be taken into account, and it is to be regarded as realistic if these features are unrealistic for a real firearm.

 

25. Subsection 4 gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations specifying dimensions and colours that will be regarded as unrealistic. This is designed to provide business with a degree of certainty over what they can trade in. The aforementioned Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (Realistic Imitation Firearms) Regulations 2007 specify the following dimensions and colours:

 

- a height of 38mm and a length of 70mm. An imitation firearm with dimensions less than this is to be regarded as unrealistic;

- transparent;

- bright red;

- bright orange;

- bright blue

- bright yellow;

- bright green;

- bright pink;

- bright purple; and

 

 

26. An imitation firearm whose principal colour is not one of those listed in the regulations does not automatically fall to be regarded as realistic, although it is more likely that will be the case. In these circumstances, the general test of whether it is distinguishable from a real firearm, taking into account its size, colour etc, should be applied. It is worth keeping in mind that the intention behind this measure is to stop the supply of imitations which look so realistic that they are being used by criminals to threaten and intimidate their victims.

 

27. The definition of realistic imitation firearm given in the VCR Act and the colours and dimensions specified in the regulations relate only to the new offence of manufacturing, importing, modifying or selling such items. They are not intended to affect in any way the definition of an imitation firearm in section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 or how that definition is applied elsewhere in firearms law – for example, in firearms offences such as sections 16A, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the 1968 Act. The fact that a bright pink imitation firearm is not regarded as being realistic under the VCR Act provisions would not in itself stop it being regarded as an imitation in the commission of one of these offences.

[Tony B]

Mark, your comment is uncalled for. Yes we discuss problems and do not always agree. But the moderators job is to be an impartial. The forum is an open public place. What is not required is for someone to be able to start using remarks made here against Military Vehicle owners. If you do not agree with the moderators we all have the freeedom to stop posting.

 

Lee, I did talk to my long suffering FAO. his reply was 'Godknows what it means, just don't do anything stupid'.

[Jack]

Just a refresher folks - the rules state:

 

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=38&topic=559.0

 

Disagreements.

These will inevitably occur (this is a discussion forum after all, which relies on differences of opinion to exist), and when they do we ask you to maintain your dignity. You are entitled to express any opinions you choose, but you will be required to defend them in rational debate should we disagree. 'It's just my opinion' is not a valid excuse for being wrong. If you think something you are about to post might risk inadvertently offending another member and you want to tone it down a little, try using one of the smilies to introduce a grin or a wink into your post.

 

Politics.

 

Politics creeps into every day life and the movement has, like all others its fair share of politics - but it isn't tolerated here on HMVF. Yes, sometimes we can all have a bad hair day but please keep it off the forum. One of the reasons that HMVF is so successful is because it is politics free, it is a safe place to spend some time and it shows respect to all fellow members if we keep politics off the forum. Open debate is good and healthy and is encouraged but the moderating team, without question will take the appropriate action to keep HMVF smooth and 'trouble' free.

 

Again, if you think something you are about to post might risk inadvertently offending another member, then don't post it.

[thedawnpatrol]

Having re read the act, there is a loop hole, under 'permitted activities',

'If it is shown that the purpose of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified paragraph 2 , ' THE PURPOSE OF DISPLAY AT A PERMITTED EVENT'..........................................

 

There we are, however I did try to contact the guys at Relics.com this morning to ask their opinion, only to find their web site was not available?

 

Jules

[Jonny666]

this argument is been batted around all over the place i am a airsofter aswell as a MV owner and i have all the kit inc a relics SA80 (L85A1) and a Airsoft M249 mk2 and i just dont understand why people seem to have a problem with selling replica weapons within the community for example re-enactor to re-enactor or MV owner to MV owner but the VCR hasnt stopped anything but made more problems for legitimate owners/users.

 

relics now has to use the specifed color on there guns but this invites people to repaint them thus breaking the law.

 

so you choose but i think this bill is a complete waste of time same with the hand gun ban

[thedawnpatrol]

Here Here !

[Marmite!!]

Mark, your comment is uncalled for. Yes we discuss problems and do not always agree. But the moderators job is to be an impartial. The forum is an open public place. What is not required is for someone to be able to start using remarks made here against Military Vehicle owners. If you do not agree with the moderators we all have the freeedom to stop posting.

 

 

 

Thank you Tony...

 

Lee, I did talk to my long suffering FAO. his reply was 'Godknows what it means, just don't do anything stupid'.

 

That's the problem Tony, the Police only interpret the law, it's the Courts that enforce them.. that's why every regions FAO has a different opinion & why I said get it in writing if possible... until there is some test cases we are still a bit in limbo & will have to be on our guard :police:

[Tony B]

No more than you are due Lee, and the rest of the mods. To bang 2 points. There are enough people on the site that we could be called a pressure group, so let's use it. 2nd. Because we are a pressure group on a public forum, engage brain before opening mouth to size 13 or better. :-D

 

Point of order though: Under our judicial system the Police are one of the the enforcement arms, the Court's interpret. Hence so many judges and politicians not talking to each other. ;-)

[ArtistsRifles]

I'm afraid that the more I read of the VCR bill the more I come to agree with the words of Charles Dickens character Mr Pickwick: "The law, sir, is an ass!!"

 

If any law is worded such that those charged with enforcement of such law (i.e your local FAO) cannot understand it 100% such that they can give a definitive answer then the law is one that should be either removed from the books or rewritten so that they can.

 

If indeed we are a "pressure group" - who's butt do we need to apply collective pressure to to get such legislation amended or scrapped??????

[Marmite!!]

Having re read the act, there is a loop hole, under 'permitted activities',

'If it is shown that the purpose of making the imitation firearm in question available for one or more of the purposes specified paragraph 2 , ' THE PURPOSE OF DISPLAY AT A PERMITTED EVENT'..........................................

 

 

Jules

 

 

There is a provision in the Act for Lawful use of RIF's...

 

The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 36, 37 and 38 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006(1).

 

Citation, commencement and extent

 

— These Regulations may be cited as the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (Realistic Imitation Firearms) Regulations 2007 and shall come into force on 2007.

 

These Regulations extend to Great Britain.

 

Interpretation

 

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 the person or persons who hold it; and

 

“permitted activities” means the acting out of military or law enforcement scenarios for the purposes of recreation.

 

Defences to an offence under section 36 of the 2006 Act

 

— It shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence under section 36 of the 2006 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).

 

Those purposes are—

 

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;

 

the purposes of display at a permitted event.

 

— The persons described for the purposes of section 37(2)(e) of the 2006 Act are those mentioned in paragraph (2).

 

The persons mentioned in this paragraph are—

 

a person or persons holding public liability insurance in relation to liabilities to third parties arising from or in connection with the organisation and holding of historical re-enactments;

 

two or more persons, at least one of whom holds such public liability insurance.

[Marmite!!]

 

If indeed we are a "pressure group" - who's butt do we need to apply collective pressure to to get such legislation amended or scrapped??????

 

 

I would say the chance of getting this Act scrapped or amended are less than zero.. it was only because the top guys from many groups got involved in this issue from the start that we have the Defence in Law written in to the Act... it's not all doom & gloom if you study it enough... the problems begin when you read the Act & see what you want to seen & try make it fit your personal circumstances... don't forget ignorance isn't defence...