When is a RIF not a RIF....

[Blackstuff]

IMO;

The stock of a gun is not a controlled part (in terms of the Firearms Acts) so would never become Section 1 regardless of what you did to it.

The offences for RIFs relate to the sale, manufacture or import only (in this context, obviously if you go waving one about in public that's a different kettle of fish), as such painting a RIFs stock/body is NOT an offence (something which entirely undermines the whole point of the act!)

Again, IMO, an offence would only be committed if you went on to sell the altered RIF to someone who didn't have the appropriate credentials.

[38Super]

RIF = Realistic Imitation Firearm.


Airsoft guns, toys etc that look like real firearms..


Basic rules, - Airsoft guns, need good reason, granted practically in the UK by being a member of the airsoft sport association (cant remember what its called), lets you buy them in realistic colours.. You need to attend something like 3 airsoft events to get the membership.

You can buy brightly coloured guns, where 50% of the RIF is a bright colour without this number (two tone) without this membership or any good reason.

Other good reasons for realistically painted ones would be things like re-enactment, theatrical..

Airsoft guns are also used for Action Air practical shooting (blowback pistols, which we can actually own).


Personally I have bought a couple of twotone ones since lockdown started to get at least a little practice in my tiny tiny house. (things like holster draws, target switching for practical). However my knowledge of the law is limited, and basically limited to the research I did in April to work out what I could buy to practice with.

The VCRA is giving me a headache because of the impact on IPSC Action Air which uses Airsoft pistols.

The offence is selling to someone who does not have a 'valid defence' under the Act or for 'creating' a RIF (usually from repainting a two tone). I have one that is 10 years old which is fine for me to have as a 'RIF' but my new one must remain two tone and an 'IF'. Membership of the UKPSA or having an FAC does not automatically give me a 'valid defence' for owning a RIF. Irritatingly I don't actually want to have a black gun but nor do I want some dodgy spray paint job in a hideous colour.

[38Super]

painting a RIFs stock/body is NOT an offence (something which entirely undermines the whole point of the act!)

From my understanding, repainting a two-tone IF (Imitation Firearm) to create a RIF is not OK. It is OK to repaint in another primary colour to keep it an IF.

The other thing to add is that a RIF only exists if it is not covered by any other firearms legislation. Identical all black airguns are not RIF's and are not controlled under the VCRA. There's nothing wrong with a Realistic 'real' Firearm just an imitation.

[Adamdavi3s]

Thanks everyone and glad to see I inspired a bit of debate here! I to own pre VCRA "RIFS" which are fine to not be painted bright colours. This one was a more recent purchase and unfortunately is bright green.
To be honest it doesn't really bother me as I am only building the thing to shoot as a bit of a project during Lockdown2.0, the intention was to spark the discussion and see what the art of the possible is :)

Ignoring the absolute insanity behind the law, I could buy an airgun which looks exactly like a real L85 and that would be fine, or I could spray paint a real L85 bright green and use it for nefarious reasons (I am purely making a point here of course!) or I could have paid £25 to the shooters organisation and used the membership number to order it without the bright colours...

My understanding is that painting a RIF is indeed an offence as outlined in the legislation shared above. "he modifies an imitation firearm so that it becomes a realistic imitation firearm;"

That is a very useful point about when a RIF is a RIF... but as mentioned above as a chassis is not a controlled item then it doesn't become Section1 and as such is it then still a RIF? or the fact its an empty chassis means its not a RIF?
My personal belief would be that the lack of a barrel when the chassis was not sporting a 10/22 would be distinguishing enough from a distance (so mooting the "on close inspection below" , but that may not be good enough in the eyes of the law.

Meaning of “realistic imitation firearm”

(1)In sections 36 and 37 “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.

(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.

(4)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection (3)(b)—

(a)the size of an imitation firearm is to be regarded as unrealistic for a real firearm only if the imitation firearm has dimensions that are less than the dimensions specified in the regulations; and

(b)a colour is to be regarded as unrealistic for a real firearm only if it is a colour specified in the regulations.

[PeterN]

Did the people in the Home Office write that rubbish one afternoon after a long lunch in the pub? I do not see any way anyone can be hurt by an imitation firearm unless they are hit on the head with it, so what threat are they? Someone may be frightened by one being pointed at them, but not hurt. The only person likely to be hurt is the person waving one about who may get shot by the police. So, a deactivated real firearm is OK but a toy that looks like the real thing is not? Who are the people who get paid to dream up this nonsense?
Regards
Peter.

[Blackstuff]

painting a RIFs stock/body is NOT an offence (something which entirely undermines the whole point of the act!)

From my understanding, repainting a two-tone IF (Imitation Firearm) to create a RIF is not OK. It is OK to repaint in another primary colour to keep it an IF.

VCRA 2006 Section 36.PNG

The other thing to add is that a RIF only exists if it is not covered by any other firearms legislation. Identical all black airguns are not RIF's and are not controlled under the VCRA. There's nothing wrong with a Realistic 'real' Firearm just an imitation.

Well blow me down. That (b) subsection must've been added later in the day when they finally realised that there was a gaping hole in their original 'logic' It would however seem that i'd just need to identify as a female and I wouldn't be committing an offence! #everydaysexism

[38Super]

The interesting part of the VCRA 2006 RIF Regulations 2007 for IPSC could be:-

(summarised - hopefully without losing anything)

3.—(1) It shall be a defence for.....
(2) (a)......the organisation and holding of permitted activities for which public liability insurance is held....

"Interpretation - “permitted activities” means the acting out of military or law enforcement scenarios for the purposes of recreation;"

4. For the purposes of regulation 3 a person shall be taken to have shown a matter specified in that regulation if—
(a)sufficient evidence of that matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

To convict they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that IPSC is not a "permitted activity"
Isn't that what most people ordinary people believe we do? We could go back to to the old targets with a 'B' zone if it helps;)

[bradaz11]

airsofters do this to death. it is an 'IF', if you do anything to make it realistic, it becomes a 'RIF'. if you do not have a defence under VCR Act, then you are committing an offence. end of.

there's the whole sideline of how would they know etc, but it is still an offence.

If you bolt a RIF or IF onto a real gun, it does not cease to be a RIF because it is still not a gun, or a gunpart, it is a cosmetic shell - if it isn't, you are manufacturing a firearm, something that will get you in even more hot water than manufacturing a RIF. p90 shells SHOULD still be sold under the RIF / IF laws, but it gets ignored because its generally for a real gun.

if you want a RIF, go play airsoft, get your defence, then you can do what you like, or just ignore it and do what you 'theoretically' wnat to do, as you will probably do anyway.

the law doesn't have to make sense.

[Adamdavi3s]

p90 shells SHOULD still be sold under the RIF / IF laws, but it gets ignored because its generally for a real gun .

the law doesn't have to make sense.

This and this I agree with, although ideally the law would at least have some sort of consistency, but then what would everyone on the Internet do all day?

or just ignore it and do what you 'theoretically' wnat to do, as you will probably do anyway .

This was unnecessary, if that was my intention I wouldn’t have taken the time and raised the question in the first place

[Alpha1]

I thought this was a shooting forum the hint is in the name FULL BORRE UK. I have looked at this thread twice boring boring boring. If you want to discuss air soft or whatever it is you are bleating on about go do it on an airsoft forum at least they will know what you are banging on about. I have no idea what RIF is about or why you think it's so important you need to raise it on a shooting forum.