The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

What is interesting and not often known in shooting circles is those who participate in Airsoft using realistic (RIF) airsoft guns you need to be UKARA registered. To be UKARA registered you need to be registered/member of an airsoft site and YOU MUST participate in at least three games in a two month period.

This is all to do with the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, in some ways owning a realistic Airsoft gun is more onerous then a Firearm. There are also some absurd anomalies because of the VCRA 2006.

Own this and you need to be UKARA registered:



Own this and you just need to be over 18:



The former is a 6mm bb pistol the latter a .177 air pistol. The air pistol is more powerful then the airsoft pistol yet anybody over 18 can go to a gun shop and buy it. The former requires UKARA membership with regular attendance of a skirmish site or it must be two tone (blue/orange).

Perhaps becase the airsoft crew are shooting at each other rather than at paper.......something wich is not looked upon favourably by myself as I wouldent even point a water pistol at another person....

Well people spend enough time judging our hobby without actually trying it themselves so maybe it is a bit unfair to do the same to those who enjoy Airsoft "the running man"? I don't understand why anybody would want to spend their days walking around a field in tartan trousers hitting a small white ball with a set of overly priced sticks but I try not to judge them.

Also those who participate in Paintball don't suffer the same restrictions.

In some ways you are expressing the "I'm alright Jack" attitude that seems to permeate shooting as a whole. If it doesn't affect my particular discipline then who cares. Well it is death by a thousand small cuts, I know there are plenty antis out there who dislike anything that looks military for example. So why not restrict Civilian Service Rifle, what next? Just because Airsoft is not our thing doesn't mean we shouldn't support them when their sport is under attack.

Just look at the recent attack on Section 58(2) by various groups, the antis don't care what type of gun it is! It is all the same to them including Airsoft.

dromia wrote:There is no minimum attendance requirement at our club.

At members FAC renewal time the police may ask the secretary about the specific attendance of a member and he will get that information from the members attendance record sheet.

We have never seen a minimum stipulated although the police will require evidence that you are using your firearms as stated in your reasons to possess, a stalker for instance may only shoot once a year or two.

Obviously illness and such like can interrupt peoples shooting but all my experience to date of licensing authorities has been that they are understanding.

Also from a club point of view just because a member hasn't shot with us that doesn't mean he isn't shooting somewhere else and that is the members business not ours. If people want be a member of our club and pay their money and not use our facilities that is up to them and if they are not using their firearms to fulfil the good reason to the police then that is 'tween them and the licensing authority.

/\ This

AFAIK there is no condition that can be applied to an FAC regarding attendance, as already posted there is police guidance to say that target shooters should be using their guns 3+ times per year, which isn't exactly onerous, health problems aside. I suspect the guidance was written with the impression the shooter is only a member of one club

Blackstuff wrote:AFAIK there is no condition that can be applied to an FAC regarding attendance, as already posted there is police guidance to say that target shooters should be using their guns 3+ times per year, which isn't exactly onerous, health problems aside. I suspect the guidance was written with the impression the shooter is only a member of one club

In which case what's up with the OP's question? That seems to imply a target shooter has been made the subject of a condition requiring a certain level of attendance.

Slightly off topic, but I don't get how that .177 air pistol is not an imitation firearm. If you know what a 1911 looks like you can tell from the "shut line" above the pistol grip, but I don't think that's enough of a visual distinction for it not to fall foul of the legislation. Or is it down to the fact that because it is an actual air pistol isn't no longer considered an imitation but rather "real"?

mackie wrote:Slightly off topic, but I don't get how that .177 air pistol is not an imitation firearm. If you know what a 1911 looks like you can tell from the "shut line" above the pistol grip, but I don't think that's enough of a visual distinction for it not to fall foul of the legislation. Or is it down to the fact that because it is an actual air pistol isn't no longer considered an imitation but rather "real"?

Correct.

As above. Air pistols and rifles were already 'upgraded' to be classed as firearms (in order to restrict them), in doing so they couldn't also then be caught by the VCR Act wanting to restrict 'realistic' firearms, as the air guns were already classed as actual firearms (in the eyes of the law)

OK, so it is as crazy as I thought!

ETA: I meant to say "because it is an actual air pistol it's no longer considered an imitation"

Which leads to the bizarre situation of it being easier to posses the more powerful (relatively) air pistol over an airsoft pistol despite them looking EXACTLY THE SAME!