Paintball and the law

[Howzy]

So if I was to walk down the street to my grandmothers with my lv1 in hand baring in mind it has no air bottle, no ammunition (if you can call it that) and no bolt does this mean it's an illegal offence even tho it has no way of firing the actual marker ? Fair enough if someone is walking around with the marker fully setup loader, bottle etc but it just seems redicolous that they would call it an offence even tho the marker has no way of firing.

 

[Sirdogbert1]

what reason would you have to do that though?
My marker doesn't cost half of that, and would always carry it in it's case anyhow.
As i think was covered, average Joe doesn't know it's a paint ball gun and has no way of firing.

 

[BOD]

So if I was to walk down the street to my grandmothers with my lv1 in hand baring in mind it has no air bottle, no ammunition (if you can call it that) and no bolt does this mean it's an illegal offence even tho it has no way of firing the actual marker ? Fair enough if someone is walking around with the marker fully setup loader, bottle etc but it just seems redicolous that they would call it an offence even tho the marker has no way of firing.

I would say yes seeing as paintball guns are covered under the same laws as air weapons which it's illegal to carry in public.

 

[Tom]

So if I was to walk down the street to my grandmothers with my lv1 in hand baring in mind it has no air bottle, no ammunition (if you can call it that) and no bolt does this mean it's an illegal offence even tho it has no way of firing the actual marker ? Fair enough if someone is walking around with the marker fully setup loader, bottle etc but it just seems redicolous that they would call it an offence even tho the marker has no way of firing.

Like with the RIF definition that anything is a RIF under the VCRA if any member of ythe public thinks they have seen a gun

Having it ready to fire in public without good reason would be an offence
Being seen with what people may think is a gun in public could be an offence
Definately having an air weapon in public without good reason is an offence.

Good practice is to cover it up

 

[Ash Richardson]

Bizarre some if the areas of this.

 

[Tom]

Update from ukpsf


For the first strike / one2one element the home office response is included, and the/an importer of first strike is liasing with regard to official testing

Effectively - point of view that ukpsf consider first strike may be non-frangible and does not recommend use until the tests are conducted

https://www.facebook.com/UKPSF/posts/765103163605757

 

[Niall Burgess]

Yeah when i go to different venues i have to make sure its in my case and make sure the tank is empty as well as to make sure i carry no paint, because sometimes i have to walk a distance or catch public transport to get to a venue. But all my gear is stored away in walking rucksack and i never get it out in public, i made sure i was behaving in a legal manner so i asked some police officers and they said i was fine.

 

[TNT_UK]

A musket, which is used by some re-enactment friends again for American civil war, is classified as a shotgun as it is a smooth bore weapon.

In the American Civil War didn't they use Rifle Muskets, which had rifling in the barrel, as the base of the lead bullet was shaped to grip the barrel when fired (due to the power of the gunpowder exploding behind it). I'm sorry I read through Wikipedias American Civil War Firearms one lazy afternoon (both North and South), at last I thought that knowledge is useful for something.

On the topic of this thread. I thought that the Law states one thing which is then defined through Case law (I.e. going to Court), so a lot of clarification of the actual legal status of paintball would be defined through court cases, based on what is written in law, the arguments put forward during the court case, and then the judges decision. Which then other judges would use this decision when viewing similar court cases.

I think the UKPSF's Position on First Strikes is a little off, as I was watching a you tube demonstration of the Fist Strikes, and it definitely broke on impact, as I was watching these American Paintballers get hit, and paint was showing.on there playing gear.

 

[Tom]

On the topic of this thread. I thought that the Law states one thing which is then defined through Case law (I.e. going to Court), so a lot of clarification of the actual legal status of paintball would be defined through court cases, based on what is written in law, the arguments put forward during the court case, and then the judges decision. Which then other judges would use this decision when viewing similar court cases.

Strictly speaking, case law is 'common law' and not have any legislation behind it.
It's based on historic precident and right/wrong.
When you go to a solicitor you would get advised based on their knowledge of case law (hence the importance of solicitors specialising among their colleagues) they then interpret what you tell them of the case and how that would apply to previous cases. Get to court and expect the same results as previous cases, or either side to argue why this case matches or does not match previous cases.

Legislation goes through parliament and sets the criteria
There should only be guilty / not guilty, but for some areas there is the decision to be made on how a situation applies to the legislation
The home office issue guidance to interpreting the law but it's up to a court to decide, police interpret on the day, put a case together, dpp decide if there is a case to answer, the court tries the case


There is little specific legislation for paintball, which leaves interpretation of what applies and doesn't or what would be grey.
No interpretation is fact until it goes to court, but home office guidance is as good as we have, the policeman on the ground making the first decision might not know the specifics of guidance but that would be filled in by the time the dpp get to look at anything


So strictly speaking it's not the court defining legislation in a case, but can consider as part of a case as to how the legislation applies to the case

one situation with that is 12ft Pounds and velocity
Going by 12 ft lbs for a paintball and the legal velocity is over 300fps, but there is case law that set 300fps
You could decide to take a case and argue against the precident that it was set with co2 and not air. But would it be fair to say that it's a good enough argument to disregard the case law?

 

[Tom]

Ukpsf and first strike was triggered by the question of shaped rounds, not exclusively fs. And there are differences in the various types
It's being looked at with Tiberius and the importer, so not a final decision