Violent Crimes Reduction Bill.

[mad dog]

Originally posted by Skeetmaster
See my post...its all there

what post do the link, I did a presentation 2 years ago at the PA meeting to all the captains exsplaining the in's and out's of marker registration and it got public then nobody wanted to know.

Why should people want to change now if they did all the paperwork has been done, even the data protection act has been finalised and my security clearance allowed a certain sense of honesty to the case as I have also run a security business for over 13 years in this country.

My point of view was a little goes a long way, but all people do is talk and don't do until made to do it!

Get my point!

I would like to post a vote see what the outcome would be then see if anyone ever put pen to paper.

 

[Skeet]

This mate..page or som back...did this two years ago

Re: I refer to previous posts on my part, almost two years ago.

quote:Originally posted by Skeetmaster
Maybe if we made an effort to licence ourselves it might show willing. I hold both firearms and shotgun certificates,...so understand a bit about in's and outs.

If the UKPSF..was to set up a registration process...similar to the aplicaton of a firearm...ie: register your ownership or intent to own a Paintball marker, along with someone or two someone's to vouch for you, independently..maybe a reference from a site owner...
This of course would all be voluntary, but as and when people buy or sell markers, information could be updated..this might help reduce marker theft.
If most regular Paintballers had one..then they could produce it if asked at paintball stores...whereby it gives the store owner a check..if he has any doubts about the customer (ie doesnt know them)
Would also help with online purchases/deals..the vendor can ask for Name address and Register no...this could be checked via a UKPSF website, if it checks out great..if not the vendor then can make an informed decision..
I hope im not upsetting anyone, its not meant as a sinister thing, more a way of protecting ourselves and our sport...
After all...unless someone plays paintball regularily or is involved in the sport, they dont need a marker.
It wont make the sport more difficult to get into..as people dont go out to buy a marker, before they play paintball (or they shouldnt do!) so after a few trips to a site...the field owner could give a reference.
I would say that, i dont suppose the problems are caused by people buying Angels or Timmys, more the budget end of the market..
We dont really want people going out buying markers to use in their own back gardens (solely) as very few back gardens are large or isolated enough to play paintball in safely...so anyone who wants a marker for legitimate purposes would be fine as they generally are involved in the sport before they invest in it..

Gaz prepares to be flamed...but hopes he doesnt!

P.s. Doesnt the Law say that an Offensive or Lethal weapon is catagorised as having been Made..Intended..or ADAPTED..in which case, as someone has said..the device is no longer what it was originally..


SECOND POST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Smudge
"HEAR,HEAR!!!!"



BUT: If a paintballer with his/her own marker was to hold a license for having the marker and using it for the sport......
wouldn't you still get people who own the marker not for the 'sporting use' making them self a 'fake' license

How would the U.K.P.S.F know whether or not he has bought the marker intending to use it for paintball tournies,rec~balling,etc...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Right well...First off they have to know what the "Certificate" (better than Licence) looks like before they can copy it...also, the vendor would be able to check Certificate details against the Proposed UKPSF website, in order to verify it..in this case say someone had copied another players licence somehow, or outright stolen it, the Vendor could check the register for Markers allready allocated to that Certificate (details of which would not be on the certificate) this can then be used to check if the person knows what they "all ready own" or in the case of the Certificates rightfull owner not having purchased any markers before it was stolen (therefore none registered) the vendor could ask who Their referees were or which site owner Recommended them (also not on the Certificate)
If someone wants to Forge any document it is possible, but for our purposes, it would be extreme.

Secondly...the person who has applied for the Certificate...will have been either Refereed by two fellow Paintballers (also Certificate holders) Or by the Proprietor of the site they frequently attend..
(if a punter wishes to take up the sport more seriously, to Walk On level, they could apply for an application...part of which they should hand to the site operator..who will then be able to monitor the Applicant's suitability and record number of visits..to which there would be a minimum amount before Certification could be granted..5 -10..dont know)
..So..the UKPSF will know that the Certificate holder has been vetted...There could be different uses featured on a Certificate eg:
ROBBO from Nexus (and paintball History, Present and future, Hi Pete!) would have something like "Professional Use" featured on his Certificate and Someone like myself would have "Amateur Use" and Joe Walkon would have "Recreational Use" on his...
This could also be another way of checking for fraud or theft...
If a "Professional Use" Certificate turns up at Planet to buy a £100 marker (assuming they dont Recognise the Player) eyebrows could be raised "Why does he/she want that?"

Like I said before..this is only my own...quickly created ideas, and is not intended to be Draconian in any way..just a means of protecting the Sport, The Players and of course people like the young lady mentioned.
The idea is, that someone without a Certificate could be refused, when trying to purchase a marker ( i say "could" because not being a legal document, it is upto the Vendors to decide..but I feel sure that the majority of "proper" paintball retailers would honour this.)
Any more comments..from you experienced peeps?
Gaz

THIRD POST

Steve...
As mentioned in the first post i did.
All "certificates" would be registered...the UKPSF or whatever body issues them...would have an Online website, where people can check the some details of another certificate holder, after ebtering their own Certificate number to gain access..this would enable s/h sales to be checked out before the Vendor sells the Marker....
Likewise.. an online store, would take the certificate number along with the other details and could also check the details...
If a Certificate is suspected stolen or Fraudulent..a simple call from the UKPSF to the "certificate" holder would clear up any falsifications " Are you trying to buy a marker?" "No..im in the bog!"

Smudge...You think its reasonably water tight?
Opinions would be good..i cant think of everything!
Gaz


FORTH POST

I thought that if this was in place, it would help deter theft within the sport, if something like the Dart incident or heven forbid worse, occured, our spokespeople could request the serial number/make of the marker..this could then be used to either convict a wrong dooer, or return stolen goods to their rightfull owner or, most importantly, point out that the person who possesed the marker IS NOT, part of the paintball community, as he is not registered..the potential to explain the "certification" process can only be good for the sport, to help the authorities and joe public to realise that we are proffesional about our sport.
Gaz

Also...a recent post.
http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/vb...&threadid=46969

I can past teh section on Imitation Firearms as well if necessary. Should add, that this is the 2002 edition, and I believe has been amended recently.



So...does anyone have any views on this...I think I covered many of the bases when I wrote it 2 years ago..its not going to stop teh naughty people, you never will as was said...but, it helps us, to show, that our people, are known to us

__________________

 

[Tricky]

Legislation

I can see this being a major problem for paintball if its not addressed, In Jersey a paintball marker is a class 1 FIREARM because of the size of the projectile and the velocity it leaves the barrel. Which is madness because having obtained a licence for a marker, needing minimal home security, I can go out and by an ak47 and no one will bat an eye lid.

The system presents no major problems over here as you can still own class 1 firearms, in the UK however you can't, I lost my handguns when they were banned and no amount of lobbying or petitions could change that.

The definition of an ' air weapon' will include paintball markers and unless the point is clarified there could be some pretty pissed off ballers losing their markers, and if the handgun ban was anything to go by, getting pretty crap compensation.

Self regulation of markers by the association would be a good step, but it may be you don't get that as an option, I really hope it doesn't come to that!

 

[Collier]

On the other hand if it was compulsary in terms of having to have that licence/membership to be able to play paintball or buy a marker then at least it would actually happen, as long as it's voluntary, well frankly the majority won't do it.

 

[Gyroscope]

Bingo.

If you want to restrict sales of guns to registered players, you need the sellers to all agree. If even one store decides not to abide, the rest will have no choice.

 

[Collier]

And then of course there is the other potential problem, if it was compulsary to have a license/registration in order to buy/own a paintball marker then you'd have to justify why it should be so... anyone want to go down that road??

 

[JoseDominguez]

Either way, we are going to go down that road.
A voluntary scheme is worthless......... it gets the names and addresses of everyone who the authorities don't need to worry about. And anyone with dodgy intentions just doesn't bother.
We also draw attention to ourselves.

A compulsory scheme will look good when the authorities run out of stuff to ban and come looking for us. But as Collier says.... it may just accelerate the process.

So, do we try to score some points now? Before they come looking.

My preference would be control on casual paint sales....... I think that's more achievable. Paint from rec sites, tourneys and direct to teams. It may bother a few people who fire off site....... but I'm sure the industry would prefer a small loss of sales to the total wipeout we could suffer.
It would also stop the highstreets and gadget type shops selling low grade, hard paint at inflated prices to kids who know no better (£10 for 100 I've seen recently)........ all to be fired away from paintball sites.
Oh, and this is UK only...... very different situation from the US.
I can't see the problem in restricting the sale of paintballs to people who are going to play paintball with them...... tourney, team, walk on, rec-ball sites. It's not like you can nip down to the park and play.

 

[Jake]

I think some people may have missed my point. I was not suggesting that it isn't easy for people to get hold of paintball markers. I was saying that is exactly the kind of thing you need to be worrying about. If paintball is controlled and managed in a sensible and professional way it is far less likely to get banned. However there is absolutely no guarantee that the government won't ban it in the future. Politics is controlled just as much by media mis-representation as it is by middle aged politicians who have no idea what they are talking about. If you feel passionately about paintball then do something about it. Don't whinge on a message board. Give big bad Bully some help!



JoseDominguez - your account of the shooting of Harry Stanley shows exactly how badly the incident was reported. Not only has the High Court overturned the verdict of 'unlawful killing' due to insufficient evidence, there was a very significant amount of evidence that has never been reported, as far as I am aware, in the media. Some of it never even made the court room due to the fantastic judicial system we have in this country.

If Mr Stanley was unable to raise his arms to point the table leg (wrapped in a plastic bag) - how in the hell was he doing carpentry with his brother? Or for that matter raising a glass to his mouth in the pub he had just come from.

Do you seriously think the police officers turned up to confront Mr Stanley and shot him for the sake of it? I suppose they thought that he looked a bit like the guy they had been told was carrying a shotgun in a bag and decided to shoot him in the head just to make sure?

I won't go into Mr Stanley's background or the ins and outs of they way the information was relayed to police officers, or indeed the forensic evidence. I think it completely misses the point of this thread. I also think people should avoid passing judgement on issues they have only read about in the newspapers.

Enough incoherent ranting I think.

 

[RoryM]

Agree with you there Jake, the press' ability to create scandal where it may not have been due is well documented, and, I think most of us are mature enough to realise that events are usually 'glossed' for the public to make the story more intereting to the reader, and therefore the continuation of sales of their rag.

Back to the point in hand, simplest thing to do is not fill bottles for spods that turn up to sites/shops for use away from a controlled enviroment, harsh, but ultimately if they have no power source, they cannot even turn the marker into a glorified spud gun.

 

[JoseDominguez]

Originally posted by Jake
I think some people may have missed my point. I was not suggesting that it isn't easy for people to get hold of paintball markers. I was saying that is exactly the kind of thing you need to be worrying about. If paintball is controlled and managed in a sensible and professional way it is far less likely to get banned. However there is absolutely no guarantee that the government won't ban it in the future. Politics is controlled just as much by media mis-representation as it is by middle aged politicians who have no idea what they are talking about. If you feel passionately about paintball then do something about it. Don't whinge on a message board. Give big bad Bully some help!



JoseDominguez - your account of the shooting of Harry Stanley shows exactly how badly the incident was reported. Not only has the High Court overturned the verdict of 'unlawful killing' due to insufficient evidence, there was a very significant amount of evidence that has never been reported, as far as I am aware, in the media. Some of it never even made the court room due to the fantastic judicial system we have in this country.

If Mr Stanley was unable to raise his arms to point the table leg (wrapped in a plastic bag) - how in the hell was he doing carpentry with his brother? Or for that matter raising a glass to his mouth in the pub he had just come from.

Do you seriously think the police officers turned up to confront Mr Stanley and shot him for the sake of it? I suppose they thought that he looked a bit like the guy they had been told was carrying a shotgun in a bag and decided to shoot him in the head just to make sure?

I won't go into Mr Stanley's background or the ins and outs of they way the information was relayed to police officers, or indeed the forensic evidence. I think it completely misses the point of this thread. I also think people should avoid passing judgement on issues they have only read about in the newspapers.

Enough incoherent ranting I think.

Absolutely nothing to do with my point. I simply stated that in the UK, saying "we are OK markers don't look like guns" does not cut it. As, if the police can shoot someone armed with a chair leg, then how can we be sure markers won't be confused with replicas.

So, keep arguing mate, you are flogging a dead horse.... the only fact I stated about the case (which I didn't name) was simply this....... "A man was shot while armed with a chair leg wrapped in a carrier bag"
You have named him and made it an issue (irrelevent to the thread).
So....... was a man carrying a chair leg in a bag shot by police who believed it was a firearm? (not really, you assumed I meant this case... but he had a table leg).

(It was a green carrier bag if that helps...... as I do know the details of the case, but, not being there myself don't presume to make any sort of statement about motive etc...... simply stated that a chair leg in a bag was confused as a firearm....)
As for the rest? Who's misinformed....... carpentry? he was picking it up after his brother had fixed it for him as he was recovering from colon cancer surgery..... still had 16 stitches in his abdomen (from the inquest, not the newspapers). So..... where did you get your info (I only quoted from official documents as I wasn't there? And never believe opinion laden newspaper crap) I assume you were as you seem sure of lots of things the official reports don't seem to know about..... in fact, your just as bad as the sensationistic newspaper reports at the time).

So, my point is still....... if two highly trained police officers can mistake a bit of wood in a carrier bag for a sawn of shotgun (police statement) from 15 feet away.......... what chance do we have with our far more gun shaped markers?

You mentioned passing judgement? I didn't, read my post, all of the words and don't read anything else into it..... you obviously feel strongly about it and your judgement is clouded. I simply said....... "police mistook a chair leg for a firearm"...... nothing more (it was a table leg in this case anyway). You jumped to certain conclusions, the merest mention of the case and you are on the defensive. So, simply put.... yes or no answer.

A man carrying a table leg wrapped in a carrier bag was shot by two armed officers. At the time they believed it was a sawn off shotgun.

Yes or no?

Therefore: are our markers safe? Do they look less gun like than a bit of wood?