yeah, also when you try to import a marker and people like UPS hold it they ask you. Does it shoot over 12ft/lbs.....
and they charge you for it too. sux
and they charge you for it too. sux
Paintball Markers no longer on E-Bay
- Thread starter Fat Bob's Paintball
- Start date
Christ I am getting sick of going over this.
I f you go to page one of this thread you will see a long post by me which is a direct quote from the official site on firarms laws. They are not my views or opinions. Anything which fires over 1ft/lbs is a firearm
Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 defines a firearm as a lethal barrelled weapon capable of the discharge of any shot, bullet or other missile. Thus, in order to be classed as a firearm, an object must be a weapon, it must have a barrel through which some kind of missile is fired and the effect of the missile on the target must be lethal.
Right so now we know what a firearm is defined as. OK so now lets see what lethal is defined as
Lethality is defined as "capable of inflicting a more than trivial injury"—a trivial injury being one in which only superficial damage such as bruising occurs. In essence, if the pellet from a particular gun is capable of penetrating the skin, that gun is a firearm.
OK so is a paintball marker lethal?
The accepted caselaw for the muzzle energy at which lethal injury can be inflicted is Moore v Gooderam (1961) in which it was held that the threshold is one foot pound (About 1.35 joules). Thus, any weapon with a muzzle energy of less than one foot pound is not a firearm in law and does not fall under the control of the firearms legislation. Any gun with a muzzle energy of one foot pound or greater is a firearm and comes under the control of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).
Since it fires over 1ft/lbs a paintball marker is lethal.
So now we see that a paintball marker IS a firarm. You do not need a licence for one but its still a firarm.
Here is the link to the web site where this info is.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/uc95/uc9504.htm
I f you go to page one of this thread you will see a long post by me which is a direct quote from the official site on firarms laws. They are not my views or opinions. Anything which fires over 1ft/lbs is a firearm
Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 defines a firearm as a lethal barrelled weapon capable of the discharge of any shot, bullet or other missile. Thus, in order to be classed as a firearm, an object must be a weapon, it must have a barrel through which some kind of missile is fired and the effect of the missile on the target must be lethal.
Right so now we know what a firearm is defined as. OK so now lets see what lethal is defined as
Lethality is defined as "capable of inflicting a more than trivial injury"—a trivial injury being one in which only superficial damage such as bruising occurs. In essence, if the pellet from a particular gun is capable of penetrating the skin, that gun is a firearm.
OK so is a paintball marker lethal?
The accepted caselaw for the muzzle energy at which lethal injury can be inflicted is Moore v Gooderam (1961) in which it was held that the threshold is one foot pound (About 1.35 joules). Thus, any weapon with a muzzle energy of less than one foot pound is not a firearm in law and does not fall under the control of the firearms legislation. Any gun with a muzzle energy of one foot pound or greater is a firearm and comes under the control of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).
Since it fires over 1ft/lbs a paintball marker is lethal.
So now we see that a paintball marker IS a firarm. You do not need a licence for one but its still a firarm.
Here is the link to the web site where this info is.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/uc95/uc9504.htm
Depends on how you want to read it, and is one reason I'd rather not debate it in a court of law.
It must be borne in mind, however, that not all airguns can be classed as "firearms".
It then gives one definition which relates specifically in my mind to airsoft replica's. And looks at the energy with a pellet gun that would be required to be lethal as defined by penetrating...
It also states
the Firearms Act 1968 defines a firearm as a lethal barrelled weapon capable of the discharge of any shot, bullet or other missile.
So to be a fire arm it MUST be lethal barrelled.
Thus, in order to be classed as a firearm, an object must be a weapon, it must have a barrel through which some kind of missile is fired and the effect of the missile on the target must be lethal.
Pretty clear so far.
Lethality is defined as "capable of inflicting a more than trivial injury"—a trivial injury being one in which only superficial damage such as bruising occurs. In essence, if the pellet from a particular gun is capable of penetrating the skin, that gun is a firearm.
now since the paintball is significantly larger than a pellet the energy it can have before penetrating is significantly greater than with a pellet gun.
so lethality depends on the projectile as well as the muzzle energy. with the old syringe test all similar weapons were classed as fire arms. Since they changed the test paintball markers were no longer classes as fire arms.
I don't know about you but in the 11 years of paintball I have played I have NEVER heard of a paintball penetrating someone, even when frozen or rock solid. It only ever creates 'trivial' injuries such as superficial damage and brusing... heck if it did anything else we wouldn't be playing!
Therefore it is NOT a lethal barreled weapon. If it is NOT a lethal barreled weapon it does NOT fit the basic firearm description and thus is NOT a firearm.
That was explained to me by some fire arms inspector at the midlands shooting and training range.
It's still a grey area, but it we can legitimately hold a definition of a marker that means it is NOT a fire arm then lets do it please
manike
It must be borne in mind, however, that not all airguns can be classed as "firearms".
It then gives one definition which relates specifically in my mind to airsoft replica's. And looks at the energy with a pellet gun that would be required to be lethal as defined by penetrating...
It also states
the Firearms Act 1968 defines a firearm as a lethal barrelled weapon capable of the discharge of any shot, bullet or other missile.
So to be a fire arm it MUST be lethal barrelled.
Thus, in order to be classed as a firearm, an object must be a weapon, it must have a barrel through which some kind of missile is fired and the effect of the missile on the target must be lethal.
Pretty clear so far.
Lethality is defined as "capable of inflicting a more than trivial injury"—a trivial injury being one in which only superficial damage such as bruising occurs. In essence, if the pellet from a particular gun is capable of penetrating the skin, that gun is a firearm.
now since the paintball is significantly larger than a pellet the energy it can have before penetrating is significantly greater than with a pellet gun.
so lethality depends on the projectile as well as the muzzle energy. with the old syringe test all similar weapons were classed as fire arms. Since they changed the test paintball markers were no longer classes as fire arms.
I don't know about you but in the 11 years of paintball I have played I have NEVER heard of a paintball penetrating someone, even when frozen or rock solid. It only ever creates 'trivial' injuries such as superficial damage and brusing... heck if it did anything else we wouldn't be playing!
Therefore it is NOT a lethal barreled weapon. If it is NOT a lethal barreled weapon it does NOT fit the basic firearm description and thus is NOT a firearm.
That was explained to me by some fire arms inspector at the midlands shooting and training range.
It's still a grey area, but it we can legitimately hold a definition of a marker that means it is NOT a fire arm then lets do it please
manike
Jesus wept dude even with the evidence in front of you, you are still argueing.
All of your quotes are incomplete so are meaningless.
We have to wear goggles so paintball marker must be capable of more than trivial damage. Penetrating wound dont mean they have to go through you. If it is capable of breaking the skin it is penetrating. If its capable of a penetrating wound the it is lethal. If its capable of a lethal wound then its a firearm.
Whatever you want to believe, paintball markers are air rifles and as such have to follow all of the laws regarding air rifles.
Air rifles are firearms, whether you like it or not.
The law clearly states that anything with muzzle energy over 1ft/lbs is a firearm. Since paintball markers fire at about 10-12ft/lbs I think it falls into that catagory.
All of your quotes are incomplete so are meaningless.
We have to wear goggles so paintball marker must be capable of more than trivial damage. Penetrating wound dont mean they have to go through you. If it is capable of breaking the skin it is penetrating. If its capable of a penetrating wound the it is lethal. If its capable of a lethal wound then its a firearm.
Whatever you want to believe, paintball markers are air rifles and as such have to follow all of the laws regarding air rifles.
Air rifles are firearms, whether you like it or not.
The law clearly states that anything with muzzle energy over 1ft/lbs is a firearm. Since paintball markers fire at about 10-12ft/lbs I think it falls into that catagory.
The best thing that happened to paintball marker was when they were classified as air rifles.
IT will make it very very hard for the government to ban them.
If they had their own classification then it would be "bye bye" when ever the government felt like it.
IT will make it very very hard for the government to ban them.
If they had their own classification then it would be "bye bye" when ever the government felt like it.
There have been amendments since the ones quoted in that link, I'm trying to find them for you. It was fairly recently (late 80's)when they changed the testing method and determined that paintball markers although classed as air weapons and governed by that legislation were non-lethal barreled.
If they are not lethal barreled theyare not fire arms. Is that so hard to grasp?
The definition of penetrating is quite simple
pen·e·trate Pronunciation Key (pn-trt)
v. pen·e·trat·ed, pen·e·trat·ing, pen·e·trates
v. tr.
To enter or force a way into; pierce.
Now although they may sometimes break the skin the projectile does not ever penetrate into the body. If the projectile remains intact it will bruise but not enter. If it breaks open the cookie cutter effect may break the skin, but the projectile does not penetrate, it does exactly what it's designed to do and leaves itself spread out over the surface. Pretty much the opposite of penetration if you ask me.
We protect our eyes to avoid impact damage not to avoid having them penetrated.
I agree paintball markers areair weapons but as your page points out NOT all air weapons are fire arms. If they are non lethal then they are not fire arms. Be careful what you wish for and are trying to prove...
It's a complicated set of rules and how paintball markers drop into them depends on many things, and is open to interpretation. Not least wether or not most markers are classed as pistols or rifles... under the general description on that website and how they are sold they would be pistols. but under how they are built for use (with a tank etc.) they become rifles... most of the time.
The whole trouble with these guidlines, as this shows, is that they are open to discussion and debate and that's why having specific regulations may help us. Although it's possible if we stir things up they won't go our way... That's whywe don't want to stir them up, and we don't need people trying to prove that they are fire arms.
manike
If they are not lethal barreled theyare not fire arms. Is that so hard to grasp?
The definition of penetrating is quite simple
pen·e·trate Pronunciation Key (pn-trt)
v. pen·e·trat·ed, pen·e·trat·ing, pen·e·trates
v. tr.
To enter or force a way into; pierce.
Now although they may sometimes break the skin the projectile does not ever penetrate into the body. If the projectile remains intact it will bruise but not enter. If it breaks open the cookie cutter effect may break the skin, but the projectile does not penetrate, it does exactly what it's designed to do and leaves itself spread out over the surface. Pretty much the opposite of penetration if you ask me.
We protect our eyes to avoid impact damage not to avoid having them penetrated.
I agree paintball markers areair weapons but as your page points out NOT all air weapons are fire arms. If they are non lethal then they are not fire arms. Be careful what you wish for and are trying to prove...
It's a complicated set of rules and how paintball markers drop into them depends on many things, and is open to interpretation. Not least wether or not most markers are classed as pistols or rifles... under the general description on that website and how they are sold they would be pistols. but under how they are built for use (with a tank etc.) they become rifles... most of the time.
The whole trouble with these guidlines, as this shows, is that they are open to discussion and debate and that's why having specific regulations may help us. Although it's possible if we stir things up they won't go our way... That's whywe don't want to stir them up, and we don't need people trying to prove that they are fire arms.
manike
For F@cks sake
Paintball markers are capable of penetrating wounds. If shot in the unprotected eye it will penetrate. If a projectile cannot penetrate ANY part of the body at even very close range then it isnt classed as lethal. And if you were paying attention then tyhe definition is penetrating the skin. So if it breaks the skin then it has penetrated. Paintballs do this.
The reason I am doing this si because the ignorance of paintballers and people who sell paintball equipment to the law.
What Will get paintball banned is when people break the law. If people do not know the law then how will they know how not to break it.
I have backed up all of my opinions with concrete evidence. When you do the same then I will apologize and ammend what I write.
I stiil havent seen any evidence that I am wrong . You are just reading what suits you and interpreting it to suit your argument. I repeat show me evidence.
Paintball markers are capable of penetrating wounds. If shot in the unprotected eye it will penetrate. If a projectile cannot penetrate ANY part of the body at even very close range then it isnt classed as lethal. And if you were paying attention then tyhe definition is penetrating the skin. So if it breaks the skin then it has penetrated. Paintballs do this.
The reason I am doing this si because the ignorance of paintballers and people who sell paintball equipment to the law.
What Will get paintball banned is when people break the law. If people do not know the law then how will they know how not to break it.
I have backed up all of my opinions with concrete evidence. When you do the same then I will apologize and ammend what I write.
I stiil havent seen any evidence that I am wrong . You are just reading what suits you and interpreting it to suit your argument. I repeat show me evidence.
No need to get angry...
So what if it breaks the skin? That doesn't mean it has penetrated. When boxing I used to give split lips and eye lids, but I would never say my fist penetrated the guy!
If the paintball breaks a persons skin but there is no hole in the clothing covering that spot on the persons body then how can it have penetrated the person but not the clothing?
If shot in the eye it will not penetrate but rupture the eye. Your use of the term penetrate is far out. And I would take it to pieces in a court of law.
You are trying to interpret the rules to make your point. I am doing the same to show how you are incorrect. Who's side of this would you like to see win in a court of law?
We are both able to interpret the rules with our own understanding and come to different conclusions. I don't agree with yours, and thankfully last time I spoke to a fire arms inspector he agreed with me.
manike
your use of definitions and interpretations is not defensible.
So what if it breaks the skin? That doesn't mean it has penetrated. When boxing I used to give split lips and eye lids, but I would never say my fist penetrated the guy!
If the paintball breaks a persons skin but there is no hole in the clothing covering that spot on the persons body then how can it have penetrated the person but not the clothing?
If shot in the eye it will not penetrate but rupture the eye. Your use of the term penetrate is far out. And I would take it to pieces in a court of law.
You are trying to interpret the rules to make your point. I am doing the same to show how you are incorrect. Who's side of this would you like to see win in a court of law?
We are both able to interpret the rules with our own understanding and come to different conclusions. I don't agree with yours, and thankfully last time I spoke to a fire arms inspector he agreed with me.
manike
All this talk of penitration has me worried. The wife is 8.5 months pregnant...................do I have to get my little fella registered at the home office?
I am not fighting you for the sake of it . IN fact it was you who told me I was wrong.
IN WRITING WITHIN THE FIREARMS LAW< ANY THING WHICH FIRES OVER 1FT/LBS IS A LETHAL WEAPON>
irrelevant what you do or say will not change this. Paintball markers fall into this catagory. If shot in the eye a extreme close range, you might die. I think that may be classed as lethal. Breaking the skin is more severe than light bruising. The law states the projectile must penetrate the skin not the person.
I think you are just being silly with your arguements. Again I ask you to give proof. I havent seen any at all. These are not my views these are the governments views. The UKPSF's views too if you care to look.
IN WRITING WITHIN THE FIREARMS LAW< ANY THING WHICH FIRES OVER 1FT/LBS IS A LETHAL WEAPON>
irrelevant what you do or say will not change this. Paintball markers fall into this catagory. If shot in the eye a extreme close range, you might die. I think that may be classed as lethal. Breaking the skin is more severe than light bruising. The law states the projectile must penetrate the skin not the person.
I think you are just being silly with your arguements. Again I ask you to give proof. I havent seen any at all. These are not my views these are the governments views. The UKPSF's views too if you care to look.