The State Of The Airsoft Industry Click here to follow to Source.Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Written by Benjamin Martin
Edited by Adam BowerWhen you meet someone new and try to explain to them what Airsoft is, what do you say?
"Airsoft..."
- are those clear spring guns to shoot vermin with
- is just another game my friends and I play in the backyard
- is like Paintball
- is Military Simulation
- is a training tool
Regardless of what you say, the fact of the matter is that our humble Airsoft industry is slowly emerging into the limelight and is attracting a lot of attention, not only from the media and general public, but from the firearms industry as well. Granted, some may look at this as a "coming of age" for Airsoft while others see it as trouble on the horizon.
One reason why I'm cautious to embrace this sudden popularity is because of the firearms industry. Gun manufacturers are beginning to take heed to Airsoft's rise in popularity; not only has Glock nixed the entire market of their replicas, but now Heckler & Koch is slapping retailers and distributors that carry HK replicas (in particular the G36 series) with Trade Dress violations. If you haven't noticed already, the CA36 from Classic Army, KWA's KG36, and the Echo1 X36 are becoming harder to find. The only company that is selling HK AEG's is Ares, who buys the license from UMAREX. In a nutshell, HK is on a legal warpath against Airsoft retailers and distributors (
source) and is forcing companies through UMAREX, which sells lower quality replicas. Heckler & Koch has every right to do this, but we hope that Classic Army, KWA, and Echo1 can come to an agreement with HK. Otherwise the US market may be stuck with another Cybergun-esque company that charges a ridiculous amount for a marginal G36 replica.
Another rumor that is turning heads in the Airsoft industry is that FN Herstal may also pursue Trademark/Trade Dress violations against retailers and distributors. Which means that in 2010 we may see limited availability on SCAR's, the unreleased FN2000, and P90 replicas.
What escapes me is how Glock, Heckler & Koch, and FN Herstal do not grasp the fundamental flaw of going after their own customers. They shouldn't consider the Airsoft industry as a competitor, but an investment. These manufacturers should look at the relationship that Hot Wheels and Chevrolet have and embrace Airsoft as something that can benefit them. How can they fail to see the immense marketing opportunity in Airsoft? Do they not realize that an adolescent is more likely to purchase a familiar brand when they're older? (i.e. when they can purchase a real firearm)
"Marketers plant the seeds of brand recognition in very young children, in the hopes that the seeds will grow into lifetime relationships." (Media Awarness) We have already seen many individuals who, when shopping for a first handgun, or a first rifle, or a new AR15, prefer the models and companies that they're familiar with. When a young man who has used a glock Airsoft replica for years turns 21 he will look first at Glock handguns because he is already familiar with the controls, function, and feel of these handguns. As long as firearm and parts manufacturers take care to associate with high quality replica companies, their name and brand image will only be enhanced by the additional exposure.
Firearm and firearm component manufacturers have every right to ensure that their name is not being infringed upon, but instead of looking at Airsoft as the enemy they should consider it an ally. The firearms companies that are doing it right are MAGPUL, Stag Arms, Noveske, JP-Enterprises, Barrett, Gemtech, PWS, LWRCI, B&T, Arsenal, Armalite, SAR, Steyr, and Daniel Defense; these brands have pursued agreements with high quality Airsoft manufacturers without charging an exorbitant amount of money for their name.
Although I personally own and love DPMS and SIG SAUER firearms, their laizzes-faire approach to licensing allows Cybergun to charge a price inflating premium to any company for the use of S&W, UZI, DPMS, Taurus, et al. Though Cybergun currently has the license to use these trademarks, their tactic of branding the cheapest replicas possible does not reflect well on Airsoft in general or the original firearm manufacturers.
Firearms manufacturers should look at MAGPUL for an example of an effective and profitable way to handle the Airsoft industry. As far as I can tell, MAGPUL is the first company to see the potential in Airsoft and fully embrace it. When they heard that A&K was manufacturing the MASADA they didn't completely shut them down, but licensed the product at a reasonable rate. Additionally, MAGPUL manufactures many of their own products specifically for the Airsoft market. This two pronged tactic of pursuing illegal replicas while producing and licensing a full line of authorized products has many benefits. Airsoft players, firearms enthusiasts, and law enforcement agencies all benefit from having quality parts available, while MAGPUL maintains their reputation for quality, and turns a profit in doing so.
I have mixed feelings on Airsoft's increasing popularity for a other reasons as well. The most obvious is because of Airsoft Outlet Northwest's recent ordeal with the ATF over the WE TTI M4. Although this incident is still a part of an ongoing ATF investigation, it does show that Government intervention is a very real threat to the industry. In New Jersey, Airsoft players are currently looking at legislation that proposes classifying Airsoft guns as Firearms thereby subjugating Airsoft to New Jersey's strict laws regulating the sale, possession, and use of Firearms (
source). Not too long ago Beaverton, Oregon proposed a city wide ban on Airsoft and had legislation ready to be pushed through, but thankfully several members in the Airsoft community stepped forward and met legislators half way and turned the bill into more of a common sense law prohibiting Airsoft guns from City Parks, Schools, etc (
Beaverton Airsoft Code). This proactive approach shows that players can have an impact, and legislators are willing to listen, but someone has to be willing to talk to them.
As the previous example shows, Airsoft does not have to be a fringe industry. With proper input from players, retailers, and other industry members, the increasing popularity and visibility of Airsoft can benefit the sport. If we are available to educate and give input to cities and other agencies, any laws which are made will be reasonable and helpful. A continued effort to stay out of the limelight will eventually fail. Players have created small, local organizations which allow each group to set their own rules and gives individuals their independence. However, these organizations do not have the influence or infrastructure to stand against injustice like the
WE TTI M4 seizure by the ATF. When a FOX News correspondent called Airsoft Outlet NW about the ATF seizure, he had no idea what the sport was about and asked, "Is there a national Airsoft organization I can get in contact with?"
We all need to start thinking about the concept of a national organization. It shouldn't be a group that tries to regulate FPS limits or game play rules, but one that is based around information sharing, public relations, and organizing defenses against attacks on the industry. Paintball has several national leagues, why shouldn't Airsoft have something similar? An organization that is able to provide independent, objective information to lawmakers and other government agencies, as well as to individuals interested in the sport, would provide a greater level of safety to the sport. It's time to get on your boards and start discussing what you think the right path is, because no one entity can do this by themselves. It's going to take the American Airsoft industry as a whole, from the player to the distributor, to find a common ground and come together. The more we talk about a National Airsoft Organization and its composition the more likely it will become a useful and beneficial reality.
Here is what the Beaverton Airsoft Code Said:5.08.250 Short Title.
BC 5.08.250 through 5.08.270 shall be known and may be cited as the “replica firearms ordinance” and may also be referred to herein as “this ordinance.” [BC 5.08.250, added by Ordinance No. 4423, 2/26/07]
5.08.255 Definitions.
For the purposes of this ordinance the following terms have the stated meanings:
“Blaze orange tip” means either a plastic plug or a permanent marking which is colored blaze orange, which covers the barrel of a replica firearm from the muzzle end for a depth of at least six millimeters, the placement of which is required by federal law.
“Laser pointer” means a device that emits light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that is visible to the human eye.
“Period-authentic historical reenactment” means a reenactment of past events in which the use of historically accurate uniforms and equipment predominates.
“Replica firearm” means any device that substantially resembles a firearm or can reasonably be perceived to be an actual firearm. A device that substantially resembles a firearm or can reasonably be perceived to be an actual firearm shall not be deemed a replica firearm if:
A. The device is constructed entirely of opaque materials colored bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright green, bright blue or bright purple, either singly or in combination with other listed colors; or
B. The device is constructed entirely of transparent or translucent materials that permit unmistakable observation of the complete contents of the device; or
C. The device is constructed entirely of a mixture of materials described in subsections (A) and (B) of this definition.
“Replica firearm merchant” means a retail operation, such as a hobby shop, sporting goods store, or firearms store, that is a place of sale to ultimate consumers of replica firearms for direct consumption, operating in a commercial structure or storefront, with premises open to the general public during business hours.
“School premises” means the real property comprising a public or private elementary, secondary or career school attended primarily by minors. [BC 5.08.255, added by Ordinance No. 4423, 2/26/07]
5.08.260 Prohibitions.
A. No person shall possess a replica firearm in a public place.
B. No person shall intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence point or discharge a replica firearm at another person, said other person being located in a public place.
C. No person shall possess on school premises a device that otherwise would be a replica firearm but for the fact that:
1. The device is constructed entirely of opaque materials colored bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright green, bright blue or bright purple, either singly or in combination with other listed colors; or
2. The device is constructed entirely of transparent or translucent materials that permit unmistakable observation of the complete contents of the device; or
3. The device is constructed entirely of a mixture of materials described in subsections (C)(1) and (2) of this section. [BC 5.08.260, added by Ordinance No. 4423, 2/26/07]
5.08.265 Affirmative Defenses.
A. A defendant may establish by a preponderance of the evidence an affirmative defense to a charge of violating BC 5.08.260(A) that:
1. The defendant possessed the replica firearm in a public place other than on school premises and the replica firearm was completely concealed within an opaque container;
2. The defendant possessed the replica firearm on school premises, the defendant was an employee or agent of the school acting within his or her official duties, and the replica firearm was completely concealed within an opaque container;
3. The defendant was employed as a peace officer as defined in ORS 133.005 and possessed the replica firearm within his or her official duties;
4. The defendant possessed the replica firearm while using or intending to use it in connection with the production of a motion picture, television program, theatrical presentation or period-authentic historical reenactment, and one or more of the following circumstances is present:
a. The production was taking place or was to take place on a stage in an auditorium, including an auditorium on school premises, for which the general admission of an adult to the particular production required the purchase of a ticket; or
b. All of the persons involved in the production were at least 18 years of age; or
c. One or more person involved in the production held a valid membership in the Associated Actors and Artistes of America (4As) or the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE); or
d. The production of the period-authentic historical reenactment took place under the express authorization or direct control or active participation of a governmental entity, a federal tax exempt organization or a nonprofit organization duly registered with either the Oregon Department of Justice or Office of the Secretary of State, and the production of the reenactment did not create unreasonable public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm;
5. The defendant possessed the replica firearm where all the following conditions are present:
a. The replica firearm is possessed in the course of commerce, or for service or repair, by a replica firearm merchant, or a patron or wholesaler of such a merchant; and
b. The replica firearm is possessed within the merchant’s commercial storefront or structure in which the merchant’s business is located; and
c. The replica firearm merchant holds a current, valid city of Beaverton business license; and
d. The replica firearm does not bear an attached laser pointer.
B. A defendant may establish by a preponderance of the evidence an affirmative defense to a charge of violating BC 5.08.260(B) that:
1. The defendant was employed as a peace officer as defined in ORS 133.005 and pointed or discharged the replica firearm within his or her official duties;
2. The defendant pointed or discharged the replica firearm in connection with the production of a motion picture, television program, theatrical presentation or period-authentic historical reenactment, and one or more of the following circumstances is present:
a. The production was taking place or was to take place on a stage in an auditorium, including an auditorium on school premises, for which the general admission of an adult to the particular production required the purchase of a ticket; or
b. All of the persons involved in the production were at least 18 years of age; or
c. One or more person involved in the production held a valid membership in the Associated Actors and Artistes of America (4As) or the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE); or
d. The production of the period-authentic historical reenactment took place under the express authorization or direct control or active participation of a governmental entity, a federal tax exempt organization or a nonprofit organization duly registered with either the Oregon Department of Justice or Office of the Secretary of State, and the production of the reenactment did not create unreasonable public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.
C. A defendant may establish by a preponderance of the evidence an affirmative defense to a charge of violating BC 5.08.260(C) that:
1. The defendant possessed the device on school premises, the defendant was an employee or agent of the school acting within his or her official duties, and the device was completely concealed within an opaque container;
2. The defendant was employed as a peace officer as defined in ORS 133.005 and possessed the device on school premises within his or her official duties;
3. The defendant possessed the device while using or intending to use it in connection with the production of a motion picture, television program, theatrical presentation or a period-authentic historical reenactment, and one or more of the following circumstances is present:
a. The production was taking place or was to take place on a stage in an auditorium, including an auditorium on school premises, for which the general admission of an adult to the particular production required the purchase of a ticket; or
b. All of the persons involved in the production were at least 18 years of age; or
c. One or more person involved in the production held a valid membership in the Associated Actors and Artistes of America (4As) or the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE); or
d. The production of the period-authentic historical reenactment took place under the express authorization or direct control or active participation of a governmental entity, a federal tax exempt organization or a nonprofit organization duly registered with either the Oregon Department of Justice or Office of the Secretary of State, and the production of the reenactment did not create unreasonable public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. [BC 5.08.265, added by Ordinance No. 4423, 2/26/07]
5.08.270 Penalties.
A. Except as provided in subsections (B), (C) and (D) of this section, violation of BC 5.08.260 is a Class A violation punishable by a fine of not less than $250.00.
B. Violation of BC 5.08.260(A) or (B) is a Class A violation punishable by a fine of not less than $500.00 if the unlawfully possessed, pointed or discharged replica firearm bears an attached laser pointer or has had its blaze orange tip removed or covered with paint, tape, or similar opaque substance.
C. Violation of BC 5.08.260(A) or (B) is a Class C misdemeanor if the offense occurs on or within 1,000 feet of school premises.
D. Violation of BC 5.08.260(A), (B) or (C) is a Class A misdemeanor if within five years to the date of the current offense the defendant has been convicted previously of a violation of BC 5.08.260(A), (B) or (C) or a counterpart thereof in another jurisdiction.
E. In addition to and not in lieu of any other sentence a court may impose, a court may require a defendant convicted under BC 5.08.260 to forfeit any rights of the defendant in the device or replica firearm unlawfully possessed, pointed or discharged. [BC 5.08.270, added by Ordinance No. 4423, 2/26/07]
