Should Retailers Require ID for Gel Blaster Purchases?

Gel blasters, known as hydro blasters or gel ball blasters, have surged in popularity in recent years. These toy guns use compressed air to fire small water-filled gel beads and are marketed as safe, non-lethal alternatives to airsoft guns and paintball markers.

However, the rapid proliferation of gel blasters has raised concerns about misuse and injurious or criminal behavior, prompting calls for tighter regulations around their sale. One area of contention is whether retailers should require identification (ID) from customers seeking to purchase gel blasters. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this issue, and individual retailers must weigh the pros and cons when formulating store policies.

The Rising Popularity and Controversy of Gel Blasters

Gel blasters originated in Australia in the early 2010s as a creative workaround to strict laws governing airsoft guns and imitation firearms. Using hydrogel balls as ammunition, they provide a similar recreational experience to airsoft and paintball while complying with toy gun legislation. Gel blasters quickly took off in popularity, largely due to their affordability compared to airsoft guns and the ability to use them outside of designated fields. Enthusiasts formed clubs to organize gel blaster battles and events. Social media groups dedicated to gel blasting now have over 100,000 members in Australia.

The appeal also spread overseas. Gel blasters are now popular in areas where airsoft-type sports are prohibited or heavily regulated, like the United Kingdom and parts of Asia.major retailers like Walmart, Amazon and eBay now sell a wide selection of gel blaster models and accessories. With demand booming globally, gel blaster sales are projected to surpass $1 billion annually by 2028 according to Transparency Market Research.

However, the rising popularity has been accompanied by controversy. News outlets began reporting on injuries caused by gel blasters, often when used recklessly or against unaware participants. More seriously, police blamed gel blasters for facilitating several armed robberies where the toys were used to mimic real guns. Queensland, Australia banned gel blasters entirely for a period of time in 2017 after a rise in crimes involving their misuse. While the ban was eventually lifted due to galvanized lobbying from gel blasting organizations, other Australian territories imposed age limits and restrictions around owning gel blasters.

Debates now center on balancing the recreational benefits of gel blasters against the small but real risks of misuse that could facilitate injury or crime. Requiring ID during purchase is one measure being considered to mitigate unlawful use by minors.

Why Some Argue for Mandatory ID Checks for Gel Blaster Purchases?

Those advocating that retailers universally mandate ID for gel blaster sales make several valid arguments:

Preventing Sales to Minors

The strongest case for compulsory proof of age is keeping gel blasters out of the hands of minors. Age requirements already exist in areas like New South Wales, Australia where customers must be over 18 to purchase a gel blaster without parental consent. However, online sales often have limited age verification. Mandating that brick-and-mortar retailers check ID would help enforce these age limits and prevent legal violations.

It’s reasonable to require adult supervision for toys that could potentially harm children or others if misused. Paintball venues do not permit play under 18 without a parent signing a waiver. Some feel gel blasters warrant similar oversight given reports of eye injuries and accidental harms. Limiting youth access through ID checks may reduce illegal or dangerous misuse by minors.

Curbing Theft and Violent Crime

Another justification is reducing crimes facilitated through unregulated gel blaster purchases. Media stories have documented thieves using gel blasters in lieu of real firearms when committing robberies. Criminals can purchase the toys with no questions asked then modify them to look like guns. Imposing ID requirements could deter this unlawful behavior and aid police in tracing gel blasters back to perpetrators after crimes occur.

There is also concern that minors could use gel blasters to threaten or assault others. School administrators have voiced fears over students bringing the toys to campus. Checking ID would help flag transactions that could enable bullying or attacks. While statistical evidence connecting gel blasters to violent youth crime remains limited, precautions seem prudent from a public safety standpoint.

Liability Concerns

Retailers already face legal risks selling any products that could be misused to harm people, especially when sold to minors. Gel blasters arguably heighten this liability since injuries and criminal misuse have verifiably occurred. Asking for ID provides due diligence against potential lawsuits or enforcement actions. If a purchased gel blaster is ultimately used to commit a crime or cause injury, the retailer can demonstrate they verified the buyer’s age and identity.

Social Responsibility

Beyond pure self-interest, some retailers may feel an ethical obligation to prevent potential harm enabled by products they sell. This social responsibility rationale incentivizes voluntary action such as checking ID, even absent explicit legal requirements. Companies like Walmart adopted more stringent policies of their own accord to only sell airsoft guns and video game consoles to adults, aiming to limit access by unsupervised minors. Gel blaster sellers could emulate this ethos through proactive ID checks.

Counter-Arguments Against Universal ID Requirements

Those opposed to across-the-board ID requirements for gel blaster purchases offer several counterclaims:

No Legal Basis

Most notably, mandating ID checks lacks a clear legal justification in jurisdictions without existing age limits on gel blasters. Absent formal regulations, gel blasters remain ordinary toys from a legal standpoint. Forcing adults to show ID infringes on consumers’ rights just to buy a toy. Imposing ID requirements without legislative backing also exposes retailers to potential lawsuits for denying sales on an arbitrary basis.

Risk of Reduced Sales

Loss of business is a major concern with compulsory ID policies. Needing ID may deter impulse purchases and increase checkout abandonment rates. Adults without current photo identification would be prevented from making purchases entirely. Retailers in competitive markets could see lower revenues if customers opt for online ordering or physical competitors without ID requirements. This business impact may be untenable for smaller gel blaster companies.

Inconsistent Enforcement

Universal ID checks are also impractical to enforce evenly across all retailers. Big chains like Walmart with sophisticated point-of-sale systems would find compliance easier than small hobby shops or independent gel blaster stores. Strict enforcement may not happen in the channels where lack of oversight is already the biggest issue. Sporadic requirements could simply shuffle sales towards less scrupulous sellers rather than effectively limiting access.

Minimal Crime Link

Despite media hype around gel blaster crime, overall misuse remains low according to research. One Australian study found only 0.2% of gel blaster owners engaged in criminal behavior with the toys. Enforcing ID checks on millions of law-abiding owners to prevent isolated misuse could be overreach. There are also simpler ways to modify the products, like replacing the tank with carbon dioxide cartridges, that ID requirements may not deter.

Perception as Toys

Fundamentally, gel blasters are still considered toys in most jurisdictions. Aside from active misuse, they are not inherently dangerous products. Imposing burdens like showing ID contradicts gel blasters’ categorization as harmless novelty items. Federal regulators have rejected classifying them as firearms or mandating replica firearm markings. Requiring ID aligns gel blasters closer with adult products, conflicting with both laws and consumer expectations in most regions.

Both sides present compelling arguments in the ID requirement debate. Responsible gel blaster vendors ultimately have to weigh factors including:

• Local laws and regulators’ stances on age limits or sales oversight
• Liability risks based on where and how products will be used
• Customer demographics and potential business impacts
• Individual corporate philosophies on social obligations

There is no universal consensus or blanket recommendation. Gel blaster sellers have to examine their own situation and decide where they stand on balancing open access with preventive policies.

Common Ground Perspectives

While polarized at the extremes, there arebalanced paths forward for retailers navigating the gel blaster ID issue:

• Compromise on voluntary ID checks for suspected underage buyers – This approach avoids blanket requirements that could deter law-abiding adult buyers. But staff can still verify age and potentially refuse sales if red flags exist, like juveniles attempting purchases without parents.
• ID checks only for bulk purchases – Limiting mandatory ID to high-volume transactions balances business concerns against potential misuse. People buying gel blasters for events/teams would understand the necessity while individual hobbyists would not be impacted.
• Online sales require ID signature on delivery – For web purchases, requiring adult signature matches retail pickup policies. It targets one of the most problematic sales channels for lack of oversight while avoiding burdens on brick-and-mortar consumers.
• Align with any emerging legal ID requirements – As local gel blaster laws evolve, retailers can stay up-to-date and shift policies accordingly. This ensures compliance if governments impose purchase requirements.
• Proactive employee education on potential misuse – Well-trained staff help deter problems even without hard ID rules. They can identify situations that warrant caution without the need for mandatory procedures.

The Path Forward – Balancing Interests and Risks

Gel blasters sit at the intersection of recreation and public safety. With competing priorities at stake, there are reasonable cases for and against requiring ID during purchases. But reporters also must balance legal duties versus ethical responsibilities, financial incentives versus social motives. There is no universal right or wrong answer in this debate.

The most responsible course involves retailers thoroughly examining their own specific circumstances, interests and risks to shape rational policies that align with those factors. While ID checks may offer benefits in some situations, they also carry downsides that could be needlessly detrimental if applied blindly across the board.

As gel blasters continue growing in popularity, both the industry and regulatory bodies can hopefully develop balanced frameworks that allow enjoyment of this recreational activity within the bounds of community safety. But for now, the onus remains on individual sellers to weigh options, assess priorities, and ultimately make ID decisions that fit their respective situations.

Frequently Asked Questions

How are gel blasters regulated in the United States?

Currently gel blasters remain unrestricted at the federal level in the US and are generally treated as ordinary toy guns. A few states like New Jersey prohibit them specifically, but most have no special gel blaster regulations. They are not considered firearms federally since they use hydrogel balls instead of gunpowder. Local authorities can restrict them under general public safety laws however.

Don’t current laws already ban minors from buying gel blasters?

While some specific localities set age limits, most US states do not formally restrict minor gel blaster purchases currently. They are broadly legal for all ages as toy items. Retailers asking for ID do so based on internal store policies, not as a legal requirement. Gel blasters are banned for minors in some countries like Australia, but US federal laws treat them as ordinary toys.

Could requiring ID open retailers up to discrimination lawsuits?

Potentially yes, if policies appear arbitrary or enforced unevenly. For example, asking only minority customers for ID while allowing other sales without proof of age could spark claims of selective bias. Blanket compulsory ID rules applied fairly avoid discrimination claims since all buyers face the same requirements. But uneven enforcement creates risks even if policies seem well-intentioned.

How would mandatory ID requirements be enforced for online gel blaster sales?

Online enforcement poses challenges since transactions are remote. Some options include requiring uploading ID during checkout or mandating adult signatures at delivery. But these burdens could redirect customers to sellers with fewer barriers. Self-regulation by major marketplaces may be more feasible than universal compliance. Amazon and eBay restricting airsoft sales to adults provide a template for voluntary action.

If a crime occurs with a purchased gel blaster, does checking ID protect retailers from liability?

Not necessarily on its own, but it does demonstrate the retailer made reasonable efforts to only sell to responsible adult buyers. ID checks help establish a compliance baseline but do not guarantee exemption from lawsuits or prosecution. Demonstrating prudent policies strengthens the argument that a retailer was not negligent if products are ultimately misused. But other liability factors remain outside the seller’s control.