Purchasing a RIF clarification

[Gepard]

I don't get the opportunity to play much any more. When I do it tends to be at the same two sites which I'm a bit burnt out of at the moment. 

I played perhaps 3-5 times last year and aren't a current member of either site. My UKARA expired some time ago. 

Do I still need to go through the process again in order to legally purchase a RIF? 

 

[Guest]

You need a defence. Retailers use UKARA, BUT your defence could be a multitude of different things, I don’t believe anybody has ever tested it in a court of law.

For me, if somebody can prove to me they regularly skirmish, that’s good enough.

 

[Gepard]

For me, if somebody can prove to me they regularly skirmish, that’s good enough.

That's pretty much what I wanted to know. Cheers. 

My defense would be that whilst I don't play every week, I do still go down multiple times a year. Whether that would be acceptable would be up to the seller's discretion.

 

[Rogerborg]

You need a defence.

Seller needs a defence...

If you get really stuck, https://www.airsoftworld.net/ will flog you RIFs based on you having £20 worth of "Just Cos" insurance: https://www.just-cos.co.uk/

 

[Guest]

Seller needs a defence...

If you get really stuck, https://www.airsoftworld.net/ will flog you RIFs based on you having £20 worth of "Just Cos" insurance: https://www.just-cos.co.uk/

I was under the impression the seller needs to see the buyers defence?

 

[Tommikka]

I was under the impression the seller needs to see the buyers defence?

The seller is responsible for the sale and needs to be satisfied that the buyer has one of the VCRA defences

An airsoft skirmisher needs to satisfy the buyer that they are a valid player who uses genuine sites. The UKARA process is one method

‘Just cos’ insurance is for cosplayers.  They are not an activity under the VCRA but could be accepted as re-enactment

Its not re-enactment in the context of the re-enactment groups considered at the time of the legislation but it gets accepted by places 

 

[Rogerborg]

I was under the impression the seller needs to see the buyers defence?

It's entirely up to the seller.  They're the one committing the offence, and they're the one who might (but almost certainly won't) be asked to produce a defence.

The defence is selling "for the purposes of".  UKARA or any other evidence about what the buyer has done says nothing about what they will do, and there's no "reasonable belief" clause, so every sale is a gamble.  As far as we know, there's been no test case to indicate how careful sellers need to be.