Home office consultation on deregulating sound moderators

[Brian243]

Done

 

[Boristhedog]

Done, and I hope our comments are taken into account properly.

 

[ukhunter2017]

Done

 

[ruger77]

Done

 

[Shootgun]

Done

 

[labrador77]

Done

 

[Stalker62]

Just done some maths...



For my FAC, moderators account for (near as damn it) 13% of the firearms.

Extrapolate that across the Country, and the reduction in (utterly pointless) work for the FLDs is obvious.

One can but hope...

 

[maximus otter]

Completed.

maximus otter

 

[Ajax]

Completed

 

[splash]

Haha yeah tried that was told not possible and would need to pay the variation fee as a moderator was not considered a rifle

I was also told that from Derbyshire

 

[Tom270]

Done

 

[Jelen]

Done

 

[Mike L]

Done

 

[BLUEROLL]

Done.

 

[ruger7717]

Common sense at last, done.

 

[fixedwheel]

Done.

 

[Whitefront]

Just done some maths...

View attachment 352564

For my FAC, moderators account for (near as damn it) 13% of the firearms.

Extrapolate that across the Country, and the reduction in (utterly pointless) work for the FLDs is obvious.

One can but hope...

Yes indeed. I once saw a Home Office document which said that, nationally, moderators account for more than 30 per cent of registered section 1 firearms.

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Now if they do not need licensing, will the price drop?

Or proof testing.

 

[hammo]

Done and I wrote this in the comments part.

"I have a sound moderator for my sub 12 ft/lbs BSA .177" air rifle and am allowed to acquire and possess without certification. I do not, personally use any sound moderator my two rifles as they have iron sights fitted so are in any case unsuitable.

However notwithstanding that I therefore have no wish for one an FAC holder cannot acquire or possess a sound moderator for any s1 firearm without a separate variation to their Firearms Certificate to acquire or possess. For those that do wish to have such I agree with the proposals that the primary legislation be amended to remove that need.

In itself a sound moderator cannot chamber a cartridge and cannot fire a cartridge. Therefore if the s57 (1) (d) of the Firearms Act 1968 were repealed they would cease to be subject to control as they are not under the definition of s57 (1) (a) as defined under s57(1B) a "lethal barreled weapon". Without the s1 firearm it attaches to it a sound moderator is a mere expensive piece of pipework.

The wish of the two Proof Houses to seek to make money by having these things proof tested does not make them firearms. The Firearms Act and the items it controls under s1 should be about public safety and that and the Gun Barrel Proof Act should be about that and not about generating a revenue stream for the London Proof House or the Birmingham Proof House."

I must disagree, in some cases proofing is required. Using an unmarked rimfire rated mod on a centrefire can result in the mod 'losing its integrity' it would be the same for a poorly constructed one. I only want my projectile travelling away from my muzzle.

 

[Stalker62]

I once saw a Home Office document which said that, nationally, moderators account for more than 30 per cent of registered section 1 firearms.

I think that would be nearer the truth.

My own FAC figures, are somewhat skewed with the Military and Black Powder nonsense.