NABIS do not agree with removing sound moderators from FAC.
- Thread starter Liveonce
- Start date
I would be curious to know how common it is to see air weapon moderators used for crime rather than licenced S1 moderators?
Additionally, surely their concern of increased supply could possibly be mitigated by still requiring sight of an FAC for purchase, much like primers etc. Just none of the bother of actually having to write it on the ticket...
Additionally, surely their concern of increased supply could possibly be mitigated by still requiring sight of an FAC for purchase, much like primers etc. Just none of the bother of actually having to write it on the ticket...
I am also slightly confused about their reponse, as there's a section that seems fundamentally wrong...
We all only have 1 certificate that covers all our firearms right? We are not applying for a separate certificate for a sound moderator, we are applying for a variation of the existing certificate?
We all only have 1 certificate that covers all our firearms right? We are not applying for a separate certificate for a sound moderator, we are applying for a variation of the existing certificate?
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
If it satisfies NABIS why not have the same controls on purchasing sound moderators as currently apply to purchases of primers and powders, although I rather get the impression that NABIS may have seen one too many James Bond movies!
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
"Handguns such as these are prohibited in the UK; removing sound moderators from legislation will mean they can be sold legitimately, and subsequently used with these guns in crime."
That's like saying 100% of criminals drink water to stay hydrated and survive so we should ban water so we can prevent crime.
That's like saying 100% of criminals drink water to stay hydrated and survive so we should ban water so we can prevent crime.
One on top of two
Well-Known Member
Oh well … so that’s the end of that then !
Like it was ever really going to happen anyway.
Like it was ever really going to happen anyway.
Looks to me like a response that was thrown together in a hurry (deadline looming, probably), without much thought being given to what was actually being said. It even appears to contradict itself in several places, and the writer was clearly lacking in some basic firearms (and firearms legislation) knowledge.
If I was the person tasked with evaluating the various responses to the consultation I wouldn't be taking that one very seriously.
If I was the person tasked with evaluating the various responses to the consultation I wouldn't be taking that one very seriously.
Anyone involved in ANY planning process in this country will have encountered this more and more recently.
Poorly written, ill thought through, under-evidenced and contradictory pseudo-official jargon thrown together at the last minute by the second replacement deputy maternity cover temporary stand in who until last week was in a different department.
Poorly written, ill thought through, under-evidenced and contradictory pseudo-official jargon thrown together at the last minute by the second replacement deputy maternity cover temporary stand in who until last week was in a different department.
FWIW just because on organisation objects does not make it so. It could of course be that this poorly drafted, and imho illogically 'argued' paper carries so much weight that it carries the day.
On the other hand, the proposal to remove moderators form tickets did not come from a 'few blokes' on a forum. The reasons why the proposal came forward are set out here . ultimately the scales will tip to one side of the argument or the other, the introduction linked to talks about rifle moderators, not pistol moderators. Removing the need for a FAC holder to obtain one may well potentially be possible, without the need for them to be sold on the general market.
When all is said and done, the people making/adapting/obtaining weapons for criminal use, are unlikely to be deterred form obtaining a moderator to go with said unlawfully held weapon. Bit like the arguments about criminals who go into the RFD and buy a shotgun/rifle, as desirable as a H+H SBS may be, they're hardly the kind of weapon a drug dealer desires to frighten the crap out rival dealers, a Glock maybe!
Could be wrong mind, JMHO
On the other hand, the proposal to remove moderators form tickets did not come from a 'few blokes' on a forum. The reasons why the proposal came forward are set out here . ultimately the scales will tip to one side of the argument or the other, the introduction linked to talks about rifle moderators, not pistol moderators. Removing the need for a FAC holder to obtain one may well potentially be possible, without the need for them to be sold on the general market.
When all is said and done, the people making/adapting/obtaining weapons for criminal use, are unlikely to be deterred form obtaining a moderator to go with said unlawfully held weapon. Bit like the arguments about criminals who go into the RFD and buy a shotgun/rifle, as desirable as a H+H SBS may be, they're hardly the kind of weapon a drug dealer desires to frighten the crap out rival dealers, a Glock maybe!
Could be wrong mind, JMHO
The handguns stated are illegal anyway. If the criminal is able to get hold of the illegal handgun, chances are he can get hold of an illegal moderator as well? They would also make a handgun more difficult to conceal, more awkward to use, and reduce the range.
I would be quite interested in watching someone trying to fit and then use a Wildcat Evo for .308 on a Glock 9mm!
It also says that these can by 3D printed at home. If so, then whether or not you need an FAC to buy one is immaterial.
I would be quite interested in watching someone trying to fit and then use a Wildcat Evo for .308 on a Glock 9mm!
It also says that these can by 3D printed at home. If so, then whether or not you need an FAC to buy one is immaterial.
I had the same thought re a rifle mod on a pistol.
As for the rest of your post, now, now you're just being picky! Why would a crim want to print their own for about a 'tenner' when they would be able to pop into their local RFD and spend a couple of hundred quid on one that has a nice name on it and looks the dogs danglies on a rifle!
Last edited:
Not to mention leaving a clear paper trail/credit card trail, several witnesses and CCTV footage...
And surely, if handguns are illegal in the UK, why would anyone supply or import a sound moderator for a handgun? You couldn't put it on anything OTHER than a handgun, so if someone came and asked to buy one it might just raise a suspicion that they were not on the straight and narrow?
Or terribly intelligent?
Last edited:
8x57
Distinguished Member
What a complete and utter load of tosh.
If they had valid concerns you really would expect a so called professional organisation to come up with much better arguments than some of that total load of codswollop. Their response is embarrassingly poor and their arguments weak.
There's only one possible reaction to much of their reasoning.
If they had valid concerns you really would expect a so called professional organisation to come up with much better arguments than some of that total load of codswollop. Their response is embarrassingly poor and their arguments weak.
There's only one possible reaction to much of their reasoning.
A quick Google search has revealed that the most common calibre of handgun is 9mm, followed by 10mm and .45.
A .308 is one of the larger calibres of rifle, and is 7.62mm. So you can't fire any of the aforementioned handgun calibres down one of the largest common rifle moderators - or have I got that wrong?
A .308 is one of the larger calibres of rifle, and is 7.62mm. So you can't fire any of the aforementioned handgun calibres down one of the largest common rifle moderators - or have I got that wrong?
Skietindiekop
Well-Known Member
First paragraph quotes
However, they do create a risk to public safety when used in
conjunction with a compatible firearm. The legislation should still cover sound moderators when
used in criminal circumstances.
This sums it up perfectly, criminal use of moderators should be on ticket along with their handgun that is banned from law abiding owners/users
However, they do create a risk to public safety when used in
conjunction with a compatible firearm. The legislation should still cover sound moderators when
used in criminal circumstances.
This sums it up perfectly, criminal use of moderators should be on ticket along with their handgun that is banned from law abiding owners/users
Yeah, that bit made me laugh too!
Similar threads
