moderator change

[Dalua]

I tend to take my advise on FAC matters from them direct at Fettes though, not from a forum.

It could be argued that neither a forum not the FLD is a substitute for finding out yourself using the standard resources of the Firearms Act and the HO Guidance.

It is particularly useful if people use these resources before dogmatically maintaining inaccurate and misleading views.

 

[HME]

It could be argued that neither a forum not the FLD is a substitute for finding out yourself using the standard resources of the Firearms Act and the HO Guidance.

It is particularly useful if people use these resources before dogmatically maintaining inaccurate and misleading views.

Well said. It is indeed worrying that even licensing departments are advising wrongly - only a few months ago one of our local FEO's made a similar slip up, suggesting that the permission to acquire condition allowed a change of firearm even though it had already been used to acquire the firearm - I know full well that there are members on this site who have fallen foul of the same thing. Ignorance is no defence.

 

[Dalua]

OK playing devil’s advocate here, You can’t prove it’s a new moderator – so the police [a well informed FLO for example] examines the mod (a T8 say), it has markings showing the thread type etc. – these were only introduced in 2009, (prior to this the markings were diferent) yet you bought yours in 2007 – when the internals were different as well! So they check your purchase from the dealer, where it is tracked through to a delivery of a number of PES 12 mods, all from JMS arms, who have only supplied PES and MAE mods.

Police feel this is somewhat fishy so send the MOD off for examination, internal exam shows it was clearly made to the new design in 2011.
You are questioned (no coffee at that interview) and charged with:

1. Possession of a section 1 firearm without a certificate (your new mod)
2. Distributing section 1 firearms to persons unknown (Your old mod)

(Armed of course with your publishing the fact that you just swapped it ‘cos no one would know)

Just because your FAC doesn’t state exact details doesn’t mean it isn’t traceable.

The law may be inconvenient, but it is clear in this case

Just saying………

Julie

If I may be permitted to be the Devil's Junior:

I am not of course advocating that anyone act in any unlawful way, but I shall hypothesise:

1. A moderator is not a S1 firearm until is is used on (i.e. it becomes an accessory to) a S1 rifle.
2. This suggests that once removed from a S1 rifle, it ceases to be a S1 firearm.

If this is correct (and why would a moderator, unless in use on a rifle, need to be subject to S1 control?) the FAC variation for a moderator is a certificate of permission to possess a sound-moderating accessory to a rifle. i.e. it allows possession of a moderator attached to and used with a rifle, rather than possession of an inert threaded tin-can.

If I want to put the PH off my airgun on my .22LR instead of whatever it is on there now, why shouldn't I? Then I could put the one of the .22LR on the airgun. Then I could sell the airgun to some suitable random adult, as it's sub 12ftlb. Is there a problem yet?

If there isn't a problem with the above, why would there be a problem with my buying another mod without using my certificate at all (say, for my .308)? I'd then have 2 mods for my .308, but of course only one of them could at any one time actually be an accessory to my .308, since in Dalua-think that means 'fitted to and used with'. As my certificate allows me to have a mod for my .308, I'd be fine.

Another one: I have 1/2"UNF mods for 2x.22LR, 6.5x55 and .22/250 and an airgun
Some would argue that I therefore have 5 mods for one of my .22LR although my certificate only me to possess one. What's that all about?

 

[Orion]

That clears that up then, Thanks

L&B have always been great and easy to deal with,, I have no reason to believe that will change and they will keep me right.

I tend to take my advise on FAC matters from them direct at Fettes though, not from a forum.

You really are having a laugh then.

It is particularly useful if people use these resources before dogmatically maintaining inaccurate and misleading views.

I'll talk about the elephant in the room then! Rake Aboot, you dispute everything you are told - even with extracts from the HO Guidance as evidence of the fact that you require a one-for-one variation - and then you accept another forum posting stating exactly the same facts, (despite informing us that you take your advice from the FLD not the forum). At least have the good grace to say that you were misinformed about the situation, even if you don't want to admit you were wrong.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Well saying as you seem to have a great need to be told you are correct, I`ll oblidge.

I have no problem admitting that iwas wrong, The advise I was given was probably correct but i have misinterprited it and have stated an incorrect way of doing it on here. No big deal. tis only tinternet after all. Most people would take there advise directly from the relevant authority anyway would they not ??

 

[Dalua]

Well saying as you seem to have a great need to be told you are correct, I`ll oblidge.

I don't think he does have such a need at all. I think he knew he was right; as did a good many of us.

I have no problem admitting that iwas wrong, The advise I was given was probably correct but i have misinterprited it and have stated an incorrect way of doing it on here.

That might well be the case, and any of us could likewise be given bad advice, or misinterpret good advice.
However, the grossest error might have been to bang on and on in the same wrong vein despite increasing correct and well-referenced opinion that you had made an error.

No big deal. tis only tinternet after all.

I'm not sure that this arguement does much honour to this Forum. Might hold for some, but not here, surely?

 

[Orion]

Okay. But it's not for my benefit but for those who might be viewing this thread and think that somehow, somewhere in the Country the local FLD can make up the rules about selling and purchasing firearms. Good for you that you've come around to the correct end result.

Most people would take there advise directly from the relevant authority anyway would they not ??

That's big no from me, and also, it appears to apply to a number of other people on this thread, (see previous posts). Unfortunately the level of knowledge about Firearms law is woefully lacking in many FEOs. And in addition you must understand that many FLDs are not on the side of the lawful shooter and appear to have an hidden agenda, either knowingly or through ignorance, to either actively discourage people from obtaining what is lawfully their right, or to try and make it too hard to carry out a lawful activity, and thereby discourage the applicant.

Again in answer your question, no I would not just blindly accept what I was told by the 'relevant authority', but would research the matter and heed advice I was given by some of the frorum members who probably have more experience of firearms matters than many FLD staff.

 

[Rake Aboot]

OK blokes.
Having just re-read this,, I have been a bit dogmatic, and slightly faecetous about the whole thing.
Just coming to the end of 2 weeks 12hr nights in the North Sea might have somit to do with it, but hey,, no excuses, sorry blokes, and blokettes !.

I stand duly corrected.

 

[Dalua]

 

[Julie]

If I may be permitted to be the Devil's Junior:

I am not of course advocating that anyone act in any unlawful way, but I shall hypothesise:

1. A moderator is not a S1 firearm until is is used on (i.e. it becomes an accessory to) a S1 rifle.
2. This suggests that once removed from a S1 rifle, it ceases to be a S1 firearm.

1 agree - Section 7(2) of the firearms act 1988
2) No , Section 7(2) of the firearms act 1988

This basically means anything which becomes a S1 firearm, remains a S1 firearm, so in essence once a moderator has been used on a firearm, it is S1 (not actually proved in case law yet as I understand for mods)

So if my head was on the block, I would argue 7(2) of the amendment does not apply to mods, but common sense would be to avoid the issue by assuming it does, and keeping well clear of the issue!

If I want to put the PH off my airgun on my .22LR instead of whatever it is on there now, why shouldn't I? Then I could put the one of the .22LR on the airgun. Then I could sell the airgun to some suitable random adult, as it's sub 12ftlb. Is there a problem yet?

If there isn't a problem with the above, why would there be a problem with my buying another mod without using my certificate at all (say, for my .308)? I'd then have 2 mods for my .308, but of course only one of them could at any one time actually be an accessory to my .308, since in Dalua-think that means 'fitted to and used with'. As my certificate allows me to have a mod for my .308, I'd be fine.

I agree, a mod is just a bit of fancy tube, until it becomes S1, so I agree use a smallbore mod on an air rifle, and it remains a bit of fancy tube, use it as a handy roller etc. etc - not S1

However once used on S1 it becomes S1, which of course can be determined by the residue in the mod so I believe there would be a problem with these.

Another one: I have 1/2"UNF mods for 2x.22LR, 6.5x55 and .22/250 and an airgun
Some would argue that I therefore have 5 mods for one of my .22LR although my certificate only me to possess one. What's that all about?

Again as the above, once used it is S1 therefore must be itemised on your FAC (except for the air one which remains a bit of fancy tube ), quite simply you could have 4 slots each having "Moderator, no unique number" described (although some police farces will state "One 0.270 moderator for use on x) above" "One 0.308 moderator for use on x+1) above" "One 0.243 moderator for use on x+2) above"....... - and you have a number of identical mods!! )



Julie

 

[Dalua]

1 agree - Section 7(2) of the firearms act 1988
2) No , Section 7(2) of the firearms act 1988

This basically means anything which becomes a S1 firearm, remains a S1 firearm, so in essence once a moderator has been used on a firearm, it is S1 (not actually proved in case law yet as I understand for mods)



So if my head was on the block, I would argue 7(2) of the amendment does not apply to mods, but common sense would be to avoid the issue by assuming it does, and keeping well clear of the issue!



I agree, a mod is just a bit of fancy tube, until it becomes S1, so I agree use a smallbore mod on an air rifle, and it remains a bit of fancy tube, use it as a handy roller etc. etc - not S1

However once used on S1 it becomes S1, which of course can be determined by the residue in the mod so I believe there would be a problem with these.



Again as the above, once used it is S1 therefore must be itemised on your FAC (except for the air one which remains a bit of fancy tube ), quite simply you could have 4 slots each having "Moderator, no unique number" described (although some police farces will state "One 0.270 moderator for use on x) above" "One 0.308 moderator for use on x+1) above" "One 0.243 moderator for use on x+2) above"....... - and you have a number of identical mods!! )



Julie

I agree entirely that it would be foolish to risk loss of FAC on this when 1-for-1 variations are free.

However, the only explanation I can see for my not breaking the law in my last example (possessing 5 mods for .22lr) is that the mods is only a S1 firearm when attached to the relavant rifle. If you can come up with another explanation I'd be interested to know it.

I don't think the 'once used on S1 it stays S1' arguement really holds water. Sure they could tell by the residue it had been, but so what? It's still just a threaded tin-can, but as you say without case-law, who knows?
It seems an odd law that allows a few grains of powder residue to turn a tin can into a S1 firearm when factory-fresh ones are subject to no control.

If the police had any interest in tightly controlling these bits of engineered tube, you'd think they's be as aspecific as possible whe describing them on FACs; whereas in my experience they deliberatly include no specific information at all.

My reading of the S7 of the 1988 Act is that it applies clearly and unambiguously to 'weapons'. To extrapolate that to accessories subject to S1 control (remembering that a thing is, as far as I can tell, only an accessory to a rifle when fitted to it) might be seen as sensibly precautious (1-for-1 variations being free, and all) but doesn't make it a correct reading in law.

 

[BunnyDoom]

OK playing devil’s advocate here, You can’t prove it’s a new moderator – so the police [a well informed FLO for example] examines the mod (a T8 say), it has markings showing the thread type etc. – these were only introduced in 2009, (prior to this the markings were diferent) yet you bought yours in 2007 – when the internals were different as well! So they check your purchase from the dealer, where it is tracked through to a delivery of a number of PES 12 mods, all from JMS arms, who have only supplied PES and MAE mods.

Police feel this is somewhat fishy so send the MOD off for examination, internal exam shows it was clearly made to the new design in 2011.
You are questioned (no coffee at that interview) and charged with:

1. Possession of a section 1 firearm without a certificate (your new mod)
2. Distributing section 1 firearms to persons unknown (Your old mod)

(Armed of course with your publishing the fact that you just swapped it ‘cos no one would know)

Just because your FAC doesn’t state exact details doesn’t mean it isn’t traceable.

The law may be inconvenient, but it is clear in this case

Just saying………

Julie

You are of course right Julie, but I currently have 2 SAK moderators - one was bought as an air rifle moderator as used on my Daystate, and the other is on my ticket as a Section 1 moderator for my 17HMR (even though it will fit my 22 also should I want to)... what if I took my section 1 SAK and swapped it with my air rifle SAK???
There's no way anyone can prove which one is which - you could argue they both have chemicals associated with firearms in them, however I bought the air rifle one second hand so I could argue it was like that when I got it...?

 

[Dalua]

I would be very interested to know why it is thought that a moderator is subject to S1 control unless is actually physically attached to a S1 rifle.

As far as I can tell, that must be what if meant by 'an accessory to' in the Act. It presumably does not mean 'something that could be use as an accessory to', because then most of the twns of thousands of airgun moderators in the country would be unlawfully held.

 

[dave 67]

Couple of things to ask

1. On my FAC under firearms possessed it lists my moderator,now this maybe because there is nowhere else to list it but is that stating it is a firearm?
Get the tin can inert tube until fitted, but this is down to interpretation is it not if in the firearms owned section of your FAC.
2. In conditions it states"The 6.5x55 rifle,.308 win barrel,sound moderator and ammunition to which this certificate relates shall be used for deer stalking purposes"
Now my question is.
Can I use this moderator on my .308 win barrel,due to the fact I never asked for that to be the case.The moderator is stated as 6.5x55 moderator but is actually .30 I never said it was 6.5 on any paperwork I have sent to my FLO they have put that on.

 

[Dalua]

Couple of things to ask

1. On my FAC under firearms possessed it lists my moderator,now this maybe because there is nowhere else to list it but is that stating it is a firearm?
Get the tin can inert tube until fitted, but this is down to interpretation is it not if in the firearms owned section of your FAC.
2. In conditions it states"The 6.5x55 rifle,.308 win barrel,sound moderator and ammunition to which this certificate relates shall be used for deer stalking purposes"
Now my question is.
Can I use this moderator on my .308 win barrel,due to the fact I never asked for that to be the case.The moderator is stated as 6.5x55 moderator but is actually .30 I never said it was 6.5 on any paperwork I have sent to my FLO they have put that on.

My view, for what it's worth, is that if you have a moderator 'slot' specifying 6.5x55mm, then that is the rifle which you are authorised to accessorise with a mod.
The nature of the mod is IMO irrelevant - it is the slot that authorises you to posses a sound moderating accessory to your 6.5x55, which you only actually do possess when a mod is 'an accessory to' the 6.5x55, i.e. screwed to the end of it.
If you put the mod on the .308, you have a sound moderating accessory on a .308; and to possess such a thing you have no authority.

The remedy as I see it is to get your mod slot changed to 6.5mm/.308. Easy!

Discuss

 

[ELRIG]

Personally I think all mods should be on ticket. Also stated on the ticket which firearm there going to be used on. Least that way theres no confusion and if there's any accentidents your backside is covered!.

 

[Dalua]

Personally I think all mods should be on ticket. Also stated on the ticket which firearm there going to be used on. Least that way theres no confusion and if there's any accentidents your backside is covered!.

The administrative burden of that would be incalculable, considering the numbers of mods in use on sub-12ftlb airguns, and to a lesser extent shotguns.
Do you think there would be any public safety advantage from it?

I think that FACs do specify, by calibre or chambering at least, the rifle/s on which a moderator may be used. My belief is that since a mod is only a controlled item when it is one a S1 firearm, there is not reason for them all to be 'on ticket'.

You're right about covering your backside, but as we've discussed using mods only as permitted on your FAC and using a freee 1-for-1 variation when swapping should achieve that end.

 

[timbrayford]

Personally I think all mods should be on ticket. Also stated on the ticket which firearm there going to be used on. Least that way theres no confusion and if there's any accentidents your backside is covered!.

It would be altogether easier if there was an automatic entitlement to possession of a mod for all firearms lawfully held, this could then be entered on the fac in the same manner as ammunition purchases.

 

[dave 67]

Thanks for the replies as I only have one moderator was not sure how they word it if you have more.
Me thinks a quick call to Openshaw in the morrow may be the best course of action as the one mod can be used on the two rifles well one rifle its switch barrel

The madness is you can buy a moderator for a .22/.177 12ft/lb air rifle no problem, but put it on your .22 rimfire without authority to posses and it's now a firearms offence,put it back no problem.

 

[BunnyDoom]

It would be altogether easier if there was an automatic entitlement to possession of a mod for all firearms lawfully held, this could then be entered on the fac in the same manner as ammunition purchases.

Life would be a lot easier if they would simply allow everyone to have the variation to purchase any firearm or moderator provided they part exchange the existing one or can provide the RFD with proof of disposal or sale! Surely that would cut down on the paperwork for the FEO's as they could just do random checks that way as time allowed?!