Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks for doing so - you are amongst the 12K
BASC welcomes government announcement on sound moderators
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
No thanks due to me - I didn't respond for or on behalf of BASC or its members.
I still find it curious that your organisation is so quick to 'welcome' an as-yet incomplete, and relatively trivial hinted-at improvement in firearms law - yet seems to have let that very profound shift in policy (not even law!) go unchallenged which has resulted in certificate-applicants having to pay random sums to GPs in addition to the statutory fee.
Ratcatcher
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I understand the" you still need an fac to acquire a moderator" are they saying I now need an fac for an air rifle moderator?
This raises the interesting question of what you actually need the FAC-slot for.
I think you need a filled FAC-slot for a noise- (or flash-) reducing thing that actually and currently is 'an accessory to' a S1 firearm - where a thing that is 'an accessory to' is a thing that is actually attached to the S1 firearm; rather than a thing that might conceivably be at some time in the future attached to a S1 firearm.
I imagine the legislation will end up saying something like “it is an offence to posses a sound moderator for a firearm to which section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 applies without a certificate authorising the said firearm” or similar, therefore leaving air gun mods untouched
sikamalc
Administrator
Well at least its a step in the right direction. Its ridiculous to put moderators on ticket. And if BASC have applied pressure over the years, and this is the result its a win for shooting.......................for a change
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
The change of approach on medical fees was challenged and there are many aspects of medical involvement in firearms licensing still be to resolved. These things take time and moderators is a case in point given this is the first change in approach for almost 60 years. And when implemented it will significantly reduce police workload on firearm certificates, given that for the last decade around a third of the circa 600,000 firearms covered by a firearm certificate in England and Wales were sound moderators.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Yes, these obvious inconsistencies in the announcement are being clarified. It certainly won't be the case that you need a FAC for an air rifle moderator - that would be adding further regulation on moderators not deregulating moderators. However, be mindful that the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015. Section 1(3)(b) of this Act explicitly includes sound moderators in the definition of air weapon in Scotland. According to the consultation outcome document the Scottish Government is currently considering whether any changes are required to the controls on air weapons in Scotland as a consequence of the intended removal of sound moderators from firearms licensing controls in England, Wales and Scotland.
Its worth reading through the consultation outcome with all of that in mind, but the following extracts are key:
Q1. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the requirement to obtain a certificate from the police in order to acquire and possess a sound moderator should be removed?
94% of those who responded to this question either agreed or strongly agreed that the requirement to obtain a certificate from the police in order to acquire and possess a sound moderator should be removed. 6% either disagreed or strongly disagreed and 1% neither agreed nor disagreed.Having given fresh consideration to this issue, the Government is of the view that there are strong arguments in favour of removing sound moderators from firearms licensing controls. As set out in the consultation paper, these items are a firearms accessory that present no danger in themselves to the public.
As perhaps anticipated work to do to make the legislaition fit for purpose.
Perhaps I am the only cynic, the moderators part of amending the legislation is good news, the bad news is this proposal is likely to be combined with other proposals such as moving Shotguns to FAC.
Perhaps I am the only cynic, the moderators part of amending the legislation is good news, the bad news is this proposal is likely to be combined with other proposals such as moving Shotguns to FAC.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
There will be a consultation on the latter later this year and that is where every singe cert holder needs to get involved.
The whole airgun licensing scheme needs to be abolished - it serves no purpose other then furthering the SNP’s agenda of making Scotland “different” to the rest of the UK
I'm surprised the rest of the UK hasn't fallen into line with Scotland and bought in licencing for sub 12 air guns.
As I recall it, the initial suggestion of applicants who declared illnesses having to pay for medical reports was accepted - in the context that other applicants wouldn't.
It was pointed out at the time that that meant some applicants would have to pay more than the statutory fee for the process of grant - and that that change in principle could be problematic.
And so it has proved.
Has the BASC any plans to get the situation put back to the way the spirit of the Firearms Act would have it, with the statutory fee being the only cost an applicant is obliged to pay?
Ratcatcher
Well-Known Member
Having recently gone through my renewal, I use my 17hmr moderator on my sub 12 ft lb air rifle, my feo tried to tell me I should have my air gun in my cabinet, it's this sort of bull---- that hopefully will be ended
I'd rather have moderators on ticket, and have to pay only the statutory fee on grant and renewal - with no additional fees to GPs.Well at least its a step in the right direction. Its ridiculous to put moderators on ticket. And if BASC have applied pressure over the years, and this is the result its a win for shooting.......................for a change
I fear the statement on moderators has probably come either because the HO recognise that the numbers of lawfully-held 'firearms' recorded would drop as a result (which they might tolerate as a minor PR win for them, despite the fact it is a convenience for S1-users); or because they think either it's unlikely to get any parliamentary time (or would be defeated if it did), or that in the context of opening the Firearms Act to adjustment, they'll take the opportunity to run some other stuff through that is not so convenient or us.
Time will tell.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
BASC successfully argued against this the last time it was being considered for England and Wales.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's on the list and will require a NHS contract in place. The principle of the agreement between various bodies including BMA in 2016 was that nobody was expected to pay a medical fee for initial medical verification. We discussed this history before on this forum and off it and we were unable to pinpoint when exactly a fee was brought in for people needing a full medical report, but it was probably between 2012 and 2016.
It's not a question of when it was brought in.
It is question of how the risk resulting from the initial proposals for some applicants only to pay an additional fee was not recognised by BASC.
Following that, it is a question of why so much hope was placed in some proposals for from the medical practitioners' trade union, which did not seem likely to be 'welcomed' by GPs and were unsurprisingly rejected by pretty much all of them.
The final thing (for me, at least) is BASC's apparent inability to recognise that it could have done things better - and it is that which leaves me anxious about BASC ongoingly being involved in any of this stuff.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
In 2016 there was an attempt to find a workable way forward on medical involvement in firearms licensing which was against the backdrop of proposals for mandatory medical verification for all applications following on from various incidents involving cert holders and coroner's reports. The 2015 Targeting the Risk HMIC report covered much of this. The 2016 approach failed and was not for want of trying. If I remember correctly the 2016 national approach had been preceded by one or two force level trials. I appreciate you believe that the shooting organisations should not have got involved then and should not be involved now in any discussions with Home Office or government on firearms licensing and you are entitled to your view and you have chosen to resurrect all this on a thread where progress on firearms licensing is being reported.
Similar to the current situation where you can buy an airgun mod without a slot but fitting it to an FAC Air rifle is a breach of conditions - despite it being the same mod
Similar threads
