Moderators

Premium Gun Accessories - Ammo Fusion
Beat me to it @rocketdogbert .....

The Bill is in its final stages and is in report stage in the Lords.

Basically, the last chance saloon for amendments to be added. The fact these are HMG sponsored means they will go forward with the rest of the bill to the consideration of amendments immediately prior to Royal Assent.....which is likely to be in the spring.

Hopefully on the statute book by the summer.
 
They seem to have missed the point that you currently don't actually need a FAC or SGC to possess one.

I think BASC had an answer to this problem in an older thread - but I can't recall what the answer was.
 
3595wilk said:
Hopefully on the statute book by the summer.
Click to expand...
Hopefully perhaps, but do we know how the new crime of possessing a moderator with FAC or SGC is going to work?
Currently it's not actually a crime to possess them AFAIK - though it is to fit one without FAC authority (i.e. a variation) to a S1 firearm.
That is how everyone who owns an airgun mod avoids being a criminal - since although all those airgun mods would work on FAC-level airguns (and .22LR rifles, probably), their owners do not attach them to such weapons and so are not breaking any law.
 
That will most likely be part of the guidance issued by HMG as part of the Statute. While the Bill is likely to get Royal Assent soon, not all parts are immediately active.....and this may be one? I dont recall the thread you mention - hopefully someone can link to this one - as would be keen to read the proposal. I have several sub-12 air rifles - the majority of which are moderated.

I understand that there remains questions - but the central issue is some common sense at last about the relative lethality of an inert tube.........?
 
3595wilk said:
I understand that there remains questions - but the central issue is some common sense at last about the relative lethality of an inert tube.........?
Click to expand...
I think this question is absolutely the central issue.

If the Powers had correctly understood the lack of lethality of sound-moderators, you'd think they would be inclined to restrict them less than they are currently restricted - which, if you stop and think about for a second, appears to be the opposite of what's being proposed: currently, you only need a FAC to own one if it's attached to a S1 firearm - which admittedly is a bit of a drag, as you need a variation for the mod - but apart from that, no big deal surely?

Mods attached to any non-S1 firearm or airgun, and mods not attached to any firearm, are not subject to any control at all.

To move from that position to 'you need an FAC or SGC to own a mod' is quite a leap in terms of more restrictions, is it not? A bit less hassle for those FAC-holders who find it necessary to re-vary for changes of moderator - but what about everyone else?
 
The wording will be crucial as to wheter the point of control is at the point of sale or at the point of possession.

If it remains a requirement for a seller to see an FAC/SGC to sell a mod then I imagine this will still mean no online sales and expensive RFD transfers so very little is gained from this so-called "deregulation" except the need for a variation.

On the other hand if the onus is on the person possessing the moderator then it will be a much more worthwhile deregulation.

The situation in Scotland also needs to be clarified as you could end up in an absurd situtation where a 308 moderator can be sent in the post but an air rifle mod must be bought face to face - ideally the bill would also amend the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015 to remove any reference to moderator or flash hider.
 
It’s my belief they were originally included in the Firearms Act, and on the same line of legislation as flash hiders, because the landed gentry wanted to restrict poaching, in the mistaken belief they hid all muzzle flashes and made rifles silent.
 
rocketdogbert said:
It’s my belief they were originally included in the Firearms Act, and on the same line of legislation as flash hiders, because the landed gentry wanted to restrict poaching, in the mistaken belief they hid all muzzle flashes and made rifles silent.
Click to expand...
I don't know the reasoning behind it, but I think the Bodkin committee in 1934 wanted mods deemed as 'part' of a firearm (no S2 in those happy days) so that a moderator unattached to a firearm would be subject to the same control as an actual firearm. This is clearly didn't make it into law, and so we have the current position where mods are subject to S1 control only when they are 'an accessory to' a S1 firearm.

All mods not fulfilling that criterion are not subject to control - a position the loss of which we should not be 'welcoming', I'd have thought?
 
Not having to do a variation to add an additional moderator or change an existing one will be a big advantage.
Possibly will go the way of metallic primers, face to face sales with the need to show a suitable FAC to purchase a proofed moderator.

it will save a lot of work for the licensing teams, which has got to also be good.
 
Liveonce said:
Not having to do a variation to add an additional moderator or change an existing one will be a big advantage.
Possibly will go the way of metallic primers, face to face sales with the need to show a suitable FAC to purchase a proofed moderator.

it will save a lot of work for the licensing teams, which has got to also be good.
Click to expand...

If moderators cease to be “firearms” then there be no more need for proofing (although it is debatable if they ever needed proofing in the first place)
 
Elshad said:
If moderators cease to be “firearms” then there be no more need for proofing
Click to expand...
Moderators have never been 'firearms'.
A moderator while it is 'an accessory to' a S1 firearm is treated for certification purposes as if it were a firearm - that is as far as it has ever gone, as far as I can tell.
 
The op is quoting the Scottish law where air guns are required to be held on licence thus ALL moderators are treated the same way. The rest of uk should just see them all become unregulated.
 
There's a number of threads from June or so last year on this subject, in which the same major question is raised - 'how will the new law work?'
BASC's initial 'welcome' BASC welcomes government announcement on sound moderators ends with the following paragraphs:

Bill Harriman, BASC’s director of firearms, added: “We welcome the decision to remove sound moderators from firearms licensing controls. This will bring benefits not only for the shooting community, but also reduce the police’s workload in licensing firearms by 32 per cent.

“BASC will seek clarity on the meaning of the sentence ‘….although it will be a requirement for a person to be in possession of a valid certificate in order to lawfully possess a sound moderator.’ to ensure that this does not become licensing by the back door.”

We will also seek clarity on the position for airguns and shotguns.

Their FAQ from July Sound moderators: what you need to know suggests some knowledge of what's intended, but I'm not sure anything further came to light?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Latest on Moderators being removed from FACs
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
Foxyboy43
Foxyboy43
Sound moderators deregulation - FAQ
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
6K
Elshad
E
Moderators law update??
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Norfolk Deer Search
Norfolk Deer Search
New FAC - moderators
Replies
11
Views
600
bottletopbill
bottletopbill
Moderators finally coming off ticket.
Replies
1
Views
279
finnbear270
finnbear270
Bleak Ridge is a family-run business, selling country clothing and workwear
Back
Top