A friend has recently purchased a moderator and having paid cash to the seller (private) transaction, promptly produced his certificate for the usual. Only at this point was he told that the mod was not on ticket and so no paperwork req'd.What is the best way for the mod to be placed on his ticket, which has an open slot for a mod in 30cal.
Advice req'd on moderator
- Thread starter Deerless
- Start date
An interesting situation. According to the BASC Firearms Dept's official opinion on the classification of moderators given here http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/showthread.php/57439-Classification-of-sound-moderators
it would be most unusual for a moderator capable of being used on a .30cal centrefire rifle to be held without FAC authority.
it would be most unusual for a moderator capable of being used on a .30cal centrefire rifle to be held without FAC authority.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Come on. Another post that's convinced me that we're definitely in the silly season.
Whether a cash sale bargain or not, demand a receipt and the required entry on your FAC - or your money back. The proper paperwork is an obligation on both parties, which means YOU.
What happens if you're found with it, and the vendor denies he supplied it? Why take the risk?
This kind of situation is one reason my I persisit in my view that a moderator is not subject to S1 control unless, as it says in the Firearms Act, it actually currently is an accessory to a S1 firearm: rather than just that it might be used as an accessory to such a firearm. It seems to me that most moderators in the country might by virture of their design possibly be used on S1 firearms - for decent quality airgun mods are designed to work with airgun running at more than 12ftlb, and any moderator designed for a S2 shotgun will of course work with a shotgun which becuase of barrel length, or removability of magazine, be controlled under S1. But I digress...Even the BASC Firearms Dept (who disagree strongly with my view of this) statement would seem to allow that if the vendor had been using it on a non-S1 airgun or shotgun then it would probably not be subject to S1 control - as they state in their conclusion in that document (my emphasis):
Under such circumstances, the position seems to me the same as that of a man who gets variation to allow him to use a moderator on his .22LR and buys a SAK mod that the vendor has been using on his airgun.
I suspect under such a circumstance, the FAC-holding purchaser would just enter a 'one no name/no number moderator' onto his own FAC - just as he would if he'd manufactured his own moderator.
Under such circumstances, the position seems to me the same as that of a man who gets variation to allow him to use a moderator on his .22LR and buys a SAK mod that the vendor has been using on his airgun.
I suspect under such a circumstance, the FAC-holding purchaser would just enter a 'one no name/no number moderator' onto his own FAC - just as he would if he'd manufactured his own moderator.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Well .... these musings are all very interesting, but they don't answer the OP's question.
We all know an RFD can supply a moderator suitable for an air-rifle, which you can then screw onto your .22rf without prior authorisation.
But this is a different situation which is clear cut.
It's a .30 Cal. Section 1 commercial moderator (which isn't 'home made' .... not too many of these about!) for which the buyer has a slot. He needs an entry fom the seller, who has to enter his 'Authority to Possess' such an article (FAC or RFD No.) - rather like an ammunition or firearm transaction.
I. Farticus
Well-Known Member
Sounds like there's too much joined-up thinking required, and personally I'd be asking for my money back then buy a mod from an RFD...
I want my FAC to be 100% - no exceptions
I want my FAC to be 100% - no exceptions
This.....
Well, you could - but would you not be breaking the law as you would then be in possesion of a sound-moderating accessory to a S1 firearm?
My opinion (which which the BASC Firearms Dept disagrees) is that unless the moderator is fitted to a S1 firearm, it is not an accessory to an S1 firearm and therefore not subject to control under the Firearms Act.
If this were true, a man with a lathe who makes a .30cal c/f mod and possess it is would not be acting unlawfully.
If that is correct, then anyone owning a .30cal c/f mod is not acting unlawfully (since a thing that could be used as a .30cal c/f/ mod remains just that regardless of the person possessing it): and they continue within the law until they make that moderator an accessory to a S1 firearm by fitting it onto one.
My contention then is that unlike a firearm or ammunition (which are by their very nature restricted by the Firearms Act), a moderator is restricted under S1 of the Firearms Act only by virtue of its actually and currently being an accessory to a S1 Firearm.
I accept that this might not be correct, and must point out again that BASC Firearms Dept are firmly of the view that I am not correct.
Last edited:
badbob
Well-Known Member
pleased its a friend and not you
give it back
mods seem to cause a lot of probs
I had a friend who had problems once over a moderator
caused a lot of stress and he likes to be 100% correct
.what are they? an expensively engineered paperweight or pencil holder
now that it is almost mandatory to have one because of Health and Safety
its time they were de regulated for certificate holders , ie you have a ticket for a firearm AND moderator(s) (if wanted or reqd)
and if you want to try a different one... OK..if you can afford it
give it back
mods seem to cause a lot of probs
I had a friend who had problems once over a moderator
caused a lot of stress and he likes to be 100% correct
.what are they? an expensively engineered paperweight or pencil holder
now that it is almost mandatory to have one because of Health and Safety
its time they were de regulated for certificate holders , ie you have a ticket for a firearm AND moderator(s) (if wanted or reqd)
and if you want to try a different one... OK..if you can afford it
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Dalua,
I understand your theory.... very adroit. The status of moderators is ambivalent, and the earlier posts reflect a lot of frustration with this. I've had no direct experience of this, as I don't (& won't) use mods at all although the nice FLD staff licensed this ages ago.
However, harmless lump of metal or not, legally they've acquired most of the characteristics of 'firearms'. You can for instance trade in an unused moderator slot for a firearm as a free Variation without increasing the number of firearms held........ although in practice you have acquired an extra one.
That's another logical conundrum to ponder.
see it shoot it
Well-Known Member
why arnt muzzle brakes on ticket basically its a screw on extra which reduces recoil,just like a mod useless and fit for nothing unless fitted on a rifle
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Maybe we should suggest that they make it so brakes need to be 'on ticket' as well.
Dalua,
I understand your theory.... very adroit. The status of moderators is ambivalent, and the earlier posts reflect a lot of frustration with this. I've had no direct experience of this, as I don't (& won't) use mods at all although the nice FLD staff licensed this ages ago.
However, harmless lump of metal or not, legally they've acquired most of the characteristics of 'firearms'. You can for instance trade in an unused moderator slot for a firearm as a free Variation without increasing the number of firearms held........ although in practice you have acquired an extra one.
That's another logical conundrum to ponder.
I don't think it's a conundrum at all, really. It certainly (but thanks for the compliment) is not that adroit. It is simply the only understanding of the law which does not leave owners of moderators for all airguns and firearms entirely at sea with respect to what is and isn't a S1 item.
To me, the only interpretation of the term 'accessory to', as used with respect to moderators in the Firearms Act, which seems to make consitent sense is that the term has a similar meaning as 'accessory to' a robbery, for example: as opposed to interpreting it to mean the same as the colloquial 'accessory for'.
In order for someone to be an 'accessory to' a particular robbery, a bloke must have a specific relationship to that robbery. It is not reasonable to arrest some bloke as an accessory to a robbery just because as a bloke he could, given the chance, have been an accessory to a robbery.
So, perhaps with a moderator: pretty much any moderator is designed or adapted to the purpose could be used as an accessory to (i.e. attached to) a S1 firearm - airgun mods are designed to cope with S1 airguns if not even rimfire rifles and shotgun mods are designed to cope with S1 shotguns, just as any bloke has the potential to be an accessory to a robbery. However, without the specific association of the mod to the S1 firearm or the bloke to the robbery, I can't see how either one could be an accessory to the other.
The important difference seems to me to be that having been an accessory to a robbery, a bloke retains the guilt of that criminal act - such that once he has broken off his criminal activity or association he can't plead not guilty on the grounds that he isn't doing it any more.
A moderator is not a bloke, and it therefore seems likely thay it should not retain the restriction to which it was subject when it was an accessory to (i.e. attached to) a S1 firearm once it ceases to be an accessory to (i.e. is removed from) a S1 firearm.
My opinion is that the 'slot' for a moderator on a FAC is filled when the mod is attached and vacated when the mod is removed. The bit about moderators was introduced into the (I think) 1934 Firearms Act, and the 'slot' system already established simply had to cope with it somehow, as it has done for 80-odd years.
'cos they aren't 'designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash', I think. A detachable flash-hider would, as far as I can tell, require a 'slot'.
Last edited:
Shropshire Lad
Well-Known Member
A definitive way to test your opinion would be for you to acquire a moderator designed for S1 firearms eg a T8, Wildcat etc that isn't covered on your firearms certificate, be convicted for unlawful possession of the S1 firearm and then see what the appeal court judges have to say about it. In the meantime, I'll follow the David's (from BASC on another thread) interpretation.
Last edited:
Under which law would such a conviction be likely?
I entirely understand and support this site's view of 'off ticket' moderator sales, by the way, just as I would support any retailer's right not to sell a mod to someone who doesn't have a variation for one.
However, it would be interesting to know whether in Limulus's case the police went and arrested the chap who sold him the mod. You'd think they'd have done for certain as an easy collar, wouldn't you?
As you say, a moderator designed for a S1 firearm: but the law says that for a moderator to fall under S1 restriction it must be 'designed or adapted' to diminsh the noise of firing, and be 'an accessory to' a S1 firearm.
Is anyone suggesting that PH .22LR mods are not designed for a S1 firearm? It is clear that they are, and the evidence is on hand in old PH catalogues, which predate the days when it would have crossed anyone's mind to moderate an airgun. Yet these mods, designed for a S1 firearms, are freely sold to and lawfully used and owned by folk who do not use them as an accessory to a S1 firearm.
Dalua,
I can not believe you are still trying to pedal your interpretation and muddying the water with talk of airgun moderators.
Everything written on the subject clearly states that a sound moderator designed for use on a S1 or S5 firearm is in it's own right classed as a firearm.
HO Guidance (new):
2.3 ‘Firearm’ means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or
other missile can be discharged. This includes any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a
lethal weapon or not, any component part (see Chapter 13) of such a lethal or prohibited
weapon, and any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the
noise or flash caused by firing the weapon.
And HO reply to my specific question on the subject ( which I have shown you before)
Although not specifically defined by name in the Act it is the view of the Home Office that sound moderators and suppressors intended for use as parts for either a section 1 or section 5 firearm are subject to section 1 licensing controls and a firearm certificate would be required to manufacture, possess, purchase or acquire them.
You will note that the HO say "intended for use as parts for" and not, as your argument goes whilst attached to.
I would also draw your attention to this section of the new HO guidance, particularly the last sentence.
13.77 Sound moderators are subject to certificate control as “items designed to reduce the noise
or flash of a firearm”. Sound moderators for .22 rimfire rifles are often used for shooting
game, deer, or vermin. In the case of the latter, they might facilitate more effective pest
control. They are appropriate for reducing hearing damage to the shooter, or to reduce
noise nuisance, for example, for deer control in urban parks, or close to residential
properties, or to reduce recoil of the rifle. “Good reason” to possess a rifle for shooting
game, vermin or deer should normally imply “good reason” to possess a sound moderator.
It should be noted that sound moderators on air weapons or section 2 shot guns are not
considered to be component parts. Chief officers of police should also be aware of the
case of Broome v Walter (1989) where it was found that an integral sound moderator, that
is one that is part of the firearm, does not require separate authorisation. Whilst sound
moderators for air weapons are not subject to certificate control they will need to be
accounted for in dealers registers when they are in the dealers stock.
I can not believe you are still trying to pedal your interpretation and muddying the water with talk of airgun moderators.
Everything written on the subject clearly states that a sound moderator designed for use on a S1 or S5 firearm is in it's own right classed as a firearm.
HO Guidance (new):
2.3 ‘Firearm’ means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or
other missile can be discharged. This includes any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a
lethal weapon or not, any component part (see Chapter 13) of such a lethal or prohibited
weapon, and any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the
noise or flash caused by firing the weapon.
And HO reply to my specific question on the subject ( which I have shown you before)
Although not specifically defined by name in the Act it is the view of the Home Office that sound moderators and suppressors intended for use as parts for either a section 1 or section 5 firearm are subject to section 1 licensing controls and a firearm certificate would be required to manufacture, possess, purchase or acquire them.
You will note that the HO say "intended for use as parts for" and not, as your argument goes whilst attached to.
I would also draw your attention to this section of the new HO guidance, particularly the last sentence.
13.77 Sound moderators are subject to certificate control as “items designed to reduce the noise
or flash of a firearm”. Sound moderators for .22 rimfire rifles are often used for shooting
game, deer, or vermin. In the case of the latter, they might facilitate more effective pest
control. They are appropriate for reducing hearing damage to the shooter, or to reduce
noise nuisance, for example, for deer control in urban parks, or close to residential
properties, or to reduce recoil of the rifle. “Good reason” to possess a rifle for shooting
game, vermin or deer should normally imply “good reason” to possess a sound moderator.
It should be noted that sound moderators on air weapons or section 2 shot guns are not
considered to be component parts. Chief officers of police should also be aware of the
case of Broome v Walter (1989) where it was found that an integral sound moderator, that
is one that is part of the firearm, does not require separate authorisation. Whilst sound
moderators for air weapons are not subject to certificate control they will need to be
accounted for in dealers registers when they are in the dealers stock.
You bet ya,
Why don't you design and make a sound moderator for a centre fire rifle, I can then get a very interested firearms licensing manager to prosecute you for free.....then you could go to court and settle the matter........ the evidence of your intentions to ignore the law on this forum are huge.
When would you like to start?
Last edited:
The BASC Firearms Dept's statement, although it starts out saying that concludes that in fact you can't tell what is and what isn't a S1 firearm in its own right.
The HO Guidance misquotes the statute law ('items designed to reduce the noise or flash of a firearm' is not a phrase found in the Firearms Act), and in any case, a thing can not be both an 'accessory to' something and a 'part' of it, can it?
Compared to that, and the other confused and neccessarily self-contradictory interpretations of the law that have been offered, it seems unreasonable to say that is I who am 'muddying the waters'. The interpretation I offer is rather one which gives us crystal-clarity.
It might not be right, but it is clear.
To the our new colleague tFl (whose first post suggests that he/she has the impression that I in some way suggesting that I or anyone else might take some legally questionable action based on a hypothesis of what the law is saying: which I must carefully emphasise that I am not) I would say that it is very much in the interests of those whose agenda is to restrict lawful firearms-users to support the view that some moderators are in their in their own right S1 firearms.
It might be helpful if those who think my hypothesis is incorrect (as indeed it might be) would present some clear arguments in support of their position based on what the law says and how this law has been applied since 1934.
For a start, if a mod designed for a S1 .22 rimfire (a PH or SAK .22 mod, for example) is not a S1 item when it is attached to a non-S1 airgun or shotgun, presumably it is not a S1 item when it is not attached to any thing at all.
If we allow that, what difference does it make if the mod is designed for a .22cf rifle, or a .308cf rifle, for that matter? It's still just as 'designed for' a S1 rifle as the PH mod, and so presumably it is still just as not-S1 when attached to a the non-S1 airgun, and presumably also when it is not attached to anything.
It is interesting.
Finally, for the benefit of tFl and his/her interested FLD Manager friend, I will reemphasise that all my moderator-related behaviours are based on a cautious interpretation of the law - and I encourage other folk to do likewise.
Last edited:
Dalua,
BASC's opinion is factual based on the fact that you can distinguish a firearm as defined. With regard to sound mods it is the words "Anything which is designed" which is the key wording.
Air weapon mods are not caught where designed for use on an air weapon. The fact they may be fitted onto a section 1 firearm and work very well is totally irrellevant.
Same with expanding ammunition, if its "designed to expand on impact" its caught by section 5. All bullets expand on impact especially round nosed lead .38 special but the consequence of lead deformning at velocity for a solid bullet is irrelvant unless it was "designed to expand in a predictable manner"
BASC's opinion is factual based on the fact that you can distinguish a firearm as defined. With regard to sound mods it is the words "Anything which is designed" which is the key wording.
Air weapon mods are not caught where designed for use on an air weapon. The fact they may be fitted onto a section 1 firearm and work very well is totally irrellevant.
Same with expanding ammunition, if its "designed to expand on impact" its caught by section 5. All bullets expand on impact especially round nosed lead .38 special but the consequence of lead deformning at velocity for a solid bullet is irrelvant unless it was "designed to expand in a predictable manner"
Similar threads
