Advice req'd on moderator

[Dalua]

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.

The law does not distinguish beween 'air weapon' mods and other mods. Nor does it, I contend, catch in S1 'anything which is designed to diminish...'. I base that opinion quite squarely on the fact that it simply doesn't say that in the law.

The law seems clearly to distinguish between moderators that are accessories to S1 firearms and are therefore restricted under S1 and those that are not and therefore aren't. The law does not say that those 'designed for air weapons' are exempt. The law says that moderators that are accessories to S1 firearms are not exempt.


There are to my mind grave problems in hanging too much on the word 'designed' in this bit of law:

Are good-quality airgun mods not designed to cope with airguns over 12ftlb ME? It seems unlikely that the quality makers of airgun mods (Weihrauch, AirArms, Logun, and so on) would have separate products for their UK non-S1 rifles, does it not? Particularly as the 12ftlb-thing is a UK construct and their markets are international. Are all these therefore not designed for S1 firearms and so subject to S1 control at all times?

The familliar .22 PH mods were clearly designed as moderators for S1 rifles. This seems to me to be an unarguable fact, unaltered by their perfectly reasonable and lawful use on non-S1 airguns. The same is perhaps true of SAK, Soundbiter and others.

I can see your reasoning with repsect to the S5 ammunition - and that interpretation clearly seems correct: but it does not follow that because the word 'designed' has a particular degree of importance in one bit of law that it must have the same meaning or importance in other bits of unrelated law the rest of whose wording, context and subject are entirely different.

 

[BunnyDoom]

Ok, it's not illegal until you put it on your centre fire so don't worry - for now it's an air rifle mod. There is no law stopping you buying a centre fire mod for use on an air rifle.

To be able to use it on a centre fire u need to hand it into an RFD who can then enter it onto your licence as a centre fire mod (assuming it has proof marks?).

This is the same as buying a SAK air rifle/rimfire mod for your air rifle then deciding to put it on your rimfire. I have done this with both rimfire and centre fire mods before so speak from experience.

 

[tFl]

Ok, it's not illegal until you put it on your centre fire so don't worry - for now it's an air rifle mod. There is no law stopping you buying a centre fire mod for use on an air rifle.

To be able to use it on a centre fire u need to hand it into an RFD who can then enter it onto your licence as a centre fire mod (assuming it has proof marks?).

This is the same as buying a SAK air rifle/rimfire mod for your air rifle then deciding to put it on your rimfire. I have done this with both rimfire and centre fire mods before so speak from experience.

What absolute intransigent rubbish. Section 57 catches any item designed to diminish etc therefore if the maker designs it for a CF rifle its caught regardless of whether it ever been used or fitted or not to any weapon. Its the fact that it was born from a design .

Crack on lads and maybe one day the system will catch you out for all our sake.

 

[tFl]

The law does not distinguish beween 'air weapon' mods and other mods. Nor does it, I contend, catch in S1 'anything which is designed to diminish...'. I base that opinion quite squarely on the fact that it simply doesn't say that in the law.

The law seems clearly to distinguish between moderators that are accessories to S1 firearms and are therefore restricted under S1 and those that are not and therefore aren't. The law does not say that those 'designed for air weapons' are exempt. The law says that moderators that are accessories to S1 firearms are not exempt.


There are to my mind grave problems in hanging too much on the word 'designed' in this bit of law:

Are good-quality airgun mods not designed to cope with airguns over 12ftlb ME? It seems unlikely that the quality makers of airgun mods (Weihrauch, AirArms, Logun, and so on) would have separate products for their UK non-S1 rifles, does it not? Particularly as the 12ftlb-thing is a UK construct and their markets are international. Are all these therefore not designed for S1 firearms and so subject to S1 control at all times?

The familliar .22 PH mods were clearly designed as moderators for S1 rifles. This seems to me to be an unarguable fact, unaltered by their perfectly reasonable and lawful use on non-S1 airguns. The same is perhaps true of SAK, Soundbiter and others.

I can see your reasoning with repsect to the S5 ammunition - and that interpretation clearly seems correct: but it does not follow that because the word 'designed' has a particular degree of importance in one bit of law that it must have the same meaning or importance in other bits of unrelated law the rest of whose wording, context and subject are entirely different.

yawn,

​

 

[Dalua]

yawn, ​

I'm sorry: it is very boring for me too.


However I still think it is worth exploring, and we might all find it less dull if you were to answer the point about why some mods designed for S1 firearms are in their own right S1 firearms and some are not.

It seems that you are perhaps of the view that some mods are more designed for S1 firearms than others, or that some have had their original design intentions altered after the event by virtue of their being often used on non-S1 firearms?

It's also worth pointing out again why I keep going on about this.
It is because there is a simple and straightforward interpretation of the law as it is written, which leaves people in absolutely no doubt as to whether the moderators they possess, whether they be non-S1 airgun, shotgun or S1 firearm, are items of themselves subject to S1 control. This interpretation of the law appears entirely consistent with the statute law as written, allows for no ambiguity and is consistent within itself.

By way of contrast, the interpretion put forward by BASC Firearms Dept on here (though not as far as I'm aware, on the BASC website) opens up wide fields of ambiguity which, since possession on a S1 firearm without proper authority is a very serious and absolute offence, seems to me a highly undesirable position to promote.

The rest of the Firearms Act, although one might not approve of it, at least has the virute of being pretty logical and consistent within itself such that we know clearly what is and isn't a criminal offence. It seems odd that this little bit of it should be so riven with ambiguity.

The serious of the discrepancy between the two interpretations above, and the implications to the law-abiding of simply not being able to say with any certainly that, for example, the second-hand mod they bought for their lad's airgun isn't a S1 firearm in its own right, make it seem desirable get a fuller examination of this.

I would be interested to know what shooting organisations other than BASC think. Perhaps there are members of such organisations here who could enquire?

 

[BunnyDoom]

What absolute intransigent rubbish. Section 57 catches any item designed to diminish etc therefore if the maker designs it for a CF rifle its caught regardless of whether it ever been used or fitted or not to any weapon. Its the fact that it was born from a design .

Crack on lads and maybe one day the system will catch you out for all our sake.

To prove it was made specifically for centre fire it would have to have a serial no and make (which isn't required by law). It's a tube of metal/alloy until it is put on a gun. I'm speaking from experience; sounds like you spend your time with your head in a book (or up your @rse).

OP - just take it into an RFD and get them to put it on your ticket if you want to use it on your CF.

 

[geordieh]

Hi All
So what do you do if you want to moderate a .25 calibre sub 12ft lb air rifle as far as I am aware you can not buy a .25 air rifle moderator
Geordie

 

[tFl]

To prove it was made specifically for centre fire it would have to have a serial no and make (which isn't required by law). It's a tube of metal/alloy until it is put on a gun. I'm speaking from experience; sounds like you spend your time with your head in a book (or up your @rse).

OP - just take it into an RFD and get them to put it on your ticket if you want to use it on your CF.

Again not true, if you own a moderator like a reflex T8 "off ticket" so to speak and make the claim you just made to the cops, they will ask the manufactures and on ascertaining the design intention.....your nicked.

same with ammunition..... you can argue blue in your face that a round is a match round but when the manufacturer producess evdience......you the owner hasn't got a leg to stand on.

I wont be surprised if the next comment will be - my off ticket reflex t8 is held for a shotgun.... prove otherwise....!!! again it falls apart when the manufacturer divulges his patent or design.

 

[bewsher500]

Hi All
So what do you do if you want to moderate a .25 calibre sub 12ft lb air rifle as far as I am aware you can not buy a .25 air rifle moderator
Geordie

yes you can
Weihrauch do one (3/4 of the way down)
https://www.gunspares.co.uk/products/23987/Airgun-Silencers/

OP - lots of mods without baggage. either:
a) go elsewhere and buy one on an FAC
b) buy one from an RFD
c) have matey take his mod to an RFD and split the inevitable cost of having the RFD write it in his book!



I have a maglite tube that has a 1/2" UNF threaded hole where the bulb goes........ not designed for anything other than what it was designed for!
I have rifles with 1/2"UNF muzzle threads

at present I am not breaking the law
however if I fit this to a rifle and it becomes "an accessory designed to diminish flash and or noise" .... I am!

 

[CharlieT]

Again not true, if you own a moderator like a reflex T8 "off ticket" so to speak and make the claim you just made to the cops, they will ask the manufactures and on ascertaining the design intention.....your nicked.

same with ammunition..... you can argue blue in your face that a round is a match round but when the manufacturer producess evdience......you the owner hasn't got a leg to stand on.

I wont be surprised if the next comment will be - my off ticket reflex t8 is held for a shotgun.... prove otherwise....!!! again it falls apart when the manufacturer divulges his patent or design.

But would you be nicked ? Bearing in mind the reply in writing I received from the HO, which I quoted earlier, states intended for use with.
Therefore if I purchased a .25 T8 for use with my .25 cal air rifle what law have I broken.

 

[tFl]

But would you be nicked ? Bearing in mind the reply in writing I received from the HO, which I quoted earlier, states intended for use with.
Therefore if I purchased a .25 T8 for use with my .25 cal air rifle what law have I broken.

so if a solcitor told you to do somthing and the Act of Parliament said different would you argue with a judge?

what letter from the Home Office, please give me a full copy of the text via PM please with date of sending and the name of the civil servant who wrote it please.

 

[CharlieT]

so if a solcitor told you to do somthing and the Act of Parliament said different would you argue with a judge?

what letter from the Home Office, please give me a full copy of the text via PM please with date of sending and the name of the civil servant who wrote it please.

I would suggest that your "solicitor" analogy is somewhat different to written advice from the Home Office who are after all the government department responsible for firearms legistlaton, the Police and the CPS.

It would be a foolhardy DPP to instruct the Crown to prosecute against written advice issued by the Crown.

As requested, here is the letter:

Reference: T18837/12 20 December 2012



Dear

Thank you for your e-mail of 12 December in which you sought clarification as to whether a sound moderator unattached to a section 1 firearm is controlled under the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).

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.

Further advice relating to section 1 firearms licensing control and firearms certificates may be obtained from your local police Firearms Licensing Department.

I hope that this deals satisfactorily with your enquiry.

Yours sincerely


I Newman

 

[palmer_mike]

If I'm reading the letter you have quoted above correctly ct, it states that any mod designed to be used with a section 1 or 5 firearm IS subject to fac controls?

 

[I. Farticus]

If I'm reading the letter you have quoted above correctly ct, it states that any mod designed to be used with a section 1 or 5 firearm IS subject to fac controls?

Mike

That's the way I read it, so seems pretty conclusive...:
You cannot "manufacture, possess, purchase or acquire" a mod unless you have a free slot on your FAC

Good news that we're all clear on this now

Cheers
iain

 

[palmer_mike]

Mike

That's the way I read it, so seems pretty conclusive...:
You cannot "manufacture, possess, purchase or acquire" a mod unless you have a free slot on your FAC

Good news that we're all clear on this now

Cheers
iain

​cant help feeling that this thread will carry on and on though!

 

[CharlieT]

Mike

As the writer, whom presumably chose his words very carefully, used the words "intended for use as parts" rather than designed for use as parts I would take that to mean any moderator intended for use on an air rifle is not subject to S1 licensing.

 

[I. Farticus]

​cant help feeling that this thread will carry on and on though!

one each

 

[palmer_mike]

one each

 

[Dalua]

At the risk of repeating myself with respect to CharlieT's letter, the fact that the Home Office chap who wrote the letter refers to moderators 'intended for use as parts' of firearms suggests that the civil servant has the wrong end of the stick.
There are doubtless moderators that can be used as parts of firearms, such as those built around Hushpower shotgun conversions. However, I think this thread concerns moderator for use as accessories to firearms, not as parts for them.

As such, the letter from the Home Office doesn't really help.

What would help sort out this difficulty?
Well, I suppose the BASC Firearms Dept's statement http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/showthread.php/57439 on this could be given national, rather than just SD, standing and uploaded to the BASC Website, so that it reaches a wider audience. It is not something that I really like to suggest because, quite apart from the fact that it is based on a reading of statute law very different from mine, the very unclear conclusions it draws are not to my mind advantageous to the shooting community.

Another approach might be for one of the shooting organisations to engage an experienced specialist barrister, brief him well and let him formulate an opinion: rather as Jackson's did with the question of moderator and screw-cut proofing.

The way ahead is not very clear.

 

[palmer_mike]

At the risk of repeating myself with respect to CharlieT's letter, the fact that the Home Office chap who wrote the letter refers to moderators 'intended for use as parts' of firearms suggests that the civil servant has the wrong end of the stick.
There are doubtless moderators that can be used as parts of firearms, such as those built around Hushpower shotgun conversions. However, I think this thread concerns moderator for use as accessories to firearms, not as parts for them.

As such, the letter from the Home Office doesn't really help.

What would help sort out this difficulty?
Well, I suppose the BASC Firearms Dept's statement http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/showthread.php/57439 on this could be given national, rather than just SD, standing and uploaded to the BASC Website, so that it reaches a wider audience. It is not something that I really like to suggest because, quite apart from the fact that it is based on a reading of statute law very different from mine, the very unclear conclusions it draws are not to my mind advantageous to the shooting community.

Another approach might be for one of the shooting organisations to engage an experienced specialist barrister, brief him well and let him formulate an opinion: rather as Jackson's did with the question of moderator and screw-cut proofing.

The way ahead is not very clear.

you misquote the letter, it states parts FOR, not parts OF. This significantly changes the meaning, as a sound moderator for a firearm is clearly a part FOR a firearm. If it had said part OF a firearm then yes you might argue that it was intended to mean only built in moderators.