Selling a moderator

otisthedog

Well-Known Member
Hi folks,

Am sure this has been done to death, but have googled it and I am struggling to find the definitive answer - perhaps because it doesn't exist and depends on local licensing dept?

My question is: Earlier this year I bought a moderator new from A-Tec, unproofed. Am I legally allowed to sell it secondhand without getting it proofed/proven first?

Thanks

Tim
 
How do you buy a new moderator unproofed ? i would have thought a new moderator was proofed and you could sell it on to who ever had a variation for a full bore moderator !
 
Last edited:
otisthedog, Having just had a new moderator from Jacksons Rifles un-proofed and brand new, i also own other moderators that are unproofed of which i have purchased second hand. I would happily say that you would not require to have it proofed. if any one is in doubt then my advise would be to contact Jacksons rifles who are a reputable whole saler of moderators within the country, to confirm that moderators are not require to be proofed. as i say contact them and not come back at me if you disagree.

ATB

Tam
 
Thanks for the answers so far...
I ask because the RFD I bought it from (whose opinion I trust) offered me an unproofed version or a proofed version (ASE Northstar). He said that while cheaper, he could not resell the unproofed version if I wanted to trade it in.
Another local RFD (whose opinion I trust not at all after a bad experience) reckoned mods don't need proofing before resale. This was stated when I returned a used, unproofed 22 air rifle mod he supplied with a used 22lr brno.
By the sound of things so far however, I don't need to worry before listing it in the SD classifieds in the future?

I seem to remember the problem stemmed from insurance being void should anything happen with an unproofed mod?

Cheers

Tim
 
Last edited:
I'm with Dalua....isn't a mod a 'component part?'

Actually, my view is that a moderator is not subject to statutary control unless it is 'an accessory to', meaning 'attached to', a S1 rifle.
I don't think they need to be proofed, and if they did they would need to be proofed for the first time they're sold as well as any subsequent reselling.
 
I believe that in law any device to diminish flash or noise is classed as a firearm in itself.
Whilst it is not unlawful to possess or use an unproved arm yourself it is a felony to sell one.
I may be wrong but I am sure that `legal eagles` on here will have the correct answer.

HWH.
 
I believe that in law any device to diminish flash or noise is classed as a firearm in itself.
Whilst it is not unlawful to possess or use an unproved arm yourself it is a felony to sell one.
I may be wrong but I am sure that `legal eagles` on here will have the correct answer.

HWH.

I am not, of course, a legal eagle: but I think the Act says not 'any device', but rather 'any accessory to' a firearm.

As far as I can tell, 'accessory to' in this sense means something that is actually attached to the firearm. This interpretation is the only way I can make sense of the fact that I am lawfully in possession of several moderators which could be used on my .22LR despite having only one filled .22LR moderator slot on my FAC.

I'm interested to know if there are other explanations for this state of affairs.
 
I believe that in law any device to diminish flash or noise is classed as a firearm in itself.
Whilst it is not unlawful to possess or use an unproved arm yourself it is a felony to sell one.
I may be wrong but I am sure that `legal eagles` on here will have the correct answer.

HWH.


and it only becomes a firearm ONCE it has been registered as such on a certificate/or in the rfds books,until then its a tube with a hole in it :)

bob.
 
and it only becomes a firearm ONCE it has been registered as such on a certificate/or in the rfds books,until then its a tube with a hole in it :)

bob.

I think it is controlled as a firearm only when it is actually attached to a S1 firearm. After removal from the firearm, it reverts to being a tin-can. As far as I'm aware, there is no obligation to have a moderator proofed at all.
 
there is no obligation to have a moderator proofed at all.

+1 it's just a marketing ploy by certain individuals to get some money out of you.
I have spoken with numerous firearm dealers and my local police about this and they all say its not necessary.
 
I think it is controlled as a firearm only when it is actually attached to a S1 firearm. After removal from the firearm, it reverts to being a tin-can. As far as I'm aware, there is no obligation to have a moderator proofed at all.

you could be right,

but i had a chat about this with a well respected FLO in London and he said until its actually entered on to your certificate as

Moderator blah blah blah
cal 900 rum
no serial number
make unobtainium plastics .com
no proof mark,
etc etc etc its just a lump of metal/tin can/tube with a hole in it etc etc etc.

bob.
 
you could be right,

but i had a chat about this with a well respected FLO in London and he said until its actually entered on to your certificate as

Moderator blah blah blah
cal 900 rum
no serial number
make unobtainium plastics .com
no proof mark,
etc etc etc its just a lump of metal/tin can/tube with a hole in it etc etc etc.

bob.

The interesting thing is that entering it on your certificate seldom identifies the moderator and certainly does not change the essence of its physical being. My understanding is that the moderator slots, which may or may not be associated with specific rifles on your FAC, are 'filled', allowing you to fit a mod on those rifles. On fitting a mod to the rifle, the mod comes under FAC control and you therefore need a suitably-varied FAC to possess the 'accessory to' the specific rifle.

So, hypothetically, if a man has a FAC for a .22 target-rifle which happens to have a 1/2" UNF thread, but no slot for a moderator for it, he may nevertheless own a PH mod for his sub-12ftlb airguns. He commits no offence unless he fits the mod to the .22LR.
I can't see that it would make any difference if the PH mod was a proofed one which he bought second-hand, and which had previously been used lawfully by someone else on a .22LR.
 
Last edited:
my moderator simply states "full bore moderator" on my certificate. No make, no calibre, no number and no identifying tag of any description. There are asterix where any info would be.
 
The interesting thing is that entering it on your certificate seldom identifies the moderator and certainly does not change the essence of its physical being. My understanding is that the moderator slots, which may or may not be associated with specific rifles on your FAC, are 'filled', allowing you to fit a mod on those rifles. On fitting a mod to the rifle, the mod comes under FAC control and you therefore need a suitably-varied FAC to possess the 'accessory to' the specific rifle.

So, hypothetically, if a man has a FAC for a .22 target-rifle which happens to have a 1/2" UNF thread, but no slot for a moderator for it, he may nevertheless own a PH mod for his sub-12ftlb airguns. He commits no offence unless he fits the mod to the .22LR.
I can't see that it would make any difference if the PH mod was a proofed one which he bought second-hand, and which had previously been used lawfully by someone else on a .22LR.

o so true,

mod no name
no serial number
no make


this all means one thing

no traceability what so ever, so as you say it could be ase utra.t8/t4 JLS stalker, parker hale, sak, dm80, or a tin can with a hole in it :)

bob.
 
and it only becomes a firearm ONCE it has been registered as such on a certificate/or in the rfds books,until then its a tube with a hole in it :)

bob.
,,,At last , correct !!! . And can be bought and sold untill registered and Used as a such .
 
,,,At last , correct !!! . And can be bought and sold untill registered and Used as a such .

Nope. Section 57 of the firearms sct says "(c)any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon"

So no you can't claim it's not a moderator after manufacture just because it suits. It's the design intention that counts. And the cops aren't going to accept a story about it being a silencer for a motor bike, they will know its more likely for a beretta than a lambareta

There is much myth in this thread. Members of BASC can call for a definitive answer sanctioned by the proof authorities.
 
Back
Top