I would suggest that the advice he was given was exemplary (i gave that advice), I would further suggest that perhaps the advice was not followed. Good reason has to be established for ammunition qty. The police don't hand out just because you own a reloading press.
Classification of sound moderators
- Thread starter BASC Firearms Dept
- Start date
I would suggest that the advice he was given was exemplary (i gave that advice), I would further suggest that perhaps the advice was not followed. Good reason has to be established for ammunition qty. The police don't hand out just because you own a reloading press.
- BASC
It seems more and more that rather than be the voice of shooting, the BASC is expected to be a personal advocate for individual members, (and even non-members who have got into difficulties).
I suppose if individual advocacy is going to be demanded there will be a rise in membership fees. How much more would you pay?
As for non-members. Perhaps they should be required to join before any help is given, and seeing as they intend to make an immediate call on resources, they should pay an additional joiners fee to receive advocacy, otherwise the general membership are subsidising those who have not paid in year after year. That's simply unfair on those who have paid regularly and made no demands.
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
the problem with the HO Guidance and the adoption of said guidance by FLO's around the country is they have not had a decent lawyer look over the wording.
If "design" is the key element then the guidance and it is fundamentally flawed.
Should someone wish to test the law they simply "design" something that has a purpose other than "noise of flash reduction" a by product of which is exactly that. not that this avoidance of he law is the issue but the subsequent "clusterfluck" that happens as a result of a poorly structured "Law" affects us all.
it is entirely feasible to engineer a muzzle break that also reduces sound and flash.
who is going to take on the argument as to which is its primary purpose?
I think it is right to doubt whether design is indeed the key element.
The statute law seems quite clear:
Section 57 includes under S1 control
any accessory to any such [S1] weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon
and goes on to say that an accessory to a weapon that is exempt from S1 contols is also exempt from such controls.
From this, I have come to understand (perhaps mistakenly) three main things:
1. Although the Act uses the term designed or adapted, this applies only to an object that is an acccessory to a S1 firearm - i.e. the thing has to be an accessory to the S1 firearm, and only then can its design or adaption put it in S1.
2. Since an object controlled under S1 by reason of its being an accessory to a S1 firearm can, by reason of its being instead an accessory to a non-S1 firearm (e.g. a S2 shotgun or sun 12ftlb airgun), cease to be subject to S1 control; it seems that accessory to mean in fact actually attached to.
3. If accessory to indeed means attached to, then no moderator unattached to a firearm comes under Firearms Act control.
I would welcome reasoned discussion of these possibly-mistaken opinions of mine: there are clearly numerous commonplace day-to-day scenarios in which law-abiding moderator-users (FAC, shotgun and non-FAC-airgun) are in unlawful possession of a S1 firearm under the design-interpretation of Section 57, yet are not under the interpretation which I offer.
In particular, we should bear in mind that:
1. Moderators used on S2 shotguns are just as designed for shotguns that would come under S1.
2. Apart from the likelyhood that airgun mods of quality makes are likely to be designed to cope with FAC-airguns, the Parker Hale mod, freely available for airgun users to buy, was designed for .22LR.
Finally we must bear in mind that notwithstanding the recent willingness of the Home Office and ACPO to enter into discussion with representatives of the shooting community, and notwithstanding even the small but useful benefits that have resulted from such discussions (and we particularly think of BASC's efforts, of course), that the Home Office has pretty much since 1920 persued an agenda of increasing restrictions, and supporting Parliament to increase restrictions, on lawful firearms users by one means or another: a situation that one can not imagine is one that ACPO would be keen to oppose.
Given this history, which is likely to be common to the Home Office and ACPO, we must be cautious about proposing to or accepting from either of those bodies interpretions of statute law that seem disadvantangeous to lawful firearms-users. Despite their amenability to discussion and their occasionally-apparent clumsiness with terminology (c.f. the letter to CharlieT where the term 'parts' is used, apparently in confusion for 'accessories') it is probably sensible to consider that these bodies still represent a credible threat to our remaining freedoms with respect to firearms.
Last edited:
Yes but dont stop there....
......designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon.
1. The matter of whether the sound moderator is an accessory or component (i.e. integral to the barrel like a de-lisle carbine) is a matter of fact.
2. So if it is an acessory and is "designed" for such a [S1] weapon, then it is caught
Assuming we are dealing wit an "accessory" i.e. a detachable Reflex T8 and we know that the T8 acessory was "designed" for section 1 firearms regardless of....
a. Whether its been used yet or not,
b. Whether it can fit on only one firearm or 1,000,000.
c. Whether or not its capable of being used on a non licesnsed firearm such as an air weapon
d. Whether or not it can be fitted to a motorbike exhaust
I rest my case
......designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon.
1. The matter of whether the sound moderator is an accessory or component (i.e. integral to the barrel like a de-lisle carbine) is a matter of fact.
2. So if it is an acessory and is "designed" for such a [S1] weapon, then it is caught
Assuming we are dealing wit an "accessory" i.e. a detachable Reflex T8 and we know that the T8 acessory was "designed" for section 1 firearms regardless of....
a. Whether its been used yet or not,
b. Whether it can fit on only one firearm or 1,000,000.
c. Whether or not its capable of being used on a non licesnsed firearm such as an air weapon
d. Whether or not it can be fitted to a motorbike exhaust
I rest my case
I don't stop there, but I do start there: and I guess that is why it appears to me that whatever it is designed or adapted to do, to fall under S1 it has first to be an accessory to a S1 firearm.
You're right - it's clear when it is a component or part. As I've so often suggested, though, what we today think of as accessories for things do not seem to be to be actually accessories to things in the sense intended in the statute. The gunsmith's shop is full of accessories for rifles - slings, bipods, 'scope-mounts and whathaveyou - and these would work as accessories for a specific rifle: however, I suggest that none of these many things actually is an accessory to a specific rifle until actually attached to it.
If that is true, then why are not all Parker Hale .22LR mods automatically S1? If it is true that mods designed for S1 weapons must always be S1 items then surely they ought to be: yet they are not.
I suggest that if I fit a Parker-Hale .22LR mod on my air-pistol, then it is not a S1 item because it is an accessory to a firearm excluded from S1. The Parker-Hale currently fitted to my .22LR is a S1 item, and is recorded as such on my FAC: it is a S1 item, because it actually is an accessory to a S1 firearm. It seems to follow that a Parker-Hale moderator lying on my desk is not an accessory to any firearm, and therefore not controlled at all by the Firearms Act.
OK, if I allow for a moment that accessory in its everyday use means the same as accessory to in this Law, how do we explain the part of S57 that excludes from S1 things that are accessories to firearms that are also excluded from S1? Not things, we note, that are designed or adapted for firearms excluded from S1, but just things that are accessories to such firearms.
It really would be helpful if you'd actually address some of the points I've raised with respect to the BASC's interpretation of this bit of law.
Finally, let me reiterate that my interest in this (and everyone else's, if anyone still is interested...) is based on my worry that an interpretation of the law that is so unclear as to leave folk in doubt as to whether their moderators (of whatever type) are of themselves S1 items or not might end up putting otherwise law-abiding folk at a disadvantage.
the reason why not all accessories are caught is because Section 57 only adds certain ones to the definition of "firearm" i.e. accessories designed etc to diminish the noise or flash. If the law was to encompass any accessory it would not be specific beyond "any any accessory to such a firearm".[/QUOTE]
Im glad you allow us to think in such terms for a moment
but your speaking in such terms that I have no idea what you mean exactly. I would suggest perhaps my comment above also covers this point.why? I wrote the the opinion, it is you who disagree with it and do not explain why other than you ignore the wording.
i think it is a peculiar issue for you and you continue to look for a way out from what is unambiguous law.
the subject of parker hale mods you mention may not be settled as we do not know what their design intention was. You certainly cannot say that its ok for one to sit on your desk per se. I rather think some sellers sold them for air weapons through marketing choice, it may be that PH only made them for rimfire. Maybe a court will need to clarify on a case by case basis but s57 is very clear on what is caught and the authorities will always err on caution and let the courts decide. Sound mods for air weapons and designed only for air weapons (regardless of their performance on a rimfire or bigger cartridge firearm means they are not subject to the definition of firearm however if the are applied to a cartridge s1 firearm they would be caught by the word "adapted" in s57.
Last edited:
Sorry! I wasn't trying to suggest that slings, 'scope mounts and so on should be controlled under S1 as a result of S57.
I was actually trying to demonstrate what is probably meant by an accessory to a particular rifle, as opposed to what in general might be accessories for any number of different rifles.
Im glad you allow us to think in such terms for a moment
I think you have located the nature of the problem I have: you really have no idea at all what I'm on about, and this is probably because I'm not explaining myself very well...
I'll try to put it more clearly:
1. A moderator that is an accessory to a S1 firearm is clearly controlled under S1 of the Frirearms Act because of S57
2. The wording of the Act seems such that the moderator, to be covered under S1, must both be an accessory to a S1 firearm, and designed or adapted to reduce the noise or flash.
3. S57 exempts from S1 control such accessories to weapons not controlled under S1 from S1 control. That exepmtion does not mention design or adaption. It just exempt accessories to such weapons. Hence my suggestion about the P-H moderator above - which becomes S1 when on a S1 .22LR, but exempt (as per S57) when attached to a non-S1 weapon. If it can change its status under law by virtue of the firearms it is an accessory to, then it seems to follow that when it is not attached to a S1 firearm it is not a S1 item either.
Again, I find this view very odd. I am emphatically not ignoring the wording, but rather paying very careful attention to it. Also, the understanding of this law that I'm suggesting results in entirely unambiguous categorisation of moderators, whereas the one the BASC suggests results in a complete minefield for the law-abiding.
I think it's pretty clear that P-H mods were designed for .22LR rifles - back in the day it wouldn't have occurred to anyone to moderate an airgun. Additionally, it seems likely that most quality airgun mods are designed to cope with over-12ftlb airguns anyway - thus presumably putting them also in S1. The 12ftlb thing is a UK-specific limit, and the airgun market is international.
I think I have repeatedly and clearly explained why I think the BASC paper on this is misguided. However, none of the points which I've raised has actually been addressed. Would I be OK to leave a P-H mod on my desk if it were attached to a sub-6ftlb air-pistol?
Has anyone apart from tFl any view on this? Or am I really as deluded as he thinks I am?
Does anyone else think the argument I'm proposing might be correct?
Last edited:
BASC has outlined the law.
I think you'll find BASC have addressed many points over many months and you still disagree, you phone colleagues at BASC to solicit a different opinion to suit your own etc
I cant subject the forum to this ongoing nonsensical sharade, i suggest you do the same
I think you'll find BASC have addressed many points over many months and you still disagree, you phone colleagues at BASC to solicit a different opinion to suit your own etc
I cant subject the forum to this ongoing nonsensical sharade, i suggest you do the same
6pointer
Well-Known Member
Well in my opinion the Law in this case is a total ass and has brought upon itself mountains of paperwork for a bit of metal that actually helps the user.
Classing a pipe with no rifling no firing mechanism and were the projectile does not even touch the sides is mental . BASC and the rest instead of quoting law,s (In an Arrogant fashion) should be trying to get the moderators removed so we can freely use and change them as we wish.
Classing a pipe with no rifling no firing mechanism and were the projectile does not even touch the sides is mental . BASC and the rest instead of quoting law,s (In an Arrogant fashion) should be trying to get the moderators removed so we can freely use and change them as we wish.
BASC Firearms Dept has certainly, on this forum, offered an interpretation of the law.
This interpretation does not yet seem to have been made public on the BASC website, which given the ambiguities that it implies is perhaps just as well.
But is it really reasonable to suggest that owners of sub-12ftlb airguns who use moderators such as Sak, PH, Soundbiter, Evo and so on which are designed for but not actually accessories to .22 or .17 rimfires are unlawfully in possession of moderators that are of themselves categorised as S1 firearms? And that those who sold them are presumably by extension guilty of the offence of unlawfully supplying them? But that they might all get away with it if it came to court??
If this is indeed true, it seems odd that such ambiguity has not caused any problems since 1937.
Anyhow, perhaps that is an indication that I should just stop worrying about it.
Similar threads
