Home office consultation on deregulating sound moderators
- Thread starter ZimCoxy136
- Start date
Please god could someone start the consultation by addressing the One Key Question, “ What risk do moderators pose” Short answer NONE if you have an FAC = no risk, if you don’t have FAC = why would you buy one. I firmly believe that people in Home Office with no firearms experience still think they are “ Silencers “ that mystical tool in many action films. My description of Moderators is they reduce the shot sound from ear damagingly loud to just very loud. Rant over
Duplicate….
My only concern is this.
That, for example, the Loamshire Constabulary has three thousand s1 "items" held by individuals of which one thousand are sound moderators. That the cost per year of running their Firearms Department is £XXX and that for that £XXX three thousand items are licensed. So the cost per "item" is £XXX divided by three thousand.
That when sound moderators come off s1 control and only two thousand s1 "items" are licensed that there isn't a claim that as the revenue is now £XXX divided by two thousand that there isn't a call to increase the per "item" cost so that the revenue generated per "item" isn't increased?
In simple terms I own five things. The total cost to administer a licence is £10. So that's an administration cost of £2 per thing. Now if I only later have two things to licence if I divide £10 by two that means each thing apparently now costs £5 to licence.
That, for example, the Loamshire Constabulary has three thousand s1 "items" held by individuals of which one thousand are sound moderators. That the cost per year of running their Firearms Department is £XXX and that for that £XXX three thousand items are licensed. So the cost per "item" is £XXX divided by three thousand.
That when sound moderators come off s1 control and only two thousand s1 "items" are licensed that there isn't a claim that as the revenue is now £XXX divided by two thousand that there isn't a call to increase the per "item" cost so that the revenue generated per "item" isn't increased?
In simple terms I own five things. The total cost to administer a licence is £10. So that's an administration cost of £2 per thing. Now if I only later have two things to licence if I divide £10 by two that means each thing apparently now costs £5 to licence.
Done
Cootmeurer
Well-Known Member
I sincerely hope for your sakes that that this comes to pass. It might even serve as a talking point to let us in the US take them off the class 3 registry (where they reside with full auto weapons and short barreled rifles and shotguns).
However, my faith in your government, or any government for that matter, doing something so logical is lacking.
However, my faith in your government, or any government for that matter, doing something so logical is lacking.
A cosh!
8x57
Distinguished Member
Oh yea of little faith!
I'm confident that this will go through as it's in everybody's interest for it to do so, even police firearms departments can see the logic of this one. That's not to say there won't be some resistance as some are plain stupid, and some see it as their duty to be as obstructive as humanly possible regarding all matters where firearms are involved if only even remotely so.
Unfortunately the Home Office and others have an extremely poor track record of previous decision making. If you look back and consider the total balls up that they made regarding expanding ammunition previously. It took probably twenty years before they put that right and that was mainly because shooters had run rings around some of the legislation and proved how totally illogical it all was, and it certainly not was not in keeping with what was originally intended.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Let's not get ahead of ourselves shall we.
Unless and until, such time as moderators are removed from your FAC, you are still required to comply with their conditions on that FAC -
"...be stored securely so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the access to the moderators by an unauthorised person".
Unless and until, such time as moderators are removed from your FAC, you are still required to comply with their conditions on that FAC -
"...be stored securely so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the access to the moderators by an unauthorised person".
Last edited:
This picture makes me wonder if you used the different tape to make sure which mod went with which gun, but then kept forgetting which way round it was…Let's not get ahead of ourselves shall we.
Unless and until, such time as moderators are removed from your FAC, you are still required to comply with their conditions on that FAC -
"...be stored securely so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the access to the moderators by an unauthorised person".
View attachment 352871
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
@Mungo
A man went on a hunting trip.
He packed his rifle, his moderator and his ammunition.
When he got to his destination, he had packed the wrong moderator for that rifle. He had two identical moderators for two different calibres.
He promised he would never make that mistake again.
So the legend goes...
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Not sure the economics works out quite like that
supply and demand,
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Yes, supply has been restricted and demand increased.
I’m not sure why you assert the same will apply to moderators. They are a relatively simple thing to engineer, unlike primers which are supplied by a few companies only.
If demand increases for moderators why wouldn’t any sensible engineer start manufacturing them and thus the price will remain relatively stable
And now we are out of the EU can walking stick shotguns of over 24" come back onto s2 control rather then the present s5 control?
Similar threads
