Latest on Moderators being removed from FACs

[royalewithcheese]

Surely that's identical to the new sound moderator rules, raising a further issue what else does accessories mean? Muzzle brakes? Sling swivels? Mounts? etc.?

Its well defined, sling swivels, mounts, etc, wont be an accessory but flash hiders and arguably muzzle brakes will count as a relevant accessory:

“Relevant accessory” means an accessory to a firearm to which section 1
applies which is designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused
by firing the firearm.”

The waters might get a bit muddy with certain items because certain things are marketed as a muzzle brake/compensator that make no claims to reduce muzzle flash, where as others claim to be a flash hider while making no claim about recoil, but to me they look like identical items:
a flash hider: BROWNELLS BRN AR-308 A2 30 CALIBER FLASH HIDER, 5/8"-24
a muzzle brake: CMMG AR-15 A2 COMPENSATOR 1/2-28

Although thats probably all a bit of a moot point anyway, because i can't see a purpose of putting a flash hider on something that you wouldn't require a certificate for in the first place.

 

[Dalua]

Its well defined, sling swivels, mounts, etc, wont be an accessory but flash hiders and arguably muzzle brakes will count as a relevant accessory:

“Relevant accessory” means an accessory to a firearm to which section 1
applies which is designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused
by firing the firearm.”

The waters might get a bit muddy with certain items because certain things are marketed as a muzzle brake/compensator that make no claims to reduce muzzle flash, where as others claim to be a flash hider while making no claim about recoil, but to me they look like identical items:
a flash hider: BROWNELLS BRN AR-308 A2 30 CALIBER FLASH HIDER, 5/8"-24
a muzzle brake: CMMG AR-15 A2 COMPENSATOR 1/2-28

Although thats probably all a bit of a moot point anyway, because i can't see a purpose of putting a flash hider on something that you wouldn't require a certificate for in the first place.

I think this misses the point that the definition of a moderator for which FAC authority is required is that is an 'accessory to' a S1 firearm - i.e. it is actually attached to a S1 firearm. Not simply that it might at some time have been attached to one, or might be attached to one in the future: but that it actually currently is.

Apart from being what the Act says in plain English that is the only reading of it which in the current situation makes sense in the context that the non-FAC-holding owners of airgun and shotgun mods are not comitting offences by their possession of them: despite the fact that those moderators could be used as accessories to S1 firearms or S1 airguns, because they are not, no FAC is needed.

 

[royalewithcheese]

I think this misses the point that the definition of a moderator for which FAC authority is required is that is an 'accessory to' a S1 firearm - i.e. it is actually attached to a S1 firearm. Not simply that it might at some time have been attached to one, or might be attached to one in the future: but that it actually currently is.

Apart from being what the Act says in plain English that is the only reading of it which in the current situation makes sense in the context that the non-FAC-holding owners of airgun and shotgun mods are not comitting offences by their possession of them: despite the fact that those moderators could be used as accessories to S1 firearms or S1 airguns, because they are not, no FAC is needed.

I think theres at least a few ways of interpreting it, is it what it is attached to, or is it the accessory itself?

A bit of an imaginitive edge case, but I bet if you walked into a dozen RFDs with no FAC, and asked to buy a Wildcat .338 moderator to put on your sub 12ft/lbs .177 air rifle, none of them would entertain it.

Sure, you can technically put that moderator on an air rifle, but that is a part that is clearly designed to diminish the sound/flash of a section 1 firearm.

 

[VSS]

I think theres at least a few ways of interpreting it, is it what it is attached to, or is it the accessory itself?

A bit of an imaginitive edge case, but I bet if you walked into a dozen RFDs with no FAC, and asked to buy a Wildcat .338 moderator to put on your sub 12ft/lbs .177 air rifle, none of them would entertain it.

Sure, you can technically put that moderator on an air rifle, but that is a part that is clearly designed to diminish the sound/flash of a section 1 firearm.

But it is not an accessory to a Section 1 firearm until it is attached to a Section 1 firearm. Regardless of what it was designed for.

 

[Heym SR20]

But they don’t actually make rifles any more dangerous than they are. So why control them as if they are inherently dangerous?

That is debatable. For a very long time moderators or silencers were viewed by the powers that be as the tools of assassins and poachers, and thus treated with huge levels of suspicion. Before moderators were accepted on the basis of hearing protection, no police force would authorise possession of such a dastardly device.

Use of a silencer or moderator means that shooter can shoot and remain undetected and get away from the scene of the crime.

I suspect this view still lingers, and its one of the principal reasons why you will have to possess an FAC in order to possess a moderator for a section 1 Firearm.

It also means that when joe scumbag is found in possession of a moderator, but ak47 remains unfound, he can still be charged and convicted with firearms offences.

 

[palmer_mike]

That is debatable. For a very long time moderators or silencers were viewed by the powers that be as the tools of assassins and poachers, and thus treated with huge levels of suspicion. Before moderators were accepted on the basis of hearing protection, no police force would authorise possession of such a dastardly device.

Use of a silencer or moderator means that shooter can shoot and remain undetected and get away from the scene of the crime.

I suspect this view still lingers, and its one of the principal reasons why you will have to possess an FAC in order to possess a moderator for a section 1 Firearm.

It also means that when joe scumbag is found in possession of a moderator, but ak47 remains unfound, he can still be charged and convicted with firearms offences.

big sidestep on the question.

 

[hendrix's rifle]

That is debatable. For a very long time moderators or silencers were viewed by the powers that be as the tools of assassins and poachers, and thus treated with huge levels of suspicion. Before moderators were accepted on the basis of hearing protection, no police force would authorise possession of such a dastardly device.

Use of a silencer or moderator means that shooter can shoot and remain undetected and get away from the scene of the crime.

I suspect this view still lingers, and its one of the principal reasons why you will have to possess an FAC in order to possess a moderator for a section 1 Firearm.

It also means that when joe scumbag is found in possession of a moderator, but ak47 remains unfound, he can still be charged and convicted with firearms offences.

You are so full of ****. Get real man

 

[Chris Richardson]

You are so full of ****. Get real man

Indeed it would be comical if he wasn’t serious

 

[Dalua]

I think theres at least a few ways of interpreting it, is it what it is attached to, or is it the accessory itself?

Unless I've missed something, there's only one way of interpreting it that means that non-FAC-holding owners of airgun mods are not all in unlawful possession of S1 items. Or for that matter, how I, who own many more mods usable my .22LR rifle than the single slot I have filled for that would suggest, am not breaking the law.
That way is the way I'd described, where 'accessory to' describes a relationship between the mod an an S1 firearm (i.e. attached to it) which makes holding a duly-varied FAC a requirement for lawful possession of the mod.

I think part of the confusion comes from the colloquial use of the word 'accessory' to mean 'a thing which can be used with another thing' rather more than 'a thing which is being used with another thing'. Which of my rifles is the sling hanging limply on the back of my study door an accessory to? Could be any of them, but it's currently none of them.

A bit of an imaginitive edge case, but I bet if you walked into a dozen RFDs with no FAC, and asked to buy a Wildcat .338 moderator to put on your sub 12ft/lbs .177 air rifle, none of them would entertain it.

They wouldn't have anything to entertain - the mods are not 'accessories to' S1 firearms unless they're attached to them.

Sure, you can technically put that moderator on an air rifle, but that is a part that is clearly designed to diminish the sound/flash of a section 1 firearm.

Any airgun mod will work on a S1 airgun, and many will work on a .22LR or WMR - though maybe not for long. But that's not the point, really - there is no need for these supposed ways of telling what a mod is for currently, since you can tell if you need FAC to possess it authority by checking to see if it's attached to a S1 firearm.

 

[Mr. Gain]

It also means that when Joe scumbag is found in possession of a moderator, but AK47 remains unfound, he can still be charged and convicted with firearms offences

I think this is the nub. The law is not for shooters. From our end, it looks like an ill-considered and inconsistent half measure. However, things look different from a policing perspective.
As it stands, the law creates a lot of unwelcome (and largely pointless) work for licensing departments, but it gives those who enforce it a tool to nab the bad guys with... and the needs of the bad-guy catchers trump the workloads of the paper pushers.
The change seems designed to reduce the workload for under-resourced licensing departments without taking away an important tool from the bad-guy catchers.
Meanwhile, we get the incidental benefit of variation-free moderator changes.

 

[disco_ike]

Well it now has its Royal Ascent and is now the act so how much longer do we think…..

 

[Chris Richardson]

I think this is the nub. The law is not for shooters. From our end, it looks like an ill-considered and inconsistent half measure. However, things look different from a policing perspective.
As it stands, the law creates a lot of unwelcome (and largely pointless) work for licensing departments, but it gives those who enforce it a tool to nab the bad guys with... and the needs of the bad-guy catchers trump the workloads of the paper pushers.
The change seems designed to reduce the workload for under-resourced licensing departments without taking away an important tool from the bad-guy catchers.
Meanwhile, we get the incidental benefit of variation-free moderator changes.

How many ak47s with moderators on are found on the streets or any with moderators? Very few if any I’d bet , so kind of a non starter that line of argument

 

[timbrayford]

I think this is the nub. The law is not for shooters. From our end, it looks like an ill-considered and inconsistent half measure. However, things look different from a policing perspective.
As it stands, the law creates a lot of unwelcome (and largely pointless) work for licensing departments, but it gives those who enforce it a tool to nab the bad guys with... and the needs of the bad-guy catchers trump the workloads of the paper pushers.
The change seems designed to reduce the workload for under-resourced licensing departments without taking away an important tool from the bad-guy catchers.
Meanwhile, we get the incidental benefit of variation-free moderator changes.

Difficult to follow the logic of a crook putting a legal sound moderator on an unlawfully obtained firearm.

 

[M@tt]

But they don’t actually make rifles any more dangerous than they are. So why control them as if they are inherently dangerous?

It's not about public safety, it's about control.

The law was written in a time when the landed gentry, the establishment, had the power and the land and didn't want the oiks further down the food chain getting their hands on either. A moderator wouldn't allow the citizens (or rather, subjects) to use their firearms to hunt on the land.

I can only see flash hiders being controlled because of the mistaken belief they stopped those being shot at from seeing where the shooter was.

 

[Mr. Gain]

How many ak47s with moderators on are found on the streets or any with moderators? Very few if any I’d bet , so kind of a non starter that line of argument

I'm not sure why you're quoting me on this, or why you're picking a detail that is just an example. It doesn't matter what the illegal gun is. What matters is that the absence of an FAC makes possessing the moderator an offence and opens the door to further police action.

 

[Mr. Gain]

Difficult to follow the logic of a crook putting a legal sound moderator on an unlawfully obtained firearm.

If he doesn't have an FAC, the moderator becomes incriminating even if the illegal firearm isn't found. The moderator might also not be found, but becomes another liability.

 

[VenatorXCIV]

Well it now has its Royal Ascent and is now the act so how much longer do we think…..

It needs to be "commenced" to be in effect, and the next common commencement date is 1 October, could well be then, could be later.

 

[disco_ike]

It needs to be "commenced" to be in effect, and the next common commencement date is 1 October, could well be then, could be later.

Doesn't appear to have been paired with a commencement order though therefore theoretically should be with effect of midnight the day it got its royal assent which was 29th April which is what I was trying to get clarity on.

 

[nf-fuse]

It needs to be "commenced" to be in effect, and the next common commencement date is 1 October, could well be then, could be later.

I don't think laws need a commencement order

 

[disco_ike]

I don't think laws need a commencement order

Not all do but sometimes they put commencement orders on them. I can't seem to find one so don't think it needs one for this one... BUT I can't find the final wording for the act on legislation.gov so clearly they all went for the weekend before publishing.