Moderators off ticket tomorrow then ..

[M@tt]

i think you confusing things, things that individual FLD’s make up and those that comply with within the law and HO statutory guidance.

But it’s only guidance, not law. Guidance is a suggestion, like a picture on the back of a pie box showing it on a plate with some chips and peas - you don’t have to eat it with these other foods, but it’s a suggestion.

Statutory Guidance - statutory means it is a legal thing.
The guidance to the Chief Officers on firearms licensing is statutory, the Guidance on Firearms Licensing is not statutory (although it does contain a lot of legal stuff, much like the Highway Code), but is considered best practice, and it can be deviated from in special circumstances (chapters 1.1-1.4 explain this). Generally it should not be deviated from (1.2) as one of its aims is to promote consistency across force areas (1.1).

The trick is to ask nicely why the best practice (ie The Guidance) was deviated from in a particular circumstance (1.2), and asking for the justification in writing is usually enough to 'correct' an issue or at least mitigate the problem that caused it in the first place. If you know the problem you can possibly fix it.

 

[Liveonce]

Statutory Guidance - statutory means it is a legal thing.
The guidance to the Chief Officers on firearms is statutory, the Guidance on Firearms Licensing is not statutory (although it does contain a lot of legal stuff, much like the Highway Code), but is considered best practice, and it can be deviated from in special circumstances (chapters 1.1-1.4 explain this). Generally it should not be deviated from (1.2) as one of its aims is to promote consistency across force areas (1.1).

The trick is to ask nicely why the best practice (ie The Guidance) was deviated from in a particular circumstance (1.2), and asking for the justification in writing is usually enough to 'correct' an issue or at least mitigate the problem that caused it in the first place. If you know the problem you can possibly fix it.

Thanks but i don’t have a problem.

statutory guidance is an oxymoron think you may find the statutory trumps the guidance.

@Conor O'Gorman is the one to ask.

 

[M@tt]

Thanks but i don’t have a problem.

statutory guidance is an oxymoron think you may find the statutory trumps the guidance.

@Conor O'Gorman is the one to ask.

I guessed you didn't have a problem, I only included your post as it made sense of the quoted post following.

As with many of the firearms laws and related stuff, there's not much joined up thinking. The Guidance to Chief Officers is actually titled "Statutory Guidance", the one for general licensing isn't.

 

[shakey jake]

Still reading it then?

 

[Yorkie]

Hmm, what’s the big argument about here?
Mods are deregulated now, OFF the FAC, no notification of acquisition or disposal required, no paper trail required, can be posted by Royal Mail 2nd class, courier pigeon or mule! You need a valid FAC to purchase, and the seller must see the front page with your name and picture to confirm it’s you, which means either F2F or video call etc. I believe sight of FAC is confusing because some believe a text message or email with a copy will suffice, I’m not so sure because the seller cannot validate who sent it by confirming with a facial match.

I believe it is the buyer's responsibility to comply with the law not the retailer. The following from Countryside Alliance website.

"Sound moderators have ceased to be a controlled accessory, therefore a seller is not required to check that the buyer has the authority to possess it. The onus to have authority to hold a sound moderator lies with possessor. The only offence created is for unlawful possession of a sound moderator".

A retailer may make it their policy to check for a valid certificate, but it would seem the law does not require it.

 

[12gsnapcaps]

I believe it is the buyer's responsibility to comply with the law not the retailer. The following from Countryside Alliance website.

"Sound moderators have ceased to be a controlled accessory, therefore a seller is not required to check that the buyer has the authority to possess it. The onus to have authority to hold a sound moderator lies with possessor. The only offence created is for unlawful possession of a sound moderator".

A retailer may make it their policy to check for a valid certificate, but it would seem the law does not require it.

This is correct.

As a seller, you don't need to see a buyers FAC to sell them a moderator, and posting is perfectly legal.

The offence is to have once without a certificate, so all legal onus is on the buyer only.

That all being said, basic common sense clearly screams that potential sellers ensure to ask and see the potential buyers FAC - or an acceptable image of - prior to any transaction.

I've posted the BASC guidance, which is very in depth, on this and other threads about 3 times already.

I would suggest to the many people posting uninformed nonsense on this thread to read it.

 

[Liveonce]

That all being said, basic common sense clearly screams that potential sellers ensure to ask and see the potential buyers FAC - or an acceptable image of - prior to any transaction.

Why? when clearly the responsibility is on the buyer not the seller. We criticise the police when they make up the law so why are you suggesting doing likewise?

 

[Robby56]

Still reading it then?

Used to take sleeping pills of a night.
Not any more though.

 

[TringSaint]

You don’t even know what the thread is about ??

Or obtuse ?

 

[Rake Aboot]

Thought so

 

[TringSaint]

Thought so

Just smiling, nothing else.
I have explained my point - if you can’t understand the point I am making then read again.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Ok

 

[shbangsteve]

Just thought I would put this here for anyone still in doubt

Sound Moderators on Firearms Certificates all you need to know. - Devon and Cornwall Road Safety Team (Devon & Cornwall Police)

Devon & Cornwall Police firearms micro site

firearms.devon-cornwall.police.uk