Response from NABIS to police chiefs on moderators off ticket

[Smellydog]

I am really getting quite concerned by some of the Governments so-called experts!

I'm more frightened of government hired experts than having a rampant jihaddi coming and staying in my home!

 

[20ppc]

Their issue is that poorly made or aligned mods can damage bullets exiting a gun and make identification more difficult. At present the vast majority of mods available to criminals are poorly made DIY jobs, or possibly a very tiny number of stolen mods.

By suddenly flooding the market with nice well made legal to buy mods that don't damage bullets it'll make their job easier to identify bullets and the gun they were fired from. Hence my comment that they don't really understand the argument they are making.

The fact criminals don't really use mods at all anyway (mostly because it makes a small gun even harder to conceal) is a moot point lost on them.

In my 13 years as an ARV officer I never once came across the criminal use of a moderator. Even the guy machining very good quality functional guns in Hailsham wasn't churning out mods for his clientele.

Exactly, 20 years as an SFO and never came across the use of suppressors by criminals.

 

[Dalua]

I'm not sure what NABIS's (nor the Government's nor BASC's, for that matter), understanding of the current law concerning moderators actually is.

 

[ContinShots]

Already covered here: NABIS do not agree with removing sound moderators from FAC.

NABIS are trying to ban the UK's way to a land of milk and honey. They take the small exception and try to make a solid rule out of it. They see the very worst of gun crime - less than 1% of it actually down to law abiding gun owners - and tar everyone with the same brush. There's very little that isn't subjective in their input these days.

 

[ContinShots]

https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/disclosure-logs/national-crime-coordination-committee/2024/166-2024-sound-moderators---nabis-response-march-2024-002.pdf

I've just stumbled upon this online. Its a report from the forensic ballistic chappies sent to all the chief constables. I expect @Conor O'Gorman and BASC might like to counter some of their arguments?

Not looking for a bun fight, just passing on what I think is relevant.

Cheers C

Most of that is just assertion. Very little in the way of objective evidence an citation. Very poor.

 

[Tom270]

I bought an air pistol a few weeks back, came with a SAC mod no problems at all, my other identical SAC mod for the rf needs to be on my fac, no logic at all.

 

[Dalua]

I bought an air pistol a few weeks back, came with a SAC mod no problems at all, my other identical SAC mod for the rf needs to be on my fac, no logic at all.

This is what I mean, really. The only thing in law which can logically differentiate a mod that needs and FAC-slot from one that doesn't is that the former is actually attached to (as the law says is 'an accessory to' a S1 firearm.

No other interpretation works to keep the airgun and s2 mod-using population from being in unlawful possession of moderators - and that means that the Government's plan to make it necessary to hold an FAC to own moderators to use on S1 firearms, while removing the specific bit of law that makes only those mods attached to S1 firearms subject to S1 controls something of a challenge - and IMO quite likely to end up with a more confused and restrictive position than we have now.