Restricted components of Modular Moderators - What are they!?

[Haggis Hunter]

Don't put money on it!!

hh

 

[AN DU RU FOX]

someone said mods where up for a review with the expanding ammo ,but i think it got tossed aside conveniantly!!!for another day,probably one of the concessions give a bit pinch a bit ,same as a ten year license not a snowball in hell,s chance,

 

[Pedro]

How many criminals actually bother to use moderators? There will no doubt be lots of Government figures collected and squirreled away by the likes of NaBIS, so I'm sure the correct FOI request would reveal the true extent of the 'problem'.

I'm unsure of when and why moderators were added to the firearms legislation. Could even have been an off shoot of some nebulous piece of Euro legislation which brought in the likes of the expanding ammo ban.

About time moderators were no longer counted as firearms - I truly struggle to see how they are a significant risk to public safety. They missed a trick not including a change of status for them in the recent Policing and Crime Act 2017.

hh

Moderators, or "silencers" as they were called were put into legislation many moons ago, when stalkers or any other rifle shooters didn't use them. It was seen as underhand and only really used by the likes of assassins (whether that was actually true or not). But these days, apart from the minimising disturbance reason, I bet there is absolutely nobody refused a moderator for H&S reasons. They are totally unnecessary to the question of whether a firearm works or not.

I too cannot see any earthly reason why their possession or use is restricted. Might as well restrict scopes! (Only joking).

 

[Harry mac]

(c)any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon;

This quote backs up the stance that components of a moderator ar not controlled items. A baffle (or even a baffle stack) is not an accessory to a "weapon". It is a part of an accessory. A thread section, it could be argued, is an accessory to a weapon because it can be attached to it; but, on its own is not designed to reduce the noise or flash, so therefore, not a controlled item. However, assemble the components together and you have a complete "accessory", and that becomes the controlled item. SIMPLE.
In truth, any moderator can be purchased without restriction, as long as you then attach it to a sub-12 ft/lb air rifle; (any RFD worth his salt though, wouldn't sell you a .30 cal T8 for your Webley Vulcan.) because of this, I think the section 1 authority should apply to the permission to use the mod with a section one firearm, rather than to the moderator itself.

 

[Orion]

(c)any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon;

This quote backs up the stance that components of a moderator ar not controlled items. A baffle (or even a baffle stack) is not an accessory to a "weapon". It is a part of an accessory. A thread section, it could be argued, is an accessory to a weapon because it can be attached to it; but, on its own is not designed to reduce the noise or flash, so therefore, not a controlled item. However, assemble the components together and you have a complete "accessory", and that becomes the controlled item. SIMPLE.

I'll go with that.

UK Custom Shop are, and have been for some considerable time, supplying any component part of a moderator, and if it was a problem I think they would have been advised by now.

http://www.wildcatrifles.co.uk/moderator-parts-accessories.html

Given the Police Scotland performance in other areas of firearms administration (medical evidence etc.) and inability to follow the HO Guidance, it might be wise to question their interpretation of this aspect of firearms legislation.

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

I'll go with that.

UK Custom Shop are, and have been for some considerable time, supplying any component part of a moderator, and if it was a problem I think they would have been advised by now.

http://www.wildcatrifles.co.uk/moderator-parts-accessories.html

Given the Police Scotland performance in other areas of firearms administration (medical evidence etc.) and inability to follow the HO Guidance, it might be wise to question their interpretation of this aspect of firearms legislation.

I did....

Post #1

Officially

 

[Orion]

I did....

Post #1

Officially

Can you hear the sound of heads being scratched in the FLD?

 

[Leadwasp]

An interesting first post and a thread that I read with interest. I guess the problem is that unless it is addressed during a licensing Act review the only way it will be properly sorted out will be via test case leading to precident. IF we had a truly national shooting organisation, it might put funds aside to do exactly this.

A thread about the law surrounding moderators also feeds in to Jackson's assertion that moderators do not need to be proofed. Again their assertion is based on opinion only and has yet to be tested....anyone fancy a go? I rarely see a mod with proof marks on and I've not heard of the Proof Houses pressing prosecution (as they administer the Acts).

Will the GTA ever do anything? - although it seems to be run more like a London Club than a trade association (proposed, seconded etc, asking for information that is frankly none of their business). I would have thought that anybody granted a RFD status was more than fit to be a member.

 

[FGYT]

An interesting first post and a thread that I read with interest. I guess the problem is that unless it is addressed during a licensing Act review the only way it will be properly sorted out will be via test case leading to precident. IF we had a truly national shooting organisation, it might put funds aside to do exactly this.

A thread about the law surrounding moderators also feeds in to Jackson's assertion that moderators do not need to be proofed. Again their assertion is based on opinion only and has yet to be tested....anyone fancy a go? I rarely see a mod with proof marks on and I've not heard of the Proof Houses pressing prosecution (as they administer the Acts).

Will the GTA ever do anything? - although it seems to be run more like a London Club than a trade association (proposed, seconded etc, asking for information that is frankly none of their business). I would have thought that anybody granted a RFD status was more than fit to be a member.

No mods don't need proof and proof house dosnt prosecute because they lost last time

A friend is a manufacturing RFD and makes MODs he does proof them but only because his insurance insists

 

[Leadwasp]

No mods don't need proof and proof house dosnt prosecute because they lost last time

A friend is a manufacturing RFD and makes MODs he does proof them but only because his insurance insists

So there is case law concerning the proof (or not) of sound moderators? Can you direct me to it?

 

[rarms]

Think it used to be mentioned on Jackson rifles website

 

[Leadwasp]

Think it used to be mentioned on Jackson rifles website

Hi rarms - thanks, I referred to Jacksons in my earlier post. To quote the advice given to them "In the absence of any court decision to the contrary.....". So at the moment it is opinion not precident. I am genuinely interested in FYGT's comment that the proof houses 'lost'. So if there is case law that is another thing altogether.

I'm not trying ot hijack the OP's post but point out another inconsistency - there is a lot of misinformation and confusion about the topic even with RFD's.

 

[Leadwasp]

Additionally have a look at the website of a large chain of gunshops with a branch at the bottom of the M5. They sell a number of moderator muzzle parts freely, but then some other screw fit parts (not flash hiders etc.) require a RFD transfer. So inconsistency there too.

I think the OP's action to clarify this - in Scotland at least - is very valuable.