all this discussion just underlines the need for reform.
I'd say that the discussion underlines the need initially for clarity on what the current position in law
actually is.
But the whole point is the law is changing and they will no longer be section 1, surely?
What is clear from the Minister's statement is that it will be necessary to hold an FAC to possess moderators - by which she presumably means moderators for S1 firearms: which sounds curiously like the current position could be, if it were clarified that a moderator is only considered a S1 firearm if it is actually
an accessory to (meaning 'currently attached to') an S1 firearm.
If it were possible to clarify that position, then it might follow thus:
1. That lawful owners of S1 firearms would need a 'slot' for a moderator for each of the S1 firearms on which they wished to fit a moderator: not so hard to imagine, as many of us have this already, and there's no extra difficulty or cost occasioned by getting such slots
2. That this slot would have to be regarded differently from slots for actual S1 firearms. This is at least partly the case already, quite often. None of my moderators is described other than 'no name/no number' - which pretty much acknowledges what appears to me to be the intention of the Law.
3. The 'slot' would be occupied by whichever moderator is fitted to the relevant firearm only
while that moderator is fitted to it. Clearly this makes it impracticable to keep getting the certificate varied (which IMO is why we currently don't).
4. This leaves moderators which are unattached to S1 or S5 firearms uncontrolled. They are items which are without apparent definition in law other than their definition as S1-contolled items under a particular circumstance which derives solely from their relationship to a S1 firearm; whereby any thing designed (ASE Utra, for example) or adapted (e.g. Unipart) to moderate the report of a S1 firearm becomes S1 while it is
actually an accessory to such a firearm.
If that were recognisable as correct, then there would be no need for 'reform'. The current law would do what we all want.
My worries about reform are summed up by the variously-attributed quotation: 'Why all this talk of reform? Aren't things bad enough already?'
Anyone wondering why this quotation seems apposite might wish to have a look at the history, both recent and not so recent, of changes to UK firearms law.
All we have is an undertaking that they will do something sensible and decades overdue whenever they've got nothing more pressing to argue about in parliament. If they can do a statutory instrument to double our certificate fees at the stroke of a pen then they could do one for this, so why haven't they?
I'm not sure it's that simple: the provision to adjust the fees by statutory instrument was AFAIK built into the Act from the beginning.
Part of the problem with this proposed 'reform' seems to be that neither the people asking for it, nor those who have said they will deliver it seem to know quite what it is.
What is clear it that it gives the lawmakers the opportunity to open the box and meddle with the contents - and this seldom ends well for shooters, even when there is some clear benefit promised.
