Moderators ,, A law query

[Rake aboot 4,936]

Aye right !! what mair dae yeh want me to say.

Spoke to 2 RFD`s and then spoke tae firearms licensing (pretty sure they know their stuff like !)

 

"therefore, you need an FAC to possess, purchase or acquire one."

 

If that was the case why can a mod thats to be fitted to an air rifle be bought off ticket ??? (Refer again to my Parker Hale statement)

 

Ask your FLO. It may be a firearm (so is an airgun) but it need not be on ticket until it`s to be fitted to a fac rated weapon.

 

 

Perhaps my wording is a bit mixed, when I say it`s not a firearm I mean in the FAC sense.

There are firearms that can be bought off ticket ,

 

It`s bought. My licensing dept are happy and so is the Rfd that will be fitting it.

[matt_hooks 188]

Jobs a goodun!

 

Wish I could pick up a few bargains like that!

[JonathanL 4]

What of the case where a mod that is suitable for fitting to a section 1 firearm is held for use on a sub 12 ftlb air rifle?

 

It is made for fitting to a section 1, but as there is no intention to fit it, I would suggest that it falls outside the regulations.

 

All you can do is apply the wording of the Act to the specific item. Is it an accessory to a firearm? Is it designed to reduce the noise or flash caused by discharging the firearm? If you can answer both questions with a "yes" then it's subject to Sec.1 controls. You then have to ask whether it's exempt from needing an FAC. Sub 12 ft/lb air rifles are exempt and do are their component parts and accessories. From that it would seem that a mod for such a gun would not need an FAC but the problem is that if it is designed to be used on a Sec.1 firearm as well it would because whichever way you cut it - it's an accessory to a Sec.1 firearm, regardless of whether you actualy intend to use it as such.

 

 

As for mods in calibres which have no corresponding air rifle use, I would agree that a moderator is a firearm, as you couldn't claim it's for use on anything other than a rifle chambered for the calibre the mod is suited to. Of course if you do not own a rifle chambered in that calibre, then you can't put a mod on to a rifle, so again would it be an offence to hold one?

 

 

Applying the legislation would tend to lead you to the conclusion that it is an offence to hold one without an FAC. It's an accessory to a firearm, which makes it a firearm in its own right. It doesn't matter whether you have a rifle to fit it to or not. If it didn't then you could use the dame argument to say that a barrel is exempt from FAC controls if you have no reciever to screw it to. Have a head over to the Cybershooters forum where there's a similar thread going. Someone has confirmed that there are a few flash eliminators held on dealers registers and that the spec for de-acts includes provision for deactivating them.

 

J.

[JonathanL 4]

Aye right !! what mair dae yeh want me to say.

Spoke to 2 RFD`s and then spoke tae firearms licensing (pretty sure they know their stuff like !)

 

They don't always know everything. Lots of licensing departments tell that you can fax in the notification when you acuire a firearm but the law says you mustsend it by recorded delivery. The department is wrong on that score.

 

 

"therefore, you need an FAC to possess, purchase or acquire one."

 

If that was the case why can a mod thats to be fitted to an air rifle be bought off ticket ??? (Refer again to my Parker Hale statement)

 

Because air rifles can be possessed, purchased or acquired without an FAC because Sec.1 creates an exemption for them. Because of this so then can their accessories. However, I'm still of the opinion that if a mod is designed to be used on a Sec.1 firearm then it needs to be on FAC regardless of what you intend to use it on. If it were designed only be used on a sub 12 ft/lb airgun then it wouldn't.

 

The key point is what it's designed to be used for, not what you could actually use it for.

 

Ask your FLO. It may be a firearm (so is an airgun) but it need not be on ticket until it`s to be fitted to a fac rated weapon.

 

I think it more the case that you just probably won't get prosecuted, rather than it not being an offence. Like I said though, apply the wording of the Act;

 

Is it an accessory to a firearm which is designed to reduce the noise?

 

Perhaps my wording is a bit mixed, when I say it`s not a firearm I mean in the FAC sense.

There are firearms that can be bought off ticket ,

 

There are several, miniature rifes, antiques, etc, but these are because there are specific exemptions in the Act for them - Sec.11(4) and 58(2) respectively. I don't see anything in the Act which says that a firearm which happens to be a moderator is exempt from Sec.1 controls until you physically fit it to a Sec.1 gun though.

 

J.

[Rake aboot 4,936]

Right.

You seem determined to prove I am breaking the law ,on an open forum so I will ask you gain.

What about the Parker Hale moderator ?? Can be bought ON or OFF ticket depending on what you want to use it for.

The P8 can be bought with a 177 insert for use on air rifles.

 

Is this just a chance for you to try and show you know better than the people who uphold the firearms laws.

 

Can I draw you attention to the part above where you state "I'm still of the opinion "

 

Your INTERPRETATION of the law does not make it fact. Is it possible you might be WRONG??

What is your motive for trying to ensure it appears I am acting illegally , Are you annoyed that I did not run it past you first and instead went to my FLO

[JonathanL 4]

Right.

You seem determined to prove I am breaking the law ,on an open forum so I will ask you gain.

What about the Parker Hale moderator ?? Can be bought ON or OFF ticket depending on what you want to use it for.

The P8 can be bought with a 177 insert for use on air rifles.

 

Is this just a chance for you to try and show you know better than the people who uphold the firearms laws.

 

Can I draw you attention to the part above where you state "I'm still of the opinion "

 

Your INTERPRETATION of the law does not make it fact. Is it possible you might be WRONG??

What is your motive for trying to ensure it appears I am acting illegally , Are you annoyed that I did not run it past you first and instead went to my FLO

 

Of course it's possible I'm wrong, that's why we have courts to settle these kind of things.

 

I'm not trying to prove you're breaking the law at all - I have no interest in getting you locked up or anything. I just think it's good that we have proper discussions about the law because it's an important point about owning firearms.

 

You can't always simply take what the authorities tell you as gospel. Like I pointed out abouve - many firearms departments will tell you that it's perfectly ok to email or fax in your notiication of having acquired a gun when, in actual fact, the Act says that you must send it by recorded delivery. If you don't send it by recorded delivery then you break the law and the police have no authority to tell you that this is fine for you to do. They cannot tell you to ignore or break the law. So, who do you believe.

 

Also, the Home Office in their guidance say very specifically that a .22rf can never benefit from the exemption in Sec.58(2) for antiques to be held off-ticket. This is patently wrong as there is an appeal case which contradicts it (RvThompson) and which pre-dates the guidance so they cannot claim not to know about it.

 

As I say, I'm not trying to get you done or anything (and I know the score with mods and knows its highly unlikely you ever would be), the problem is though if the wheel ever comes off at any time and it turns out you have done something illegal then the cops and CPS will not hesitate for one second to prosecute the arse off you if they think it serves their purpose to do so. Remember though, you did ask the question so can hardly complain when someone answers it.

 

Is the PH mod designed for a Sec.1 firearm or is it actually designed for an air gun and happens to also work with a Sec.1. Sec.57 is clear that only an accessory which is designed or adapted for use on a Sec.1, 2 or 5 gun needs to go on cert so something which was designed for a sub 12 ft/lb air rifle but also hapened to work on a .22RF wouldn't need a slot, even if you did actually use it on one.

 

There was a case I dug out regarding a chap who had a mod who won on appeal due to the judge's inadequate summing up; anyway, one of the comments by some legal commentator on this case was along the lines of "If I were a collector of silencers but not the weapons which they fitted to, would I need a firearm certificate to possess them? That is certainly one contstruction of the law". So he (writing for the Criminal Law Review, I think) certainly thinks that may well be the case - and he's more qualified to comment than either of us. I shall try to find the article.

 

J.

Edited June 15, 2010 by JonathanL

[matt_hooks 188]

There was a case I dug out regarding a chap who had a mod who won on appeal due to the judge's inadequate summing up; anyway, one of the comments by some legal commentator on this case was along the lines of "If I were a collector of silencers but not the weapons which they fitted to, would I need a firearm certificate to possess them? That is certainly one contstruction of the law". So he (writing for the Criminal Law Review, I think) certainly thinks that may well be the case - and he's more qualified to comment than either of us. I shall try to find the article.

 

J.

 

"That is one construction of the law" Suggesting that, in his opinion, the law is somewhat ambiguous on the point. And then there's the argument that pits the INTENT of a law with the LETTER of the law. Unless there is precedent to clarify the situation it's rather a gray area.

[JonathanL 4]

There was a case I dug out regarding a chap who had a mod who won on appeal due to the judge's inadequate summing up; anyway, one of the comments by some legal commentator on this case was along the lines of "If I were a collector of silencers but not the weapons which they fitted to, would I need a firearm certificate to possess them? That is certainly one contstruction of the law". So he (writing for the Criminal Law Review, I think) certainly thinks that may well be the case - and he's more qualified to comment than either of us. I shall try to find the article.

 

J.

 

"That is one construction of the law" Suggesting that, in his opinion, the law is somewhat ambiguous on the point. And then there's the argument that pits the INTENT of a law with the LETTER of the law. Unless there is precedent to clarify the situation it's rather a gray area.

 

Well yes, that's my entire point. As to precident. I can't find a case which deals with the precise situation. The one the comment was made in reference to was relating to a guy who had a a shotgun and a rifle (both in certs) and who was found in possession of a mod. The case doesn't mention what the mod was designed for, which is the crual point. The guy had adapted the gun to take the mod - by welding something on the end of the barrel. Had he have adapted the mod, rather than the gun, then he would have been convicted without any question, even if the mod was designed for an air gun (the case doesn't mention what it was designed for). The case revolved around the judges' suming up to the jury and it was on that matter that the guy won so the courts' actual comments abou the mod were somewhat obiter, although they did say something along the lines of it having to be intended to be used on a particular firearm which, personally, I think is wrong because I can't see how they reached that conclusion and they don't explain.

 

I don't think what the court said in that case does set precident as regards mods for the reasons goven above. Even if it does, I think it's likely to be overturned by a higher court. So, no, there probably isn't any precident on the matter - I don't know too many people who'd be happy being the test-case though!

 

We're agreed then that one wy the law could be interpreted is that a mod on its own which is not fitted to a specific gun needs an FAC to possess, purchase or acquire. It stands up to the literal interpretation of the law; the Act says that an accessory which is designed to reduce the noise of dischrage is a firearm in its own right and needs to be held on FAC (subject to certain statutory exemptions). It stands up to the pupositive interpretation; Parliament has decided that firearms can only be possessed by certain people who have been issued certain authorities to possess them (subject to certain statutory exemptions) and has chosen to put mods on certificate control.

 

So, apply the law. The FA'68 says that a mod is a firearm and firearms have to be possessed purchased or acquired on the authority of an FAC, subject to the exemptions. One of the exemptions for the need for an FAC is that of certain airguns which means that their accessories are also exempt. Where is the exemption in the FA for a mod which is designed to be fitted to a sec.1 firearm? Show me and I'll agree with you.

 

J.

[Toni from N.Z. 2]

Hi blokes.

 

A mod is not a firearm until it is fitted to a rifle, then it must be on your FAC.

Have double checked this with different RFD`s.

You can have a rifle (threaded) and a mod to fit it does not have to be on your FAC until it is fitted.

You are not commiting an offence by having a mod off ticket , only when you fit it to a rifle.

 

total home office bollocks, but true all the same.

 

Even if you have no slot for a moderator, you can buy one and not commit an offence. You must have a slot and put it on FAC to actually fit it to you`r rifle though.

 

Still got a bargain though

 

i'm not so sure you've been given the right info mate, you had best speak to a FLO at fettes and get it confirmed. i know my local dealer would never sell me a mod without a slot on ticket, RFD's are no more qualified than you and me.....just better security and a license to make money ( at least my local is )

 

of course i could be talking shite until someone tells me different.

 

atb

alan.

 

That is how I have always understood it to be. Off on a bit of a tangent, but I know that amongst shooters it is best not to name the make of the mod on your FAC (just put N/K (not known)) that way if exchanging it in, you do not have to apply for a 1 for 1 - but make sure the guy filling out your FAC continues with the N/K procedure.

 

Peter

[Toni from N.Z. 2]

Hello from N.Z.

Luckly we have no restrictions at all here in N.Z. on moderators.In fact some of the most effective I have used I made from empty silicone tube.Wonder how you get one of those on a FAC?

[Colster 1]

When this happened to me (I bought a SAK from a non-licence holder on a shooting forum and he posted the mod to me), I was told by my FLO that the guy I had bought the mod from had committed an offence. As I intended to use the mod on a section 1 firearm (.22LR), he should have sold it face to face and filled in my FAC at the time.

 

How he was supposed to know I was using it on a Sec 1 is beyond me and at the time I didn't even have my licence but knew I didn't need a FAC to possess a moderator.

 

They backed down in the end and entered it on my FAC with no serial number... in answer to the other question on here, that's the best way to do it so you don't have to do a 1-4-1 if you want to change the mod.

 

I'm not saying my FLO was right, it's possibly just another example of how interpretation of the laws and guidelines varies from one area to another.

 

I think you got a bargain mate, just fill in the FAC yourself and under seller put "Self", it's perfectly legal to take a mod you already own for non-FAC use and start using it on a FAC weapon as long as it ends up on your cert somehow. It's what I should have done with my SAK.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Colster

[JonathanL 4]

Hello from N.Z.

Luckly we have no restrictions at all here in N.Z. on moderators.In fact some of the most effective I have used I made from empty silicone tube.Wonder how you get one of those on a FAC?

 

Easy, make one and put it on a slot on your FAC.

 

Okay, sensibly; the requirement to put a mod on FAC is just so much bull. I mean, who cares if you alrady have an FAC for the gun to begin with? I see no purpose at all as to why mods and flash-hiders need to be controled. Has there even been a crime committed which couldn't have been committed without a mod? I doubt it personally. A mod is nothing more than a piece of safety equipment and the Health and Safety at Work regs basically require you to use one if it's at all practical to do so. It's especially pointless as you don't need any extra authorisation for a gun on which the mod is intergral to its design - it doesn't even need to be specified as such on your FAC - so one would presume that moderated firearms per-se aren't the problem that the law is tying to tackle. That being the case, it leaves you to wonder just what is the problem the law is trying to deal with here?

 

I think, basically, whoever drafted the law probably watched too many films andprobably knew sod all about firearms to begin with.

 

J.

Edited June 26, 2010 by JonathanL