Home Offices launches consultation on deregulating sound moderators

[The Event]

I thought that it was perhaps just me that thought that they had failed to consider flash hiders, obviously not.

Apparently the proposal is to delete Section 57(1)(d) entirely so that will take care of flash hiders as well as moderators.

[Mattnall]

Just be careful on Q3 - don't want a data point that can be used to make moderators compulsory.

I've been saying for years that using the H&S argument to get moderators was likely to come back and bite us if we weren't careful.
Hopefully this will remove any threat.

[the running man]

I filled it in too,good job

[jmc67]

Done and thanks for sharing the details.

[450 Martini]

Also done and i got my dad and younger brother (Both FAC holders) to do it.
My old FEO was insistent i put down a mod for our .22 on my first grant almost 20 years ago. I think he said there had been a court case over someone with hearing loss who had been denied one and they now needed a few more on the system.

[Elshad]

I submitted additional comments via email regarding the possibility of using the intended legislative reform order (LRO) to also address the grey area re section 1 shotguns / LBPs and ownership by clubs.

I suggested they modify Section 15 of the 1988 Act by replacing all mentions of “rifle” or “muzzle-loading pistol” with “firearm”.

Appreciate that this is not directly relevant to the consultation but I thought it’s worth a shot and made the point that the current discrepancy is not because section 1 shotguns / LBPs are thought to be more dangerous than rifles (nowhere in the legislation is such a claim made) but instead due to a simple oversight, and that it would be prudent to address both this and the moderator issue in a single LRO.

Not holding my breath…

[Chapuis]

I submitted additional comments via email regarding the possibility of using the intended legislative reform order (LRO) to also address the grey area re section 1 shotguns / LBPs and ownership by clubs.

I suggested they modify Section 15 of the 1988 Act by replacing all mentions of “rifle” or “muzzle-loading pistol” with “firearm”.

Appreciate that this is not directly relevant to the consultation but I thought it’s worth a shot and made the point that the current discrepancy is not because section 1 shotguns / LBPs are thought to be more dangerous than rifles (nowhere in the legislation is such a claim made) but instead due to a simple oversight, and that it would be prudent to address both this and the moderator issue in a single LRO.

Not holding my breath…

But it wasn't a simple oversight, it was a deliberate act of spitefulness.

[Blackstuff]

I submitted additional comments via email regarding the possibility of using the intended legislative reform order (LRO) to also address the grey area re section 1 shotguns / LBPs and ownership by clubs.

I suggested they modify Section 15 of the 1988 Act by replacing all mentions of “rifle” or “muzzle-loading pistol” with “firearm”.

Appreciate that this is not directly relevant to the consultation but I thought it’s worth a shot and made the point that the current discrepancy is not because section 1 shotguns / LBPs are thought to be more dangerous than rifles (nowhere in the legislation is such a claim made) but instead due to a simple oversight, and that it would be prudent to address both this and the moderator issue in a single LRO.

Not holding my breath…

Thats allegedly in the pipeline again.

It should've come in with the Policing and Crime Act 2017 when they reversed the silliness around expanding ammo, but a spiteful DCC put the kibosh on it at the last minute