Grounded in Sections 27 and 28 of the Firearms Act 1968, “good reason” is assessed case by case and includes sporting use, occupational necessity, collecting or research, and humane dispatch.
The document outlines acceptable supporting evidence, highlights common pitfalls and stresses the discretion police have in decision-making.
Overview
The Home Office has now moved beyond consultation and enacted the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which formally removes sound moderators from the statutory definition of a firearm. This change reflects the overwhelming consultation evidence that moderators are inert accessories with clear health and safety benefits and no measurable impact on public safety.
The Act repeals section 57(1)(d) of the Firearms Act 1968, which previously defined a moderator as:
an accessory to a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon where the accessory is designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon.
Removing this provision ends decades of unnecessary administrative handling of tens of thousands of moderators – many recorded as NVN (“no visible number”) – and eliminates the need for variations, serial‑number entries, and certificate space being consumed by what is essentially a metal tube.
Practical Results for Shooters
Key Findings from the Original Consultation (For Context)
These figures underpin the policy direction now delivered through primary legislation.
What the Crime and Policing Act 2026 Actually Does
1. Moderators are no longer “firearms”
They are no longer subject to Section 1 certification, variation, or entry on a firearm certificate.
2. A new offence is created: possession of a sound moderator without a certificate
Section 2A introduces a simple offence: possessing a “relevant accessory” without holding a firearm certificate or shotgun certificate. This removes the administrative burden of variations while retaining a basic control mechanism over possession.
3. Transitional arrangements
Transitional arrangements will be set out in Home Office guidance. It is likely that:
This approach mirrors previous legislative transitions and avoids unnecessary bureaucracy.
Legal Precision and Remaining Ambiguities
As with any further amendment to the already heavily amended Firearms Act 1968, some drafting choices leave areas of imprecision. Section 2A defines a “relevant accessory” only by reference to firearms “to which section 1 applies”, meaning moderators intended solely for air rifles are not caught by the new offence. This is legally clear, even if many designs are physically interchangeable.
The amended section 8 expressly authorises dealers to possess relevant accessories, but the wording is less symmetrical than for firearms and ammunition, where possession, purchase, and acquisition are all set out explicitly. In practice, the new offence is limited to possession without a certificate, and dealers are exempt, so routine commercial handling should remain lawful. Nonetheless, the drafting is untidy and may benefit from clarification in guidance or secondary legislation to ensure the framework operates cleanly.
It also details application methods and considerations, including legal precedents and Home Office guidelines. The document highlights key arguments and evidence that Certificate Holders may need when requesting condition changes.
This is a complex area which has overlaps with articles on “Land Checks” and “Conditions”.
