This article uncovers the source of this data, the legal framework, analyses trends and highlights inconsistency.
This article uncovers the source of this data, the legal framework, analyses trends and highlights inconsistency.
It explains how certificate holders must justify not only firearm ownership but also the quantity of ammunition.
It highlights the pitfalls of arbitrary limits imposed by some police forces.
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 Crime and Policing Act 2026 has now come into force, formally removing 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
These changes simplify ownership and acquisition, but they do not remove moderators from control entirely.
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. This is a significant and positive shift, aligning the law more closely with practical reality.
2. A new offence is created
The Act introduces a new offence: possession of a sound moderator intended for use with a Section 1 firearm without holding a firearm or shotgun certificate.
This retains a basic control mechanism while removing the administrative burden of variations. However, it also introduces an element of subjectivity — the offence hinges on intended use, not physical compatibility.
3. Transitional arrangements
Although formal guidance is still expected, the practical position is clear:
This 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 fall entirely outside the new offence — even though many designs are physically interchangeable. This is legally clear but practically untidy.
The amended section 8 authorises dealers to possess relevant accessories, but the wording is less symmetrical than the provisions for firearms and ammunition, where possession, purchase, and acquisition are all set out explicitly. In practice, routine commercial handling should remain lawful, but the drafting could have been cleaner.
A Step Forward — But Not the Step We Needed
While the reform is welcome, it is not the simple, elegant solution many hoped for. The Government has removed moderators from the definition of “firearm”, but then immediately created a new offence based on intention. This introduces foreseeable enforcement challenges:
Officers will still need to assess intended use.
Moderators capable of fitting multiple firearms will still create ambiguity.
The time saved on variations may be offset by time spent interpreting intention.
The most straightforward approach would have been to remove moderators from control entirely. That would have delivered genuine administrative relief and eliminated the grey areas that will now occupy police time. Instead, we have a halfway house — better than before, but still needlessly complicated.
Conclusion
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 delivers long‑awaited progress. Moderators are no longer firearms, variations are gone, and certificate holders can acquire them without additional bureaucracy. But the new offence based on intended use means the system is not as clean or efficient as it could have been.
This is a positive reform — just not the simple one the sector needed.
