✕
Install on your iOS device:
Tap then "Add to Home Screen"
  • SUPPORTING RESPONSIBLE SHOOTING

The Future

Shotgun Revocation

Shotgun Revocation 1600 1204 Vicky Downs

The rate of UK Shotgun Certificate revocations has risen sharply post-Keyham, driven by updated guidance and regional inconsistencies, sparking concern over fairness and consistency.

This article uncovers the source of this data, the legal framework, analyses trends and highlights inconsistency.

Sorry you do not have access to this content - register or upgrade.

Sound Moderators

Sound Moderators 8192 5464 Vicky Downs

Summary of the New Legal Position

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

  • You must hold a valid firearm certificate or shotgun certificate to possess a moderator intended for use with a Section 1 firearm.
  • You no longer need a variation to buy or use a moderator.
  • You may own multiple moderators without notifying police.
  • Moderators will no longer appear on your certificate.

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:

  • Existing moderators recorded on certificates remain lawful possessions.
  • Certificate holders do not need to apply for removal of moderator entries.
  • Police forces will remove moderator entries from digital systems as part of routine renewals.

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.

Safe Hands, Sound Judgement

Safe Hands, Sound Judgement 2560 1707 Chris Downs

This article provides a practical guide to demonstrating competence in firearms handling, particularly in the context of UK Firearms Licensing. It highlights how Firearms Enquiry Officers (FEOs) increasingly assess applicants’ ability to use firearms safely, a factor that has been overlooked but is now central to licensing decisions.

Key points include:

  • The link between Competence and Public Safety
  • Ways to demonstrate competence
  • Common FEO questions

It advises applicants to prepare thoroughly for FEO interviews, ensuring they can confidently answer questions and provide evidence of safe firearm handling.

Sorry you do not have access to this content - register or upgrade.

Firearms & Shotgun Regimes compared

Firearms & Shotgun Regimes compared 2560 1537 Chris Downs

This article provides a detailed comparison of Firearms Certificates (FAC) and Shotgun Certificates (SGC) under UK law, highlighting key differences in requirements, restrictions, and police assessments. It explains how the SGC regime was introduced in 1968 as a less stringent form of control compared to the FAC, but recent trends show police forces tightening their stance on renewals.

Key points include:

  • Legal wording differences
  • Good reason requirement
  • Ownership and conditions
  • Increasing Police scrutiny

The document also discusses potential future alignment of the two regimes and advises SGC Holders to prepare for more intrusive scrutiny.

Sorry you do not have access to this content - register or upgrade.