Home Office confirms plans to remove moderators from firearms licensing controls

Important Update

Home Office confirms plans to remove moderators from firearms licensing 

UK Government Moves to Deregulate Sound Moderators: A Step Forward for Shooters and Public Safety

In a significant shift for UK firearms legislation, the government has confirmed its intention to remove sound moderators from the legal definition of a firearm. This reform, which follows overwhelming support from the shooting community, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing effort to streamline regulations and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.

What’s Changing?

Currently, sound moderators—devices designed to reduce the noise and muzzle flash of firearms—are classified as firearms under the Firearms Act 1968. As a result, gun owners need police authorisation and a variation to their firearms certificate to acquire or possess a moderator. The proposed reform would remove this requirement, recognising that sound moderators themselves do not pose a direct threat to public safety.

The change comes after a consultation launched by the UK Home Office in early 2024, which received an overwhelming 94% approval rate from over 19,000 respondents. This level of support underlines the strong desire within the shooting community to reduce the regulatory load while ensuring that moderators remain in the hands of responsible individuals.

Why the Change?

The core motivation behind the government’s proposed reform is to reduce the administrative burden placed on both police forces and certificate holders. The current requirement to apply for a variation every time a sound moderator is acquired or possessed creates unnecessary paperwork and delays. By removing this process, shooters will be able to more easily access these devices, which are integral to both recreational and sporting shooting.

Moreover, sound moderators are recognised by experts as a key tool in improving shooting safety and reducing noise pollution. By minimising the risk of hearing damage to shooters and bystanders, they make shooting sports more accessible and less disruptive to surrounding communities.

The Home Office has stated that the change will continue to ensure that moderators are only held by those with a legitimate purpose—namely, those who already possess a valid firearms certificate. This ensures that the intended safety standards remain in place while cutting down on unnecessary bureaucratic red tape.

A Clear Win for the Shooting Community

The shooting community has long advocated for this reform, arguing that the current system is outdated and overly restrictive. The fact that 94% of respondents in the consultation supported the proposal demonstrates the broad consensus among firearms certificate holders, shooting organisations, and enthusiasts.

Supporters of the reform also argue that it will help clarify misconceptions around sound moderators. They are often erroneously associated with criminal activity, when in reality, they are primarily used for legitimate purposes, including hunting, sport shooting, and pest control. Removing moderators from the legal definition of a firearm should help shift public perception and encourage a more nuanced understanding of firearms regulation.

Public Safety Remains a Priority

While the reform reduces the regulatory burden, the government has made it clear that public safety will remain at the forefront. Sound moderators will not be available to just anyone; they will continue to be restricted to individuals who hold a valid firearms certificate. This ensures that moderators are only used by responsible, law-abiding citizens, in line with the original purpose of the Firearms Act.

In its formal response, the Home Office noted that the reform is designed to “meet the original objective of removing the administrative burden on the police and shooters” while maintaining the safeguards that ensure the devices are held only by those with a legitimate need.

What’s Next?

Now that the government has confirmed its intention to proceed with the reform, the next step will be drafting and implementing the necessary legislative changes. Although the specifics of the timeline remain unclear, the overwhelming support from the consultation suggests that the government is committed to making the reform a reality.

For those involved in shooting sports, this development signals a welcome reduction in bureaucracy and an increased recognition of the legitimacy of sound moderators in everyday shooting practices. As the details are finalised, those who stand to benefit from the reform should stay informed and ensure they are ready to comply with any new regulations that come into force.

Conclusion

The UK government’s decision to deregulate sound moderators is a clear step forward for the shooting community, offering a more streamlined and sensible approach to firearms law. With overwhelming support from the public consultation and a focus on maintaining safety standards, this reform is expected to enhance the shooting experience while ensuring that firearms regulation remains both effective and appropriate for modern needs.

As this process moves forward, shooters, clubs, and organisations should continue to engage with policymakers to ensure the best possible outcomes for everyone involved.