Moderators

cavan shooter

I would hazard a guess and say that there are plenty of legally held fire arms out there with moderators and the users mightened have a a letter from a super in relation to them.

Moderators shouldn't cause such controversy, they are not silencers:D.

johngalway

Excuse you, it's not a silly way of looking at it and if you'd properly read my posts you'd see that. But you haven't or you'd have seen what I refer to in the next paragraph :rolleyes:

I never said anything should be unrestricted or go unaccounted for, I said the level of restriction is stupid, I referred to the UK application process for getting a moderator being the correct way of going about the issue.

Following on from that I made it quite clear that the Irish way of doing it is backwards, disprepectful to law abiding shooters, frustrating and downright dangerous both for those pearls of wisdom suggesting hearing protection in the field and forcing people into one of three situations;
1. Commit an offence by getting the mod regardless.
2. Keep on using an un moderated gun therefore damaging the shooter's and possibly others hearing.
3. Give up their sport altogether.

Once a person has applied and been approved to hold a firearm they should be allowed apply for a moderator on health and safety grounds and recieve proper and open consideration instead of the guff that's been dished out at the moment which has been told by various members here.

As for "professional" hitmen in Ireland, please enlighten us on what cases have recorded the use of a moderator? These people are at the professional level of thug, a motorbike and handgun are sufficent for the job. I think you may be watching too much TV.

I agree 100% with people having moderators, I think as I have said more than once it should be along the lines of the UK system.

But again I'll say if a person is fit to hold and use a firearm then there should be absolutely no problem in getting and using a moderator or in being allowed to handload or use nightvision for hunting purposes.

IF a person of unfit character is currently holding a firearm then that shows clearly the authorities, such as they are, are failing to do their job. It should not be made into an excuse to impose a covert ban on certain items and practices as is happening right now by certain Supers not allowing mods, others do, and no handloading or NV being allowed. It's an ignorant mindset and makes for bad law.



Please read my posts properly, I never said there should be no application process.

cavan shooter

I agree with you John, but I cant see a change in the short, medium or long term. If you look at the firearms act ( 1990 Act I think) You can get it on Irish statute book.
I
t puts everything onto the opinion of the Superintendent, In a way youd feel very sorry for the old Super, he carries alot on his shoulder.:D

have a look at this from the BASC on the subject of rifles:
http://www.basc.org.uk/content/riflescalibreland flick down to point 4 it covers moderators. This is aimed at everyone

quackquackBOOM

Kramer wrote: »

Well you heard wrong then.
To be legal, you need a letter of authorisation from your super. Yes, they can be bought very easily without any licence etc. but to possess/use one without said letter, you're comitting an offence.

You're not the only one who has a mod without letter though .

im now going to beat that reliable fellow with a large stick
and he can thank you for that;)

Mellor

johngalway wrote: »

Excuse you, it's not a silly way of looking at it and if you'd properly read my posts you'd see that. But you haven't or you'd have seen what I refer to in the next paragraph :rolleyes:

The "silly way of looking at it" was in relation to the comment of criminal access to mods and such. And you say I didn't bother to read your post:rolleyes:

The two quotes follow.

johngalway wrote: »

If you're (not you) a paramilitary or criminal you'll have certain things in place so you don't need a moderator, or if you do want one sure it'll come in on the next drug shipment.

Mellor wrote: »

That is a silly way to look at it. Because they can get their hands on them it doesn't matter how available they are. The same could to applied to guns couldn't it.

Of course it possible for them to get there hands on mods (or guns) "with the next drugs shipment". How does this matter. The guns come in the same, should we approach them with the same "sure they'll get one if they want" attitude.


As for the following

johngalway wrote:

Once a person has applied and been approved to hold a firearm they should be allowed apply for a moderator on health and safety grounds and recieve proper and open consideration instead of the guff that's been dished out at the moment which has been told by various members here.

How is this different from what I said before you.

Mellor wrote:

if you have a gun that requires a mod it for your given situation you should be allowed to get one BUT you have to apply for this, in keeping with the record of mods above.

In my previous post I made it bold to highlight it. I had the same attitude. You critise my post and say I didn't read you posts, then post the same thing that I did in the very post you critise.
Once again, instead of telling me to read your posts, please read mine.

If you have a gun then of course you should be allow a suitable mod should you need one. All I said, and all I ever said is that it should be authorised and recorded. I never suggested that the level of restriction should be the state it is in now.

IF a person of unfit character is currently holding a firearm then that shows clearly the authorities, such as they are, are failing to do their job. It should not be made into an excuse to impose a covert ban on certain items and practices as is happening right now by certain Supers not allowing mods, others do, and no handloading or NV being allowed. It's an ignorant mindset and makes for bad law.

I agree. And this backs up what I already said. The law is in place to make mods harder to get for people who shouldn't have one. Not for stop shooters getting mods. I don't know what kind of brief the person dealing with firearms is given. They may be told to apply the law a certain way.
But left to their own opinion there is no real reason anybody with a firearm couldn't get a suitable mod under the current law. This is of course assuming that everyone allowed a gun, is responsible enough to hold a gun with a mod.

As I said from the start, the law is required and it is currently fine.
The way it is being applied is wrong, and what people should have a problem with, but the "why should someone have to apply" attitude is wrong also.

Ruger.220swift

I submitted a letter to the local garda station and it was passed on to the super. The start had all my personal details chairman of gun club for x amount of years etc... the main points were as follows....

1. As the ........ is a centre fire rifle the Peak Action Level of noise from the rifle exceeds 140 dB when fired, which under the European Communities (Exposure to Noise)Regulations,1990 states that Hearing protection must be worn to avoid any hearing damage. This is not always practical when shooting vermin in the field as when wearing hearing protection I can not listen as well as feel for wind changes, and movements in the surrounding environment such as livestock, people etc, however I do accept that hearing protection is practical when target shooting in a controlled environment. This could also affect the hearing of accompanying shooters/land owners when a shot is fired.

2. I currently shoot a lot of vermin (foxes) for farmers in ......, ....., and ..... areas. As the rifle is so loud some farmers have had concerns that it might scare the livestock causing them to run off, in particular in lambing season which may result in loss of lambs. Also horses in adjoining fields may be frightened by the sound of a shot from some distance.
In practice, depending on the amount of bullet flight noise reflected back to the shooter by trees or fences etc., a centre fire hunting rifle with a T8 suppressor sounds about the same as a high velocity 22 LR rim-fire rifle which is well below the threshold of 140 dB. I would ask you to consider the above points when deciding on this application.

The responce i got was a verbal one from the local sargent saying that the super has only "ever"..... given out one permit for vermin shooting and that he attached conditions that it was only to be used early morning between the hours of x to x... He said that he would not grant a permit for health and safety reasons alone and he then told me that the super suggested that i get a less noisy gun.... B******t....:mad:

sidneyreilly

Mellor wrote: »

Of course it possible for them to get there hands on mods (or guns) "with the next drugs shipment". How does this matter. The guns come in the same, should we approach them with the same "sure they'll get one if they want" attitude.

Didnt mean to seem picky Mellor but this was my point: there is no restriction on purchase., just possesion. The criminals dont need to bother getting them in with any drug shipment they can merely order them ligit.

Also +1 to John Galway on his points. I'm sure I would like him if he hadnt stolen my Avatar:D

Isnt there a European rule requiring the use of moderators in proximity of employee's and in the workplace in respect of firearms use?

johngalway

Mellor, to be honest, life is too short to keep arguing with you.

I put forward my views and you jumped upon them as me saying nothing should need to be applied for or recorded. I never said any of that, read back, you won't find it as it's not there.

You also failed to enlighten us which crimes were committed using a mod.

Yes criminals will get what they like regardless, we'd no handguns for a long time and they got them.

The law is bad as it stands. It's implementation in certain cases only serves to make it a lot worse. See Rugers case and look up old threads here. I've suggested a solution, the UK process.

I've left this post as basic as possible for easier digestion :rolleyes:

johngalway

sidneyreilly wrote: »

Also +1 to John Galway on his points. I'm sure I would like him if he hadnt stolen my Avatar:D

Isnt there a European rule requiring the use of moderators in proximity of employee's and in the workplace in respect of firearms use?

Sidney, they say immitation is the highest form of flattery, lol. And I do believe you're right, there is such an EU rule.

johngalway

cavan shooter wrote: »

It puts everything onto the opinion of the Superintendent, In a way youd feel very sorry for the old Super, he carries alot on his shoulder.:D

He has a lot of responsibility alright. I certainly don't blame them for the law, they don't make it. I don't have so much sympathy when I see people being treated like Ruger was.

Mellor

johngalway wrote: »

Mellor, to be honest, life is too short to keep arguing with you.

Funny way of arguing you have. Alot of what you said is exactly the same as what I said.
I still think you were taking me up wrong, somebody (not you) said why do you need auth, I was simply putting forward my opinion on the fact that auth should be required. I never said the current system is the best, or even any good at all, only that a system is required. The english system is far better.
The fact that certain supers are mis-apply the law makes the short coming s of the law far worse.


As for ruger's case, thats a joke. As I suggested above, there should be no question that he should get a mod as his gun clearly requires one. Is there any legal reason why he can't get one, am I right in saying that the law allows him a mod here but the supers is diffing his heels in. Sad


As for the use of mods in crime, is that a joke or do you honestly think I made it up? There have been a number of cases in the papers and on the news of that nature. It probably worth noting that the papers nearly always use the word silencer. This most likely due to TV/movies making the word common knowledge. Its well noted here that a mod doesn't actually silence a gun only reduce sound to an acceptable level, but I wqould imagine that most laypeople wouldn't know what a sound moderator actually was.
Heres three of various types of crime, to give a broad range

Here's a alcoholic drug user who boasted of his gun and "silencer" in the pub

Major gangland case of last year, major crime boss killed. "highly organised vrime, silenced handgun

Man you walked into a Dublin Garda station with a gun and mod on him, and tried to shoot himself

Gerri

Ruger.220swift wrote: »

I submitted a letter to the local garda station and it was passed on to the super. The start had all my personal details chairman of gun club for x amount of years etc... the main points were as follows....

1. As the ........ is a centre fire rifle the Peak Action Level of noise from the rifle exceeds 140 dB when fired, which under the European Communities (Exposure to Noise)Regulations,1990 states that Hearing protection must be worn to avoid any hearing damage. This is not always practical when shooting vermin in the field as when wearing hearing protection I can not listen as well as feel for wind changes, and movements in the surrounding environment such as livestock, people etc, however I do accept that hearing protection is practical when target shooting in a controlled environment. This could also affect the hearing of accompanying shooters/land owners when a shot is fired.

2. I currently shoot a lot of vermin (foxes) for farmers in ......, ....., and ..... areas. As the rifle is so loud some farmers have had concerns that it might scare the livestock causing them to run off, in particular in lambing season which may result in loss of lambs. Also horses in adjoining fields may be frightened by the sound of a shot from some distance.
In practice, depending on the amount of bullet flight noise reflected back to the shooter by trees or fences etc., a centre fire hunting rifle with a T8 suppressor sounds about the same as a high velocity 22 LR rim-fire rifle which is well below the threshold of 140 dB. I would ask you to consider the above points when deciding on this application.

The responce i got was a verbal one from the local sargent saying that the super has only "ever"..... given out one permit for vermin shooting and that he attached conditions that it was only to be used early morning between the hours of x to x... He said that he would not grant a permit for health and safety reasons alone and he then told me that the super suggested that i get a less noisy gun.... B******t....:mad:

Perhaps there is too much info in your application, sometimes less is more. I have seen quite a few applications both successful and unsuccessful, complex ones seem to fare badly. Reading the relevant section of the firearms act gives the criteria and once an applicant fulfils these conditions authorisations are usually granted. Firearms owners already fulfil some of these by virtue of having a firearms cert and the other conditions to be met are special need and no risk to the public safety, if I recall correctly. There is no mention of Peak Action, reflected noise or decibels in the Firearms Act so the Superintendent will probably not consider any of these when making his decision. His decision will probably be based on the provisions of the Firearms Acts.

Kat1170

What moderator would people here recommend for a 22.250, can't use it at night for lamping, as it is just TOO loud. All my lamping is done under 150m due to the fields I shoot being small. Any advice gratefully accepted.