Have you been granted or refused a moderator?

bunny shooter

I have been refused a .22lr moderator :rolleyes:

rrpc

Where's the 'not sure' option?

I applied, sent in supporting documentation as requested and got my license without the 'S' others seem to have got.

I'm assuming I have it but... I'm not sure...

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Where's the 'not sure' option?

Covered under "Still waiting"

rrpc wrote: »

I applied, sent in supporting documentation as requested and got my license without the 'S' others seem to have got.

Advice would be that without the coveted "S" on the licence a letter of authorisation from the Super would be required otherwise you are not authorised for a moderator.

rrpc wrote: »

I'm assuming I have it but... I'm not sure...

I like you got no "S" on my licence and I assumed I had it. I then wrote to the Super to check that I had authorisation and he advised me I had been refused. :rolleyes:

If I assumed I had it and was subsequently found in possession of one where would I be? The other side of the coin is that if I was being refused why wasn't I notified by the Super?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Covered under "Still waiting"

Too ambiguous, could be still waiting for your license

Advice would be that without the coveted "S" on the licence a letter of authorisation from the Super would be required otherwise you are not authorised for a moderator.

There is circumstantial evidence that the 'S' was a late comer to the party and earlier licences didn't have it.

I like you got no "S" on my licence and I assumed I had it. I then wrote to the Super to check that I had authorisation and he advised me I had been refused. :rolleyes:

Always looking for trouble

If I assumed I had it and was subsequently found in possession of one where would I be? The other side of the coin is that if I was being refused why wasn't I notified by the Super?

The other side of the coin is that you applied on the correct form and supplied all the information required. Your licence was issued with conditions, none of which stated that the silencer wasn't allowed. The correct assumption is that you were granted since no notification of a refusal was sent. If they subsequently told me that it wasn't granted, my response would be that my telepathy is currently out of coverage and they should have used other means to inform me.

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Too ambiguous, could be still waiting for your license

Grudgingly agree :P

rrpc wrote: »

here is circumstantial evidence that the 'S' was a late comer to the party and earlier licences didn't have it.

Agreed

rrpc wrote: »

Always looking for trouble

Wanted to cover my ass as I have had previous dealings with this Super and they weren't amicable (on his part) :rolleyes:

rrpc wrote: »

The other side of the coin is that you applied on the correct form and supplied all the information required. Your licence was issued with conditions, none of which stated that the silencer wasn't allowed. The correct assumption is that you were granted since no notification of a refusal was sent. If they subsequently told me that it wasn't granted, my response would be that my telepathy is currently out of coverage and they should have used other means to inform me.

But would a judge accept this?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

But would a judge accept this?

I seriously doubt it would get that far. It's the responsibility of the licensing authority to be clear and unambiguous about the status of your license and application. This isn't dog licences they're handing out, there are serious implications to such ambiguities.

It'd be like sitting an exam and being told you passed but not told that because you didn't sign the paper you automatically failed.

johngalway

rrpc wrote: »

Where's the 'not sure' option?

I applied, sent in supporting documentation as requested and got my license without the 'S' others seem to have got.

I'm assuming I have it but... I'm not sure...

Exact same situation as yourself RRPC. I rang my local Garda when he was at the main station, he checked out both rifle cert numbers on Pulse and he reckons I'm OK'd for two moderators. Still a bit wary of it to be honest.

J. Ramone

I got refused last year. When I put in my renewals in November, the local garda told me to resubmit my moderator application with them as the super had a change of mind on the issue. I had a cast iron reason in the first place anyway.

The surprise came when I received my licences I had the magic S for both rifles even though I had only applied for one.

Kramer

Granted mods on all 4 of my rifles (s on licences) :P
I even had that s on shotgun & revolver certs but being the helpful citizen, I educated my local FO & had new certs for those ammended to remove it.

johngalway

Kramer wrote: »

Granted mods on all 4 of my rifles (s on licences) :P
I even had that s on shotgun & revolver certs but being the helpful citizen, I educated my local FO & had new certs for those ammended to remove it.

I'd have been awfully tempted to get a mod for the revolver

marlin vs

bunny shooter wrote: »

If I assumed I had it and was subsequently found in possession of one where would I be? The other side of the coin is that if I was being refused why wasn't I notified by the Super?

I was informed by my local Sergeant, that anyone caught with a moderator that hasn't been approved to hold one, whether they weren't sure or not, that it's (moderator) classed as a fire-arm and that person caught could likely lose all his or her fire-arms.

elius

Applied for mine and got it did wright a separate note as to why i felt i needed one...

bunny shooter

elius wrote: »

.........did wright a separate note as to why i felt i needed one...

I wrote more of an essay :eek:

elius

bunny shooter wrote: »

I wrote more of an essay :eek:

I just mentioned about livestock and to repect elderly people that live in the close locality of my permission. Which is true...

rrpc

marlin vs wrote: »

I was informed by my local Sergeant, that anyone caught with a moderator that hasn't been approved to hold one, whether they weren't sure or not, that it's (moderator) classed as a fire-arm and that person caught could likely lose all his or her fire-arms.

If you have a firearm and you're subsequently refused a license for it, you are informed that you must either hand it in or give it to a dealer. The same applies to silencers, if they refuse you they must notify you and tell you to dispose of it. This applies where you already own one and are effectively applying for a renewal.

This is the problem IMO, with the situation regarding delayed applications that have been deemed refused having exceeded the three month time limit. A 'limbo' situation has developed where the owner isn't notified of the refusal and therefore has been given no instruction to hand in the firearm. By rights they should do this themselves, but who's going to do that when their application could very welll be sitting on a desk in an empty office?

Kramer

Given that over 61% of those polled have been successful in their application for moderators, it would appear that the system is working well enough & that those refused have been refused correctly - i.e. they have not shown valid reason for posession of a mod or there is some other valid reason for the refusal.
Certainly, anyone I know who previously had permission for a moderator or who recently applied for one, with good reason, were all granted them

murph226

Granted for .223 in Cork.

clivej

Both no and yes

Got refused first but got all 3 permissons after an interview with the Super.
I think i was the first to look for any mod permissions, a 22lr mod, in Kilkenny as they didn't know what to do with my first request, which was refused.
I got 10 days to look for an interview with my Super at the time which I took up and then got the 2 permissions for both my 2 mods, 22lr and 223.
I then applied for permission for a mod at the same time that I applied for my 308 license. I use the same mod for the 223 and 308 a .30 cal ASE Northstar .

rrpc

Kramer wrote: »

...those refused have been refused correctly - i.e. they have not shown valid reason for posession of a mod or there is some other valid reason for the refusal.

Bunny's going to get ya

bunny shooter

Kramer wrote: »

Given that over 61% of those polled have been successful in their application for moderators, it would appear that the system is working well enough & that those refused have been refused correctly - i.e. they have not shown valid reason for posession of a mod or there is some other valid reason for the refusal.
Certainly, anyone I know who previously had permission for a moderator or who recently applied for one, with good reason, were all granted them

:rolleyes:

I was refused on public safety grounds. Basically the Super told me, in writing, that he believes that allowing me to use a moderator will put other people using the land in danger as they won't hear or know where the shot/s are coming from :rolleyes: There is a thread here detailing the whole sorry saga

I supplied all the appropiate reasons that lads here who have been granted moderators have used. I was not the only one refused by my Super

If you are lucky enough to have a decent Super who applies the law and not his twisted personal opinion count your blessings as your luck might change if you get a Super like mine

The system is working well enough according to you as you have no hassle so what you're saying is sod those of us who are being shafted !

I notice Tac thanked your post :rolleyes: Less said there the better !

gunhappy_ie

johngalway wrote: »

I'd have been awfully tempted to get a mod for the revolver

NOT a good idea !! Revolvers dont suppress at all !!

gunhappy_ie

Appplied and granted for semi .223, semi .308, semi 12G and 9mm pistol.

rowa

whats the idea of restricting them in the first place ? was a reason ever given ? or did mick the guard see one on a gun in a bruce willis film and get panickey ?

The british government brought in a move to restrict suppressors and i think it was overturned on health and safety grounds, the noise of a centrefire rifle was detrimental to a shooter even with muffs etc.

bunny shooter

What reasons did you give to moderate a 9mm?

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

I wrote more of an essay :eek:

The more you write the more you have to back up.
I said shooting on MY OWN LAND and I did not want to disturb MY animals, I clearly stated that although I wanted a moderator my rounds still would produce the whip crack sound commonly associated with a rifle minus the BOOM of a large calibre.

A good essay should be like a womans skirt.
Long enough to cover the essentials.
Short enough to still remain interesting:p

I was only agreeing that 61% had received their moderators. Which is good.
I did not know up until this point how many had.

Everybody I helped filling out forms got theirs, But we have a good CS

johngalway

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

NOT a good idea !! Revolvers dont suppress at all !!

Barrel too short, or other reason?

rowa

johngalway wrote: »

Barrel too short, or other reason?

gap between the cylinder face and back of the barrel.

gunhappy_ie

bunny shooter wrote: »

What reasons did you give to moderate a 9mm?

Health and safety.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

A good essay should be like a womans skirt.
Long enough to cover the essentials.
Short enough to still remain interesting:p

HaHa Im stealin that !!

johngalway wrote: »

Barrel too short, or other reason?

Rowa got to it before I did ! Revolvers become dangerous when suppressed and the only suppressed revolvers that seem to work well .... are on TV !!

Normally that Gap between the barrel and cylinder face allows for gas to escape anyway (Ive heard and seen on big powered revolvers thumbs being mangled for being in the wrong place :eeek !! ) but with a suppressor on a revolver it causes more even more back pressure that can be dangerour for the shooter and gun !

S/A Pistols are better designed to handle it.

dCorbus

Wow!

Appplied and granted for semi .223, semi .308, semi 12G and 9mm pistol.

Surely, you jest?;)
But fair f**k's to ya if you got moddy's for all those approved - Would love to live in your district!

:rolleyes:

gunhappy_ie

dCorbus wrote: »

Wow!



Surely, you jest?;)
But fair f**k's to ya if you got moddy's for all those approved - Would love to live in your district!

:rolleyes:

For those on here that know me or those that have met me on midlands.... I sh!t you not !

unfortnatly ... District is nothing to do with it ... its CS.. and the new 1 i have is supposed to be...er..... cautious to say the least .... N I want an M1A :(:(:(:(

rrpc

I find it very strange that a moderator would be approved for a pistol for the following reasons.

The main reason people use them on rifles is to give the chance for a second shot. I know people quote health and safety, but in the field that makes sense because ear defenders prevent you from hearing other sounds that you need to hear to remain safe (people nearby but out of sight talking or walking etc.).

But in a range scenario there's no such issue because it's a controlled environment and ear protection is mandatory anyway. In fact, you might as well apply for silencers for every other club member you'll be shooting with because it's the guy beside you who'll do your hearing the most damage anyway.

I'm not knocking you gunhapp_ie, I'm just completely flummoxed that this would be allowed. Bunny must be chewing the inside of his face reading your post!