Have you been granted or refused a moderator?

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

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 peole 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.

+1 but fair dues to ya gunhapp.ie

rrpc wrote: »

Bunny must be chewing the inside of his face reading your post!

You could say that :mad: But my Super is really 'special' especially when it comes to firearms :rolleyes:

gunhappy_ie

rrpc wrote: »

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 peole 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!

Please excuse the poor quality and for obvious reasons my editing of my adress..... should you be in midlands on sunday... I will show you in person

José Alaninho

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

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.

Totally OT, but the Nagant revolver can be suppressed very effiecently. Uses a gas seal mechanism you see

rrpc

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Please excuse the poor quality and for obvious reasons my editing of my adress..... should you be in midlands on sunday... I will show you in person

I didn't doubt for a minute you had it gunhappy_ie, that wasn't my point. It just seems, well... just a bit mad Ted :eek:

gunhappy_ie

José Alaninho wrote: »

Totally OT, but the Nagant revolver can be suppressed very effiecently. Uses a gas seal mechanism you see

hahahah There is always a smart arse :P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P haha ive heard of them ... great design too but the OP was walking about suppressing his revolver.

Odysseus

I was granted one for the CZ no problem. My 22 air rifle has one, it came with the gun the front sight is on the mod. However, my paperwork came through without the S on it, I spoke to the FO who said it was granted and is on the system as such. Basically he told me I'm fine and just to work away with it!

Kramer

bunny shooter wrote: »

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

No. You're saying that.
As you are obviously having difficulty understanding what I posted, as a once off, I'll see if I can simplify it for you.
Over 70% of respondents have had no difficulty getting permission for a moderator. One can assume that they showed good reason to have one & there were no other reasons why they shouldn't have one so their respective supers granted the permissions.
Your poll would indicate that just 1 in 10 who applied for permission were refused. It would be reasonable to assume then that the system is working reasonably well & that in the small percentage of cases where moderators were refused, the super(s) may well have had reasonable grounds to refuse permission.
The poll suggests that no "blanket bans" etc. are in operation.

Now, where you got the:
what you're saying is sod those of us who are being shafted
I do not know.
I can also tell you that I am aware of a few firearms owners who have been granted permission for moderators in your district/division. No doubt I'll be called a liar if I don't provide their names/addresses/ DOBs/phone numbers & scans of their licences (c/w small s botton left corner) but I'm a big boy now so I guess I'll have to take it .

You've every right to be aggrieved if you have been refused (I would be :P) but the empirical evidence would suggest supers have looked at each case on an individual basis & made decision(s) accordingly.
If you have evidence to the contrary regarding your super, I would suggest contacting your NGB. You also have recourse to appeal his refusal to your local district court.

Now that we're clear on what I actually said,
sod you Jack, I'm alright :D:D:P:D

marlin vs

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Please excuse the poor quality and for obvious reasons my editing of my adress..... should you be in midlands on sunday... I will show you in person

Gunhappy you just put up you'r address by showing everyone you'r firearm certificate numbers on you'r link, any garda can check up on the certificate numbers.:eek:

Goosie

I'm pretty much in the same situation as rrpc and JohnG - Dont know for sure whether I've been granted one or not.

Applied for a mod for my 22 by way of ticking the box in section 3.2

Did'nt give any additional info with regard to why i needed it, after all they did'nt request it.

Licence came back for the 22 with no Magic "S".

Rang the FO to cofirm one way or the other. He said he'd check it on Pulse and give me a call which he duly did.

He said "Yeah thats been passed ok" but then the clanger "If anyone should stop you just get them to ring me".

AAARRRGGGHHH

Dont think I'll be running of to spend my cash just yet.

Would be interested to know if anyone else apart from Bunnyshooter have actually received a written refusal.

johngalway

Goosie wrote: »

He said "Yeah thats been passed ok" but then the clanger "If anyone should stop you just get them to ring me".

AAARRRGGGHHH

That's the sticky bit isn't it. I've traveled up to Meath shooting before. If I get stopped with a mod, no magic S, does the local Meath Garda (who doesn't know me from Adam) then, for want of a better word, "impound" my rifle and mod until he can reach my local Garda, who isn't available 24/7. I'm still not quite sure how to approach the issue with local Garda, got to clear up the HMR issue first. And to think he thought he'd be seeing less of me with the three year licenses!

Goosie

johngalway wrote: »

That's the sticky bit isn't it. I've traveled up to Meath shooting before. If I get stopped with a mod, no magic S, does the local Meath Garda (who doesn't know me from Adam) then, for want of a better word, "impound" my rifle and mod until he can reach my local Garda, who isn't available 24/7. I'm still not quite sure how to approach the issue with local Garda, got to clear up the HMR issue first. And to think he thought he'd be seeing less of me with the three year licenses!

Of course if you were lucky John the meath garda might not be aware of what a mod was and might think that the big thing on the end of the barrell was just a part of the firearm......dont think I'd take the chance though.

elius

Goosie wrote: »

I'm pretty much in the same situation as rrpc and JohnG - Dont know for sure whether I've been granted one or not.

Applied for a mod for my 22 by way of ticking the box in section 3.2

Did'nt give any additional info with regard to why i needed it, after all they did'nt request it.

Licence came back for the 22 with no Magic "S".

Rang the FO to cofirm one way or the other. He said he'd check it on Pulse and give me a call which he duly did.

He said "Yeah thats been passed ok" but then the clanger "If anyone should stop you just get them to ring me".

AAARRRGGGHHH

Dont think I'll be running of to spend my cash just yet.

Would be interested to know if anyone else apart from Bunnyshooter have actually received a written refusal.

why not ask him for it in writing explain your concerns about the matter. He has already said you are approved so there for there should be no issue in getting it in writing.....

Bunny shooter your just in a horrible situation where your super doesn't want mods in your/his area district. What ever about the .22lr this can be addressed with sup sonic rounds i pressume. But the crack of a 22 swift is frightening one thing during the day but at the dark of night is another. Why not suggest bringing him out for a demonstration as to the noise difference between a 22 swift with or without a mod. Presuming you no a fellow shooter who has been issued with a mod may be worth a try. He has said no regardless so nothing to loose..

lefthooker

Goosie wrote: »

I'm pretty much in the same situation as rrpc and JohnG - Dont know for sure whether I've been granted one or not.

Applied for a mod for my 22 by way of ticking the box in section 3.2

Did'nt give any additional info with regard to why i needed it, after all they did'nt request it.

Licence came back for the 22 with no Magic "S".

Rang the FO to cofirm one way or the other. He said he'd check it on Pulse and give me a call which he duly did.

He said "Yeah thats been passed ok" but then the clanger "If anyone should stop you just get them to ring me".

AAARRRGGGHHH

Dont think I'll be running of to spend my cash just yet.

Would be interested to know if anyone else apart from Bunnyshooter have actually received a written refusal.

Assuming that everybody gets d same format of letter when they receive their license does it not state on the back of the letter whether you've been granted a mod or not.

Got my license today for my .22, wit the Special S, & on the back of the letter under Additional Conditions section it says;
"Accessories- sights & silencer"

BTW I also didn't give any reasons as to why I required a mod. I wasn't goin to apply for 1 but my local Garda said I might as well have permission & not need 1 rather than want it & not have so he ticked the box for me, initialed it & Garda stamped it. Seems to have done the trick for me.
But at the end of the day its hard to beat a SI with a bit of cop on

elius

lefthooker wrote: »

Got my license today for my .22, wit the Special S, & on the back of the letter under Additional Conditions section it says;
"Accessories- sights & silencer"

Got mine on tuesday and didnt get this hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm

lefthooker

elius wrote: »

Got mine on tuesday and didnt get this hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm

What about the letter that you sent to Clare, did it not say on that if you'd been granted a mod as an accessory either?

elius

lefthooker wrote: »

What about the letter that you sent to Clare, did it not say on that if you'd been granted a mod as an accessory either?

Got the mod alright. I'm not one bit worried about the site's i have no open sights on my rifle there for in a matter of public safety its best i have site's. :The guard held the rifle ticked the site's box an issued me my mod. Im not even going to embarrass myself by asking them again though i will recheck my licence tomorrow :cool:...

elius

lefthooker wrote: »

What about the letter that you sent to Clare, did it not say on that if you'd been granted a mod as an accessory either?

I never sent a letter to clare lad. My grant let is still with me nothing mentioned on that either...

bunny shooter

Kramer wrote: »

No. You're saying that.

I am saying it as that's the impression I derived from your post.

Kramer wrote: »

As you are obviously having difficulty understanding what I posted, as a once off, I'll see if I can simplify it for you.

I guarantee you I have no problems with reading and/or comprehension

Kramer wrote: »

Over 70% of respondents have had no difficulty getting permission for a moderator. One can assume that they showed good reason to have one & there were no other reasons why they shouldn't have one so their respective supers granted the permissions.

Or you could say that most of the Supers involved have no problems with authorising moderators. The public safety argument the Super is using has been used in other districts also to refuse moderators and I believe is/has been used to justify a lot of the decisions against a lot of firearm applications recently.

Kramer wrote: »

Your poll would indicate that just 1 in 10 who applied for permission were refused. It would be reasonable to assume then that the system is working reasonably well & that in the small percentage of cases where moderators were refused, the super(s) may well have had reasonable grounds to refuse permission.

He has stated that his refusal is on public safety grounds. Therefore one would have to wonder why I am safe to have a rifle but not a moderator on it :rolleyes:

Kramer wrote: »

The poll suggests that no "blanket bans" etc. are in operation.

As you stated a 10% refusal rate is enough to prove that a blanket ban is not in existance. If 10 % of pistol licences were issued it would prove same too? Surely, if 1% were granted it would also prove that a blanket ban was not being operated.

Kramer wrote: »

Now, where you got the:
what you're saying is sod those of us who are being shafted
I do not know.

It is the interpretation I made from your original post.

Kramer wrote: »

I can also tell you that I am aware of a few firearms owners who have been granted permission for moderators in your district/division.

I am aware of one and he gave all the same reasons I did. However, myself and this Super have had previous "dealings" as have two other lads I know he refused. Problem is proving he is victimising us

Kramer wrote: »

No doubt I'll be called a liar if I don't provide their names/addresses/ DOBs/phone numbers & scans of their licences (c/w small s botton left corner) but I'm a big boy now so I guess I'll have to take it .

I haven't called you a liar :rolleyes:

Kramer wrote: »

You've every right to be aggrieved if you have been refused (I would be :P) but the empirical evidence would suggest supers have looked at each case on an individual basis & made decision(s) accordingly.

Rights when it comes to firearms don't exist and to get dare I say it justice costs a lot of money, money better spent elsewhere.

Kramer wrote: »

If you have evidence to the contrary regarding your super, I would suggest contacting your NGB.

I could make a case but I am around long enough to know that my word against a Super in court is a waste of time, on my part :mad:

Kramer wrote: »

You also have recourse to appeal his refusal to your local district court.

Not an option, my good wife is against it as she fears reprisals form Gardai. I have previously clashed with this Super and "won" and now look where I am

Kramer wrote: »

Now that we're clear on what I actually said,
sod you Jack, I'm alright :D:D:P:D

I rest my case

Spannerman7

I got mine back and there were no special conditions but I got the S for the swift, when I applied I wrote additional information explaining that it was not a silencer but merely reduced the noise level somewhat and it is still louder than a normal .22. There are a lot or horses and livestock in adjoining fields to where I control pest fox's during lambing, with out the moderator this vital service to local farmers would cause unjustified distubance.
The super was pleasant to deal with and a farmer himself, he sugested I increase my ammo number request as it is cheaper to buy a carton at a time.
Bunny Shooter, I feel your pain, is it worth talking to the NARGC or get some local counciler/farmer on your side to have a word in his ear, can you apply agian with a lot of additional documentation supporting your case.

bunny shooter

Spannerman7 wrote: »

I got mine back and there were no special conditions but I got the S for the swift, when I applied I wrote additional information explaining that it was not a silencer but merely reduced the noise level somewhat and it is still louder than a normal .22. There are a lot or horses and livestock in adjoining fields to where I control pest fox's during lambing, with out the moderator this vital service to local farmers would cause unjustified distubance.
The super was pleasant to deal with and a farmer himself, he sugested I increase my ammo number request as it is cheaper to buy a carton at a time.
Bunny Shooter, I feel your pain, is it worth talking to the NARGC or get some local counciler/farmer on your side to have a word in his ear, can you apply agian with a lot of additional documentation supporting your case.

I didn't look for a moderator for the Swift as I don't lamp and usually use it late in the year when livestock aren't in the fields.

I spoke to NARGC and was advised that all I could do was go to court. They have spoken to the Super previously on my behalf and tbh I think he might not be listening to them anymore :rolleyes:

I will be reapplying with extra documentation (cheers JW) and will be getting a few landowners to sign a letter for me too

Spannerman7

Well the best of luck, persistance is the key, it seems to be your supers way anyhow. Fight fire with fire and all that.

rrpc

elius wrote: »

Got the mod alright. I'm not one bit worried about the site's i have no open sights on my rifle there for in a matter of public safety its best i have site's. :The guard held the rifle ticked the site's box an issued me my mod. Im not even going to embarrass myself by asking them again though i will recheck my licence tomorrow :cool:...

You only tick the sights box if you have night vision or laser pointing sights, not for an ordinary scope.

Otherwise why wouldn't you tick it for open sights? Does the form say telescopic sights?

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

I spoke to NARGC and was advised that all I could do was go to court.

Not always the best option; but then you know my feelings on that point.
Did you talk to jaycee at all?

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Not always the best option; but then you know my feelings on that point.

I agree and I know

Sparks wrote: »

Did you talk to jaycee at all?

I reckon after meeting this Super previously that court might be the only way, unfortunately :rolleyes:

Sparks

Maybe, but have a chat with jaycee first just in case. At worst, you lose nothing...

Tackleberry.

Granted 308 cal mod for the last 3 years in a row. hearing loss the reason

Grizzly 45

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

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

I CONCUR.This man is the biz on the aforementioned kit!:D:D

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 :(:(:(:(

For how "cautious " he is refer to the PRESS CLIPPINGS thread Regarding the Castalemaine gun dealers case.:rolleyes::(

gunhappy_ie

marlin vs wrote: »

Gunhappy you just put up you'r address by showing everyone you'r firearm certificate numbers on you'r link, any garda can check up on the certificate numbers.:eek:

Im not afraid of the Gardai finding out where I live since they issued me the licences in the first place.

The average joe wont hae access to the pulse system to find out where i live ... :P

ormondprop

my licenses came this morning and was pleased to see the little S on the bottom corner of my hornet one, unfortunately one of my fathers came and he was refused a moderator for his .22

ivanthehunter

It would be good to see the break down of calibers that came with moderator permission.

Are they limiting access to 22lr Silencers and granting permission to larger calibers where the same silencer is really only a moderator!!

Remember that its critical to be able to see the target being struck and any expansion chamber(silencer or moderator??) on the muzzle will reduce felt recoil and allow you to hold you sight picture and make quick essential follow up shots if required by adjusting with hold off.