Moderator Refused

Sparks

Chiparus wrote: »

If a license is refused, surely you have to be informed in writing?

Not necessarily. Yes, Section 3(9) and 3(10) of the act say you have to get notice in writing:

(9) A decision on an application for a firearm certificate or its renewal shall be given within 3 months from the date on which the applicant submitted a completed application form.

(10) Where the application is refused, the applicant shall be informed in writing of the refusal and the reason for it.

But, as we pointed out here back in 2006 before that even became law, Section 15A(5)(b) is a loophole through the requirements of section 3(9) and 3(10):

(5) For the purposes of this section—

(a) an issuing person—

(i) who is required under section 3(9), 4A(7) or 10(4F) to decide on an application within a specified period, and
(ii) who does not so decide,

is deemed to have decided to refuse to grant the application,
(b) the applicant is deemed to have received notice of the decision on the expiration of that period, and
(c) as the case may be, section 3(10) does not apply in relation to the application.

Robotack wrote: »

a person who knows no better may not even know that their mod has been refused as it looks like there's no official correspondence issued to that affect.

I'm pretty sure that that would be severely hampered as a defence in court; Ignorantia juris non excusat is the phrase you'd be looking at.

Robotack

Ignorantia juris non excusat ... is a phrase that I'm most familiar with actually.

And it's one that I generally agree with from day to day but in this instance I would guess that it would be a somewhat more sturdy defence. If you apply for a certificate, which is then granted, you pay for it, and then receive it.... Short of divine inspiration how can you know that the mod was refused unless someone tells you?

Sparks your post is spot on as always and I'm not attacking it as it's factually correct. I'm just trying to play devils advocate and put myself on the district court bench. Could you convict? Don't know if I could.

Sparks

I think I might have a biased view of it Robotack, being a shooter - I'd have some sharp words regarding the design of the licence and the information issued with it to successful applicants. But the thing is that the charge would be possession of an unlicenced firearm; and that's a tough case to just dismiss on the grounds that the Gardai didn't tell you you didn't have a licence for it.

Farmlife

Does it say anywhere in the law or guidelines that the "S" on your license means a mod is granted?

Because if so, that hologram on the licence that has S in the middle of it is awful misleading.

Robotack

Sparks wrote: »

I think I might have a biased view of it Robotack, being a shooter - I'd have some sharp words regarding the design of the licence and the information issued with it to successful applicants. But the thing is that the charge would be possession of an unlicenced firearm; and that's a tough case to just dismiss on the grounds that the Gardai didn't tell you you didn't have a licence for it.

I see where you're coming from but as it would be a criminal case it would take proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than a civil case which is fought on the balance of probabilities.

What I mean is, it wouldn't be up to how difficult you, the judge, would find to dismiss it but moreso how difficult the DPP would find it to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The word "reasonable" comes up most frequently on Irish law and I just reckon that it would be reasonable for the applicant in this case to assume he'd been granted his mod.

We could bat it about all day but withou a case stated who really knows.

One other question arising though Sparks... Does putting a mod onto a licenced, non-restricted firearm make the who thing unlicensed? Another grey area? My very brief reading of the commissioners guidelines lead me to believe that it's not a firearm unless it's going onto something restricted?

Robotack

rgugliel wrote: »

Does it say anywhere in the law or guidelines that the "S" on your license means a mod is granted?

Because if so, that hologram on the licence that has S in the middle of it is awful misleading.

Good point... Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not aware of the S being mentioned in any law.

Pkiernan

clivej wrote: »

...The only advantage here would be in reducing ‘noise pollution’. As suitable ear protectors can be worn to provide adequate protection against the noise of discharge from multiple rifles, it is necessary to weigh the disadvantages of the use of a silencer against this benefit.



In light of the disadvantages of the use of a silencer and the limited benefits – benefits which can be obtained in other less dangerous ways – the threshold for ‘Good Reason’ to seek to have a silencer certified for any restricted firearm such as centrefire handguns or semi automatic centrefire rifles will be quite high.

How fcuking misinformed is this crap!

Sparks

Robotack wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but as it would be a criminal case it would take proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than a civil case which is fought on the balance of probabilities.

Yes, but you had the mod on you when the whole case would have started. That's what the DPP would focus on proving. They wouldn't have to prove you intended to use it for criminal ends unless they were charging you under something like the 1990 act, where you're being charged with possession of something a Garda thought you were going to use in a crime. But under section 7 of that act, and under section 2 of the firearms act, just having the mod is in and of itself an offence - one that you're guilty of if you have the mod. Which would be hard to disprove if a Garda took it off you.

So basicly, your entire defence would come down to "yes, I did it, but it was because they didn't tell me clearly enough that I couldn't have it". I don't think that argument is without merit; I just wouldn't want to be the person relying on it in even a District Court.

We could bat it about all day but withou a case stated who really knows.

Pretty much - but then, that's true of even barristers and solicitors when they're on the clock and giving advice for money!

One other question arising though Sparks... Does putting a mod onto a licenced, non-restricted firearm make the who thing unlicensed? Another grey area? My very brief reading of the commissioners guidelines lead me to believe that it's not a firearm unless it's going onto something restricted?

No, not any more. It used to be the case that a mod for a centerfire rifle was restricted but one for a .22lr was not, so in theory you could take an unrestricted .22lr rifle with an unrestricted mod and an unrestricted centerfire rifle, then swap the mod from the smallbore to the centerfire and have yourself a restricted mod without a licence for it (because your licence was for an unrestricted mod, granted by someone who wasn't legally able to grant you a licence for a restricted one).
But someone on the FCP pointed this out and it was changed.

tomtucker81

So, if a fella applies for his licence with mod, and is granted his licence, with nothing to explain to him that he can't have the mod though, surely that is a problem with the system?
Anyway, it was said at the start that all other applicants were refused mods too. Surely in contravention of the law and commissioners guidelines, that would mean that each application has not been treated on its own merits, and this would be a case of this superintendent just blanket banning mods?-again in contravention of law and the guidelines

Hunter21

If lads are so worried about S's and no S's on their licences apply for the moderator on its own licence. Have one licence for your rifle another for your moderator, that what you'll clearly know if you got the moderator or not.

Please calm down and stop trying to confuse the law more by saying there's an S in the hologram, I didn't know I needed an S to have a mod.

It's up to the individual to ask their FO these questions about what the procedure for being granted and refused a mod is as you'd have some job defending yourself caught without a licenced part of a firearm.

Robotack

Hunter21 wrote: »

If lads are so worried about S's and no S's on their licences apply for the moderator on its own licence. Have one licence for your rifle another for your moderator, that what you'll clearly know if you got the moderator or not.

Please calm down and stop trying to confuse the law more by saying there's an S in the hologram, I didn't know I needed an S to have a mod.

It's up to the individual to ask their FO these questions about what the procedure for being granted and refused a mod is as you'd have some job defending yourself caught without a licenced part of a firearm.

I reckon you'd have a pretty good defence. If an insurance company decided they do not insure red cars and never told their customers, I reckon that a red car owner would have a good case against the insurance company if he had a collision.

And conversations can be deemed hearsay by a court, so unless they write to you, what you may or may not have spoken to your FO about does not matter.

Hunter21

Robotack wrote: »

I reckon you'd have a pretty good defence. If an insurance company decided they do not insure red cars and never told their customers, I reckon that a red car owner would have a good case against the insurance company if he had a collision.

And conversations can be deemed hearsay by a court, so unless they write to you, what you may or may not have spoken to your FO about does not matter.

Your wrong!
Laws might seem "grey" but more times then not look through the mist and you will see black and white.

An insurance company is under law obliged to inform all its customers in "Terms and Conditions" what they do and don't cover, if that changes they are also obliged in writing by letter to inform you and others.

This is a insurance buyers case;
If you have a 1.3 litre car you can just go away and put in a 2 litre turbo and the law will be on your side because you didn't know a few things;
1) you were never told it was illegal to up the engine size of your car without alerting your insurance company
2) you didn't know that a 2 litre turbo is more powerful then a 1.3

If your in a bad crash you can't just say "Ah jesus no one told me I couldnt put in a bigger engine" Your the owner of the vehicle so it's up to you to know the in's and out's of the law(s) while its in your possession.

You have to do the research and investigation yourself and understand laws and rules with cars, guns and life.

Cass

If i turn the cruise control on when driving, and get in the back seat. Chances are i'm going to crash, and possibly die. i don;t need some suit to tell me it's dangerous. So the same common sense approach must be applied. And please do not say it should be o both sides. You know that, i know that so does everyone else, but the major difference is they write the laws, and enforce them, we don't.

If you have a big black "S" printed on the bottom left hand side of your lciense you are covered. If you don't then you are not. The S in the hologram is meaningless. Any excuses will be brushed aside, and you will either face a huge legal bill defending your mistake, or a huge legal bill after your short holiday at the states expense.

Debate is fine, but for the love of God, i ugre NO ONE do not push this unless you have just won the lotto, and feel like blowing a large chunk on a test case.

tomtucker81 wrote: »

............ and this would be a case of this superintendent just blanket banning mods?-again in contravention of law and the guidelines

it would be against the law, but get it in writing. Anything else is meaningless, as words can be denied. I've yet to see any Super supply a letter to say they were issuing blanket bans on mods or any other type of firearm. They are not that stupid.

Sean Mullen

i got may grant letter today for my rifle, it didnt say anything about gettig the mod or being refused so i rang the super and he checked the computer and he said it was granted he also said unless you get a refusel stating you couldnt have one then you may take it as you got granted provided that you applied for it. all i did to get my mod was just ticked the box, no cover letter to say why i needed it or that, in fact i forgot to tick the box so i rang my local garda station and they ticked it for me and that was it.:D:D

tomtucker81

Yeah just to be clear chaps, some people are talking about the s in the hologram. That is nothing, only a security feature. The s that denotes silencer is on its own, typed under your name and address....NOT THE HOLOGRAM!!

ssl

I got my two mods off two different dealers. Last mod I got the dealer wouldn't hand it over till he saw the the S on the licence. Can't remember did the other dealer look for my licence. I'd be heading to the courts myself. Might chance it without a solicitor

Vegeta

Sean Mullen wrote: »

he also said unless you get a refusel stating you couldnt have one then you may take it as you got granted provided that you applied for it.

Terrible, terrible advice for anyone to give.

I applied for moderators on both my rifles and my licenses came back with no "S" on them. I went to the station and was told I was not granted permission. I made an appointment with the Super, explained my case, supplied paper work and he told me to make a fresh application and he would grant the moderator permission.

Robotack

Eridax. I'm with you the legal stuff and I'm I'm a firm believer in doing everything by the book so I too would discourage anyone from trying it. The important point though is that otherwise law abiding people are potentially using unlicenced mods because of a flaw in the system that's out of their control. And it's a case that I'd be delighted to try to defend.

Hunter21, motor insurance was the first metaphor of possible hundreds that popped into my head. I don't want the thread going on a tangent so I'm not even gonna go there.

Cass

Vegeta wrote: »

Terrible, terrible advice for anyone to give.

Huge +1 to this.

As Sparks has already said ignorance is no excuse under the law. So while you may stand on your principles in that they did not notify you to your satisfaction it will be of little comfort when you loose your guns.

Much like a mod, try and go into the dealer, and tell him that you would like your new rifle. When he asks for then license just tell him that as you did not receive a refusal you deem yourself to be granted authorisation, and see how it goes.

Robotack wrote: »

The important point though is that otherwise law abiding people are potentially using unlicenced mods because of a flaw in the system that's out of their control..

The thing is, without making light of a serious flaw, it's not the only one. In fact it is one flaw, in one Act of the entire saga that is firearms li censing. Without going too far off topic;
If you don't receive a response in 3 months for a firearm application you are deemed refused. Yet people are waiting that much, and far longer and then granted a license.
If you get a license for a restricted firearm from the Super, you are at fault, and in possession of an unlicensed firearm. The Super is not as the onus is up to the applicant to know what they should be applying for,

There are dozens if not more that i can think off. In some aspects the law is clear cut/black and white. In others it is purposely vague. The idea (IMO) is to allow the attending Garda (Gardai) to exercise discretion as they see fit. Look at the issue that always comes up at least once a week. Zeroing. Legally it is not allowed outside an authorised range. The minister at the time even publicly said it was a mistake. Yet the law still stands, and as such his apology means less than nothing. Yet to safely use a firearm a person must have a zero. So you are zeroing your rifle in a field. A Garda sees it and decides to prosecute you. It might be a test case and it could go either way, but it will drain a person both mentally, and financially to try. Now on another day you are zeroing. A Garda arrives, and asks what you are doing. He sees the need for it, sees you are being responsible, and there are no complaints from the landowner/residents in the area. You are not charged or prosecuted.

That's a lot of talk to get to one point. The "S" on your license is the only authorisation to own, possess, and use a moderator. Assumption will see you illegal using a firearm, and facing a fine, and prosecution. So people have two choices. Do it right, and keep legal. Do it wrong, and face the consequences. There is more than enough information about firearms licensing on Boards, and elsewhere that through use of the internet, word of mouth, etc people will have no excuse for not knowing.

As said above it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's what we have, and what we must work with.

Robotack

As I've said in several of my posts, I'm not suggesting for a moment that people break the law, and I for one definitely do have my 's's right where they should be. As per my original post, this does not refer to me and I just happen to feel strongly about it.

I'm just speaking up on behalf of the potentially large number of people in the country that might have unlicenced mods and know nothing about it through no fault of their own.

I have no idea what legal knowledge / experience people here have , but I have just a little bit and personally, it's a case that I'd be more than willing to take on as the law is not as black and white as some might think and there's many a case been won and lost and ammendments to laws over the difference between a "and" or an "or" for example.

I thank everyone for their opinions and input on this one. It's much appreciated.. Despite all the difference of opinons most posters have been quite correct in what they've said. Anway, as I think this is just beginning to go around in circles now, I'm gonna end my involvement and sit the remainder of this thread out.

Cass

Robotack wrote: »

As I've said in several of my posts, I'm not suggesting for a moment that people break the law, and I for one definitely do have my 's's right where they should be.

Excuse any implication of wrong doing i might be projecting. It is not my intent. I am in no way suggesting you are condoning illegal behaviour. I am merely wording my posts as a word of caution, and a statement of fact.

As per my original post, this does not refer to me and I just happen to feel strongly about it.

As do i, and no doubt numerous other posters here. There is so much wrong with the licensing system, and i see on a daily basis people getting the wrong end of the stick, not understanding their duties, being lead on a merry dance by the very people endowed with teh authority to deal with them. I have, on occassion, lost my cool and posted in bad temper, but the sentiment is justified. However it really is a small minority responsible for some of the horror stories, but all in all it is discussion with the PTB that will change things. We simply need to be patient, and work within the confines of the law, for now, to show we are as ever trustworhty, and no fault lies with us (as shooters).

I'm just speaking up on behalf of the potentially large number of people in the country that might have unlicenced mods and know nothing about it through no fault of their own.

Again i agree with you. The amount of computer illiterate people, and those unaware of some of the finer firearms licensing details is quite large. It is unfair, but again the law makes no distinction between them, and those very well versed in firearms law.

I have no idea what legal knowledge / experience people here have , but I have just a little bit and personally, it's a case that I'd be more than willing to take on as the law is not as black and white as some might think and there's many a case been won and lost and ammendments to laws over the difference between a "and" or an "or" for example.

From a personal point of view my legal understanding is below amateur. I know enough to hold my own, but that's about it. However on the matter of court cases. They are not always as beneficial as one might think. Say you did take a case on a person's behalf, and won. The next step by the Minister would be to close that grey area/loop hole, and in effect cut out any chance others may have. As has been said before court cases are temporary victories that take years to win, and in the end can be "swept" aside by a new amendment/SI. It's better to discuss these issues through mediums such as the FCP, and avoid the "confrontationalist" air/attitude that a court case may cause.

Just my personal opinon. Others will no doubt disagree.

johnnymolloy

UPDATE:
just got of the phone with the garda who deals with the licenses in my district and here how it went he i asked why it was refused he said it was due to me shooting near animals and i said u must have read into that the wrong way the animals will be 3 or 4 fields away and i dont wanna cause problems for myself with the land owner as he was nice enough to let me shoot on his land and he aslo said its sounds unsafe and against health and safety i to which i replied that im a very cautious and safe shooter when i comes to shooting a gun

i then said i also will be doin some lamping and dont want neighbours ringing him late at night complaining about the noise so he asked what was the gun i said its a 220 swift and that i was told by gun shop owners that i would need a moderator and he said sure why would i need a moderator when all i would need is 1 shot

and then he said that this a sounded very commercial to which i said that i know the farmer hes a friends dad

what are ur opinions ?

not sure what to make of it but he said he would get onto the super

kildare.17hmr

Sounds like he has not got a FFn clue what he is on about :rolleyes: call back tomorrow and ask what the super said and if needed try get an appointment to meet him and explain your case, swift is loud!

tomtucker81

Hasn't a clue!!
If you're shooting near animals surely you'd need one so as not to startle them.
Health and safety would say you should have one to reduce the decibel level to a hearing safe level, thus eliminating the possibility of long term or permanent hearing damage.
And commercial stuff? Possibly could be seen as commercial but then it would be just more common sense to have one.

In general there is a misconception about what a silencer is, its commonly believed that it reduces the noise to a short sharp hiss...a la James bond assassination! Research on Google- benefits to a rifle silencer...and see some good arguments for having one.

johngalway

johnnymolloy wrote: »

he said it was due to me shooting near animals

Does he realise animals live on farmland nowadays? Did he not hear the part where the farmer gave you permission?

johnnymolloy wrote: »

he aslo said its sounds unsafe

What, exactly, is unsafe? What are his qualifications or experience to say this?

johnnymolloy wrote: »

and against health and safety

Which regulations precisely, ask him where they're to be found so you can read them yourself.

johnnymolloy wrote: »

sure why would i need a moderator when all i would need is 1 shot

To protect your hearing, so as not to cause nusence (I can never spell that God damn word properly) to others by causing loud bangs at night, so as not to spook livestock - which the farmer owns and has given you permission to shoot near. Having a moderator doesn't make a critter deader, no. of shots has **** all to do with it.

johnnymolloy wrote: »

he said that this a sounded very commercial

What does that mean, exactly, Garda?

johnnymolloy wrote: »

what are ur opinions ?

I would be beyond pissed off with that level of dross. It wasn't even said to me and I'm mad about it.

johnnymolloy wrote: »

he said he would get onto the super

That's good of him to be able to do his own job.

johnfaul

Well said john above,
I never had hastle getting a silencer just ticked the box and that was that.
I feel from my own exeriences that the guards feel they are obliging/doing us a favour processing the licences.
It has come across this way to me anyway.
And guidelines are for the good of the guards not the shooter as many people wouldn't go to the hastle of getting a mod if it were refused.
We need laws, rules, facts not guidelines that these supers use to suit themselves.
just my 2cents many may feel differently

johnnymolloy

thats how i felt on the phone i got off the phone confused and annoyed

and whats weird is my brother has a 223 with a moderator and their was never one bit of grief as a matter of fact he got the gun within less than a week of applying for it

cant understand it at all

Constab2

Go over his head & make appointment for the Super through his Secretary you will be surprised how quick you get results.Be persistent & best of luck with it.

johngalway

I get the sense of an uninformed awkward attitude, if I make it difficult enough for this lad he'll go away.

Don't, be persistent and polite, but stay at it. You're not being investigated, so ask questions of your own and challenge his assertions.

It is, as I understand it, his job to process the form and send it upstairs. It's not his job to decide if you can have it or not. BUT, having him on side can grease the wheels better too. Different Guards, different people, different job of work though. I can push mine pretty far but that's because I know him a long time. Still takes a while on certain things, but he knows I won't leave him alone when I'm after something lol.

neeko

Very same thing just happened to me!

Applied for .223 with moderator, got grant letter with no conditions attached, paid and got licence today with no conditions on the back of the letter but without the "S".

So, if i don't have an "S" on my licence does this mean that it wasn't granted? But why no conditions written on my letter. More over, on my previous application for a .22 the mod was granted no problem. On both cases i applied for 500 rounds but was only granted 300; not as big an issue but still....!

Where do i go from here? I want my mod.

rowa

why were moderators controlled in this way in the first place ? was someone in the doj watching too much csi ?

Cass

neeko wrote: »

So, if i don't have an "S" on my licence does this mean that it wasn't granted?

Correct. No "S", no license for mod.

But why no conditions written on my letter.

Any conditions on your license are limitations the Super has deemed necessary to your license. However if there is nothing on the back of the license card then there are no conditions to abide by, but this is nothing to do with the mod. The "S" covers that seperately.

More over, on my previous application for a .22 the mod was granted no problem.

Unfortunately that's irrelevant. He deemed the mod for the rimfire to be needed, and fine, but obviously not for the .223.

Where do i go from here? I want my mod.

You may appeal the refusal, but i would first enquire in your local station with your FO. Ask him/her to check PULSE, and see if it was granted, and if not why. It could be a clerical error. In that it was granted, but not marked on PULSE hence the license was not printed with the "S". It's a long shot, but your FO will answer these questions better than i.

rowa wrote: »

why were moderators controlled in this way in the first place ? was someone in the doj watching too much csi ?

Could be. I have a suspicion it has something to do with the troubles in the 60's & 70's, "silenced" firearms, etc, etc. IOW hype.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

why were moderators controlled in this way in the first place ? was someone in the doj watching too much csi ?

The control of moderators came in with the 1990 Act; prior to that, nobody cared too much. In 1990, the definition of firearm was changed to include silencers and pretty much everything else that's in the definition these days, and to bring in the legislation covering how silencers were to be governed (section 7 of the 1990 act). Ray Burke was the Minister at the time the Act was commenced, but the bill was prepped and pushed through the Dail under the aegis of his predecessor, Gerry Collins. The Gardai were pushing for silencers to be put into the bill at the time according to the Dail debates.

packas

Here in Canada moderators are totally illegal. Crazy isn't it!!!!!

kildare.17hmr

packas wrote: »

Here in Canada moderators are totally illegal. Crazy isn't it!!!!!

But can you get cool semi auto assault rifles and other cool stuff???

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

The control of moderators came in with the 1990 Act; prior to that, nobody cared too much. In 1990, the definition of firearm was changed to include silencers and pretty much everything else that's in the definition these days, and to bring in the legislation covering how silencers were to be governed (section 7 of the 1990 act). Ray Burke was the Minister at the time the Act was commenced, but the bill was prepped and pushed through the Dail under the aegis of his predecessor, Gerry Collins. The Gardai were pushing for silencers to be put into the bill at the time according to the Dail debates.

So we have a corrupt ex-con to thank for this particular mess, great little country.

banacht

johngalway wrote: »

Me, no. I got the report done so as not to give room for refusal. Also had a couple of very long chats with the local Garda about it all, which may have helped grease the wheels.

In what format did you present the hearing report? were you showing him that you ad already sustained hearing loss, and that you wished to prevent any furthure loss by the use of a Moderator?

session savage

I just got my substitution for an air rifle and just checked it for the s, which I had before. It's gone now... Jokes on them though my new rifle has a silencer built into the barrel and it can't be removed. Sweet.