Moderator Refused

Chiparus

Had you been previously refused?

johngalway

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.

German pointer

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.

Did you hear his answers.:D:D

clivej

The Garda Commissioner’s Guidelines as to the Practical Application and Operation of the Firearms Acts, 1925-2009.

Page 37 states

SILENCERS – GUIDANCE AS TO THEIR USE
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Under section 1 of The Firearms Act, 1925 as amended by section 26 Criminal Justice Act 2006, silencers are defined as firearms. Statutory Instrument. No: 21 of 2008: Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008, as amended, defines silencers as:
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Any devices fitted or capable of being fitted to the firearms for the purpose of moderating or reducing the sound made on their discharge.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The S.I, as amended, further defines all silencers, except ‘those capable of being used only with long rifled firearms’, to be restricted firearms. Silencers will not ordinarily be subject to certification. However, under section 7 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990, a silencer must be authorised by a superintendent of the Garda Síochána
providing that the applicant is in possession of a firearms certificate for the firearm to which it is to be fitted.
Applications for authorisations silencers for non restricted firearms will continue to be made to the superintendent of the district where the applicant resides. The Garda Commissioner, under section 25C of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, has delegated his functions with regard to restricted firearms to members of chief superintendent rank. Accordingly in the event of an application for a silencer that is defined as a restricted firearm, this application will be made to the chief superintendent of that division and the silencer will require certification. When a silencer has been authorised for a particular firearm, this should be documented on the firearms certificate.
Silencers are designed to reduce the report of the firearm so as to conceal the position of the shooter, and also to reduce the felt recoil. Silencers have traditionally been used on rimfire rifles of .22 calibres when shooting rabbits. This allows the shooter to kill other animals who are not alarmed by the low report of the rifle. This justification may not apply in the case of the shooting of other less numerous and less sociable animals such as foxes.
The use of silencers on deer hunting rifles has become increasingly popular in recent times. Previously this was regarded as unsporting and unnecessary. The advantages of using a silencer for this purpose would include: The reduction in felt recoil allowing the shooter to stay on target, reduce the risk of flinching[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman], [/FONT][/FONT]and prevent the group of animals fleeing after the initial shot. These advantages must be weighed against the safety to others (other shooters, walkers, foresters, farmers) having available to them the clear audible report - rather than a significantly lower report when a silencer is fitted - of a rifle, thereby giving them a general direction in which possible danger lies.
There has also been an increase in the desire of shooters to use silencers on rifles at authorised shooting ranges for target practice. 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.
When an applicant is applying for a firearm certificate, the application should include whether or not a silencer is being sought for that particular firearm. A [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]subsequent [/FONT][/FONT]application for a silencer will require the applicant to re apply on a new application form FCA1 and will require the full €80 fee. As already stated, all firearm certificates must now include details of any authorisation for a silencer in respect of that particular firearm.
[/FONT][/FONT]

German pointer

clivej wrote: »

The Garda Commissioner’s Guidelines as to the Practical Application and Operation of the Firearms Acts, 1925-2009.

Page 37 states

SILENCERS – GUIDANCE AS TO THEIR USE
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Under section 1 of The Firearms Act, 1925 as amended by section 26 Criminal Justice Act 2006, silencers are defined as firearms. Statutory Instrument. No: 21 of 2008: Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008, as amended, defines silencers as: [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Any devices fitted or capable of being fitted to the firearms for the purpose of moderating or reducing the sound made on their discharge. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The S.I, as amended, further defines all silencers, except ‘those capable of being used only with long rifled firearms’, to be restricted firearms. Silencers will not ordinarily be subject to certification. However, under section 7 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990, a silencer must be authorised by a superintendent of the Garda Síochána [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]providing that the applicant is in possession of a firearms certificate for the firearm to which it is to be fitted. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Applications for authorisations silencers for non restricted firearms will continue to be made to the superintendent of the district where the applicant resides. The Garda Commissioner, under section 25C of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, has delegated his functions with regard to restricted firearms to members of chief superintendent rank. Accordingly in the event of an application for a silencer that is defined as a restricted firearm, this application will be made to the chief superintendent of that division and the silencer will require certification. When a silencer has been authorised for a particular firearm, this should be documented on the firearms certificate. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Silencers are designed to reduce the report of the firearm so as to conceal the position of the shooter, and also to reduce the felt recoil. Silencers have traditionally been used on rimfire rifles of .22 calibres when shooting rabbits. This allows the shooter to kill other animals who are not alarmed by the low report of the rifle. This justification may not apply in the case of the shooting of other less numerous and less sociable animals such as foxes. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The use of silencers on deer hunting rifles has become increasingly popular in recent times. Previously this was regarded as unsporting and unnecessary. The advantages of using a silencer for this purpose would include: The reduction in felt recoil allowing the shooter to stay on target, reduce the risk of flinching[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman], [/FONT][/FONT]and prevent the group of animals fleeing after the initial shot. These advantages must be weighed against the safety to others (other shooters, walkers, foresters, farmers) having available to them the clear audible report - rather than a significantly lower report when a silencer is fitted - of a rifle, thereby giving them a general direction in which possible danger lies.
There has also been an increase in the desire of shooters to use silencers on rifles at authorised shooting ranges for target practice. 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.
When an applicant is applying for a firearm certificate, the application should include whether or not a silencer is being sought for that particular firearm. A [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]subsequent [/FONT][/FONT]application for a silencer will require the applicant to re apply on a new application form FCA1 and will require the full €80 fee. As already stated, all firearm certificates must now include details of any authorisation for a silencer in respect of that particular firearm.
[/FONT][/FONT]

As it clearly states above the use of slicencers and the good reason for them, IMHO the super is over-ruling his boss The Comissioner and his bosses bosses the lawmakers ie. government. It is just like when they the Guards as a body tried to ban all center fire short arms when they tried to make up laws as they went along.

Sparks

Longranger wrote: »

Will they(government)EVER cop on to the fact that there needs to be ONE office to make these decisions and not this district to district crap....

If that ever happens, it'll be bad for us, because that office would have some degree of weight to it and so would get a senior Garda assigned to it, and the track record to date suggests that senior Gardai do not support the idea of civilians owning firearms. And while right now a problem Super is a problem for those in his area, a problem senior Garda in charge of everyone's licence is a problem for everyone - a problem which we would have no real ability to solve, as no TD would touch it ("That would be an operational matter for the Gardai" is the phrase you'd be sick of hearing), and there's no way I know of for a civilian to get a Garda 'moved on' from an office where he or she was causing problems.

Sparks

German pointer wrote: »

As it clearly states above the use of slicencers and the good reason for them, IMHO the super is over-ruling his boss The Comissioner and his bosses bosses the lawmakers ie. government.

The law specifically stated for many years that the Super had no boss when it came to firearms licencing decisions. Nobody, not anyone in the AGS including the Commissioner, not the Minister, not anyone in Government, nor anyone in any court from District to Supreme Court, could order a Super to grant a licence (he could be ordered to reconsider his decision, but that was not the same as saying "grant", it was "go away and think of another reason for your decision because this one's unlawful").

That was the entire point of the person designata status that the Dunne-v-Donoghue case asserted all the way to the Supreme Court. That law was given a tweak by the 2006 Act so that the persona designata status no longer exists, but the Super still cannot be directed to grant or refuse a licence by his boss in the AGS or by the government; only the district court can issue such an order to him.

In other words, the thing you're complaining about (a) doesn't exist anymore, (b) is how it's supposed to work, and (c) was argued for in court by shooters.

Sparks

Jonty wrote: »

Not necessarily, in a district court, for less serious crimes, don't the Gardai prosecute not the defendant?

Doesn't really matter Jonty, it's not legal to have blanket "not in my district" rules like that. You could wind up in court, yes, and it'd be fairly disruptive, but the case you'd be facing wouldn't have much in the way of legs to stand on.

Unless, of course:

• This isn't a rule made up by the Gardai, but an actual council by-law;
• There's a condition on the authorisation for the place you'd be shooting in that says no moderators;
• There's some condition on your licence that means you can't use the moderator there;
• Some other random edge case I haven't thought of in the ten seconds I've been trying;

German pointer

Sparks wrote: »

The law specifically stated for many years that the Super had no boss when it came to firearms licencing decisions. Nobody, not anyone in the AGS including the Commissioner, not the Minister, not anyone in Government, nor anyone in any court from District to Supreme Court, could order a Super to grant a licence (he could be ordered to reconsider his decision, but that was not the same as saying "grant", it was "go away and think of another reason for your decision because this one's unlawful").

Correct me if I am wrong but the Commissioner (the supers boss) grants the licences but has delegated this task to supers for non restricted and cheif supers for restricted ones with written guide lines to follow, (The super has to follow the guide lines of his boss), does this not mean that the comissoners guidelines are what governs the issue of licences not what the super thinks. ie a blanket ban on slicencers/moderator for a county is unlawful. Which is the main trust of what I am trying to point out.

That was the entire point of the person designata status that the Dunne-v-Donoghue case asserted all the way to the Supreme Court. That law was given a tweak by the 2006 Act so that the persona designata status no longer exists, but the Super still cannot be directed to grant or refuse a licence by his boss in the AGS or by the government; only the district court can issue such an order to him.


Agree with this as I went through the process for a licence about 2 years ago when the super was found to be acting unlawful.

johngalway

German pointer wrote: »

Did you hear his answers.:D:D

Who?

Sparks

German pointer wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but the Commissioner (the supers boss) grants the licences but has delegated this task to supers for non restricted and cheif supers for restricted ones with written guide lines to follow

That's not correct. Unrestricted licences are granted by the local Superintendent directly, not as a delegate for the Commissioner. Restricted licences are granted by the Commissioner via delegation to the local Chief Superintendents.

As to the guidelines the Commissioner has issued, they are just that - guidelines, not law or set-in-stone rules. They do not govern the issuing of licences, even though in practice they do provide a fairly strong direction. No district court case could stand on the guidelines alone, for example.

Hunter21

Sparks wrote: »

That's not correct. Unrestricted licences are granted by the local Superintendent directly, not as a delegate for the Commissioner. Restricted licences are granted by the Commissioner via delegation to the local Chief Superintendents.

As to the guidelines the Commissioner has issued, they are just that - guidelines, not law or set-in-stone rules. They do not govern the issuing of licences, even though in practice they do provide a fairly strong direction. No district court case could stand on the guidelines alone, for example.

Sparks, are these guidelines a load of pie in the sky so since they have no firm foundation and can be interpreted differently by each districts superintendant? on the other hand those with agendas can make it as hard as possible to prevent such a firearm in their district just because they don't like or fail to understand guns and the sport.
Don't these "guidelines" make each superintendant his own boss, can pick and choose without judging applications on there merits.

Sparks

The guidelines were basicly an attempt to give what shooters here have been calling for for years - consistency in the application process. They're an example of why I've been saying for years that having a single office oversee applications isn't a magical solution to all our problems, because it takes one Garda to be anti-firearms ownership and suddenly we have 200,000 problem cases.

However, the guidelines can be ignored by Superintendents (technically the Chief Supers can ignore them too, but they're operating as delegates to the chap who writes the guidelines, so I wouldn't expect much as much deviation from the guidelines by them as I would by the Supers). The guidelines don't have legal status - they're called guidelines for a reason - but if a Super with a heavy caseload has a licencing decision to make, it's got to be easier for him or her to just read the guidelines and go with them, as opposed to actually investing time in the case. That, I think, is the main thing you have to keep in mind if you're seeking a licencing decision that the guidelines don't recommend.

Robotack

UPDATE:
My pal had his grant notice letter arrive this morning with no mention whatsoever of the mod being refused. He went straigth down to the post office & paid it. So.... when it arrives I assume it'll have no 'S' on it. But I also assume that he'll get no official notification of the mod's refusal.

So as this is his first licence, hypothetically speaking he knows nothing about an 'S' or anything else for that matter that a licence should say on it nor does he have me to tell him this stuff. Then it's my opinion that it would be reasonable for him to assume that he had been granted exactly what he applied for and be walking about with the mod, none the wiser.

Basically, had he not phoned the station he'd know nothing about the mod being refused.

It wasn't me!

Robotack wrote: »

UPDATE:
My pal had his grant notice letter arrive this morning with no mention whatsoever of the mod being refused. He went straigth down to the post office & paid it. So.... when it arrives I assume it'll have no 'S' on it. But I also assume that he'll get no official notification of the mod's refusal.

So as this is his first licence, hypothetically speaking he knows nothing about an 'S' or anything else for that matter that a licence should say on it nor does he have me to tell him this stuff. Then it's my opinion that it would be reasonable for him to assume that he had been granted exactly what he applied for and be walking about with the mod, none the wiser.

Basically, had he not phoned the station he'd know nothing about the mod being refused.

No. Absolutely not. If he then goes and gets the mod, he's in possession of an unlicenced firearm. Since anonymity here doesn't exist, it could be readily proven who you are, that you know him and that he's waffling in any case, but more honestly, the Garda who arrests him isn't going to give a fook that he wasn't aware of where he stood, any more than he would if he had a shotgun he didn't have a licence for.

Hunter21

As far as I remember when I got my grant letters it isn't state if I got the 'S' moderator or how many cartridges I was allowed.
Then when I paid the grant letter I received the licence and it had the S on it and the number of cartridges I can legally hold.

Alan 1990

Hunter21 wrote: »

As far as I remember when I got my grant letters it isn't state if I got the 'S' moderator or how many cartridges I was allowed.
Then when I paid the grant letter I received the licence and it had the S on it and the number of cartridges I can legally hold.

Same as myself hunter, when I received the license it had the S and number of rounds on it. Grand letter didn't mention anything.

Hunter21

Alan 1990 wrote: »

Same as myself hunter, when I received the license it had the S and number of rounds on it. Grand letter didn't mention anything.

I also had issues with another guard trying to deal with firearms I.e moderators, she rang me the day I got my grant notice letter stating that in my district they don't issue moderators for any reason as the Gardai dont like members of the public roaming the countryside at night with quiet guns said nothing until my licence came and it had an S, went for a chat with my official firearms officer and he said "you gave good enough reasons to have a moderator so with your S your legally allowed to have it, and no district or guard can make their own rules or agendas" he's a sound guard and pure dose that hes retiring soon

Robotack

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Robotack wrote: »

UPDATE:
My pal had his grant notice letter arrive this morning with no mention whatsoever of the mod being refused. He went straigth down to the post office & paid it. So.... when it arrives I assume it'll have no 'S' on it. But I also assume that he'll get no official notification of the mod's refusal.

So as this is his first licence, hypothetically speaking he knows nothing about an 'S' or anything else for that matter that a licence should say on it nor does he have me to tell him this stuff. Then it's my opinion that it would be reasonable for him to assume that he had been granted exactly what he applied for and be walking about with the mod, none the wiser.

Basically, had he not phoned the station he'd know nothing about the mod being refused.

No. Absolutely not. If he then goes and gets the mod, he's in possession of an unlicenced firearm. Since anonymity here doesn't exist, it could be readily proven who you are, that you know him and that he's waffling in any case, but more honestly, the Garda who arrests him isn't going to give a fook that he wasn't aware of where he stood, any more than he would if he had a shotgun he didn't have a licence for.

It wasnt me... Firstly, I agree with you on the legal stuff. I wasn't suggesting for a moment that he break the law, that's why I said "hypothetically"...

Secondly, who I am matters not. I'm just a guy on boards with a query and if another individual breaks the law, what I might have told him is irrelevant. That's like saying that if I tell you drink driving is against the law and you do it anyway, then I'm guilty... And "they" are welcome to know who I am if they want.

The point of my post was simply to point out yet another potential flaw in the system. ie; 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.

Chiparus

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

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.