Here's how to get suppressor

defib

Hi folks

If you want to get suppressor for your firearm here is how, believe it or not under the law you should actually have one.

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work General application regulations 2007, control of noise act.
You are required to use the most effective means of controlling noise above 85 dB. The use of personal protective equipment shall be a last resort in attempting to reduce noise the first should be reducing the noise itself.

Please quote the above details and also download the PDF file from the HSA website, it's 26 pages and attach to your application form.

It's the law. ♨️

Cass

Erm, problem.

defib wrote: »

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work General application regulations 2007, control of noise act.

Shooting is a pastime/hobby/optional activity. You do not have to do it, and the above act does not cover hobbies. The point is in the title, as highlighted. "At Work".

Grizzly 45

Unless ,of course you are a professional or semi professional stalker,vermin disposer or person using a firearm as your "tools of the trade".[Dunno if hit men/women would fall under this legislation as well? :D] in your "workplace"

It would get intresting if say you have a "contract" to shoot vermin with a farmer for some type of" reward" .Are you then "employed" part or full time then?
One for a labour law specialist ......

However,the EU noise directive 2004 also does kick in as well that states noise must be limited as much as possible at source in the enviroment.

THAT was one of the acceptable "good reasons" in my court case that was approved by the acting head of Garda ballistics in his written report on my rifle and silencer application.;):cool:

However,this EU noise legislation could also be a double edged sword in the future and in the present with planning permission for ranges or holding clay shoots.Already in Germany outdoor clay ranges are having to invest thousands in sound deadning embankments which makes some clay ranges look like they are surrounded by giant donuts..
One to keep in mind if you have a Biddy and Barney anti gun curtain twitcher in your neighbourhood of your range.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It would get intresting if say you have a "contract" to shoot vermin with a farmer for some type of" reward" .Are you then "employed" part or full time then?
One for a labour law specialist ......

If you think any farmer's going to sign up for that knowing all the other stuff that goes alone with being an employer...

Honestly, if there was a way to compel the AGS to issue licences like that:
(a) Do you not think we'd know about them?
(b) Do you not think the AGS and DoJ would know about them?
(c) Do you not think the AGS, DoJ and Minister would be getting rid of them?

This "I have a simple way to fix a complex problem" stuff is almost always "I don't fully understand the complexity of the problem". And we know this, because how many times have we made the comment that the 1972 TCO didn't stop the Troubles, the way Dessie was saying it would? Or that the changes and amnesty McDowell made to the law in 2006 wouldn't stop gun crime, despite the way he initially sold them?

Why would it be true for those cases and not true for these?

deeksofdoom

If you were holding a road race you would have to follow HSA guidlines and safety acts etc... thats hobby. Just because you are participating in a hobbie doesn't mean health and safety directives shouldn't be followed.

Sparks

I think you'd find that if you were holding a road race, you would be obliged to follow HSA guidelines and such or you wouldn't be allowed hold the race.

The point being that the law requires set behaviour from you, not the AGS. Thinking that what applies to you as a private citizen will also apply to them is more likely to give you ulcers than anything else.

wexfordman2

Cass wrote: »

Erm, problem.


Shooting is a pastime/hobby/optional activity. You do not have to do it, and the above act does not cover hobbies. The point is in the title, as highlighted. "At Work".

But the shooting takes place in a farm, which is a workplace, and your obligation extends to those beyond yourself as a "hobby " shooter.

Cass

If you can prove you are employed to shoot then yes, that reason could be used. For the other 99.9% shooting is classed as a hobby/sport/pastime.

defib

Cass wrote: »

If you can prove you are employed to shoot then yes, that reason could be used. For the other 99.9% shooting is classed as a hobby/sport/pastime.

Sorry that is wrong. You are looking at it from your point of view, the law looks at the entire situation it may not be your place of work but it certainly is someone else's.

A farm is a place of work.

A gun club or shooting range is a place of work.

defib

wexfordman2 wrote: »

But the shooting takes place in a farm, which is a workplace, and your obligation extends to those beyond yourself as a "hobby " shooter.

Thank god someone gets it well done you get top marks.

It doesn't have to be your place of work but it's certainly is someone else's, the health and safety act applies.

I work as a health and safety consultant, if you want to get a suppressor you just need to state the act as it applies in all situations even if you are unemployed and never had a job.......Health & Safety law applies to the place not the person.

Please read the act and if you are having any problems getting a suppressor just print off a copy and send it in with your firearm application. If a superintendent has a problem, yes they may refuse you, but if you give them all the information first they will see that they should grant it. Remember that this is just a new law from a few years ago,

defib

Sparks wrote: »

I think you'd find that if you were holding a road race, you would be obliged to follow HSA guidelines and such or you wouldn't be allowed hold the race.

The point being that the law requires set behaviour from you, not the AGS. Thinking that what applies to you as a private citizen will also apply to them is more likely to give you ulcers than anything else.

Correct you have to look at the event and the situation taking place.

A suppressor where a firearm can be fitted with one (sorry shotguns - but I did see a suppressor in the USA for that type) should always be used by law.

defib

deeksofdoom wrote: »

If you were holding a road race you would have to follow HSA guidlines and safety acts etc... thats hobby. Just because you are participating in a hobbie doesn't mean health and safety directives shouldn't be followed.

Sorry that's wrong. You might be enjoying your hobbie but think about this. Again you're only looking at it from your point of view what about everyone else and the locations you shot?

Farm is a place of work / Farmer
National park is a place of work / Ranger
Gun club is a place of work / Owner and employees.

I have started this thread so that if people are having problems getting a suppressor all they have to do is quote the act as the reason why they require it.

Cass

defib wrote: »

....... the law looks at the entire situation it may not be your place of work but it certainly is someone else's.

Not always.

A gun club or shooting range is a place of work.

How so? You say below:

defib wrote:

Farm is a place of work / Farmer
National park is a place of work / Ranger
Gun club is a pkace of work / Owner and employees.

1. The lands i shoot are not farm lands so no farmer.
2. I don't shoot on national parks, nor do a lot of shooters so while it might be appropriate to some, the majority are not affected or to benefit from this.
3. My gun club is owned & run by members. All on a voluntary basis. No employees, no paid staff, hence no workers. Also as all ranges carry a "EAr defenders MUST be worn"" protocol how can an argument for suppressors on top of that be made on safety grounds?

So where in the above have you a workplace that the law says you must have a suppressor? Also you have been trotting this excuse out since 2012 yet not a month goes by whereby someone has not been refused a suppressor. When the issue of health and safety was brought up ear defenders, which you say should be the last resort, were given as an alternative and if the applicant refused them then the suppressor was refused. The Super's decision is final, to a degree on this, and only court action can appeal/change this. That is a few grand for a suppressor.

defib wrote: »

It doesn't have to be your place of work but it's certainly is someone else's, the health and safety act applies.

I fail to see how the term workplace can be applied to absolutely every scenario and hence used as a "foolproof" method to force a Super to issue a suppressor.

I work as a health and safety consultant, if you want to a suppressor you just need to stated the act as it applies in all situations even if you are employed and never had a job.......

Please explain the highlighted section of the above quote. It makes no sense whatsoever. "you are employed, but never had a job". Can you explain or give the exact piece of the legislation where the use of a rifle suppressor is deemed as mandatory when shooting. Otherwise what you are saying is akin to me saying to get a suppressor look at the firearms act, anything from 1925 to 2009. It's in there.

defib wrote: »

Again you're only looking at it from your point of view what about everyone else and the locations you shot?

That is your point of view. So no more valid than any one else's.

I have started this thread so that if people are having problems getting a suppressor all they have to do is quote the act as the reason why they require it.

As said above it's been tried and refused.

You seem fairly passionate about this, while not being specific enough to validate your point. You are coming across as condescending which is only swerving to provoke an argument rather than reasoned debate.

What you are saying is nothing new, and is not as guaranteed as you say. If you or others have had success with it, then good for you. Others have tried and failed. So regardless of the reasons you started this thread, to claim something is a sure fire method to force a Super to issue a suppressor based on a sole act, that is tangential at best, is wrong and misleading.

defib

What do you mean by this comment?
"Also you have been trotting this excuse out since 2012 yet" no idea what your on about?

The three items that you list, let me try to answer them.

Lands that no one works on. My guess is someone does own it so Health & Safety Law does apply. But I was talking about farm land but your reply wasn't about that type of land. If you can let me know what type of land it is?

National parks, if you don't shoot on them others do and that's who it applies to, not you. So there is no need for you to reply to that.

Your gun club, if you volunteer it makes not difference regarding complying with Healh & Safety Law or any law. That why it's called "volunteer work"

You should read the act it's only 26 pages and states very clearly PPE which include ear defenders are the last resort. But my guess is you haven't looked at the document but you are just making comments about it. I didn't write it, but you should read it, it will help.

Again regarding ranges and wearing ear defenders. The first act should be to reduce the noise, the last part is wearing ear defenders. The reason for this is all PPE can fail, forgotten to be used or wear out over time.

Cass wrote: »

Not always.


How so? You say below:

1. The lands i shoot are not farm lands so no farmer.
2. I don't shoot on national parks, nor do a lot of shooters so while it might be appropriate to some, the majority are not affected or to benefit from this.
3. My gun club is owned & run by members. All on a voluntary basis. No employees, no paid staff, hence no workers. Also as all ranges carry a "EAr defenders MUST be worn"" protocol how can an argument for suppressors on top of that be made on safety grounds?

So where in the above have you a workplace that the law says you must have a suppressor? Also you have been trotting this excuse out since 2012 yet not a month goes by whereby someone has not been refused a suppressor. When the issue of health and safety was brought up ear defenders, which you say should be the last resort, were given as an alternative and if the applicant refused them then the suppressor was refused. The Super's decision is final, to a degree on this, and only court action can appeal/change this. That is a few grand for a suppressor.


I fail to see how the term workplace can be applied to absolutely every scenario and hence used as a "foolproof" method to force a Super to issue a suppressor.

Please explain the highlighted section of the above quote. It makes no sense whatsoever. "you are employed, but never had a job". Can you explain or give the exact piece of the legislation where the use of a rifle suppressor is deemed as mandatory when shooting. Otherwise what you are saying is akin to me saying to get a suppressor look at the firearms act, anything from 1925 to 2009. It's in there.

That is your point of view. So no more valid than any one else's.


As said above it's been tried and refused.

You seem fairly passionate about this, while not being specific enough to validate your point. You are coming across as condescending which is only swerving to provoke an argument rather than reasoned debate.

What you are saying is nothing new, and is not as guaranteed as you say. If you or others have had success with it, then good for you. Others have tried and failed. So regardless of the reasons you started this thread, to claim something is a sure fire method to force a Super to issue a suppressor based on a sole act, that is tangential at best, is wrong and misleading.

Cass

defib wrote: »

What do you mean by this comment?
"Also you have been trotting this excuse out since 2012 yet" no idea what your on about?

Your name did not seem familiar so i done a check and you've posted on the forum before. When i checked you had brought up the issue of suppressors as being a "requirement" under health and safety act. Hence the comment.

If you can let me know what type of land it is?

No one works the land i shoot. Someone does own it, but it's not agricultural land, pasture land nor national forestry land. No one bar myself out shooting. Possibly other shooters. No workers, no staff, no issue (that i see)

National parks, if you don't shoot on them others do and that's who it applies to, not you. So there is no need for you to reply to that.

As said above if your reason can be used for this instance, great. I don't disagree with your point as a whole, only in that it can be used without fear of rebuttal/refusal, for all instances.

Your gun club, if you volunteer it makes not difference regarding complying with Healh & Safety Law or any law. That why it's called "volunteer work"

So no matter what a person (regardless of who they are) does it's classed in some format as work and as such you think this entitles us to a guaranteed successful suppressor application?

If so that would be great, but that excuse has been used in the past and not successfully. Right or wrong is, to a degree irrelevant, as once a refusal is issued it's a court case, a few thousand in expenses, and most people don't/won't go that far for a suppressor.

You should read the act it's only 26 pages and states very clearly PPE which include ear defenders are the last resort. But my guess is you haven't look at the document but you are just making comments about it. I didn't write it, but you should read it, it will help.

No offence, but not a chance. It's not that i don't believe you, and as said above i agree it has merit in some instances, but 26 pages is 25.5 too much.

Again regarding ranges and wearing ear defenders. The first act should be to reduce the noise, the last part is wearing ear defenders. The reason for this is all PPE can fail, forgotten to be used or wear out over time.

It can, but:

PPE can fail

You cannot "legislate" for the unpredictable.

forgotten to be used

If they're on a respectable range there are ROs enforcing the rules so not likely.

wear out over time.

Can happen, but negligence is no excuse for having a suppressor.

The other aspect is a suppressor only suppresses the noise at the shooter. It does not eliminate it. The decibel level would still be higher than safe limits (i'd imagine). So ear protection is still a necessity. On a range or course.


Look i'm not arguing for the sake of it. I've seen and heard most every excuse for a suppressor and i've seen most of them succeed and fail including what you mention above. I don't have a problem with what your saying or the reasons for it. I have an issue with it being classed as a guaranteed result maker. No one can guarantee it. The Super is the only person that can and s/he will act as they see fit regardless of Firearms Act, Health and Safety Act, etc.

defib

Your making loads of points but my guess is you have suppressor, I posted this for people who don't or feel they may be refused. If they read the act it will give them plenty of reasons why a suppressor is needed and should be issued. They will understand the law and issues with it and if asked by the Garda why a suppressor is required they will be able to answer.

From talking to shooters many newbies are unsure what reasons they should give for a suppressor. They just tick the box and hope. Then get upset and post here when they didn't get the "S". If they stated the reasons the first time with the application my guess is they would have 99% chance and I would even put money on it.

A suppressor with .22 will lower the db below 84 which is the point where damage can occur.

This is a forum for discussion and I had forgotten I had posted about suppressors before. But many topics are covered several times over. I was surprised to see such a comment been made by a moderator.

And please if your going to keep having a point of view on the subject read the act.

Cass wrote: »

Your name did not seem familiar so i done a check and you've posted on the forum before. When i checked you had brought up the issue of suppressors as being a "requirement" under health and safety act. Hence the comment.


No one works the land i shoot. Someone does own it, but it's not agricultural land, pasture land nor national forestry land. No one bar myself out shooting. Possibly other shooters. No workers, no staff, no issue (that i see)

As said above if your reason can be used for this instance, great. I don't disagree with your point as a whole, only in that it can be used without fear of rebuttal/refusal, for all instances.

So no matter what a person (regardless of who they are) does it's classed in some format as work and as such you think this entitles us to a guaranteed successful suppressor application?

If so that would be great, but that excuse has been used in the past and not successfully. Right or wrong is, to a degree irrelevant, as once a refusal is issued it's a court case, a few thousand in expenses, and most people don't/won't go that far for a suppressor.

No offence, but not a chance. It's not that i don't believe you, and as said above i agree it has merit in some instances, but 26 pages is 25.5 too much.

It can, but:

You cannot "legislate" for the unpredictable.

If they're on a respectable range there are ROs enforcing the rules so not likely.

Can happen, but negligence is no excuse for having a suppressor.

The other aspect is a suppressor only suppresses the noise at the shooter. It does not eliminate it. The decibel level would still be higher than safe limits (i'd imagine). So ear protection is still a necessity. On a range or course.


Look i'm not arguing for the sake of it. I've seen and heard most every excuse for a suppressor and i've seen most of them succeed and fail including what you mention above. I don't have a problem with what your saying or the reasons for it. I have an issue with it being classed as a guaranteed result maker. No one can guarantee it. The Super is the only person that can and s/he will act as they see fit regardless of Firearms Act, Health and Safety Act, etc.

Cass

defib wrote: »

Your making loads of points but my guess is you have suppressor

I do. I fail to see how my having one negates anything i've said.

I posted this for people who don't or feel they may be refused. If they read the act it will give them plenty of reasons why a suppressor is needed and should be issued.

That's a change in what you opened with where you said people are entitle to a suppressor and should be granted one under the law:

defib wrote:

If you want to get suppressor for your firearm here is how, believe it or not under the law you should actually have one.

That is not a suggestion or advice. It's instructions with a guarantee of success.

They will understand the law and issues with it and if asked by the Garda why a suppressor is required they will be able to answer.

18 firearms Acts, 61 Si, and 2 Eu Directives and you think one Act about health and safety will supercede these?

From talking to shooters many newbies are unsure what reasons they should give for a suppressor. They just tick the box and hope.

We have covered this topic ad nauseam. A quick search for "Reasons for a silencer, suppressor, moderator will give you a half a dozen threads on the topic.

A suppressor with .22 will lower the db below 84 which is the point where damage can occur.

What about a centrefire, say a .308, 6.5 or .270? With a suppressor will it bring it down to 84 or below?

I was surprised to see such a comment been made by a moderator.

Did you see my post marked "MOD NOTE" or written in bold? Then it's not a moderator talking it's a user. If i post as a moderator it'll be clear so please don't use that old chessnut. Defend your position without resorting to "i cannot believe a mod would...... ........"

And please if your going to keep having a point of view on the subject read the act.

Erm, no. Thanks all the same.

I'll tell ya what. I'll step away from the debate. I think your point has some merit, but is dangerous to make lads think they have some sort of stick to beat the Super with or some sort of "silver bullet" that will guarantee results. It's not. The real world does not work the way you want it to, and while you dismiss others points as only "their opinion" what you are saying is your opinion based on your interpretation of the Act. So as said above no more or less valid.


I'll leave you to it.

Vegeta

Anyone with eyes can see that those Sections and subsections begin with

"An employer shall"

125. An employer shall—
(a) in compliance with the general principles of prevention set out in Schedule 3 to the Act, and
in consultation with the employer’s employees or representatives, or both, ensure, so far as
is reasonably practicable, that the risk arising from exposure of the employer’s employees to
noise is either eliminated at source or reduced to a minimum,

So clearly the onus is on the employer to reduce noise at source, we're all agreed there.

So who exactly is the employer in this analogy to the hunting world? Land owners, Gardai, hunter???

mrbrianj

I am not in the army, but don't they now use hearing protection rather than moderate the firearms?

Its the only case of an employer this situation could relate to, that I can think of.

So If you shooting is a problem for your hearing, why not just buy a cheap set of ear plugs. Simple effective solution. That's how I imagine your application on these grounds would be viewed

Grizzly 45

Vegeta wrote: »

Anyone with eyes can see that those Sections and subsections begin with

"An employer shall"



So clearly the onus is on the employer to reduce noise at source, we're all agreed there.

So who exactly is the employer in this analogy to the hunting world? Land owners, Gardai, hunter???

More a question for a labour law solr,but if you are a profesional stalker or part time pro stalker,your employer on the let obviously,or if you are a self employed deer culler ,vermin shooter,etc you would obviously be your own boss?
It gets intresting where a person "employs " you to do a job for them for reward. Say a farmer asks you to shoot foxes on his land and offers you the shooting rights to the land for the year..That is actually "work and being employed" ASFIU under the law as well.

Sparks

defib wrote: »

A farm is a place of work.

Where you don't work. You're engaging in your hobby in someone else's place of work, and if that H&S legislation applied, (a) you'd have to be employed by the farmer (which drags in everything from anti-discrimination law to PRSI); (b) the farmer would have the obligations regarding noise, not you; and (c) you'd have to be paid by the farmer.

Exactly how many farmers out there are likely to give you permission to shoot under those conditions?

Sparks

And defib, I get that you think you know the law here, but if you were right, people would not have lost appeals for suppressors on exactly these grounds in courtrooms.

In other words, theory met practice about this point out behind the bicycle sheds quite a while back and theory did not win that particular fight.

Vegeta

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

More a question for a labour law solr,but if you are a profesional stalker or part time pro stalker,your employer on the let obviously,or if you are a self employed deer culler ,vermin shooter,etc you would obviously be your own boss?
It gets intresting where a person "employs " you to do a job for them for reward. Say a farmer asks you to shoot foxes on his land and offers you the shooting rights to the land for the year..That is actually "work and being employed" ASFIU under the law as well.

I agree Grizz there are very clear contracts of employment in certain aspects of hunting, you've mentioned some above. Would you agree though that these make up a minority of the shooting/hunting population?

I'd put forward that the majority of the population are neither employer or employee according to the legislation quoted above.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

That is actually "work and being employed" ASFIU under the law as well.

The law doesn't regard it as such and the day the law changes its mind about that is the day before every farmer in the country rescinds shooting permission from shooters because if they're employing you, Revenue wants a word about things like PRSI, Income tax declarations, Benefit in Kind, and so forth.

Gatling

To ask the obvious

Has anyone including you op successfully got a suppressor quoting the 26 page pdf at all and able to back it up

Grizzly 45

Vegeta wrote: »

I agree Grizz there are very clear contracts of employment in certain aspects of hunting, you've mentioned some above. Would you agree though that these make up a minority of the shooting/hunting population?

I'd put forward that the majority of the population are neither employer or employee according to the legislation quoted above.

Without a doubt that would be the case Veg.Just playing devils advocate here.
But whats stopping you me or anyone else setting themselvrs up as a pro stalker ,vermin culler etc and applying for the silencer?
Before anyone says revenue and all the rules and regs etc of running a biz.I'd point out that if your biz is making under 20k(?)PA revenue isnt too intrested and if it is part time unless you arei utterly coining it .You can run a part time biz and no one says it must be a 100% Forbes top ten anytime soon.
So technically a farmer would be contracting you to cull vermin ,deer etc.Same as he contacts in the silage makers. Their tax affairs are not his busisness only thing he needs to worry about would be public liability which you would have anyway.
How what ir when he pays uou is then between you him and possibly the revenue.

Grizzly 45

Gatling wrote: »

To ask the obvious

Has anyone including you op successfully got a suppressor quoting the 26 page pdf at all and able to back it up

I'd answer that with a" qualified" Yes in my case.
The acting ballistics expert accepted that ONE of my reasons of the EU anti noise directive was good reason in my application. From Garda ballistics in a document presented as court evidence and my CS stated to me he was happy enough with this too in a personal interview with me.Not challenged or disputed by either side.Dunno would it work all the time every time but it does seem to be a marker.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But whats stopping you me or anyone else setting themselvrs up as a pro stalker ,vermin culler etc and applying for the silencer?

Nothing but the hassle.

Before anyone says revenue and all the rules and regs etc of running a biz.I'd point out that if your biz is making under 20k(?)PA revenue isnt too intrested

Wow is that wrong.

If that business is your sole source of income, you'll have PRSI and a few other taxes to worry over even before your income tax comes into it. You'll also be giving up social welfare protection - so if you wind up needing to sign on at any point in the future for any reason, guess what, you're self-employed and Ireland ltd. thinks you're the scum of the universe and you have no social protection at all.

If it's not the sole source of income, revenue still want to know about it because it's your combined income they go after. And there's still a few other taxes out there.

Also, Revenue have been getting a bit more involved in small single-person companies over the last few years with audits and things, mainly aimed at the consultancy area, but they're not as exclusive about those things as you'd imagine.

And that's before we even get into all the new and interesting bits of law that crop up once you start doing something as a business instead of as a hobby.

Seriously, I know this all sounds like a grand scheme on paper for the first read-through; but it's not. It's the equivalent of shooting your foot with a load of birdshot in order to get the muck off your boots after a walk across the hill.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I'd answer that with a" qualified" Yes in my case.
The acting ballistics expert accepted that ONE of my reasons of the EU anti noise directive was good reason in my application. From Garda ballistics in a document presented as court evidence and my CS stated to me he was happy enough with this too in a personal interview with me.Not challenged or disputed by either side.Dunno would it work all the time every time but it does seem to be a marker.

We've had several cases on here over the last decade of people trying it as their sole reason for wanting the suppressor and being refused every time.