Moderator refusal.

Nekarsulm

So guys and gals, two years on from the last episode, I have again been refused permission for the Mod. for the .223 rifle.
Garda rang me today and told me the Super's decision. I asked for a reason, and was told "he's not granting any, except for people who have had one for years".
I politely mentioned my use for it but was told "He believes that for hearing problems, you should wear ear defenders, and it shouldn't be used near livestock at all".
I mentioned that the livestock concerned were my own, to which the reply came "well they (mod.) don't reduce the noise by much, anyway".
I did try and explain a bit about decibel levels, and the fact that requesting a Mod. wasn't indicative of a Hollywood fixation, but was told, "he makes the decisions, then I get landed the job of ringing the people to see what they want to do."

Feck sake, would annoy you. Next time he's holding Text Alert meetings, he'll hear about how public co-operation is a two way street.

Cass

Did you just get the phone call or did you get it in writing. If only the call, then ring up and ask when you can expect the refusal in writing as you're entitled to.

Judging by his attitude (Super, not Sergeant) he won't change his mind so ring the Sergeant back and ask for the refusal in writing. If he asks why you want it say it's for your appeal which you entitled to lodge and need the written refusal to do so. Plus you're meant to get the refusal in writing anyway.

Nekarsulm wrote: »

......... and was told "he's not granting any, except for people who have had one for years"..........

That is called a blanket ban, and is illegal. You can only hope he puts this down on the written refusal.

Nekarsulm

Just a phone call. The garda wanted to know if they should process the paperwork or not. I'll ring them back and ask for written refusal as you suggest. Thanks.

Cass

Just a a second.

The phone call was before your paperwork was processed? Thats not even refusal. I've seen it too often where the Garda acting as FO will tell someone that the Super will not grant the suppressor and the applicant withdraws their application for it.

If you have not already done so ring the Garda back, tell him that you want your application processed as is, including the suppressor. If the Super refuses it tell the Garda that you'll expect the written refusal regarding the suppressor, but under no circumstances to withdraw the application either in part or whole because of the suppressor. IOW you want to continue to apply for the suppressor.

By doing this you are forcing them to follow the law and issue the written refusal for the suppressor. This will have no bearing on the firearm as it's a separate entity even though you apply for both at once.

Even if you have already rang him back ring again and make sure this is 100% clear. Also remind the Garda not to change or alter your application in any way as to remove the "Tick" for the suppressor.

Grizzly 45

Might add this for the Supers consideration if you are doing the paperwork again and add that this was accepted as "good reason" by the Garda ballistics in a district court case in Limerick Oct 2014 and not contested by a cheif super for a restricted firearm[CF SA rifle]
EU directives on noise abatement at source... State that noise should be reduced or eliminated at source before any sort of secondary protection is to be applied.[IE ear muffs etc are employed] IOW build quieter jet engines rather than concrete jet blast deflectors at airports.

[Not part of the court case but also considerd valid]
Also,weraring ear muffs is also a danger in the wild as it can get hung up on branches or hedges,thus causing injury or distraction while handling a loaded firearm,and it eliminates the possibility of hearing minute sounds[IE voice on the breeze] thus alerting the shooter to possiblity of people in the area.
If you have a dog while shooting, it affects their hearing more than yours .Dogs hearing is estimated to be 900 times more accute than the human hearing. So imagine what a sudden 150 decibel sound does to the dogs hearing?

https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/reports/6805535Might be of help as you arer shooting on your own land and proable "place of work".So this proably also counts under H&S

gunny123

"He's not granting any, except for those that have had them for years"

Then he is not judging each application on its merits, and is imposing a blanket ban in his patch.

btalt

My license arrived in the post yesterday for the .223, applied for the moderator and it is nowhere to be seen on my license. Wasn't notified nor was it included in the "conditions" section. It's annoying since I had it on my last rifle and due to my location I am in reasonable distance from some very expensive horses that I would be afraid of spooking now.

Deanaudia4

Local super to me changed in last year on my renewal for .17 I ticked the box for silencer/mod got a phone call to say he is not granting at this time and only giving 50 rounds when I had 300 on old cert..I rang supers clerk back and exspressed clearly I have a .243 with 300 rounds on cert + mod so why does he refuse mod on .17 when I have one already and that 50 rounds is a joke as that's one box on my trips to gun shop I always buy few to save travel..got phone call back 2 days later all changed 300 rounds and mod granted...if u ask me they haven't a clue..

Cass

I have received my last three licenses with no "S" on them. I rang up, told them they forgot to put the "S" on the license. Within 5 days i not only got a new license with the "S" on it but a separate letter from the Super saying i was granted the suppressor for the duration of the license.

Sometimes it can be a simple oversight/admin error. A phone call costs feck all and could resolve it.

Nekarsulm

I put it in writing to the Super. that I wished my original application to be judged on its own merit, and that I do not permit changes to be made to said application by any member of the force.
So we shall wait and see.

Cass

Well they cannot change anything on your form without your consent, and even then it'd need to be you that changes it. It's altering a legal document.

It's why you should scan your FCA1/FCR before sending it off.

2011

Cass wrote: »

Well they cannot change anything on your form without your consent, and even then it'd need to be you that changes it. It's altering a legal document.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this happened in the past.

Nekarsulm

Well the Grand Notice Letter arrived today.
No mention of the Moderator on it, would it be mentioned?
No letter of refusal of the Moderator arrived either.
Do I have to pay the €80 for the cert. to find out of it was granted?

Cass

Nekarsulm wrote: »

No mention of the Moderator on it, would it be mentioned?

No. Only on the license.

No letter of refusal of the Moderator arrived either.

If you have not received a refusal then technically it's granted.

Do I have to pay the €80 for the cert. to find out of it was granted?

You have to pay €80 to get the license, and it's only then you'll see if the "S" is on it.

If its not ring the Garda station and ask for a reprint of the license as the one you received (from that grant letter you're going to pay for in the PO today) did not come with the "S". It may very well be a simple oversight and i've had this myself a few times in the recent past. If they tell you it's refused then ask why you have not received a written refusal and demand one. If they refuse to issue one or tell you "the phone call is your refusal" refute this and demand a written refusal.

It's up to you then if you want to bring it to court, but i'd definitely lodge an appeal against the refusal of the suppressor. Paying for and getting the license will not interfere with this as a suppressor is a firearm in its own right and can be gotten during or after the actual license.


Main thing is get the "S" or the written refusal. Do not accept anything less.

BattleCorp

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Well the Grand Notice Letter arrived today.
No mention of the Moderator on it, would it be mentioned?
No letter of refusal of the Moderator arrived either.
Do I have to pay the €80 for the cert. to find out of it was granted?

The Grant Notice Letter never mentions the magic 'S'. You will have to pay the €80 and wait until you receive the licence.

If it doesn't have the magic 'S', go back to your Garda Station and ask them what is the story with it.

The last time I received my rifle licence, there was no 'S' on it so I went into the station, the Garda did a few bits on the computer and I had the new licence with the 'S' on it within a week.


Edit: Damn, Cass beat me to it.

Nekarsulm

Thanks for the info, Cass. I will pay right now and see what happens. Two other firearms applied for at the same time didnt come today.

Nekarsulm

Paid at the Post Office, so let the games begin!

Grizzly 45

Thought this little graphic might be worth including in anyones application for a asilencer.

Nekarsulm

License arrived today. No "S" on it.
Gonna be calling in to the Super tomorrow.
(No refusal letter either)

Cass

Do. Demand the refusal or the license with the "S".

Cass

As a side note, i'd consider ringing the FO, easier than getting the Super, and saying your license arrived but had no "S" on it. Speak as though you were not only expecting it, but surprised it didn't come with the "S". The FO will either re-issue the license with the "S" or tell it's refused. If he says refused then ask where or when the refusal letter is coming. If he says you're being informed on the phone, tel him you're entitled to a letter of refusal and you want it.

averagefox

Hi guys,
sent in my 3 renewals 2 weeks ago (2 shotguns and a 22-250) i requested a new mod for the rifle. went to local station to enquire about them and was told that the 2 shotguns had been processed and granted but not the rifle and i should have the grant letters soon. they came yesterday so proceded to pay them. i needed my euro pass stamped so i ended up in the main station and asked the officer that was dealing with the firearms what the story was with my rifle application. she didnt know why it hadnt and then asked did i apply for a mod and i replied yes, to which she replied not a hope. i asked why and she said the super isnt issuing any mods and thats that! then wanted to know if she should process my application anyway and i should expect a call next week regarding this.

any advice on what i should ask when i get this call??

Cass

As above, blanket bans are illegal. Each application must judged on its own merits and if a refusal is coming a reason must be given as to why.

NEVER, EVER, listen to to the person at the window or even the FO when they ask/suggest the application be revoked. It's not their decision and they don't issue the licenses. Too many lads have not applied for firearms or suppressors based on the OPINION of the guy/gal at the window and even the FO.

Did you submit a list of reasons as to why you needed the suppressor or did you just tick the box?

averagefox

i sighted the large amount of live stock in the area and on my own as the reason.. so i look forward to hearing this phone call shes going to make

Nekarsulm

One of the reasons I give was "reduction of noise, to reduce alarm to neighbours".
The response? "People have a right to know what's going on" !
Sigh.....

Still waiting for any kind of response from Super.

BattleCorp

Nekarsulm wrote: »

One of the reasons I give was "reduction of noise, to reduce alarm to neighbours".
The response? "People have a right to know what's going on" !
Sigh.....

Still waiting for any kind of response from Super.

Sure everyone needs to hear the shot so that they can duck out of the way of the bullet. :pac: :pac: :pac:

averagefox

So today i finally received my refusal letter for the mod stating my reasons do not meet the required criteria. it also goes on to state that the issuing the authorisation for a silencer may endanger the public safety or the peace..

so im just going licence it without the mod :mad:

Cass

There are no criteria to meet. Did they list any of these? When you apply you give reasons and if they deem them suitable the suppressor is issued. If not, they don't. However there is no set list of criteria that a person must "check off" in order to apply or even get a license.

As for the refusal letter itself. You can appeal it. What date is on the letter? This has been going on for a while so make sure the letter is not dated back when it began, but within a few days of you receiving it.

You can appeal the decision on various grounds. If you only provided one reason for the suppressor then add more. Such as:

1. To aid sound reduction of the firearm when used around livestock and bloodstock.
2. To aid sound reduction so as to not alarm people in the vicinity.
3. Unsafe practice of wearing suitable hearing protection while stalking / hunting
4. Protection of personal hearing
5. Improved accuracy
6. Reduced recoil, aiding in quick second shot where/if necessary.
7. Ideal for vermin control for multiple shots
8. The suppressor will never silence the shot only reduce the report. IOW it'll still be louder than a jumbo jet (120 db +)

You can also, if you want to go down this road, question the logic of issuing you a firearms certificate for an actual firearm (the thing that fires the bullets) but not for a hollow tube that slightly reduces the heard report of the shot. An item that with no firearm would only be "dangerous" if you threw it at someone, and will not affect the functionality of the firearm from the point of view the rifle does not need the suppressor to fire. IOW why are you safe to have the gun, but a danger to public safety with the suppressor.

By the logic within the refusal you are more dangerous with a suppressor so therefore must be somewhat dangerous without one. As such a license should not have been issued under section 2 of the firearms act.

This is a really dangerous road to go down. You are essentially questioning YOUR ability to safely have the firearm and as revoking a license is within the power he may decide to accept your logic and revoke the firearms license.

Chances are slim, but don't do anything based on my say so or anyone else's because it's not us that will have to deal with the consequences.

RossiFan08

Cass wrote: »

1. Unsafe practice of wearing suitable hearing protection while stalking / hunting
2. The suppressor will never silence the shot only reduce the report. IOW it'll still be louder than a jumbo jet (120 db +)

In my opinion these are the two best options when a super cites public safety concerns.

My reasoning is, if I am out shooting without a mod the report will be more than loud enough that a single shot can damage my hearing never mind multiple shots compounded by fact that I will be shooting for many years. Therefore I am going to wear hearing protection, however because of this I will be a lot less aware of my surroundings (Will not hear car engines, people talking or even someone trying to get my attention).

If I had a mod on the other hand I can forgo hearing protection and shoot safely without damage to my hearing and also be more aware of what is going on around me. While it is true that the report has been reduced it has not and cannot be eliminated due to the sonic boom that all full bore rifle ammunition produces. Therefore the public will be more than aware of a shot that is fired. I have been told my neighbours that they have been able to hear my suppressed 308 from 2.25 km away.

The following infograph might also be handy to show him

http://jerkingthetrigger.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/brownells-suppressor-infographic.jpg

Nekarsulm

Well AverageFox, the same man sent the same letter to me today as well.
Its stamped 21st July and also 8th August.

Grizzly 45

Supt is on very wobbly legal ground there IMO in stating that there is a "danger to the peace" by issuing a silencer to you.. What exactly is he trying to imply here?That with this silencer you are suddenly going to become an assasin stalking the streets of Cavan town? If he considers you a danger with a silencer but without one,you are ok?there is some illogic in his reasoning that he needs to clarify with you or explain in a court.As Cass stated there is no criteria to have to tick off to aquire a silencer,and as has been pointed out before as nauseum there is also the EU noise directive that unnecessary noise must be eliminated at source if at all possible.Hence we have GS noise testing boy racer cars,but somehow cant extend the same logic to gunshot noise??