Moderator Refusal

German pointer · 02-07-2015 2:48pm #1

Lads was refused moderators today for the .22 and the .270

If I was to appeal this is the next step the District Court or as the Super says a Judaical Review

Sparks · 02-07-2015 3:13pm

It's supposed to be the DC; some have gone the JR route directly but the JR route cannot direct the Super to issue, only to remake his decision on other grounds (assuming they rule in your favour); the DC can direct him to issue. Also the JR route is a lot more expensive.

However, the perennial good advice is to try to talk to the super first and to get his reasons for refusal in writing second before calling solicitors...

German pointer · 02-07-2015 3:20pm

I met him 2 weeks ago about this and I have the letter from him this morning. He is quoting "in the interest of public safety and the peace I am refusing".

I brought his predecessor to the DC on a different issue and won but he said I can't go the DC route with moderator only the JR route

Sparks · 02-07-2015 3:22pm

He's incorrect; moderators are firearms under the act and there's no special provision in the law to handle a refusal for one any differently than a refusal for any other kind of firearm.

Sparks · 02-07-2015 3:24pm

I think I'd still want to talk to him first and ask for more detailed reasoning in writing. Also, I hate the idea of having to go to a court, but that's me. Grizzly or the others could give you a list of solicitors to talk to if you wanted to take it to the DC and if you asked nicely they might tell you how much money you'd be looking at...

German pointer · 02-07-2015 3:48pm

Hate the idea of court myself but had to do it before and as I said I won so I have an idea of how much it'll cost if I go that route. As for talking to him again he is refusing as far as I am aware all moderator applications and as he is now in the middle of a murder inquiry and an unrelated attempted murder (both in the last 2 weeks) I can't see him having much time to meet me again.

I just really checking about the DC or JR routes before I contact the solicitor

Grizzly 45 · 02-07-2015 8:13pm

Hi GP
Sorry to hear that our new fellah is already beginning to blot his copy book.Well,if he is going the "public saftey " routine that sounds like a cop out yet again.Just seems to me that these people wont listen to reason and need continious reminding in the DC and in the divisional budget.You might point out to him in the nicest possible way that his boss lost a few of these cases last year,and that a couple of the resons I gave you was acceptable by Det Sgt J Cummins in his report to the Cheif on a restricted firearm this time last year,so why is he being silly now with an unrestricted firearm?About costs,well they will proably have gone up,but OTOH if you win the AGS will be stumping up,so you will be coverd.Its going to be rather ridicilous as you have had the silencers for them for how long too?So why would you suddenly become a public saftey issue?
PM me if you want a good legal team on this.
Grizz.

Deaf git · 02-07-2015 8:57pm

Is the advice to appeal by JR instead of DC based on genuine lack of knowledge or the hope that the very mention of High Court will frighten you off? Not the first time wrong advice on avenue of appeal has been given in a refusal.

meathstevie · 02-07-2015 9:26pm

Deaf git wrote: »

Is the advice to appeal by JR instead of DC based on genuine lack of knowledge or the hope that the very mention of High Court will frighten you off? Not the first time wrong advice on avenue of appeal has been given in a refusal.

Gardai regardless of rank should not be giving any sort of legal advice with the exception of making suspects of crimes aware that they're entitled to consult with solicitors.

It's up to you to decide what appeal procedure suits you better if there's alternative options, after legal advice if you wish.

Sparks · 02-07-2015 9:29pm

Deaf git wrote: »

Is the advice to appeal by JR instead of DC based on genuine lack of knowledge or the hope that the very mention of High Court will frighten you off? Not the first time wrong advice on avenue of appeal has been given in a refusal.

True; but to be fair, we've been saying for years that the former option was completely plausible if not the most likely cause.

German pointer · 02-07-2015 9:35pm

Below is a copy of my application along with a letter fro the farmer asking for the mod. I had something similar for the .270 application

I am also applying for a moderator for my .22 rifle I need the moderator for several reasons as outlined below.

My hearing is already damaged and I wish to prevent further damage to it and the use of a moderator would greatly reduce the noise to a level where my ears would not be further damaged.

My young children are now old enough to accompany me and do so regularly when I go hunting as I did with my father at their age. I wish to protect their hearing from the noise levels of the firearm. As a child’s hearing is still developing any loud noise i.e. a gunshot can do far more damage to the developing ears than they can to an adult ears.

The wearing of ear defenders would not be safe when they are with me in the field as I would not be aware of any communication from them or indeed they from me while we are wearing the defenders and this could lead to injury to one or more of us from livestock coming up behind us that we have failed to hear approaching, especially if the livestock are startled by the gunshot.

As a moderator will only reduce the initial sound of the gunshot at the source and not the noise generated by the bullet travelling through the air anybody in the immediate area would still hear the shot, but if I was wearing ear defenders I would not be able to hear any hill walkers or farmers that I may not have seen and who may be trying to attract my attention to let me know of their presence.

EU law dictates that for health and safety reasons noise levels should be first dealt with at source and only if the source of the noise cannot be eliminated should other means of noise reduction be explored and that the use of ear defenders should only be used as a last resort.

I draw your attention to the court case in Limerick District Court last October when the above reasons were conceded to by the An Garda Síochána ballistics expert during a case taken against Chief Superintendent Sheehan as valid reasons for the granting of moderators.

I trust you will look favourably on this application and if you have any queries please don’t hesitate to call.

knockon · 02-07-2015 9:47pm

German pointer wrote: »

Below is a copy of my application along with a letter fro the farmer asking for the mod. I had something similar for the .270 application

I am also applying for a moderator for my .22 rifle I need the moderator for several reasons as outlined below.

My hearing is already damaged and I wish to prevent further damage to it and the use of a moderator would greatly reduce the noise to a level where my ears would not be further damaged.

My young children are now old enough to accompany me and do so regularly when I go hunting as I did with my father at their age. I wish to protect their hearing from the noise levels of the firearm. As a child’s hearing is still developing any loud noise i.e. a gunshot can do far more damage to the developing ears than they can to an adult ears.

The wearing of ear defenders would not be safe when they are with me in the field as I would not be aware of any communication from them or indeed they from me while we are wearing the defenders and this could lead to injury to one or more of us from livestock coming up behind us that we have failed to hear approaching, especially if the livestock are startled by the gunshot.

As a moderator will only reduce the initial sound of the gunshot at the source and not the noise generated by the bullet travelling through the air anybody in the immediate area would still hear the shot, but if I was wearing ear defenders I would not be able to hear any hill walkers or farmers that I may not have seen and who may be trying to attract my attention to let me know of their presence.

EU law dictates that for health and safety reasons noise levels should be first dealt with at source and only if the source of the noise cannot be eliminated should other means of noise reduction be explored and that the use of ear defenders should only be used as a last resort.

I draw your attention to the court case in Limerick District Court last October when the above reasons were conceded to by the An Garda Síochána ballistics expert during a case taken against Chief Superintendent Sheehan as valid reasons for the granting of moderators.

I trust you will look favourably on this application and if you have any queries please don’t hesitate to call.

Well worded.
I've a history with Grizzly in the Limerick DC and I am an advocate of using Solicitors and Consul and "lets go to court" but in this case the new Super is a decent and respectable chap who is highly respected by his colleagues and members of the public. I would definitely make every attempt to meet him. He is very approachable (unlike his Boss!!) and a Limerick Man

Deaf git · 02-07-2015 9:53pm

meathstevie wrote: »

Gardai regardless of rank should not be giving any sort of legal advice with the exception of making suspects of crimes aware that they're entitled to consult with solicitors.

It's up to you to decide what appeal procedure suits you better if there's alternative options, after legal advice if you wish.

When I said 'advice' I meant it in the sense of telling rather than suggesting.
Stating the avenue of appeal is fairly standard on refusal letters for various state services or licences and even procurement procedures. It's based on the Natural Justice requirement summed up in 'Nemo iudice in causa sua' and 'Audi alterem partem' ('No man a judge in his own case' and 'Hear the other side'). The Ombudsman has instructed Govt Departments, Hsa and Local Authorities to reconsider applications for various services on the grounds that an avenue of appeal was not advised in supporting documents or refusals. The Ombudsman was created to provide a non courts based appeal system for ctizen's dealings with state bodies.

German pointer · 02-07-2015 11:24pm

I have met him 2 weeks ago to discuss the applicatons

g00167015 · 02-07-2015 11:52pm

It's sad that such an ambiguous and frivolous excuse should be given as acceptable for the refusal of what is a basic safety item.

In the real world, we have a branch of science called PHYSICS which unfortunately is not always portrayed accurately in the Hollywood movies which seem to form the basis of the AGS firearms knowledge and 'expertise'

It's amusing how the commissioner's guidelines warn about deerstalkers frightening walkers/hikers with their 'silent' centrefire rifles.............. 130 decibels is FAR FAR FAR from silent, but by heck it's a lot safer for the user and those nearby than 160db.

The uninitiated may just see that as a 20% reduction in sound intensity, HOWEVER decibels are a logarithmic scale, NOT linear. In a lay man's nutshell, a three decibel increase represents a doubling of the sound intensity, give or take. Similarly, a 12db increase would be 2*2*2*2=16 fold increase in the sound intensity, give or take.

I would be surprised if there isn't already an instance of case law where a Superintendant has been warned by a Judge to cease giving such vexatious and baseless excuses. That sort of ambiguity simply cannot be acceptable.

Hope that some common sense prevails for you.

hexosan · 03-07-2015 8:40am

German pointer wrote: »

Below is a copy of my application along with a letter fro the farmer asking for the mod. I had something similar for the .270 application

I am also applying for a moderator for my .22 rifle I need the moderator for several reasons as outlined below.

My hearing is already damaged and I wish to prevent further damage to it and the use of a moderator would greatly reduce the noise to a level where my ears would not be further damaged.

My young children are now old enough to accompany me and do so regularly when I go hunting as I did with my father at their age. I wish to protect their hearing from the noise levels of the firearm. As a child’s hearing is still developing any loud noise i.e. a gunshot can do far more damage to the developing ears than they can to an adult ears.

The wearing of ear defenders would not be safe when they are with me in the field as I would not be aware of any communication from them or indeed they from me while we are wearing the defenders and this could lead to injury to one or more of us from livestock coming up behind us that we have failed to hear approaching, especially if the livestock are startled by the gunshot.

As a moderator will only reduce the initial sound of the gunshot at the source and not the noise generated by the bullet travelling through the air anybody in the immediate area would still hear the shot, but if I was wearing ear defenders I would not be able to hear any hill walkers or farmers that I may not have seen and who may be trying to attract my attention to let me know of their presence.

EU law dictates that for health and safety reasons noise levels should be first dealt with at source and only if the source of the noise cannot be eliminated should other means of noise reduction be explored and that the use of ear defenders should only be used as a last resort.

I draw your attention to the court case in Limerick District Court last October when the above reasons were conceded to by the An Garda Síochána ballistics expert during a case taken against Chief Superintendent Sheehan as valid reasons for the granting of moderators.

I trust you will look favourably on this application and if you have any queries please don’t hesitate to call.

Very well written request.

hexosan · 03-07-2015 8:43am

For anyone interested.

EU Directive on sound reduction explained

Shooting Noise is Harmfull to Your Health!
Most Hunters, Target shooters and most Citizens are not fully aware that the noise around us represents one of the main environmental polution impacts for the human organism.

Noise Damages Your Health.
Here we think in particular of the high noise levels around us constantly in our environment, such as traffic noise, workplace noise, aircraft noise, loud music in discotheques, the car radio or MP3 player.

Sound is a vibration, a wave of energy. Particularly the impulse type noise of hunting and sporting firearms, as well as police and military weapons send a shock wave to bombard our ears. The human ear is one of the most sensitive and most complicated Organs. The physician can well explain what happens as a result of firearms noise to our circulation and hearing.

Unexpected shooting noise, muzzle blast impacts on human and animal ears extremely abruptly. Physically speaking, a sudden eruption of the highest energy output combinded with of a chaotic mix of frequencies is released. An extremely high pulse energy suddenly strikes our ears and the ears of our hunting dogs as well the ears of all creatures in the immediate vicinity. The entire physiology of the human bieng and animals when subjected to firearms noise in close proximity, is suddenly in a state of great alert. The body signals the greatest alarm state and immediately triggers an escape and threat reflex. Expected shooting noise is just as harmful to hearing, but releases less of a shock reflex.

Both the human and the dog cannot get used to firearms noise is, the human and animal organism must constantly re-adjust to the sound.

Who ever exposes people or animals to firearms noise over a level of 137dB, accepts what amounts to thier physical and mental torture.
Research proves that every single shot from a large caliber hunting or sporting weapon produces a sound level of > 150dB and is harmful. This means that the
health of hunters, target shooters and the hunting dog is bieng constantly destroyed shot after shot.

In this perspective, the shooting of firearms without a dedicated "sound moderator" or noise reducer is incomprehensible and unacceptable.
It is against the German law and European emission regulation and the Health & Safety at Work Acts.
Is medically proven that impulse noise above 140dB is extremely harmful. The European Directive 10/2003, and most EU National Laws have set the exposure limit for impulse noise at 140 dB in Article 3. Article 5 of the Directive states that the noise, if technically possible, must be reduced at source as much as possible.

With modern Firearms Sound Moderator's this is technically possible. Thus, Article 6 does not apply, (Article 6 states that personal hearing protection should only be issued as a last resort in cases in which the risks associated with the explosion of noise can not be avoided by other means).

The EC Directive to protect workers from exposure to Noise and Vibration has been taken into national law. The limit value for impulse noise was even reduced from 140 dB to 137 dB in Germany.
Again, priority must be given to preventing noise emission at source as far as is possible. Technical measures have priority over organizational measures. These measures have priority over the use of hearing protection.
Full bore large caliber rifles cause a noise pulse of 150-165 dB, and are thus beyond the permissible limits. With a Sound Moderator this level can be reduced by about 20 to 30 dB (<137 dB) and would thus correspond to legal norms.

The hunting or sporting use of a suppressor, sound moderator or silencer, is not about the silent shot in the James Bond movies, it is not about making poaching easier or making it easier to kill the big red stag on the border without the knowledge of neighbouring estate,
It is simply about reducing the harmfull noise cause with each shot, so that human and animal hearing is protected.

Or in other words: Health & Safety in the practice of Hunting and Shooting sports and this is technically easy and inexpensive to implement.

Grizzly 45 · 03-07-2015 2:24pm

I wonder now where that fine report came from Hex?:D;)

@ GP,as the area you hunt is almost the neighbouring side of the hill where I hunt .I'd also suggest that as the terrain consists of hidden ravines and gullys and that farmers have their live stock grazing in these areas.Sudden loud noises could be amplified by the valley itself as it is a natural echo chamber, and could possibly panic stock into one of these ravines with possible fatal results.

deeksofdoom · 05-07-2015 10:45am

I can't understand how time after time gardai refuse sound moderators, and refuse them in the interest of public safety, FFS.

They don't make the firearm any more lethal than they already are, you'ld swear the way the Gards carry on that a silencer will turn a bolt action rifle into a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Cass · 07-07-2015 11:35am

deeksofdoom wrote: »

I can't understand how time after time gardai refuse sound moderators, and refuse them in the interest of public safety, FFS.

What annoys me is it's one thing to refuse a Mod to a new applicant, but in the case of the people that had the suppressors already and are now refused on these ridiculous grounds:

German pointer wrote: »

He is quoting "in the interest of public safety and the peace I am refusing".

It's just taking the piss. I mean unless you throw a mod at someone they are harmless. Even then you only get a bang on the noggin. IOW i'll take away your ability to make the shot 20% less noisey as it's dangerous, but leave you with the firearm itself.

I mean if the OP is such a threat to public safety and the peace how is leaving him with a firearm the right move. German Pointer you know how i mean that, and know i'm not in the slightest calling into question your ability to safely and competently have a firearm, but that is, in effect, what the Super is saying.

We've said before that in such a case, under Section 4(2)(b) of the Firearms Act, a Super/Chief Super cannot issue a firearm cert to anyone they deem a threat to public safety/unsuitable. Also in a recent court cases the justice(s) said that Supers/Chief Supers claiming public safety without showing how the applicant may be a threat to it, is not in itself a reason to refuse. The people involved in these cases won their firearm certs.

Sparks · 07-07-2015 11:48am

Half the time I think Supers haven't been trained in what sound moderators are and do and so only have Hollywood's version of what they are in their head, and they're thinking that hill walkers might not hear the rifle and walk into the line of fire.

I've never fully understood how that argument works. I mean, if your safety plan to stop you from walking downrange of a rifle is to hear the shot so you can avoid the bullet, your plan is in need of some further work...

BattleCorp · 07-07-2015 3:17pm

Sparks wrote: »

Half the time I think Supers haven't been trained in what sound moderators are
...

It's an awful pity that they don't stick an extra week on the Garda training course in Templemore and teach them a little about firearms.

It would possibly prevent half the sh1te that happens. It would make things easier for both us and the Gardai.

BattleCorp · 07-07-2015 3:17pm

Sparks wrote: »

I've never fully understood how that argument works. I mean, if your safety plan to stop you from walking downrange of a rifle is to hear the shot so you can avoid the bullet, your plan is in need of some further work...

But shur Sparks, couldn't you duck if you heard the bullet coming. :pac::pac::pac:

Sparks · 07-07-2015 3:44pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

But shur Sparks, couldn't you duck if you heard the bullet coming. :pac::pac::pac:

Ah, the Prometheus school of running away from things...

g00167015 · 07-07-2015 5:30pm

God I wish my hearing was as good as AGS so that I could hear things just like them before the sound waves actually reached me at all at all :-) :-)

........and that my hearing would be superhuman like AGS, such that it wouldn't be damaged by high intensity sound waves like normal mere mortals

If only............ :-)

There really aren't any sensible reasons why a moderator could possibly be refused, not only for making the firearm much more enjoyable to use and much safer for the user, but also for actually allowing the firearm to be used for its intended purpose without sending the neighbours cattle stampeding or his ponies jumping the fence or his dog running away or his missus being deafened :-).........or indeed anyone out walking in the vicinity getting a heart attack from the blooming fright

Given that livestock don't have hands, they can't change earplugs so the only option would be for the local AGS to subsidise active electronic ear protection for all of the animals haha. After four or five hundred sheep and thirty horses the Super might see some sense ha :-) :-)

Sparks · 15-07-2015 1:44pm

Putting this up here just in case it might be useful: someone actually recorded the noise levels of various rounds from rifles with sound moderators, both at the rifle and at the point of impact. Educational. (For any non-hunters watching, be advised that they are shooting at a carcass).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa1qWswc5RU

darren.243 · 17-07-2015 9:13pm

quick off topic question any luck with the suppressor's?

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Moderator Refusal

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County