Moderators

peter g

Just a quick question, bought a new .22mag cz(still waiting for licence)!!! thinking about getting a moderator. Do i need to get that added to the licence or can i just go and buy one? The cz has a threaded barrel if that makes any difference.

many thanks

peter

alan123

Yes, you need authorisation from the local Super. Write a letter seeking authorisation for a "sound moderator for vermin control"

peter g

many thanks, will do that straight away!!

cheers
peter

Mellor

Just out of curiosity, is anyone ever refused a moderator?
I can understand them requiring to know about it, but couldn't see the point to them refusing it,

bogteal

Mellor wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, is anyone ever refused a moderator?
I can understand them requiring to know about it, but couldn't see the point to them refusing it,

sent letter to super 6 weeks ago gave my reasons for wanting one, hearing livestock not wanting to scare horses and so on,got phone call on friday turned down said could see no reason i should want one, local sargent said to appeal it, just don't know what to put down now any help.

marlyman

i just had to verbally tell my fo and he said thats all i needed to do. try that before going down the letter route.

the hunter

i asked my local fo about a moderator when i renewed my license and he said he couldnt see it happening and basically not to bother asking as "silencers" were still in a grey area and the super wouldnt entertain it ????

LadyTBolt

My partner recently applied for a moderator and was denied. He went back with medical evidence his hearing was deteriorating. The Super still refused and asked why he couldn't just use hearing protection. But as you know hearing protection isn't something you can use stalking. The Super then told him to write a letter explaining the reasons he required the moderator and produce research to the Super which identifies how the moderator would benefit him. After a long drawn out process, letters and meetings he got it but it has to be renewed annually. I know of somebody else who just got it easily, no questions asked. Depends on the Super really.

cavan shooter

That drives me absolutely crazy, the inconsistencies with FO/Supers etc.

I wish someone would write guidance, properly informed guidance for them. I don't blame them, they have a tough job and are under recourced

All these inconsistencies with policy are a brilliant argument for appeals though

We purchase moderators/suppressors the law refers to "silencers". It is virtually impossible to "silence" a hunting firearm. We use a device to suppress the sound of the shot to an acceptable level, 223 suppressed down to the sound of an unsuppressed 22 wmr. Even with a suppressor one should wear hearing protection.

Apart from the fact that the supressor puts anything from another 4 inches onto the end of the barrell what are there reasons for not granting one...

War movies and spy thrillers???????????

maglite

bogteal wrote: »

sent letter to super 6 weeks ago gave my reasons for wanting one, hearing livestock not wanting to scare horses and so on,got phone call on friday turned down said could see no reason i should want one, local sargent said to appeal it, just don't know what to put down now any help.

ASk for a reply in the same medium you sent the form in

they would't like a verbal firearm application would they??

stevoman

ok so, you need authorisation for a modifier, yet you can just walk into a gun shop and buy one anyways???????

bogteal

a friend of mine just got his new tikka 223 with mod on it, It took him six months just to get licence now he does not know what to do after i told him my story.i have one on my hornet but i wanted one on my 6.5 for deer maybe i will just keep on to them,the one on the hornet i never told them about the local cops have often seen me out never said a word i just think they dont know them self what to do.

Sparks

cavan shooter wrote: »

I wish someone would write guidance, properly informed guidance for them.

That's part of the job for the Firearms Consultation Panel... or at least to advise on how such guidance should go!

bullets

I got mine with surprisingly with little hassle apart from a long wait!!!!
I was expecting the worse from my local station but they were not too bad
to deal with. (with that said I am waiting 4 months to get my ammo limit
increased from 100 to 500)

As I am non a veteran shooter and want to practice shooting my .17hmr at the 50m range its way too loud to use at 50m as most other
users of the 50m range are 22 users.

I got a letter from my Club saying that they had no objections to me using
a moderator for health and safety reasons.
(I reckon the letter was a great help)

I bought a moderator over the counter without any questions asked as
it was a moderator and sold as such. Most firearms dealers will sell one
as a moderator and not a silencer.

I wrote a letter to my super saying that to use my rifle at 50m it needed
to be moderated and that it did not remove the noise as the .17HMR was
supersonic but adding a moderator would "reduce" the noise to that of a .22.

No matter who I rang or who I wrote to I used the term "moderator" as in
it does not silence the sound but merely reduce it every time I heard back
from the Gards they kept using the term silencer.

After weeks of waiting I got a letter from my super asking me for MORE details
on the silencer I wanted to use. I supplied the length,width and thread pitch
as well as the brand name of the moderator I bought.

After more weeks wait I got a letter from the super giving me permission
to possess and use the said silencer as long as its kept in a gun safe and I also would need to renew the letter of permission each year.

~B

quackquackBOOM

i heard from a reliable resorce that you only have to inform your super that you have 1.
i have 2 moderators and got them no problem without licence
in all fairness why give you a licence for a gun ond not a mod
bit stupid if you think of it


Best reason i can think of is that you do target shooting in a range and you need one to stop the noise in an inclosed area

Mellor

quackquackBOOM wrote: »

in all fairness why give you a licence for a gun ond not a mod
bit stupid if you think of it

I imagine that its due to the same reason that a flash suppressor, collapsible stock or bayonette mount are treated the way they are, and are illegal in most countries (even the US:eek::eek:).

Kramer

quackquackBOOM wrote: »

i heard from a reliable resorce that you only have to inform your super that you have 1.

Well you heard wrong then.
To be legal, you need a letter of authorisation from your super. Yes, they can be bought very easily without any licence etc. but to possess/use one without said letter, you're comitting an offence.

You're not the only one who has a mod without letter though .

johngalway

It is stupid to be authorised to hold a firearm but not a moderator.

If you're not fit to hold a firearm then fair enough. If you are, what's the bloody problem. In this regard the people in the UK have a much much better system, apply for the variation, pay your fee and away you go. And handload too :mad: And night vision :mad: And, and, and...

Mellor

There is a very good reason for the restriction on mods and similar attachments. And its correct to request authorisation, in fact its stupid not to do this. But this should be used to record who has them, not prevent people from getting them.
People are thinking like shooters here and forgetting about the other potential use of these attachments.
Granted the other three I listed above (flash suppressor, collapsible stock or bayonette mount) are more serious as they don't have a legitimate cause for the public to hold one.

BryanL

what good reason is there for not being allowed to use them?
if the reasons are criminal use then authorisation is hardly an issue?
why not allow there use on ranges? or for centerfires around livestock or at night?
Bryan

alan123

Mellor wrote: »

I imagine that its due to the same reason that a flash suppressor, collapsible stock or bayonette mount are treated the way they are, and are illegal in most countries (even the US:eek::eek:).

Does this mean I have to apply for authorisation for my bayonette on my Berretta? How will I dispatch the wounded pigeons without it???!


Some dealers wont thread for a mod without the authorisation.

cavan shooter

I think I am right in saying that if you thread a firearm for a moderator it will require re proofing, therefore thread carefully:D.ah! Ah! Best to purchase one pre threaded. I also have heard of lads getting rifles threaded and the "threaders" making an absolute mess of the the rifles.

If you tamper with the rifle and something happens you may be in limbo as far as insurance goes........

Mellor

nobody said there was a reason for not being allowed to use them,
I said there is a reason to monitor who has one, and the details of it also. For the same reasons the it makes sense to control and monitor who has guns.

kerryman12

cavan shooter is correct. be very carfully who you give the weapon to for the purpose of getting a thread cut

johngalway

Mellor wrote: »

There is a very good reason for the restriction on mods and similar attachments. And its correct to request authorisation, in fact its stupid not to do this. But this should be used to record who has them, not prevent people from getting them.
People are thinking like shooters here and forgetting about the other potential use of these attachments.
Granted the other three I listed above (flash suppressor, collapsible stock or bayonette mount) are more serious as they don't have a legitimate cause for the public to hold one.

I stand by my statement. If you're (not you) a paramilitary or criminal you'll have certain things in place so you don't need a moderator, or if you do want one sure it'll come in on the next drug shipment. How many AK's or god for bid the dreaded Glock have you seen fitted with mods? How many gun crimes have been comited using them? How many murders? My bet would be a big fat ZERO. It's complete and utter nonsense and there is no good reason for the level of current restriction. It's pure ignorance on the part of the powers that be. More rubbish about the ordinary guy who likes to do a bit of shooting being lobbed into the criminal/boogieman group.

If a person is deemed fit to hold a firearm then they should also be deemed fit for a moderator or any of the other things I mentioned.

I never said they should be handed out like peanuts, I put the UK system of application forward as a good example. They, sensibly, use health and safety grounds to apply for theirs.

While, over here as a few stories on Boards go, you'll get told to either get a quieter firearm or use ear protectors. Those reasons are complete GUFF. Hunting, or shooting sports, require you for ethical/humane and/or competitive reasons to use the proper calibre firearm for a particular task. In my opinion, and experience, hunting with your hearing impared is downright DANGEROUS.

Christs sake even a lad working on a building site has to be ticketed to scratch his arse in this day and age to protect his and other peoples "health & safety", so why are we as shooters broadly discriminated against by being largely denied the right to protect our own?

Stick it to the Man :cool:

cavan shooter

johngalway wrote: »

so why are we as shooters broadly discriminated against by being largely denied the right to protect our own?

Stick it to the Man :cool:

Because of a total misunderstanding (was going to use a different word) of the whole topic of shooting and shooting sports in general.

Having lived and undertaken shooting sports in the UK, I am well impressed at the way they handle licencing etc. Look at the guidance available to shooters and Police alike on the BASC website or home office web site. (Thread posted)

Lads if there is a delay with your application in the UK they return your calls and apologise. They come out and advise you on the best approach in relation to storage. They don't just insist on an alarm system fort knox would be proud to have, they actually print guidance on security.(My God they make a uniform decision) They talk to you, not dismiss you out of hand, They have trained officers to deal with your query...

Inconsistency in application of the law is a major bug bearer of mine, the second is enforcing authorities(gardai, planning, Environment, HSA) making knee jerk decisions, Based on ill informed (personal) opinion, whilist not making informed decisions because they are scared stiff of having to stand up and be counted. :mad:

Interpretation of the Law is key to having good law, and guidance for shooters and enforcing Authorities alike is the only way we will ever get that...

(Rant over, Thank you very much):)

Mellor

johngalway wrote: »

I stand by my statement. If you're (not you) a paramilitary or criminal you'll have certain things in place so you don't need a moderator, or if you do want one sure it'll come in on the next drug shipment. How many AK's or god for bid the dreaded Glock have you seen fitted with mods? How many gun crimes have been comited using them? How many murders? My bet would be a big fat ZERO.

If a person is deemed fit to hold a firearm then they should also be deemed fit for a moderator or any of the other things I mentioned.

That is a silly way to look at it. Because they can get their hands on them it doesn't matter how available they are. The same could to applied to guns couldn't it. Should they be unrestricted too? Do you think mods should be an over the counter affair?

It makes perfect sense to keep a record of who has mods. To make it clear for the third time, as I was once again taken out of context, if you have a gun that requires a mod it for your given situation you should be allowed to get one BUT you have to apply for this, in keeping with the record of mods above. The knock on for this is that as you need a reason to get one, it must be decided upon by someone. This is the failing of the system, people not getting a mod where they have a reason. But the restriction and record has to remain.

As for zero gun crimes commited with mods. I think you're being a little naive or possibly old fashioned. A couple of years ago this was easily the case, but in recent years murders, assassinations in paticular, have increased. A number of these are professional affairs, and a mod was certainly used in a number of cases.


Do you disagree with people not getting mods or with the need to apply for one in the first place. As I have tried to make it clear that there is a no need for first (where required), but a need for the second.

sidneyreilly

Mellor wrote: »

Do you think mods should be an over the counter affair?

They can be gotten over the counter!

E. Fudd

Yup, they can!

the hunter

the gun shops can legally sell them but you cant legally use them (without premission) wheres the sense in that ???

Mellor

sidneyreilly wrote: »

They can be gotten over the counter!

Thats a bit nit-picky isn't it. It was quite obvious that I was asking should they be available over the counter for use (which they aren't)

cavan shooter

I would hazard a guess and say that there are plenty of legally held fire arms out there with moderators and the users mightened have a a letter from a super in relation to them.

Moderators shouldn't cause such controversy, they are not silencers:D.

johngalway

Excuse you, it's not a silly way of looking at it and if you'd properly read my posts you'd see that. But you haven't or you'd have seen what I refer to in the next paragraph :rolleyes:

I never said anything should be unrestricted or go unaccounted for, I said the level of restriction is stupid, I referred to the UK application process for getting a moderator being the correct way of going about the issue.

Following on from that I made it quite clear that the Irish way of doing it is backwards, disprepectful to law abiding shooters, frustrating and downright dangerous both for those pearls of wisdom suggesting hearing protection in the field and forcing people into one of three situations;
1. Commit an offence by getting the mod regardless.
2. Keep on using an un moderated gun therefore damaging the shooter's and possibly others hearing.
3. Give up their sport altogether.

Once a person has applied and been approved to hold a firearm they should be allowed apply for a moderator on health and safety grounds and recieve proper and open consideration instead of the guff that's been dished out at the moment which has been told by various members here.

As for "professional" hitmen in Ireland, please enlighten us on what cases have recorded the use of a moderator? These people are at the professional level of thug, a motorbike and handgun are sufficent for the job. I think you may be watching too much TV.

I agree 100% with people having moderators, I think as I have said more than once it should be along the lines of the UK system.

But again I'll say if a person is fit to hold and use a firearm then there should be absolutely no problem in getting and using a moderator or in being allowed to handload or use nightvision for hunting purposes.

IF a person of unfit character is currently holding a firearm then that shows clearly the authorities, such as they are, are failing to do their job. It should not be made into an excuse to impose a covert ban on certain items and practices as is happening right now by certain Supers not allowing mods, others do, and no handloading or NV being allowed. It's an ignorant mindset and makes for bad law.



Please read my posts properly, I never said there should be no application process.

cavan shooter

I agree with you John, but I cant see a change in the short, medium or long term. If you look at the firearms act ( 1990 Act I think) You can get it on Irish statute book.
I
t puts everything onto the opinion of the Superintendent, In a way youd feel very sorry for the old Super, he carries alot on his shoulder.:D

have a look at this from the BASC on the subject of rifles:
http://www.basc.org.uk/content/riflescalibreland flick down to point 4 it covers moderators. This is aimed at everyone

quackquackBOOM

Kramer wrote: »

Well you heard wrong then.
To be legal, you need a letter of authorisation from your super. Yes, they can be bought very easily without any licence etc. but to possess/use one without said letter, you're comitting an offence.

You're not the only one who has a mod without letter though .

im now going to beat that reliable fellow with a large stick
and he can thank you for that;)

Mellor

johngalway wrote: »

Excuse you, it's not a silly way of looking at it and if you'd properly read my posts you'd see that. But you haven't or you'd have seen what I refer to in the next paragraph :rolleyes:

The "silly way of looking at it" was in relation to the comment of criminal access to mods and such. And you say I didn't bother to read your post:rolleyes:

The two quotes follow.

johngalway wrote: »

If you're (not you) a paramilitary or criminal you'll have certain things in place so you don't need a moderator, or if you do want one sure it'll come in on the next drug shipment.

Mellor wrote: »

That is a silly way to look at it. Because they can get their hands on them it doesn't matter how available they are. The same could to applied to guns couldn't it.

Of course it possible for them to get there hands on mods (or guns) "with the next drugs shipment". How does this matter. The guns come in the same, should we approach them with the same "sure they'll get one if they want" attitude.


As for the following

johngalway wrote:

Once a person has applied and been approved to hold a firearm they should be allowed apply for a moderator on health and safety grounds and recieve proper and open consideration instead of the guff that's been dished out at the moment which has been told by various members here.

How is this different from what I said before you.

Mellor wrote:

if you have a gun that requires a mod it for your given situation you should be allowed to get one BUT you have to apply for this, in keeping with the record of mods above.

In my previous post I made it bold to highlight it. I had the same attitude. You critise my post and say I didn't read you posts, then post the same thing that I did in the very post you critise.
Once again, instead of telling me to read your posts, please read mine.

If you have a gun then of course you should be allow a suitable mod should you need one. All I said, and all I ever said is that it should be authorised and recorded. I never suggested that the level of restriction should be the state it is in now.

IF a person of unfit character is currently holding a firearm then that shows clearly the authorities, such as they are, are failing to do their job. It should not be made into an excuse to impose a covert ban on certain items and practices as is happening right now by certain Supers not allowing mods, others do, and no handloading or NV being allowed. It's an ignorant mindset and makes for bad law.

I agree. And this backs up what I already said. The law is in place to make mods harder to get for people who shouldn't have one. Not for stop shooters getting mods. I don't know what kind of brief the person dealing with firearms is given. They may be told to apply the law a certain way.
But left to their own opinion there is no real reason anybody with a firearm couldn't get a suitable mod under the current law. This is of course assuming that everyone allowed a gun, is responsible enough to hold a gun with a mod.

As I said from the start, the law is required and it is currently fine.
The way it is being applied is wrong, and what people should have a problem with, but the "why should someone have to apply" attitude is wrong also.

Ruger.220swift

I submitted a letter to the local garda station and it was passed on to the super. The start had all my personal details chairman of gun club for x amount of years etc... the main points were as follows....

1. As the ........ is a centre fire rifle the Peak Action Level of noise from the rifle exceeds 140 dB when fired, which under the European Communities (Exposure to Noise)Regulations,1990 states that Hearing protection must be worn to avoid any hearing damage. This is not always practical when shooting vermin in the field as when wearing hearing protection I can not listen as well as feel for wind changes, and movements in the surrounding environment such as livestock, people etc, however I do accept that hearing protection is practical when target shooting in a controlled environment. This could also affect the hearing of accompanying shooters/land owners when a shot is fired.

2. I currently shoot a lot of vermin (foxes) for farmers in ......, ....., and ..... areas. As the rifle is so loud some farmers have had concerns that it might scare the livestock causing them to run off, in particular in lambing season which may result in loss of lambs. Also horses in adjoining fields may be frightened by the sound of a shot from some distance.
In practice, depending on the amount of bullet flight noise reflected back to the shooter by trees or fences etc., a centre fire hunting rifle with a T8 suppressor sounds about the same as a high velocity 22 LR rim-fire rifle which is well below the threshold of 140 dB. I would ask you to consider the above points when deciding on this application.

The responce i got was a verbal one from the local sargent saying that the super has only "ever"..... given out one permit for vermin shooting and that he attached conditions that it was only to be used early morning between the hours of x to x... He said that he would not grant a permit for health and safety reasons alone and he then told me that the super suggested that i get a less noisy gun.... B******t....:mad:

sidneyreilly

Mellor wrote: »

Of course it possible for them to get there hands on mods (or guns) "with the next drugs shipment". How does this matter. The guns come in the same, should we approach them with the same "sure they'll get one if they want" attitude.

Didnt mean to seem picky Mellor but this was my point: there is no restriction on purchase., just possesion. The criminals dont need to bother getting them in with any drug shipment they can merely order them ligit.

Also +1 to John Galway on his points. I'm sure I would like him if he hadnt stolen my Avatar:D

Isnt there a European rule requiring the use of moderators in proximity of employee's and in the workplace in respect of firearms use?

johngalway

Mellor, to be honest, life is too short to keep arguing with you.

I put forward my views and you jumped upon them as me saying nothing should need to be applied for or recorded. I never said any of that, read back, you won't find it as it's not there.

You also failed to enlighten us which crimes were committed using a mod.

Yes criminals will get what they like regardless, we'd no handguns for a long time and they got them.

The law is bad as it stands. It's implementation in certain cases only serves to make it a lot worse. See Rugers case and look up old threads here. I've suggested a solution, the UK process.

I've left this post as basic as possible for easier digestion :rolleyes:

johngalway

sidneyreilly wrote: »

Also +1 to John Galway on his points. I'm sure I would like him if he hadnt stolen my Avatar:D

Isnt there a European rule requiring the use of moderators in proximity of employee's and in the workplace in respect of firearms use?

Sidney, they say immitation is the highest form of flattery, lol. And I do believe you're right, there is such an EU rule.

johngalway

cavan shooter wrote: »

It puts everything onto the opinion of the Superintendent, In a way youd feel very sorry for the old Super, he carries alot on his shoulder.:D

He has a lot of responsibility alright. I certainly don't blame them for the law, they don't make it. I don't have so much sympathy when I see people being treated like Ruger was.

Mellor

johngalway wrote: »

Mellor, to be honest, life is too short to keep arguing with you.

Funny way of arguing you have. Alot of what you said is exactly the same as what I said.
I still think you were taking me up wrong, somebody (not you) said why do you need auth, I was simply putting forward my opinion on the fact that auth should be required. I never said the current system is the best, or even any good at all, only that a system is required. The english system is far better.
The fact that certain supers are mis-apply the law makes the short coming s of the law far worse.


As for ruger's case, thats a joke. As I suggested above, there should be no question that he should get a mod as his gun clearly requires one. Is there any legal reason why he can't get one, am I right in saying that the law allows him a mod here but the supers is diffing his heels in. Sad


As for the use of mods in crime, is that a joke or do you honestly think I made it up? There have been a number of cases in the papers and on the news of that nature. It probably worth noting that the papers nearly always use the word silencer. This most likely due to TV/movies making the word common knowledge. Its well noted here that a mod doesn't actually silence a gun only reduce sound to an acceptable level, but I wqould imagine that most laypeople wouldn't know what a sound moderator actually was.
Heres three of various types of crime, to give a broad range

Here's a alcoholic drug user who boasted of his gun and "silencer" in the pub

Major gangland case of last year, major crime boss killed. "highly organised vrime, silenced handgun

Man you walked into a Dublin Garda station with a gun and mod on him, and tried to shoot himself

Gerri

Ruger.220swift wrote: »

I submitted a letter to the local garda station and it was passed on to the super. The start had all my personal details chairman of gun club for x amount of years etc... the main points were as follows....

1. As the ........ is a centre fire rifle the Peak Action Level of noise from the rifle exceeds 140 dB when fired, which under the European Communities (Exposure to Noise)Regulations,1990 states that Hearing protection must be worn to avoid any hearing damage. This is not always practical when shooting vermin in the field as when wearing hearing protection I can not listen as well as feel for wind changes, and movements in the surrounding environment such as livestock, people etc, however I do accept that hearing protection is practical when target shooting in a controlled environment. This could also affect the hearing of accompanying shooters/land owners when a shot is fired.

2. I currently shoot a lot of vermin (foxes) for farmers in ......, ....., and ..... areas. As the rifle is so loud some farmers have had concerns that it might scare the livestock causing them to run off, in particular in lambing season which may result in loss of lambs. Also horses in adjoining fields may be frightened by the sound of a shot from some distance.
In practice, depending on the amount of bullet flight noise reflected back to the shooter by trees or fences etc., a centre fire hunting rifle with a T8 suppressor sounds about the same as a high velocity 22 LR rim-fire rifle which is well below the threshold of 140 dB. I would ask you to consider the above points when deciding on this application.

The responce i got was a verbal one from the local sargent saying that the super has only "ever"..... given out one permit for vermin shooting and that he attached conditions that it was only to be used early morning between the hours of x to x... He said that he would not grant a permit for health and safety reasons alone and he then told me that the super suggested that i get a less noisy gun.... B******t....:mad:

Perhaps there is too much info in your application, sometimes less is more. I have seen quite a few applications both successful and unsuccessful, complex ones seem to fare badly. Reading the relevant section of the firearms act gives the criteria and once an applicant fulfils these conditions authorisations are usually granted. Firearms owners already fulfil some of these by virtue of having a firearms cert and the other conditions to be met are special need and no risk to the public safety, if I recall correctly. There is no mention of Peak Action, reflected noise or decibels in the Firearms Act so the Superintendent will probably not consider any of these when making his decision. His decision will probably be based on the provisions of the Firearms Acts.

Kat1170

What moderator would people here recommend for a 22.250, can't use it at night for lamping, as it is just TOO loud. All my lamping is done under 150m due to the fields I shoot being small. Any advice gratefully accepted.