Friend fined for using a moderator

clivej

I was just talking to a friend who was taken to court for having a moderator on his 223 without permission.
Carlow district court a while back.

Fined €400 and 2 years probation gun held for this time. He cannot apply to get the rifle back for 2 years.

I'm not going to go into anymore details about this but enough to say - lads be careful out there.

Tackleberry.

Would this be considered harsh ..i don't know but its all down to knowing the law about owning a Mod and choosing to go wthout that peice of paper, hard to get off some Super's and easier to get off other's... the law is an ass in some ways..to be without your gun for 2 years is the killer i think myself.

Vegeta

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Would this be considered harsh ..i don't know but its all down to knowing the law about owning a Mod and choosing to go wthout that peice of paper, hard to get off some Super's and easier to get off other's... the law is an ass in some ways..to be without your gun for 2 years is the killer i think myself.

While I really do feel for Clive's friend I think he's lucky tbh it could have been a LOT worse I'd say depending on the mood of the Judge.

tiny-nioclas

Looks like the penalty was a hell of a lot more serious than the crime, its silly to have to apply for something that makes shooting safer and more comfortable, does the licence for the moderator do you for your life or do you have to renew it each season?

k_d

cheers. im heading down to the local station this eve to see where my licence is, 5 weeks now, hopefully not to much longer.

there is a mod available for the rifle in the shop so i might say it to him this eve or should i wait till i have the licence in my hand and get him to do something for mod then#

no hassle getting licence in my part. its a 223

foxhunter

tiny-nioclas wrote: »

Looks like the penalty was a hell of a lot more serious than the crime, its silly to have to apply for something that makes shooting safer and more comfortable, does the licence for the moderator do you for your life or do you have to renew it each season?

You have to renew it every year wuth the super

chem

Be lucky to get them back at all!!

Friend of mine was in court on two charges awhile back.

He was shooting on land he had permission to be on, the field was at the front of his house. He fired some shots and on the way back was invited into a friends house for afew drinks. He should of left the gun home but seen no harm in one or two drinks and a chat. Both having afew drinks in the front garden when the patrol car rolled up. Gardi were informed of shots been fired in the area. Friend told them he had afew shots out over the field alright. Whats the harm?

The following week. Knock on the door. Garda informed him the super had instructed them to take in his guns and that they wanted a statement.

Friend was shocked. Didnt know what was going on. He handed over his guns and made the statement. Asked what would happen next. Notting much came the reply. Youll prob get the guns back in afew week.

Afew weeks later came the knock on the door. No guns in the gardas hand but two summons.

One for reckless discharge and the other for been drunk in charge of a loaded firearm!!

My friend has never been in trouble with the gardi before you you can imagen how this made him feel!

He got his day in court and both charges were dismissed luckly for him. But it goes to show you that what is in effect harmless can be twisted and end up with a day in court.

Oh and he got his guns back so a happy ending but a lesson to be learned!

Sparks

tiny-nioclas wrote: »

Looks like the penalty was a hell of a lot more serious than the crime, its silly to have to apply for something that makes shooting safer and more comfortable, does the licence for the moderator do you for your life or do you have to renew it each season?

Legally, the licence for the moderator is the same as a standard firearms certificate in every way, including price and renewal period.
Given that most folks seem to be getting them for free, I'd not be complaining so much about the legal necessity to have to have the bit of paper - and as the OP points out, the hassle you get for not having it is more than enough to outweight the hassle of getting it...

clivej

As I have said in another post I have put in for 2 mods 22lr and 223. Been waiting 4 months for the 22lr because the Super didn't know what to do with the request.
So after talking to the FO when my 223 license came through last week I applied for them again last week - real proper like, with reasons for use etc.................

I was told Health and Safety was NOT a valid reason for a mod.
If it harms you then stop doing it.

boc121

Sparks wrote: »

Legally, the licence for the moderator is the same as a standard firearms certificate in every way, including price and renewal period.
Given that most folks seem to be getting them for free, I'd not be complaining so much about the legal necessity to have to have the bit of paper - and as the OP points out, the hassle you get for not having it is more than enough to outweight the hassle of getting it...

Hey there Sparks, if they are the same then why is it so hard to get them?
If you've been granted the fac then surely you cant be refused a mod
Cheers

Vegeta

clivej wrote: »

I was told Health and Safety was NOT a valid reason for a mod.
If it harms you then stop doing it.

Wow talk about opening up a big bag of worms there.

That's the main reason I can think of to use one ffs

Sparks

boc121 wrote: »

Hey there Sparks, if they are the same then why is it so hard to get them?

Same reason it's hard to get certain kinds of firearms licenced with certain supers I expect.

If you've been granted the fac then surely you cant be refused a mod

Of course you can.

Vegeta wrote: »

Wow talk about opening up a big bag of worms there.
That's the main reason I can think of to use one ffs

Thing is, Health&Safety rules/regs/laws/etc only apply to workplace stuff. NoNameRanger or John Griffin might get away with it; someone taking part in a sport/hobby/pasttime probably wouldn't.

riflehunter77

Vegeta wrote: »

Wow talk about opening up a big bag of worms there.

That's the main reason I can think of to use one ffs

I was under that impression as well, especially after all the claims that went in against the Defence Forces. I remember the first and only time (stupid i know) that I forgot my ear protection when I was zeroing in my .223 and I had ache in my ears for about 2 days after it..

ShowAndGo

Health and safety is an everyday issue. It comes into all aspects of life, from the home, to the workplace to sports field and should not be confined to rules, regulations and law.

I was told Health and Safety was NOT a valid reason for a mod.
If it harms you then stop doing it.

Is like saying, if you think you need a seat belt in your car, don’t drive it.

It comes down to the fact that, for his own reasons, the Super doesn’t what to grant the licence for the moderator and he is not going to tell you why because it will only give you an opportunity to counter his argument.

Gerri

Sparks wrote: »

Legally, the licence for the moderator is the same as a standard firearms certificate in every way, including price and renewal period.
Given that most folks seem to be getting them for free, I'd not be complaining so much about the legal necessity to have to have the bit of paper - and as the OP points out, the hassle you get for not having it is more than enough to outweight the hassle of getting it...

I can't find where it says anything about a licence for a silencer, perhaps you can point me to the correct piece of the legislation,thanks.

7.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or sells or transfers to another person a silencer unless the possession, sale or transfer is authorised in writing by the superintendent of the district in which the first-mentioned person resides.

[GA] (2) A superintendent shall not grant an authorisation under this section unless he is satisfied that the person who is to have possession of the silencer or to whom it is to be sold or transferred is the holder of a firearm certificate for a firearm to which the silencer can be fitted and that—

[GA] ( a ) having regard to all the circumstances, the possession, sale or transfer concerned will not endanger the public safety or the peace, and

[GA] ( b ) the person has a special need that is, in the opinion of the superintendent, sufficient to justify the granting of the authorisation for the silencer.

[GA] (3) The superintendent of the district where the holder of an authorisation under this section resides may, at any time, attach to the authorisation such conditions as he considers necessary for the purpose of preventing danger to the public or to the peace or of ensuring that the silencer is used only to satisfy the special need for which the authorisation was granted.

[GA] (4) An authorisation under this section may be granted for such period not exceeding one year as is specified in the authorisation and may be revoked by the superintendent of the district where its holder resides.

[GA] (5) A person who contravenes a condition attached to an authorisation under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

[GA] (6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

[GA] ( a ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both, or

[GA] ( b ) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

[GA] (7) This section does not apply in relation to a person specified in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (3) of section 2 of the Firearms Act, 1925 , or paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4) (inserted by the Firearms Act, 1964 ) of that section.

[GA] (8) In this section—

[GA] "silencer" means a silencer specified in section 4 (1) (g);

[GA] "superintendent means a superintendent of the Garda Síochána.

IRLConor

Gerri wrote: »

I can't find where it says anything about a licence for a silencer, perhaps you can point me to the correct piece of the legislation,thanks.

Here's the current definition of "firearm" in the Firearms Act, I'll bold the bits you need to know:

Firearms Acts 1925 to 2000 wrote:

“firearm” means—

1. a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged,
2. an air gun (including an air rifle and air pistol) with a muzzle energy greater than one joule or any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile can be discharged with such a muzzle energy,
3. a crossbow,
4. any type of stun gun or other weapon for causing any shock or other disablement to a person by means of electricity or any other kind of energy emission,
5. a prohibited weapon,
6. any article which would be a firearm under any of the foregoing paragraphs but for the fact that, owing to the lack of a necessary component part or parts, or to any other defect or condition, it is incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile or projectile or of causing a shock or other disablement, as the case may be,
7. except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:
   1. telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),
   2. a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e), and
   3. any object—
      1. manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and
      2. without which it could not function as originally designed,
   and
   
8. a device capable of discharging blank ammunition and to be used as a starting gun or blank firing gun, and includes a restricted firearm, unless otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires;

So, by the definition of "firearm" a "silencer" is a firearm and hence needs to be licensed like one.

Now, the Gardai seem to have decided to not require a full, normal FAC for one but have gone down the route of issuing a permit (Section 2 (3) (a) of the Firearms Act) instead.

Sparks

ShowAndGo wrote: »

Health and safety is an everyday issue.

Yes, but health and safety legislation is not. It's workplace-related. That's why the army could successfully sue for hearing damage - they didn't have the option to not shoot, it was their job, hence, health&safety. Wildlife Rangers likewise. Ordinary shooters, not so; hence H&S isn't seen as a valid reason.
That's not to say there aren't any; just that H&S isn't one of them.

Is like saying, if you think you need a seat belt in your car, don’t drive it.

Actually, the seatbelt thing is the road traffic acts, not H&S legislation.

It comes down to the fact that, for his own reasons, the Super doesn’t what to grant the licence for the moderator and he is not going to tell you why because it will only give you an opportunity to counter his argument.

And accusations like that (unless you're a mindreader, it is an accusation, no matter how likely or unlikely the premise) are neither productive nor useful. It's just grumbling and bitching, nothing more.
If you want to help, find a better reason to give the super.

Sparks

Gerri wrote: »

I can't find where it says anything about a licence for a silencer, perhaps you can point me to the correct piece of the legislation,thanks.

Sure. Section 1.

“firearm” means—
...
(g) except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:
...
(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e)

Translating, a silencer is specifically defined to be a component part, and except where it's not possible (eg, integral silencers which can't be bought seperately), a component part is legally a firearm. Firearms require individual certificates as laid out in sections 2,3,4,etc.

Sparks

Meh. Beaten to it...

Jonty

Gerri wrote: »

[GA] (2) A superintendent shall not grant an authorisation under this section unless he is satisfied that the person who is to have possession of the silencer or to whom it is to be sold or transferred is the holder of a firearm certificate for a firearm to which the silencer can be fitted and that—

Thats it there Gerri

Jonty

Right Lads and Lasses,


What are the conditions/requirements/reasons to actually LICENSE a moderator? (Not a Boards Moderator!)

ShowAndGo

Sparks,

I am not disputing that health and safety legislation is work place related, what I am saying is that health and safety is an everyday issue and should not be confined to what is stated in legislation. Do you think Health and Safety is confined to legislation and people should not use their common sense when dealing with it?

As for the accusations, grumbling and bitching….it’s a bit much. Are you saying there are not Supers out there that take that approach? How do you win a debate when one side dismisses your points, does not offer any counter points and then gets to decides who wins the debate?

rrpc

ShowAndGo wrote: »

Sparks,

I am not disputing that health and safety legislation is work place related, what I am saying is that health and safety is an everyday issue and should not be confined to what is stated in legislation. Do you think Health and Safety is confined to legislation and people should not use their common sense when dealing with it?

The H&S argument for using a moderator won't wash when you can use active hearing protection.

As for the accusations, grumbling and bitching….it’s a bit much. Are you saying there are not Supers out there that take that approach? How do you win a debate when one side dismisses your points, does not offer any counter points and then gets to decides to wins the debate?

That's our licensing system. The Super gets to decide if you get what you want or not. He gets to decide if you have a good reason for requiring it, not you. That's what Sparks meant when he said:

Sparks wrote:

If you want to help, find a better reason to give the super

Gerri

IRLConor wrote: »

Here's the current definition of "firearm" in the Firearms Act, I'll bold the bits you need to know:



So, by the definition of "firearm" a "silencer" is a firearm and hence needs to be licensed like one.

Now, the Gardai seem to have decided to not require a full, normal FAC for one but have gone down the route of issuing a permit (Section 2 (3) (a) of the Firearms Act) instead.

Thanks lads, but I was looking for where it said "licence" not firearm or what is regarded as a firearm. If there is a provision for a firearms licence for a silencer, surely it would be written somewhere in The Finance Act, with information on the cost or otherwise. I had no difficulty obtaining "authorisation" for a silencer but nowhere on the "authorisation" is there any mention of it being a "licence". Now if I can clarify, with the "silencer" being regarded as a component part of the firearm, it follows that there is no need for a separate licence as the "silencer" is covered by the firearms certificate of the particular firearm to which it will be fitted. If it were regarded as a separate component, it would possibly require a "licence". Simple really, although some Superintendents issue authorisations for non specific rifles i.e. authorising the applicant to have in his possession and use without specifying the actual rifle to which the authorisation applies. My Superintendent complied fully with the legal requirements and issued "silencers" to a particular firearm and states the make,model,calibre and serial number of the firearm to which the authorisation applies. That explains why there is no fee, and also covers why it would not be possible (legally) to have a "silencer" in your possession with having a licenced firearm to which it can be fitted.

IRLConor

Gerri wrote: »

Thanks lads, but I was looking for where it said "licence" not firearm or what is regarded as a firearm. If there is a provision for a firearms licence for a silencer, surely it would be written somewhere in The Finance Act, with information on the cost or otherwise.

Well, there are two parts to this story.

1. If something is a firearm then you need a certificate, permit, authorisation or some other piece of paper which will allow you to have it. Since a silencer is a firearm in the law, you must have a piece of paper for it.
2. There used to be a fee for an firearm certificate for a silencer in the 1992 Finance Act under the "any other firearms" part. It was £20. In the next update to fees (the Finance Act 2007) they don't have an "any other" section so there is no fee defined. Bear in mind though, those are the fees for a firearms certificate (what we all think of as a normal license). There have never been fees for permits as far as I know.

Gerri wrote: »

I had no difficulty obtaining "authorisation" for a silencer but nowhere on the "authorisation" is there any mention of it being a "licence". Now if I can clarify, with the "silencer" being regarded as a component part of the firearm, it follows that there is no need for a separate licence as the "silencer" is covered by the firearms certificate of the particular firearm to which it will be fitted. If it were regarded as a separate component, it would possibly require a "licence". Simple really, although some Superintendents issue authorisations for non specific rifles i.e. authorising the applicant to have in his possession and use without specifying the actual rifle to which the authorisation applies. My Superintendent complied fully with the legal requirements and issued "silencers" to a particular firearm and states the make,model,calibre and serial number of the firearm to which the authorisation applies. That explains why there is no fee, and also covers why it would not be possible (legally) to have a "silencer" in your possession with having a licenced firearm to which it can be fitted.

I think the authorisation you have probably counts as a "permit" (Section 2 (3) (a) of the Firearms Act) and simultaneously as an "authorisation" (Section 7 of Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990).

There might be enough ambiguity in the law to allow someone to argue that they can possess a mod just the same as they possess a magazine but I think they'd end up making that argument to a judge.

rrpc

Gerri wrote: »

Thanks lads, but I was looking for where it said "licence" not firearm or what is regarded as a firearm. If there is a provision for a firearms licence for a silencer, surely it would be written somewhere in The Finance Act, with information on the cost or otherwise. I had no difficulty obtaining "authorisation" for a silencer but nowhere on the "authorisation" is there any mention of it being a "licence". Now if I can clarify, with the "silencer" being regarded as a component part of the firearm, it follows that there is no need for a separate licence as the "silencer" is covered by the firearms certificate of the particular firearm to which it will be fitted. If it were regarded as a separate component, it would possibly require a "licence". Simple really, although some Superintendents issue authorisations for non specific rifles i.e. authorising the applicant to have in his possession and use without specifying the actual rifle to which the authorisation applies. My Superintendent complied fully with the legal requirements and issued "silencers" to a particular firearm and states the make,model,calibre and serial number of the firearm to which the authorisation applies. That explains why there is no fee, and also covers why it would not be possible (legally) to have a "silencer" in your possession with having a licenced firearm to which it can be fitted.

Gerri.

There are currently 19 exceptions to the requirement to have a firearms certificate including a Superintendents authorisation. People use the word 'licence' loosely when in fact there are licences, permits and authorisations.

This bit would particularly apply to sliencers:

(5) (a) The Superintendent of any district may authorise in writing the possession, use or carriage of firearms or ammunition in that district in any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j) or (k) (2007 34) of subsection (4) of this section or of any component parts of a firearm, (1971 3) during such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the authorisation.

Does that answer your question?

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

The H&S argument for using a moderator won't wash when you can use active hearing protection.

Don't the rangers (wildlife as opposed to army) have to use both moderators and ear defenders.

I have a constant ringing in my left ear from shooting and I am in my mid twenties. Its from rough shooting with a shotgun, its not pleasant.

Health and safety not being an adequate reason makes me :mad: Surely safety should be the first thing on any Supers mind.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Don't the rangers (wildlife as opposed to army) have to use both moderators and ear defenders.

I have a constant ringing in my left ear from shooting and I am in my mid twenties. Its from rough shooting with a shotgun, its not pleasant.

Health and safety not being an adequate reason makes me :mad: Surely safety should be the first thing on any Supers mind.

It's not an adequate reason when there are alternatives. In any case a moderator will only reduce the sound, not eliminate it entirely and won't eliminate sonic crack.

Rangers are different in that they are doing a job, so it really is a H&S issue for them.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

Ordinary shooters, not so; hence H&S isn't seen as a valid reason.
That's not to say there aren't any; just that H&S isn't one of them.

I don't think this logic holds up Sparks. Are there any reasons written in legislation for the granting of firearms? I cant think of any (am I missing them)

I know section 4.2 (e) says "where the firearm is a rifle or pistol to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club"

That doesn't necessarily mean target shooting is a valid reason as laid down in legislation. Sure it makes common sense that its a valid reason but there isn't a list of valid reasons is there?

So if you go and apply for shotgun/rifle for hunting (not mentioned in 4.2(e)) What if the Super says hunting is not a valid reason to grant a license. Are you up sh1t creek without a paddle?

To me it seems that "4.2 (a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for" falls under the realm of common sense rather than a list of pre defined reasons, surely it makes common sense to grant moderator license/authorisation for health and safety reasons.

rrpc

Like everything Vegeta, there are also valid reasons for not granting authorisation for a moderator.

Poaching for example; It's very hard to locate the source of a shot if a moderator is being used because the sonic crack is pretty much all you hear.

As for the 'valid reason' argument: hunting is a valid reason for acquiring a license because you have to support that reason with; for example evidence of shooting permission, membership of a gun club, experience in the past etc.

Since there are other alternatives for protecting your hearing, a moderator is not the only method and therefore on it's own, hearing protection is not a valid reason.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

Like everything Vegeta, there are also valid reasons for not granting authorisation for a moderator.

Poaching for example; It's very hard to locate the source of a shot if a moderator is being used because the sonic crack is pretty much all you hear.

Lets not go there please. You're as bad as the media and politicians of late, using something criminals may do as an excuse to prop up your argument. Come on, that's a pretty awful tactic among fellow shooters. Thought you would have been above that.

As for the 'valid reason' argument: hunting is a valid reason for acquiring a license because you have to support that reason with; for example evidence of shooting permission, membership of a gun club, experience in the past etc.

Again that's your opinion and there is nothing in legislation to support that. Its not laid out like that. You can hunt without firearms you know.

Me: I want a rifle to shoot rabbits.
Super: Get a ferret and some nets...NEXT

Since there are other alternatives for protecting your hearing, a moderator is not the only method and therefore on it's own, hearing protection is not a valid reason.

Just because there are alternatives that does not make the original reason invalid. That's very flawed logic.

You: I want an air rifle to start a target discipline
Super: Take up archery or darts.......NEXT

EDIT: I would argue, having done a lot of hunting, that Moderator > ear defenders as a compromise of situational awareness and hearing protection

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Lets not go there please. You're as bad as the media and politicians of late, using something criminals may do as an excuse to prop up your argument. Come on, that's a pretty awful tactic among fellow shooters. Thought you would have been above that.

Whether or not you consider it above or beneath me, ignoring a possibility however distasteful is asking for trouble. By the same yardstick, not having an alarm because that's admitting that criminals exist would be equally shortsighted. Superintendents have other duties besides issuing licences and it's definitely within their remit to take these into account.

Again that's your opinion and there is nothing in legislation to support that. Its not laid out like that. You can hunt without firearms you know.

It's not my opinion, the legislation states that a Superintendent is the sole arbiter of 'good reason'. That can be many things and in practice some of the conditions I've mentioned are used. You are very limited in what you can hunt with. Using other animals is possible, but not necessarily that useful where it comes to deer for example.

Me: I want a rifle to shoot rabbits.
Super: Get a ferret and some nets...NEXT

A ferret is not much use when the rabbits are above ground and a considerable distance from you. You might get a few when they do go to ground, but as a method of pest control, they are limited.

Just because there are alternatives that does not make the original reason invalid. That's very flawed logic.

I didn't say it was invalid, but it's certainly weakened. You can't make a black and white case on hearing protection using a moderator as the sole solution.

You: I want an air rifle to start a target discipline
Super: Take up archery or darts.......NEXT

There's no archery club in my area, and I want to take up a sport, not sport a beer belly.

EDIT: I would argue, having done a lot of hunting, that Moderator > ear defenders as a compromise of situational awareness and hearing protection

You see that's a better argument immediately than the plain: "the noise might damage my hearing" one.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

Whether or not you consider it above or beneath me, ignoring a possibility however distasteful is asking for trouble. By the same yardstick, not having an alarm because that's admitting that criminals exist would be equally shortsighted. Superintendents have other duties besides issuing licences and it's definitely within their remit to take these into account.

So when the media or government say that legally licensed handguns should be banned because criminals use guns, its wrong?

When you say Supers should restrict the issue/license of moderators because some poachers may be using them illegally, that's ok?

So are you saying that the Minister is right to ban (effectively) handguns because "ignoring a possibility however distasteful is asking for trouble"

You are using the same type of argument as the people you have sent e-mails/letters to recently, with about as much proof as they have.

I am not for one second saying poachers don't exist, but how many bother to apply for authorisation for mods? Poachers are already using firearms outside the terms of their license so are in effect carrying unlicensed firearms.

I am going to ignore any further points on this as it is not a healthy debate in public but I am shocked at your logic in this.

It's not my opinion, the legislation states that a Superintendent is the sole arbiter of 'good reason'. That can be many things and in practice some of the conditions I've mentioned are used.

It is your opinion, you said "hunting is a valid reason for acquiring a license" and now in your own words " a Superintendent is the sole arbiter of 'good reason'". Therefore he decides 'good reason' (unless you're a Superintendent of course ) and there is nothing in legislation that says hunting is one of those reasons. It is, as we agree at the Superintendents discretion. What if he doesn't think hunting is a good enough reason to own a firearm? EDIT: maybe its not a good idea to be pointing this stuff out here...hmmmmmm

Yes it makes logical sense that it is a valid reason but it is not set in stone (aka the firearms act). Am I wrong, have I missed a list of valid reasons in there?

Now the reason I bought this up was to counter Sparks' point that because there is no mention of H&S in legislation then its not a valid reason.

There is no mention of hunting as a valid reason either but its seen as common sense. I think that H&S is common sense.

You are very limited in what you can hunt with. Using other animals is possible, but not necessarily that useful where it comes to deer for example.

Good point on the deer

A ferret is not much use when the rabbits are above ground and a considerable distance from you. You might get a few when they do go to ground, but as a method of pest control, they are limited.

Ferrets are a much more effective method of rabbit control than firearms.

I didn't say it was invalid, but it's certainly weakened. You can't make a black and white case on hearing protection using a moderator as the sole solution.

There's no archery club in my area, and I want to take up a sport, not sport a beer belly.

You see that's a better argument immediately than the plain: "the noise might damage my hearing" one.

Don't get me wrong, anyone who applies half arsed and only puts down H&S as a reason is being very silly, it would still definitely go down on my application but not simply phrased as hearing protection. A moderator provides hearing protection (still not enough if you ask me but its better than nothing) while allowing one to be way more aware of their surroundings.

When lamping it causes less disturbance to anyone living near by. Ever have to endure a full bore rifle with no hearing protection. Its brutal to put it mildly

Two of the sheep farmers I shoot for also have horses, they do not like firearm reports at all. A moderator would allow me to control the fox numbers more effectively with out spooking the animals. Horses galloping around in the dark is not good.

I apologise if my tone seems very argumentative here, its not intended

Smiles all round

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

When you say Supers should restrict the issue/license of moderators because some poachers may be using them illegally, that's ok?

No, I'm saying that may be a reason for them doing so, one that they may feel is valid.

So are you saying that the Minister is right to ban (effectively) handguns because "ignoring a possibility however distasteful is asking for trouble"

No. I don't recall advocating banning anything.

You are using the same type of argument as the people you have sent e-mails/letters to recently, with about as much proof as they have.

I'm not, I'm just taking a devils advocate position on this. Sometimes it's useful to understand the reasons for something so that you can properly counter them.

I am not for one second saying poachers don't exist, but how many bother to apply for authorisation for mods? Poachers are already using firearms outside the terms of their license so are in effect carrying unlicensed firearms.

I didn't realise that there was a seperate category of license for poachers. Obviously in that case the Superintendent can refuse to renew those licences only. :rolleyes:

It is your opinion, you said "hunting is a valid reason for acquiring a license" and now in your own words " a Superintendent is the sole arbiter of 'good reason'". Therefore he decides 'good reason' (unless you're a Superintendent of course ) and there is nothing in legislation that says hunting is one of those reasons. It is, as we agree at the Superintendents discretion.

It's still not my opinion. It is fact. I have a licence for hunting purposes, many people here have got licences for hunting purposes, ergo hunting is a valid reason. If nobody got a licence by stating hunting as a reason, then we would be saying the opposite. By the same token, if people are not getting authorisations for moderators citing hearing protection as the sole reason, then it's not a valid reason on its own.

Yes it makes logical sense that it is a valid reason but it is not set in stone (aka the firearms act). Am I wrong, have I missed a list of valid reasons in there?

Many things in law are not set in stone, the variety of cases in the courts every day and the judgments handed down would attest to that.

Now the reason I bought this up was to counter Sparks' point that because there is no mention of H&S in legislation then its not a valid reason.

No, Sparks said that H&S legislation did not require you to have a moderator for sport shooting, so you can't quote it in defence of an application for one. H&S legislation only applies to the workplace which is why he pointed out that Rangers can use them under that legislation and are of the few that can use that as a reason.

There is no mention of hunting as a valid reason either but its seen as common sense. I think that H&S is common sense.

Your health and safety in what you do for sport is your own business. The law does not cover you here. As someone else pointed out, if you think what you're doing is damaging your health you can always give it up. You're not required to do it as you would be in your career.

You've just given three or four good supporting reasons for having a moderator which was the point that Sparks made at the start of this thread.

And which I agree with.

Sparks

ShowAndGo wrote: »

Sparks,
I am not disputing that health and safety legislation is work place related, what I am saying is that health and safety is an everyday issue and should not be confined to what is stated in legislation. Do you think Health and Safety is confined to legislation and people should not use their common sense when dealing with it?

I think that we're talking about different things. You're talking about generally looking out for people's health and their safety - I'm talking about Health and Safety Legislation.

As for the accusations, grumbling and bitching….it’s a bit much. Are you saying there are not Supers out there that take that approach?

Of course not, though they are a minority.

How do you win a debate when one side dismisses your points, does not offer any counter points and then gets to decides who wins the debate?

You don't walk in with weak arguments for a start.

Vegeta wrote: »

I don't think this logic holds up Sparks. Are there any reasons written in legislation for the granting of firearms? I cant think of any (am I missing them)

Other than for the army or police, no. But my point here was that there are better reasons out there - and you listed some in the end of your last post here - and they all had one common element, namely, the moderator was there to protect something other than the shooter.
If the sole stated purpose of the moderator is to protect your hearing, then that job is better done by not firing the rifle in the first place.
If, on the other hand, its purpose has to do with minimising the side effects of your shooting, especially where that shooting is done for a specific reason, it's a better argument. For example, your example of controlling fox numbers on a sheep farm where there are also horses.

So if you go and apply for shotgun/rifle for hunting (not mentioned in 4.2(e)) What if the Super says hunting is not a valid reason to grant a license. Are you up sh1t creek without a paddle?

No, you're in the District Court. Which is pretty much the same thing, I'll grant you.

To me it seems that "4.2 (a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for" falls under the realm of common sense rather than a list of pre defined reasons, surely it makes common sense to grant moderator license/authorisation for health and safety reasons.

It does - to us.
Three things though:

1. Common sense isn't.
2. We know more about firearms and shooting than pretty much every Garda Superintendent out there by dint of the sheer amount of time we spend doing it, so our bias here is going to be different to theirs, and what we see as obvious, they do not. And if - as we see here every week - even shooters don't always know the specifics of the law, we can't really expect Supers to, especially when they're given no support or training for the role of firearms licencing.
3. The Supers who refuse permits/authorisations/certificates for silencers are in a small minority. Same as those who refuse certificates for certain firearms. But, like airline crashes, when it does happen, you can be sure you'll hear all about it for weeks...

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

It's still not my opinion. It is fact. I have a licence for hunting purposes, many people here have got licences for hunting purposes, ergo hunting is a valid reason.

For your Superintendent and that of many others. Its not specified in legislation just like H&S is not specified for mods

If nobody got a licence by stating hunting as a reason, then we would be saying the opposite. By the same token, if people are not getting authorisations for moderators citing hearing protection as the sole reason, then it's not a valid reason on its own.

And what about the people (who don't require them for their job) who do have moderator authorisations and listed hearing protection as a reason?

Vegeta

Clive you forget I am a mod and can read your deleted posts :P

Everyone here now knows not to put H&S as your only reason down on your permission, or at least I hope they do

Thing is though no matter what way you twist it mods on centre fire rifles are for H&S. Not just the shooters own, that of livestock and others in the area too.

Just expand on the points I suppose.

bigred

Vegeta wrote: »

Not just the shooters own, that of livestock and others in the area too..

Isn't that the key point - you, as the shooter, can have the very best hearing protection, but you can't be expected to control the noise exposure to others (and animals) in the area without a mod?

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

For your Superintendent and that of many others. Its not specified in legislation just like H&S is not specified for mods

For it to be law, it doesn't have to be specified in the statutes Vegeta. Case law can also establish what is considered good reason. In fact in O'Leary v Maher, it was never in contention at any stage, that deer hunting was not 'good reason' to acquire a license for a full bore rifle.

And what about the people (who don't require them for their job) who do have moderator authorisations and listed hearing protection as a reason?

What of them? We are discussing people who have been refused on hearing protection grounds. From what I hear, those refused on those grounds alone are far more plentiful than those who are granted.

But the best way to test this, really test it and establish it for good one way or the other is to take a judicial review case to the high court.

Any takers?

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

What of them?

Well you said
"if people are not getting authorisations for moderators citing hearing protection as the sole reason, then it's not a valid reason on its own"

So if people are getting authorisations do you agree that it becomes a valid reason?

But the best way to test this, really test it and establish it for good one way or the other is to take a judicial review case to the high court.

Any takers?

Not a chance

Vegeta

bigred wrote: »

Isn't that the key point - you, as the shooter, can have the very best hearing protection, but you can't be expected to control the noise exposure to others (and animals) in the area without a mod?

Well I personally agree

I do think hearing protection is a valid reason too (not on its own maybe)

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Well you said
"if people are not getting authorisations for moderators citing hearing protection as the sole reason, then it's not a valid reason on its own"

So if people are getting authorisations do you agree that it becomes a valid reason?

Obviously it is for some Superintendents. But until you can get a judge to say that it's a valid reason on its own, you won't get all Superintendents to accept it.

Therfore, no is the answer

On it's own, I don't think it is either; on the same basis that if you're banging your head against a wall, the best way to stop the headache wouldn't be to get a softer wall.





Thanks fat_tony

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

on the same basis that if you're banging your head against a wall, the best way to stop the headache wouldn't be to get a softer wall.

yeah it would be to attach an impact deadening device to your head :P

edit: that way you can still enjoy the head banging without hurting yourself or damaging the plaster. Its a win all round

clivej

Vegeta wrote: »

Clive you forget I am a mod and can read your deleted posts :P

Everyone here now knows not to put H&S as your only reason down on your permission, or at least I hope they do

Thing is though no matter what way you twist it mods on centre fire rifles are for H&S. Not just the shooters own, that of livestock and others in the area too.

Just expand on the points I suppose.

Caught out again it's like trying to lie to the misses -- to get away with anything here on boards.ie

And :P back :D:D

Vegeta

clivej wrote: »

Caught out again it's like trying to lie to the misses -- to get away with anything here on boards.ie

And :P back :D:D

Let us know how your application goes

bunny shooter

My local gun dealer told me the other day that two lads had rifles taken from them the other night while out fox shooting as they were stopped by gardai and had moderators with no "authorisations" for same.

Traumadoc

Moderators do provide superior protection against NIHL compared to standard ear protectors.


That is why moderators have to be used by people who are using firearms for work such as culling.

rrpc

Traumadoc wrote: »

Moderators do provide superior protection against NIHL compared to standard ear protectors.


That is why moderators have to be used by people who are using firearms for work such as culling.

Don't come swanning in here with your medical facts. This is a discussion about authorisations, facts are irrelevant.

Traumadoc

rrpc wrote: »

The H&S argument for using a moderator won't wash when you can use active hearing protection.
:

Just that ear muffs are not as effective as moderators in protecting from noise induced hearing loss.

rrpc

Traumadoc wrote: »

Just that ear muffs are not as effective as moderators in protecting from noise induced hearing loss.

Does that not depend on the type and quality of ear defenders?

Traumadoc wrote: »

Moderators do provide superior protection against NIHL compared to standard ear protectors.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

Does that not depend on the type and quality of ear defenders?

I know you highlighted standard ear defenders

What ones do you think could be better?