Have you been granted or refused a moderator?

bunny shooter

I have been refused a .22lr moderator :rolleyes:

rrpc

Where's the 'not sure' option?

I applied, sent in supporting documentation as requested and got my license without the 'S' others seem to have got.

I'm assuming I have it but... I'm not sure...

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Where's the 'not sure' option?

Covered under "Still waiting"

rrpc wrote: »

I applied, sent in supporting documentation as requested and got my license without the 'S' others seem to have got.

Advice would be that without the coveted "S" on the licence a letter of authorisation from the Super would be required otherwise you are not authorised for a moderator.

rrpc wrote: »

I'm assuming I have it but... I'm not sure...

I like you got no "S" on my licence and I assumed I had it. I then wrote to the Super to check that I had authorisation and he advised me I had been refused. :rolleyes:

If I assumed I had it and was subsequently found in possession of one where would I be? The other side of the coin is that if I was being refused why wasn't I notified by the Super?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Covered under "Still waiting"

Too ambiguous, could be still waiting for your license

Advice would be that without the coveted "S" on the licence a letter of authorisation from the Super would be required otherwise you are not authorised for a moderator.

There is circumstantial evidence that the 'S' was a late comer to the party and earlier licences didn't have it.

I like you got no "S" on my licence and I assumed I had it. I then wrote to the Super to check that I had authorisation and he advised me I had been refused. :rolleyes:

Always looking for trouble

If I assumed I had it and was subsequently found in possession of one where would I be? The other side of the coin is that if I was being refused why wasn't I notified by the Super?

The other side of the coin is that you applied on the correct form and supplied all the information required. Your licence was issued with conditions, none of which stated that the silencer wasn't allowed. The correct assumption is that you were granted since no notification of a refusal was sent. If they subsequently told me that it wasn't granted, my response would be that my telepathy is currently out of coverage and they should have used other means to inform me.

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Too ambiguous, could be still waiting for your license

Grudgingly agree :P

rrpc wrote: »

here is circumstantial evidence that the 'S' was a late comer to the party and earlier licences didn't have it.

Agreed

rrpc wrote: »

Always looking for trouble

Wanted to cover my ass as I have had previous dealings with this Super and they weren't amicable (on his part) :rolleyes:

rrpc wrote: »

The other side of the coin is that you applied on the correct form and supplied all the information required. Your licence was issued with conditions, none of which stated that the silencer wasn't allowed. The correct assumption is that you were granted since no notification of a refusal was sent. If they subsequently told me that it wasn't granted, my response would be that my telepathy is currently out of coverage and they should have used other means to inform me.

But would a judge accept this?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

But would a judge accept this?

I seriously doubt it would get that far. It's the responsibility of the licensing authority to be clear and unambiguous about the status of your license and application. This isn't dog licences they're handing out, there are serious implications to such ambiguities.

It'd be like sitting an exam and being told you passed but not told that because you didn't sign the paper you automatically failed.

johngalway

rrpc wrote: »

Where's the 'not sure' option?

I applied, sent in supporting documentation as requested and got my license without the 'S' others seem to have got.

I'm assuming I have it but... I'm not sure...

Exact same situation as yourself RRPC. I rang my local Garda when he was at the main station, he checked out both rifle cert numbers on Pulse and he reckons I'm OK'd for two moderators. Still a bit wary of it to be honest.

J. Ramone

I got refused last year. When I put in my renewals in November, the local garda told me to resubmit my moderator application with them as the super had a change of mind on the issue. I had a cast iron reason in the first place anyway.

The surprise came when I received my licences I had the magic S for both rifles even though I had only applied for one.

Kramer

Granted mods on all 4 of my rifles (s on licences) :P
I even had that s on shotgun & revolver certs but being the helpful citizen, I educated my local FO & had new certs for those ammended to remove it.

johngalway

Kramer wrote: »

Granted mods on all 4 of my rifles (s on licences) :P
I even had that s on shotgun & revolver certs but being the helpful citizen, I educated my local FO & had new certs for those ammended to remove it.

I'd have been awfully tempted to get a mod for the revolver

marlin vs

bunny shooter wrote: »

If I assumed I had it and was subsequently found in possession of one where would I be? The other side of the coin is that if I was being refused why wasn't I notified by the Super?

I was informed by my local Sergeant, that anyone caught with a moderator that hasn't been approved to hold one, whether they weren't sure or not, that it's (moderator) classed as a fire-arm and that person caught could likely lose all his or her fire-arms.

elius

Applied for mine and got it did wright a separate note as to why i felt i needed one...

bunny shooter

elius wrote: »

.........did wright a separate note as to why i felt i needed one...

I wrote more of an essay :eek:

elius

bunny shooter wrote: »

I wrote more of an essay :eek:

I just mentioned about livestock and to repect elderly people that live in the close locality of my permission. Which is true...

rrpc

marlin vs wrote: »

I was informed by my local Sergeant, that anyone caught with a moderator that hasn't been approved to hold one, whether they weren't sure or not, that it's (moderator) classed as a fire-arm and that person caught could likely lose all his or her fire-arms.

If you have a firearm and you're subsequently refused a license for it, you are informed that you must either hand it in or give it to a dealer. The same applies to silencers, if they refuse you they must notify you and tell you to dispose of it. This applies where you already own one and are effectively applying for a renewal.

This is the problem IMO, with the situation regarding delayed applications that have been deemed refused having exceeded the three month time limit. A 'limbo' situation has developed where the owner isn't notified of the refusal and therefore has been given no instruction to hand in the firearm. By rights they should do this themselves, but who's going to do that when their application could very welll be sitting on a desk in an empty office?

Kramer

Given that over 61% of those polled have been successful in their application for moderators, it would appear that the system is working well enough & that those refused have been refused correctly - i.e. they have not shown valid reason for posession of a mod or there is some other valid reason for the refusal.
Certainly, anyone I know who previously had permission for a moderator or who recently applied for one, with good reason, were all granted them

murph226

Granted for .223 in Cork.

clivej

Both no and yes

Got refused first but got all 3 permissons after an interview with the Super.
I think i was the first to look for any mod permissions, a 22lr mod, in Kilkenny as they didn't know what to do with my first request, which was refused.
I got 10 days to look for an interview with my Super at the time which I took up and then got the 2 permissions for both my 2 mods, 22lr and 223.
I then applied for permission for a mod at the same time that I applied for my 308 license. I use the same mod for the 223 and 308 a .30 cal ASE Northstar .

rrpc

Kramer wrote: »

...those refused have been refused correctly - i.e. they have not shown valid reason for posession of a mod or there is some other valid reason for the refusal.

Bunny's going to get ya

bunny shooter

Kramer wrote: »

Given that over 61% of those polled have been successful in their application for moderators, it would appear that the system is working well enough & that those refused have been refused correctly - i.e. they have not shown valid reason for posession of a mod or there is some other valid reason for the refusal.
Certainly, anyone I know who previously had permission for a moderator or who recently applied for one, with good reason, were all granted them

:rolleyes:

I was refused on public safety grounds. Basically the Super told me, in writing, that he believes that allowing me to use a moderator will put other people using the land in danger as they won't hear or know where the shot/s are coming from :rolleyes: There is a thread here detailing the whole sorry saga

I supplied all the appropiate reasons that lads here who have been granted moderators have used. I was not the only one refused by my Super

If you are lucky enough to have a decent Super who applies the law and not his twisted personal opinion count your blessings as your luck might change if you get a Super like mine

The system is working well enough according to you as you have no hassle so what you're saying is sod those of us who are being shafted !

I notice Tac thanked your post :rolleyes: Less said there the better !

gunhappy_ie

johngalway wrote: »

I'd have been awfully tempted to get a mod for the revolver

NOT a good idea !! Revolvers dont suppress at all !!

gunhappy_ie

Appplied and granted for semi .223, semi .308, semi 12G and 9mm pistol.

rowa

whats the idea of restricting them in the first place ? was a reason ever given ? or did mick the guard see one on a gun in a bruce willis film and get panickey ?

The british government brought in a move to restrict suppressors and i think it was overturned on health and safety grounds, the noise of a centrefire rifle was detrimental to a shooter even with muffs etc.

bunny shooter

What reasons did you give to moderate a 9mm?

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

I wrote more of an essay :eek:

The more you write the more you have to back up.
I said shooting on MY OWN LAND and I did not want to disturb MY animals, I clearly stated that although I wanted a moderator my rounds still would produce the whip crack sound commonly associated with a rifle minus the BOOM of a large calibre.

A good essay should be like a womans skirt.
Long enough to cover the essentials.
Short enough to still remain interesting:p

I was only agreeing that 61% had received their moderators. Which is good.
I did not know up until this point how many had.

Everybody I helped filling out forms got theirs, But we have a good CS

johngalway

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

NOT a good idea !! Revolvers dont suppress at all !!

Barrel too short, or other reason?

rowa

johngalway wrote: »

Barrel too short, or other reason?

gap between the cylinder face and back of the barrel.

gunhappy_ie

bunny shooter wrote: »

What reasons did you give to moderate a 9mm?

Health and safety.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

A good essay should be like a womans skirt.
Long enough to cover the essentials.
Short enough to still remain interesting:p

HaHa Im stealin that !!

johngalway wrote: »

Barrel too short, or other reason?

Rowa got to it before I did ! Revolvers become dangerous when suppressed and the only suppressed revolvers that seem to work well .... are on TV !!

Normally that Gap between the barrel and cylinder face allows for gas to escape anyway (Ive heard and seen on big powered revolvers thumbs being mangled for being in the wrong place :eeek !! ) but with a suppressor on a revolver it causes more even more back pressure that can be dangerour for the shooter and gun !

S/A Pistols are better designed to handle it.

dCorbus

Wow!

Appplied and granted for semi .223, semi .308, semi 12G and 9mm pistol.

Surely, you jest?;)
But fair f**k's to ya if you got moddy's for all those approved - Would love to live in your district!

:rolleyes:

gunhappy_ie

dCorbus wrote: »

Wow!



Surely, you jest?;)
But fair f**k's to ya if you got moddy's for all those approved - Would love to live in your district!

:rolleyes:

For those on here that know me or those that have met me on midlands.... I sh!t you not !

unfortnatly ... District is nothing to do with it ... its CS.. and the new 1 i have is supposed to be...er..... cautious to say the least .... N I want an M1A :(:(:(:(

rrpc

I find it very strange that a moderator would be approved for a pistol for the following reasons.

The main reason people use them on rifles is to give the chance for a second shot. I know people quote health and safety, but in the field that makes sense because ear defenders prevent you from hearing other sounds that you need to hear to remain safe (people nearby but out of sight talking or walking etc.).

But in a range scenario there's no such issue because it's a controlled environment and ear protection is mandatory anyway. In fact, you might as well apply for silencers for every other club member you'll be shooting with because it's the guy beside you who'll do your hearing the most damage anyway.

I'm not knocking you gunhapp_ie, I'm just completely flummoxed that this would be allowed. Bunny must be chewing the inside of his face reading your post!

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

I find it very strange that a moderator would be approved for a pistol for the following reasons.

The main reason people use them on rifles is to give the chance for a second shot. I know peole quote health and safety, but in the field that makes sense because ear defenders prevent you from hearing other sounds that you need to hear to remain safe (people nearby but out of sight talking or walking etc.).

But in a range scenario there's no such issue because it's a controlled environment and ear protection is mandatory anyway. In fact, you might as well apply for silencers for every other club member you'll be shooting with because it's the guy beside you who'll do your hearing the most damage anyway.

I'm not knocking you gunhapp_ie, I'm just completely flummoxed that this would be allowed.

+1 but fair dues to ya gunhapp.ie

rrpc wrote: »

Bunny must be chewing the inside of his face reading your post!

You could say that :mad: But my Super is really 'special' especially when it comes to firearms :rolleyes:

gunhappy_ie

rrpc wrote: »

I find it very strange that a moderator would be approved for a pistol for the following reasons.

The main reason people use them on rifles is to give the chance for a second shot. I know peole quote health and safety, but in the field that makes sense because ear defenders prevent you from hearing other sounds that you need to hear to remain safe (people nearby but out of sight talking or walking etc.).

But in a range scenario there's no such issue because it's a controlled environment and ear protection is mandatory anyway. In fact, you might as well apply for silencers for every other club member you'll be shooting with because it's the guy beside you who'll do your hearing the most damage anyway.

I'm not knocking you gunhapp_ie, I'm just completely flummoxed that this would be allowed. Bunny must be chewing the inside of his face reading your post!

Please excuse the poor quality and for obvious reasons my editing of my adress..... should you be in midlands on sunday... I will show you in person

José Alaninho

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Rowa got to it before I did ! Revolvers become dangerous when suppressed and the only suppressed revolvers that seem to work well .... are on TV !!

Normally that Gap between the barrel and cylinder face allows for gas to escape anyway (Ive heard and seen on big powered revolvers thumbs being mangled for being in the wrong place :eeek !! ) but with a suppressor on a revolver it causes more even more back pressure that can be dangerour for the shooter and gun !

S/A Pistols are better designed to handle it.

Totally OT, but the Nagant revolver can be suppressed very effiecently. Uses a gas seal mechanism you see

rrpc

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Please excuse the poor quality and for obvious reasons my editing of my adress..... should you be in midlands on sunday... I will show you in person

I didn't doubt for a minute you had it gunhappy_ie, that wasn't my point. It just seems, well... just a bit mad Ted :eek:

gunhappy_ie

José Alaninho wrote: »

Totally OT, but the Nagant revolver can be suppressed very effiecently. Uses a gas seal mechanism you see

hahahah There is always a smart arse :P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P haha ive heard of them ... great design too but the OP was walking about suppressing his revolver.

Odysseus

I was granted one for the CZ no problem. My 22 air rifle has one, it came with the gun the front sight is on the mod. However, my paperwork came through without the S on it, I spoke to the FO who said it was granted and is on the system as such. Basically he told me I'm fine and just to work away with it!

Kramer

bunny shooter wrote: »

The system is working well enough according to you as you have no hassle so what you're saying is sod those of us who are being shafted

No. You're saying that.
As you are obviously having difficulty understanding what I posted, as a once off, I'll see if I can simplify it for you.
Over 70% of respondents have had no difficulty getting permission for a moderator. One can assume that they showed good reason to have one & there were no other reasons why they shouldn't have one so their respective supers granted the permissions.
Your poll would indicate that just 1 in 10 who applied for permission were refused. It would be reasonable to assume then that the system is working reasonably well & that in the small percentage of cases where moderators were refused, the super(s) may well have had reasonable grounds to refuse permission.
The poll suggests that no "blanket bans" etc. are in operation.

Now, where you got the:
what you're saying is sod those of us who are being shafted
I do not know.
I can also tell you that I am aware of a few firearms owners who have been granted permission for moderators in your district/division. No doubt I'll be called a liar if I don't provide their names/addresses/ DOBs/phone numbers & scans of their licences (c/w small s botton left corner) but I'm a big boy now so I guess I'll have to take it .

You've every right to be aggrieved if you have been refused (I would be :P) but the empirical evidence would suggest supers have looked at each case on an individual basis & made decision(s) accordingly.
If you have evidence to the contrary regarding your super, I would suggest contacting your NGB. You also have recourse to appeal his refusal to your local district court.

Now that we're clear on what I actually said,
sod you Jack, I'm alright :D:D:P:D

marlin vs

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Please excuse the poor quality and for obvious reasons my editing of my adress..... should you be in midlands on sunday... I will show you in person

Gunhappy you just put up you'r address by showing everyone you'r firearm certificate numbers on you'r link, any garda can check up on the certificate numbers.:eek:

Goosie

I'm pretty much in the same situation as rrpc and JohnG - Dont know for sure whether I've been granted one or not.

Applied for a mod for my 22 by way of ticking the box in section 3.2

Did'nt give any additional info with regard to why i needed it, after all they did'nt request it.

Licence came back for the 22 with no Magic "S".

Rang the FO to cofirm one way or the other. He said he'd check it on Pulse and give me a call which he duly did.

He said "Yeah thats been passed ok" but then the clanger "If anyone should stop you just get them to ring me".

AAARRRGGGHHH

Dont think I'll be running of to spend my cash just yet.

Would be interested to know if anyone else apart from Bunnyshooter have actually received a written refusal.

johngalway

Goosie wrote: »

He said "Yeah thats been passed ok" but then the clanger "If anyone should stop you just get them to ring me".

AAARRRGGGHHH

That's the sticky bit isn't it. I've traveled up to Meath shooting before. If I get stopped with a mod, no magic S, does the local Meath Garda (who doesn't know me from Adam) then, for want of a better word, "impound" my rifle and mod until he can reach my local Garda, who isn't available 24/7. I'm still not quite sure how to approach the issue with local Garda, got to clear up the HMR issue first. And to think he thought he'd be seeing less of me with the three year licenses!

Goosie

johngalway wrote: »

That's the sticky bit isn't it. I've traveled up to Meath shooting before. If I get stopped with a mod, no magic S, does the local Meath Garda (who doesn't know me from Adam) then, for want of a better word, "impound" my rifle and mod until he can reach my local Garda, who isn't available 24/7. I'm still not quite sure how to approach the issue with local Garda, got to clear up the HMR issue first. And to think he thought he'd be seeing less of me with the three year licenses!

Of course if you were lucky John the meath garda might not be aware of what a mod was and might think that the big thing on the end of the barrell was just a part of the firearm......dont think I'd take the chance though.

elius

Goosie wrote: »

I'm pretty much in the same situation as rrpc and JohnG - Dont know for sure whether I've been granted one or not.

Applied for a mod for my 22 by way of ticking the box in section 3.2

Did'nt give any additional info with regard to why i needed it, after all they did'nt request it.

Licence came back for the 22 with no Magic "S".

Rang the FO to cofirm one way or the other. He said he'd check it on Pulse and give me a call which he duly did.

He said "Yeah thats been passed ok" but then the clanger "If anyone should stop you just get them to ring me".

AAARRRGGGHHH

Dont think I'll be running of to spend my cash just yet.

Would be interested to know if anyone else apart from Bunnyshooter have actually received a written refusal.

why not ask him for it in writing explain your concerns about the matter. He has already said you are approved so there for there should be no issue in getting it in writing.....

Bunny shooter your just in a horrible situation where your super doesn't want mods in your/his area district. What ever about the .22lr this can be addressed with sup sonic rounds i pressume. But the crack of a 22 swift is frightening one thing during the day but at the dark of night is another. Why not suggest bringing him out for a demonstration as to the noise difference between a 22 swift with or without a mod. Presuming you no a fellow shooter who has been issued with a mod may be worth a try. He has said no regardless so nothing to loose..

lefthooker

Goosie wrote: »

I'm pretty much in the same situation as rrpc and JohnG - Dont know for sure whether I've been granted one or not.

Applied for a mod for my 22 by way of ticking the box in section 3.2

Did'nt give any additional info with regard to why i needed it, after all they did'nt request it.

Licence came back for the 22 with no Magic "S".

Rang the FO to cofirm one way or the other. He said he'd check it on Pulse and give me a call which he duly did.

He said "Yeah thats been passed ok" but then the clanger "If anyone should stop you just get them to ring me".

AAARRRGGGHHH

Dont think I'll be running of to spend my cash just yet.

Would be interested to know if anyone else apart from Bunnyshooter have actually received a written refusal.

Assuming that everybody gets d same format of letter when they receive their license does it not state on the back of the letter whether you've been granted a mod or not.

Got my license today for my .22, wit the Special S, & on the back of the letter under Additional Conditions section it says;
"Accessories- sights & silencer"

BTW I also didn't give any reasons as to why I required a mod. I wasn't goin to apply for 1 but my local Garda said I might as well have permission & not need 1 rather than want it & not have so he ticked the box for me, initialed it & Garda stamped it. Seems to have done the trick for me.
But at the end of the day its hard to beat a SI with a bit of cop on

elius

lefthooker wrote: »

Got my license today for my .22, wit the Special S, & on the back of the letter under Additional Conditions section it says;
"Accessories- sights & silencer"

Got mine on tuesday and didnt get this hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm

lefthooker

elius wrote: »

Got mine on tuesday and didnt get this hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm

What about the letter that you sent to Clare, did it not say on that if you'd been granted a mod as an accessory either?

elius

lefthooker wrote: »

What about the letter that you sent to Clare, did it not say on that if you'd been granted a mod as an accessory either?

Got the mod alright. I'm not one bit worried about the site's i have no open sights on my rifle there for in a matter of public safety its best i have site's. :The guard held the rifle ticked the site's box an issued me my mod. Im not even going to embarrass myself by asking them again though i will recheck my licence tomorrow :cool:...

elius

lefthooker wrote: »

What about the letter that you sent to Clare, did it not say on that if you'd been granted a mod as an accessory either?

I never sent a letter to clare lad. My grant let is still with me nothing mentioned on that either...

bunny shooter

Kramer wrote: »

No. You're saying that.

I am saying it as that's the impression I derived from your post.

Kramer wrote: »

As you are obviously having difficulty understanding what I posted, as a once off, I'll see if I can simplify it for you.

I guarantee you I have no problems with reading and/or comprehension

Kramer wrote: »

Over 70% of respondents have had no difficulty getting permission for a moderator. One can assume that they showed good reason to have one & there were no other reasons why they shouldn't have one so their respective supers granted the permissions.

Or you could say that most of the Supers involved have no problems with authorising moderators. The public safety argument the Super is using has been used in other districts also to refuse moderators and I believe is/has been used to justify a lot of the decisions against a lot of firearm applications recently.

Kramer wrote: »

Your poll would indicate that just 1 in 10 who applied for permission were refused. It would be reasonable to assume then that the system is working reasonably well & that in the small percentage of cases where moderators were refused, the super(s) may well have had reasonable grounds to refuse permission.

He has stated that his refusal is on public safety grounds. Therefore one would have to wonder why I am safe to have a rifle but not a moderator on it :rolleyes:

Kramer wrote: »

The poll suggests that no "blanket bans" etc. are in operation.

As you stated a 10% refusal rate is enough to prove that a blanket ban is not in existance. If 10 % of pistol licences were issued it would prove same too? Surely, if 1% were granted it would also prove that a blanket ban was not being operated.

Kramer wrote: »

Now, where you got the:
what you're saying is sod those of us who are being shafted
I do not know.

It is the interpretation I made from your original post.

Kramer wrote: »

I can also tell you that I am aware of a few firearms owners who have been granted permission for moderators in your district/division.

I am aware of one and he gave all the same reasons I did. However, myself and this Super have had previous "dealings" as have two other lads I know he refused. Problem is proving he is victimising us

Kramer wrote: »

No doubt I'll be called a liar if I don't provide their names/addresses/ DOBs/phone numbers & scans of their licences (c/w small s botton left corner) but I'm a big boy now so I guess I'll have to take it .

I haven't called you a liar :rolleyes:

Kramer wrote: »

You've every right to be aggrieved if you have been refused (I would be :P) but the empirical evidence would suggest supers have looked at each case on an individual basis & made decision(s) accordingly.

Rights when it comes to firearms don't exist and to get dare I say it justice costs a lot of money, money better spent elsewhere.

Kramer wrote: »

If you have evidence to the contrary regarding your super, I would suggest contacting your NGB.

I could make a case but I am around long enough to know that my word against a Super in court is a waste of time, on my part :mad:

Kramer wrote: »

You also have recourse to appeal his refusal to your local district court.

Not an option, my good wife is against it as she fears reprisals form Gardai. I have previously clashed with this Super and "won" and now look where I am

Kramer wrote: »

Now that we're clear on what I actually said,
sod you Jack, I'm alright :D:D:P:D

I rest my case

Spannerman7

I got mine back and there were no special conditions but I got the S for the swift, when I applied I wrote additional information explaining that it was not a silencer but merely reduced the noise level somewhat and it is still louder than a normal .22. There are a lot or horses and livestock in adjoining fields to where I control pest fox's during lambing, with out the moderator this vital service to local farmers would cause unjustified distubance.
The super was pleasant to deal with and a farmer himself, he sugested I increase my ammo number request as it is cheaper to buy a carton at a time.
Bunny Shooter, I feel your pain, is it worth talking to the NARGC or get some local counciler/farmer on your side to have a word in his ear, can you apply agian with a lot of additional documentation supporting your case.

bunny shooter

Spannerman7 wrote: »

I got mine back and there were no special conditions but I got the S for the swift, when I applied I wrote additional information explaining that it was not a silencer but merely reduced the noise level somewhat and it is still louder than a normal .22. There are a lot or horses and livestock in adjoining fields to where I control pest fox's during lambing, with out the moderator this vital service to local farmers would cause unjustified distubance.
The super was pleasant to deal with and a farmer himself, he sugested I increase my ammo number request as it is cheaper to buy a carton at a time.
Bunny Shooter, I feel your pain, is it worth talking to the NARGC or get some local counciler/farmer on your side to have a word in his ear, can you apply agian with a lot of additional documentation supporting your case.

I didn't look for a moderator for the Swift as I don't lamp and usually use it late in the year when livestock aren't in the fields.

I spoke to NARGC and was advised that all I could do was go to court. They have spoken to the Super previously on my behalf and tbh I think he might not be listening to them anymore :rolleyes:

I will be reapplying with extra documentation (cheers JW) and will be getting a few landowners to sign a letter for me too