Moderator Refused

Robotack

My buddy just applied for his first F.C. For a .22 magnum CZ452 w/ Mod.

It was taking a while so he called the station yesterday and enquired... He was told that he, and a number of others, had had his application granted but silencer refused.

Innitially he did everything right. Sent in a letter with the FCA1 explaining why he wanted the mod as per the commissioners guidlines for "good reason" etc.

What does he do? Seek clarification or just go the legal route.

rabbit assassin

exact same happened me ! Im still waitin to get the substitution I got a phone call from the supers secretary saying that it was nothing personal to my application but I wasnt granted to use a silencer. She said that its a new rule and in co.meath you cant use a silencer on farmland while hunting. It can only be used at a shooting range........

Mentioned it on here and some of the lads, like myself say Bullsh*t ... I havent even received the substitution and its been in since 1st of feb :eek:

kildare.17hmr

This is not the us where different states have different laws, i would think what you were told is illigal about bot being able to use them hunting in meath? Someone who knows about the legal side will know better!

Op if its a 22 mag your mate got i dont think a mod makes much of a difference on them anyway from what iv heard

It wasn't me!

Blanket rules like that are not legal.

johngalway

Standing by to be corrected here but...

Is it not the case that if you apply and your application is granted, then you are also granted silencer permission once you had the silencer box ticked?

I thought they would refuse the entire application otherwise.

And not using a mod on farmland is utterly f'ing ridiculous. I don't go to ranges but I don't think mods are even used there? (for competitions and the like).

It wasn't me!

No. It'd be much the same as the ability to impose conditions as they see fit. Same way as I can apply for a million rounds and be granted the licence but only get a hundred rounds on it. They aren't obliged to grant or refuse the whole thing, but can pick and choose to a limited extent.

declan1980

Your super is legally obliged to give you a reason in writing for why he refused you your moderator

tomtucker81

Seems strange that a mod is a legally allowed piece of equipment that you can own, but it basically depends on the local superintendents own view of them as to whether you can have one.
So, a fella gets refused one by his super, even though he could be shooting on land in a different district where that super has no problem with them?
It's very unfair almost, that you can have one and a fella that lives less than a mile away can't because there's a different super.
Surely if its a legal piece of equipment then you should be granted it as part of your application.

Jonty

Lads,

If I am invited to hunt in Meath by a landowner, and having been granted my moderator permit, am I in breach of the law????

Does one Super's decision over rule the other's?

Some country, its full of little "kingdoms".

J

johnnymolloy

this happened to me aswell gave all the correct reasons as to why i need the moderator and was told that i shouldnt be shooting near houses think he literally took it that id be shooting at one i ment their will be houses of in the distance and with shooting at night didnt want to give myself or the farmer any grief. i rang up to ask why only to find out i the super had retired and i was told they would sort it out once a new super was put in that was atleast 2 months ago now and still no word think ill ring them next week

It wasn't me!

Jonty wrote: »

Lads,

If I am invited to hunt in Meath by a landowner, and having been granted my moderator permit, am I in breach of the law????

Does one Super's decision over rule the other's?

Some country, its full of little "kingdoms".

J

No. Whoever said that is wrong. Laws aren't made at district level. You can use the moderator if you're legally entitled to.

dbrock

i had major probs with one only recently and finally when i got it, it has this condition
so you just dont know what there going to do

tomtucker81

There can't be a rule for co meath that's different to others. Irish law does not distinguish counties, it is countrywide.in the u.s. they might have local laws like that, but certainly not here.

Longranger

dbrock wrote: »

i had major probs with one only recently and finally when i got it, it has this condition
so you just dont know what there going to do

A crock of poo if ever I heard one:mad:
just because one super doesn't like them it doesn't mean he can make up his own policies which are contradictory to the law.

It wasn't me!

Longranger wrote: »

A crock of poo if ever I heard one:mad:
just because one super doesn't like them it doesn't mean he can make up his own policies which are contradictory to the law.

No. However, the condition attached to dbrock's licence is perfectly legal.

Longranger

Feck me! I never heard of that before. I'm not doubting you, I'm just surprised. Does that mean that when I apply for a firearm cert,the issuing super can choose where I'm allowed to use my firearm?

It wasn't me!

Longranger wrote: »

Feck me! I never heard of that before. I'm not doubting you, I'm just surprised. Does that mean that when I apply for a firearm cert,the issuing super can choose where I'm allowed to use my firearm?

Essentially, yes. If you say "I need it to shoot vermin which are causing problems on my farm" he could attach a condition that it's only to be used on your farm. It's a restriction, but one in keeping with your reasons for applying. For dbrock, I suspect his application mentioned something about needing the moderator due to horses or the like at the address mentioned. As such, the super allowed him to do so, but he's not allowed use it elsewhere. It makes a sort of clumsy sense really.

tomtucker81

So if an application states that the rifle and mod will only be used on farmland so as not to startle livestock, and also the mod ensures you can cull enough vermin, it could be more readily accepted?

Longranger

Will they(government)EVER cop on to the fact that there needs to be ONE office to make these decisions and not this district to district crap....

Farmlife

dbrock wrote: »

i had major probs with one only recently and finally when i got it, it has this condition
so you just dont know what there going to do

My licence arrived in the post and it had the 500 round limit in that box, first time i ever seen it used. then when i paid in the post office they kept it, after a disagreement over who kept the letter post office rand FPU who told post office to keep it.

So if mine had what yours has, unless they print it on the licence will it stand as an additional condition?

Jonty

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No. Whoever said that is wrong. Laws aren't made at district level. You can use the moderator if you're legally entitled to.

I agree fully, but I'd like to see what would happen if you were in possession of a licensed moderator, issued by another superintendent in another division, and to come to the attention of the gardai, while shooting with permission in Co. Meath?


It would make interesting reading if it went to court.


J

It wasn't me!

Jonty wrote: »

I agree fully, but I'd like to see what would happen if you were in possession of a licensed moderator, issued by another superintendent in another division, and to come to the attention of the gardai, while shooting with permission in Co. Meath?


It would make interesting reading if it went to court.


J

It couldn't go to court. For the DPP to take a case, there has to actually have been a law broken.

Chiparus

i really think they base their opinions on moderators from watching James Bond.

Someone needs to get an audiogram and send it in with their application to this super.

Explain that while hunting it is not practical to wear ear defender, and a moderated rifle is less likely to cause noise induced hearing loss.

Jonty

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It couldn't go to court. For the DPP to take a case, there has to actually have been a law broken.

Not necessarily, in a district court, for less serious crimes, don't the Gardai prosecute not the defendant?


http://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/information_booklets_-_revised_july_2010/ENGLISH_-_Role_of_the_DPP.pdf

Just going from the above link.


Not trying to be a troll here or anything either.

J

tomtucker81

As far as I know for small things gardai prosecute, but for more serious stuff the dpp has to direct and run the case.the gardai basically become state witnesses in that case.
Anyway, there really should be a national body that runs the licencing process, and refer with the gardai for character checks as necessary.the whole local super thing causes such differences from town to town, and is basically stupid and unfair.
If the super believes that a silencer could be used for sinister motives, surely that applicant shouldn't have a gun at all?!!!

Farmlife

Jonty wrote: »

Not necessarily, in a district court, for less serious crimes, don't the Gardai prosecute not the defendant?

Would be a brave Gard to take that case to a district court

rabbit assassin

Longranger wrote: »

Will they(government)EVER cop on to the fact that there needs to be ONE office to make these decisions and not this district to district crap....

Itll never happen. Sure itd make sense so why would they do that

German pointer

Jonty wrote: »

Not necessarily, in a district court, for less serious crimes, don't the Gardai prosecute not the defendant?


http://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/information_booklets_-_revised_july_2010/ENGLISH_-_Role_of_the_DPP.pdf

Just going from the above link.


Not trying to be a troll here or anything either.

J

To issue a blanket ban is unlawfull as each case must be judged on it's own merits.
Just because the super in Lets say aera A wont licence a moderater in his district does it not mean a hunter from another district aera B cannot use it in aera A as long as he has a licence with the s on it. If he hes a licence with the s on it there is sweet Fukc All the super or anybody else can do about it.
ie he has a licence for it and licences are nation wide not county wide. The super is trying to write the law when all he can legally do is enforce and or uphold the law.
He cannot not make the law, that is the job of the law makers in the Dail and nowhere else.

Hunter21

Doesn't the original poster have 30 days to appeal the decision?

German pointer

Hunter21 wrote: »

Doesn't the original poster have 30 days to appeal the decision?

Yes, but it can be costly. I was refused about 2 years ago and went to court, I won in court :D and got my licence but it cost me €500 for the solicitor:(:(

johngalway

Chiparus wrote: »

Someone needs to get an audiogram and send it in with their application to this super.

Explain that while hunting it is not practical to wear ear defender, and a moderated rifle is less likely to cause noise induced hearing loss.

Been there, done that got the silencer(s) and hearing loss to prove it.

Hidden hearing do a report, but if you go there make sure afterwards if you don't want letters and calls from them every high tide to have them take you off their database.

Chiparus

Had you been previously refused?

johngalway

Me, no. I got the report done so as not to give room for refusal. Also had a couple of very long chats with the local Garda about it all, which may have helped grease the wheels.

German pointer

johngalway wrote: »

Me, no. I got the report done so as not to give room for refusal. Also had a couple of very long chats with the local Garda about it all, which may have helped grease the wheels.

Did you hear his answers.:D:D

clivej

The Garda Commissioner’s Guidelines as to the Practical Application and Operation of the Firearms Acts, 1925-2009.

Page 37 states

SILENCERS – GUIDANCE AS TO THEIR USE
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Under section 1 of The Firearms Act, 1925 as amended by section 26 Criminal Justice Act 2006, silencers are defined as firearms. Statutory Instrument. No: 21 of 2008: Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008, as amended, defines silencers as:
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Any devices fitted or capable of being fitted to the firearms for the purpose of moderating or reducing the sound made on their discharge.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The S.I, as amended, further defines all silencers, except ‘those capable of being used only with long rifled firearms’, to be restricted firearms. Silencers will not ordinarily be subject to certification. However, under section 7 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990, a silencer must be authorised by a superintendent of the Garda Síochána
providing that the applicant is in possession of a firearms certificate for the firearm to which it is to be fitted.
Applications for authorisations silencers for non restricted firearms will continue to be made to the superintendent of the district where the applicant resides. The Garda Commissioner, under section 25C of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, has delegated his functions with regard to restricted firearms to members of chief superintendent rank. Accordingly in the event of an application for a silencer that is defined as a restricted firearm, this application will be made to the chief superintendent of that division and the silencer will require certification. When a silencer has been authorised for a particular firearm, this should be documented on the firearms certificate.
Silencers are designed to reduce the report of the firearm so as to conceal the position of the shooter, and also to reduce the felt recoil. Silencers have traditionally been used on rimfire rifles of .22 calibres when shooting rabbits. This allows the shooter to kill other animals who are not alarmed by the low report of the rifle. This justification may not apply in the case of the shooting of other less numerous and less sociable animals such as foxes.
The use of silencers on deer hunting rifles has become increasingly popular in recent times. Previously this was regarded as unsporting and unnecessary. The advantages of using a silencer for this purpose would include: The reduction in felt recoil allowing the shooter to stay on target, reduce the risk of flinching[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman], [/FONT][/FONT]and prevent the group of animals fleeing after the initial shot. These advantages must be weighed against the safety to others (other shooters, walkers, foresters, farmers) having available to them the clear audible report - rather than a significantly lower report when a silencer is fitted - of a rifle, thereby giving them a general direction in which possible danger lies.
There has also been an increase in the desire of shooters to use silencers on rifles at authorised shooting ranges for target practice. The only advantage here would be in reducing ‘noise pollution’. As suitable ear protectors can be worn to provide adequate protection against the noise of discharge from multiple rifles, it is necessary to weigh the disadvantages of the use of a silencer against this benefit.
In light of the disadvantages of the use of a silencer and the limited benefits – benefits which can be obtained in other less dangerous ways – the threshold for ‘Good Reason’ to seek to have a silencer certified for any restricted firearm such as centrefire handguns or semi automatic centrefire rifles will be quite high.
When an applicant is applying for a firearm certificate, the application should include whether or not a silencer is being sought for that particular firearm. A [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]subsequent [/FONT][/FONT]application for a silencer will require the applicant to re apply on a new application form FCA1 and will require the full €80 fee. As already stated, all firearm certificates must now include details of any authorisation for a silencer in respect of that particular firearm.
[/FONT][/FONT]

German pointer

clivej wrote: »

The Garda Commissioner’s Guidelines as to the Practical Application and Operation of the Firearms Acts, 1925-2009.

Page 37 states

SILENCERS – GUIDANCE AS TO THEIR USE
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Under section 1 of The Firearms Act, 1925 as amended by section 26 Criminal Justice Act 2006, silencers are defined as firearms. Statutory Instrument. No: 21 of 2008: Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008, as amended, defines silencers as: [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Any devices fitted or capable of being fitted to the firearms for the purpose of moderating or reducing the sound made on their discharge. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The S.I, as amended, further defines all silencers, except ‘those capable of being used only with long rifled firearms’, to be restricted firearms. Silencers will not ordinarily be subject to certification. However, under section 7 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990, a silencer must be authorised by a superintendent of the Garda Síochána [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]providing that the applicant is in possession of a firearms certificate for the firearm to which it is to be fitted. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Applications for authorisations silencers for non restricted firearms will continue to be made to the superintendent of the district where the applicant resides. The Garda Commissioner, under section 25C of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, has delegated his functions with regard to restricted firearms to members of chief superintendent rank. Accordingly in the event of an application for a silencer that is defined as a restricted firearm, this application will be made to the chief superintendent of that division and the silencer will require certification. When a silencer has been authorised for a particular firearm, this should be documented on the firearms certificate. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Silencers are designed to reduce the report of the firearm so as to conceal the position of the shooter, and also to reduce the felt recoil. Silencers have traditionally been used on rimfire rifles of .22 calibres when shooting rabbits. This allows the shooter to kill other animals who are not alarmed by the low report of the rifle. This justification may not apply in the case of the shooting of other less numerous and less sociable animals such as foxes. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The use of silencers on deer hunting rifles has become increasingly popular in recent times. Previously this was regarded as unsporting and unnecessary. The advantages of using a silencer for this purpose would include: The reduction in felt recoil allowing the shooter to stay on target, reduce the risk of flinching[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman], [/FONT][/FONT]and prevent the group of animals fleeing after the initial shot. These advantages must be weighed against the safety to others (other shooters, walkers, foresters, farmers) having available to them the clear audible report - rather than a significantly lower report when a silencer is fitted - of a rifle, thereby giving them a general direction in which possible danger lies.
There has also been an increase in the desire of shooters to use silencers on rifles at authorised shooting ranges for target practice. The only advantage here would be in reducing ‘noise pollution’. As suitable ear protectors can be worn to provide adequate protection against the noise of discharge from multiple rifles, it is necessary to weigh the disadvantages of the use of a silencer against this benefit.
In light of the disadvantages of the use of a silencer and the limited benefits – benefits which can be obtained in other less dangerous ways – the threshold for ‘Good Reason’ to seek to have a silencer certified for any restricted firearm such as centrefire handguns or semi automatic centrefire rifles will be quite high.
When an applicant is applying for a firearm certificate, the application should include whether or not a silencer is being sought for that particular firearm. A [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]subsequent [/FONT][/FONT]application for a silencer will require the applicant to re apply on a new application form FCA1 and will require the full €80 fee. As already stated, all firearm certificates must now include details of any authorisation for a silencer in respect of that particular firearm.
[/FONT][/FONT]

As it clearly states above the use of slicencers and the good reason for them, IMHO the super is over-ruling his boss The Comissioner and his bosses bosses the lawmakers ie. government. It is just like when they the Guards as a body tried to ban all center fire short arms when they tried to make up laws as they went along.

Sparks

Longranger wrote: »

Will they(government)EVER cop on to the fact that there needs to be ONE office to make these decisions and not this district to district crap....

If that ever happens, it'll be bad for us, because that office would have some degree of weight to it and so would get a senior Garda assigned to it, and the track record to date suggests that senior Gardai do not support the idea of civilians owning firearms. And while right now a problem Super is a problem for those in his area, a problem senior Garda in charge of everyone's licence is a problem for everyone - a problem which we would have no real ability to solve, as no TD would touch it ("That would be an operational matter for the Gardai" is the phrase you'd be sick of hearing), and there's no way I know of for a civilian to get a Garda 'moved on' from an office where he or she was causing problems.

Sparks

German pointer wrote: »

As it clearly states above the use of slicencers and the good reason for them, IMHO the super is over-ruling his boss The Comissioner and his bosses bosses the lawmakers ie. government.

The law specifically stated for many years that the Super had no boss when it came to firearms licencing decisions. Nobody, not anyone in the AGS including the Commissioner, not the Minister, not anyone in Government, nor anyone in any court from District to Supreme Court, could order a Super to grant a licence (he could be ordered to reconsider his decision, but that was not the same as saying "grant", it was "go away and think of another reason for your decision because this one's unlawful").

That was the entire point of the person designata status that the Dunne-v-Donoghue case asserted all the way to the Supreme Court. That law was given a tweak by the 2006 Act so that the persona designata status no longer exists, but the Super still cannot be directed to grant or refuse a licence by his boss in the AGS or by the government; only the district court can issue such an order to him.

In other words, the thing you're complaining about (a) doesn't exist anymore, (b) is how it's supposed to work, and (c) was argued for in court by shooters.

Sparks

Jonty wrote: »

Not necessarily, in a district court, for less serious crimes, don't the Gardai prosecute not the defendant?

Doesn't really matter Jonty, it's not legal to have blanket "not in my district" rules like that. You could wind up in court, yes, and it'd be fairly disruptive, but the case you'd be facing wouldn't have much in the way of legs to stand on.

Unless, of course:

• This isn't a rule made up by the Gardai, but an actual council by-law;
• There's a condition on the authorisation for the place you'd be shooting in that says no moderators;
• There's some condition on your licence that means you can't use the moderator there;
• Some other random edge case I haven't thought of in the ten seconds I've been trying;

German pointer

Sparks wrote: »

The law specifically stated for many years that the Super had no boss when it came to firearms licencing decisions. Nobody, not anyone in the AGS including the Commissioner, not the Minister, not anyone in Government, nor anyone in any court from District to Supreme Court, could order a Super to grant a licence (he could be ordered to reconsider his decision, but that was not the same as saying "grant", it was "go away and think of another reason for your decision because this one's unlawful").

Correct me if I am wrong but the Commissioner (the supers boss) grants the licences but has delegated this task to supers for non restricted and cheif supers for restricted ones with written guide lines to follow, (The super has to follow the guide lines of his boss), does this not mean that the comissoners guidelines are what governs the issue of licences not what the super thinks. ie a blanket ban on slicencers/moderator for a county is unlawful. Which is the main trust of what I am trying to point out.

That was the entire point of the person designata status that the Dunne-v-Donoghue case asserted all the way to the Supreme Court. That law was given a tweak by the 2006 Act so that the persona designata status no longer exists, but the Super still cannot be directed to grant or refuse a licence by his boss in the AGS or by the government; only the district court can issue such an order to him.


Agree with this as I went through the process for a licence about 2 years ago when the super was found to be acting unlawful.

johngalway

German pointer wrote: »

Did you hear his answers.:D:D

Who?

Sparks

German pointer wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but the Commissioner (the supers boss) grants the licences but has delegated this task to supers for non restricted and cheif supers for restricted ones with written guide lines to follow

That's not correct. Unrestricted licences are granted by the local Superintendent directly, not as a delegate for the Commissioner. Restricted licences are granted by the Commissioner via delegation to the local Chief Superintendents.

As to the guidelines the Commissioner has issued, they are just that - guidelines, not law or set-in-stone rules. They do not govern the issuing of licences, even though in practice they do provide a fairly strong direction. No district court case could stand on the guidelines alone, for example.

Hunter21

Sparks wrote: »

That's not correct. Unrestricted licences are granted by the local Superintendent directly, not as a delegate for the Commissioner. Restricted licences are granted by the Commissioner via delegation to the local Chief Superintendents.

As to the guidelines the Commissioner has issued, they are just that - guidelines, not law or set-in-stone rules. They do not govern the issuing of licences, even though in practice they do provide a fairly strong direction. No district court case could stand on the guidelines alone, for example.

Sparks, are these guidelines a load of pie in the sky so since they have no firm foundation and can be interpreted differently by each districts superintendant? on the other hand those with agendas can make it as hard as possible to prevent such a firearm in their district just because they don't like or fail to understand guns and the sport.
Don't these "guidelines" make each superintendant his own boss, can pick and choose without judging applications on there merits.

Sparks

The guidelines were basicly an attempt to give what shooters here have been calling for for years - consistency in the application process. They're an example of why I've been saying for years that having a single office oversee applications isn't a magical solution to all our problems, because it takes one Garda to be anti-firearms ownership and suddenly we have 200,000 problem cases.

However, the guidelines can be ignored by Superintendents (technically the Chief Supers can ignore them too, but they're operating as delegates to the chap who writes the guidelines, so I wouldn't expect much as much deviation from the guidelines by them as I would by the Supers). The guidelines don't have legal status - they're called guidelines for a reason - but if a Super with a heavy caseload has a licencing decision to make, it's got to be easier for him or her to just read the guidelines and go with them, as opposed to actually investing time in the case. That, I think, is the main thing you have to keep in mind if you're seeking a licencing decision that the guidelines don't recommend.

Robotack

UPDATE:
My pal had his grant notice letter arrive this morning with no mention whatsoever of the mod being refused. He went straigth down to the post office & paid it. So.... when it arrives I assume it'll have no 'S' on it. But I also assume that he'll get no official notification of the mod's refusal.

So as this is his first licence, hypothetically speaking he knows nothing about an 'S' or anything else for that matter that a licence should say on it nor does he have me to tell him this stuff. Then it's my opinion that it would be reasonable for him to assume that he had been granted exactly what he applied for and be walking about with the mod, none the wiser.

Basically, had he not phoned the station he'd know nothing about the mod being refused.

It wasn't me!

Robotack wrote: »

UPDATE:
My pal had his grant notice letter arrive this morning with no mention whatsoever of the mod being refused. He went straigth down to the post office & paid it. So.... when it arrives I assume it'll have no 'S' on it. But I also assume that he'll get no official notification of the mod's refusal.

So as this is his first licence, hypothetically speaking he knows nothing about an 'S' or anything else for that matter that a licence should say on it nor does he have me to tell him this stuff. Then it's my opinion that it would be reasonable for him to assume that he had been granted exactly what he applied for and be walking about with the mod, none the wiser.

Basically, had he not phoned the station he'd know nothing about the mod being refused.

No. Absolutely not. If he then goes and gets the mod, he's in possession of an unlicenced firearm. Since anonymity here doesn't exist, it could be readily proven who you are, that you know him and that he's waffling in any case, but more honestly, the Garda who arrests him isn't going to give a fook that he wasn't aware of where he stood, any more than he would if he had a shotgun he didn't have a licence for.

Hunter21

As far as I remember when I got my grant letters it isn't state if I got the 'S' moderator or how many cartridges I was allowed.
Then when I paid the grant letter I received the licence and it had the S on it and the number of cartridges I can legally hold.

Alan 1990

Hunter21 wrote: »

As far as I remember when I got my grant letters it isn't state if I got the 'S' moderator or how many cartridges I was allowed.
Then when I paid the grant letter I received the licence and it had the S on it and the number of cartridges I can legally hold.

Same as myself hunter, when I received the license it had the S and number of rounds on it. Grand letter didn't mention anything.

Hunter21

Alan 1990 wrote: »

Same as myself hunter, when I received the license it had the S and number of rounds on it. Grand letter didn't mention anything.

I also had issues with another guard trying to deal with firearms I.e moderators, she rang me the day I got my grant notice letter stating that in my district they don't issue moderators for any reason as the Gardai dont like members of the public roaming the countryside at night with quiet guns said nothing until my licence came and it had an S, went for a chat with my official firearms officer and he said "you gave good enough reasons to have a moderator so with your S your legally allowed to have it, and no district or guard can make their own rules or agendas" he's a sound guard and pure dose that hes retiring soon

Robotack

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Robotack wrote: »

UPDATE:
My pal had his grant notice letter arrive this morning with no mention whatsoever of the mod being refused. He went straigth down to the post office & paid it. So.... when it arrives I assume it'll have no 'S' on it. But I also assume that he'll get no official notification of the mod's refusal.

So as this is his first licence, hypothetically speaking he knows nothing about an 'S' or anything else for that matter that a licence should say on it nor does he have me to tell him this stuff. Then it's my opinion that it would be reasonable for him to assume that he had been granted exactly what he applied for and be walking about with the mod, none the wiser.

Basically, had he not phoned the station he'd know nothing about the mod being refused.

No. Absolutely not. If he then goes and gets the mod, he's in possession of an unlicenced firearm. Since anonymity here doesn't exist, it could be readily proven who you are, that you know him and that he's waffling in any case, but more honestly, the Garda who arrests him isn't going to give a fook that he wasn't aware of where he stood, any more than he would if he had a shotgun he didn't have a licence for.

It wasnt me... Firstly, I agree with you on the legal stuff. I wasn't suggesting for a moment that he break the law, that's why I said "hypothetically"...

Secondly, who I am matters not. I'm just a guy on boards with a query and if another individual breaks the law, what I might have told him is irrelevant. That's like saying that if I tell you drink driving is against the law and you do it anyway, then I'm guilty... And "they" are welcome to know who I am if they want.

The point of my post was simply to point out yet another potential flaw in the system. ie; a person who knows no better may not even know that their mod has been refused as it looks like there's no official correspondence issued to that affect.

Chiparus

If a moderator license is refused, surely you have to be informed in writing?