Change of calibre query

zeissman

My mate has sent his 308 rifle away to be rebarreled to 6.5 creedmoor.
He was told by his firearms officer that he could not get a sub done on his existing licence and that he would have to make a new application. He then rang the firearms policy unit and they told him the same.
I have previously changed my rifles from a 243 to 308 and 6.5x55 to 308 without any hassle so when did the law change on this.

BattleCorp

I'm not certain but is 6.5 Creedmore restricted? That might be the reason, subbing an unrestricted calibre for a restricted calibre.

zeissman

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not certain but is 6.5 Creedmore restricted? That might be the reason, subbing an unrestricted calibre for a restricted calibre.

No it's not restricted.

BattleCorp

zeissman wrote: »

No it's not restricted.

Then I can't see the problem. 1 unrestricted firearm for another. Sounds strange.

alanmc

I was told that subbing same for same *or* downwards in caliber size (however arbitrary this rule is) is ok. Can't see why subbing from a .308 to 6.5 CM would be a problem.

The pigeon man

This should be a very straight forward substitution. I would presume he wants the new calibre for the same application that the gun was originally licensed.

In short this shouldn't be a problem but obviously the Gardaí have decided to make it one.

Fill in the substitution application and hand it in. They have no good reason to refuse the substitution.

zeissman

The pigeon man wrote: »

This should be a very straight forward substitution. I would presume he wants the new calibre for the same application that the gun was originally licensed.

In short this shouldn't be a problem but obviously the Gardaí have decided to make it one.

Fill in the substitution application and hand it in. They have no good reason to refuse the substitution.

Gun will be used for the same reasons so I can't see the problem either. He is a member of the nargc so it might be worth giving them a call.

juice1304

Seems very silly, i have subbed for a different caliber with the same use. Its the same rifle for god sake.
Their level of understanding of the legislation is baffling.

Grizzly 45

I went up in a restricted firearm from 243 to 308 and it was no problem. They just wanted to know what would be done with the .243 barrel.

zeissman

Update.
My mate contacted the nargc and they said that each firearms sub is dealt with on an individual basis and if the garda want him to make a new application he has to do so.
I know that the super in his area will not grant anyone a moderator but anyone who had one before he was in charge was allowed to keep it. As my mate now has to make a new application he will probably be refused a moderator.

Gorgeousgeorge

zeissman wrote: »

Update.
My mate contacted the nargc and they said that each firearms sub is dealt with on an individual basis and if the garda want him to make a new application he has to do so.
I know that the super in his area will not grant anyone a moderator but anyone who had one before he was in charge was allowed to keep it. As my mate now has to make a new application he will probably be refused a moderator.

But he will still have the mod on his old .308 licence? Can he not use that mod on his 6.5? Until the .308 licence is out.

zeissman

Gorgeousgeorge wrote: »

But he will still have the mod on his old .308 licence? Can he not use that mod on his 6.5? Until the .308 licence is out.

The 308 licence will be cancelled as the rifle is being rebarreled. Even so you need the S on each licence that you want to use the moderator on.

aaakev

Thats a load of bollox. I subbed a hmr for a .223 then the .223 for a .243 when i started shooting deer. Never had a problem, one unrestricted for another

zeissman

aaakev wrote: »

Thats a load of bollox. I subbed a hmr for a .223 then the .223 for a .243 when i started shooting deer. Never had a problem, one unrestricted for another

I know. I don't have any problem in my area either but his super is just being a prick. Unfortunately there's not much he can do about it.

Damoeire33

Id ask for the reasons in writing and pay my local solicitor a visit. Rules cant be different in each Garda station.

BattleCorp

zeissman wrote: »

I know that the super in his area will not grant anyone a moderator but anyone who had one before he was in charge was allowed to keep it. As my mate now has to make a new application he will probably be refused a moderator.

T'wud be nice to have that in writing. The Super would be under pressure in court to explain why he thinks his/her authority supersedes the law. Blanket bans like that are illegal.

BryanL

There's a post on here outlining what to put down when applying for a moderator and I think it'd be very hard for anyone to go against.

Personal health and safety with regard to hearing loss.
Animal welfare when hunting around farm buildings.

I put in my application that the moderator would reduce the noise level from where it would cause permanent hearing loss, to just below that level.

Nekarsulm

Our Super is the same. No new moderator licences are granted.
"Public Safety" card played, and invitation to go to Court if I don't agree...

tac foley

@Neckarsulm - I'm trying to get my head around 'public safety' and refusal of a moderator in the same sentence. Can you explain, please, for a dumb furriner?

Also Battlecorp's post #16 - I always understood that AGS were the guardians of the law, not the interpreters of the law based on their own personal agenda.

I guess I've had it wrong all these years.

Nekarsulm

tac foley wrote: »

@Neckarsulm - I'm trying to get my head around 'public safety' and refusal of a moderator in the same sentence. Can you explain, please, for a dumb furriner?

Also Battlecorp's post #16 - I always understood that AGS were the guardians of the law, not the interpreters of the law based on their own personal agenda.

I guess I've had it wrong all these years.

It's a catch-all phrase that means "we are calling the shots here".

In a follow up phone call to the Guard who deals with licences, I was actually told that a moderator ( they called it a Silencer) was contrary to public safety because someone could be walking along the other side of the hedge and not realise shooting was taking place ......

Too much TV being watched.....

You couldn't pin them down as having implemented a blanket ban either, because people who have had moderators on the licences from Before the Superintendent took charge, still get the required licence.

Gravelly

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Our Super is the same. No new moderator licences are granted.
"Public Safety" card played, and invitation to go to Court if I don't agree...

I got the exact same response with my last rifle application, and was told under no circumstances were any new moderator licences being granted, so no point in applying as it would be refused, so I didn't (then they went and gave me a licence with an S on it anyway!)

*EDIT* As per Nekarsulm's post above, they also insisted on referring to it as a silencer!

solarwinds

I was told that because i already had a moderator on one .22 that i wouldn't get one for my other .22.
I explained i would only be using one rifle at a time and that it was the same moderator for both. I didn't get it, no reason given, its ongoing.
Very hard to talk with people who have no logic.

zeissman

BattleCorp wrote: »

T'wud be nice to have that in writing. The Super would be under pressure in court to explain why he thinks his/her authority supersedes the law. Blanket bans like that are illegal.

If he is refused the moderator he is willing to go to court over it. He has had a moderator over 10 years so he should have a good case.

BattleCorp

solarwinds wrote: »

I was told that because i already had a moderator on one .22 that i wouldn't get one for my other .22.
I explained i would only be using one rifle at a time and that it was the same moderator for both. I didn't get it, no reason given, its ongoing.
Very hard to talk with people who have no logic.

Genius. Promote that Garda, pronto.

solarwinds

BattleCorp wrote: »

solarwinds wrote: »

I was told that because i already had a moderator on one .22 that i wouldn't get one for my other .22.
I explained i would only be using one rifle at a time and that it was the same moderator for both. I didn't get it, no reason given, its ongoing.
Very hard to talk with people who have no logic.

Genius. Promote that Garda, pronto.

Next leg up for him is chief.

BattleCorp

I did hear of one Super who is supposed to have said that he wouldn't issue permission for a silencer because someone wouldn't be able to hear the bullet and duck.

Might be bullsh1t, but it's almost believable.

tac foley

BattleCorp wrote: »

I did hear of one Super who is supposed to have said that he wouldn't issue permission for a silencer because someone wouldn't be able to hear the bullet and duck.

Might be bullsh1t, but it's almost believable.

You'd be hard-pressed to make that up. The only time I heard a bullet was as it went past me [thankfully]. Dodging it coming? Like 'Matrix'?

Un-freakin'-believable.

These people obviously inhabit a different plane of existence to the rest of us.

meathstevie

You'd be hard pressed to hear a bullet coming. If you're lucky you'll hear it as it has passed you. If you're not you'll never hear it. Unless it's a subsonic one of course....

Cass

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Our Super is the same. No new moderator licences are granted.
"Public Safety" card played, and invitation to go to Court if I don't agree...

And you'd walk the case.

I think it was 2013 (and even recently in the updated Commissoner's guidelines) that a judge said the citing of public safety is in itself not a reasonable or valid argument for refusal unless it can be shown that the person seeking the authorisation is a threat to public safety.

Which begs the question why can you have a suppressor that is essentially a hollow can, when the actual firearm which fires the bullets is licensed?

solarwinds

"Which begs the question why can you have a suppressor that is essentially a hollow can, when the actual firearm which fires the bullets is licensed?"

Simple, Hollywood, the AGS reference database for all things firearms related.

Cass

I think its a little more insidious than that.

There has been a subtle, but definable, move as of late with AGS to curtail certain items and firearms. A few years back it was tried and court cases stopped it, but now it seems that it's going two ways depending on the item involved:

1. Subtle and by the time people notice it's too late
2. Outright just doing it, regardless of the law or consequences.

This is not a tinfoil hat moment. It's n opinion based on recent cases with lads i've spoken, and a few personal events which included conversations with high ranking members of AGS.

Grizzly 45

Nekarsulm wrote: »

It's a catch-all phrase that means "we are calling the shots here".

In a follow up phone call to the Guard who deals with licences, I was actually told that a moderator ( they called it a Silencer) was contrary to public safety because someone could be walking along the other side of the hedge and not realise shooting was taking place ......

Too much TV being watched.....

You couldn't pin them down as having implemented a blanket ban either, because people who have had moderators on the licences from Before the Superintendent took charge, still get the required licence.

OK, from the letter, it says you don't meet the "current required criteria"...Which implies that if you fulfil these criteria you will be granted a silencer extension. So next question to the Super should be, what exactly are the current criteria in the firearms law to grant this extension? Act, paragraph and section please, and then what is his personal criteria to issue such in his district, seeing that he has taken it upon himself to grandfather already issued silencer extensions, and refuse new applications?

As said, its a tube, that somehow makes you more dangerous somehow, but you are perfectly entitled to have the boomstick and ammo no problem and are not dangerous at all.BUT it[the silencer] is treated as a separate firearm in itself. So refusing you a silencer is technically refusing you a firearm license under the law as written.

Also, I would nip into your local court office and put in an application for a hearing on this. You can do it yourself, you can always withdraw it at any time if you come to an agreement. [Will save 150 euros off your solicitors bill too]
AND it might just call his bluff as well! It certainly did down here in Limerick, where one lad got peed off with the meddling about in issuing his license.
He went to the DC clerks office and filed for a hearing on this matter.
Within the DAY, the chief's secretary was on the phone to him apologising for "the delay and misunderstanding and clerical error."

And if you want to go the whole hog on this.PM me .;)
Grizzly

Zxthinger

Not to be avoiding the OP but there are some rifles that just can't be fired without either a silencer or ear defenders.
It's simple, wear your ear defenders and you won't need a silencer or a moderator but you won't hear the car door opening in the distance, or cattle in the next field or children playing in the distance. Wear ear protection as a substitution for a silencer will leave you devoid of one-off your most important senses..
you can't just don ear defenders when a prey species presents itself.


Try shooting a 220swift with no ear defenders and no silencers. You won't be long shooting in that area before you get the sly comments and the stink eye off the local farmer.