nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sound Moderator Refusal

HW100S

Hi All

Just looking for some advise.

I have been refused my sound moderator on my renewal for the 223.
I moved to a new area 18 months ago so the renewal is now going to a new district.

Just wondering how I can have a moderator for the past 12 years and now it has been refused.

I submitted all the relevant documentation/letters with the application to justify the reason of need for the moderator. This was all followed up with phone calls to ensure that all the necessary info was in place.

The reason for refusal by the super is that ''using a sound moderator will reduce the sound such that the people nearby will not hear any shooting taking place and may walk into the area and be shot''

They are also saying that sound moderator approval is based at the discretion of individual super's, so the rules for one area are different for another. Is this valid?

They keep saying that they have sent out a refusal letter to my house but I am not getting any correspondence from them.

I'm now waiting on a meeting date with the super.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BryanL

I sent a short Scandinavian study on moderators in with my application
and the moderators manufacture's spec.

Saying the noise level would be reduced in .308 to just below a level causing permanent hearing damage but still extremely loud

The pigeon man

Ah their reason is flawed. Someone will hear a moderated 223 from a very long distance away. Alot of supers think it makes the gun silent. It's still louder than a chainsaw.

This idea that people should hear your gunshots and avoid the area is absurd. Nobody needs to hear gunshots to be safe. You are the person with the sole responsibility for everyone around you when you use your firearm.

I would get the refusal in writing and appeal it. You have a good case because you have used one for years with no ill effects to public safety.

Best of luck.

Cass

HW100S wrote: »

The reason for refusal by the super is that ''using a sound moderator will reduce the sound such that the people nearby will not hear any shooting taking place and may walk into the area and be shot''

You can begin by telling him or her to "remove head from arse" and stop getting their information from the movies (or perhaps something a little nicer).

A suppressor does NOT silence a shot in a supersonic caliber rifle. It reduces the heard report ONLY at the shooters position but studies and data from testing has shown this reduction is between 10% to a maximum of 30%.

To put it another way the average supersonic crack measures between 140db to 165db. A suppressor can reduce this to 135 both at its best and worst. To put that into context anything over 85db is classed as damaging or hazardous to your hearing and other items that can be as loud or louder are planes, heavy traffic, and things that are actually damaging are chainsaws, industrial equipment, etc. and they still don't reach the same db level as a suppressed rifle. IOW even with a suppressor a rifle can be louder than a chainsaw which is classed as damaging to your hearing.

It is for this reason that the wearing of ear protection should always accompany the use of a suppressor. NOT instead of, but with a suppressor.

You may also inform Super-Nintendo that as the db level is only reduced at the shooters position and a suppressor CANNOT silence the shot and so the bullet still creates a sonic crack which is over 120 db at a minimum and anyone who cannot hear a noise that is louder than a thunder clap is either deaf or has other problems.

Suppressors were created for military use. We cannot change that fact but what they were created for and what they were used for are two separate things.

The real issue here, and there is no way to dance around it bar to say it outright, is the person walking doesn't need to hear the shot, they only need to be visible to the shooter. However even with a suppressor they can still easily hear the shot. So if someone cannot hear a person shooting and continues to walk in the direction of the shooting they are, as said above, either deaf or have a death wish. The deaf issue can be resolved by the good shooting practices of the shooter by identifying their target and backdrop before taking a shot. As for option two, no one can legislate for that.

I would finish with a complete list of all the reasons you've previously submitted over the years and also highlight the fact that you have owned a suppressor and rifle for over 12 years without shooting anyone.

This is someone on a mission to ban suppressors. It was tried before as a blanket ban policy and failed in court. Your case is very strong as the super's position is not only weak but without supporting evidence. As anyone that has done butt duty on a range if they hear the shot (both crack of the bullet and the following sonic boom).

Be prepared to appeal the refusal and make sure to get it within the 30 day timeframe otherwise they [AGS/Super#s office] will try run down the clock with excuses and by the time you get the refusal the appeal timeframe will have passed.

Grizzly 45

^THIS^
Also add to this.EU directive 2000/14/EC abatement of noise of outdoor equipment,and EU directive on noise abatement at source. IE,why he has his men out at traffic stops checking boy racers exhaust systems. This also applies to firearms.Also, you have enough ,as mentioned precedent of ownership with no problems.So he would be on a very uphill climb to answer to this in a court,as this reason are almost standard from all Supers on the refusal bint to make it sound like a blanket ban.

Asus1

Slightly off topic but has anyone in the republic ever been accidentally shot by someone out hunting.Back to the topic on hand i would think the gaurd in question probably does think that the moderator/silencer will make your rifle whisper quite like in the movies.I would like to think a 5 minute YouTube video would show them that it doesn't.I dont shoot. 223 but even a high velocity. 22lr moderated can be heard a fair lick away.

HW100S

Hi Guys

Thanks for the replies.

The refusal reason sounds like a bullsh1t generic excuse to me that they are probably getting away with in certain cases.
I am just awaiting the refusal letter, I plan on submitting an appeal immediately.

I'll give an update when I can.

Grizzly 45

Asus1 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but has anyone in the republic ever been accidentally shot by someone out hunting.Back to the topic on hand i would think the gaurd in question probably does think that the moderator/silencer does make your rifle whisper quite like in the movies.I would like to think a 5 minute YouTube video would show them that it doesn't.I dont shoot. 223 but even a high velocity. 22lr moderated can be heard a fair lick away.

ONE case that I know of in Co Limerick about 15/20 +years ago on St Paddys day.Two lads out for rabbits,and crossing a fence/gate?,one lad didnt unload his shotgun the normal wayI think....:(

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Suppressors were created for military use. We cannot change that fact but what they were created for and what they were used for are two separate things.

I wouldnt go there with that on any case.As it is untrue historically ,and why give them any such ammo to use against us?
Silencers when invented and patented in that name by Hiriam Percy Maxim in 1902 and 08 respectively,made them just to reduce noise by everyone shooting a firearm,as he was more intrested in silencing the then starting off noisy automobile,and engines driven by petroleum distillate appearing all over the place.

In fact the US ordnance board had little or no intrest in this invention until about 1942 when it became of interest with Wild Bill Donovan and the Office of Strategic Services.Ditto the Brits,who considerd it along with snipers a ungentlemany way of fighting wars.:rolleyes: Seemingly the only military that did issue them to snipers on a case by case,was the Soviet Union in ww2.Along with the NKVD silent Nagant revolver[.Only revolver that can be effectively silenced,due to its odd design]

Even criminal cases here in Ireland,I can only remember two cases of silencers [correct historical and legal term,suppressor being corrct technical term]being recoverd in the public domain off criminals.Both in Limerick.One was a UK nicked hushpower? silenced shotgun in the 1980s and the other a nicked .270 deer rifle in the oughties.All in all it doesnt seem to be a much sought after device in the global gangland either.

Asus1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

ONE case that I know of in Co Limerick about 15/20 +years ago on St Paddys day.Two lads out for rabbits,and crossing a fence/gate?,one lad didnt unload his shotgun the normal wayI think....:(

Has anyone out having a walk be in the bog or a forest ever been injured by a hunter.I read a while ago about a big increase in people being shot and killed by hunters in france boar hunting.

cookimonster

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/More-death-during-hunting-season-this-year-in-France

Hunting death toll already up on last season

Eight people have died in hunting accidents so far this season, one more death than during the whole hunting season last year.
The government has now raised the alarm as the hunting season still has another three months to run, not finishing before February 2020 (unless extended).
Last year, there were 131 accidents and seven people died, figures from the Office National de la Chasse et la Faune Sauvage (ONCFS) show.
Minister Emmanuelle Wargon has warned over the rise of accidents and written to the president of the Fédération Nationale des Chasseurs asking for a reaction of the hunting world, and telling the departmental hunting federations to remind all hunters of the safety rules.
She added that the law for the reinforcement of safety rules, which was voted in July 2019, has to be implemented across France as soon as possible. The law was supposed to be implemented from January 1, 2020, and includes a mandatory training course for hunters every 10 years.
The last hunting accident happened on Saturday in the Ardennes department. A 59-year-old hunter died after being shot in the abdomen by a fellow hunter.
The president of the Fédération Nationale des Chasseurs, Willy Schraen has now written a letter to hunters following the minister’s warning. He has blamed hunters for the lack of respect of safety rules and told every hunter to think about the rules before going out hunting.
He said in the letter: “Shooting without identifying your game, not respecting the 30 degree angles [hunters are allowed to shoot at an angle of 120 degrees but must not shoot in the 30 degree angular sectors on their left and right], moving in single file with a loaded weapon, forgetting to unload your weapon after hunting, are all mistakes of practice and common sense that should not happen.”
He added that it is “unacceptable” to ignore the rules and asked for hunters to prevent other hunters from hunting if they do not follow regulations.
Director of the Fédération Nationale des Chasseurs, Nicolas Rivet, said: “Eight people died and it’s all because of safety issues. We are conscious of the problem and we want to stop it.”
“We have to remind hunters of the rules and we ask them to be more careful and vigilant.”

More common place, than uncommon. My mate was over here last year, when he got the gossip that the Chairman of one of the local Syndicate, had shot a fellow hunter in the leg. Same, same as the article above, he ignored his safety arks
Love to be a fly on the wall at their next AGM committee elections!

juice1304

Why not just give your super a lesson in physics and tell him that bullets travel faster than the speed of sound hence if you shoot they wont hear it until it has already hit them anyway. What a fool

Brontosaurus

This is why the whole license renewal every 3 years and the need to have a license for every single firearm/crossbow/paintball/air rifle instead of having multiple firearms per license is just stupid. Ireland really seems to be one of the worst countries in Europe for firearm legislation.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I wouldnt go there with that on any case.

I didn't say to.

As it is untrue historically

Moot point.

Traumadoc

Asus1 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but has anyone in the republic ever been accidentally shot by someone out hunting.Back to the topic on hand i would think the gaurd in question probably does think that the moderator/silencer will make your rifle whisper quite like in the movies.I would like to think a 5 minute YouTube video would show them that it doesn't.I dont shoot. 223 but even a high velocity. 22lr moderated can be heard a fair lick away.

Yes I have treated a couple, both over 10 years ago, hunting shotgun injuries- both minor
Treated a handgun injury and a rifle injury (both accidently self inflicted).

And the usual assortment deliberate injuries, including a rather nasty one to the thigh of a chap on day release from the Joy, oh and a near darwin award winner who lost a testicle by having a sawn-off go off in his belt.

Traumadoc

HW100S wrote: »

Hi All

Just looking for some advise.

I have been refused my sound moderator on my renewal for the 223.
I moved to a new area 18 months ago so the renewal is now going to a new district.

Just wondering how I can have a moderator for the past 12 years and now it has been refused.

I submitted all the relevant documentation/letters with the application to justify the reason of need for the moderator. This was all followed up with phone calls to ensure that all the necessary info was in place.

The reason for refusal by the super is that ''using a sound moderator will reduce the sound such that the people nearby will not hear any shooting taking place and may walk into the area and be shot''

They are also saying that sound moderator approval is based at the discretion of individual super's, so the rules for one area are different for another. Is this valid?

They keep saying that they have sent out a refusal letter to my house but I am not getting any correspondence from them.

I'm now waiting on a meeting date with the super.

Thoughts?

Explain to him the seriousness and consequences of being refused a firearms license - it will affect your future chances of being licenced for any further firearms.

Ask for it in writing - your circumstances for requiring a license I presume have not changed therefore any appeal to the courts will likely succeed.

Grizzly 45

Asus1 wrote: »

Has anyone out having a walk be in the bog or a forest ever been injured by a hunter.I read a while ago about a big increase in people being shot and killed by hunters in france boar hunting.

Different type of hunting compared to here.Those are driven game shoots for deer,boar,hares,foxes,etc,using shotgun slugs or rifles.Alot of breaking the "Let this maxim ere be thine.Follow not across the line." Rule [from the poem "a Fathers advice" by Mark Beaufoy 1902 Great poem,every young&old shooter should know it off by heart ]

Never seen a driven shoot here in Ireland for deer or,as we don't have them wild boar,or even hares or foxes.So chances of being shot as a shooter or civillian,are pretty much...zero here.:)

tudderone

I find the whole topic bizarre to be honest. The ptb should be insisting on people with centrefire rifles having mods, not refusing them. Hollywood and it BS films are to blame, we have all seen it, the "sniper" screwing a mod onto a .308 rifle, which, when he fires it makes the same sound as a .177 air rifle. Complete fantasy, and the guards believe it.

Some of the places i have worked have been visited by factory inspectors. They invariably get the sound meter out at some stage and see noise levels are acceptable. If not they can and do close places down.

Anything that reduces noise should be encouraged, surely there is a noise abatement act or noise in the environment rules that can be used to allow moderators ?

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

Complete fantasy, and the guards believe it.

Well when you have respectable channels showing things like this:

cRyKKIh.gif?noredirect

....... its a wonder they get anything right.

tudderone

Oh sweet jebus :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Like MTV,History and Discovery channels have long since abandonded any sort o programmes or knowledge with a resembelence to their names.:rolleyes:

This society is strange,they want efficent silencers on our cars,but not on our guns..

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Like MTV,..........

Imagine if MTV had stayed playing just music for the last 30 years.

We'd have homes on Mars and the Moon, and be traveling in space ships and stuff. Instead we have phone zombies, Kardashians, Geordie shore, and Taylor Swift "leading" the next generation. :rolleyes:

tudderone

PBS America and The Smithsonian channel on freeview/freesat are still very good. Plenty of interesting programs, especially on things like the American civil war, the World wars, cold war etc. The rest have dumbed down to a point there is no reason to watch them.

Brontosaurus

Those refusing/allowing licenses should receive mandatory training on firearms: how they work and their capabilities. If they already do then...I don't know

tudderone

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Those refusing/allowing licenses should receive mandatory training on firearms: how they work and their capabilities. If they already do then...I don't know

The garda expert had great training on firearms, he admitted in open court he got his qualifications by watching Hickok45 and Iraqveteran 8888 videos on youtube !

Dell50

The health and safety laboratory in England's assesment of firearms moderators would be good reading for these FO

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

The garda expert had great training on firearms, he admitted in open court he got his qualifications by watching Hickok45 and Iraqveteran 8888 videos on youtube !

And quoting from "Janes infantry weapons"That is until a Kerry judge pulled on one of them on being "A great man for quoting from your bookeen there,now would you tell your evidence to the court from what's in your head?":p:p Things didnt go well for the AGS case after that.

Also,said "bookeen" mysteriously disappered from a court sitting during lunch on another occasion,never to be found or heard of again...Terrible the way not even our courts are safe from theft...:rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Those refusing/allowing licenses should receive mandatory training on firearms: how they work and their capabilities. If they already do then...I don't know

Thats why they have the firearms unit and the ballistics unit.However,if they are none the wiser,or are labouring under "agendas and policies".They will be echo chambers telling those what they want to hear as facts.

Grizzly 45

Dell50 wrote: »

The health and safety laboratory in England's assesment of firearms moderators would be good reading for these FO

Come on now! Dont be bringing facts, and scientific evidence from people in the know in Finland,Denmark,Germany,the US and the UK who sell,make or are experts in their fields on noise abatement to a Garda Superintendent making a grave decision on granting a liscense to a rifle he already approved of for a silencer!!:eek::eek: Where would we be,if they had to listen or read that kind of ol plaver???:rolleyes: