Whatever he is doing, it seems that the Teflon Kid has struck again.

Here in UK it doesn't seem to matter who you are, inrecent times at least two MPs have run foul of the law.

MP #1 - on a routine check of his firearms holdings [no such thing in law, BTW, they have to ask permission to enter your house and have good reason to do so], the MP concerned was absent. His mother, however, knew where the keys to his gun safe were located, and told the FEO. He lost all his guns as a result of that.

MP #2 - again, on a check, he was found to have a couple [that is to say TWO] expanding bullets on his reloading bench. As he was a target shooter, he had broken the law. Possession of soft-point or fragmenting ammunition or components is very tightly controlled here in yUK. He was charged with illegal possession of [for him] prohibited] ammunition. The case went to court, where the judge found that there were 'some mitigating circumstances in the case', fined him a serious wadge of money and seized all his guns.

tac

IRLConor wrote: »

Since there's no definition of "shooting range" anywhere

That's true but I think they get round it because there's a rather hefty SI defining what standards a range must meet to be authorised under section 4A and the act keeps talking about an authorised range under section 4A, rather than just saying "shooting range" and defining it in the act.

End result is, you can go target shooting in your back yard legally, you just have to build a range in there that's compliant with Section 4A and get the Firearms Range Inspector to sign off on it. But if you have the amount of money that would take and it's just burning a hole in your pocket, I can think of a university club or two that could use it for better purposes!

Go shooting without having the bit of paper issued under section 4A or section 2(5) and you're breaking the law and they don't have to worry about the legal definitions, it's just a licence check.

Spannerman7 wrote: »

I've seen this banded about a lot on here, can you post me a link of the legislation that states this as I could not find it, not hearsay or owt.

If you've seen it on here, you've seen the links to the legislation and even the original WTF is this nonsense posts when we first saw this legislation eight years ago. This has been known about and known to be horrible for a long time now, how do people not know about this throughout the shooting community in Ireland?

dc99 wrote: »

As long as he has a licence to shoot a rifle OUTSIDE i.e. for hunting and vermin control etc, and not just in a range, then how can shooting targets be illegal?

Because the law is an ass. And this isn't even the hairiest part of that ass.

Spannerman7 wrote: »

Thats grand so cos I am not the owner nor an operator of a rifle or pistol range, neither is Healy Rea, where is the issue. It still does not say you are not allowed to fire at a paper, steel or even banana target for the purpose of zeroing your rifle, what a garda may think or interpret is not the law, an SI or legislation.

You're just plain wrong. The DoJ think you're just plain wrong. The Gardai think you're just plain wrong. And yes, people have run afoul of this in the very recent past (and as far as I know, there are ongoing cases as well, but for the obvious reason that I'm just another joe public, I don't have the fine details and we can't talk about it here until it's done anyway).

Spannerman7 wrote: »

Seeing as there is no law against it,

There is a law against it, the DoJ do watch for that law being broken, the Gardai do take a dim view of breaking that law, Garda HQ do take a dimmer view of that law being broken, people have been hauled up over it and landed in very hot water for breaking that law.
Just because you don't think it lines up with common sense (and you're right, it doesn't), does not mean you can do it.

There's something you must always keep in mind when reading the firearms act and it's this: they can, will and do enforce it, but when it comes to the law and common sense, the two rarely coexist.

When people have run afoul, I presume you mean there was a conviction for breaking the law ?

Spannerman7 wrote: »

If I were to own or operate a range then this is relevant, Please please point out where it says that it is against the law, I am not talking about an authorised range, or any other type of range.
I am talking about what we say on TV, what each and everyone of us do and that is to zero our rifles by shooting at a target.
I have read through the legislation.

If that is "zeroing a rifle" what Haely Rae did on national TV than Im a monkeys uncle!:rolleyes:
Lets call a spade a spade here.That was no zeroing effort.

The way he handled the gun in the pic suggests somone who has hardly ever/never shot that type of gun in their lives.

Most people take five shots to sort out a zeroing issue or to zero in a new scope.
There is no big issue in "zeroing" a GSG .22 HK clone or even the real HK.
They are factory sighted at 100 meters and the sights are "turret sights" proably some of the best ever built, going from 50 to 500 meters by simply rotating the turret. [ASFIK the GSG has those HK parts]
There is no scope on the gun either so what s the big zeroing deal??
Odd that you need an entire TV crew to watch what is proably the most boring and house hold chore of shooting..:rolleyes:

Sparks wrote: »

Owning/operating a shooting range is irrelevant; the law specifically says that it's the act of shooting that's the offence

There must be some text in the legislation stating this, the links are to discussions, I appreciate your time in digging up all that, all I'm after is for someone to point out the text stating such, ie that it is against the law to zero your hunting rifle by shooting at a target.
I have read it and re read it.
I'm not getting my back up at all, I'm always polite and courtious, just meerly discussing the topic.

In terms of legislation, it doesn't matter what I think the laws says, it doesn't matter what others think the law says. What matters is what the DoJ think the law says, and they think target shooting outside an authorised range is a no no. No matter how I sulk, bitch, moan or object with my lay opinion, it's not going to change that.

So the question I have is, how could this be changed? Does it need an S.I. or a bill proposal which requires a ton more effort. I do know that political point scoring, table banging, trying to slight departments or ministers etc etc is just not the correct way to build working relationships. I would fear support of Healy-Rae could lead to more enemies than friends for us.

Spannerman7 wrote: »

There must be some text in the legislation stating this, the links are to discussions

Yes, but discussions of the law with reference to specific sections and one of those discussions is by the Minister as he was passing that law and explaining that yes, he really did mean it to impact on people plinking on informal ranges. The problem arose because he never saw that lads blasting away at tin cans in their back yard and a hunter zeroing his rifle are the same thing in the eyes of the law.

In the event you were to (hypothetically) run afoul of this, what would happen would be that you'd be reported to the firearms range inspector or the gardai as engaging in target shooting outside of an authorised range at such-and-such a place. If reported to the gardai, they'd consult the range inspector and the local superintendent, confirm that place was not an authorised range, the range inspector might be asked to inspect the place to gather evidence of target shooting (he's empowered to enter any place, dwelling, building, vehicle or anything else without needing a search warrant to do just that). He finds cartridges and a paper or steel target, and now that place is an unauthorised shooting range for the purposes of the law. Doesn't matter if it's a field or a clone of a bisley range because as far as the law is concerned, a shooting range isn't a defined thing (as opposed to an authorised range, which is). So as far as the law is concerned, we have a place, shooting happened there outside of the bounds of hunting (because there was no quarry), therefore it is a shooting range; and since it isn't on the register of 4A and 2(5) authorised ranges, it is not an authorised range. And now your're facing into trying to defend yourself in court.

The specific part of the law you would hypothetically be looking down the barrel of would be section 4A(18)(c):

(18) It is an offence—

...

(c) for a person, without reasonable excuse, to participate in the activities of such a club or shooting range for which an authorisation under this section is not in force.

And it's subsequent penalty:

(20) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (18) of this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €2,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both, and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both.

Now maybe you could win such a case by trying to establish in a court of law what zeroing is as opposed to target shooting; but I wouldn't want to bet seven years of my life on that kind of defence, because you'd need the judge to want to go along with the idea that he or she would be creating a loophole in an Act where previously there was none. The High Court and the Supreme Court have previously (in Dunne-v-Donohue) prohibited the Garda Commissioner from doing that kind of thing with blanket prerequisites on firearms applications that weren't in the original act. Odds are, they'd just find you guilty and express regret in the judgement that they had no choice and call on the Minister to fix the law (that's already happened, Justice Charleton of all people called for the law to be fixed in a judgement he gave a few years back but operated within the law as strictly written for the judgement itself).

Don't get me wrong, not only is that a strong argument to take to the DoJ, it's also an argument that they are familiar with. Noone can speak for them in any capacity and they don't have very much official freedom of expression on policy at all (because that could be seen as them undermining the Minister); but everything we've seen over the years has told us that they would love to have this problem fixed because everyone can see it's a daft idea to make it illegal to zero your rifle and also illegal to be cruel to animals by not using an accurate rifle to hunt with.

Vegeta wrote: »

So the question I have is, how could this be changed? Does it need an S.I. or a bill proposal which requires a ton more effort.

It'd have to be a bill. You're looking to amend something fundamental to an Act, probably by adding a definition or an extra clause to 4A, so you'd have to use primary legislation to do that. And we don't have the FCP to push for it anymore so I don't see it happening in the immediate future (not to mention, anything not related to the economy is on the long finger in government at the moment, seanad reform referendums being the exception :pac: )

An analogue of what happens here in UK, somewhat.

Here, a shooter has to have 'good reason' to be allowed to acquire and possess any firearm. There are other 'good reasons', but,

Reason A - target shooting.

Reason B - is for the purpose of 'stalking' as hunting deer or other game is called over here.

I fall into category A - I am only licensed to shoot my guns on a Home Office authorised target rifle/handgun range. There are NO unauthorised ranges in UK, so if I took one of my rifles 'off-range' to shoot a bunny or a boar or a deer, I'd be breaking the terms and conditions of my license, and therefore the law. The least I would get away with is having my FAC revoked and losing all my guns. The most is a stiff jail sentence.

Anybody who is a Category B shooter is permitted to zero his rifle on an authorised range, but with the minumum expenditure of ammunition - in general, soft-point ammuntion is not permitted on a target rifle range, but unless he is a member of the gun club he cannot engage in formal target rifle shooting. Zeroing your rifle is not classed as target rifle shooting, but simply as zeroing. These one-day users are permitted to use the target rifle range facilities by prior arrangement with the club secretary, providing that their rifle fire a calibre that is permitted on our range, either by virtue of calibre or muzzle energy or velocity. To do so, they pay a small fee to get them 'on the books for insurance purposes as 'single day members'. We have eight or ten of these every year - more or less.

However, everyone who is a sporting shooter in our club is also a target rifle shooter, to enable them to do load development or to try out new or different ammunition and to zero their guns as and when they like. This FACT is noted on their FAC.

tac