Cass Moderator
#166

Zxthinger said:
As of yet we have no FCP so we need to act as if it didn't exist.

That is short sighted, and rushed. It was only a week ago that the reintroduction of the FCP was announced. We need to give it time to get established. Going any other route no matter how fast you want it to happen will not be any quicker, and most definitely won't get any further as it's an "unofficial" route.

Are there any revolver shooters out there who are now holdimg a restricted arm?

Can you explain this for me? I'm having a blond moment and either i've forgotten or overlooked where you are getting this from. If a person has a revolver that is plugged for 5 shots as per SI 21/2008 & Si 337/2009 then it stil stands as unrestricted. Anyone buying a new revolver can now, with the aid of SI391/2015, get it plugged without having to face into a court battle or if they do they have a strong/stronger case.

How has anyone i described above gone from unrestricted to restricted because of the SI?

Sparks Category Moderator
#167

Zxthinger said:
I can understand where your coming from but tbh your world or your view of this problem is a little bit too picture perfect!

Twenty years of shooting have knocked most of the corners off my view. And having seen the pound-the-table approach tried so often and seen it fail miserably more often than it broke even have somewhat soured me on the idea of taking that much risk on when negative outcomes hit so many more people than just those doing the pounding.
In general, the more boring and less sexy the solution, the better the odds of it working and the longer it will work for. That's not theory; that's observed events.
As of yet we have no FCP so we need to act as if it didn't exist. Obliviously this wAs another simple error but wouldn't it be reassuring if the dept admitted that and we all knew that possible redress was looming on the horizon.
Currently I only see an erosion of our sports.

That's because you're expecting this stuff to all happen overnight. It doesn't. It never ever has, ever, at any time in the state's history.
Talk to your NGB, don't let it drop off the agenda, but don't expect it by next tuesday. This is only going to be a problem if someone is refused a licence on the specific grounds of a drafting error in the SI; that's less likely to happen now than it was before this. The FCP really is your best shot at changing this error with the least fuss and least trouble for shooting in general; especially as the SI needs to be rewritten again anyway because of all the other groups who the PTB know were accidentally included, like paintball and crossbow shooting. Adding a small tweak to fix a drafting error is a lot easier when you're already fixing larger stuff like that anyway.

Are there any revolver shooters out there who are now holdimg a restricted arm?

All the centerfire revolver owners for a start.

Sparks Category Moderator
#168

Cass said:
How has anyone i described above gone from unrestricted to restricted because of the SI?

As i understand it the argument comes down to whether a revolver's cylinder counts as a magazine under the SI.

Thing is, it's never been an issue until now (and if it had not been counted as a magazine, six-round-cylinder owners would never have needed plugs for their cylinders).

So until someone gets refused a licence on these grounds, I don't think this is a problem above the level of "drafting error". Fix it when fixing other stuff, in other words; not "gather the pitchforks and march on leinster house".

Zxthinger Registered User
#169

Sparks said:
As i understand it the argument comes down to whether a revolver's cylinder counts as a magazine under the SI.

Thing is, it's never been an issue until now (and if it had not been counted as a magazine, six-round-cylinder owners would never have needed plugs for their cylinders).

So until someone gets refused a licence on these grounds, I don't think this is a problem above the level of "drafting error". Fix it when fixing other stuff, in other words; not "gather the pitchforks and march on leinster house".

Pitch forks on standby for the FPC when the get going..
However sparks over the years you have proclaimed the folly of making assumptions regrading legal interpretations especially when one might be hung out to dry in court.
Your have always advocated strict adherence with statute laws and placed them as pinicale above any AGS interpretation or erroneous licensing practices.

Now it seems that you are relaxing you view when it suits you.

Perhaps I'm wrong to reach for my pitch fork (just yet)for this gross drafting error but I wouldn't like to be to person involved in the first test case to determine that a cylinder is not a magazine.
A quick run into the kings-inn law library will produce several forensic firearm books in which all the relevant anatomical pistol detail is listed and each and every reference details cylinders and magazines as different beasts with different mechanical properties thus creating a pleather shooter based pros and cons for both systems.

I simply want to know was this a genuine drafting error and if not perhaps then the ptb would furnish an explanation as to why such action was taken.

Sparks Category Moderator
#170

Zxthinger said:
However sparks over the years you have proclaimed the folly of making assumptions regrading legal interpretations especially when one might be hung out to dry in court.
Your have always advocated strict adherence with statute laws and placed them as pinicale above any AGS interpretation or erroneous licensing practices.

Correct, and I still think that's how you should do things.
Now it seems that you are relaxing you view when it suits you.

No I'm not. I'm saying it is a problem, and I started saying that three seconds after seeing the SI text for the first time, and I said it in public both in here and outside of the forum and I send that concern on to the DoJ as well. But I'm also saying it's a problem that hasn't bitten anyone so far, has precedent to be argued against it in any court case (or far better, before any court case), and for which a far more viable avenue has just been announced and which has far higher odds for success and far lower costs and risk levels. Not trying that first would be dumb.

I wouldn't like to be to person involved in the first test case to determine that a cylinder is not a magazine.

Nor would I nor any reasonable person. Avoiding the courts is always the better option if it's possible.

A quick run into the kings-inn law library will produce several forensic firearm books in which all the relevant anatomical pistol detail is listed and each and every reference details cylinders and magazines as different beasts with different mechanical properties thus creating a pleather shooter based pros and cons for both systems.

And how many court cases will make that distinction?
And how many licence applications?
The dictionary the law uses and the dictionary that people who know which end of a firearm the little hard things come out of, are completely different and the law doesn't give two figs for our dictionary and happily redefines terms as it goes along. And for the last few years, they've been requiring people to plug cylinders in revolvers even though the SI referred to magazines.

(And that's your precedent btw; turning around and suddenly stating that that has changed without notice isn't an orderly way to do things and "order" is a damn sight more worrying a topic to the law than "fair"...)

I simply want to know was this a genuine drafting error and if not perhaps then the ptb would furnish an explanation as to why such action was taken.


Have you asked them? I mean, you can just email them y'know, they're not the pope, they're civil servants doing a job, they do answer emails, it's part of the job.

Cass Moderator
#171

Sparks said:
As i understand it the argument comes down to whether a revolver's cylinder counts as a magazine under the SI.
.

Right, bear with me here.

Up until now and before SI 391 anyone with a 6 shot revolver because of the November 2008 statement, must have a cylinder plugged to license an unrestricted gun. Which means anyone with a revolver since that date has an unrestricted.

The SI, to a certain extent, is irrelevant in whether it means a cylinder and mag are the same as the gun can still only hold 5 shots to be legal. If the SI does not cover cylinders, but the revolvers are modified or manufactured to hold only 5 rounds then does it not STILL comply with the law in that it's a 5 shot unrestricted.

I know what you're saying about the terminology between cylinder and mag, but in practical terms the gun had to be restricted to 5 rounds before SI 391 and that still has not changed.

Am i making sense?

Sparks Category Moderator
#172

Cass said:
Am i making sense?

Yes, but the law isn't.
The problem is that the drafters tried to use firearms terminology instead of saying what they wanted.
So instead of saying "the gun can only hold five rounds", they said it could only have five rounds in the magazine.
So (a) they forgot about revolvers and (b) they forgot about the chamber itself. Except that "forgot" isn't the right word, since the AGs office wouldn't have known the terminology in the first place.

BoatMad Registered User
#173

Sparks said:
Yes, but the law isn't.
The problem is that the drafters tried to use firearms terminology instead of saying what they wanted.
So instead of saying "the gun can only hold five rounds", they said it could only have five rounds in the magazine.
So (a) they forgot about revolvers and (b) they forgot about the chamber itself. Except that "forgot" isn't the right word, since the AGs office wouldn't have known the terminology in the first place.


most laws have ambiguities, that ultimately have to be resolved in court if the applicants so desire. in the meantime the SI will be interpreted in the absence of a court decision . That will no doubt be the status quo situation

what would be much better then worrying about this , is to get the new FCP un and running and lets get the law SI changed to support 6 round competitions like else where in the world

1 person has thanked this post
yubabill1 Registered User
#174

Firearms offences have steadily fallen over the last 7 years, according to an article in ST 14/2/16- behind a paywall.

Offences such as possession or discharging a firearm peaked in 2008 with 3660 offences and have fallen steadily since, with 2317 in 2014 - lowest since 2004.

Breakdown

Weapon offences

Dublin peak 1760 (2010)
1085 (2014)

Limerick peak 283 (2007)
163 (2014)

Murders 2003-2015 Total 727 all areas

Dublin 44%
Limerick 7.4%

2006 70 murders total
2007 84

2013 60
2014 55

Murder attempts, murder threats have grown from 47 in 2003 to 432 in 2014, with 450 to Q3 2015.

So, firearms offences falling and AGS/DoJE invoking fear of legal firearms being used in crime as a reason for banning X Y and Z categories of firearms?

Maths is not their best subject.

6 people have thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!