Restricted Firearms List Drafted

triskell

has anyone heard or can confirm that a draft of the restricred firearms list was released internaly on 1 november. this bascially says anything over .280 is restricted as there's no requirement for it here (other than target shooting).
that you will need very specific reasons to aqquire a license for a caliber over .280 e.g .308 .300 .303 7mm
on pistols, anthing over .22 is being capped. unless you have very specific reasons.
also the old chestnut. military related firearms are all on the list, even some of the benelli shotguns are on it m4 being listed
this has not become law YET

Sparks

Posted a week or so ago:

2. This Department will not be issuing you with a copy of the draft
Restricted Firearms & Ammunition S.I but your organisation is invited to
meet officials in the Department to outline any views you may have on this
proposed statutory instrument.

There are a few drafts floating about that I've heard of, but none of them in any way official.

sidneyreilly

There have indeed been some drafts, please remember they are "draft" so no point discussing it until something concrete is shown

Vegeta

i would be thinking differently, surely when a draft becomes a concrete list then it is too late to change it

we should be engaging now and voicing our opinions early

Clare gunner

Thats the reason govts never issue drafts,so you can do feck all about it when they do issue them as guidelines or proposals.All predecided.:rolleyes:

Sparks

Various bodies have already met with the DoJ on this one and are still meeting with them Veg; but that doesn't mean that individuals can't send in their own opinions on them either, and as the debates on the CJA2006 showed, those individual points do get listened to.

Send your letters to:
Firearms & Explosives Section
Dept. of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
94, St. Stephen's Green
Dublin 2

Fax: 01 6028374

Emails to :
Firearms_INBOX@justice.ie

Flying

Does this mean my benelli M4 and Glock 17L 9MM could be taken from me if this becomes law ???

Sparks

Your firearms could be taken from you already through a few perfecly legal mechanisms Flying. The Temporary Custody Order legislation is still on the books, don't forget.

What the restricted list means is more subtle - namely that you would have to apply directly to the Commissioner for your licence if your firearms are on the restricted list or if the ammunition you use is on the list. And if he was so inclined, he could require you to fulfill whatever preconditions he wished before your licence was issued, up to and well past the point where you could afford to meet those preconditions. It's a mechanism that I've been saying was wide open to abuse from day one, and I still think it's not a good one. It's not a "take away your firearms" mechanism like the temporary custody order, but it could very easily be abused as a "prevent you from getting them in the first place" mechanism.

Flying

Sparks wrote:

Your firearms could be taken from you already through a few perfecly legal mechanisms Flying. The Temporary Custody Order legislation is still on the books, don't forget.

What the restricted list means is more subtle - namely that you would have to apply directly to the Commissioner for your licence if your firearms are on the restricted list or if the ammunition you use is on the list. And if he was so inclined, he could require you to fulfill whatever preconditions he wished before your licence was issued, up to and well past the point where you could afford to meet those preconditions. It's a mechanism that I've been saying was wide open to abuse from day one, and I still think it's not a good one. It's not a "take away your firearms" mechanism like the temporary custody order, but it could very easily be abused as a "prevent you from getting them in the first place" mechanism.

mmmmmmm methinks I will have a word with the Local Firearms officer as I have put quite a few bob into both firearms and also I a was considering purchasing an old .303" Lee Enfield Rifle although I current have a moderate Ruger 10/22 .22" also....

I would be out close to €2200 if I had to part with my pride and joy mmm :eek:

Sparks

Nothing to do with the local Firearms Officer Flying, this is a long way over his pay grade, if you'll pardon the expression. You want to have a word with the DoJ at the addresses/phone numbers above...

Flying

Will do if things look bleak I might consider trading them in for lesser obvious firearms such as a Remington 870 and Some form of a .22" Pistol.

Thanks for the Info mate

triskell

Sparks wrote:

Your firearms could be taken from you already through a few perfecly legal mechanisms Flying. The Temporary Custody Order legislation is still on the books, don't forget.

on what grounds can this implemneted........ medical or criminal type reasons.
or can it be, I dont think you should have that
on the list itself i think the more people who know about this now the more that can be done about it, there is an election commin up:D

Clare gunner

Wouldnt panic too much,if you have a 9mm /45 pistol.Just get an application in for a .22 conversion kit,and if the worst happens ,all you do is hand in the 9mm barrel,mag,and slide.But remember iyt isnt happend yet,nor is it a ban.So let's wait and see,but moan and groan to the DOJ in the meantime.:)

flight93

Thats all very well if shooting .22 pistols interests you. I know lots of people who enjoy shooting .22 and just have no interest in larger calibers. But for me and others like me it has to be at least 9mm for pactical shooting, .22 does nothing for me.

triskell

flight93 wrote:

Thats all very well if shooting .22 pistols interests you. I know lots of people who enjoy shooting .22 and just have no interest in larger calibers. But for me and others like me it has to be at least 9mm for pactical shooting, .22 does nothing for me.

so in theory you have a legitimate reason to have it, practical shooting requires a centrefire caliber of a certain power level. i think this going to be geared towards stopping the fella who wants a .375 for bunnies or a fifty for deer.
people are gonna have justify why a they want a restricted caliber or firearm, and then meet the DOJ criteria (security arrangements and suitable range facilites). what groups are meeting the DOJ?

flight93

I know dfaf, I was just trying to point out to clare gunner that to only be able to shoot .22 would be a really big deal to some of us. I enjoy lots of forms of target shooting, but when you get in to practical..... well if you havent done it you just wouldnt understand! Im not even much good at it, but its just so much fun, it would kill me to give it up.

Clare gunner

And what do we do if some Gauleiter...er superintendant or minister states that practical pistol can be just as easily shot with 22lr???????????
IF they dont ban it somtime,because it "might be useful for paramilitaries or criminals to train with."Dont laugh they used that nonsense to ban paintball in the 80s here.
Or HOW will we get around the ,when it comes practical rifle centrefire semi autos
??THEY could be stopped on any of the citeria in the current legislation.
This same sort of daft logic has been supplied to folks who have applied for "silencers" on noise limitation orhearing protection grounds.Use ear muffs,or dont shoot at all.How do you deal with that kind of logic???

Dont get me wrong I prefer myself big calibre shooting,and practical as well.
But INMHO of seeing the way Irish laws work and Irish politicians,I would be inclined to think that no matter what happens they will screw us the electorate anyway somway.Soo,personally,i would rather still be shooting my Glock [or hopefully next purchase a Grizzly 45Win mag] with a 22 kit,rather than nothing at all,in a worst case situation.

Oh..
My..
God..

CG just accepted shooting a .22lr instead of a Centrefire... and advised others to do the same!! :eek:

Need to get out the shotgun to take down those flying pigs!!!

Clare gunner

Where did Im say that??? I said if big cal is "restricted"and you want to keep shooting your restricted big caliber pistol a 22 conversion kit might be the only way to hold onto it.
Didnt see any flying pigs[apart from the Garda Helicopter,does that count?]:D

Sparks

dfaf wrote:

on what grounds can this implemneted........ medical or criminal type reasons. or can it be, I dont think you should have that

From the 1964 Firearms Act, Section 4:

4.—(1) The Minister may, if satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of the public safety, make an order requiring every person residing in an area specified in the order and having possession of any firearm or ammunition or of a firearm or ammunition of such class or classes as may be specified in the order to surrender it on or before a date specified in the order to the Garda Síochána.

Thing is, "in the interests of public safety" is a very broad phrase...

Also remember that that section is open to very cynical abuse, as happened in '72 because while it says the TCO can only last for a month at the most:

(2) An order under subsection (1) of this section shall remain in force for such period not exceeding one month as may be specified in the order.

There is this lovely little caveat at the end:

(5) As soon as may be after the time at which an order under subsection (1) of this section ceases to be in force, the Garda Síochána shall, subject to the provisions of the Principal Act, return any firearms or ammunition surrendered to or seized by them pursuant to the order to the owners thereof.

What happened in '72 was that all firearms (bar .22s, air rifles and shotguns) were taken into custody just after the licence renewals were due (August 2nd was when the TCO was issued and you had until August 5 to comply). But when the month was up and people went to get them back, no licences were issued because of an internal Garda/DoJ policy. And since the Gardai can't give you a firearm if you don't have a licence...

on the list itself i think the more people who know about this now the more that can be done about it, there is an election commin up:D

Doesn't help us really. Do the math and you find we're too small and too spread out to be able to influence an election. And doing the math is a matter of self-preservation for the politicians you'd look to influence.

macnas

Got a quick look at a copy of the draft restricted list, alot of stuff in there, military calibres, semi auto rifles, police/military pistols, straight pulls and lots more. The powers that be seem to be a lot more clued in than they used to be.

I know the NARGC are in discussions with the Dept. on this, is there any input from FLAG?

Sparks

Almost everyone (though one or two major groups are still in the queue) has met the DoJ at this stage macnas - NRPAI, NARGC, NTSA, NASRC, the whole soup bowl. It doesn't immediately appear to be having any huge effect, but then again, the reason there was that great big "DRAFT" stamped across the SI in two-inch-tall letters and the "for discussion only" bit on the top is that they have to listen to all parties before they can make changes. That's the process we've been committed to by the CJA2006.

civdef

Don't supposed the plebs who aren't on committees of these bodies will get a look?

dbar

Anyone have a look at the Xmas Shooters digest yet?
Some info in there about the way the restricted firearms issue is developing.

Sparks

Don't supposed the plebs who aren't on committees of these bodies will get a look?

The committees were all asked not to disclose the details Civ. I can't post them without the okay of the NTSA board. Drawbacks of working with the system.

Some info in there about the way the restricted firearms issue is developing.

Not really to be honest. Des Crofton's pages which were sent to the TDs make for interesting reading especially for the details of case studies, but I don't really think there was anything in the Digest which was new for anyone reading here (mainly because the Digest has such a longer publishing cycle than here).

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

The committees were all asked not to disclose the details Civ. I can't post them without the okay of the NTSA board. Drawbacks of working with the system.

How about generalisations?we could draw our own conclusions right or wrong from them.

kowloon

.280?

I was under the impression that things were becoming more enlightened, muzzle energy and the likes having their say.
so i can still amend a .22LR to a .220 swift but someone looking to hang an old snider on their wall is screwed over for having a ye olde style fat bp caliber?
One cant fight off hordes of natives wielding sharp pieces of fruit with a girls caliber.

astraboy

No doubt there will be a knee jerk reaction to all the criminal style slayings involving firearms recently. To be honest, all guns are dangerous in the worng hands, it dosent matter if its a 9mm or a .22. The people that legally hold firearms, especially those that go through all the hoops to get seriously restricted weapons like the member above with the Glock, are not going to go out and point it in the face of the local publican or shopkeeper and demand money. A bit of common sense would go a long way, let those that wish to participate in target shooting in a controlled environment with larger calibers do so, its not like we are asking to be allowed hold 1000 rounds of depleated urniaum. It is the guns bought into this country illegally, propably with large consignements of drugs, that are the problem.

kowloon

On a more serious not though, if the .280 restriction comes into effect, along with "military calibers", wont that just mean things are back to the way they were? barring the pistols...

macnas

Sparks wrote:

The committees were all asked not to disclose the details Civ.

An old DOJ 'negotiation' strategy, next thing it will be a done deal that is rubber stamped by the various organisations involved.

Clare gunner

FACT!!!,and usually around this time of year is dangerous,when everyone wants to get Dail biz done and dusted before the Xmas/Feb break to look like the TD an ministers are hard working and need an eight week break.:rolleyes: So rush it through and to Hell with consequences or procedure.

Sparks

macnas wrote:

An old DOJ 'negotiation' strategy, next thing it will be a done deal that is rubber stamped by the various organisations involved.

The SI has not been rubber stamped or approved by any shooting organisation I know of macnas; the NTSA I know for certain raised several problems with it and I don't doubt that other bodies raised a fair few more. And discussions are still ongoing. And yes, the secret squirrel stuff bugs the daylights out of me as well.

HOWEVER, there is nothing stopping anyone sending their own thoughts on the matter to the DoJ...

Terrier

Assuming that this "Restricted Firearms List" is adopted, and someone was in possession of a weapon\calibre which appeared on the list would it be a case that this would be confiscated \ licence revoked? Or would it be that licences would not be issued for weapons\calibres from that point on, allowing the pre-issued licences to stand?

civdef

Restricted means you have to apply to the comissioenr for the licence, and show a strong justification for needing the particular firearm. This doesn't necessarily mean they won't issue licences.

Sparks

Terrier wrote:

Assuming that this "Restricted Firearms List" is adopted, and someone was in possession of a weapon\calibre which appeared on the list would it be a case that this would be confiscated \ licence revoked? Or would it be that licences would not be issued for weapons\calibres from that point on, allowing the pre-issued licences to stand?

Neither, it means that you have to apply to the Commissioner directly, who can set blanket preconditions above those required by section four. In other words, he has the legal authority to require you to have whatever conditions met that he wants you to meet. That's not a ban, nor is it a prohibition; but, if he so desired, he could make it a de facto ban by setting the conditions too high; as we've been saying here since the CJB was first aired.

jaycee

civdef wrote:

Restricted means you have to apply to the comissioenr for the licence, and show a strong justification for needing the particular firearm. This doesn't necessarily mean they won't issue licences.

And it dosen't necessarily mean that they will allow importation of those firearms that they have decided are "Restricted" in the first place.
Kinda like "Keep your foot on the hose and the water will stop"

astraboy

So could they demand ridiclous security etc to be allowed keep a handgun, making it either very expensive or not financially worth keeping one? Do they not seem to trust people in this country with larger firearms?:(

Sparks

astraboy wrote:

So could they demand ridiclous security etc to be allowed keep a handgun, making it either very expensive or not financially worth keeping one?

Yes, they could if they chose to do so.

Do they not seem to trust people in this country with larger firearms?:(

No. Mind you, this is the same body that was tasked with dealing with the IRA for thirty years and is now tasked with dealing with a rising level of armed criminal activity, so you can see where their worries stem from, even while disagreeing with them.

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

No. Mind you, this is the same body that was tasked with dealing with the IRA for thirty years and is now tasked with dealing with a rising level of armed criminal activity, so you can see where their worries stem from, even while disagreeing with them.

Well, why don't they just not issue Firearms Certificates to IRA men and armed criminals then?

:rolleyes:

Sparks

I think their worry Rovi, was that they might give a licence to someone, who then legally buys lots of ammunition (that happens to fit an armalite), and then drops it in a hole in a field somewheres, declares it shot and buys some more and repeats the process - thus resupplying an illegal group through a legal front. It'd be a fair cost in manhours to find patterns like that, given all the paperwork the current system entails.

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

I think their worry Rovi, was that they might give a licence to someone, who then legally buys lots of ammunition (that happens to fit an armalite), and then drops it in a hole in a field somewheres, declares it shot and buys some more and repeats the process - thus resupplying an illegal group through a legal front. It'd be a fair cost in manhours to find patterns like that, given all the paperwork the current system entails.

Damn you and your sensible response!

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

I think their worry Rovi, was that they might give a licence to someone, who then legally buys lots of ammunition (that happens to fit an armalite), and then drops it in a hole in a field somewheres, declares it shot and buys some more and repeats the process - thus resupplying an illegal group through a legal front. It'd be a fair cost in manhours to find patterns like that, given all the paperwork the current system entails.

And is totally unrealistic,and now a very unimagnative excuse,and police thinking to be trotted out by the Gardai.Seeing that ASFIK the PIRA never even aquired shotgun shells like this.Nowadays if the local drug boys can land an odd ton of heroin once a week,a half doz HKs and ammo is not beyond their remit either?
IF they were serious about the above scenario,we would have to bring in all our used shells and exchange for fresh[be abit difficult mind with air rifles ].

It is simple with arms here.WE ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED!!!!! I mean in communist China and Russia,even in Saddams Iraq they allow their comrades the right to posses arms with alot less hassle than we have to put up with.And THEY are supposedly the unfree societys???

jaycee

Originally Posted by Sparks
I think their worry Rovi, was that they might give a licence to someone, who then legally buys lots of ammunition (that happens to fit an armalite), and then drops it in a hole in a field somewheres, declares it shot and buys some more and repeats the process - thus resupplying an illegal group through a legal front. It'd be a fair cost in manhours to find patterns like that, given all the paperwork the current system entails.

Sorry, don't accept that as a legitimate reason to victimise licenced and law abiding shooters. It looks like an valid argument, but it isn't really. It's just more of the same blinkered viewpoint that we had for years.
That would be a hell of a way to try to supply a whole group...
Generally the quantities they are interested in are numbered in trawler loads.

Besides that , belonging to an illegal organisation is ...er.. Illegal ,
Supplying firearms or ammunition to those groups is also illegal .
So instead of beating the law abiding citizens , how about "Detecting" illegal activity.
BTW.. are they now admitting that the backround checks that they run before they hand out a licence are useless ...? Isn't that the whole point ..to filter out the dodgy characters. Where would this fictional character have been supposed to be shooting all that ammo ..? At an authorised range ..?
and nobody noticed him/her not turning up ..? and the record keeping by ranges, firearms dealers and the Gardaí is a waste of time too..?

Aw c'mon, how many more trojan horses are going to be trotted out as if they were genuine .?
:mad: :mad:

Vinniew

Any chance of some input from FLAG on all of this?

I thought there might be some "discussion" on whats gonna be restricted?????
Sounds like we're all waiting for the list to be sent forth from the DOJ and we're going to have to swallow it as per usual.
Ye have to wonder as to why the "representative bodies" are being told to keep this quiet.

Seems so far that nothing to benefit bonafide firearms owners has come from the CJB.
Just another PR exercise for that twat McD to be able to say he's done something other than donut berty.
The weapons amnesty was a farce, legit ranges have been closed/forced to rework their layout and now the "proposed restriction list".
Would be more in their line to get off their collective fat PD/FF arses and do someyhing about the real problems. Any little skanger that wants a hand gun or sawn off or even an smg can get one....with way less hassel than we'd ever have and evidently the police aren't able to stop them....oh teah and they don't have to pay the poxy license fees either or worry about section 7etc.
Face it! we're a soft target for the government.
Hope everyone remembers that come election time and we're being doorstepped by these fat, ignorant,corrupt useless bastards pretending to be public representatives.

Sparks

jaycee wrote:

Sorry, don't accept that as a legitimate reason to victimise licenced and law abiding shooters.

Neither do I, but I need to know where they're coming from.

It looks like an valid argument, but it isn't really. It's just more of the same blinkered viewpoint that we had for years.
That would be a hell of a way to try to supply a whole group...
Generally the quantities they are interested in are numbered in trawler loads.

Yup. But their point of view is that even if you've one lad doing it, it's too many. The PR problem it would create for them alone is staggering.

Besides that , belonging to an illegal organisation is ...er.. Illegal ,
Supplying firearms or ammunition to those groups is also illegal .
So instead of beating the law abiding citizens , how about "Detecting" illegal activity.

Because it's too many man-hours (and too much for us as well) to be counting the empties and tracking ammunition usage across 200,000 people. It's just far easier to not give them the stuff in the first place :rolleyes:

BTW.. are they now admitting that the backround checks that they run before they hand out a licence are useless ...?

Er, no. And if they were to admit that, they'd just ban the lot on that basis anyway, right down to air pistols.

Isn't that the whole point ..to filter out the dodgy characters. Where would this fictional character have been supposed to be shooting all that ammo ..? At an authorised range ..?

Which didn't exist up until next year...

And nobody noticed him/her not turning up ..? and the record keeping by ranges, firearms dealers and the Gardaí is a waste of time too..?

I don't think the record keeping is a waste of time JC, but it'd take two or three fulltime people just to keep up with the paperwork one club generates (DURC, for example, is five Range Officer reports per week, each one containing details on up to 24 people's shooting for that night). Maybe if it were all computerised, it'd be a managable task to have automated data mining going on, but we don't have a great track record for computerisation in this country...

Aw c'mon, how many more trojan horses are going to be trotted out as if they were genuine .? :mad: :mad:

Don't shoot the messanger now. I don't think that we've been treated fairly either. But we're in the mess we're in now because we took a confrontational, nearly militant attitude, and we've been comprehensively shown how poor a strategy that is when you're as small as we are. We are not able to effect change that way. We need to find a better way to do this.

Sparks

Vinniew wrote:

Any chance of some input from FLAG on all of this?

I'd be far more interested in hearing from someone who actually carried any weight.

I thought there might be some "discussion" on whats gonna be restricted?????

You and me both.

Sounds like we're all waiting for the list to be sent forth from the DOJ and we're going to have to swallow it as per usual.
Ye have to wonder as to why the "representative bodies" are being told to keep this quiet.

The reason given is that this is a draft document. There's been no word as yet as to how many rounds of drafts and consultations there will be (there should be at least two, this being the first one (meet everyone, get input, make changes, distribute second draft, get more input, make changes, finalise), but we don't know.

Seems so far that nothing to benefit bonafide firearms owners has come from the CJB.

I wouldn't go quite that far - the 3-year rolling licence and the training licences are good; but certainly, it's not been worth the price and frankly I'm mad at how badly it has treated us, and I've said so in some detail here before.

Face it! we're a soft target for the government.
Hope everyone remembers that come election time and we're being doorstepped by these fat, ignorant,corrupt useless bastards pretending to be public representatives.

I'd love if that would work, I really would. But even if all 200,000 of us voted the same way, en masse, ignoring morgage repayments, child care, education, health system reforms, other aspects of policing, infrastructural policies, agricultural policies, environmental policies, economic policies and so forth - we're still too few and too far apart to do any good that way.

Far better to put pen to paper NOW and write in to the DoJ to voice your concerns and/or objections to the process or the list. We know this can work, we saw very positively in the CJB process that grassroots action is noticed at political levels - if in the space of less than one week we can get one change into the CJA2006 even though representative bodies can't do as much in that timeframe, then think what we could do here! And it's far better to do this now than to come back in a few months when this is done and dusted to complain that it was unfair!

The address is:

Firearms & Explosives Section
Dept. of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
94, St. Stephen's Green
Dublin 2

Fax: 01 6028374

Emails to :
Firearms_INBOX@justice.ie

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

Far better to put pen to paper NOW and write in to the DoJ to voice your concerns and/or objections to... ...the list.

The thing is though, it's a bit tricky trying to voice concerns/objections to something you've not seen or read...

17HMR

Without being able to see this Draft document, it's a bit difficult to voice concerns to local representatives or the S&E Section as to its proposals or contents....

(Ah... Rovi got the point in ahead of me !)

Sparks

Yeah, I know guys. That's why I said "voice your concerns and/or objections to the process or the list" - you can complain that this is being prepared behind closed doors with no opportunity for the general shooting public to comment on it.

macnas

I would love to know how this list was put together!!!

I'm not buying the 'it's only restricted' arguement and you can apply to the commissioner for a licence. I think that this amounts to a de facto ban on these calibres and firearms. Instead of arguing about what's in and what's out on this list, our organisations should be arguing that there shouldn't be a list at all. We've all got that 'I'm alright Jack' thing going on, as long as I can keep what I have, B****x. There shouldn't be any restricted list, a valid reason for owning a firearm, yes but let's not make it easier for them to say no.
At the end of this process, it will be our own organisations telling us why certain firearms and calibres are restricted, not the DOJ.

Sparks

our organisations should be arguing that there shouldn't be a list at all

That had to be a point won during the CJB debates macnas, and it wasn't. The restricted list is now explicitly provided for by the Firearms Act 2006, Article 2B, and we have no grounds to tell the Minister that he shouldn't draft one, none that we could stand on anyways. Our best bet here is to ensure that nothing we actually use gets on that list. I'll admit, it's like choosing which finger to break - but the choice we're looking at is to choose one, or have them all broken...