Automatic

maglite

an assault rifle is defined as being capable of semi of full auto fire

or one that looks like it can.



So what does an automatic gun look like???

Mellor

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0geu6i0ZbtHRFEA07RXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=assault%20rifle&fp_ip=IE&SpellState=n-1563627801_q-8.m5SKt.zgjNUyJKtYXZVgAAAA%40%40&fr2=tab-web&fr=

Pretty good outline there.
common features are large mags, removable stock, flash supressors

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7493076@N07/sets/72157600027099452/

The above contails of of hi res close up shots of various elements of an assault rifle

Sparks

None of which is specified in the SI under "how to tell if something looks like an automatic rifle"...

Mellor

I took it that it refered to firearms that come in both models.

Eg, the AK47 is banned as it is both semi and full auto
The Models of AK47 that feature semi-auto only are also banned as they look the same.

dimebag249

The M14 is select fire. It has a wooden stock and iron sights, a detachable magazine and sling swivels. Do rifles with some, any or all of these features 'resemble' an M14? Or is an M14 even covered, it is after all a battle rifle rather than an assault rifle? Hmm...

Mellor

dimebag249 wrote: »

it is after all a battle rifle rather than an assault rifle? Hmm...

Don't let them here you say that. :D:D

The most common distinction between a battle rifle and an assault rifle is that a battle rifle fires a full-power cartridge such as .30-06 (M1 Garand) or 7.62x51mm NATO (M14, H&K G3, many others). Assault rifles fire smaller, "intermediate" rounds such as 5.56x45mm (M16 family) or 7.62x39mm (AK47).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle

joking aside, the resemble part is quite objective and I fail to see how anyone with out a knowledge of firearms could apply it.

Sparks

That's too loose a definition though mellor. For example, the M1 garand was semi-auto for most of WW2, but towards the end, they experimented with an automatic version (which led to the M14). Now, if I have a rifle that looks like the M1 or M14, but which is bolt-action or semi-auto only, is it restricted?
For example:



You and I might know the difference there - but would the average Garda? Just how closely must A resemble B in order for A to be restricted?

Mellor

I agree sparks, thats my point in the second post. That is completely unclear, does have to resemble any full auto, or resemble the average full suto.
that would be a legitimate grey area that should be cleared up. I think its far more confusing for a layperson than say the stock issue.

cavan shooter

Mellor wrote: »

Don't let them here you say that. :D:D



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle

joking aside, the resemble part is quite objective and I fail to see how anyone with out a knowledge of firearms could apply it.

Is this an assault rifle??

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=9935_13987_14246_14284&products_id=85588:D

Mellor

In a technical defination, no. But since when has that applied to the firearms act, the crossbow is considered a firearm for example.
But the above would be one that resembles the average assault rifle. As opposed to sparks gun above that resembles an M1/M14

Bananaman

You know aswell as I do that it is a get out clause.

If you landed in to your local station looking for an M1 garand and they did not want to give it to you they would simply tell you it "looked like" an assault rifle and that would be that.

You would have recourse in the courts but in the unlikely event that you took it again it would be a get out clause for the judge also as they can also decide that it "looks like" an assault rifle.

Generally there a few things that will always make it look like an assault rifle -
a) carrying handle - take it off - you do not need it.
b) colour - if it's for stalking fair enough paint it camo - if it's for target then you do not need it to be black - get it painted luminous pink or some such - it will no longer look like an assault rifle.
c) Banana magazines - you have nobody to blame but yourself.
d) Removable stock - what possible need can you have for that?

B'Man

Sparks

See, that's the thing cavan - it's not an assault rifle according to what an assault rifle actually is. It's not an assault rifle according to clause (a) of the SI's definition; but because it resembles an M-16, it might be under clause (b). Even with a completely different calibre. Even with the different materials. And even though semi-auto rimfire rifles are not restricted. But that's not a definitive answer because it's impossible to give a definitive answer as the SI requires a subjective assessment and gives no guidelines on how to make that assessment.

cavan shooter

Agh yes, good to see that we are now back to the

"I don't like the look of that":mad:

maglite

cavan shooter wrote: »

Agh yes, good to see that we are now back to the

"I don't like the look of that":mad:

but we are not

its you cant have because of the look of that , and its now in law

fishdog

Generally there a few things that will always make it look like an assault rifle -
a) carrying handle - take it off - you do not need it.
b) colour - if it's for stalking fair enough paint it camo - if it's for target then you do not need it to be black - get it painted luminous pink or some such - it will no longer look like an assault rifle.
c) Banana magazines - you have nobody to blame but yourself.
d) Removable stock - what possible need can you have for that?

There is a bit of a problem with all of the above:

1) Normally the FO or super will not see the gun you are applying for. They just see the application form.

2) An RFD is not going to be very keen on you carrying out many of the above modifications. What does he do with the gun if you paint it pink and are then refused the FAC?

3) Assault style rifles dont do it for me, but if they did I would not be interested in them with the above modifications.

If you landed in to your local station looking for an M1 garand and they did not want to give it to you they would simply tell you it "looked like" an assault rifle and that would be that.

I think you are 100% correct here!

meathstevie

Lads, am I missing a point here ? As far as I knew you could hardly get semi-auto centerfire anyway, except for shotguns that is.

fishdog

As far as I knew you could hardly get semi-auto centerfire anyway, except for shotguns that is.

That is incorrect. I know sevral people with .223 semi auto rifles in ROI that have proper FACs.

chem

Yep looks like you can have anything you like as long as you have a valid reason:D

Might tip down to uncle mikes grenade pit and look for membership, will also visit crazy bobs RPG range and enquire about membership also:D:D

chem

fishdog wrote: »

That is incorrect. I know sevral people with .223 semi auto rifles in ROI that have proper FACs.

Any idea what was the valid reason giving to the super for wanting a 223 semi?

fishdog

Any idea what was the valid reason giving to the super for wanting a 223 semi?

A friend of mine that posts here has an AR15. He is a very active member of the IPSA and wants it for practical shooting and will be taking part in a level 3 competition with it in Germany soon, so I guess that is his reason.

Mellor

fishdog wrote: »

That is incorrect. I know sevral people with .223 semi auto rifles in ROI that have proper FACs.

I disagree, MS was right.

meathstevie wrote: »

Lads, am I missing a point here ? As far as I knew you could hardly get semi-auto centerfire anyway, except for shotguns that is.

He said hardly, not impossible. Your friend (plus the rest of the handful that have them) has one for a legit reason, target shooting at a level that requires one. So he got one, now that the gun would be restricted he should still get one, and he should retain it.



Regarding the assualt rifle looking .22lr above. I cannot think of any reason for this gun. Seriously, can somebody enlighten me. What advantage over a regular .22lr does it have?
Is there any advantage, or is it purely aesthetical.

cavan shooter

I would agree with you Mellor and I shoot a 22 wmr in semi

chem

I know that in the UK people can hold live firearms for re-enactment. At large events where shows are staged, weapons can be rented and blank ammo used. So if you were a viet-nam re-enactor a .22 M16 would be of ues or .22 AK. Depending on which side you were re-enacting

fishdog

I disagree, MS was right.

Ok he did not say impossible, you are correct. All I mean is that it clearly is possible for some people to get a semi auto centre fire rifle in the ROI with a licence.

Your friend (plus the rest of the handful that have them) has one for a legit reason, target shooting at a level that requires one. So he got one, now that the gun would be restricted he should still get one, and he should retain it.

I am not so sure that it is only a handful. I do not have the figures myself. My impression (although it may be wrong) is that there are quite a few around. I assume that anyone that wants one can get one if they are deemed to have good enough reason, can provide adequate security and live in the right area.

I am not trying to be smart but for all firearms you are supposed to have a "legit reason" to have them in the first place. On the application for for any FAC there is a question that must be answered asking what you want the firearm for. The wrong answer here will guarantee that you wont get the FAC you are looking for.

After May this year it will just be one of many restricted firearms out there.

Regarding the assualt rifle looking .22lr above. I cannot think of any reason for this gun. Seriously, can somebody enlighten me. What advantage over a regular .22lr does it have?

I can not understand the reason this type of firearm either.

Rovi

Regarding the assualt rifle looking .22lr above. I cannot think of any reason for this gun. Seriously, can somebody enlighten me. What advantage over a regular .22lr does it have?
Is there any advantage, or is it purely aesthetical.

I can not understand the reason this type of firearm either.

I've got to say, I'm uncomfortable with this line of thinking.
I say: "Why not?"

I want 'the powers that be' to tell me why the rifle in this example should be restricted (ie. difficult/practically impossible to license) as opposed to a Ruger 10/22, Anschutz 525, Marlin Model 60, or any other of the selection of semi-automatic rimfires out there.
They've accepted that semi-automatic rimfires are perfectly licensable, so it can't be any more 'dangerous'.

As a law abiding citizen (with any amount of club memberships, shooting qualifications, and an alarm/security system that a bank would be proud of), why shouldn't I be able to purchase such a firearm for any/all of the purposes to which any other .22 semi-automatic rimfire is put now: hunting/plinking/target shooting?

I can possess a 50" television set or a car capable of doing 200mph.
Just because some (or even many) people are of the opinion that no-one 'needs' a 50" television or a 200mph car, is that any reason why someone that 'wants' such a thing should be prohibited from doing so?


While I'm on a roll, the same goes for centrefires.
Centrefire firearms are licensable, as are semi-automatics; are the two in combination somehow inherently 'eeevil'?


If, as I deeply suspect, this is all about aesthetics (idontlikedalookodat), are they planning to 'restrict' everything that 'looks like' a machine gun (which would be the logical thing to do)?
I can see a lot of toy shops and the airsoft lads getting well pissed off when this starts being enforced.

Mellor

I think you missed my point Rovi,
I wasn't agreeing with the restriction based on aesthetics,
I was asking about that gun used as an example? As in, if that is restricted due to its looks, would anyone be affected, is there any reason for that paticular .22lr
Im not refering to all guns that may be restricted due to their looks, there are many legit guns that resemble M1s for example.

fishdog

I wasn't agreeing with the restriction based on aesthetics

Same here.

Sparks

I don't think that's quite what Rovi meant to be honest. And if I've understood him right, he's very correct - there's no point in the legislation looking for a need for a particular firearm (at least without a lot more definition of what they mean by need), when the rest of the body of law and case law and precendent and garda statements and published rules, etc all tries to make it very clear that the authorities do not believe the ordinary citizen will ever need a firearm. They may want one for hunting/target shooting/vermin control/etc, but that's not a need.

It's a slippery slope to be on.

Rovi

Indeed; Sparks summed up what I'm getting at perfectly.

While we in the shooting sports debate among ourselves the utility of one particular firearm over another for whatever legal purpose we choose to pursue, there are plenty of people out there who are strongly of the opinion that no-one (civilians, at least) 'needs' a firearm of any kind for any purpose.

I shoot targets (paper, steel, and clay) and hunt a bit; do I 'need' to do any of these things? No.
Do I 'want' to do these things? Yes.

As such, I feel that the word 'need' is a very dangerous one from our point of view.

José Alaninho

Have to agree with Rovi on this one. For example, I have a ruger 10/22. It has a bog standard factory wooden stock on it. Looks nice and normal! But if I wanted to buy one of these to dress it up a bit:

http://www.combatstocks.com/TAPCO_Fusion_System_for_Ruger_10_22_STK63160B.cfm

There's nothing to stop me, as collapsible/adjustable RIFLE stocks are not on the restricted list. But does my rifle now resemble an assault rifle and is, by implication, then restricted? Madness.

(PS In my opinion the stock above looks f**king hideous! But i'm just making a point with it)

chem

Why do I get the feeling, that this will end up in more court rooms? It seems to me it will just fall back to the same old way of doing things. If your in an area where the super/commish is an understanding man all will be OK. But god help anyone who lives in an area where the super/commish is anti gun

Sparks

I think that if you think it'll be down to a group of people, you're missing the essential point of how the restricted firearms legislation will be implemented - which is that the decision will not be down to the delegated officers ultimately, but to the commissioner. A district super (if that's who it gets delegated to) might notionally have the power to grant a cert the commissioner wouldn't want to; but that would only work if the commissioner didn't find out one of his subordinates had granted a cert he wouldn't want granted, and given that most district supers will have a healthy sense of job preservation (they'd need it to get that far up the ladder), they're not going to invite that ton of bricks down on their head for the sake of Joe Public's hobby. It's certainly a way to ensure consistency of handling of firearms certificate applications - just perhaps not the way we would have wanted...

meathstevie

Wouldn't it be great to live in an utopia where the cops and legislators concentrated on illegal weapons in criminal hands instead and set down a few simple ground rules for private legitimate ownership ? Straightforward stuff like : clean record, no full automatic, no armour piercing or incendary ammunition, compliant with EU hunting guidelines when used for hunting. End of story & full stop.

In the end we're not the ones sneaking around housing estates with submachine guns or a dodgy pistol in order to bump the competitor coke pusher the far side of town. And as for the myth of licensed firearms ending up in criminal hands, exactly what it is : a myth. The figures have been published here before. The current generation of scum brings in their own.

dimebag249

Question: has the minister actually stated the purpose of the restricted list? I know (think) he's allowed to restrict what ever he feels like, but has he said anything like 'I gots to take all these dangerous murderweapons off the streets'. If not should we be e-mailing our T.D.s to ask him in the Dail? I'd love to hear him argue how this list could possiblt benefit public safety or the shooting sports.

Also +1 to the glittering gems of reason from Sparks, meathstevie and Rovi. Seems some of the other posters here are as anti-gun as my local Registered Firearms Dealers! Seriously, all this 'what do you need dat black yoke for, dats a mad lookin thing' bs. It's 'needed' for whatever legal purposes are allowed by a law abiding citizen's firearms certificate, just like an over/under shotgun or an Olympic air rifle.

Mellor

dimebag249 wrote: »

Seems some of the other posters here are as anti-gun as my local Registered Firearms Dealers! Seriously, all this 'what do you need dat black yoke for, dats a mad lookin thing' bs. It's 'needed' for whatever legal purposes are allowed by a law abiding citizen's firearms certificate, just like an over/under shotgun or an Olympic air rifle.

Your local gun dealer is anti-gun?
As for the other comments, I hardly think any user here is anti-gun, nobody said what is it needed for, that got twisted about in replys, it was asked what is the reason for it (over a regular .22lr), purely looks? (not trying to be smart, actually want to know).

The attitude, its a gun, i want it, i am allowed in law etc, may be how shooters actually feel. But that is not going to work if trying to make a point with the powers that be. You need to prove actually reason and justify it. Once again, you may not agree, but thats tough. Its how the world works. Saying well I want it, so I should have it is just going to dig a hole for us (even if this is how you feel, you can't just some out and stamp down and say it)

Sparks

Mellor, I seriously doubt that anyone here would disagree with the idea that you should have some sort of valid reason for wanting a firearm. The question isn't over that - it's over the idea that you must prove a need for a firearm, without any mention being made of the level of proof or degree of need involved.

Mellor

I know thats what most people feel Sparks, me included, but I felt that some of the previous comments strayed from this and were directed at me.
In an ideal world there would be an SI/guidlines on which gund are acceptable and for what, as at the end of the day, alot of FOs or supers are laypeople when it comes to firearms
I don't like the need word either, not sure where it came from in the thread, but as Rovi said, who needs to shoot anything.

meathstevie

Problem is that "a valid reason" is as open for interpretation and argument as a blown of barn door.
Assume the following ( emphasis on assume ) : I'm loaded and want too buy a box set of Holland&Holland Royals too salivate over and as an investment ( those babies never go down in value if you don't fire them ) and I have no intention of ever using them. Would this be a valid reason ? For most supers it wouldn't but if you happen to live in a district where the super is a shooting man who knows his guns he'd tell you to russle up some land permission and bob's your uncle.
Anyway, this leads me back to the point I made above : a set of simple clear rules based on a couple of simple restrictions will go a long way.

Mellor

meathstevie wrote: »

For most supers it wouldn't but if you happen to live in a district where the super is a shooting man who knows his guns he'd tell you to russle up some land permission and bob's your uncle.

You wouldn't even need land permission. Thats no a legal requirement, just a method applied. But alas, knowledge of guns isn't required to be a FAO or reletive super

cavan shooter

Lads

You need a good reason for to have a firearm, and God helps us when that changes: (see below from NARGC pamphlet)

What do I have to do to get a firearm licence?
You apply at your local Garda Station. You must satisfy certain basic requirements under Section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925 which are:-

a) that you can demonstrate a good reason for requiring the firearm;
b) that you are a person who can have a firearm without posing a danger to public safety or the peace,
c) that you are not a disentitled person under Section 8 of the Act,
d) that you have a secure place to store the firearm and ammunition.

Imagine a conversation that goes something like this:
Garda: So you want a gun then, are you into shooting then?
applicant: No
Garda: Why do you wanta gun then?
applicant:Because they look nice, I like the feel of them, I like the smell of the oil, they talk to me, they ask me to bring them home.

I agree with meathstevie in relation to an investment but would it be interpreted as the good reason??

chem

cavan shooter wrote: »

I agree with meathstevie in relation to an investment but would it be interpreted as the good reason??

It brings me back to what I said afew lines up. Not one thing has changed here folks. Its still up to the area "manager" as to if he will allow it or not. Its one man sitting behind a desk and signing the paper. So still going to be areas where it will be OK to have and areas where it wont. Unless the law comes with a rule book for the supers/commishs to read from its going to be more of the same as we had before.:rolleyes:

Sparks

No chem, it's not - that's the point. It's now down to one man - the commissioner - because if you think a district super is going to do anything other than what the commissioner says on this, you're kidding yourself. The only reason you don't see it being done by the superintendents and the commissioner at the moment is that Dunne v Donoghue said that the commissioner couldn't legally do so - the changes in the firearms act have now altered that state of affairs for restricted firearms.

Legally, up until now, the local superintendent was a persona designata when it came to licencing - noone could tell him to licence or not to licence. Best you could do was a judicial review in the high court that said he had to remake his decision because he'd not adhered to the guidelines in the Act, and that wasn't an order to grant (though it was often treated that way).

But with the new Firearms Act, the superintendent is no longer a persona designata for restricted firearms - and in fact, I don't think there is a persona designata in the Gardai anymore, because you can take the super or commissioner to the district court if you wish to challange his decision and now the DC can order that the licence be granted or not; which means the judge in the DC can overrule the super or commissioner. And of course, the Circuit Court can override the DC and the High Court can override the CC and the Supreme Court can override the HC, and if you've still annoyed the DoJ/Gardai enough at that point, they can write another Firearms Act (and I'm only partly joking there).

chem

Sparks wrote: »

No chem, it's not - that's the point. It's now down to one man - the commissioner - because if you think a district super is going to do anything other than what the commissioner says on this, you're kidding yourself. The only reason you don't see it being done by the superintendents and the commissioner at the moment is that Dunne v Donoghue said that the commissioner couldn't legally do so - the changes in the firearms act have now altered that state of affairs for restricted firearms.

Legally, up until now, the local superintendent was a persona designata when it came to licencing - noone could tell him to licence or not to licence. Best you could do was a judicial review in the high court that said he had to remake his decision because he'd not adhered to the guidelines in the Act, and that wasn't an order to grant (though it was often treated that way).

But with the new Firearms Act, the superintendent is no longer a persona designata for restricted firearms - and in fact, I don't think there is a persona designata in the Gardai anymore, because you can take the super or commissioner to the district court if you wish to challange his decision and now the DC can order that the licence be granted or not; which means the judge in the DC can overrule the super or commissioner. And of course, the Circuit Court can override the DC and the High Court can override the CC and the Supreme Court can override the HC, and if you've still annoyed the DoJ/Gardai enough at that point, they can write another Firearms Act (and I'm only partly joking there).

Is this not what im saying sparks? ONE man makes HIS mind up if HE wants to grant the licence. If it is the commissioner for restricted list or the super for anything else. Thats my point its one man and his wanting to grant a licence or not.

So whats the difference from before?? Right we can now take the decision to the district court. which leads me back to what I said More court cases.

Am I completely missing the point here? All im saying is unless the gardi have guidelines on how to implament the laws its still one mans decision whatever the firearm. I think you picked me up wrong sparks because you are stating the same points as I am trying to get across:p

cavan shooter

Your both right it is down to how the law is applied and the only fair and consistent way law can be applied is through official guidelines/code of practice. This sets the level playing field with official guidelines/code of practice the shooter knows that if he applies what is set down he is complying with the law; The enforcing authorities can only apply the guidelines/code and not any further as it is the agreed.

It takes years for this type of document to be agreed as it takes both sides to come together. However the state always carries the trump card "State security" I have posted endlessly with regards to inconsistent application of statute . You will allways have law, it governs us what we have the right to have is proper application of the Law. (Rant over)

Sparks

I was looking at this bit chem:

So still going to be areas where it will be OK to have and areas where it wont.