Official dialogue from the DoJ regarding the Restricted List.

DeVore

I've been asked by the Dept of Justice to communicate this document to you all.

Its a set of questions that were submitted by email which have been answered by the DoJ. All the dealers were (apparently) given an email address to submit questions to but surprisingly, not many did.

Here are the questions and the answers.

DeV.

Bananaman

DeVore,

Thanks for that - very interesting.

The S.I. does not prohibit any firearm. Every firearm is licensable provided that the applicant can demonstrate ‘good reason’.

I think that should end the "confusion over the restricted list" type topics.

B'Man

cavan shooter

DeVore, Many thanks

Clarifies some worries "pistol grip" being one, any chance of tipping your contact for the draft guidelines refered to

Jonty

The one thing I idon't like is

"During the next renewal, the onus will be on the licence holder to inform the Gardaí that the firearm is restricted. "

So, in other words, for this year's renewal, its a self regulated system until the gardai finally cop on to the fact the Jimmy down the road with the 338 lapua magnum never declared that his firearm was restricted.

What about somebody who isn't up to date with firearms legislation? If it wasn't for the Net and all the people here, I wouldn't know about this restricted bull.

cavan shooter

Agree that could be a worry. I now with the +3 shot issues with shotguns it seems to be going over the heads of fellas I know.

It wasn't me!

Hmm, while a lot clearer, it seems a lot harsher now in its clarity. Perhaps just a personal impression, but it seems quite grudging. I hesitate to use the term "aggressive", because it doesn't fit, but that's the word in my mind.

bullets

If they are going to make all these restrictions are we going to find out
the specific and non-ambiguous reasons behind making them?

I'd love to see the actual reasons why they are putting each of these restrictions in place.

I have not got a clue why they would want to restrict a stock with a pistol grip???
Whats the logic? be it a .22, a shotgun or a fullbore rifle its only
the bit you put your hand on ? Its almost laughable.

~B

DeVore

In terms of legitimacy, I will detail how I have determined the legitmacy of this document (sorry, it was so water tight I never even thought to pass it along).

This document came straight to me through email from a DoJ official source. Its an official document that has been released before to the dealers and there is nothing "insider" about its contents, it just hasn't been as widely circulated as everyone would like.

I traced the mail back through the IP's it journeyed through to get to my desk and the originating IP is mail1.justice.ie. The person who sent it to me is in a position to distribute this document (as per a google search) and when I phoned DoJ and asked for him, he knew who I was. So, its a genuine document for sure from a well positioned person.

DeV.

chem

OOOooh Id be putting on my tin foil hat at this stage DeVore, They know who you are:D

Its all good from what I see. They will even be publishing and making PUBLIC:eek: the conditions needed for a "good reason". No more second guessing or cloak and dagger!......I hope!

Just out of interest. How can I trace an IP?

Sorry prob should ask that on another forum.

I wonder if elephants trampling your flower bed be good enough for a .50?:p

Slug chucker

Let's play the restricted game!
I've got four firearms and a fullbore moderator, items now all classed as restricted :eek:
That brings my count to five, anybody got a higher count?


Do I get bonus points for my pump as it is restricted under two different headings, 5 in the mag and it has a pistol grip stock?

Cheers,
Slug Chucker (I better modify my name to "no longer allowed to chuck slugs")

maglite

What is a firearm,


how does my silencer fall into this ???

???


and penitrating proectials are restricted, ?? i did not understand the reply it appeared to talk about another topic all together?

Bananaman

how does my silencer fall into this

I could be wrong but has that not always been the case?

no longer allowed to chuck slugs

Why?

IRLConor

maglite wrote: »

What is a firearm,


how does my silencer fall into this ???

???

The Firearms Act essentially defines a silencer to be a firearm. The way it does this is by defining "component parts" of firearms to be firearms in their own right and then explicitly defining "silencers" to be a "component part".

Firearms Act wrote:

... “firearm” means—

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:
   1. ...
   2. a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e), and

maglite wrote: »

and penitrating proectials are restricted, ?? i did not understand the reply it appeared to talk about another topic all together?

They said essentially that they intend the definition of "penetrating projectile" to be defined in the same way as in a previous SI, the European Communities (Acquisition and Possession of Weapons and Ammunition) Regulations, 1993. Unfortunately their answer wasn't all that clear as that SI doesn't actually define "penetrating projectile". The definition is actually in Council Directive 91/477/EEC.

It looks like when they were drafting the restricted list SI they copied one part but not the other from that council directive. They copied this:

Council Directive 91/477/EEC wrote:

Ammunition with penetrating, explosive or incendiary projectiles, and the projectiles for such ammunition.

but failed to include this in the definitions section of the restricted list SI:

Council Directive 91/477/EEC wrote:

'ammunition with penetrating projectiles' means ammunition for military use where the projectile is jacketed and has a penetrating hard core

It just looks to me like they were a little sloppy in their drafting.

Mellor

So that should stop all the scarmoungering.
Some of the initial concerns were a little pesimistic, pistol grips etc.


The pistol grip refers to exactly what alot of us thought. As does the ammo issue. Im disappointed that the collaspable stock issue was raised, just to have it in writing.

Manic Moran

bullets wrote: »

I have not got a clue why they would want to restrict a stock with a pistol grip???
Whats the logic? be it a .22, a shotgun or a fullbore rifle its only
the bit you put your hand on ? Its almost laughable.

~B

Welcome to the world of the US Gun Control Concepts. We've been fighting that piece of idiocy over here since 1994.

Now, here's another question for people to consider. As California is one of those States which still thinks pistol grips are evil, there is quite an industry in 'California Legal' modifications. They tend to come in two variants, one basically turns the pistol grip into part of the stock
<pic removed upon request>
the other is simply an oddly shaped (and ugly) stock.
<Pic removed upon request>

Now, in the US at least, you don't necessarily have to buy the entire rifle as a package: You can buy the receiver, and then add on whatever you want onto it, from barrel through stock. Changing from one type of grip to another is usually just a matter of unscrewing one grip and screwing in another, the work of a few minutes. How is this going to fit into the system?

NTM

Bananaman

Considering the pressure that the media in the UK apply to their politicians and the need those politicians have to placate the media rather than the greater public at large, headines like the following are always a bit worrisome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/north_east/6403461.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7272553.stm

I have to agree that crime related to firearms, specifically handguns, is out of control in the UK but that is in a climate where there are no legally held handguns.

We should count our blessings that, albeit somewhat behind closed doors, there is an informed debate going on with respect to our Firearms legislation.

Remember the official line from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform:

The S.I. does not prohibit any firearm. Every firearm is licensable provided that the applicant can demonstrate ‘good reason’.

It is in all our interests to ensure that we can do all that we can to ensure that the legally licensed firearms we hold do not end up in the hands of criminals so that the statistics - which hold major sway with the powers that be - remain in our favour.

B'Man

Bananaman

Manic Moran,

In a thread created at the behest of the DOJ - you go posting images like that. :mad:

I am tempted to start a poll as to whether ar not you are buggest eejit on these boards. I think it may be somehat onesided so we'll just accept it as fact.

B'Man

chem

Bananaman wrote: »

Manic Moran,

In a thread created at the behest of the DOJ - you go posting images like that. :mad:

I am tempted to start a poll as to whether ar not you are buggest eejit on these boards. I think it may be somehat onesided so we'll just accept it as fact.

B'Man

B`man think thats abit uncalled for. Notting wrong with posting a pic. As has been said by Manic Moran, whole industries have been set up to exploite loop holes in firearms laws. Look at the UK. They have kept pistolshooting alive by having long barel revolvers, attaching stocks and weights to target pistols, straight pull rifles, etc.
Its not the fault of the shooters who are forced to take these actions to keep there sport alive, but the problem is poor laws that seem to have little or no reason for been made. Eg: whats more dangerous. A shotgun with a pistol grip or the same shotgun with an ordinary stock???

Same goes for the pics posted by Manic Moran. If the stocks were all wood and pink does it make a difference to function of the weapon? NO. But because they are black and plastic it is now an assault rifle "looking like" weapon.

Traumadoc

He just gave samples of what happens in the US, What happens here if you have a unrestricted firearm and buy an aftermarket stock with a pistol grip- Is it now a different gun, Is the FAC now invalid? Will a thumbhole stock be restricted?

Is this grip illegal? or will it make the firearm restricted?
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=244527

IRLConor

Traumadoc wrote: »

Is this grip illegal? or will it make the firearm restricted?
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=244527

That particular stock would be fine, since it's for a rifle and pistol grips are allowed on rifles.

If it was on a shotgun then I don't know, it'd be a matter of interpretation I guess.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran,

In a thread created at the behest of the DOJ - you go posting images like that.

I am tempted to start a poll as to whether ar not you are buggest eejit on these boards. I think it may be somehat onesided so we'll just accept it as fact.

The DOJ is going to have to deal with this question eventually. For whatever reason They have, They don't like pistol grips. These photos demonstrate ways of owning such a firearm without having the offensive pistol grip, but I'll lay bets the DOJ drafters have never heard of such a modification: It's not exactly common and only exists in jurisdictions which restrict pistol grips.

Since the only danger of a pistol grip, as has been noted above, is purely aesthetic and ergonomic, and these modifications change this entirely, it seems like it may well be a way of getting, for example, the Benelli M4 shotgun the DOJ uses in its example in the reply posted earlier.

Now, here's the catch. Let's say, for whatever reason, you want to import an M4. The Super looks it up on the web, and sees a pistol grip, and will not grant you the license to import it as it's restricted, and says you need to take your chances with the Chief. You are willing to change the pistol grip to a CA-style grip/stock, but you can't do it until the shotgun has been imported and you can attack it with a screwdriver.

How is this impasse resolved?

NTM

Mellor

To modify it you will first need to own it, which means getting a FAC for it anyway. He difference it that they are not illegal like in CA, but restricted.

It wasn't me!

Yeah, but I think the question is, what happens when you turn a restricted firearm, which is restricted on aesthetic grounds, into an unrestricted one? Want to ask for the extra cash back?

Manic Moran

Mellor wrote: »

To modify it you will first need to own it, which means getting a FAC for it anyway. He difference it that they are not illegal like in CA, but restricted.

If they were illegal in CA, how would one be able to buy the rifle to modify it to pistol-grip-less configuration?

The way it's dealt with in these parts is that the only part of a firearm which is actually considered the firearm is the receiver. That one piece of metal which is central to the rifle, and which has the serial number stamped on it. In the AR-15, it's the lower part which contains the trigger assembly and magazine well. In the FAL, it's the upper part, into which the barrel screws and you slide the breech block and slide into. Every other component in the rifle can be freely bought and sold without restriction or tracking. What you do with that receiver afterward you get it is what determines whether or not you are in compliance with the law. It was not illegal for me to import my FAL receiver into California, but if I gave it both a pistol grip and a detachable magazine, then it would become illegal to own. For the Irish situation, replace "FAL" with "M4", and "Illegal" with "restricted", but the principle is the same.

NTM

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

The way it's dealt with in these parts is that the only part of a firearm which is actually considered the firearm is the receiver.
.
..
...

For the Irish situation, replace "FAL" with "M4", and "Illegal" with "restricted", but the principle is the same.

NTM

See thats the difference, in irish law its not only the reciever that is considered part of the firearm.

Dr_Teeth

Manic, can you please remove those images from this thread. It is really *really* unhelpful to be posting stuff like that in this forum full-stop, let alone a thread about the DoJ / Restricted list.

Teeth.

bullets

Can someone please explain the reasons why the DOJ want the pistol
grip restricted in the first place ? What is the Logical reason they
want this specifically restricted?

~B

rrpc

bullets wrote: »

Can someone please explain the reasons why the DOJ want the pistol
grip restricted in the first place ? What is the Logical reason they
want this specifically restricted?

~B

Because if you saw off the butt, you still have a usable firearm which in addition is shorter and easier to conceal.

Then saw off a good chunk of the barrel and you have a particularly nasty piece of kit.

IRLConor

rrpc wrote: »

Because if you saw off the butt, you still have a usable firearm which in addition is shorter and easier to conceal.

Then saw off a good chunk of the barrel and you have a particularly nasty piece of kit.

Yeah, but if you're already doing all that work how hard is it to attach a pistol grip?

Manic Moran

Mellor wrote: »

See thats the difference, in irish law its not only the reciever that is considered part of the firearm.

At what point in the import process does it change from one to the other?

Exactly what do you get with your import license? Can you take it to the dealer and say "I'd like to import a Bushmaster lower receiver, a Cav Arms heavy barrel and upper receiver, Stag Arms stock, and a CA-style pistol grip-to-stock changeover, please?" Because the manufacturers will certainly sell to you like that.
In which case, do you really have the Bushmaster AR-15 serial number 12345 which is on the US export record? It won't look like the AR15 which would come up when the Super Googles it to find out what it looks like, but such modularity and customisation is an integral part of the modern civilian firearms market. This isn't 1960 when all you could do was go to the shop and buy a pre-made, single-configuration wooden-stocked rifle which required the use of a hacksaw to change anything. For example, changing a Ruger Mini-14 from "traditional-looking varmint-hunting rifle" to "bullpup assault rifle look-alike" takes about five minutes with a screwdriver changing the stock. But which is really the Mini-14 on your cert?
This?
http://www.jayedwardsauction.com/auctions2007/september/29/new-web/Ruger-Mini-14-Rifle.jpg
Or this?
http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/graphics/00000001/MZ-14-PLUS.jpg

Now, that's an example of going from 'obviously unrestricted' to 'obviously restricted', but it seems to me there's no reason one cannot go to the other way.

It is really *really* unhelpful to be posting stuff like that in this forum full-stop, let alone a thread about the DoJ / Restricted list.

Done as a courtesy (And since you said 'please', unlike a certain other individual), but it's a very heads-in-the-sand attitude if you ask me. It's in a thread about the DOJ list precisely because it directly addresses a concept in that list. If the DOJ wants to put a very dodgy criterion such as "that resemble", then people are going to start looking at ways to change their firearms to 'that no longer resemble', particularly if they currently own a rifle which is going to be declared 'restricted' the next time their license comes up for renewal. Since a pistol grip is a commonly made association with the physical appearance of an assault rifle, the demonstrated options may well fit the bill. There is already a sizeable industry in this field, and it's naive to think that it's not going to come up at some point when someone decides to do a little research on the web.

NTM

bunny shooter

so if they saw off a conventional stock it's useless to a criminal ? What a load of rubbish.

More of the i don't like the look of that cause you may saw a bit off it excuse!

fishdog

Because if you saw off the butt, you still have a usable firearm which in addition is shorter and easier to conceal.

Then saw off a good chunk of the barrel and you have a particularly nasty piece of kit.

This makes no sense at all to me. I assume that only a criminal would do this.

In general criminals tend to have access to "nasty pieces of kit" without the need for any modifications. This law will have no make no difference to criminals at all.

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

Yeah, but if you're already doing all that work how hard is it to attach a pistol grip?

Hardly impossible, but it's a lot easier if the item is already there. It doesn't rquire any serious thinking (or machinery) to lop off a butt and a chunk of barrel, adding things on is probably beyond the wit of your average knuckle-dragging destructoboy.

rrpc

fishdog wrote: »

This makes no sense at all to me. I assume that only a criminal would do this.

Criminals tend to have access to "nasty pieces of kit" without the need for any modifications.

I imagine that theft and subsequent misuse is what's excercising the minds of the DoJ. Otherwise why apply this distinction to licensed firearms?

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

I imagine that theft and subsequent misuse is what's excercising the minds of the DoJ. Otherwise why apply this distinction to licensed firearms?

So punish the person found with the sawn off weapon and stop penalising and criminalising honest shooters

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

So punish the person found with the sawn off weapon and stop penalising and criminalising honest shooters

And what about the eejit who left his gun in the car?

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

And what about the eejit who left his gun in the car?

Well punish him and not everyone else who didn't ?

foxshooter243

Manic Moran wrote: »

At what point in the import process does it change from one to the other?

Exactly what do you get with your import license? Can you take it to the dealer and say "I'd like to import a Bushmaster lower receiver, a Cav Arms heavy barrel and upper receiver, Stag Arms stock, and a CA-style pistol grip-to-stock changeover, please?" Because the manufacturers will certainly sell to you like that.
In which case, do you really have the Bushmaster AR-15 serial number 12345 which is on the US export record? It won't look like the AR15 which would come up when the Super Googles it to find out what it looks like, but such modularity and customisation is an integral part of the modern civilian firearms market. This isn't 1960 when all you could do was go to the shop and buy a pre-made, single-configuration wooden-stocked rifle which required the use of a hacksaw to change anything. For example, changing a Ruger Mini-14 from "traditional-looking varmint-hunting rifle" to "bullpup assault rifle look-alike" takes about five minutes with a screwdriver changing the stock. But which is really the Mini-14 on your cert?
This?
http://www.jayedwardsauction.com/auctions2007/september/29/new-web/Ruger-Mini-14-Rifle.jpg
Or this?
http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/graphics/00000001/MZ-14-PLUS.jpg

Now, that's an example of going from 'obviously unrestricted' to 'obviously restricted', but it seems to me there's no reason one cannot go to the other way.



Done as a courtesy (And since you said 'please', unlike a certain other individual), but it's a very heads-in-the-sand attitude if you ask me. It's in a thread about the DOJ list precisely because it directly addresses a concept in that list. If the DOJ wants to put a very dodgy criterion such as "that resemble", then people are going to start looking at ways to change their firearms to 'that no longer resemble', particularly if they currently own a rifle which is going to be declared 'restricted' the next time their license comes up for renewal. Since a pistol grip is a commonly made association with the physical appearance of an assault rifle, the demonstrated options may well fit the bill. There is already a sizeable industry in this field, and it's naive to think that it's not going to come up at some point when someone decides to do a little research on the web.

NTM

interesting post ..

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

At what point in the import process does it change from one to the other?

Exactly what do you get with your import license? Can you take it to the dealer and say "I'd like to import a Bushmaster lower receiver, a Cav Arms heavy barrel and upper receiver, Stag Arms stock, and a CA-style pistol grip-to-stock changeover, please?" Because the manufacturers will certainly sell to you like that.
In which case, do you really have the Bushmaster AR-15 serial number 12345 which is on the US export record? It won't look like the AR15 which would come up when the Super Googles it to find out what it looks like,

Well thats a big problem there.
If you had a decent FO, you could arrange a meeting and explain how you are important a modified gun that is not restricted (even though the standard model is). He would have to accept this, and you would have to do this before applying. However, an unreasonable FO would pass it along as a restricted application.


The mod on the other gun is interesting. Very big difference

fishdog

imagine that theft and subsequent misuse is what's excercising the minds of the DoJ. Otherwise why apply this distinction to licensed firearms?

So it is an issue with firearms falling into the wrong hands, not the shape of the stock. I think a oppertunist criminal stealing a firearm from a car will not be too fussy about the shape of the stock.
Of all the modifications a criminal might make, a pistol grip is the easiest.

Mellor

Yeah, wouldn't be hard to do. But they would have get the pieces and work on it, not just lob it off with a saw. Its not going to stop it happening, just make it harder. As has been pointed out, no firearm is banned, but limited. The idea is that by limiting the number of people and dealers with these guns to only those that need them. The DOJ ensure that there is less of a chance/availablity for theft.
Great in theory, but my concern is not the prinicipal behind it but the fact the alot of FOs might take it restricted to mean "not premitted".
I said before they will likely be issuing guidlines, and this has now been confirmed. When they are made public we will fully know where we stand.

cavan shooter

I wonder how many people would buy or have a shotgun with "full pistol" stock as illustrated. It wouldn't be my thing personally, Just a thought

Manic Moran

cavan shooter wrote: »

I wonder how many people would buy or have a shotgun with "full pistol" stock as illustrated. It wouldn't be my thing personally, Just a thought

I would.

Its purpose is simple: It provides a more ergonomic way of holding the rifle/shotgun. Instead of rotating the wrist forward to get around a conventional grip-less stock, the hand retains a natural angle. It's more comfortable to hold, and it's easier to pull back into the shoulder for a good weld. Unless you're into hip-shooting your shotgun, I guess, in which case you're better off with the traditional style stock.

It's such a simple design change, it's amazing it's taken so long to come into common usage.

NTM

Sparks

Since the Gardai don't even keep figures on how many firearms stolen from their legal owners are subsequently used in crimes (we've asked), and since they themselves are saying that the biggest source of criminally held firearms is drug shipments, I'm not sure that the whole "we can't have it because a criminal might steal it from us" line of reasoning is sound.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Since the Gardai don't even keep figures on how many firearms stolen from their legal owners are subsequently used in crimes (we've asked), and since they themselves are saying that the biggest source of criminally held firearms is drug shipments, I'm not sure that the whole "we can't have it because a criminal might steal it from us" line of reasoning is sound.

Except that it's not "we can't have it", but "we can have it if we have a good reason to".

Without getting into the whole "What's a good reason?" thing again.

Dr_Teeth

Manic Moran wrote: »

Done as a courtesy (And since you said 'please', unlike a certain other individual), but it's a very heads-in-the-sand attitude if you ask me. It's in a thread about the DOJ list precisely because it directly addresses a concept in that list. If the DOJ wants to put a very dodgy criterion such as "that resemble", then people are going to start looking at ways to change their firearms to 'that no longer resemble', particularly if they currently own a rifle which is going to be declared 'restricted' the next time their license comes up for renewal. Since a pistol grip is a commonly made association with the physical appearance of an assault rifle, the demonstrated options may well fit the bill. There is already a sizeable industry in this field, and it's naive to think that it's not going to come up at some point when someone decides to do a little research on the web.

NTM

I see where you're coming from, but for now whether or not a center-fire semi auto rifle looks "nice/traditional/wooden" or "evil/black/tactical/plastic" they are both restricted firearms due to their calibre and action. They are both treated the same way, which makes sense to me. I didn't see the need to post pictures of AR15s that have been modified to get around Californian gun laws in this thread.

Best regards,
Teeth

Sparks

I know what you mean rrpc, but you're still talking about us being required to jump through a hoop (which, as of yet, noone knows the size or location of, or whether or not it's on fire) purely because of the possible future illegal acts of a third party. That's one or two steps further than "preemptive self-defence", and until we see precedent in other areas (eg. fast cars being restricted lest they be stolen as getaway cars for robberies), it does not seem just to have that approach applied to us.

IRLConor

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but for now whether or not a center-fire semi auto rifle looks "nice/traditional/wooden" or "evil/black/tactical/plastic" they are both restricted firearms due to their calibre and action. They are both treated the same way, which makes sense to me. I didn't see the need to post pictures of AR15s that have been modified to get around Californian gun laws in this thread.

I believe Manic Moran's point was roughly:

Restriction based on cosmetic features is in general a bad idea because it will usually be possible to work around it if there's public demand to do so. The "California Legal" AR-15s are an example of this phenomenon even though they aren't really relevant to our laws by themselves.

Rovi

<deep breath :rolleyes:>
As a law abiding citizen with a loooong track record of unremarkable firearms ownership and use, with a fistful of certifications and 'safety' qualifications, membership of several clubs and ranges covering everything from game/vermin to clay pigeon shooting to fullbore rifle/pistol and everything else that can be licensed here, a security system that a small bank would be proud of (inspected twice by the Crime Prevention Officer), and having successfully passed whatever official scrutiny is deemed necessary to possess a pistol here (the highest 'security clearance' it's possible for an ordinary citizen to have in this state, we're led to believe), I resent being told that I'm not to be trusted with a 'restricted' firearm and that I need to go with my cap in my hand and tugging my forelock (long since gone, incidentally) if I take a notion to own something other than "nice/traditional/wooden", as Dr_Teeth so eloquently put it.

It's no secret here that I have a Walther G-22.
It's eeeevil in so many ways: it's black, it's short, it's a bullpup; I'd argue that it has a thumbhole stock, though.
Am I now supposed to come up with some 'good reason' why this is the only firearm suitable for my purpose?
My 'purpose' is putting holes in paper targets and tin cans and busting clay pigeons on the backstop. It very rarely gets an outing after rabbits, I have a nice bolt action .22 for that.

So, why did I pick this one over any other ("nice/traditional/wooden") semi-automatic .22?
Because it's different, and because 'idolikedalookodat'.
Are these 'good reasons' in the eyes of the finger waggers?
Somehow, I doubt it.

I have other firearms that fall into the 'restricted' category, but they're easier to justify for 'serious' (:rolleyes:) target shooting disciplines.

I like Sparks' 'fast cars' analogy (a bit of searching over on the Motors forum will reveal that I also possess a car well capable of going more than double the motorway speed limit, and more again if I remove the speed limiter ) (allegedly! ). If everything that 'might be used for criminal purposes' was to be restricted somehow, we'd all be left with very little.

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Its purpose is simple: It provides a more ergonomic way of holding the rifle/shotgun. Instead of rotating the wrist forward to get around a conventional grip-less stock, the hand retains a natural angle. It's more comfortable to hold, and it's easier to pull back into the shoulder for a good weld.

I think the combined grip and stock is more comfortable. I keep my elbow high so that position is more natural for me. I suppose it s preference. Anybody prefer an english stock?

rovi wrote:

If everything that 'might be used for criminal purposes' was to be restricted somehow, we'd all be left with very

not all of us, you you certainly would by the sounds of it

Rovi

Mellor wrote: »

If everything that 'might be used for criminal purposes' was to be restricted somehow, we'd all be left with very

not all of us, you you certainly would by the sounds of it

Yeah, yeah. :rolleyes:

I was thinking more along the lines of things like cars capable of going faster than the speed limit, electrical cable, screwdrivers, etc (to mention a few items that have been used/involved in the deaths of humans recently); not to mention things like kitchen knives, hurley sticks, tall buildings, rope, and the whole vast array of things we all use and interact with every day, all of which 'might be used for criminal purposes'.

This all rankles of the 'Mammy knows best' sort of thing parents say to toddlers: "It's for your own good, and you wouldn't understand the reasons."