Purchasing Ammo On My Behalf?

It wasn't me!

Is it alright if I send someone in with my FAC to buy ammo for me? I'm snowed under with work this week, would like to get a bit of time in wednesday evening, but have absolutely no time off before then to get to a shop and buy ammo. Is it legal for the father to present my cert, with no pretence at being me or anything, and buy it on my behalf? I seem to recall a clause about it being okay for someone to use the firearm of another person under their instruction and authorisation, so would this apply to buying ammo as well? Just want to clarify, make sure everything's above board.

riflehunter77

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Is it alright if I send someone in with my FAC to buy ammo for me? I'm snowed under with work this week, would like to get a bit of time in wednesday evening, but have absolutely no time off before then to get to a shop and buy ammo. Is it legal for the father to present my cert, with no pretence at being me or anything, and buy it on my behalf? I seem to recall a clause about it being okay for someone to use the firearm of another person under their instruction and authorisation, so would this apply to buying ammo as well? Just want to clarify, make sure everything's above board.

Not sure on what the ins and outs of the law are on this case, but iv had my father go in for me and vice versa.. Im sure ill get slated for saying so but its not a perfect world we live in..If the gun shop knows you and your father there should not be a problem. We will soon here differ i presume......

foxshooter243

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Is it alright if I send someone in with my FAC to buy ammo for me? I'm snowed under with work this week, would like to get a bit of time in wednesday evening, but have absolutely no time off before then to get to a shop and buy ammo. Is it legal for the father to present my cert, with no pretence at being me or anything, and buy it on my behalf? I seem to recall a clause about it being okay for someone to use the firearm of another person under their instruction and authorisation, so would this apply to buying ammo as well? Just want to clarify, make sure everything's above board.

I wouldnt think so IWM as the licence covers you to have the ammo in your possesion -no one else- however dont hold me to that:D

It wasn't me!

Oh dear, two replies and two answers. Where's Sparks when we need him?

Bananaman

Used to be a time when you were not allowed to buy ammo the first time - even when you had a license - unless your auld fella went with you.

Strictly speaking only you can have the ammo you are licensed for

If the shop know ye it probably wont be a problem.

Are we talking cartridges or bullets? I'm assuming bullets as your da prob has a license for cartridges himself. The only reason I ask is that if someone runs up his hole and the Gardai get called he might have a hard time explaining 500 9mm in the boot. Edge case tho.

B'Man

It wasn't me!

It's .22lr, but there really wouldn't be a difference from a legal point of view. I'd like to get some training in tomorrow night, but I'm not free until then, so won't be able to buy ammo in time unless he can pop in on my behalf. Ah well. I'll wait until I get a few more answers and see what the score is.

rrpc

Section 2 of the firearms act is the governing legislation here. Same as for firearms. Subsection (2) deals with exceptions:

(2) Save in any of the cases hereinafter excepted from this section, every person who after the commencement of this Act has in his possession, uses, or carries any firearm without holding a firearm certificate therefor or otherwise than as authorised by such certificate, or purchases, uses, has in his possession, or carries any ammunition without holding a firearm certificate therefor or in quantities in excess of those authorised by such certificate, or fails to comply with any condition subject to which a firearm certificate was granted to him, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be punishable accordingly.(1971 3)

(3) This section shall not apply to any of the following cases and such cases are accordingly excepted from this section, that is to say:—

<snippage>
(f) the carriage for sporting purposes only of a firearm or ammunition under instructions from and for the use of the holder of a firearm certificate for such firearm or ammunition;

So you're good to go

Don't get any cheap sh1te :D

bullets

I've heard some stores will post you the ammo!

I know Duffy's in Galway will post ammo. (shoot.ie)
I dont know about other stores as am
not sure if we have any more Irish online
shooting stores.

They require you to post
them your original FAC (and not a photocopy) to
them and once they see it and keep a copy for
their records they will post it back to you
and you will be able to buy ammo from their online store.

~B

Dr Strange

rrpc wrote: »

Section 2 of the firearms act is the governing legislation here. Same as for firearms. Subsection (2) deals with exceptions:



So you're good to go

Don't get any cheap sh1te :D

Hm, I'm not sure. Does this mean you just have to produce a fireamrs licence when buying the bullets even though you are not the original licencee? Or does it mean your licence, as in you have to be the actual licenced person named on the certificate, to buy the ammo.

If the first case is correct, would that not open the possibilities to someone breaking into your house, car etc. and just steal the licence and go and buy ammo for criminal purposes? Just a thought.

bigred

rrpc wrote: »

Section 2 of the firearms act is the governing legislation here. Same as for firearms. Subsection (2) deals with exceptions:



So you're good to go

Don't get any cheap sh1te :D

Can someone please translate said legal mumbo jumbo into Joe Public English. Doesnt make sense to me

rrpc

Preusse wrote:

Hm, I'm not sure. Does this mean you just have to produce a fireamrs licence when buying the bullets even though you are not the original licencee? Or does it mean your licence, as in you have to be the actual licenced person named on the certificate, to buy the ammo.

It's the former: 'under the instructions of, and for the use of' is pretty clear that it means you can ask someone to buy ammo for you, or for example collect your rifle from your house and bring it to you.

And of course, yes it does mean that if someone steals your licence they can buy ammo, but that's been discussed elsewhere and is why you should always keep your licence safe.

On the other hand if that someone was stopped with ammo and your licence it would be pretty clear once contact was made with you that they weren't in possession of ammo for your use.

It wasn't me!

Deadly, cheers rrpc. Fear not, I'll get something worth putting through my lovely barrel. Glad to have gotten rid of the grey area on that one, didn't want to proceed until I had done so.

rrpc

bullets wrote: »

I've heard some stores will post you the ammo!

I know Duffy's in Galway will post ammo. (shoot.ie)
I dont know about other stores as am
not sure if we have any more Irish online
shooting stores.

They require you to post
them your original FAC (and not a photocopy) to
them and once they see it and keep a copy for
their records they will post it back to you
and you will be able to buy ammo from their online store.

~B

Different exception for that situation:

(d) the possession or carriage of a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of business by a person engaged in the business of carrying or of warehousing goods for reward;

Dr Strange

rrpc wrote: »

It's the former: 'under the instructions of, and for the use of' is pretty clear that it means you can ask someone to buy ammo for you, or for example collect your rifle from your house and bring it to you.

And of course, yes it does mean that if someone steals your licence they can buy ammo, but that's been discussed elsewhere and is why you should always keep your licence safe.

On the other hand if that someone was stopped with ammo and your licence it would be pretty clear once contact was made with you that they weren't in possession of ammo for your use.

Thank you for clearing that up, rrpc.

I know, if security is in place....etc. But the possibility of theft of the licence is probably just as high as having any other paperwork stolen (particularly when you have to travel to the shooting range). The Europass would be a better option as it has, at least, you photo in it. And if someone just wants to buy ammo with the stolen licence and afterwards just discards it because they got what they wanted out of it, means they may not be caught with your licence. I think the regulations should be stricter as to who can actually buy the ammo - only the licence holder/named persons on the licence.

But that is off-topic anyway.

rrpc

Preusse wrote: »

Thank you for clearing that up, rrpc.

I know, if security is in place....etc. But the possibility of theft of the licence is probably just as high as having any other paperwork stolen (particularly when you have to travel to the shooting range). The Europass would be a better option as it has, at least, you photo in it. And if someone just wants to buy ammo with the stolen licence and afterwards just discards it because they got what they wanted out of it, means they may not be caught with your licence. I think the regulations should be stricter as to who can actually buy the ammo - only the licence holder/named persons on the licence.

But that is off-topic anyway.

It's only slightly off-topic Preusse, and is a good point. However, I don't think stopping people buying or collecting ammo on another's behalf should be the victim. Rather it should be the case that the holder's photo be on the licence and if necessary accompanied by a letter/note authorising the person concerned to collect the items on their behalf.

After all as IWM has pointed out, it can sometimes be difficult for the licence holder to actually do the buying or collecting. There's a whole bunch of exceptions to section 2, and if you start with one, where do you stop? Without the exception for courier's/postmen, the whole industry could grind to a halt.

Gunter Mauser

Quote Preusse "I think the regulations should be stricter as to who can actually buy the ammo - only the licence holder/named persons on the licence."

But that is off-topic anyway.

I totally agree with preusse's way of thinking on this matter he sounds like he knows his stuff well in matters such as this.:rolleyes: 2009 should be the time to update getting rid of the loopholes and grey areas,a General:rolleyes: tidying up, a spring cleaning getting rid of the cobwebs, dust.....etc putting the lot into something more compact to boot.:)

rrpc

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

I totally agree with preusse's way of thinking on this matter he sounds like he knows his stuff well in matters such as this.:rolleyes: 2009 should be the time to update getting rid of the loopholes and grey areas,a General:rolleyes: tidying up, a spring cleaning getting rid of the cobwebs, dust.....etc putting the lot into something more compact to boot.:)

Why would you be in favour of reducing our rights with regard to purchasing or carrying of firearms and ammunition?

Gunter Mauser

We, thats Preusse & I are not in favour of reducing Our rights but
strengthen them with common sense by not having them abused in the first place:eek:

rrpc

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

We that's thats Preusse & I are not in favour of reducing Our rights but
strengthen them with common sense by not having them abused in the first place:eek:

Oh....Kay....

What grey areas, loopholes and abuses are you referring to?

Gunter Mauser

Pressed refresh for the last time and finally made it.

Grey areas? . Reloading, carrage as mentioned above ammo / firearms.
Will garda A except your friend as courier as your Dad was
playing golf at the time...

rrpc

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

Pressed refresh for the last time and finally made it.

Grey areas? . Reloading, carrage as mentioned above ammo / firearms.
Will garda A except you friend as courier as your Dad was
playing golf at the time...

These aren't grey areas, Gunter they're perfectly clear and unambiguous. The grey areas are in people's minds, most notably the Gardai who have yet to win a case taken against them regarding firearms licensing.

The carriage of firearms and ammunition is most emphatically not a grey area. The act is quite specific and clear as to what is allowed. Reference to criminals and theft of licences is a red herring in this situation and in any situation regarding firearms because many such references are outside the scope of the act and are properly catered for in other legislation.

Reloading is not a grey area because that section in the CJA is not commenced at this stage and is therefore not relevant. Anybody discussing it must be seen to be discussing something for the future and not the situation as it pertains today. This area is being dealt with by the FCP and whatever is decided will most probably be the subject of further legislation.

Whether Garda A accepts that your friend is acting on your behalf or not, is completely irrelevant. If an arrest was carried out in such circumstances, Garda A could be in deep doodoo. Why it should matter what a Garda thinks is frankly beyond me, their job is to uphold the law, not think up new ones.

Gunter Mauser

The defenition of a Grey Area is subjective, if its a held belief by a Super in his or her district that they will not allow .223 caliber because it military then they will have and do have the final word.
Some districts won't licence full bore pistol and will fight in court often getting the support
of the judge. This can be called different things by different folks but still comes across
as a dark shade of grey to many.

Reloading has been notorious known as a grey area, until this new law gets this aspect of the sport up and functional and seen as something normal, sports people will still be looking out for the knock on the door just ask a couple of the lads who posted here. The grey area could be the place where you P..ss in the corner of the cell. So does it matter what you call it,even it does exist only in the mind.

It wasn't me!

From reading the act though, the carrier couldn't be arrested if it could be verified that they were acting on behalf of the FAC-holder. Could be as simple as a phone call, or a trip to the station to collect confiscated ammo and FAC, with a Passport as proof of identity for the holder. After all, the guards can't arrest someone for a crime that doesn't exist.

Gunter Mauser

Clarity in the law is the best way to secure your safety and the sport.
One law for all the 26 counties full stop! Tired of the gery areas 2008 and
all of that, lets make sure all this crap gets fixed once and for all.

It wasn't me!

there's no grey area, it's perfectly clear. What exactly do you want to happen in this regard? I have a feeling what you may be trying to say is beyond the remit of this thread, and would be better off in one of its own.

Dr Strange

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

We, thats Preusse & I are not in favour of reducing Our rights but
strengthen them with common sense by not having them abused in the first place:eek:

Oops, I just saw this.

Thanks for agreeing to some of my posts but I have to say I rather speak for myself. Nothing personal, just a matter of principle.

I would, however, agree with the sentiment that stricter controls as to who can buy ammo is important. I don't see it as a restriction of my rights as such, rather a protection of them. One thing I would definitely be in favour of is some kind of ID (Photo) licence for all firearms you want to hold.

Gunter Mauser

+1, with you again on that Preusse.

It wasn't me!

Sorted, the father had no issue, everyone seems happy enough. Now just have to get my ammo limit upped so I can take advantage of reduced prices. Even buying by the 500 leaves it reasonably steep.

rrpc

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

The defenition of a Grey Area is subjective, if its a held belief by a Super in his or her district that they will not allow .223 caliber because it military then they will have and do have the final word.
Some districts won't licence full bore pistol and will fight in court often getting the support
of the judge. This can be called different things by different folks but still comes across
as a dark shade of grey to many.

All of that is in the law and is in black and white. The final decision is the Super's and that's in the act. One Super will have a different view from another as to what they will licence, but what you're talking about is not a grey area, more properly an area of contention. The particular area this thread is about is not grey. It's specifically stated in the act who can or cannot possess a firearm or ammunition.

rrpc

Preusse wrote: »

Oops, I just saw this.

Thanks for agreeing to some of my posts but I have to say I rather speak for myself. Nothing personal, just a matter of principle.

I would, however, agree with the sentiment that stricter controls as to who can buy ammo is important. I don't see it as a restriction of my rights as such, rather a protection of them. One thing I would definitely be in favour of is some kind of ID (Photo) licence for all firearms you want to hold.

Well, let's paint a little scenario shall we?

Preusse is out for a tramp in the fields several miles from home and comes across a badly injured animal that he feels should be put out of its misery. Reaching for his trusty mobile phone - there being nothing in the vicinity capable of humanely desptching the dying animal - he phones Mrs. Preusse and asks her to hop in the car with his [insert name of firearm here] and some ammo and meet him down the road.

Unfortunately Mrs. Preusse is stopped at a routine checkpoint and of course not being allowed to possess or carry Preusse's firearm or ammunition is arrested.

End result: Mrs. Preusse in clink, firearm in dealers, licence in jeopardy and Preusse in dog house

cooperjeff9

It wasn't me! wrote: »

From reading the act though, the carrier couldn't be arrested if it could be verified that they were acting on behalf of the FAC-holder. Could be as simple as a phone call, or a trip to the station to collect confiscated ammo and FAC, with a Passport as proof of identity for the holder. After all, the guards can't arrest someone for a crime that doesn't exist.

Actually, yes they can.On suspicion of having commited a crime under the *** Act 19** etc. They may not get a prosecution but most certainly can arrest a person on suspicion of having committed a crime. Would you really want to spend time answering questions in a Garda station?

It wasn't me!

cooperjeff9 wrote: »

Actually, yes they can.On suspicion of having commited a crime under the *** Act 19** etc. They may not get a prosecution but most certainly can arrest a person on suspicion of having committed a crime. Would you really want to spend time answering questions in a Garda station?

To be honest, in the real world, when it's so easily verified, I find it very difficult to imagine a guard arresting anyone for it, and if it did happen, meh, still haven't done anything wrong, so I'd be expecting a good cup of coffee and a biscuit while I answered the questions.

maglite

the post about carring the gun in the car,


If the gun is in the booth or even in the car for that matter is the driver in posetion,


if they ar ewhat happens when you leave the house to go to work? wife knows where the keys to the safe are, knows where the safe is and has access to it.

is she then breaking the law?

It wasn't me!

Presumably. She's not carrying it under your direction for your use (assuming you're the FAC holder) or under your authorisation, so yeah, probably breaking the law.

Sikamick

From what I have heard from the DOJ the carrying of ammunition or firearms under the particular act been stated relates to an unlicensed gillie on the hill carrying for the stalker or the unlicensed shot gun loader at a driven shoot loading for the shooter. It does not apply to licensed holders collecting ammo or firearms for a friend who shoots.

Best check it out with DOJ legal Section.

Dr Strange

rrpc wrote: »

Well, let's paint a little scenario shall we?

Preusse is out for a tramp in the fields several miles from home and comes across a badly injured animal that he feels should be put out of its misery. Reaching for his trusty mobile phone - there being nothing in the vicinity capable of humanely desptching the dying animal - he phones Mrs. Preusse and asks her to hop in the car with his [insert name of firearm here] and some ammo and meet him down the road.

Unfortunately Mrs. Preusse is stopped at a routine checkpoint and of course not being allowed to possess or carry Preusse's firearm or ammunition is arrested.

End result: Mrs. Preusse in clink, firearm in dealers, licence in jeopardy and Preusse in dog house

Hi rrpc,

yes, I am not saying you don' have a point. However, I do believe that there really is no argument against increase of security as to who can and cannot buy ammo. For example, over in Germany, I cannot just send a family member or friend to get me some ammo. It's very strict. And given the loopholes that exist in Irish firearms legislation I do think they should be sorted out even if it takes time. Don't get me wrong, that does not mean you shouldn't have the possibility of sending someone for ammo if you are not able to. However, that someone could be mentioned in your licence as a potential ammo carrier. Let's say it is simila to Eircom Phonewatch where you have to supply the names of at least three keyholders. Do something similar for the licence, name up to 5 people who may collect ammo for you with your licence.

Gunter Mauser

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."

Or to put Donald Rumsfield unknowns unknowns another way its the little mistakes that trip you up. Not watching out for loopholes might get you snared or to put it yet another way still and fundamentally back to the same point, grey areas that do exist do in the fact exist to a greater and larger extent if only in the back of the heads of men that something exists in reality that could place you in the back of a cell futher watching a grey area in the corner of the room that you taught you should never have been placed in the first place.

O.....Kay jargon busters going foward, sounds sooooo celtic tiggerish and past tense
Check with the Doj as Mick has mentioned many times previously before you go quoting the law to the night watch Garda who is taking your granny to the cell who collected your ammo while you were so busy. If she took along the pistol as a bit of protection who could blame or cast the first stone.;)

It wasn't me!

The law is as it is. If the legislation doesn't specifically mention ghillies or shotgun loaders (it mentions warehouse staff and transport agents, for example), then it is impossible for them to say "Well, what we mean by that very clearly worded piece of legislation that as it is written very clearly applies to this situation and allows what you are doing, is that it only applies to these people, oh, and those guys, and depending on the occasion, maybe them, but wasn't that obvious?" The law is pretty explicit. It's a tick the boxes type deal. If you tick all the boxes on what's good, then you're in the clear. Simple really.

Sikamick

It wasn't me, (Re my mention of ghillies or shotgun loaders. I have only posted what I was told by the DOJ and you are right about warehousing staff and transport people/carrier.

I am not that well up on firearms law but what I don't Know I ask the DOJ legal section to explain, that way you don't end up pi**ing in the grey area of the cell wondering why you listened to bad advice.

I would not like to be stopped carrying ammo or a firearm that I am not license to have.

I have a friend that ended up in court over something similar ( empty 9mm cases ) and it took him two and a half years to get his guns back.

Gunter Mauser

Someone been found in possession of Firearms & Ammunition is a very serious offence IWM if they have no firearms licence for this firearm. If as Michael O'Connor has stated as direct facts from the Doj as to how they will enforce the law on this matter I think it would be wise to pay attention and have this situation verified by the DOJ once more. IF they the DOJ state clearly anyone, your best friend, Partner, Dad, Grandad cannot carry firearms & ammunition on your behalf then its how they the DOJ interpret the law. Would you risk a best friend;) getting pulled in at a check point in Limerick at the moment with a Glock & Ammo in the glove box of his car.:eek:

Sikamick

DeVore I would be obliged if you could get on to your contact in the DOJ and clear up this question for all of us as to who can actually have a firearm and ammunition in their possession.

Can I get my friend Joe Bloggs to purchase ammunition on my behalf or to collect my firearm from the firearms dealer with my FAC.

This is a very important question and it needs to be answered clearly to avoid someone been prosecuted.

Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club

Why should DeVore do this?

Call the Doj yourself and see what they say.

Our man in Havana

+1

Pick up the phone and call them or ask your local FO.

Sikamick

A yes lads the same as usual, like Vultures sitting on the fence waiting to knock any suggestion, and by the way I have done, have you.

Sikamick

Bond-007 wrote: »

+1

Pick up the phone and call them or ask your local FO.

Bond I would say most FO will tell you no, would it not be better to get someone like Devore who doesnt shoot, I think and who has made contact in the past to clear up the question for us.

Sikamick

Deleted User wrote: »

Why should DeVore do this?

Call the Doj yourself and see what they say.

I have, please read my previous posting and the only reason I mentioned it is to save people getting in to trouble and not that you might care.

zaraba whats the problem, are you afraid of the answer.

What the hell are you on?

DeVore is a very busy person and you want him to spend more time chasing around the DoJ to satisfy your curisoity?

You want to know the answer, you say how its vital for the future of the sport so you bloody go ahead and do it.

Call from a phonebox in a different county if makes you happier.

Sikamick

Deleted User wrote: »

What the hell are you on?

DeVore is a very busy person and you want him to spend more time chasing around the DoJ to satisfy your curisoity?

You want to know the answer, you say how its vital for the future of the sport so you bloody go ahead and do it.

Call from a phonebox in a different county if makes you happier.

zaraba
No Sense of Humour. you say how its vital for the future of the sport. Read the posting again I did not say that. No need to get so aggressive.

you need to take a chill out pill.

Rovi

In fairness folks, DeVore has made contact with the DOJ on (shooting) Boards related subjects before, and he does appear to have the ear of someone there who's willing to answer questions.
While any answer he might get would carry no more legal weight than an answer from the DOJ that any of the rest of us would to get to the same question, I don't see the request as being particularly disrespectful or 'lazy'.

Of course, the only true answer to this question would be one handed down by the courts in the event of someone being prosecuted, and I haven't heard of any such case.
Any volunteers to give it a try?

Sikamick

Rovi the request I made of Devore was simple and straight forward. If it saves someone getting into trouble whats the problem, I thought that Boards was for the dissemination of information.

I see zabara is a mod, God helps us if he gets onto the shooting forum.

I am also sure that there has been a number of cases/prosecutions for been in the possession of a firearm or ammunition without having an FAC.

Sparks

Rovi wrote: »

Of course, the only true answer to this question would be one handed down by the courts in the event of someone being prosecuted, and I haven't heard of any such case.
Any volunteers to give it a try?

You know, I don't think that kind of case would ever have anything more than nuisance value? Section 2(3)(f), as rrpc pointed out earlier on another thread, is very clear cut. It - Section 2(3) that is - lists the times when you don't need a cert to carry a firearm, and one of those times is:

( f ) the carriage for sporting purposes only of a firearm or ammunition under instructions from and for the use of the holder of a firearm certificate for such firearm or ammunition;

I mean, there are very gray areas in the Firearms Act - but this is not one of them.