What is and what is not a restricted firearm

SpannerMonkey

What is and what is not a restricted firearm in plain english no legal talk :P

Sparks

No legal talk? "Restricted Firearm" is legal talk!

Sparks

Alright, basicly put so. Is your firearm:

• A blank-firing starter's pistol?
• A shotgun that doesn't have more than three cartridges (doesn't matter if it's made that way or if you stuck a dowel into it) and doesn't have a folding or telescoping stock, and doesn't have a pistol grip and is more than 24 inches long?
• A rifle that isn't semi-automatic and isn't fully automatic and isn't greater than .308 in calibre and isn't shorter than 90 centimetres?
• A rimfire rifle that has any kind of action bar fully automatic and that has a magazine of ten shots or less?
• An airgun?
• An air or smallbore pistol for use in Olympic shooting?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then it's not restricted. If it's none of the above, then it's restricted.

But that's an approximation. For specific details, you'd have to get into the legal talk...

No6

I was going to ask the same question myself!! I did look at the SI whatever and its not really clear what i got from it was

Shotguns up to three shots with no funny pistol grip stocks or shortened barrels

Rimflre rifles with or without moderators

Centerfire rifles up to .308 without moderators

and starting pistols are all unrestricted

I could be wrong so please someone who knows better please confirm.

SpannerMonkey

Cheers boys simply put and easy to understand what i have been looking for for ages

What is the logic for the pistol grip?

Rovi

Deleted User wrote: »

What is the logic for the pistol grip?

The Hollywood Academy of Firearms and Ballistics clearly states that a firearm with a pistol grip is inherently more eeeeevil and dangerous than one without.
That appears to be what it boils down to.

cavan shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Alright, basicly put so. Is your firearm:

• A blank-firing starter's pistol?
• A shotgun that doesn't have more than three cartridges (doesn't matter if it's made that way or if you stuck a dowel into it) and doesn't have a folding or telescoping stock, and doesn't have a pistol grip and is more than 24 inches long?
• A rifle that isn't semi-automatic and isn't fully automatic and isn't greater than .308 in calibre and isn't shorter than 90 centimetres?
• A rimfire rifle that has any kind of action bar fully automatic and that has a magazine of ten shots or less?
• An airgun?
• An air or smallbore pistol for use in Olympic shooting?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then it's not restricted. If it's none of the above, then it's restricted.

But that's an approximation. For specific details, you'd have to get into the legal talk...

Can I seek clarification on a point above:
A semi automatic rifle (22) is only restricted if it's magazine capacity is more than 10 ditto for levers/pumps

rrpc

cavan shooter wrote: »

Can I seek clarification on a point above:
A semi automatic rifle (22) is only restricted if it's magazine capacity is more than 10 ditto for levers/pumps

If you're talking about rimfire rifles then yes.

Bit of an anomaly there because a fullbore rifle (bolt action) can have more than a ten round mag, but a bolt action rimfire can't because it's lumped in with semi-autos.

Not that you'd really need more than a 10 round mag with a bolt action rim-fire rifle anyway, or could afford to feed one with a full-bore

Sandy22

rrpc wrote: »

If you're talking about rimfire rifles then yes.

.....

Not that you'd really need more than a 10 round mag with a bolt action rim-fire rifle anyway, or could afford to feed one with a full-bore

I'd say there are a lot of sporting-type .22's out there, typically with tubular magazines, with a capacity of >10 rounds, whose owners will get a bit of a land when they find out they're restricted.

rrpc

Sandy22 wrote: »

I'd say there are a lot of sporting-type .22's out there, typically with tubular magazines, with a capacity of >10 rounds, whose owners will get a bit of a land when they find out they're restricted.

Yes, and that was discussed a few times with the consensus that you could either crimp the tube or fit a dowel of some sort.

It was a Marlin I think which was the most common of those particular types and they held about fifteen rounds AFAIR.

DMZ

rrpc wrote: »

Yes, and that was discussed a few times with the consensus that you could either crimp the tube or fit a dowel of some sort.

It was a Marlin I think which was the most common of those particular types and they held about fifteen rounds AFAIR.

Another little gem, the original SI on restricted firearms is currenlty being amended, I wonder what little surprises are in store for us when that publishes.

Of course the original SI was a mess, but it would be too much to expect an improved document I would expect more draconian and unreasonable definitions or perhaps they might be integrating the *tsa list of olympic style pistols!

Least I get sanctioned for the above statement, it is a factual statement of concern, the list has been circulated and well know, I would be concerned that it would now be integrated into the new restricted list SI!

fat-tony

Hey DMZ. How many times have you posted this? I just replied to this on another thread

DMZ

fat-tony wrote: »

Hey DMZ. How many times have you posted this? I just replied to this on another thread

Three times all with relevance I believe:
Questions on restricted firearms
Queries on Guidelines
And a thread on SI's I believe I simply copied the information because it is pertinent to each thread, why would you have an issue with this!

Key points no guidelines for about two weeks and new amended restricted SI, both important pieces of information I think!

rrpc

DMZ wrote: »

Three times all with relevance I believe:
Questions on restricted firearms
Queries on Guidelines
And a thread on SI's I believe I simply copied the information because it is pertinent to each thread, why would you have an issue with this!

It's referred to as spamming. Especially when it's a cut and paste job. There's nothing wrong with posting the same information in different threads where relevant, but it should be in context, else it's spam.

Key points no guidelines for about two weeks and new amended restricted SI, both important pieces of information I think!

Well I've heard that the guidelines are due out early next week and that the new restricted SI will sort out a few of the anomalies inherent in it's previous incarnation.

rowa

so an ordinary bog standard .308 bolt action rifle is not a restricted firearm at the moment ? right or wrong ?

Sparks

That's correct rowa. So long as you don't have a moderator on it. And so long as it's more than 90cm long.

rowa

glad to hear the .308 isn't restricted , is there a loophole here though ? is the .30-06 now restricted and the more powerful 300 win mag for instance not ?

It wasn't me!

rowa wrote: »

glad to hear the .308 isn't restricted , is there a loophole here though ? is the .30-06 now restricted and the more powerful 300 win mag for instance not ?

The law specifies calibre, not chambering, so up to .308/.300 win mag/.30-06 should be okay.

Sparks

The .303 might be interesting though as the legislation doesn't say how the calibre is to be measured. So if the local super decides to be awkward and point out that .303 british can range from .309 up to .318 in calibre depending on wear and tear (though I suspect anyone whose SMLE was that far gone wouldn't be bothering to licence it ); well, in a case like that we might wind up seeing a court case to decide.

You'd hope that no super would have that much time to waste on such a pointless exercise, but...

It wasn't me!

Sparks wrote: »

The .303 might be interesting though as the legislation doesn't say how the calibre is to be measured. So if the local super decides to be awkward and point out that .303 british can range from .309 up to .318 in calibre depending on wear and tear (though I suspect anyone whose SMLE was that far gone wouldn't be bothering to licence it ); well, in a case like that we might wind up seeing a court case to decide.

You'd hope that no super would have that much time to waste on such a pointless exercise, but...

To be honest, I think in the vast majority of cases he won't waste time and will just bump it up the food chain. Makes a lot more sense. Then the chief super will deal with it. There might be a phone call to the applicant, but I'd say that's it.

clivej

rowa wrote: »

so an ordinary bog standard .308 bolt action rifle is not a restricted firearm at the moment ? right or wrong ?

Sparks wrote: »

That's correct rowa. So long as you don't have a moderator on it. And so long as it's more than 90cm long.

I have a ASE Northstar mod in .30cal that I use on my .223 (and got in mind to use on my .308)

So what makes the .308 a restricted gun when I ask (tick the box so to speak) for a mod to go with it.

Is it the .30cal mod, the .308 rifle, or using the .30 cal mod on the .308 rifle???????

johngalway

Sparks wrote: »

That's correct rowa. So long as you don't have a moderator on it. And so long as it's more than 90cm long.

Has there been a change of plan on this? (I've been away the weekend with limited net access). Last (rumour/grapevine) I heard on it was that the mod would not be restricted if it wasn't attached to a restricted firearm. That the mod itself wouldn't actually turn the rifle into a restricted rifle...

Sparks

That's the plan as I understand it john, but right now, the mod on a fullbore rifle is a restricted firearm.

Clive, it's a bit odd. The rifle isn't restricted. But the mod itself is a restricted firearm. The normal interpretation I've seen is that when you put the mod on an otherwise-unrestricted rifle, it becomes restricted, but that's where the mod is just on an authorisation.

Here's where the whole idea of thinking of the mod as a firearm in and of itself might be useful - if you had a seperate licence for the mod, then the licence for the rifle wouldn't need to be a restricted licence.

On a slightly "oh bugger" note, I thought initially that you could just get an authorisation for the mod instead of a licence; but then I went and re-read section 2 of the act and from reading it, I'm reasonably sure that your Super no longer has the authority to issue an authorisation for a fullbore mod. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that if you're hunting with it, he lost the authority when the restricted list came in... so technically at the moment, there are a number of people out there who have an authorisation for their fullbore mods and both they and their superintendents are acting illegally.

Got to love arcane, tangled legislation, you really do. Otherwise, you'd throw it out the window and write decent legislation...

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Got to love arcane, tangled legislation, you really do. Otherwise, you'd throw it out the window and write decent legislation...

Now, now Sparks. You know full well that's what they're going to do.

And the plus side is that it'll all be back to being called the Firearms Acts again, with nary a mention of a 'criminal' anywhere.

Sparks

Except it's not really what they're going to do rrpc, they're just going to apply everything into the one document.
It'll still be arcane, and reference a dozen SIs and EU directives...

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Except it's not really what they're going to do rrpc, they're just going to apply everything into the one document.
It'll still be arcane, and reference a dozen SIs and EU directives...

Well you can't avoid the EU directives, it's the way they're implemented and AFAIK, there are only two (one of which is an update of the other). The SI's need to be kept out of the Acts otherwise it takes the ability to change things to the level of tortoise like reaction.

Most of the SI's are really just commencement orders and can be ignored once they're issued. At the moment (off the top of my head) we have:

EU Directive SI
Restricted SI
Secure Accommodation SI
Clubs SI
Ranges SI
Fees SI

I can see good reasons for having all of them outside the Acts.

Sparks

Still though rrpc, that's (after the restatment is done) one Act with what, 40 sections? And six (soon to be seven) SIs (it'll be seven because the second EU directive doesn't amend the first, it stands longside it).

Technically, you could roll the EU directives into the Act (and legally, they shouldn't really be SIs as they have the same weight as primary legislation), but I don't think that's on the cards.

But you and I both know (as do many others here) that there are large tracts of the Act that have been cut-and-pasted out of the EU directives, but in such a way that the two manage to conflict. If we sat down and rewrite, using the EU stuff as a baseline and adding to it the extra Irish bits, we'd end up with something cleaner. Well. Assuming it was rewritten correctly, with a fair dollop of domain knowlege being used instead of the AGs office redrafting stuff and thereby mangling it.

rrpc

My current rollup runs to 70 pages now and there's no SI's in it or other ancillary legislation.

Having said that there's a fair amount of duplication in it, and if I was restating it, I'd start at the beginning and weed out all the unnecessary stuff.

For example, a lot of the later acts are standalone such as the 1964 act etc. If they were properly consolidated into the main act, you'd find quite a lot would be surplus. The same goes for the 2000 act and some of the other smaller ones. Even the definitions are duplicated in some cases.

Then there's the 2006 act. This was a complete monster and there's huge duplication in it. Some of that is also now surplus and could be chopped out completely.

There's really only one way to restate them and that's start at the beginning, cut out what's not needed and leave the rest.

Sparks

See, there's the rub. You're not talking about a restatement, but a rewrite - and that would require a new Firearms Bill which starts by repealing all previous Firearms Acts and then redrafts the whole thing. A restatement isn't a rewrite, it's not even new law. The restatement they're working on is governed by the Restatement Act 2002, and the end product is just an informative text, not a legal one - you can read through the restatement to figure out what the law is (and you can drop repealed stuff or other surplus stuff in it and you can roll SIs into it as well); but in court, you still use the original Acts, not the restatement. It's more a user's guide than the actual technical documentation, if that makes sense.

Personally, I think the rewrite is long overdue, but I'll take the restatement if that's all that's going. It's just that it needs to be known by folks that the restatement is just a handy guide, not the actual law itself.

No6

Its there any chinese classes anywhere might be a bit easier to understand!!!:D