New Restricted List sneak peek

Sparks

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List from an anonymous source in the DoJ. It's not yet finalised, but this is the content so far:

Schedule One
Make|Model|Magazine capacity permissible
Baikal | IZH 35 | 5
Baikal | IZH 35M | 5
Benelli | MP90S | 5
Benelli | MP95E | 5
FAS Domino | SP602 | 5
FAS Domino | SP607 | 5
FAS Domino | SP 607 Light | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 Light | 5
Frankonia | Favorit | 5
Hammerli | 208/S | 5
Hammerli | 280 | 5
Hammerli | SP 20/SP 20 RRS | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E-RF | 5
Morini | CM102E/CM22E/M | 5
Pardini | SPE | 5
Pardini | SP or SP Rapid Fire | 5
Pardini | SP1 or SP 1 Rapid Fire | 5
Sako | Tri-Ace | 5
Tesro | TS 22-2 | 5
Unique | DES 69/U | 5
Walther | GSP or GSP expert | 5
Walther | SP22/SSP/M4 | 5
Walther | KSP\SSP | 5

Air pistols and smallbore single-shot pistols (like the Toz-35) aren't being specified by make and model like this, just by description.

Any other make or model of smallbore semi-auto or revolver has to be applied for as a restricted firearm.

G17

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List

Restricted?

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List from an anonymous source in the DoJ. It's not yet finalised, but this is the content so far:

Schedule One
Make|Model|Magazine capacity permissible
Baikal | IZH 35 | 5
Baikal | IZH 35M | 5
Benelli | MP90S | 5
Benelli | MP95E | 5
FAS Domino | SP602 | 5
FAS Domino | SP607 | 5
FAS Domino | SP 607 Light | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 Light | 5
Frankonia | Favorit | 5
Hammerli | 208/S | 5
Hammerli | 280 | 5
Hammerli | SP 20/SP 20 RRS | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E-RF | 5
Morini | CM102E/CM22E/M | 5
Pardini | SPE | 5
Pardini | SP or SP Rapid Fire | 5
Pardini | SP1 or SP 1 Rapid Fire | 5
Sako | Tri-Ace | 5
Tesro | TS 22-2 | 5
Unique | DES 69/U | 5
Walther | GSP or GSP expert | 5
Walther | SP22/SSP/M4 | 5
Walther | KSP\SSP | 5

Air pistols and smallbore single-shot pistols (like the Toz-35) aren't being specified by make and model like this, just by description.

Any other make or model of smallbore semi-auto or revolver has to be applied for as a restricted firearm.

Oh No, it dont look good if this is only Schedule One:(

IRLConor

As I understand it, those are the non-restricted semi-autos.

That would make it:

Not restricted: Single shot, or on the list in schedule 1
Restricted: Everything else.

Bloody stupid way of doing it, but I guess it's a logical progression from the equally stupid "designed for use in..." clause in the new bits of the Firearms Act.

Bananaman

Was that list issued by the ISSF or IOC?

i.e. where did the DOJ get it?

And does it mean that if you have (3 or less) of these (semi auto pistols) that you do not need a safe as they are not restricted.

B'Man

Sparks

I'm guessing that as well IRLConor - if they were amending the current Restricted List (which is an inverted list in that it lists the unrestricted stuff) it'd make sense to do it this way.

Well. From a legal drafting point of view anyway.

This does look like anyone with a browning buckmark or Ruger MkII is now going to have to apply for a restricted licence, by the way. Which is an important thing to note as there's a lot of folks in that boat.

Bananaman

Also

S&W 22a
Hammelis xesse

(Most common .22 target pistols around I think)

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

And does it mean that if you have (only) one of these (semi auto pistols) that you do not need a safe as they are not restricted.

Nope - the "no safe required" category is for one shotgun only.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Also
S&W 22a
Hammelis xesse
(Most common .22 target pistols around I think)
B'Man

Yup. I'm hoping the list isn't locked down yet - I was told the SI's not finalised yet, so hopefully omissions that serious can be modified.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Was that list issued by the ISSF or IOC?

Neither of those organisations have ever made a list to the best of my knowledge.

There are a number of lists around the world used by various jurisdictions to define 'olympic pistols'. There's the California list, there's one in New Zealand i think and there's a couple more. If you google one of the models on that list you'll probably find a list or two with it on it.

And does it mean that if you have (3 or less) of these (semi auto pistols) that you do not need a safe as they are not restricted.
B'Man

You need a safe if you've anything more than one shotgun.

IRLConor

Bananaman wrote: »

Was that list issued by the ISSF or IOC?

Neither of them keep lists of pistols AFAIK. Certainly the IOC wouldn't since they delegate the technical stuff to the ISSF.

Bananaman wrote: »

i.e. where did the DOJ get it?

If they got it from the NTSA I'll be very annoyed. Not that I could do anything about it mind...

Bananaman

Is the intention of this list that applications for anything else will be refused as they will fall under the 'prohibition of short firearms'?

B'Man

IRLConor

Bananaman wrote: »

Is the intention of this list that applications for anything else will be refused as they will fall under the 'prohibition of short firearms'?

We won't know until we see the exact text of the SI.

We won't know for sure until we see the text of the SI and how it's implemented.

Vegeta

Just throwing this out there

Whoever is responsible for the list is a moron?

Its a terrible way to do things, listing what is unrestricted.

People have already pointed out obvious omissions
What if a new firearm comes out which is very similar to the ones on the list?
Who updates the list?

Bad way of dealing with things, very bad idea

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Is the intention of this list that applications for anything else will be refused as they will fall under the 'prohibition of short firearms'?

What I was told by the source was that applications for any other smallbore pistol (other than single-shot types) would be treated as applications for a restricted firearm; not that the application would be dismissed out of hand.

I'm not sure of how viable that is, because:

• The Misc. Provisions Act bans handguns on the basis of the current restricted list (SI 21 of 2008); if the list is changed, it's in a different SI (it'll be SI something of 2009).
• As a result, you could argue that the ban applies only to stuff specified in SI21/2008 and not to stuff in the 2009 SI so you could still apply for a restricted licence for a buckmark or whatever; but
• You could equally argue that the Interpretation Act means that the new SI replaces the old SI retroactively; in which case yes, anything not on the list is banned

And you'd have to go to court for a definitive ruling.
Anyone want to spend twenty grand to licence a Browning Buckmark?

(I've been told since by the source that the 2008 SI is envisaged as playing a narrow role in that it'll be used for the ban and the 2009 SI will be used for the restricted/nonrestricted decision when applying for the licence. I'm still not sure if that's viable though, but if noone pushes...)

4gun

Vegeta wrote: »

Just throwing this out there

Whoever is responsible for the list is a moron?

Its a terrible way to do things, listing what is unrestricted.

People have already pointed out obvious omissions
What if a new firearm comes out which is very similar to the ones on the list?
Who updates the list?

Bad way of dealing with things, very bad idea

your deal with bereaucrats, what do you expect:D

Vegeta

Vegeta wrote: »

Just throwing this out there

Whoever is responsible for the list is a moron?

Its a terrible way to do things, listing what is unrestricted.

People have already pointed out obvious omissions
What if a new firearm comes out which is very similar to the ones on the list?
Who updates the list?

Bad way of dealing with things, very bad idea

I think thats the point. Then if a new gun arrives, its restricted unless proven otherwise. Just incase some form of Olympic compatible .22 automatic rambo grendade firing glock with rpg sights came along..

the mantra 'better out then in' springs to mind.

Bananaman

I think an application for a license for a Browning Buckmark is about to go in to my local station and see how hot/cold the water is.

B'Man

Sparks

If so B'man, it'll be odd. If it goes in now, it's an unrestricted licence. If it's processed today and issued tomorrow, it's a valid licence.
But if that list goes through unaltered, then this time next month, that licence will be invalid (because the buckmark will then be restricted) and you'll be in possession of an unlicenced, restricted firearm.

Me, I'd hold off. But I don't much like the notion of courts and legal hassles. Either way, let us know how it goes...

Not so Sparks,

You can't be held account for your actions if they were legal at the time. Retrospective legislation has been shown to be unconstitional in this country.

fat-tony

Would it not be more likely that a decision on the application would be delayed until the publication of the new SI? Many applicants in the past have had the experience of the "if in doubt - do nothing" procedure as happened in some districts. Licence apps would go missing for months in some intray or "pending" folder.

max of three months, but yeah. I can see that being the case if there is doubt.

Sparks

You misunderstand me zara - B'man's in absolutely no trouble until the new list comes in. Once it comes in, his licence would cease to be valid. That's the point where the fun starts. There's no retrospective element involved, you see?

Sparks

fat-tony wrote: »

Would it not be more likely that a decision on the application would be delayed until the publication of the new SI?

That'd be logical, but there's no legal grounds to do that on that I can see.
Of course, you could say that the Super doesn't need a legal basis and can just feck the application in the drawer, but I'd rather not encourage that kind of thing.
And there's the point that the incorrect applications then get sent back to the applicants, who have to correct and resubmit them... and now the three month window hassle arises yet again...

Bananaman

I think we'll just make the application and see how that goes.

Local station are on a course tomorrow on how to deal with new applications. Gonna drop in Friday with application.

I get a license or I don't get a license - either way I'm no worse off and it'll end all the prattling. If they tell me outright that I cannot apply for a license bcause it is not on some list then we will know - no more guessing.

B'Man

Vegeta

Deleted User wrote: »

I think thats the point. Then if a new gun arrives, its restricted unless proven otherwise. Just incase some form of Olympic compatible .22 automatic rambo grendade firing glock with rpg sights came along..

the mantra 'better out then in' springs to mind.

Its not very good for any sport that uses this type of firearm?

Who do you prove anything to, you talk about stuff being restricted unless proved otherwise? How does one prove that a firearm is suitable? So do you have to go to court to do it, do you apply to the commissioner? If it is deemed suitable is the list them updated to include the firearm, who updates it? DoJ?

I may be a bit harsh in my original post as I fully suspect that the DoJ demanded a list but god its a horrible thing

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

You misunderstand me zara - B'man's in absolutely no trouble until the new list comes in. Once it comes in, his licence would cease to be valid. That's the point where the fun starts. There's no retrospective element involved, you see?

Are you sure? I notice that I need to take a driving test in order to get a licence, but my father didn't need to surrender his licence and take a test when that law came in.

Would it not be the case where the licence is granted, but won't be renewed.

tonysopprano

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List from an anonymous source in the DoJ. It's not yet finalised, but this is the content so far:

Schedule One

Make|Model|Magazine capacity permissible

Baikal | IZH 35 | 5

Baikal | IZH 35M | 5

Benelli | MP90S | 5
Benelli | MP95E | 5
FAS Domino | SP602 | 5
FAS Domino | SP607 | 5
FAS Domino | SP 607 Light | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 Light | 5
Frankonia | Favorit | 5
Hammerli | 208/S | 5
Hammerli | 280 | 5
Hammerli | SP 20/SP 20 RRS | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E-RF | 5
Morini | CM102E/CM22E/M | 5
Pardini | SPE | 5
Pardini | SP or SP Rapid Fire | 5
Pardini | SP1 or SP 1 Rapid Fire | 5
Sako | Tri-Ace | 5
Tesro | TS 22-2 | 5
Unique | DES 69/U | 5
Walther | GSP or GSP expert | 5
Walther | SP22/SSP/M4 | 5
Walther | KSP\SSP | 5

Air pistols and smallbore single-shot pistols (like the Toz-35) aren't being specified by make and model like this, just by description.

Any other make or model of smallbore semi-auto or revolver has to be applied for as a restricted firearm.

I wonder if this is a revised update of a previous list,"not submitted and out of date, by persons unknown". Very curious.

Sparks

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you sure? I notice that I need to take a driving test in order to get a licence, but my father didn't need to surrender his licence and take a test when that law came in.
Would it not be the case where the licence is granted, but won't be renewed.

It might be overlooked until renewal; but that comes under the heading of "operational discretion". It wouldn't be legal. You'd have a licence issued by the local Super; who has no legal authority to issue the licence as the firearm is classed as restricted.
The driving licence legislation... isn't really similar enough to be relevant. Or even analogous, most of the time.

Thats retrospective though, it was legal when he issued it and within his right to issue it.
He can't renew it though.

Sparks

It's legal right up to when the status of the firearm licenced changes.
At that point, it gets... interesting.
Put it this way, if someone asked to see my paperwork, I'd not be happy if I knew that the guy who signed my licence was not legally empowered to grant such a licence. Especially since the DoJ has, in writing, put the onus on us to know the difference rather than the Gardai.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

It's legal right up to when the status of the firearm licenced changes.
At that point, it gets... interesting.
Put it this way, if someone asked to see my paperwork, I'd not be happy if I knew that the guy who signed my licence was not legally empowered to grant such a licence. Especially since the DoJ has, in writing, put the onus on us to know the difference rather than the Gardai.

It is still legal. Laws work 'going forward'. The super is no longer legally allowed to issue any more licences for that gun, since it is now on the restricted list, but my licence (or B'mans really) was issued legally and justly. He won't get a renewal, he may have it confiscated under a 'temp' order but, but you cannot retrospectively make something illegal. That has been proven in court.

Sparks

you cannot retrospectively make something illegal. That has been proven in court.

There's no retrospective element involved. B'man wouldn't be hauled up over the first few weeks where the licence was issued; but if he went on using that licence after the firearm for which it had been issued changed to a restricted firearm, that is where the problem arises. And it's not retrospective. You see what I mean?

bunny shooter

The "List" .................................. :eek:

Vegeta

bunny shooter wrote: »

The "List" .................................. :eek:

Took you long enough

fat-tony

Sparks wrote: »

There's no retrospective element involved. B'man wouldn't be hauled up over the first few weeks where the licence was issued; but if he went on using that licence after the firearm for which it had been issued changed to a restricted firearm, that is where the problem arises. And it's not retrospective. You see what I mean?

I think you're making a potential issue out of this, where none exists at present. The Commissioner has extended all our licences until at least 31/10/09 until they sort out exactly what pistols are going to be licensed as unrestricted or restricted. Obviously anything with a calibre of over .22 is already in the restricted group. The issues arises only over whatever the Gardai / DoJ deem as in the "Olympic" category. Until that is nailed down I would suggest that no Super is going to authorise any .22 pistol. They can get on with issuing restricted class licences (or referring them to the Chief Super or whatever way the Commissioner has devolved the responsibility:)) until this new SI is published.
Obviously it needs to be soon as otherwise they are painting all .22 pistol owners and themselves into a corner as the 31/10 extension looms.;)

Sparks

fat-tony wrote: »

I think you're making a potential issue out of this, where none exists at present.

That's sortof the definition of potential issue...

The Commissioner has extended all our licences until at least 31/10/09

Wrong licence. B'man is talking about a licence issued now against a buckmark. Only licences issued before 31/07/09 have the extensions.

Obviously anything with a calibre of over .22 is already in the restricted group.

And banned. And not a buckmark. So doubly irrelevant.

Look, all this stuff can be ignored.
Just not legally.
And it strikes me that if we've all just put ten years or more of our lives into the legislative end of things, and the entire Act has been rewritten; that it says some rather dismaying things that we have to resort to a nod and a wink to get by, instead of having clear and easy to read legislation; or even comprehensive legislation, even if convoluted.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

And it strikes me that if we've all just put ten years or more of our lives into the legislative end of things, and the entire Act has been rewritten; that it says some rather dismaying things that we have to resort to a nod and a wink to get by, instead of having clear and easy to read legislation; or even comprehensive legislation, even if convoluted.

That is not exclusive to shooting.
Very little legislation is 'clear'

At the end of the day, if the super doesn't like it he can cancel your licence. At any time. So our legal/retrospective/not retrospective debate is a moot point really.

bunny shooter

Vegeta wrote: »

Took you long enough

Ya was busy today just logged on

Imagine my surprise when I looked at the new "list" Sparks has had a peek at and it reminded me of another I had seen recently. I went to check the site I saw it on and low and behold it was gone :eek:

Luckily, when I checked the internet history on my PC I found the site has been updated

The attachment is from the page BEFORE it was updated and comes from approx early August THIS year :cool:

The lad/s who look after this site should definately do the Euro Lotto this week as if they get as many numbers in the Lotto as they did on these two lists they will definately win the jackpot :P

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

I went to check the site I saw it on and low and behold it was gone :eek:

Actually, it's still there.

Sparks

Deleted User wrote: »

That is not exclusive to shooting.
Very little legislation is 'clear'

That's not a valid excuse, not after the number of Acts and SIs we've had fired our way in recent years.

At the end of the day, if the super doesn't like it he can cancel your licence. At any time. So our legal/retrospective/not retrospective debate is a moot point really.

And I could drop dead of a massive heart attack while crossing the road.
Doesn't mean I won't look both ways before crossing the next road I come to though.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, it's still there.

yes, but where is "there" 'cause it ain't here though ?

Sparks

Dunno Bunny, but I had enough hassle with the joomla software that runs the site when trying to set up the document store that I'm not going to put down to malice what is more than attributable to fecking bugs...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Dunno Bunny, but I had enough hassle with the joomla software that runs the site when trying to set up the document store that I'm not going to put down to malice what is more than attributable to fecking bugs...

Ever heard the saying "bull****e baffles brains" ? :P :rolleyes:

As I said you should definately do the Lotto this week Should share the numbers with RRPC too

Wonder if them "bugs" are on the FCP

fat-tony

Sparks wrote: »

That's sortof the definition of potential issue...Wrong licence. B'man is talking about a licence issued now against a buckmark. Only licences issued before 31/07/09 have the extensions.

And banned. And not a buckmark. So doubly irrelevant.

Look, all this stuff can be ignored.
Just not legally.
And it strikes me that if we've all just put ten years or more of our lives into the legislative end of things, and the entire Act has been rewritten; that it says some rather dismaying things that we have to resort to a nod and a wink to get by, instead of having clear and easy to read legislation; or even comprehensive legislation, even if convoluted.

Sparks - you've picked me up wrong again:)
I dithered about putting in the word "potential", but I didn't want to be seen as having a go at you making mountains out of molehills;)
B'man was not talking about actually having a new licence - he said he was applying for a licence. You extrapolated from this into the actual granting of a licence and the sh*tstorm which might result from such granting, should the status of the pistol be subsequently changed from non-restricted to restricted. Don't forget that the Restricted SI of 2008 was placed into law with effect from May 2008. Last year's renewals didn't affect holders of restricted pistols AFAIK. Obviously, the primary legislation has been changed in the interim and now we are ALL faced with a new application for our licences.
My thesis is that no sane Super/Chief Super/Commissioner is going to actually grant any licences for .22 pistols until such time as it is clear which ones are restricted and which ones are not:)

fat-tony

bunny shooter wrote: »

yes, but where is "there" 'cause it ain't here though ?

Ah - the conspiracy theorists at work again.:D

The Joomla software (which the site is based on) and the Docman module have settings which restrict the number of displayed articles on the page.
Give us an hour or two and I'll get the brains trust together to fix the issue.:o

bunny shooter

fat-tony wrote: »

Ah - the conspiracy theorists at work again.:D

Except this time I've Scully & Mulder on the case :P "The truth is out there"

fat-tony wrote: »

The Joomla software (which the site is based on) and the Docman module have settings which restrict the number of displayed articles on the page.

Really :eek:

fat-tony

Ok fixed. There was a limit of 10 articles displayed in the menu on the sidebar. Now changed to 20 - have a look:D
I blame the DoJ and a certain someone for publishing all those SIs on the website;)

bunny shooter

fat-tony wrote: »

Ok fixed. There was a limit of 10 articles displayed in the menu on the sidebar.

Obviously not enough spaces , no conspiracy to hide a dodgy deal with the devil then Makes me wonder how did Sparks link work then ?

fat-tony wrote: »

Now changed to 20 - have a look:D;)

Will do, I like to keep up to date with all matters ISSF seems it will save me checking the DOJ site for updates

fat-tony wrote: »

I blame the DoJ and a certain someone for publishing all those SIs on the website;)

New theory ................. are they one in the same :eek:

Sparks

fat-tony wrote: »

B'man was not talking about actually having a new licence - he said he was applying for a licence. You extrapolated from this into the actual granting of a licence and the sh*tstorm which might result from such granting, should the status of the pistol be subsequently changed from non-restricted to restricted.

And on what legal basis will the Super refuse to grant the licence?

Don't forget that the Restricted SI of 2008 was placed into law with effect from May 2008. Last year's renewals didn't affect holders of restricted pistols AFAIK.

Because the relevant section of the Act wasn't commenced...



Look, here's my real problem tony - yes, the problem won't arise. But it won't arise because the legislation is clear and well-constructed, with contingencies like this accounted for. It won't arise because the Super will either throw the application in the drawer and sit on it until it's moot; or he'll just grant it in ignorance. An Irish solution.

In other words, we should have just fecked off and not wasted our time over the last ten years working with the DoJ to try to draft decent legislation, because we had a pig's ear of a thing at the start, and we're still stuck with a pigs ear today, ten years of hard graft down the road.

Oh, and let's all just hope that in the second-most litigious country in the world, noone challanges any of this in court. Instead of, you know, having fair rules that noone would have any real problem with.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Wonder if them "bugs" are on the FCP

They must be, how else would Des get the contents of the Guidelines while they were still confidential?