Scope on new form

No6

When you have a scope on your rifle and tick the box on the new form do you have to give any details?

Cass

I did. I needed a sheet to put down some of the extra details that were required for some sections. For the "sights" box i ticked it and on the sheet i attached to the application i simply put " Section 3.2 - Accessories. Rifle mounted scope with 12-42x56 magnification" Might seem like overkill or too much info but better that than have the application returned due to lack of info.

deerhunter1

No6 wrote: »

When you have a scope on your rifle and tick the box on the new form do you have to give any details?

No. just do as it says,they dont ask for details,you will be only confusing them. They are confused enough as it is. Just tick the box

No6

Thanks ezridax, thats what I thought too, make and magnification.!!!

rrpc

Lads, FFS that's not for scopes or sights. It's for sights that are considered firearms under the firearms acts and for which you need authorisation the same as a moderator.

telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

There's a guide to the form on the thread for the form here that has this specifically stated, it's also on the NTSA website and a few other places.

Aaaaaaarrrrrggggggghhhhhhhh

Where's the emoticon for pulling your hair out by the roots? :mad:

Cass

Read something about that. Problem is i read about it after i submitted my applications. Ah well. No harm done. Nothing i can do now. And for God's sake rrpc stop pulling out your hair, you'll need the extra insulation in the coming winter months.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

Read something about that. Problem is i read about it after i submitted my applications. Ah well. No harm done. Nothing i can do now. And for God's sake rrpc stop pulling out your hair, you'll need the extra insulation in the coming winter months.

Can't help it, that's why I've so little left

There are going to be so many Gardai who think you need a licence for sights now.......

Garda: "Eh are there sights on that thing?"
Me: "Of course there are, wouldn't be much use without them"
Garda: "Well you have to tick this box here so"
Me: "Oh God help us........"

Klunk001

My local sargent asked me to write down a description of the telescopic sight and reason for wanting it on an A4 sheet .My understanding was this was not needed, for a telescopic sight. When I said I would take the telescopic sight off the rifle and untick the box on the application, he said I would then have to hand the scope in to be desroyed . Scary stuff indeed.

deerhunter1

Klunk001 wrote: »

My local sargent asked me to write down a description of the telescopic sight and reason for wanting it on an A4 sheet .My understanding was this was not needed, for a telescopic sight. When I said I would take the telescopic sight off the rifle and untick the box on the application, he said I would then have to hand the scope in to be desroyed . Scary stuff indeed.

For FFFFF___________ sake what are we dealing with out there, ya give him the scope to be destroyed and it will be on his or his buddies rifle

Cass

Thats the great thing about hindsight rrpc, you get to look back over all your own F*** ups. Good thing about the feck ups, you get to help others not make the same mistakes (sometimes).

My problem is i filled out the forms as best i could thinking i need to get these back in as quick as possible. Thought i had all bases covered but between mistakes, new SI's, extra required information etc i'm starting to second guess myself. So i started phoning everyone that i could in the DOJ, Garda HQ, Policy Unit, Firearms Unit, my local FO, Super everyone asking questions to reassure myself. For the most part i got it all right (according to them). They said according to the info i gave them on what i supplied that i may have over informed them but as said before its better than not enough.

My applications have been n for nearly 3 weeks which i now know was too quick but i've yet to get a call from FO or Super questioning any section of them. Thats why i try to reply to anybody asking questions about the application, as i have about as much info on them as can be got. Sometimes i forget a bit (case in point) I should be okay though. Fingers crossed.

cavan shooter

The sight section as I understood it was in relation to night sights as these are particulalry mentioned in the Act.

johngalway

I won't be ticking a box for ordinary telescopic scope.

foxshooter243

Klunk001 wrote: »

My local sargent asked me to write down a description of the telescopic sight and reason for wanting it on an A4 sheet .My understanding was this was not needed, for a telescopic sight. When I said I would take the telescopic sight off the rifle and untick the box on the application, he said I would then have to hand the scope in to be desroyed . Scary stuff indeed.

Whats really scary is that he passed his sergeants exam...thats whats scary:eek::eek:

No6

rrpc wrote: »

Lads, FFS that's not for scopes or sights. It's for sights that are considered firearms under the firearms acts and for which you need authorisation the same as a moderator.



There's a guide to the form on the thread for the form here that has this specifically stated, it's also on the NTSA website and a few other places.

Aaaaaaarrrrrggggggghhhhhhhh

Where's the emoticon for pulling your hair out by the roots? :mad:

Apoliges rrpc I thought I did see that somewhere but couldn't find it again so I asked out loud. Thank you for answering, I'll send you a bottle of regain for Christmas, and now for my next stupid question does that mean you don't have to tick the box for a moderator when its on a gun up to .308 since they are now not restricted following the ammendment to that particular piece of chineese SI (I can't remember the number) last week.

jwshooter

a better one still ,my cycling buddy bought a shotgun in the last few weeks ,his first firearm.

when he went to our sargent with the paper work he told him to go get another fxxking hobby as he hated guns and there paper work.

this is the same pxxxk that i had that told me he hated us having guns .

the sooner the better these guys under stand there civil savants the better and not some elite race.

Cass

No6 wrote: »

.............Thank you for answering, I'll send you a bottle of regain for Christmas,...............

Good one

...............does that mean you don't have to tick the box for a moderator when its on a gun up to .308 since they are now not restricted following the ammendment to that particular piece of chineese SI...........

Ah hindsight, a cruel mistress. I ticked that box as well. I have a moderator for my .308 but at the top of the FCA1 form i ticked the unrestricted box for the application type (section 1). The moderator being listed as unrestricted only reinforces that choice. Me thinks. Lets hear from the audience.

rrpc

No6 wrote: »

Apoliges rrpc I thought I did see that somewhere but couldn't find it again so I asked out loud. Thank you for answering, I'll send you a bottle of regain for Christmas, and now for my next stupid question does that mean you don't have to tick the box for a moderator when its on a gun up to .308 since they are now not restricted following the ammendment to that particular piece of chineese SI (I can't remember the number) last week.

No you have to tick the moderator box because they are considered firearms under the act.

No matter what sort or calibre of moderator it is, once you have one you must tick the box.

rrpc

This is the definition of a firearm in the Firearms Acts. Read the boldfaced bits first to understand how it works

“firearm” means—
(a) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged,
(b) an air gun (including an air rifle and air pistol) with a muzzle energy greater than one joule or any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile can be discharged with such a muzzle energy,
(c) a crossbow,
(d) any type of stun gun or other weapon for causing any shock or other disablement to a person by means of electricity or any other kind of energy emission,
(e) a prohibited weapon,
(f) any article which would be a firearm under any of the foregoing paragraphs or paragraph but for the fact that, owing to the lack of a necessary component part or parts, or to any other defect or condition, it is incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile or projectile or of causing a shock or other disablement, as the case may be,
(g) 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:
(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),
(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e), and
(iii) any object—
(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and
(II) without which it could not function as originally designed, and
(h) a device capable of discharging blank ammunition and to be used as a starting gun or blank firing gun, and includes a restricted firearm, unless otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires;

No6

Thanks a million for that RRPC, you should write the guidelines for them!!

rrpc

No6 wrote: »

Thanks a million for that RRPC, you should write the guidelines for them!!

You know, I'm not sure how good I'd be when faced with a blank sheet of paper with guidelines to write on them.

I'd probably panic and run away

Far easier to play editor and correct what somebody else has done.

BornToKill

jwshooter wrote: »

the sooner the better these guys under stand there civil savants the better and not some elite race.

They're not - for better or worse - civil 'savants'. Though that would be interesting.

They're not civil servants either by the way.

Jonty

BornToKill wrote: »

They're not - for better or worse - civil 'savants'. Though that would be interesting.

They're not civil servants either by the way.

Yeah but they should be civil in their attitude.

BornToKill

As should we all. The sun should shine more too. And fluffy white clouds. Meadows of wild flowers.

rrpc

BornToKill wrote: »

As should we all. The sun should shine more too. And fluffy white clouds. Meadows of wild flowers.

And the interconnectedness of all things.....