Spare/Replacement barrel

ranger4

Acording to guidelines "a Spare or replacement barrel for a firearm will not require a seperate firearms certificate provided it is of the same calibre" I got my licence ammended some time ago for a new 243 barrel and left my old 243 barrel with my dealer, with this new rule for "spare barrels" can i just collect my original rifle barrel from dealer when new licence comes through?

Sparks

Well, the Garda Commissioner says so and the AG and Minister signed off on it.
They might be wrong, but even Arthur Cox would be hard pressed to show you'd not done due dilligence at this stage

Overall, good news for the Class F boys...

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Well, the Garda Commissioner says so and the AG and Minister signed off on it.
They might be wrong, but even Arthur Cox would be hard pressed to show you'd not done due dilligence at this stage

Overall, good news for the Class F boys...

More than just F Class Sparks, good news for all target shooters who use rifles of any calibre.

Sparks

Well, yes, but I figured that since the Class F boys can't compete without spare barrels, it was the best news for them.

ranger4

With this news for spare barrels now in guidelines technicaly does my exsisiting cert and extension allow me to collect and be in possesion of my same caliber spare barrel?

rrpc

ranger4 wrote: »

With this news for spare barrels now in guidelines technicaly does my exsisiting cert and extension allow me to collect and be in possesion of my same caliber spare barrel?

In short, yes!

IrishRifle

[FONT=&quot]I'm wondering, now that possession of a spare barrel for the caliber of rifle which you are licensed to hold is considered such an insignificant thing as to not require any legal paperwork, would the importation of such a barrel be also considered such an insignificant thing as to also require no legal paperwork?[/FONT]

DMZ

IrishRifle wrote: »

[font=&quot]I'm wondering, now that possession of a spare barrel for the caliber of rifle which you are licensed to hold is considered such an insignificant thing as to not require any legal paperwork, would the importation of such a barrel be also considered such an insignificant thing as to also require no legal paperwork?[/font]

As a component of a firearm it will require declaration and importation documents for it, if imported seperate or after the original firearm has been imported. If it were for example a rifle with interchangeable barrels one target and one standard and shipped at the same time as the original gun then clearly no further paperwork is required.

While we now have clarification that one does not need a seperate cert for the barrel of the same calibre none the less if you wish to import it (seperate to the original firearm) you will be required to conform with the legislation that is in force, I would recommend that anyone wishing to import a repalcement or 2nd barrel even of the same calibre apply for and get the necessary paperwork from the DOJ or let a RFD do the importation for you.

Common sense is what is required, lets just stop pushing it when we are only a wet Sunday with the guidelines. Would'nt be PaddyEnfield asking more questions would it?

ivanthehunter

Surely spare parts were alway allowed?
http://193.178.1.79/1971/en/act/pub/0013/sec0005.html#zza13y1971s5

freddieot

How about a spare barrel along with a spare stock and bolt

ivanthehunter

freddieot wrote: »

How about a spare barrel along with a spare stock and bolt

No problem, but you'd still require and action in which to mount all the different parts and an action housing with a firearm serial number would be mean a new licence..

Half-cocked

Would there be a requirment for the spare barrel to have the same serial number stamped/engraved on it as the 'main' firearm? Sometimes when I have travelled to the UK with firearms the police have checked the serial numbers on each component, if they didn't match there might be a problem. Could be the same over here?

ivanthehunter

Well AFAIK this is not a requirement.
I have a spare 22 barrel down in tipp in a RDF and it has no serial number!

Anyway On another note, I spoke to the aforementioned dealer in relation to the release of said barrel, he is unaware of such guidelines:( I will endeavor to inform him as to which web pages to view so that he may recognise my legal entitlement to posses such objects under the 1925 firearms act and all its amendments... Should be fun

Sparks

Or you could just give him a copy of the Guidelines to assure him the Gardai won't start proceedings where he'd have to defend himself...

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

Or you could just give him a copy of the Guidelines to assure him the Gardai won't start proceedings where he'd have to defend himself...

Well are you sure he'd accept that? I mean, they're only guild lines!! they have nothing to do with the Firearm 'act' and in theory he as a dealer must be satisfied that he is in accordance with 'the act'.. before he supplies anything..

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1925/en/act/pub/0017/sec0010.html#zza17y1925s10



Extract below...

(2) It shall not be lawful for any firearms dealer to sell to any person (other than a registered firearms dealer or a person officially authorised) any firearm or ammunition, unless at the time of such sale the person to whom such firearm or ammunition is sold—

[GA] ( a ) produces a firearm certificate authorising him to purchase or hire (as the case may be) such firearm or ammunition, or

[GA] ( b ) proves to the satisfaction of such firearms dealer that he is by virtue of this Act entitled to have possession of such firearm or ammunition without having a firearm certificate therefor.

so as the link showed in post #9 it has always been legal to own spare parts, we should be just thankful that this doc (guidelines) reinforces this legal point, both for us and our trusted dealers.

I remember when people here were misinformed as to the correct procedure to procure a second barrel-- but you know the old expression" your only human".
It just goes to show that this forum is not alway correct and neither is advise from FO or Supers or Sargents.

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

I remember when people here were misinformed as to the correct procedure to procure a second barrel-- but you know the old expression" your only human".

Funnily enough, in each of ranger4's previous four threads on this same subject, he was given correct advice (at least, in the eyes of the Commissioner as expressed in the Guidelines). And in every other thread on spare barrels (as opposed to barrels of different calibres to those of the licenced firearm), correct advice was given.

It just goes to show that this forum is not alway correct and neither is advise from FO or Supers or Sargents.

To be fair, of those four, only this forum has never claimed to be infallible (in fact, we've been rather adamant on that point in the past).
And Ivan, your record in this area (ie. being correct on legal matters) is... shall we be polite and say you're not the pope either?

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

Funnily enough, in each of ranger4's previous four threads on this same subject, he was given correct advice (at least, in the eyes of the Commissioner as expressed in the Guidelines). And in every other thread on spare barrels (as opposed to barrels of different calibres to those of the licenced firearm), correct advice was given.To be fair, of those four, only this forum has never claimed to be infallible (in fact, we've been rather adamant on that point in the past).
And Ivan, your record in this area (ie. being correct on legal matters) is... shall we be polite and say you're not the pope either?

& Funnily enough neither are you! there are two legal issues that we have not agreed on, one of which i am not allowed mention on this forum anymore and the other is NV.
But I'll leave that for another day.

Sparks

Funnily enough Ivan, I've never claimed infalliability either; but as regards the two things you mention there, there's falliability and there's being able to differentiate chalk and cheese...

ivanthehunter

Handbags at dawn but as i said on another day..

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Handbags at dawn but as i said on another day..

ivanthehunter

Half-cocked wrote: »

Would there be a requirement for the spare barrel to have the same serial number stamped/engraved on it as the 'main' firearm? Sometimes when I have travelled to the UK with firearms the police have checked the serial numbers on each component, if they didn't match there might be a problem. Could be the same over here?

Well theres the 1968 proofing http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1968/en/act/pub/0020/sec0004.html#zza20y1968s4 act that might insist on some form of mark on a firearm, thats fine for barrels and actions (imo as you can scribe into the metal)but the definitions in subsection (g)III of section 1 of the main act (1925) as amended by sect 26 of the criminal justice act 2006 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0026/sec0026.html#sec26 of a firearm, makes any object that is either used in conjunction with the normal use of a firearm or being essential to the workings of a firearm, a firearm.
So now a stock is a firearm, an internal spring is a firearm, a Harris bi-pod is a firearm even a standard telescopic sight is now a firearm according to the law.
This is why section 3.2 in the FCA1 is there and yes they want you to list all accessories. that way the FCA1 stays a breast of the legislation.

As far as the the 1990 firearms act and the definition NVG(night vision which is attachable to a firearm proper), as a firearm itself by definition.. Most peoples views here that it can be licenced by a super, well i think that thats wrong as a super can not licence an activity relating to hunting. He can only comply with the 1964 firearms act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0001/sec0015.html#zza1y1964s15 .

This is possibly why an additional section was added in 1990 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0001/sec0015.html#zza1y1964s15 to allow super's to legally issue permits for silencers that where going to be used for activities other than target shooting and moves 'n' acting and air rifles at the carnval and such like, although it was modified in 1968 to encompass auctioneers before they too got out of hand.

So where does this leave the issue of night vision now???

Its still a firearm, so its, in theory possible to licence it! AFAIK there is no reference towards it as a prohibited firearm and no method by which to licence it exists other than Section 3.2 of FCA1.

YE YE I side tracked here a bit but its for everyones benifit.... PS its dawn now (ok i'm a tad eairly but he who shoots first and that chessy crap)

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Well theres the 1968 proofing http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1968/en/act/pub/0020/sec0004.html#zza20y1968s4 act that might insist on some form of mark on a firearm

There is, and it might, but as explained here a few days ago, it doesn't.

the definitions in subsection (g)III ... makes any object that is either used in conjunction with the normal use of a firearm or being essential to the workings of a firearm, a firearm.

While the literal definition of a firearm under the law is inclusive to the point of silliness, subsection (g) isn't as funny as you're making it out to be. What you suggest here:

So now a stock is a firearm, an internal spring is a firearm, a Harris bi-pod is a firearm even a standard telescopic sight is now a firearm according to the law.

Is not correct because you're forgetting the start of part (g) : "except where the context otherwise requires". And you're forgetting that the language of (g)(iii) isn't an OR clause but an AND clause. In other words, to be a firearm under (g)(iii), a thing must be both "manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm" and it must be so critical that without it, a firearm would not fire.

Telescopic sights are not covered by this. Neither is a stock, nor a bipod of any kind. An internal spring might be, if it was part of the trigger assembly or the bolt, but any judge would look at the "context" part at the start of (g) and make a common sense ruling there.

This is why section 3.2 in the FCA1 is there and yes they want you to list all accessories.

That is not why 3.2 is there, 3.2 is there to cover g(i) and g(ii), ie. night/thermal vision scopes or laser sights*, and sound moderators.

* the laser sights bit is questionable in the act's wording, but we've been told before that it's considered to be covered by the powers that be...

As far as the the 1990 firearms act and the definition NVG(night vision which is attachable to a firearm proper), as a firearm itself by definition.. Most peoples views here that it can be licenced by a super, well i think that thats wrong as a super can not licence an activity relating to hunting.

That's completely wrong.
Firstly, the status of licences for Night Vision equipment isn't in question and never has been. It's always been explicit and clear in the legislation.

As to the hunting bit, the super licences you for possession of night vision scopes; their use isn't governed explicitly in law. As such, they can be used wherever the firearm can be used. So the issue of the Super licencing you for hunting is as relevant to night vision scopes as fish are to bicycles.

He can only comply with the 1964 firearms act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0001/sec0015.html#zza1y1964s15 .

Actually, he pretty much can't do that anymore as most of the 1964 Act is now gone, obliterated by later acts. Only remnants survive.

So where does this leave the issue of night vision now???
Its still a firearm, so its, in theory possible to licence it!

Ivan, it's not theoretical and hasn't been since the 1990 Act, and prior to that act, licencing night vision and thermal scopes wasn't necessary at all.

YE YE I side tracked here a bit but its for everyones benifit...

It might be more to everyone's benefit if you got it right...

ranger4

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Well AFAIK this is not a requirement.
I have a spare 22 barrel down in tipp in a RDF and it has no serial number!

Anyway On another note, I spoke to the aforementioned dealer in relation to the release of said barrel, he is unaware of such guidelines:( I will endeavor to inform him as to which web pages to view so that he may recognise my legal entitlement to posses such objects under the 1925 firearms act and all its amendments... Should be fun

I also mentioned this to dealer who has my spare same cal barrel and he asked if i could wait untill i recieve my new Licence, Was hoping he would release spare barrel as i am entitled to posses such barrel presently, but i agreed to wait untill word of new licence comes through withinn next 3 months, hopefully woint take anywhere near 3 months.

4gun

what would the story be if one wanted to import this sort of gun http://www.rossiusa.com/2009catalog/?catalog_page=10
threee different licences all for the same action but different calibres

ivanthehunter

4gun wrote: »

what would the story be if one wanted to import this sort of gun http://www.rossiusa.com/2009catalog/?catalog_page=10
threee different licences all for the same action but different calibres

Yep 3 licences alright but in reality (which is in short supply these days) you'd still only have one serviceable firearm at any one time.

Its a pity that the storage requirements S.I. never took account of this type of multi barreled firearm as it would have been a good opportunity to encourage folk to opt for firearms that in theory gave them more caliber choices but in reality it probable would have help to reduce the overall real number of firearms in the country. Don't forget that each barrel still would have cost 80euro.

ivanthehunter

Sparks, your argument as to part g (iii) containing an AND clause as opposed to an OR clause and your subsequent interpretation of this, that, such an object, as refereed to under this sub-paragraph must be both designed for use with a firearm "and" must be an object without which this firearm could not function is IMO grossly wrong.

---

I disagree with your take on this legislation, as would any judge in the land as the law and it sub-paragraphs can not be read in isolation, also I would like to point out the to you the presence of a comma immediately before the AND, I would suggest that this pause says it all. Also please note the presence of several AND's throughout the whole of part 1 of the main act, a small portion of which i have included for the convenience of yourself and other readers. If one was to apply the AND logic the whole act (or even this sub-section) would be thrown in to pandemonium.

Also it is illogical to assume that these points are one and the same and to be taken together for a collective meaning as the act has clearly separated through the use of alphanumerical sequencing and some roman numerals.

_______________________________________________________________
EXTRACT in green. Re:1925 firearms act as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2006. Part 26 of the amendment.
(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,
____________________________________________________ End of Extract.


To put it plainly, if the aforementioned sub-paragraph was intended to convey your interpretation it would have been IMO wrote as follows,

(iii) any object— manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm and without which it could not function as originally designed.

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

To put it plainly, if the aforementioned sub-paragraph was intended to convey your interpretation it would have been IMO wrote as follows

That is how it's written Ivan.

All you've done is to remove the sub-section reference that the barristers and judges use in court when talking about whether or not an item exhibits both characteristics. It's just easier to say "Gee three two" out loud in court than it is to say "the second part of the sentence in gee three". It's the verbal equivalent of a page number, that's all.

Mellor

Ivan, why do you do this.
You have shown to be a decent poster in a number of areas. You are obviously experienced in various areas of hunting and firearms.
Yet, you appear to have this Walter Mitty side to you that truly manifests itself in application of the law. You are dead set of finding a loophole, any loophole. The your suggestions are, frankly, an incredibly poor attempt. Now, granted the law can be difficult to read at times, but some of the areas you "questioned" in the past are quite clear. (the AND and comma nonsense above, the bolt verses arrow wording)

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Sparks, your argument as to part g (iii) containing an AND clause as opposed to an OR clause ................

The wording of the law contains a AND clause. Hence, Sparks' AND clause.
This is painfully trivial.

I disagree with your take on this legislation, as would any judge in the land as the law and it sub-paragraphs can not be read in isolation,

It's not being read in isolation. Reading it in the full context of the act changes nothing.

also I would like to point out the to you the presence of a comma immediately before the AND, I would suggest that this pause says it all.

I'd like to point out that the positioning of the AND, as well as relevant full stops, sections names and numbers, and sub-section names and numbers ultimately dictate where relevance starts and ends. Not your notions of a pause.
Your application of the comma is laughable.

Also please note the presence of several AND's throughout the whole of part 1 of the main act, a small portion of which i have included for the convenience of yourself and other readers. If one was to apply the AND logic the whole act (or even this sub-section) would be thrown in to pandemonium.

Once again, the structure of the section and position dictate the extent of application. Honestly Ivan, only a basic level of english is needed to understand this.

Also it is illogical to assume that these points are one and the same and to be taken together for a collective meaning as the act has clearly separated through the use of alphanumerical sequencing and some roman numerals.

It's this very use of alphanumerical characters that shows how they are grouped.

Here's is section, and how it is read (with the aid of colour).
On the off chance that you refuses to accept, or insist on ridiculous phrasing.

“ firearm ” means—
		

[B][COLOR="Red"](a)[/COLOR][/B] a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of
any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged,

[B][COLOR="Red"](b)[/COLOR][/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,

The section starts with firearm means, there fore each following section is considered, for the purpose of the act, a firearm.

Notice how it starts with the letter (a). Everything after that is part of the first definition of a firearm.

The next section is (b). This is a separate definition. Which is independent of (a) and details another item considered a firearm.

Ditto for sections (c) through (f)

[COLOR="Red"][B](g)[/B][/COLOR] except where the context otherwise requires,
[B]any component part[/B] of any article referred to in any of the foregoing
paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing,
the [B]following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts[/B]:
		

    [COLOR="blue"] (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),[/COLOR]
		

    [COLOR="yellow"] (ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph
         (a), (b) or (e),[/COLOR] and
		

    [COLOR="SeaGreen"] (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,[/COLOR]
		

and
		

(h) a device capable of discharging blank ammunition and
to be used as a starting gun or blank firing gun,

The next section is (g). It includes a definition for component parts.
The definitions are (i), (ii) and (iii). Each of these is under section (g)

Section (iii), almost immediately has further subsections, (I) and (II). The and at the end of (I) refers the the fact that both (I) and (II) fall under section (iii).

So it reads, any object manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and without [a firearm] it could not function as originally designed.

Section (g) ends here and the next and is after is just before section (h). Noting that it is also a definition on a firearm, as per (a) through (g).


All the indents and positioning of words are there to show which sections refer to which. I have made a reasonable attempt to copy and it should be clearer to you now Ivan.

To put it plainly, if the aforementioned sub-paragraph was intended to convey your interpretation it would have been IMO wrote as follows,

(iii) any object— manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm and without which it could not function as originally designed.

The reason it was separated into (I) and (II) was to highlight the importance of both parts.