Any one else apply for optical accessories?

ivanthehunter

Did any out there apply for any such NV ear on their fac1's and if so did you get any response in relation to this from the Garda?

fill free to pm me on the issue as i can understand that some people are scare to come out of the wardrobe on this forum!

clivej

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Did any out there apply for any such NV ear on their fac1's and if so did you get any response in relation to this from the Garda?

fill free to pm me on the issue as i can understand that some people are scare to come out of the wardrobe on this forum!

I should've gone to Specsavers:D

Grizzly 45

Them Crows keep stealing mine! Feck!:D

Traumadoc

I ticked the box, thinking it was for a telescopic sight. When I found out, it had already gone in. I think its a bit like the tick the moderator box, medical details, referree details etc- pointless.

rrpc

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Did any out there apply for any such NV ear on their fac1's and if so did you get any response in relation to this from the Garda?

fill free to pm me on the issue as i can understand that some people are scare to come out of the wardrobe on this forum!

Why would you be afraid? There was a thread a while ago from lads who ticked the box and nothing happened to them as far as I know.

The only person having a problem with this particular issue is you Ivan because you insist that you don't need an authorisation for NV despite all evidence to the contrary. :rolleyes:

ivanthehunter

rrpc wrote: »

Why would you be afraid? There was a thread a while ago from lads who ticked the box and nothing happened to them as far as I know.

The only person having a problem with this particular issue is you Ivan because you insist that you don't need an authorization for NV despite all evidence to the contrary. :rolleyes:

I'd be the first to admit that i have problems!:rolleyes: But i never said that i was having problems with this particular issue!

And I'm not just talking about ticking the box- What i asking is did any one pencil in NV scope or the like and did any receive a swat team at the door!!! or maybe even just a polite phone call at a reasonable hour!;) or did nothing happen!

And as far as the 'scared bit' goes, I have my own views as to the effectiveness and degree of water tightness that section 3.2 actual has!
Now you know that i must bite my lip here on this open minded forum:P so thats why i offered the chance to pm me if you wanted to because you too possible had Walter Mitty style issue with section 3.2:D.

ivanthehunter

Traumadoc wrote: »

I ticked the box, thinking it was for a telescopic sight. When I found out, it had already gone in. I think its a bit like the tick the moderator box, medical details, referree details etc- pointless.

Yes i hear you there alright......... Again it seems to me that this is political lip service between the relevant sectors involved and its simply to portray the government as cracking down on gus'n stuff!!and some day when someone goes berserk with a firearm we will all find out that most of these doctors and referrers were in fact never contacted!..
Place bets now!!! spoken is a Chinese accent of course--like TV show.. of course!:D

Vegeta

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Yes i hear you there alright......... Again it seems to me that this is political lip service between the relevant sectors involved and its simply to portray the government as cracking down on gus'n stuff!!and some day when someone goes berserk with a firearm we will all find out that most of these doctors and referrers were in fact never contacted!..
Place bets now!!! spoken is a Chinese accent of course--like TV show.. of course!:D

Ivan I don't doubt that not many referees were contacted or the doctors, BUT the language I have highlighted in bold is poorly selected.

The word "If" would be nice, you speak as if it is a certainty. That's not the case.

I don't want to drag the thread off topic, just asking to choose the phrasing a little more carefully.

rrpc

ivanthehunter wrote: »

I'd be the first to admit that i have problems!:rolleyes: But i never said that i was having problems with this particular issue!

Well I think you've probably got the most threads locked on this forum and some on this very topic, so problem is obviously a relative term with you

And I'm not just talking about ticking the box- What i asking is did any one pencil in NV scope or the like and did any receive a swat team at the door!!! or maybe even just a polite phone call at a reasonable hour!;) or did nothing happen!

That's hardly a problematic issue, people have posted here about their mod applications, so why not NV?

And as far as the 'scared bit' goes, I have my own views as to the effectiveness and degree of water tightness that section 3.2 actual has!
Now you know that i must bite my lip here on this open minded forum:P so thats why i offered the chance to pm me if you wanted to because you too possible had Walter Mitty style issue with section 3.2:D.

3.2 is just a part of the form, it's not supposed to hold any water If you're referring to the firearms act, it's section 1 that you're talking about.

kakashka

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Did any out there apply for any such NV ear on their fac1's and if so did you get any response in relation to this from the Garda?

fill free to pm me on the issue as i can understand that some people are scare to come out of the wardrobe on this forum!

Ivanhunter,i applied for ill ret and folding stock and supressor on one particular gun,not sure if this is what your asking about or not but illum ret was deemed by my super to be NV!!anyway,so far i've gone through the mill(9 guns),it's been passed for approval(they said)but no licence yet,must say though that all Garda that i've encountered re licences have been nothing but helpfull

ivanthehunter

Thanks for the info kaka.
Why did you deem it necessary to include a folding stock? Was it for a shot gun?

If i fitted a new stock to any gun i would not class it as an accessory. Bits and pieces that one adds on! ye maybe.. but a replaced part

Also I think that you are just complication your own position by referring to a scope as illuminated seeing as their are no legal issues relating to illuminated reticules AFAIK?

freddieot

Just take the battery out

ivanthehunter

Just a quick one!
When people were filling in this micro section did they actual specify the particular sights they where using even though such sights are deem as just normal sight .i.e did you right in-red dot sight, reflex sight or telescopic sight or did you just tick the box?

Or did you deem that any of the above were all standard enough and simply just ticked the box!.

Regards Ivan

rrpc

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Just a quick one!
When people were filling in this micro section did they actual specify the particular sights they where using even though such sights are deem as just normal sight .i.e did you right in-red dot sight, reflex sight or telescopic sight or did you just tick the box?

Or did you deem that any of the above were all standard enough and simply just ticked the box!.

Regards Ivan

Ivan, the box tick was for sights that come under the definition of a firearm in section 1 of the firearms act. A red dot holographic sight does not tick that box nor does a telescopic sight.

kakashka

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Thanks for the info kaka.
Why did you deem it necessary to include a folding stock? Was it for a shot gun?

If i fitted a new stock to any gun i would not class it as an accessory. Bits and pieces that one adds on! ye maybe.. but a replaced part

Also I think that you are just complication your own position by referring to a scope as illuminated seeing as their are no legal issues relating to illuminated reticules AFAIK?

I didnt deem it necessary at all ivan,FO did when guns were inspected,i think they just got a fright when they seen military style gun!but what can you do!folding stock is on .308

ivanthehunter

rrpc wrote: »

Ivan, the box tick was for sights that come under the definition of a firearm in section 1 of the firearms act. A red dot holographic sight does not tick that box nor does a telescopic sight.

Thars not what part g(iii) of the main act says in the criminal Justice act 2006.

It makes any part or any thing related to a firearm an actual firearm. So that includes any scope of any type but they are all collectively know as sights and as such if you just ticked the box you'd be in the clear?

rrpc

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Thars not what part g(iii) of the main act says in the criminal Justice act 2006.

It makes any part or any thing related to a firearm an actual firearm. So that includes any scope of any type but they are all collectively know as sights and as such if you just ticked the box you'd be in the clear?

No.

There are two specific items mentioned in that section: silencers and NV sights. Coincidentally there are two tick boxes in section 3.2 of the application form: silencers and sights.

Brain surgery? I think not.

But it is a no-brainer