Reasons for having a Rifle Scope ??????

riflehunter77

Anyone get any letters from the Gardai looking for reasons why you need a scope for your rifle, was over with my firearms dealer today and a local garda poped in and left a few forms for the dealer requesting that people fill out these with getting scopes. Got a quick look at the form and it covers moderators and rifle scopes, i can understand the moderator bit but looking for reasons why you would use a scope is ridiculous. There was a local lad there two and he said he had got one of these forms in the post recently. I dont know if these are coming down from local level or from the DOJ. Anyone else hear anything or received one of these letters.

bunny shooter

Heard on another forum a lad has been refused permission for a scope on a .22lr. Didn't believe it till now :eek:

NARGC/FPU should me made aware of this ****e. I hope this is not an official development !!!

riflehunter77

bunny shooter wrote: »

Heard on another forum a lad has been refused permission for a scope on a .22lr. Didn't believe it till now :eek:

NARGC/FPU should me made aware of this ****e. I hope this is not an official development !!!

Could not believe it myself I hope its only a local thing, it was made up into two sections, first bit covered the moderator and then the bit on scope`s give reasons why you needed one. Still in shock myself over this.

Grizzly 45

You are short sighted!:D Answer this sort of rubbish with rubbish!Not to mind getting to the FPU and NARGC to kick up blue murder about this stupidity.

johngalway

Both are ridiculous. Should not need permission for scopes or mods. Or night vision. If you're approved to carry and use a firearm that should be evidence enough you're responsible to have it.

jwshooter

there is no open sights on the rifle ! . as most dont .

riflehunter77

jwshooter wrote: »

there is no open sights on the rifle ! . as most dont .

Short and sweet but probably the most valid point with new rifles.

Cass

Still waiting for the April fools bit here lads................

Is this for real though? Scopes make for safer shooting. Once zeroed 95-99% of rounds hit their mark. What would be the percentages without sights.

jwshooter wrote: »

there is no open sights on the rifle ! . as most dont .

Excellent point. My Savage has a round back and round barrel. What am i suppose to do, point upwards and hope for the best??????????????

Alot of younger lads have never shot open sights. Scopes are all they know. Now i'm by no means an "ould timer", but i started off shooting open sights and progressed to scopes, etc. What do these lads do. ANOTHER competency course for open sight shooting? €€€€€€€€€€€€€

johngalway wrote:

If you're approved to carry and use a firearm that should be evidence enough you're responsible to have it.

Exactly. You have been assessed and approved already.

Rovi

That's beyond bizarre. :mad:

Get back to your dealer at your first opportunity and take possession of at least one of those forms before they 'disappear'; the NGBs/NARGC/etc need to see this.

riflehunter77

Rovi wrote: »

That's beyond bizarre. :mad:

Get back to your dealer at your first opportunity and take possession of at least one of those forms before they 'disappear'; the NGBs/NARGC/etc need to see this.

Wont get a chance to get over for the next week or so, but I will be in contact with him 2morrow. But the think that stood out was that a local lad had been sent out one in the post. As I have said already im not sure if its a local thing or nationwide.

As you have said Rovi its beyond bizarre and makes no sense at all.

Mr.Flibble

ezridax wrote: »

Scopes make for safer shooting. Once zeroed 95-99% of rounds hit their mark. What would be the percentages without sights.

There's a guy who posts on here as Floydster who can do about 93% with iron sights - would that be sufficient?

ezridax wrote: »

competency course for open sight shooting?

Excellent idea. Better still, one for peep sight shooting.

Kryten

Why would you even mention a scope? There is nothing in any of the legislation which has anything to do with scopes. Laser sights, yes but not scopes. None of their business if you ask me. Suppose you get your licence and decide later to buy a scope. Do you have to apply for one?

Our man in Havana

There is section on the FCA1 form about scopes.

Dusty87

Bond-007 wrote: »

There is section on the FCA1 form about scopes.

Is there? I only remember about add ons such as mod or night-vision.
I got my licence without putting anything about a scope.
As JohnG said, we proved ourselves already.

Rovi

In SECTION 3 - FIREARM DETAILS, there's subsection 3.2, which states:
Accessories Tick √ appropriate box(es) if relevant: Silencer Sights/Other (specify)

Nowhere in the legislation or the Commissioner's Guidelines does it state exactly what's meant by "Sights/Other", but FPU and Justice have clarified that it's meant for light-intensifying scopes, laser sights, and the like.

It looks like some genius in this particular District missed that memo.

Cass

Mr.Flibble wrote: »

There's a guy who posts on here as Floydster who can do about 93% with iron sights - would that be sufficient?

Ah, pedantic Pat returns.

You know well what i mean. He is a competitive shooter, shooting at the highest level in a sport that dictates open/peep sights are required so he trained for that. I'm refering to ordinary hunters/sporting shooters. That use range time for zeroing mostly/only.

Excellent idea. Better still, one for peep sight shooting.

Then what? Competency courses (that are not even recognised by any state body) for every aspect of shooting. The sport of it will be even more heavily policed until no shooting can be done from an enjoyment/pastime/sporting point of view.

Still you make a good arguement for the state. Keep up the good work. :rolleyes:

Bond-007 wrote:

There is section on the FCA1 form about scopes.

There is a box to tick marked "sights". No explanation, just sights. This can/could/does refer to scopes, peep sights, iron sights, laser sights, light emitting/aided sights, night vision, etc. It is purposely vague.

At the end of it all i do not see the need for these forms or such forms. You must include a seperate sheet with the reason you require the firearm when applying for your firearm. It is explained in this extra informaion sheet (your reason) and if deemed enough/good enough then the application is passed. A scope (for the most part) is part and parcel of a rifle. The main issue should be the use of the firearm, and this is already addressed. How does the method in which you view your target matter?

ormondprop

ya but a rifle with sights on it is a sniper rifle that can shoot people from miles away:rolleyes:

it looks like another case of rules being made by people who know nothing about the sport

rowa

bunny shooter wrote: »

Heard on another forum a lad has been refused permission for a scope on a .22lr. Didn't believe it till now :eek:

NARGC/FPU should me made aware of this ****e. I hope this is not an official development !!!

the nargc might and should be interested in this , but the fpu is a dead duck, as the supers/chief supers don't have to pay any attention to them and as far as i am aware, are not bound by law to do so.
surely this is someone (in the gardai) not reading the form properly or not being aware of the norms in firearms.

vixdname

I got my letter from the super the other day telling me I was successful in my application for a license for my .223 but only after 1./ original letters from landowners granting me permission to shoot on their land were also handed in and 2./ the local garda called me up and wanted make, model and specs of my bushnell 5-15x50 scope because I had ticked that I had sights on my gun on the fca1 form.
The local garda was sound about it all but he was only doing what he was told.
He was almost apologising for having to ring me.
My brother is giving me an anschutz .22lr as hes moving back to the states and when I rang my local sarg. he was brilliant - he said that all license processing would be getting done locally from now on and not going through phoenix park anymore. He told me to just leave in my broters fca2 and my fca1 into my local station (rural) in an envelope with his name on it and that he'd get it sorted out for me.

pedroeibar1

Follow-on query: I have a .22 with scope, looked at my license and the scope is not mentioned on it. If your scope is approved, should it be noted on your licence? Is a moderator mentioned if you are approved for one?
Tnx
P.

Tackleberrywho

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Follow-on query: I have a .22 with scope, looked at my license and the scope is not mentioned on it. If your scope is approved, should it be noted on your licence? Is a moderator mentioned if you are approved for one?
Tnx
P.

I have an S to signify Moderator on my .223 licence.

This whole scope thing seems a bit daft, Almost every rifle in the country besides paper punchers have a scope.

My local SGT inspected my rifles before and never commented upon my scopes. All she cared about were the numbers matching description.
Scopes are not restricted Technology unless they are NV which was always the case in this country same as LED/laser aim points

clivej

From what I have seen with my sons application is the tick box on the form is for If you going to use any sort of night vision or IR equipment.

He ticked that box and he had a form sent to him outlining what could and could not be used on his rifle. He was only looking for a standard scope for his rifle so he stated that and all was well.

Mr.Flibble

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I have an S to signify Moderator on my .223 licence.

Maybe you're wrong and it's S as in Scope? (Wouldn't Moderator be M?)

Maybe if you want to have both they want to print SS on your licence. How appropriate is that?





Godwin rules.

Mr.Flibble

ezridax wrote: »

Ah, pedantic Pat returns.

Wrong - you're confusing me with Sparks

ezridax wrote: »

You know well what i mean. He is a competitive shooter, shooting at the highest level in a sport that dictates open/peep sights are required so he trained for that. I'm refering to ordinary hunters/sporting shooters. That use range time for zeroing mostly/only.

But in his case I was taking the "mark" as the small 10-ring in the middle. For ordinary shooters you could take it to mean the black aiming mark and even the most pedestrian target shooters hit that virtually 100% of the time.

ezridax wrote: »

Still you make a good arguement for the state. Keep up the good work. :rolleyes:

Not for the state; for marksmanship in general.

Tackleberrywho

Mr.Flibble wrote: »

Maybe you're wrong and it's S as in Scope? (Wouldn't Moderator be M?)

Maybe if you want to have both they want to print SS on your licence. How appropriate is that?





Godwin rules.

It would be M but they call it a silencer, being not into splitting hairs.

I did not tick about NV scope, and as stated; I filled out in the comapny of my local SGT who visually inspected each so there would be no mistakes and re-applications.
It took me hours to complete just 4 checking and double checking and writing out cover letters to accompany. And then another 30 mins going through with SGT.

As up to this point 3/4 licences would come back printed wrong, crossed out and pen written and re-stamped:D:D
So I wanted NO mistakes as it was for 3 years

johngalway

clivej wrote: »

He ticked that box and he had a form sent to him outlining what could and could not be used on his rifle.

Any chance of seeing a scan of that form Clive, if he still has it?

riflehunter77

Right lads spoke with the firearms dealer again today and he said that this is coming from the DOJ they are amending the original application form for next year and this will be a add on to section 3.2 of the FCA 1 which covers Accessories. He also stated that there will be a bit in it about a GAME LICENSE as well because this was missing on the new form and when you get into the nitty gritty Legal part supposedly all who went out hunting from the 1st of November for the season was breaking the law. Now the question is will this be a money spinner and will we have to pay for a Game License ?

johngalway

riflehunter77 wrote: »

Right lads spoke with the firearms dealer again today and he said that this is coming from the DOJ they are amending the original application form for next year and this will be a add on to section 3.2 of the FCA 1 which covers Accessories. He also stated that there will be a bit in it about a GAME LICENSE as well because this was missing on the new form and when you get into the nitty gritty Legal part supposedly all who went out hunting from the 1st of November for the season was breaking the law. Now the question is will this be a money spinner and will we have to pay for a Game License ?

I'm suddenly filled with a sense of dread.

clivej

johngalway wrote: »

Any chance of seeing a scan of that form Clive, if he still has it?

Sorry John its long gone. But as said it came from the Super to find out if he was looking for any IR and/or night vision gear.

Our man in Havana

johngalway wrote: »

I'm suddenly filled with a sense of dread.

Sounds like the goal posts will be moving again.

cavan shooter

I am reading this and im some what in a bit of a quandry. I thought this buisness regarding what the sights box meant was cleared up.

The sights being in question, image intensifying etc those that are specifically mention in the act.

Rovi

Photocopies folks, photocopies.

Make photocopies of EVERYTHING!

The faceless bureaucrats who appear to be implementing a policy of micro-managing us to the point of despair have long since surrendered any 'right' to expect that the norms of ordinary polite discourse apply to them, so don't worry about causing offence by insisting on making copies and asking for names, ranks, and serial numbers.

dCorbus

Any chance anyone can post a scan of one of these letters / forms?
I can't believe this s***e and want see this unbelievable horses**t with my own two eyes!:mad:
(I'm not doubting anyone - but it would be good to see what these yokes look like).

Have any of the lads who've recieved these requests been on to the FPU, the SSAI, the NARGC, the NASRPC, etc etc etc about this - and if so, any response one way or the other?

spoke with the firearms dealer again today and he said that this is coming from the DOJ

A lot of hearsay on this - Really would like to see one of these letters/forms and get an answer from someone in "authority" (:rolleyes:).

Does this mean that I'll have to get authorisation from my Chief Super for the LIDL Spotting Scope I bought, because I could gaffer tape it to my rifle?

Does this mean that the Iron Sights on a LE303 will need to authorised as a separate sighting device?

****, I better have my eyes licenced - twice....One licence per sighting device!

And as for my contacts - bloody hell, I've 90 of them for each eye - That's 180 authorisations for sighting devices!

F***in' Nonsense!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

(But let's have some evidence up here please:) Thanks)

bunny shooter

What worries me is I gave my Super all the, in my and many lads here opinions, appropiate reasons for a moderator for my .22lr and he refused it on "public safety" type grounds so he can easily refuse a telescopic sight on the same grounds for my .22lr & .220 Swift :eek:

What if he refuses to authorise the peep sights on my Lee Enfield :eek:

I fear there are bad times coming where no matter what sighting system you use it will be a danger "to public safety" and therefore by default a rifle will be technically useless :mad:

riflehunter77

dCorbus I will give him a ring on Tuesday and ask him to send me out a copy there should be no problem. But just lets be clear on two things I was present when the garda drooped them off and a local chap also received one in the post as well recently . Id suggest that if people get a chance during the coming week to ring there firearms dealers and find out have they have heard anything. Mine only works Friday and half day Saturday.

dCorbus

hey bunnyshooter
AFAIK There's a massive difference here:
A. Moderators, under them rules, require authorisation.
B. Riflescope Sights, under them rules, don't require authorisation.

First of all, they'd have to bring out new regulations or amend the existing ones to provide a mechanism to authorise these riflescopes etc.

The Guards are now looking for information to allow them to authorise something which they can neither authorise nor "un-authorise" - They cannot authorise you to have or not have a scope, because the "authorisation" would have to flow / be derived / be enforceable in accordance with the provisions of some non-existant Regulation, SI 4329 of 2143, Section X subsection 97 paragraph Z.

So unless there has been some regulation brought out recently in this regard, the Guards in this case are acting ultra-vires, illegally, and possibly unconstitutionally IMHO.

Just ask them under which section of which regulation they intend to "authorise" the scope? They won't be able to tell you, because there is no such section of any such regulation. It's f***in' nonsense. And we shouldn't be taking this crap from some paper-pushing jobsworthy super-annuated so-called "civil servant".

It's like the Planners in this country - If you don't know what you're doing, they'll spin you a whole pile of crap and get you to jump through hoops that they have no power or authority to do so - Trust me, I've seen this often enough. People being made getting planning for things that are exempt, etc. etc. I could go on all night about this.

But it's exactly the same with the Boys-in-Blue - If they don't have the authority, they cannot do it! Fullstop! They may want to....but that's a different story.

But then again, they seem to think they're the Government now and apparently the Guards have a role to play in commenting on who the Citizens of this state do or do not elect. The sheer f***in' arrogance of them! How dare they!

But doesn't that just sum up the mindset of who you're trying to deal with?

I fear there are bad times coming where no matter what sighting system you use it will be a danger "to public safety" and therefore by default a rifle will be technically useless

.....From my cold dead hands.....:D:rolleyes:

It may never come to pass though.

And I still want to see one of these letters / forms.

bunny shooter

It is a sinister development with serious ramifications for all shooters except possibly shotgun owners :eek:

We will have to wait and see what develops :mad:

I have been refused a .22lr moderator to shoot bunnies with and we all thought that would not happen too

Slick50

This is seriously first class horse sh1te, I think the best thing to do with this is to ignore it, especially if you already have your license. There is no where on the application form requireing or requesting this sort of info. It sounds like something the local yocal made up anyway.

jwshooter

not to worry ,the garda will shortly be standing on the door of your local if they get there way ,the only chance for a country man to get in contact with them .
how ya tom im going for a pint to nite will you bring your stamp for this new rifle i bought .

Tackleberrywho

jwshooter wrote: »

not to worry ,the garda will shortly be standing on the door of your local if they get there way ,the only chance for a country man to get in contact with them .
how ya tom im going for a pint to nite will you bring your stamp for this new rifle i bought .

Tut Tut, very bold JW
Time now folks there, Please did I hear you say :D:D

riflehunter77

Lads if ye have licenses already I cant see their been any problems as the dealer said to me its something they are putting into the amended license along with the Hunting License.
Id love to know who is pushing this down the line and what bright spark came up with the idea. Are the greens putting pressure on Ahern to stop us from heading out into the countryside to enjoy our sport?To be honest the Garda that was there yesterday said the new system is a joke and has been nothing but hassle to all involved.

pedroeibar1

jwshooter wrote: »

not to worry ,the garda will shortly be standing on the door of your local if they get there way ,the only chance for a country man to get in contact with them .
how ya tom im going for a pint to nite will you bring your stamp for this new rifle i bought .

Not far off the mark where I am... a few years ago when I was living overseas I was back on hols and the local (rural) garda shouts across the street at me "You owe me £28 quid." I go over, and he tells me that he paid my renewals as he knew I was away and he did not want to do all the paperwork and re-do it when I returned! Dem were de days:D
P.

Slick50

Has anyone gone through the firearms act, I haven't, but from the commisioners recommendations I don't see anything that prevents you from having either a scope or moderater. You are required to notify the garda of having one or other, but I didn't think it was a licencing issue, neither are firearms??

Grizzly 45

.

Id love to know who is pushing this down the line and what bright spark came up with the idea. Are the greens putting pressure on Ahern to stop us from heading out into the countryside to enjoy our sport?To be honest the Garda that was there yesterday said the new system is a joke and has been nothing but hassle to all involved.

[/QUOTE]

Nope! We are!It was pointed out by the NARGC in the consultation stages of this shambles that there was no game liscense in the document.Or provision for it either in the new liscense.This of course was like many other things totally ignored in the rush to legislate.And a year later it dawns on the rocket scientists in the DOJ and Dail.That there is no game liscense.Not that it really mattered much this year.Since we lost appx four weeks shooting with that stupid cold weather ban.
This is the sort of rubbish that happens when a egotistical minister goes off on a power trip and decides him and his jobworthies and yes men know best.:rolleyes:

ranger4

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.

Nope! We are!It was pointed out by the NARGC in the consultation stages of this shambles that there was no game liscense in the document.Or provision for it either in the new liscense.This of course was like many other things totally ignored in the rush to legislate.And a year later it dawns on the rocket scientists in the DOJ and Dail.That there is no game liscense.Not that it really mattered much this year.Since we lost appx four weeks shooting with that stupid cold weather ban.
This is the sort of rubbish that happens when a egotistical minister goes off on a power trip and decides him and his jobworthies and yes men know best.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

At Least we can look forward to the not too distant future when the present minister and his side kicks are removed from power, Lets hope Flanigan will be fair without ramming unjust and draconian measures down Licenced shooters throats.

Grizzly 45

At Least we can look forward to the not too distant future when the present minister and his side kicks are removed from power, Lets hope Flanigan will be fair without ramming unjust and draconian measures down Licenced shooters throats.

Indeed.
However,I am a great beliver in the old Russian revoultonary saying which applies to Irish poitical life;
Promises are like pie crusts.Made to be broken.
The Irish version is
"Never make a promise you cant break.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Ok ol Charlie has been doing us a good turn what with being a good sized boil on Ahernes backside[and may he get many more of them on his scaly hide:cool:].
But remember he is a politican.He is an Irish politican.He is an Irish politican in opposition.
Which my friends INMHO makes him as trust worthy as a cocked and loaded gun with a very dodgy saftey catch.Treat with extreme cation.:eek:

It wasn't me!

And never forget the danger of having Deasy with his finger on the button either. He started some of this bloody mess, after all.

rrpc

Rovi wrote: »

In SECTION 3 - FIREARM DETAILS, there's subsection 3.2, which states:
Accessories Tick √ appropriate box(es) if relevant: Silencer Sights/Other (specify)

Nowhere in the legislation or the Commissioner's Guidelines does it state exactly what's meant by "Sights/Other", but FPU and Justice have clarified that it's meant for light-intensifying scopes, laser sights, and the like.

It looks like some genius in this particular District missed that memo.

Actually there is and AFAIR there was a thread on here discussing this very subject early in the process.

1(g)(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),

The problem is that the form doesn't elaborate to the kind of level that the firearms act requires, so as a result both Gardai and applicants alike are taking the meaning to be any type of sights.

Which it is not.

Both parties are equally at fault here: applicants because they are ticking boxes before checking what they mean and Gardai for not checking what it means (along with the form for not specifying the meaning).

Now, because the situation has become an almost de facto fact, no-one is actually questioning what is (if you even spent two minutes thinking about it) a ludicrous proposition.

What makes this even more depressing, is that we've had dozens of posts on this thread from people who one would have thought should be best placed to be able to distinguish fact from fairy tale, have oodles of resources to check those facts and are helping perpetuate what is one of the most ludicrous side effects of the new application form.

It seems you can post the most outrageous bullcrap here and have everyone lap it up as if it were gospel. :rolleyes:

Traumadoc

I like many people ticked the "sights" box thinking it referred to telescopic sights, anyhow I got my license - so can I now legally have a nightvision scope?
FUBAR

rrpc

Traumadoc wrote: »

I like many people ticked the "sights" box thinking it referred to telescopic sights, anyhow I got my license - so can I now legally have a nightvision scope?
FUBAR

You can, so long as you have some evidence that the application for them was approved.

Not readily apparent on the new license, (or at least on some of them).

Mr.Flibble

rrpc wrote: »

Both parties are equally at fault here:

I don't think that's fair. I think the people who thought up the law and the form, and who hold themselves out as our moral and intellectual superiors in the matter, are substantially more culpable.

rrpc wrote: »

It seems you can post the most outrageous bullcrap here and have everyone lap it up as if it were gospel. :rolleyes:

I thought that was what "here" was for?