13 1/2" barrel on a 22lr rifle legal???

clivej

I'm looking at and was offered a Ruger 10 22 with a 13 1/2" barrel on it. Rifle is in the UK. The barrel has been chopped to that length.

Is this OK and legal in Ireland???

Xplor.er

the shortest barrell iv ever seen on a rifle was 16in on a savage. would you plan to put a moderator on it?

dax121

hi clive
i met with my cheif sup. and she wouldnt issue a licence for a marlin with a 18.5" barrel. she said its unlawful so i had to get a 20" one.
what are you getting with the firearm specs wise?
is it priced right and with good spec u could always buy a different barrel for it

gunhappy_ie

clivej wrote: »

I'm looking at and was offered a Ruger 10 22 with a 13 1/2" barrel on it. Rifle is in the UK. The barrel has been chopped to that length.

Is this OK and legal in Ireland???

This will open the can of worms.... but....

Is it ok.... I would suspect that if its a factory barrel cut down then the accuracy would be brutal, it its a heavy barrel it may be suprise alot of people !

Legally... a long arm is a firearm with a barrel over 30cm with its overall length minimun of 60cm.

IF the overall length of the rifle exceeds 60 cm it would be legal to own here.

If you get said rifle.... post up some pics of your groups...

Glensman

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

This will open the can of worms.... but....

Is it ok.... I would suspect that if its a factory barrel cut down then the accuracy would be brutal, it its a heavy barrel it may be suprise alot of people !

Lots of people in England cut their .22lrs to 14". The extra half inch wont make much odds. I think I had mine cut to 16.5, cant remember exactly.... Groups are excellent

clivej

dax121 wrote: »

hi clive
i met with my cheif sup. and she wouldnt issue a licence for a marlin with a 18.5" barrel. she said its unlawful so i had to get a 20" one.
what are you getting with the firearm specs wise?
is it priced right and with good spec u could always buy a different barrel for it

Spec is
Full " Volquartsen 10/22 with a fluted match grade Stainless Barrel, with Kidd Trigger. Volquartsen SS action and Volquartsen bolt in a Volquartsen thumb hole stock. Used it for Gallery Rifle and it's extremely accurate at 20 yards. Please note that it's had the Barrel shortened to move the CofG backwards and reduce weight ".

Brown de Luxe : https://www.volquartsen.com/products...i-auto-rimfire

Price is about right.

Also if's its legal I'll just get a sub license

cj

eireshot

clivej wrote: »

I'm looking at and was offered a Ruger 10 22 with a 13 1/2" barrel on it. Rifle is in the UK. The barrel has been chopped to that length.

Is this OK and legal in Ireland???

It is legal Clive, my anschutz has 14" barrel and i had no issues licencing it, and extremely accurate to i might add. the legal bit regards this is below.
http://garda.ie/Documents/User/SI%20337%202009%20Firearms%20%28Restricted%20Firearms%20and%20Ammuntion%29%20%28Amendment%29%20Order%202009.pdf

clivej

eireshot wrote: »

It is legal Clive, my anschutz has 14" barrel and i had no issues licencing it, and extremely accurate to i might add. the legal bit regards this is below.
http://garda.ie/Documents/User/SI%20337%202009%20Firearms%20%28Restricted%20Firearms%20and%20Ammuntion%29%20%28Amendment%29%20Order%202009.pdf

Cheers eireshot for that link.
That spells it out then and as Gunhappy says if the barrel is over 30cm and total length needed is 60cm then all OK.

13 1/2" barrel = 34.3cm and the stock will add well over another 30cm to the total length of the required 60cm .

Now the horse trading starts

poulo6.5

clivej wrote: »

I'm looking at and was offered a Ruger 10 22 with a 13 1/2" barrel on it. Rifle is in the UK. The barrel has been chopped to that length.

Is this OK and legal in Ireland???

Hi Clive. I just got my cz back from being shortened and a new target crown and it's shooting lovely.
I cut the length of the sack moderator (6") of it so now the barrel is 14" long.
As long as it's More than 12" long you are ok.
I look forward to seeing it
Best of luck with it.

clivej

poulo6.5 wrote: »

Hi Clive. I just got my cz back from being shortened and a new target crown and it's shooting lovely.
I cut the length of the sack moderator (6") of it so now the barrel is 14" long.
As long as it's More than 12" long you are ok.
I look forward to seeing it
Best of luck with it.

Its a private sale so I have to see about getting the Ruger over from the UK.
I don't know anything about doing this but if there's a will there's a way.:)

johngalway

Without having read up on it at this point, I've a feeling floating around in my head that the legal length is 19.5 inches with good reason needed for shorter barrels. That "short firearms" refers to pistols?

Could have that arse backwards but I'll have a dig around later if I have a spare five minutes :eek:

ormondprop

I was looking into chopping my .22 whenever my license for my .223 comes and i'm getting that threaded, i was doing a bit of googling and 16" is the optimum length for velocity so i think thats what i'll go for on my cz

stick shooter

I think the minimum barrel length is 50 cm

dax121

stick shooter wrote: »

I think the minimum barrel length is 50 cm

yup ur right

bazza888

i asked the same question awhile back
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69960931

clivej

stick shooter wrote: »

I think the minimum barrel length is 50 cm

dax121 wrote: »

yup ur right

I think your both wrong here as CZ 22lr come in 16 1/2" which is 42cm and reading the guidelines if its under 30cm barrel then its classed as a short firearm (a pistol).
If its not a 'short firearm' then it must be a long firearm.


Quote................

4. Article 3 (1) of the Principal Order is amended by the substitution of the following definition for the definition of “short firearms”:
“ ‘short firearms’ means firearms either with a barrel not longer than 30
centimetres or whose overall length (excluding the length of any detachable component) does not exceed 60 centimetres;”.


So if the barrel exceeds 30cm and the total length exceeds 60cm I'm good to go.

stick shooter

clivej wrote: »

I think your both wrong here as CZ 22lr come in 16 1/2" which is 42cm and reading the guidelines if its under 30cm barrel then its class as a pistol. The 50cm is for min. length of a shotgun. is it not?

If its not a 'short firearm' then it must be a long firearm.

Quote................

4. Article 3 (1) of the Principal Order is amended by the substitution of the following definition for the definition of “short firearms”:
“ ‘short firearms’ means firearms either with a barrel not longer than 30
centimetres or whose overall length (excluding the length of any detachable component) does not exceed 60 centimetres;”.


So if the barrel exceeds 30cm and the total length exceeds 60cm I'm good to go.

Not being smart but dont thats quiet true .Bazza888 just put up a very good link of the same question being asked a while back

bazza888

if you click the link i posted the 2links the guys gave me were to 2other threads with the very info ye are talking about now!iv seen rifles with 14inch barrels in gunshops here but also been told its not legal

johngalway

clivej wrote: »

So if the barrel exceeds 30cm and the total length exceeds 60cm I'm good to go.[/LEFT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

Read Bazzas link + 3

If it were me Clive, I wouldn't build the house on that foundation.

clivej

johngalway wrote: »

Read Bazzas link + 3

If it were me Clive, I wouldn't build the house on that foundation.

"The barrel was damaged and was cut back by gunsmith to its present length".

Now does that statement not fulfill the present regulations in everyway, if you read all the posts from the 3 links and what sparks and exridax had to say.

dax121

if thats the case my chief super is wrong when she said a barrel under 20" is unlawful. and that she could not issue a licence for one under 20".
wonder could i get a few of ye up to fight my case

stick shooter

clivej wrote: »

"The barrel was damaged and was cut back by gunsmith to its present length".

Now does that statement not fulfill the present regulations in everyway, if you read all the posts from the 3 links and what sparks and exridax had to say.

Oh i would doubt it

clivej

bazza888 wrote: »

i asked the same question awhile back
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69960931

bazza888 wrote: »

if you click the link i posted the 2links the guys gave me were to 2other threads with the very info ye are talking about now!iv seen rifles with 14inch barrels in gunshops here but also been told its not legal

johngalway wrote: »

Read Bazzas link + 3

If it were me Clive, I wouldn't build the house on that foundation.

Having read over all the links to the regulations it would seem that the law is not black and white about it.

There are rifles for sale in many dealers that are under 50cm in length and people are buying them and getting licenses for them. So if the owners of these rifles have a license for them gotten lawfully then they "possess with lawful authority" said rifle.


Criminal Justice Act 2006

Section 12(A)(1) & (2)

6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—
(a) a shot-gun the barrel of which is less than 61 centimetres in length,
(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,




S.I. No. 337 of 2009
FIREARMS (RESTRICTED FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION)
(AMENDMENT) ORDER 2009
Link here
“ ‘short firearms’ means firearms either with a barrel not longer than 30
centimetres or whose overall length (excluding the length of any detachable
component) does not exceed 60 centimetres;”.

bazza888

thats what i was thinking clive but would that not not be sorta like if you put in for a non restricted license for something that you knew was restricted and the guards licensed you for it,some lads were saying you could still be done for having the rifle?i was told if you get a dealer or gunsmith to write a letter saying barrel was damaged and had to be cut and put it with application it would be ok,it seems to be another part of gunlaw thats very grey

clivej

bazza888 wrote: »

thats what i was thinking clive but would that not not be sorta like if you put in for a non restricted license for something that you knew was restricted and the guards licensed you for it,some lads were saying you could still be done for having the rifle?i was told if you get a dealer or gunsmith to write a letter saying barrel was damaged and had to be cut and put it with application it would be ok,it seems to be another part of gunlaw thats very grey

I don't know about restricted or not restricted as the only mention of restriction is if the barrel is less than 30cm and the total length is less than 60cm and thats covered in this bit.............

S.I. No. 337 of 2009
FIREARMS (RESTRICTED FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION)
(AMENDMENT) ORDER 2009
Link here
“ ‘short firearms’ means firearms either with a barrel not longer than 30
centimetres or whose overall length (excluding the length of any detachable
component) does not exceed 60 centimetres;”.


Personally I'd go with its not restricted and is legal if I have a current license and "possess with lawful authority" if i can get it for the right money I will.

Also if its OK to own, have, and use in the UK and here the system seems to go with whatever the UK does.

Sparks

clivej wrote: »

Having read over all the links to the regulations it would seem that the law is not black and white about it.

Unfortunately that's an understatement. It's one of the areas where we really need a judicial ruling to know for sure. No-one can tell you yes or no reliably because it comes down to how the law is interpreted, and that requires a judicial ruling to nail down fully. Personally I think it should be legal, but I'm not a judge so that opinion and a fiver will get you a fancy cup of coffee in Dublin these days. Even if someone has gotten a licence for a shorter barrelled rifle, that's not proof that you can, just that some supers will give a licence for it - and we all know that that's not a very standardised sort of thing.

bazza888

i didnt mean it was restricted clive was trying say if you license it and say it got stolen could the guards turn around and say what were you doing with that is barrel was way to short?i hope you can get it im not trying rain on your parade i just hate the grey area laws id love a short barrel anschutz

johngalway

bazza888 wrote: »

i didnt mean it was restricted clive was trying say if you license it and say it got stolen could the guards turn around and say what were you doing with that is barrel was way to short?i hope you can get it im not trying rain on your parade i just hate the grey area laws id love a short barrel anschutz

Nail. Hammer. Head. For me.

There is the culture where everything that's grey is grand.

Until something happens and questions are asked.

To me that is an overly complicated situation to bring into life. And if others are doing it, bully for them, but it wouldn't be for me.

And none of the above is legal advice in any shape or form. Just a genuine opinion that the situation seems "complicated".

As Bunny suggested, go talk to rimfiremagic, Dave (Baldie - certainly not to be confused with Baldie on AGBBS, two different people) on UK Long Range works there as the gunsmith. Don't mention my name or he'll triple the price :pac: But I do know a guy in the Republic who had a rifle custom built by them, not a 10/22, and by all accounts it's a tack driver. They specialize in them so should know what they're on about, or maybe leads on second handers.

clivej

bazza888 wrote: »

i didnt mean it was restricted clive was trying say if you license it and say it got stolen could the guards turn around and say what were you doing with that is barrel was way to short?i hope you can get it im not trying rain on your parade i just hate the grey area laws id love a short barrel anschutz

Cheers bazza

I know what your saying and thats when the sh!te hits the fan
The moneys about right and its all custom not a Ruger part on it. Its all wait and see for now. :cool:

bazza888

thats why i didnt get one john,went for the standard length barrel on my cz,its a pain for the likes of clive when you go in a gunshop and see a 14in barrel and they tell you its ok but you try read and understand the laws and it seems it may not be,a heavy 20inch barrel would be a pain to shoot standing in gallery id say

clivej

Another point here is that if I was to go the full custom 10/22 from say Kidd, Volquartsen, or Rimfiremagic I would still be going for a 16 1/2" barrel anyway. So no matter what the rifle will still be under the 50cm/19 5/8" length.

The 16 1/2" barrel is what a lot of the custom 10/22 gallery rifles are built to.

bazza888

have you a decent fo?could you ask him to find out for you?

johngalway

bazza888 wrote: »

thats why i didnt get one john,went for the standard length barrel on my cz,its a pain for the likes of clive when you go in a gunshop and see a 14in barrel and they tell you its ok but you try read and understand the laws and it seems it may not be,a heavy 20inch barrel would be a pain to shoot standing in gallery id say

My experience, from some shops, is they'll tell you what they think you want to hear to sell you what's on the shelf. I was told not to "raise the hare" when I asked about the process for getting a moderator under the old system. All grand, but they won't be prosecuted if I have something I'm not legally entitled to hold. Mind you, on the flip side of that I've had some in uniform tell me rather funny things I wouldn't like to recount to a judge either

bunny shooter

Or a call to the Firearms Policy Unit?

clivej

bunny shooter wrote: »

Or a call to the Firearms Policy Unit?

Good call BS

bazza888

same here john was told i didnt need apply for the mod when putting in my 2nd license but under the new system,that i could just buy it!and that i couldnt get a rifle or a shotty witout being in a club even with permissions!:mad:

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Or a call to the Firearms Policy Unit?

'Fraid even they can't rule on this one Bunny, it really does need a judicial ruling, and probably at HC level. And the thing is, right now it's whatever your super will grant, meaning some get them and some don't; after a judicial review, either everyone can get a licence for one, or nobody can - including those that have one now. So risk-free it ain't, and anyone taking such a case would (a) be taking on a large financial risk for a point of law, and (b) would be risking a lot for more than just themselves.

stick shooter

Sparks wrote: »

'Fraid even they can't rule on this one Bunny, it really does need a judicial ruling, and probably at HC level. And the thing is, right now it's whatever your super will grant, meaning some get them and some don't; after a judicial review, either everyone can get a licence for one, or nobody can - including those that have one now. So risk-free it ain't, and anyone taking such a case would (a) be taking on a large financial risk for a point of law, and (b) would be risking a lot for more than just themselves.

True but not quiet true . Not this side of a court case there is areas that grant licences for moderators and others that dont

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

True but not quiet true . Not this side of a court case there is areas that grant licences for moderators and others that dont

It's quite true I'm afraid. The question is what the phrase "lawful authority" pertains to, and because that's in the statute but not specified, it needs interpretation by a judge. The AGS can't do it, or they'd be in effect drafting legislation without Oireachtas oversight, and the Supreme Court was rather explicit in slapping them on the wrist for that in Dunne -v- Donohue.

Until that's done, well, people just get on with it as best they can. Which means that some supers grant and some don't; but if there's ever a judicial ruling, then all the granted and refused licences are affected by that ruling.

stick shooter

Sparks wrote: »

It's quite true I'm afraid. The question is what the phrase "lawful authority" pertains to, and because that's in the statute but not specified, it needs interpretation by a judge. The AGS can't do it, or they'd be in effect drafting legislation without Oireachtas oversight, and the Supreme Court was rather explicit in slapping them on the wrist for that in Dunne -v- Donohue.

Until that's done, well, people just get on with it as best they can. Which means that some supers grant and some don't; but if there's ever a judicial ruling, then all the granted and refused licences are affected by that ruling.

Too true ,But a few of us have done is get a letter outlining why we need a moderator and got it passed by the super and once it was passed , We copied it and signed it and handed in and they had to pass it . For about five years no moderators were passed in our area till now and i still know a few friends that have being turned down for insufficient reason and public safety reasons

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

Too true ,But a few of us have done is get a letter outlining why we need a moderator and got it passed by the super and once it was passed , We copied it and signed it and handed in and they had to pass it

They never have to pass it. Ever. The Act does not even conceive of any circumstances where a Super would be required to pass anything. The language is always "may" or "can not grant unless...", never "shall grant".

For about five years no moderators were passed in our area till now and i still know a few friends that have being turned down for insufficient reason and public safety reasons

As I said above, prior granting or refusing to grant won't matter if there's a ruling in this area - all past events wouldn't be a precedent of the same level as a judicial ruling and wouldn't be citable in any applications after that ruling.

stick shooter

Sparks wrote: »

They never have to pass it. Ever. The Act does not even conceive of any circumstances where a Super would be required to pass anything. The language is always "may" or "can not grant unless...", never "shall grant". As I said above, prior granting or refusing to grant won't matter if there's a ruling in this area - all past events wouldn't be a precedent of the same level as a judicial ruling and wouldn't be citable in any applications after that ruling.

But once they pass one for a said reason how can they deny one for the same reason

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

But once they pass one for a said reason how can they deny one for the same reason

Basicly? Because the firearms act says they can.

Bananaman

I would recommend that you drop a line to the relevant NGB (the one administering the sport you intend to use it in)
They will speak to the FPU et al. and get the official party line on the matter - in writing.

As Sparks said the law is not clear but at the end of the day the Gardai will be the ones whose interpretation will decide whether or not you get into trouble.
Therefore whatever they "rule" will stand for the moment. As they have issued licenses for rifles such as the one you mentioned then they will most likely "rule" in favour.
The FPU are supposed to be where licensing officers go for advise when they are unclear so that is the best route to seek information.

The reason I would suggest doing it though your an NGB is that then there is an official line and a common source of information.
Getting anonymous advice from the denizens of the night on boards, or other anonymous sources, on matters legal is, imho, not the best route to take.

Should someone get refused and lodge an appeal - then the courts will decide - that case - a judicial review is a step up again
For now, this is the best option.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Should someone get refused and lodge an appeal

Then everyone else should hold their breaths, and not in a good way.

Taking a test case on a point like this is something that should be done with a carefully selected case; not just the first one that runs into the problem (remember the damage done by poorly chosen cases taken to the courts in the last few months - we lost two Supreme Court cases at who knows how much of an expense and setting precedents in the process, on cases that should never have see the steps of the District Court, let alone any higher - and the Charleton judgement, despite being a minority verdict, played a major role in the downfall of c/f pistols). I keep saying it, but people don't listen - court cases are not sure things and they carry significant risk, both for those taking them and for large numbers of other people who have nothing to do with the case.

And because we can't have class action suits in Ireland (court rules don't allow them), we're not going to get round that problem easily. This is one of the drawbacks of not having a centralised structure within our community for this sort of thing.

And again, to repeat the point above, the FPU's take on this isn't going to be binding on anyone, not even your local Superintendent (which is a problem with the FPU at present). This should get brought up the chain to the FCP allright for discussion at that level though (even though it can't solve it immediately as definitively as a judicial ruling, it could introduce a workable fudge pending any new statute law changes - though I've not heard of any in the works apart from the Explosives Act), and it would seem that the NARGC would be the logical choice for that as most of the short barrel users seem to be hunters looking for a more managable size of rifle in the field.

Bananaman

Well - for now - lets assume the that sky is not falling.

Let the man contact the relevant NGB, seek clarity for his current requirements and get out and do a bit of shooting.

If he does not like the answer, then he can still apply, and may get his license. If not he can make yet more decisions.

But let's assume the glass if half full - there is nothing wrong with what he is asking - it is a perfectl;y reasonable non-restricted rifle - it does not require any sort of court intervention - he can simply seek the clarity he requires or apply for the license and see which way the wind blows.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Well - for now - lets assume the that sky is not falling.

Firstly, drop that tone if you please. You've been using it in almost all of your posts on here of late, and I for one am definitely sick of it at this point. Either engage properly or don't bother, but this coming on here to make derisive comments and twist what's been posted the way you've been doing is worse than not being here at all. This is a real issue, it's one of the problems with the firearms legislation as it currently stands, and frankly a court case is not the best way to fix it unless that court case is very carefully chosen - and we just don't have the structure in place to do that. The fallout if it went badly would affect far more people than just those in the case itself (though they'd bear the brunt of the financial losses personally since nobody's underwriting the costs of these cases in the event of losses anymore).

In fact, if half of the warnings given to folk both on here and off-site by various people had been listened to over the last decade, instead of people not liking the warnings' contents and so deriding them rather than actually discussing them, we'd have far fewer restrictions on our sports today than we do -- for a start, c/f pistol sports wouldn't be in the situation they find themselves today.

Let the man contact the relevant NGB, seek clarity for his current requirements and get out and do a bit of shooting.

The point of the entire cluster of responses above and several threads before this one, is that his NGB cannot give him the clarity he seeks -- no matter how much it would want to -- and that nobody apart from a judge can do so at present (or the Minister, if he decides to write new law at some point). He can apply, and get the answer his Super wants to give, but if that answer is not the one he was hoping for, there isn't anyone in the entire country, at any level, in any organisation, that can tell him what his odds are of winning a DC case on the matter or a JR which would probably be required.

Anyone who tells him otherwise either does not understand the situation; or is just -- at best -- bull****ting him to sound important (at worst, you wouldn't want to speculate in order to avoid defaming someone and meeting that sort of lawsuit head-on).