Questions re Licensing Guns/Restricted.Non Restricted

BoatMad

This may have got discussed before but bear with me.

I was in a discussion recently where someone is licensing a 22lr semi auto and even though its very assault looking ( ie black stock, heat fins the usual stuff) , they say as long as they describe it as it is , ( ie a 22 semi) if they get a non restricted license thats fine.

I dont agree, reading the legislation its clear the 2008 SI regards assault rifles and "similar" to assault rifles as restricted firearms. SO who decides whats what, since the FAC1 form doesnt have a picture of the firearm, if the FO/Super just sign off on it , is that it, is it a valid license

Im skeptical

It wasn't me!

A court would be required to adjudicate over whether it "resembles an assault rifle". Personally I think any such application is made in bad faith and while it is a judgement question, I think the person would get screwed in court. As it stands, the licence is probably invalid on the face of it, and certainly is if the Garda in question judges the rifle to resemble an assault rifle.

BoatMad

thats my reading of it, too I wonder what others think, the opinion I got was ventured by a very experienced shooter. But what you are saying is that its in effect the applicant that must adjudicate what license type it is and decide what category is what , surely that cant be right either. ( ie is an applicant supposed to know the detail of the firearms act and all the SIs)

This is a similar case to whether a Browning buckmark is a bull pup ( as defined by Irish law!) and my reading and some others are is that it is, yes yes I know its not really a bullpup, but it has the magazine behind the trigger and that is the citeria given in the SI) yet many many are licensed as unrestricted firearms, simply because thats what the license holder applied for and was given. Jeepers we could all be walking around not licensed.

Cass

BoatMad wrote: »

........... what you are saying is that its in effect the applicant that must adjudicate what license type it is and decide what category is what , surely that cant be right either. ( ie is an applicant supposed to know the detail of the firearms act and all the SIs)

Essentially, yes. The onus is on the applicant to know what they are applying for, and sign the FCA1 to that extent.

............many are licensed as unrestricted firearms, simply because thats what the license holder applied for and was given. Jeepers we could all be walking around not licensed.

Also correct. If you have a non restricted license for a restricted firearm then essentially you are unlicensed, and if stopped, and checked you can be prosecuted. Under the law ignorance is no excuse, so thats that defense straight out the window.

BoatMad

yes but, where the details are argued about, like in the Buck mark, I've had RFDs say nonsense its unrestricted, ive seen others argue otherwise? whats to do. It must be unique that you have to decide whether or not to criminalise yourself. Its may be that you have to be familar with the legislation, but surely it does not expect potential license holders to become equipment experts.

rowa

I applied for a restricted rifle recently and included a picture from the manufacturers website just to prove i am not trying to pull a fast one or anything, and give no reason for any comeback in future , but this is ireland and honesty is often seen as stupidity.

Cass

You'll get no argument from me in relation to the conditon of the legislation. I can only explain it the way i think they would think.

If it is a shotgun/rifle for a farmer, elderly person, etc then chances are 99% would be unrestricted.
If it is a shotgun/rifle for someone in a speciality type shooting then chances are they are involved in a group, organisation, NGB that can adivse and guide them.

Thats the personal thing sorted. Now for the actual way they think it will be done.

When you go to your Garda station. If a Garda sees over/under, single barrel, .22lr, .243 then these are straight forward unrestricted firearms, and he will advise you what to mark on your form. If it's a restricted firearm same thing. The Firearms Officer, in an ideal world, should be able to guide applciants through the applciation and tell them what they need to know. Obviouly we all know this not to be the case in some instances.

Lastly irrespective of what the Garda advises you, it is still you that is responsible. thats what site such as this one are for. Information sharing, gathering, and guidance/advice.

It's probably not the answer you want, but its the situation we have.

BoatMad

I agree with your perspective, but others have argued otherwise. in fact this self same discussion is occuring elsewhere and seemingly experts are arguing say that the Umarex Hk416 is not " Similar" as its internal workings are completely different and it cannot be operated as a F/A firearm.

My problem here is that whose is the expert, since FOs, RFDs all have different opinions.

"
I declare that the information provided by me in relation to this application is true to the best of my knowledge and
belief. I understand that I may be liable to prosecution if knowingly give false or misleading information"

there's the bit from the FCA1 form, it clearly allows for you to claim you did not know that the information was misleading. ( ie yes Super, I ticked all the boxes correctly, supplied the correct model numbers etc.. how did I know that I was not describing it properly?). Surely if you fill in the boxes correctly and get the license, it must have a validity.

Cass

BoatMad wrote: »

.......... seemingly experts are arguing say that the Umarex Hk416 is not " Similar" as its internal workings are completely different and it cannot be operated as a F/A firearm.

Excuse my ignorance here, but two things.

• What do you mean by Similar? To what exactly? I'm not reading this right or picking it up. Could you explain pease?
• If F/A is for fully auto then it is a prohibited firearm and not legal in Ireland AT ALL. So it's design, mag capacity, etc are moot points.

My problem here is that whose is the expert, since FOs, RFDs all have different opinions.

Honestly, no-one. Not FO, not Gardai, not RFDs, not forum mods, not forum users. All tou can do is take the most amount of info available and make an honest decision based on that info.

I declare that the information provided by me in relation to this application is true to the best of my knowledge and
belief. I understand that I may be liable to prosecution if knowingly give false or misleading information"

there's the bit from the FCA1 form, it clearly allows for you to claim you did not know that the information was misleading. ( ie yes Super, I ticked all the boxes correctly, supplied the correct model numbers etc.. how did I know that I was not describing it properly?). Surely if you fill in the boxes correctly and get the license, it must have a validity.

You may be correct in that if you genuinely did not know, and were not adivsed otherwise then yes. Plus as we all know application of the law and how its meant to be applied can be two different things.

The piece above by myself about being prosecuted was more so directed at those that would seek to license a firearm they knew to be restricted as an unrestricted firearm. For example a .22lr pistol. An unrestricted firearm. Use 10 round mags and its now restricted. If you apply, and claim you are using only 5 round mags then you are fraudulently applying for a license to a person that is not legally entitled to issue you with the licens. IOW you lied to the Super, and his license would stand invalid as only a Chief Super has the authority to issue restricted firearm certs.

So in a genuine case chances are they simply re-issue a license or make you apply again to the CS. In fraudulent cases you face, loss of license, firearm, othe firearms, fine, imprisonment or a conbination of all the above.

BoatMad

Ezridax wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance here, but two things.

• What do you mean by Similar? To what exactly? I'm not reading this right or picking it up. Could you explain pease?
• If F/A is for fully auto then it is a prohibited firearm and not legal in Ireland AT ALL. So it's design, mag capacity, etc are moot points.

No you are incorrect an Assault rifle is described in SI 21 of 2008, and it is a restricted firearm. ie

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles


........


4. (1) Firearms other than those to which subparagraph (2) relates are
declared to be restricted firearms for the purposes of the Act"

ie basically the SI lists the unrestricted firearms and everything else restricted. The argument on Shooter for example is that a Umarek Hk416 while is might on the surface resemble such a rifle, to any expert there is no functional resemblance. ( ie a beetle and a porche 911 may resemble each other, but they do not resemble each other at any expert level of examination) ) I know people that have received unrestricted licenses for these to boot.

Im not on one side or the other, I just don't understand how these situations are resolved , without someone inadvertently criminalising themselves

Cass

Feel asleep in the fecking chair again - thanks.:rolleyes:

BoatMad wrote: »

No you are incorrect an Assault rifle is described in SI 21 of 2008, and it is a restricted firearm. ie

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles

Firstly above you say F/A, as in fully auto, and now you call them assault rifles. Thats two different definitions for two different types of firearms.

Assault rifles are, and allow me to finsh that part of the SI for you;

“assault rifles” means—

rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
firearms that resemble such rifles

• “bullpup rifles” means rifles with a magazine located behind the trigger;
• “centre-fire firearms” means firearms using centre-fire percussion ammunition;
• “centre-fire percussion ammunition” means ammunition containing a percussion cap;
• “long firearms” means firearms other than short firearms;
• “repeating firearms” means firearms that are loaded and reloaded from a magazine or cylinder by a manually-operated mechanism;
• “rim-fire firearms” means firearms using rim-fire percussion ammunition;
• “rim-fire percussion ammunition” means ammunition with a cartridge case notcontain ing a percussion cap;
• “semi-automatic firearms” means firearms that reload automatically from a magazine or cylinder each time a round is discharged but can fire not more than one round with a single pull on the trigger;
• “short firearms” means firearms either with a barrel not longer than 30 centimetresor wh ose overall length (including the length of any detachable component) does not exceed 60 centimetres;
• “silencers”, in relation to firearms, means any devices fitted or capable of being fitted to the firearms for the purpose of moderating or reducing the sound made on their discharge;
• “single-shot firearms” means firearms that are loaded before each shot either manually or by a manually-operated mechanism;
• “slug ammunition” means ammunition containing a single projectile.

Nowhere in there does it mention fully automatic firearms. The reason why is because they are classed as a Category A firearm, and under EU directive (91/477/EEC)they are at all costs to be prevented from being licensed by civilians except in special cases where the Minister may grant a license. As per Section 27 / 2009 CJ(MP)A.

Thats means you cannot buy, own possess one or get a license for one - ie Prohibited.

4. (1) Firearms other than those to which subparagraph (2) relates are declared to be restricted firearms for the purposes of the Act"

.......... The argument on Shooter for example is that a Umarek Hk416 while is might on the surface resemble such a rifle, to any expert there is no functional resemblance. ( ie a beetle and a porche 911 may resemble each other, but they do not resemble each other at any expert level of examination) ) I know people that have received unrestricted licenses for these to boot.

In the case of this HK416. While it is a semi auto firearm, it is also a .22lr. So once it is not more than a 10 shot, and its barrel is longer than 30cm (The legal definition of a short firearm) then it should stand as unrestricted. Of course its 6:30am, and i haven't checked all the features of the gun to see if anything else puts it into the restricted category (i know nothing about this firearm from a personal experience point of view), but basically 10 shot or under, semi auto = unrestricted.

ie basically the SI lists the unrestricted firearms and everything else restricted.

Not true. There are four classifications of firearms. A, B, C, D. For most countries they use A, B, C. Some only use A, and B, and its suggested that the EU will soon cut the categorisation for all countries to just 2 - A & B.

A = Prohibited
B = Needing authorisation/registration/license.

C = Need only be declared/No license necessary.

In ireland we have A (Prohibited). These firearms are not for the general public. Category B is everything else. Restricted and unrestricted alike. IOW any firearm you can license. Category C does not apply to us as anything that is of sufficient power to be clased as a firearm needs a license. Anything else, such a RIF, need only have an age limit, but again are not classed as firearms.

Im not on one side or the other, I just don't understand how these situations are resolved , without someone inadvertently criminalising themselves

This is where common sense comes into play. If you are "Johnny", a long time firearm owner, with impecable record, and a clean slate, then if something like this were to happen to you chances are it would be recified without much hassle. If you are Johnny eile", a trouble maker, chancer, etc and try this chances are they will nail you to the cross for it.

The law is worded fairly clearly at times, then quite vaguely (to the lay person - ie. Us.) so as to always leave the decision to the authorities discretion.

I may be wrong or out of date with my legislation, and if you can find some piece of legislation that specifically states that a fully automatic rifle can be licensed as a restricted firearm then please do inform me. By show me i mean the actual wording, not the lack of it in another Act, Section, SI, etc.

Either way the matter is not about whom is right, it's a simple fact that whether prohibited or restricted you will not get a license for a fully auto firearm in Ireland. The Chief Super would never allow it. He would simply say that as dynamic/combative type shooting is banned, and another restricted or unrestricted firearm can do the same job he see no reason why he should give you the license.

Bananaman

Ezridax wrote: »

BoatMad wrote:

Originally Posted by BoatMad
No you are incorrect an Assault rifle is described in SI 21 of 2008, and it is a restricted firearm. ie

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles

Nowhere in there does it mention fully automatic firearms. The reason why is because they are classed as a Category A firearm, and under EU directive (91/477/EEC)they are at all costs to be prevented from being licensed by civilians except in special cases where the Minister may grant a license. As per Section 27 / 2009 CJ(MP)A.

In fairness, it does say

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifle

The issue here is that there is, and can never be a definition of "that resemble" - but then that was the intention - to put the "idontlikethelookofthat" in legislation so the persona designata can say "idontlikethelookofthat" and have a clause in the law to cover him/her.

If you want to license a particular firearm but are unsure of whether or not it should be a restricted license then specify restricted on the form but attach a letter outlining why you think it should be unrestricted and therefore dealt with by the Super rather than the Chief Super. Then you have not made an invalid declaration and you are providing the Gardai (Chief Super as you specified restricted) with the information to make a more informed decision.

I had this situation with my Buckmark Rifle - where I applied tor a restricted license, provided ample information on what Bullpup means, what the design is for and why a Buckmark is not a bullpup and why the definition in law is incorrect and why I believe it should not be a restricted license. Now it is up to them.

It also needs to be said that there is nothing wrong with applying for a restricted license - it seems people are afraid of the term - a different person deals with it but its just a license - you don't have to wear special pants once you get it or anything. I have three restricted licenses - only one was meant to be restricted by the law - the others are because the law was drafted without any consultation with people who knew what they were talking about.

Its a pity but its what we have to work with.

And Remember - it all happens again this year - yes folks it has been three years and nothing has changed, so dust off your brogues as its nearly time to start dancing!!!

B'Man

gunhappy_ie

I believe this thread is based upon points that I raised in relation to a posters question about a bullpup stock for a 10/22.

Basicly it is my view that section (B)"firearms that resemble such rifle" is the "Idontlikethelookofthat" clause that is causing the most amount of confusion.


It is my opinion that should a shooter licence as an example a Ruger 10/22 as non restricted, he/she can put any stock (bar bullpup) or any magazine so long as its capacity does not exceed 10 rounds. Just to clarify a semi automatic rimfire becomes restricted once you put either a bullpup stock or a magazine of greater capacity than 10 rounds.

It is my belief that even with all the bells and whistles on the rifle while externally will look like an assault rifle internally it functions and looks completely different.

I also reversed the scenario and asked the question: Why is a 10/22 even in its standard configuration allowed at all ? On internal inspection while the rifle does not have the select fire capability that defines an assault rifle it does have a heavy bolt blowback system of operation. The same system is used in all UZI varients, Mac 10s, Carl Gustaf or Swedish K. Modified systems are used in the Famas, HK MP5/G3/MG3....


The only way to really answer this is by both sides giving factual information to a judge for him/her to rule accordingly however until such time many people will not risk purchasing the likes of "tactical" after market stocks or accessories/upgrades.

As regarding the Browning Buckmark: It is my opinion that the definition of what a bullpup is under Irish law is wrong however it is still however the law ! So poorly is it written that in theory any rifle that even stores a magazine behind the trigger is classed as a bullpup and therefore restricted.

If there are RFDs out there who are pawning off these rifles as non restricted then, while it may not be intentional they are misleading people to make a sale. Bananaman is going about it applying for his Buckmark the correct way.

Lastly, I would like to say that the above information is the opinion of an Armourer and not comming from an "arm chair general". While I am currently serving with the defence forces these views are my own and have no bearing on DF policies.

GH

Sparks

BoatMad wrote: »

yes but, where the details are argued about, like in the Buck mark, I've had RFDs say nonsense its unrestricted, ive seen others argue otherwise?

Buckmark's an odd example; the pistol is definitely unrestricted so long as you have five-round magazines, but the rifle is definitely restricted because the magazine is behind the trigger and that's the legal definition of a bullpup configuration in Ireland (and all bullpup rifles are restricted).

Sparks

BoatMad wrote: »

I agree with your perspective, but others have argued otherwise...seemingly experts are arguing say that the Umarex Hk416 is not " Similar" as its internal workings are completely different and it cannot be operated as a F/A firearm

I've highlighted the main problem there.
These experts are just not that expert.
The fact that the Hk416 has different internals is by definition utterly irrelevant - the legislation refers to appearance and you can't notice the internals unless you take something apart; and likewise, function has little to do with appearance as well.
This is why, when the wording first showed up, a lot of people didn't think much of it and said so at the time. It's the same problem that the US had with its assault rifle ban - the law is so vague that it's worse than useless (because it doesn't do what it's meant to do and it has lots of side effects).

there's the bit from the FCA1 form, it clearly allows for you to claim you did not know that the information was misleading. ( ie yes Super, I ticked all the boxes correctly, supplied the correct model numbers etc.. how did I know that I was not describing it properly?). Surely if you fill in the boxes correctly and get the license, it must have a validity.

The problem is that you can be caught two different ways here; if you thought you'd chance it, that's lying on the FCA1 which is an offence. But if you made the mistake in all innocence and were granted an unrestricted licence for what was later found to be a restricted firearm, then even if you dodge the "misleading information" charge, there's still the fact that you were in possession of an unlicenced firearm. And the Garda who issued the licence has his bottom covered by the Act, which puts the onus on the applicant to apply for the right licence.

In other words, when the music stops, you'll be the only one who doesn't have a chair.

tac foley

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

So poorly is it written that in theory any firearm that even stores a magazine behind the trigger is classed as a bullpup and therefore restricted. GH

GH - this comment needs careful reading - all but a few semi-automatic .22/.32cal target handguns have their magazines behind the trigger.

Just sayin'.

tac

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

So poorly is it written that in theory any firearm that even stores a magazine behind the trigger is classed as a bullpup and therefore restricted.

It'd take a fairly daft barrister to argue that particular line in a court though GH - the justice wouldn't take kindly to having his time wasted that way either. I mean, if you were to argue the point that a spare magazine in the butt of the rifle made it a bullpup, then you'd also have to argue the point that a magazine sitting in someone else's range bag six feet behind the shooter also made it a bullpup... or a magazine for a different firearm in someone else's house twenty miles behind the shooter...
I mean, Irish law has more than a sane amount of stupidity in it, but even it has limits

Bananaman

Not to mention a pipe magazine in the Stock of a 22 rifle.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Not to mention a pipe magazine in the Stock of a 22 rifle.

I don't recall many tube magazines being behind the trigger in .22 rifles though - the marlin 60, the winchesters, all of them have the magazine in front of the trigger.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

I don't recall many tube magazines being behind the trigger in .22 rifles though - the marlin 60, the winchesters, all of them have the magazine in front of the trigger.

The little Browning automatic rifle - a fine old design - has a tube magazine located in the butt.

That's the only one I can think of.

tac

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I don't recall many tube magazines being behind the trigger in .22 rifles though - the marlin 60, the winchesters, all of them have the magazine in front of the trigger.

The Remington Nylon 66,springs to mind.The Franchi Para 22lr,some of the older model Savages.OTOH they arent exactly very common either,but they are out there.

gunhappy_ie

Sparks wrote: »

I've highlighted the main problem there.
These experts are just not that expert.
The fact that the Hk416 has different internals is by definition utterly irrelevant - the legislation refers to appearance and you can't notice the internals unless you take something apart; and likewise, function has little to do with appearance as well.
This is why, when the wording first showed up, a lot of people didn't think much of it and said so at the time. It's the same problem that the US had with its assault rifle ban - the law is so vague that it's worse than useless (because it doesn't do what it's meant to do and it has lots of side effects).
.

Fortunatly I am that expert, I have been in court on several occasions giving my opinion on the topic at hand where, in 1 occasion after a technical inspection of a firearm I was advising the legal team as to how the rifle in question was not an assault rifle. I based my findings against an actual assault rifle and gave a detailed report on external/internal differences.



While my knowledge of US assault ban is limited your is poor enough that you shouldnt comment on it ! To clarify: The Assault rifle ban brought in by Bill Clinton in 1994 and was very clear as to what defined an assault rifle. If a rifle had 2 or more of the following it was classed as an assault rifle and was prohibited from sale to civilians:


(1) Folding or telescopic stock
(2) Pistol Grip
(3) Bayonet mount
(4) Flash suppresor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
(5) Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)


That to me is very clear !


What made the ban pretty much useless was that:


(1) It only applied to firearms, in this case rifles, purchased after the ban was put in place.
(2) It lapsed after 10 years so is no longer in effect.


I saw it myself when I was doing the DuraCoat course in the US. The owner of the company Steve Lauer said that he couldnt keep AR lowers on the shelf because people feared that on election Barack Obama would re introduce the ban. As Lowers are the registered part of the rifle and are cheap in the US a civilian could buy as many as they like and build to a complete rifle at whatever spec they like during a ban.


I often see preban/post ban on adds for rifles being sold in the US





GH

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Fortunatly I am that expert

Not to be personal, but I'd dispute that particular assertion regardless of who was making it. I've spent the guts of a decade on the Firearms Act - hell, I'm one of the few people who can point to a part of it and rightfully claim to have written it - and I still wouldn't call myself an expert on it because I don't think there actually are any. There are maybe two dozen people in the country who know enough about the Firearms Act to have a working knowledge of it, let alone an expert knowledge, and damn few of them have legal qualifications. The Act is just too badly fragmented and amended and has too many other bits of legislation impinging on it and is too badly written in the first place for anyone to really call themselves an expert on it with any really useful measure of confidence. That's why the Law Reform Commission and Justice Charleton both called for it to be restated or re-codified.

edit: Rereading that, it still seems overly personal, so let me try to clairfy - I've no doubts at all that we have lots of firearms experts around. Hell, under the 10,000 hour rule, quite a few posters on here would qualify as experts. But I don't believe that anyone in Ireland - and I include Ministers, civil servants, NGB staff, barristers and judges in this - can rightfully claim to be an expert on Irish firearms legislation. A working knowledge, yes, we have two dozen or so people who'd have that; but I don't honestly believe anyone can justifiably claim to be an expert in the normal use of the word, not in this area.

I have been in court on several occasions giving my opinion on the topic at hand where, in 1 occasion after a technical inspection of a firearm I was advising the legal team as to how the rifle in question was not an assault rifle. I based my findings against an actual assault rifle and gave a detailed report on external/internal differences.

See, here's the thing. What an assault rifle actually is; and what the legal term "assault rifle" means (and it is a legal term once it's defined in legislation); are two wholly seperate things, and their meanings are very rarely the same.
So yes, a 10/22 with a tacticool stock is definitely not an assault rifle in real life, even the suggestion should raise eyebrows; but to say it's not legally classified as an assault rifle in Ireland is not so clearcut because it very arguably resembles one, and that's enough for the law.

And on a side point, this notion that just sticking an aftermarket stock on an unrestricted firearm shouldn't affect its restricted status is nonsense - stick an aftermarket 10-round magazine in an unrestricted .22lr pistol and you'll make it restricted. Stick an aftermarket pistol grip or folding stock on a shotgun and you'll make it restricted. Hell, load a slug into an unrestricted shotgun and you'll make it restricted. So why would an aftermarket tacticool stock for a 10/22 be any exception?

While my knowledge of US assault ban is limited your is poor enough that you shouldnt comment on it

I'd disagree. I know the assault rifle ban and I'd commented on it in the past, but the details weren't germane, only the gist (because it's in a different jurisdiction and the only thing that mattered to the argument was the point that the ban's flaw was that the legal definition didn't match the real-world definition and so it banned lots of things it didn't aim to ban).

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Sparks;76332126]I've highlighted the main problem there.
These experts are just not that expert.
The fact that the Hk416 has different internals is by definition utterly irrelevant - the legislation refers to appearance and you can't notice the internals unless you take something apart; and likewise, function has little to do with appearance as well.
This is why, when the wording first showed up, a lot of people didn't think much of it and said so at the time. It's the same problem that the US had with its assault rifle ban - the law is so vague that it's worse than useless (because it doesn't do what it's meant to do and it has lots of side effects).

Errr,not quite Sparks.This was one of the big stickies with AGS and my semi auto court last year.My barrister did argue the point that depite it "looking like" it was an assault rifle [in the broadest possible terms of AGS were saying a VW Beetle was the same as a Ferrari,in the fact they have four wheels and an engine] it wasnt.
In the fact it was impossible to convert without some extensive knowledge and machine shop tools to FA,not to mind making up new parts.[Internals] It didnt have the EXTERNAL features of an assault rifle,IE no bayonet lug, flash hider,etc or the capability of accepting such.Nor was it evill black..[So looks like an assault rifle is very open to interpertation]
Granted,there were other telling reasons too,but the fact was the CS conceded that it wasnt worth the fight in a DC to prove or disprove either.Now ,he could have argued the points,as he was in regular phone contact with Insp Brookes ,who was vemehntly arguing that it was, or looked like an assualt rifle even despite that Remington made,market and advertise it as a sporting rifle with "some design features" of the AR15 style rifles.:rolleyes:
BTW Gunhappy was "technical advisor "on my legal team,and alot of this was his advice.Which was accepted by my JC who himself was an ex Garda in charge of firearms training inTemplemore ,years ago.So he wasnt a newbie either to firearms.


FWIW The US never had a full 50 state "assault rifle ban".It had the "crime control act" of 1994[which had nothing to do with crime control] which basically gave 10 years of 10 shot sporterised semi auto rifles that looked like military firearms to the world.That was a reason "pre ban " rifles and high cap mags shot up in value
The law was very specific in Sect 92R of what a rifle /shotgun could have or have not to be classified as a assault rifle.There was nothing vauge about it.I have a California sporterised type MAK 90 [AK clone]of the time over in AZ still.Thumbhole stock,5 round mag,no muzzle break or flash hider,no bayonet lug or because of that no under barrel cleaning rod storage.:(. Now thanks to that stupid act never being renewed by GWB[at least he did ONE thing right in my eyes.:D] I can mod ify it to whatever I want agin if I ever go over to collect it.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Errr,not quite Sparks.This was one of the big stickies with AGS and my semi auto court last year.

I think we both know that the AGS's approach to that case didn't exactly make for a clean precedent there Grizzly

My barrister did argue the point that depite it "looking like" it was an assault rifle ... it wasnt.
...
It didnt have the EXTERNAL features of an assault rifle,IE no bayonet lug, flash hider,etc or the capability of accepting such.Nor was it evill black..[So looks like an assault rifle is very open to interpertation]

But that's an argument you could lose in court tomorrow with exactly the same rifle
(Remember, that's precisely what happened in McCarron-v-Kearney - Justice Charleton heard the same argument that had been made in dozens of other cases and then ignored the precedents of those cases and gave a judgement that overturned them).

Grizzly 45

think we both know that the AGS's approach to that case didn't exactly make for a clean precedent there Grizzly

Never does in a DC tho does it?

But that's an argument you could lose in court tomorrow with exactly the same rifle
(Remember, that's precisely what happened in McCarron-v-Kearney - Justice Charleton heard the same argument that had been made in dozens of other cases and then ignored the precedents of those cases and gave a judgement that overturned them).

Isnt this being challanged anyway??It is an appalingly bad,rambling,incoherent,biased ,misinformed judgement:(.
BTW belive there is a HC case on this liscensing again tomrrow Friday?

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Never does in a DC tho does it?

Sadly not. It's good in the long run that the DC's role in the Act is the way it is now; but for the short term it just slows down the process of getting the bugs kicked out of the system because of that.

Isnt this being challanged anyway??It is an appalingly bad,rambling,incoherent,biased ,misinformed judgement:(.

It was challanged and we lost in the Supreme Court.

BTW belive there is a HC case on this liscensing again tomrrow Friday?

I don't think so - I thought the HC wasn't open for JRs till Hillary term starts on the 11th.
There *are* three cases coming up in the HC (the test cases), which will be very important as they'll set the policy for all the others; but I don't have the details of those.

Bananaman

I would highly discourage discussing, in any way, pending court cases on a public forum.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I would highly discourage discussing, in any way, pending court cases on a public forum.
B'Man

1) Nobody was, past mentioning when the hearing is to be held which isn't a problem as it's public domain information in the Legal Diary published on courts.ie;
2) You do know that discussing a pending court case in here is banned, right?

Grizzly 45

Speaking of court cases....Whats the Boards.ie legal eagles story now on done and dusted court cases,and commentary of such within hours of them coming out of the court???
As this was brought in in May of last year,and ye were expecting advice on it in"a couple of weeks".
Is that a couple of weeks "Temp Custody order1972 "type couple of weeks?? [35years +/-]Or normal calender couple of weeks?;):D

Sparks

No, they came back to us with an answer (and then there was a round of clarification). I just haven't had time to write it up, what with moving house and all. The gist of it is that when it's before the court, discussion is verboten, but once the judgement comes down, it's fair game. I'll write it up as soon as I get a chance.

BoatMad

Can we get back to the point, because there are two " experts" arguring the opposite for example , is an Umarex HK416 22lr semi a restricted or unrestricted firearm, in other words how does one approach the "resembles" word in the SI,

One side like Sparks says resembles equates to "looks like", the other side, gunhappy_ie, seems to equate resembles with " functions like"

I ask this again as I have had all sorts of people comment one way or another or various intepretations on lots of firearms.

In some cases newbies are sitting down with RFDs, who they naively accept as experts and those RFDs are helping them fill in the form and are sometime providing incorrect or misleading advice

It gets even worse, lets say you approach your FO, he says naw that firearm XXXXX is unrestricted, Ive issued X licenses, you say oh OK, put in for unrestricted, get it, yet if in the future that's challenged, you got get mega penalties.!!

really whats a girl supposed to do.

Witcher

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles


IMO (A) Restricts any gun that operates like an assault rifle and (B) restricts any that bears an aesthetic similarity to an assault rifle. A gun which falls into category B doesn't have to operate like an assault rifle to be restricted. It's written in such a way as to cover both bases. If you're in either (A) or (B) it's restricted. Again it's only my opinion.

Sparks

BoatMad wrote: »

really whats a girl supposed to do.

Well, put it this way. If you get it wrong and it all goes sideways, will the RFD put up their hands and say "well, fair enough, my fault, I'll accept the fine and/or jail sentence"? (We already know the Garda is exempted from that...)

Basically, until we see a test case in the high court, it's a gray area. Some folks love to push at those and if you know the risks and it sounds like fun and you've got a spare six figures sitting round burning a hole in a bank account, well, have fun. Personally though, I'd steer clear if at all possible.

BoatMad

Blay wrote: »

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles


IMO (A) Restricts any gun that operates like an assault rifle and (B) restricts any that bears an aesthetic similarity to an assault rifle. A gun which falls into category B doesn't have to operate like an assault rifle to be restricted. It's written in such a way as to cover both bases. If you're in either (A) or (B) it's restricted. Again it's only my opinion.

But isnt that the point your interpretation of "resembles " is " aesthetic similarity " but is it really the case?

ooh I don't know, what really bugs me is that in reality once you get a license and haven't lied, it should be valid. It shouldn't be up to the uninformed punter was is regarded as restricted or not, in reality that should be the role of the FPU,but thats another argument.

Witcher

BoatMad wrote: »

But isnt that the point your interpretation of "resembles " is " aesthetic similarity " but is it really the case?

Part (B) has to be referring to the visual similarity of a gun to an assault rifle. Saying that (B) refers to the operational components of the gun resembling an assault rifle is just twisting it.

My thoughts on it are this:

(A)- If the gun operates like an assault rifle; it is restricted.
(B)- If the gun visually resembles a firearm which meets the above definiton of an assault rifle; it is restricted.

As Sparks said people like to think they can straddle both sides of a legal grey area content that such grey area laws don't apply to them, but when it comes down to it the lay person's opinion on this matter isn't worth a dime, the PTB call the shots.

BoatMad wrote: »

ooh I don't know, what really bugs me is that in reality once you get a license and haven't lied, it should be valid. It shouldn't be up to the uninformed punter was is regarded as restricted or not, in reality that should be the role of the FPU,but thats another argument.

I get where you're coming from but when someone steps foot into the world of firearms in this country they know it's going to be heavily governed by legislation and they should examine this to stay in line with it, claiming ignorance is no excuse. One can't be expected to know every Act or SI but a good knowledge of the main points is essential.

I've not been shooting long but one of the first things I did was read the major pieces of legislation on firearms, restricted v unrestricted etc. Even though I wasn't going to get a restricted firearm I felt it was good to know what constituted one so I didn't cross the line accidentally. I'd nearly say that knowing the law atleast in basic terms should be step 1 going into shooting because it will affect pretty much everything you do in the sport in some way.

Bananaman

Again I have to ask ....... Whats wrong with applying for a restricted license? (unless your ch super is operating a blanket ban on all restricted firearms)

If you apply for it as reztricted and provide documentation as to why you (and a letter from the RFD to same effect) believe it to be non restricted and you get issued your license then out you go and shoot.

If it ever comes to the Gardai arguing that you got.an unrestricted license for what should have been restricted - when you, in good faith, disclosed everything and did not.try to play the system ..... Then your ass is already in a sling for something else and they are just gilding the lily.

B'Man

gunhappy_ie

Sparks wrote: »

Not to be personal, but I'd dispute that particular assertion regardless of who was making it. I've spent the guts of a decade on the Firearms Act - hell, I'm one of the few people who can point to a part of it and rightfully claim to have written it - and I still wouldn't call myself an expert on it because I don't think there actually are any. There are maybe two dozen people in the country who know enough about the Firearms Act to have a working knowledge of it, let alone an expert knowledge, and damn few of them have legal qualifications. The Act is just too badly fragmented and amended and has too many other bits of legislation impinging on it and is too badly written in the first place for anyone to really call themselves an expert on it with any really useful measure of confidence. That's why the Law Reform Commission and Justice Charleton both called for it to be restated or re-codified.

edit: Rereading that, it still seems overly personal, so let me try to clairfy - I've no doubts at all that we have lots of firearms experts around. Hell, under the 10,000 hour rule, quite a few posters on here would qualify as experts. But I don't believe that anyone in Ireland - and I include Ministers, civil servants, NGB staff, barristers and judges in this - can rightfully claim to be an expert on Irish firearms legislation. A working knowledge, yes, we have two dozen or so people who'd have that; but I don't honestly believe anyone can justifiably claim to be an expert in the normal use of the word, not in this area.

Not personal at all but I didnt make myself clear. I by no means am an expert on Irish firearms law as your right "The Act is just too badly fragmented ....and is too badly written....".

BoatMad wrote: »

Can we get back to the point, because there are two " experts" arguring the opposite for example , is an Umarex HK416 22lr semi a restricted or unrestricted firearm, in other words how does one approach the "resembles" word in the SI,

One side like Sparks says resembles equates to "looks like", the other side, gunhappy_ie, seems to equate resembles with " functions like"

I ask this again as I have had all sorts of people comment one way or another or various intepretations on lots of firearms.

In some cases newbies are sitting down with RFDs, who they naively accept as experts and those RFDs are helping them fill in the form and are sometime providing incorrect or misleading advice

It gets even worse, lets say you approach your FO, he says naw that firearm XXXXX is unrestricted, Ive issued X licenses, you say oh OK, put in for unrestricted, get it, yet if in the future that's challenged, you got get mega penalties.!!

really whats a girl supposed to do.

Sorry, this is turning into a legal barrel length debate. In short bananaman is offering the best advice.....

Bananaman wrote: »

If you apply for it as reztricted and provide documentation as to why you (and a letter from the RFD to same effect) believe it to be non restricted and you get issued your license then out you go and shoot.
B'Man

GH

Grizzly 45

Bananaman wrote: »

Again I have to ask ....... Whats wrong with applying for a restricted license? (unless your ch super is operating a blanket ban on all restricted firearms)

Think we know the answer to that one! 99% of them,unless directed by a DC to do otherwise.:(

)- If the gun visually resembles a firearm which meets the above definiton of an assault rifle; it is restricted.

That is a VERY GREY area as my DC case proved..What does an "assault Rifle " look like??Same as saying a kit car Ferrari lookalike is a genuine Ferrari.Its wayy to open to debate as to what an assault riflelooks like .
There are plenty of "assault rifles" out there that dont look anything like what you imagine an assault rifle to be,and are actually classified as classic and target rifles.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse...PROVIDED the law is understandable to everyone.[Which is why it is made so complex by law mongers:p] in Irish firearms laws which is some of the greyest,badly defined,obtuse legislationon the statue books.As said you would want to be a professor in law to know our firearms laws inside out.

Bananaman

It's intended and designed to be, a grey area - no point thinking otherwise.

Only one person is allowed to process your application - so it is very subjective, as that individual must decide if they think "it resembles".

If that individual decides that a CZ 452 or an Anschutz 2011, "resembles" an assault rifle - then it does - Unless you get the decision overturned by a higher authority.

People are discussing this in terms of it being an objective decision, based on defined criteria - when the legislation was obviously designed to be the opposite - i.e. to cover any decision made - the eponymous "idontlikethelookofthat" - sure they even built in the "isthatusedintheolympics" clause that has been used for years too.

What is obvious is that the only alternative, under the current civil servants, are lists - which highlight what is or is not allowed (you can call them "guidelines" if you like, but that is like calling a telephone pole an "ex tree") and, as we all know, there be monsters down that path too.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Again I have to ask ....... Whats wrong with applying for a restricted license? (unless your ch super is operating a blanket ban on all restricted firearms)

Absolutely nothing, which is why I don't really understand why so many people want to dive head-first into the gray area here.

There is a concern at applying for the wrong kind of licence though - because the law is written in such a way that if you do that, even innocently, then you'll be the only one left without a chair when the music stops.

If it ever comes to the Gardai arguing that you got.an unrestricted license for what should have been restricted - when you, in good faith, disclosed everything and did not.try to play the system ..... Then your ass is already in a sling for something else and they are just gilding the lily.

It's not really gilding the lily - in such a situation you'd be looking at the prospect of being charged with possession of an unlicenced firearm, and your only defence is citing your due diligence, and given the way the law's written, that's far from a solid defence.

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Not personal at all

Glad to hear it!

Sorry, this is turning into a legal barrel length debate.

Don't mention the war...

In short bananaman is offering the best advice.....

Actually, I wouldn't think that was good advice at all, if I'm honest - as I've already said, if you get an unrestricted licence for a restricted firearm -- whether by chancing your arm or by deliberately ignoring any hint you had the wrong kind of licence or because of bad advice from the local firearms officer or bad practice by the local Super -- and you're caught, then you really don't have any effective defence. The law says it's on you to have the right kind of licence, not anyone else. If there's any doubt one way or the other, I'd apply for the restricted licence just to be safe.

BoatMad

Bananaman wrote: »

It's intended and designed to be, a grey area - no point thinking otherwise.

Only one person is allowed to process your application - so it is very subjective, as that individual must decide if they think "it resembles".

If that individual decides that a CZ 452 or an Anschutz 2011, "resembles" an assault rifle - then it does - Unless you get the decision overturned by a higher authority.



B'Man

But that's one of my points the fact is a single individual doesn't decide. They can effectively do an incompent job, not check what firearm is what, give you the wrong license and it's you the holder that gets screwed.

gunhappy_ie

Sparks wrote: »

Glad to hear it!Don't mention the war...Actually, I wouldn't think that was good advice at all, if I'm honest - as I've already said, if you get an unrestricted licence for a restricted firearm -- whether by chancing your arm or by deliberately ignoring any hint you had the wrong kind of licence or because of bad advice from the local firearms officer or bad practice by the local Super -- and you're caught, then you really don't have any effective defence. The law says it's on you to have the right kind of licence, not anyone else. If there's any doubt one way or the other, I'd apply for the restricted licence just to be safe.

I think your getting confused..... I ment:

Bananaman wrote: »

Again I have to ask ....... Whats wrong with applying for a restricted license? (unless your ch super is operating a blanket ban on all restricted firearms)

If you apply for it as reztricted and provide documentation as to why you (and a letter from the RFD to same effect) believe it to be non restricted and you get issued your license then out you go and shoot.

If it ever comes to the Gardai arguing that you got.an unrestricted license for what should have been restricted - when you, in good faith, disclosed everything and did not.try to play the system ..... Then your ass is already in a sling for something else and they are just gilding the lily.

B'Man

In the above mentioned scenario if after you providing your CS with all the information of a firearm and reasons why you are applying for it as restricted along with reasons why you deem it to be non restricted. If that CS agrees with you and its signed off on as non restricted then does that not cover you ?

Again as B'man has pointed out, theres nothing wrong with applying for a firearm as restricted. It doesnt immediatly put you on a suspected terrorist list that your every movement is tracked on.

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

I think your getting confused..... I ment:

Ah, grand.

In the above mentioned scenario if after you providing your CS with all the information of a firearm and reasons why you are applying for it as restricted along with reasons why you deem it to be non restricted. If that CS agrees with you and its signed off on as non restricted then does that not cover you ?

No, because you're letting the Chief Super decide on what kind of licence to issue and that has two problems: 1) the law doesn't allow the Chief Super to grant an unrestricted licence so it might well be ruled to be null and void; and 2) the law definitely doesn't allow the Chief Super to rule on what is and isn't restricted, which one is which is laid out in the SI and he's not allowed overrule that. So if he made the call incorrectly, your licence would be null and void again.

And that's a very stark illustration of how much a mess the law is -- the licencing authority isn't allowed to decide which licence to issue (either it's unrestricted and issued by the super or it's restricted and issued by the CS, and the two can't swap over); but the SI has subjective judgements built into it (with the "resembles" clause) and lots of gray areas.

In other words, some parts of the law implicitly require something that other parts specifically prohibit!

BoatMad

Thinking about it , there is a simple way to solve this and that's to increase the questions the FCA1 asks you essentially it should require you to answer all the relevant SI questions. For example, does this firearm resemble an assault rifle ( yes/ no). Then the decision as to restricted or unrestricted should fall to the FO. The Resulting license as long as you don't lie or mod the firearm should then not be contestable.

It would also make people who were tempted to under inform on the basis that all they want is any license to think twice. For example if the form said, is the magazine e behind the trigger ( a bullpup as defined in SI) then you remove all the silly arguments over buckmarks etc which clearly under Irish definitions are restricted yet many many are licensed as unrestricted because either the applicant or the FO didint realise the issue.

Sparks

BoatMad wrote: »

Thinking about it , there is a simple way to solve this and that's to increase the questions the FCA1 asks you essentially it should require you to answer all the relevant SI questions. For example, does this firearm resemble an assault rifle ( yes/ no). Then the decision as to restricted or unrestricted should fall to the FO. The Resulting license as long as you don't lie or mod the firearm should then not be contestable.

What if the FO decides incorrectly? You still run the risk of having a null and void licence.

The problem here is that the restricted and unrestricted licences aren't legally constructed in such a way that one is a subset of the other (ie. you can't have a restricted licence for an unrestricted firearm). It's one or the other, and it's on the applicant to have the right one.

Like I said, a complete mess.