Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

.22lr pistol ownership questions

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    dax121 wrote: »
    id imagine if all info was giveing and the super made that mistake its them that would get the earfull. and the guy would be asked to hand the firearms into a dealer while its being sorted out.
    In an ideal world, I'd agree with you; but you're assuming that if, pulled up on the way to the range in another Superintendent's district by a fresh-faced young chap just out of tullamore, the Superintendent would (a) be contactable, (b) be willing to admit his mistake, and (c) was able or willing to waive the charge in favour of a less aggressive approach to solving the problem.

    There aren't terribly many shooters these days who would feel confidant that all three of those things would happen, which is rather a poor statement about the public image of the AGS in our circles these days; but pragmatically speaking, it'd just be better for the shooter to take the lead on sorting things out quietly than to try to argue the point...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,296 ✭✭✭rowa


    You're assuming the super/chief super would own up to the mistake and make moves to rectify the situation if an illegal firearm was licenced ,but it dosn't mean they would do this. There was a case a few years back where a shooter bought a glock pistol and was mistakenly sent a glock model 18 from austria, this is a select fire pistol , he done the decent thing and went to the gardai and told them what happened , they didn't want to know. As far as they were concerned the pistol had a licence , the numbers were all correct on gun and licence end of story , the shooter had reported the fact he had an illegal firearm, what else could he do ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭LB6


    send it back to Austria with "not what was ordered" on the return slip?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21 lickarse2


    dax121 wrote: »
    id imagine if all info was giveing and the super made that mistake its them that would get the earfull. and the guy would be asked to hand the firearms into a dealer while its being sorted out.
    these guys arent friends of mine just people i met in a local gun shop and hand a chat about it.
    If all info was given, then the chap would have ticked the Restricted Firearms Certificate box on the FCA1 form and it would have been passed to the Chief Super.

    Easy to check when the earfulls are being doled out I imagine...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Sparks wrote: »
    In an ideal world, I'd agree with you; but you're assuming that if, pulled up on the way to the range in another Superintendent's district by a fresh-faced young chap just out of tullamore, the Superintendent would (a) be contactable, (b) be willing to admit his mistake, and (c) was able or willing to waive the charge in favour of a less aggressive approach to solving the problem.

    It wouldn't need to be an ideal world. The licence that he has contains all the info to prove that the Super gave him the licence. If the details of the gun are the same as on his application form, then he hasn't done anything wrong. It's not his fault that the CS gave him the firearm.

    That said, he would technically be in possession of a firearm that he shouldn't have. The worst thing that could happen is that it is taken off him. I can't see how he would be in any more trouble.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    ...except that he ticked a box on the application form stating that he was applying for a licence for an unrestricted firearm, which according to the law means he's broken the firearms act. It's a stupid, stupid law and we've been saying so for six years now, but it's still on the books.

    Put it this way; would you want to be the one sitting in the cells overnight while this all gets sorted out? To have to explain to the boss that you got arrested for a firearms offence, "but it's all grand now"? Or to have to go back and apply for a firearm with the local station ever again?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    It wouldn't need to be an ideal world. The licence that he has contains all the info to prove that the Super gave him the licence. If the details of the gun are the same as on his application form, then he hasn't done anything wrong. It's not his fault that the CS gave him the firearm.

    That said, he would technically be in possession of a firearm that he shouldn't have. The worst thing that could happen is that it is taken off him. I can't see how he would be in any more trouble.

    The potential penalties are pretty severe. Just because he has a licence doesn't mean it's valid, and if it's for a restricted short firearm he didn't have before November 2008, then the licence is invalid on the face of it. It cannot legally have been granted and so doesn't exist. The onus is on the applicant to make sure that all is correct, and if it's for something that can't be licensed, then it's the responsibility of the applicant to know that and not apply for it in the first place.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭Hibrion


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    It wouldn't need to be an ideal world. The licence that he has contains all the info to prove that the Super gave him the licence. If the details of the gun are the same as on his application form, then he hasn't done anything wrong. It's not his fault that the CS gave him the firearm.

    That said, he would technically be in possession of a firearm that he shouldn't have. The worst thing that could happen is that it is taken off him. I can't see how he would be in any more trouble.

    The responsibility is on him to know what he is licensing. It is written into the regulations that the individual will be responsible, not the issuing officer.

    I would imagine there would be serious consequences for the officer also, but ultimately, the individual in question could face jail time for an un-licensed firearm. It's a silly country we live in a lot of the time, but forewarned is forearmed. one should always do the research on their firearm as best as possible to avoid future hassle.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    I stand corrected, my bad.

    Funny though that we can be in trouble for a very small mistake or possibly not even our mistake, yet the hammer doesn't seem to fall as hard on people who alter official documents after a court case starts.

    Does attempting to pervert the course of justice spring to mind?????


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Funny though that we can be in trouble for a very small mistake or possibly not even our mistake, yet the hammer doesn't seem to fall as hard on people who alter official documents after a court case starts.
    Yup.
    Does attempting to pervert the course of justice spring to mind?????
    No, but signing a court case settlement that agrees that the people involved did nothing wrong does.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Sparks wrote: »
    Yup. No, but signing a court case settlement that agrees that the people involved did nothing wrong does.


    It is starting to sound like defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    It is starting to sound like defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory :(
    I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I didn't really think the kind of changes we need could ever have been achieved through the courts anyway, and the court cases have pretty much stomped on the neck of the means to achieve those changes, at least in the short term.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,313 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    rowa wrote: »
    . There was a case a few years back where a shooter bought a glock pistol and was mistakenly sent a glock model 18 from austria, this is a select fire pistol , he done the decent thing and went to the gardai and told them what happened , they didn't want to know. As far as they were concerned the pistol had a licence , the numbers were all correct on gun and licence end of story , the shooter had reported the fact he had an illegal firearm, what else could he do ?

    Would really still love to know how this happened,or is this really a urban myth of Boards ???:)

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Thread really happened, we removed it on the request of the OP after he found out that it was illegal under EU law and was trying to fix the problem more aggressively before it fixed him.


Advertisement