Legal magazine capacity

b_mac

As title suggests, I was wondering does the magazine in rifles or shotguns need to be altered so it can only hold x number of rounds legally?

Witcher

Yeah, 10 for a rimfire, 3 for a shotgun, 5 for a pistol, no restriction on centrefires. Unless you have a restricted licence.

juice1304

as blay has said. just to add to the shotgun limit it is two in the mag and one in the chamber for a total of three.

b_mac

juice1304 wrote: »

as blay has said. just to add to the shotgun limit it is two in the mag and one in the chamber for a total of three.

Is it up to you to ensure only 3 rounds are kept in the magazine of the shotgun or has it to be altered so it can only hold 3 rounds?

Witcher

b_mac wrote: »

Is it up to you to ensure only 3 rounds are kept in the magazine of the shotgun or has it to be altered so it can only hold 3 rounds?

Most people just put a bit of wooden dowel into the magazine tube to stop more being put in.

Grizzly 45

It has to be alterd. But there is no specification in the law on how this must be done.

b_mac

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It has to be alterd. But there is no specification in the law on how this must be done.

And the Firearms Officer will check this if and when the weapon is inspected?

Witcher

b_mac wrote: »

And the Firearms Officer will check this if and when the weapon is inspected?

The Gardai don't inspect the firearm, they might have a look if your security was ever checked at random but other than that no.

b_mac

Blay wrote: »

The Gardai don't inspect the firearm, they might have a look if your security was ever checked at random but other than that no.

Thank you, sorry for all the Q's but can a plug be bought for the magazine? If so could it be easily removed?

juice1304

b_mac wrote: »

And the Firearms Officer will check this if and when the weapon is inspected?

They might, I have heard of it being done. A NWPS ranger also might check it if you are stopped.
If the shotgun can hold more than two in the mag you would be in possession of an unlicenced restricted shotgun technically. Well unless you have a restricted licence but I only know of a handful of restricted shotgun licences in the country. Most manufacturers of shotguns make a plug that you can insert into the mag to comply with the law as in america etc.. alot of states would impose the same mag restrictions when hunting.
You don't want to take it out.
This is what they look like.

Witcher

b_mac wrote: »

Thank you, sorry for all the Q's but can a plug be bought for the magazine? If so could it be easily removed?

A piece of dowel or plastic rod or such is normally used to stop the follower letting more rounds in. It could be removed but it would void the licence.

b_mac

juice1304 wrote: »

They might, I have heard of it being done. A NWPS ranger also might check it if you are stopped.
If the shotgun can hold more than two in the mag you would be in possession of an unlicenced restricted shotgun technically. Well unless you have a restricted licence but I only know of a handful of restricted shotgun licences in the country. Most manufacturers of shotguns make a plug that you can insert into the mag to comply with the law as in america etc.. alot of states would impose the same mag restrictions when hunting.
You don't want to take it out.
This is what they look like.

Why is it so hard to get a restricted shotgun licence?

juice1304

b_mac wrote: »

Why is it so hard to get a restricted shotgun licence?

Because you have to prove that you actually need a restricted shotgun over an unrestricted one. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt that you need it not just want it.
When you apply for a restricted licence it is the chief superintendent that decides to grant the licence or not, And many of them are not too fond of restricted anything.
It is their ass on the line if something were to go wrong etc...
If you have a real and valid reason for owning one you can have it though, You may need to go to court for it in some cases. I actually own one myself I didn't need to go to court thankfully.:D:D:p:pac:
In most if not all applications for a restricted firearm you will go for an interview with the cs.

b_mac

juice1304 wrote: »

Because you have to prove that you actually need a restricted shotgun over an unrestricted one. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt that you need it not just want it.
When you apply for a restricted licence it is the chief superintendent that decides to grant the licence or not, And many of them are not too fond of restricted anything.
It is their ass on the line if something were to go wrong etc...
If you have a real and valid reason for owning one you can have it though, You may need to go to court for it in some cases. I actually own one myself I didn't need to go to court thankfully.:D:D:p:pac:
In most if not all applications for a restricted firearm you will go for an interview with the cs.

What reasons do people have to get a restricted licence?

juice1304

b_mac wrote: »

What reasons do people have to get a restricted licence?

I'm not really at liberty to say,
As you need a real and valid reason it would be down to the individual circumstances and the application would be granted based on that. There is no way really to get one unless there is a specific need for it.
I'm not going to say why i need it etc.. as someone might try and use that information to make a false application which would be in breach of the firearms act etc... and i don't want to be implicated in anything like that.
Anyway you couldn't hunt game with a shotgun with more than two in the mag and one in the chamber as otherwise you would be in breach of the wildlife act.
It could be used for vermin etc... but i can't really imagine needing to fire so many rounds at once is going to happen very much ,if ever...
It would also make the gun heavier so it's pointability wouldn't be as good etc...
I leave mine in all the time as i don't see the point in taking it out.

bravestar

b_mac wrote: »

What reasons do people have to get a restricted licence?

There is only one reason. That being, you are incapable of doing the job with an unrestricted firearm. It's then up to you to show why this is the case.

Grizzly 45

bravestar wrote: »

There is only one reason. That being, you are incapable of doing the job with an unrestricted firearm. It's then up to you to show why this is the case.

You are a lousy shot????:p:p:p

b_mac

If you, lets say, worked with weapons at work or something along them lines would getting a restricted licence easier?

juice1304

No is the simple answer.
The only way of being granted one is by having a valid reason.

From the commissioners guidelines

Additional Requirements in th
e Case of an A
pplication for a
Restricted Firearm Certificate and
Restriction on Licensing of Short
Firearms
Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended,
requires an application for a restricted
firearm certificate to be made to the Comm
issioner who has delega
ted his function under
this section to chief superinte
ndents of the Garda Síochána.
The chief superintendent must be satis
fied as to the following requirements:
(a) that the applicant fully complies with the conditions as provided for by
section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925
as amended by section 32 of the
Criminal Justice Act, 2006 i.e. the cond
itions in the case of an application
for a non restricted firearm (as outlined above).
(b) that the applicant has good and sufficient reason for requiring the firearm
for which the certificate is sought, and
(c)
has demonstrated that the firearm is the only type of weapon that is
.....
appropriate for the purpose for which it is required.

http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/Commissioners%20Guidelines%20%28as%20amended%2022nd%20Oct%29%20in%20relation%20to%20Firearms%20Licensing%5B1%5D.pdf

rowa

bravestar wrote: »

There is only one reason. That being, you are incapable of doing the job with an unrestricted firearm. It's then up to you to show why this is the case.

Its all a load of donkey b**ls, licence the man, not the gun. Either someone is safe with a firearm or they aren't. If they are safe then it shouldn't matter what the gun is, if they are not safe then they shouldn't have anything. Too many self important, alphabet soup irish shooting organisations, know all's getting their oar's in, signing off other peoples guns to save their own.

juice1304

The whole thing is a joke really, I have a restricted shotgun and a centerfire rifle for deer but my super won't grant me a mod for my .22:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I completely agree it should be the person that is licenced.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Its all a load of donkey b**ls, licence the man, not the gun.

We had that legal precedent and then someone took another lawsuit in the full belief it was a sure thing and lost. And now we don't have that legal precendent and there's a legal decision from the High Court saying that the super is perfectly entitled to consider the firearm as well as the applicant.

b_mac

juice1304 wrote: »

The whole thing is a joke really, I have a restricted shotgun and a centerfire rifle for deer but my super won't grant me a mod for my .22:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I completely agree it should be the person that is licenced.

Exactly. A scumbag or person with hidden mental health issues can do a lot more damage with a non-restricted weapon than someone with an assault rifle who is stable and obeys the law 100%.

rowa

Irish firearms licencing, a place where logic and common sense simply don't exist :rolleyes:. I was told when the new firearms licencing system was mooted in the media and online , that we as shooters had nothing to fear. What you had licenced you could keep (no new restricted pistols though), and the man would be licenced and not the gun , pretty much the system they have in the north. all lies.

Cass

b_mac wrote: »

And the Firearms Officer will check this if and when the weapon is inspected?

b_mac wrote: »

If you, lets say, worked with weapons at work or something along them lines would getting a restricted licence easier?

b_mac wrote: »

Exactly. A scumbag or person with hidden mental health issues can do a lot more damage with a non-restricted weapon than someone with an assault rifle who is stable and obeys the law 100%.

Two things. We don't use weapons and don't own assault rifles. That is TV slang coming through. We use firearms, and rifles/shotguns. Or simply - guns.


It's an image thing. The constant use of the word weapon conjures images of death, attack, killings, and all the usual negative connotations associated with guns. We use our firearms for sporting, and legal pursuits so on this forum we ask that the word weapon is not used.

Thanks.

meathstevie

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever heard about someone successfully applying for a restricted licence on the grounds of not wishing to destroy or substantialy devalueing a valueable collectors piece ? Kind of thinking down the lines of older large bore double rifles or handguns of historical value in private possession.

rowa

meathstevie wrote: »

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever heard about someone successfully applying for a restricted licence on the grounds of not wishing to destroy or substantialy devalueing a valueable collectors piece ? Kind of thinking down the lines of older large bore double rifles or handguns of historical value in private possession.

I seen a pistol used in the 1916 rising with holes drilled in it before the family were allowed to have it back from gardai storage. If a firearm so important had to be deactivated like that what chance do you think you'd have arguing you paid a lot for a collector piece ? Not going to happen.

Snakezilla

We really should be grateful for the licencing system that we have, as lousy as it may be.. If a group of anti's wanted, they probably could get laws changed to where gun ownership was completely wiped out...if they kicked up enough of a fuss. All this "8 out of 10 farmers" crap in the media the past couple of days isnt helping our sport. I was disgusted when I saw a newspaper yesterday with a s/s shotgun being pointed at the camera. I have to agree - License the man would be a far better way of doing things.

pedroeibar1

meathstevie wrote: »

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever heard about someone successfully applying for a restricted licence on the grounds of not wishing to destroy or substantialy devalueing a valueable collectors piece ? Kind of thinking down the lines of older large bore double rifles or handguns of historical value in private possession.

Not sure that I agree with Rowa's take on what happens. If it it an old gun of unusual calibre its ammo would not be available so I'd go for an exemption on the 'antique' basis. If you have valid grounds and explain it properly I believe that there should not be an issue. The Gardai did not make the rules, they have to implement them and if you can politely show why it should be exempt and where in the Act you can support your claim (without losing the head) it should work. I can see the difficulty with a .45 Webley or S&W pistol but if there is good provenance there is a case to be argued.
I have a restricted licence .... under the new Firearms legislation my .22 was classified as R because it is semiauto and the (tube)mag contains 18 rounds. First time round I had to explain to the local Sgt. why it should be restricted, then at renewal I was interviewed by the CS and had no issues. I've had a few dealings with FO's and the guys in the Park and TBH I've found them all reasonable and very decent to deal with.

rowa

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not sure that I agree with Rowa's take on what happens. If it it an old gun of unusual calibre its ammo would not be available so I'd go for an exemption on the 'antique' basis. If you have valid grounds and explain it properly I believe that there should not be an issue. The Gardai did not make the rules, they have to implement them and if you can politely show why it should be exempt and where in the Act you can support your claim (without losing the head) it should work. I can see the difficulty with a .45 Webley or S&W pistol but if there is good provenance there is a case to be argued.
I have a restricted licence .... under the new Firearms legislation my .22 was classified as R because it is semiauto and the (tube)mag contains 18 rounds. First time round I had to explain to the local Sgt. why it should be restricted, then at renewal I was interviewed by the CS and had no issues. I've had a few dealings with FO's and the guys in the Park and TBH I've found them all reasonable and very decent to deal with.

If a firearm takes a metallic cased cartridge, no matter if it is obsolete or not, then it must be held on a full firearms licence. How do i know ? Because (A) its in the commissioners guidelines and (B) I asked the superintendent after seeing a very old rifle in an obsolete calibre for sale in the uk that i wanted to buy.
I explained to both the local firearms officer and then to the super that the rifle was able to be held without licence in the uk under there provision for obsolete calibres. They both told me the same thing, if it can chamber a metallic cartridge eg. is not an original muzzle loader , then it must be held on a licence.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

If a firearm takes a metallic cased cartridge, no matter if it is obsolete or not, then it must be held on a full firearms licence. How do i know ? Because (A) its in the commissioners guidelines and (B) I asked the superintendent after seeing a very old rifle in an obsolete calibre for sale in the uk that i wanted to buy.

Neither A nor B is the actual law though rowa.
Though in practice, there isn't actually any definition of what an antique firearm actually is, there's just "we've always done it this way" and even there that varies from place to place.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Neither A nor B is the actual law though rowa.
Though in practice, there isn't actually any definition of what an antique firearm actually is, there's just "we've always done it this way" and even there that varies from place to place.

Yes Sparks. Two points though 1. What does the actual law have to do with getting a licence in ireland, surely the recent pistol debacle proves this ? 2. Who in there right mind is going to go through an expensive court case to obtain what is in effect a wall hanger ?
A garda told me about buying a firearm chambered in an obsolete calibre " if you really wanted to you could get that thing firing again" and he had a point, unless it was a very old rimfire round or something exceptionally rare, brass would probabily be obtainable for it, and that seemed to be the opinion i kept getting from whoever i asked. Original muzzle loaders they had no problem with though.

It wasn't me!

The UK's law on obsolete calibres specified, if I recall correctly, that ammunition not be currently commercially produced. That's something that would give me a major squeaky arse, since with absolutely nothing to do with me, a company thousands of miles away can make a decision to produce ammo in that calibre again. I might not even hear about it, but suddenly I have an unlicensed firearm. I saw a .450/400 double for sale on Guntrader before, the seller of which was advertising that as an obsolete calibre, no licence was required. Problem was, I knew Hornady had decided that was a cartridge they were going to load for and bring back (Since Ruger were chambering it in the No. 1), so that guy, though in all good faith, was trying to get people to buy a rifle without licensing it. It's a bit of a crap definition really. If we could have a bit of sense and just see that there's shag all difference in risk of ownership between the various types of firearm, get on with licensing individuals and letting them make the decisions about what they want to own and shoot, that'd be lovely.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Yes Sparks. Two points though 1. What does the actual law have to do with getting a licence in ireland, surely the recent pistol debacle proves this ?

No, that's not what that debacle proved. What it proved was that the loud shouty people who tell you that they can beat the government in the courts are full of hot air and little else and that others tend to suffer when we do what they suggest. It should also have proven that we never seem to take the court cases we should be taking. Example - someone applies for a pistol licence for a pistol that's not on the list in the commissioner's guidelines but does qualify under the law. The FPU says yay, then Ballistics says nay and the Super goes along with Ballistics. That is a case that should be appealed - but we don't take those cases for some reason...

2. Who in there right mind is going to go through an expensive court case to obtain what is in effect a wall hanger ?

Nobody, I would hope (I keep hoping for sane people and this country continues to cause me despair) - but there's a long, long walk between knowing something is down to a Super's whim and going along with that for a quiet life or because the cost/benefit analysis says it's not worth it; and thinking that a Super's whim is the same thing as statute law.
I think most people would agree I'm safely in the "not a shouty person" camp :pac: -- but that doesn't mean I think we should be empowering whims like that where the law doesn't back it up, regardless of whether it's a natter over a pint in the snug or an opening argument in front of a supreme court judge.

MacsuibhneR

Example - someone applies for a pistol licence for a pistol that's not on the list in the commissioner's guidelines but does qualify under the law. The FPU says yay, then Ballistics says nay and the Super goes along with Ballistics. That is a case that should be appealed - but we don't take those cases for some reason...




That's not correct, I know of at least two district court appeals on this very point that are on going at the moment. I won't discuss these cases any further to comply with the site rules.

These types of cases are being taken at district court level but it will be at the applicant's own expense (after the recent High Court Ruling on Costs). I don't know if anyone has tried to Judicially Review any of the decisions on these grounds and gone directly into the High Court but again costs would be a major factor to decide to go to the District Court in the First Instance.

On the Antique firearm point it is my understanding a restricted licence could be granted for an antique rifle and the "good reason" requirement for having the restricted licence is on the basis of it's value, historical significance etc. It wouldn't be possible to licence a centre-fire pistol on this basis though.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

That's not correct, I know of at least two district court appeals on this very point that are on going at the moment. I won't discuss these cases any further to comply with the site rules.

That's great news, I hadn't heard of those cases. Looking forward to hearing about a positive result when they're done.

But - they need to be JRs in the High Court rather than DC appeals to be of use to the wider community, and it's the cases being taken by NGBs backing individuals to affect the system that I'm talking about, not personal appeals. I'm not saying anything against the DC appeals but they tend not to have an effect for anyone other than the applicant, whereas HC JR cases do (which can cut both ways). In the past, those were mainly (though not always) taken to try to use the courts as a stick to beat the government, and that never worked (and we all suffered as a result of many of them failing); but the quieter cases where the case would just answer one single point about the law conclusively (such as, can I legally licence a rifle with a barrel shorter than 50cm if it came from the factory that way and was that way when the licence was issued?) were never pushed that way and should have been.

I don't know if anyone has tried to Judicially Review any of the decisions on these grounds and gone directly into the High Court but again costs would be a major factor to decide to go to the District Court in the First Instance.

As far as I know nobody's done this on a HC level. There's a veritable list of this kind of case, where specific points of law are vague enough to need to be backed by precedent in court; but there's never been a push to address that list. I have a somewhat jaded view of this I'm afraid :pac:

On the Antique firearm point it is my understanding a restricted licence could be granted for an antique rifle and the "good reason" requirement for having the restricted licence is on the basis of it's value, historical significance etc. It wouldn't be possible to licence a centre-fire pistol on this basis though.

That would be my understanding as well, but the law is supposed to provide an alternate route for antiques through article 26 (which we've mentioned once or twice over the years).