Antique rifles status

black powder colt

As per the heading i was woundering can one possess a rifle purely as an curiosty without haveing it deactavated my intrest is regarding a mauser mod 1871. Ammunition is no longer made for this rifle. I do not wish to go through the rig of a restricted licence although it would probably go ok given i have no desire to fire the rifle.

rowa

If it fires a metallic cartridge, obsolete or not ,then you need a licence. only original Muzzleloaders are ok to have off ticket.

madred006

black powder colt wrote: »

As per the heading i was woundering can one possess a rifle purely as an curiosty without haveing it deactavated my intrest is regarding a mauser mod 1871. Ammunition is no longer made for this rifle. I do not wish to go through the rig of a restricted licence although it would probably go ok given i have no desire to fire the rifle.

Afraid licence is required .

The Aussie

rowa wrote: »

If it fires a metallic cartridge, obsolete or not ,then you need a licence. only original Muzzleloaders are ok to have off ticket.

Out of interest, how would that then stand if reloading came in ?

They would all then have to be deactivated I presume.

IRLConor

The Aussie wrote: »

Out of interest, how would that then stand if reloading came in ?

They would all then have to be deactivated I presume.

It probably wouldn't change anything. Why would it?

rowa

The Aussie wrote: »

Out of interest, how would that then stand if reloading came in ?

They would all then have to be deactivated I presume.

You mean that people would be shooting original muzzleloaders if they could get their hands on loose powder ? Possible, but you would be playing with an unexploded bomb loading up an out of proof 150 year old smoke pole, unless you knew exactly what you are at.

tac foley

I shoot a 152-year old muzzle-loader, but it's proofed with a charge almost double the one that I use in it.

tac

The Aussie

tac foley wrote: »

I shoot a 152-year old muzzle-loader, but it's proofed with a charge almost double the one that I use in it.

tac

Tac. Do you use Nitrocellulose powder in it?

Bang up a picture of it if you could, rest it on one of your trains if you wish.

rowa wrote: »

You mean that people would be shooting original muzzleloaders if they could get their hands on loose powder ? Possible, but you would be playing with an unexploded bomb loading up an out of proof 150 year old smoke pole, unless you knew exactly what you are at.

Yep, that's what I was wondering, cheers. Regarding Proofing a Rifle it's slightly off topic but how come there is no requirement to Proof Test rifles in Ireland?

tac foley

No, I shoot the real deal, FFg black powder. When that is not available, I use one of the substitutes, usually Pyrodex RS. Performs the same as BP, but uses 10% less by volume, and needs no permit to buy here.

I am not going to re-enter into the discussion of gun-proofing in the Republic of Ireland. Suffice it to say that ANY firearm made in any of the CIP countries that comes into Ireland will have been proofed.

tac

Witcher

The Aussie wrote: »

Regarding Proofing a Rifle it's slightly off topic but how come there is no requirement to Proof Test rifles in Ireland?

When there was a production industry here they used to be sent to England to be proofed afaik but the industry went under and after the 1972 Custody Order things became quite restrictive so rifles etc. weren't being produced here. It's only in the last few years that custom rifles and one off production have become a realistic prospect here, there just hasn't been an issue with an unproofed rifle yet..again that's afaik. If one should arise then proofing etc. might be looked at.

rowa

The Aussie wrote: »

Yep, that's what I was wondering, cheers. Regarding Proofing a Rifle it's slightly off topic but how come there is no requirement to Proof Test rifles in Ireland?

There is a legal requirement to proof in ireland afaik, the proof law was never repealed. But this is ireland and we just ignore laws we don't like. Interestingly in a recent thread here , garnett and keegans gunshop turned out to have a private proof house under their shop in parliament street. The proof issue has been brought up here before and always ends in a bloodbath , so like tac, i don't want to reenter that particular topic.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1968062000006?opendocument

The Aussie

rowa wrote: »

The proof issue has been brought up here before and always ends in a bloodbath , so like tac, i don't want to reenter that particular topic.

Yes I just went for a look, might let that sleeping dog sleep.

The things blokes get excited about hey.


Thanks for the replys.

tac foley

Now that the Republic of Ireland has a well-established custom gun manufacturing basis, the chances of seeing such a piece here in UK are increasing dramatically, but right now, as it stands, any rifle made in the Republic from pressure-bearing components sourced outside a CIP country - the USA for instance - would have to be proofed here in London or Birmingham before the dealer could sell it to the new owner in ANY of the CIP signature nations - that's basically Europe and Scandinavia, if you can't be bothered to look it up.

No big deal, IMO, just a sticking point for some - again, the actual builder in Ireland might himself have objections to his 'baby' having to be proofed.

So who loses here?

Only the person outside the Republic of Ireland, who, having seen some of the exquisite work done by Irish custom gun-builders, might want to try something different, and cannot, by law.

I'm out of the proof part of the thread now, but I'll answer anything further on the subject by PM, if needed.

tac

meathstevie

tac foley wrote: »

Now that the Republic of Ireland has a well-established custom gun manufacturing basis, the chances of seeing such a piece here in UK are increasing dramatically, but right now, as it stands, any rifle made in the Republic from pressure-bearing components sourced outside a CIP country - the USA for instance - would have to be proofed here in London or Birmingham before the dealer could sell it to the new owner in ANY of the CIP signature nations - that's basically Europe and Scandinavia, if you can't be bothered to look it up.

No big deal, IMO, just a sticking point for some - again, the actual builder in Ireland might himself have objections to his 'baby' having to be proofed.

So who loses here?

Only the person outside the Republic of Ireland, who, having seen some of the exquisite work done by Irish custom gun-builders, might want to try something different, and cannot, by law.

I'm out of the proof part of the thread now, but I'll answer anything further on the subject by PM, if needed.

tac

Doesn't necessary have to be done in London or Birmingham, Belgian, German or Spanish proof house stamps for example will do just as well.

Grizzly 45

TBH,most of the actions and barrells bought here and gun plumbed are going to be already in proof before thy are mated to a stock??Dont think there is many lads taking a block of steel and a tube of steel and drilling,reaming and cutting chambers and rifling barrells ,or building actions from a block of steel??

tac foley

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

TBH,most of the actions and barrells bought here and gun plumbed are going to be already in proof before thy are mated to a stock??Dont think there is many lads taking a block of steel and a tube of steel and drilling,reaming and cutting chambers and rifling barrells ,or building actions from a block of steel??

The rule in the CIP countries is a simple one - the assembled firearm is proofed as an entire firearm. How can anybody know that action is going on a barrel, or vice versa? I've never seen a proofed action or barrel as seperate items. Who knows what is going to be put on an action? Who knows what calibre is going into a rifled but unchambered barrel, and just how would you prove a barrel without an action and suitable cartridge?

There are two gunbuilders of some repute in my club - they use actions from Stolle, Barnard and others, and barrels from anybody you can name. When they have put them together - THEN the firearm - because that is what it now is, is sent for proof.

And of course, an Irish gun builder can send his finished gun to any CIP-approved proof house - Eibar in Spain, Gardone Val Trompia in Italy, any of the German places, St Etienne in France, Ferlach/Steyr in Austria or even Finland. However, it is probably a lot cheaper and easier to deal with the two British proof houses.

tac

Cass

rowa wrote: »

There is a legal requirement to proof in ireland afaik, the proof law was never repealed.

As i mentioned in two other threads, actually responding your posts too, the law was repealed very shortly (months) after it was brought in. There was a revision, published October 31st 2012, but still nothing further. As i said there are plans to have it enacted but since i first posted about it till now i have heard nothing on any progress with this.

rowa

Cass wrote: »

As i mentioned in two other threads, actually responding your posts too, the law was repealed very shortly (months) after it was brought in. There was a revision, published October 31st 2012, but still nothing further. As i said there are plans to have it enacted but since i first posted about it till now i have heard nothing on any progress with this.

Not surprised, i'd say its way down the list of government priorities.

Cass

Way, way down.

To be seen spending any money on anything shooting related would piss off the general public.

Grizzly 45

tac foley wrote: »

I've never seen a proofed action or barrel as seperate items.

Lothar Walther sells German profed barrells last time I looked for just about any rifle.In fact the Germans cant sell any barrels with or without actions by law unless they are in proof.

and just how would you prove a barrel without an action and suitable cartridge?

I ASSume there is some kind of permanently mounted breech block mechanism
with appropriate threading for the barrel and firing mechanism with a remote firing position.

Who knows what is going to be put on an action? Who knows what calibre is going into a rifled but unchambered barrel,

Pretty simple,if the gun smith puts in an order for a say .308 It is fair to assume it will be going onto a .308 rifle.And it will have to have a chamber cut already.

And of course, an Irish gun builder can send his finished gun to any CIP-approved proof house

-

As I said...DO we have in Ireland somone who does that kind of work???
Do we have anyone that can be handed a lump of wood a lump of steel block and a tube of steel and told."Right go off and make a gun with the following specs now.OH anf BTW no CNC machines,the action MUST be made by hand with files and drills a lathe and elbow grease." THAT is the test piece for being a gunsmith in Germany and Austria.
Could be wrong,but I dont think there is anyone with that sort of a qualification here... IOW we buy in already proof actions and barrels and build around them.
The proof act in Ireland only came in when there was a short lived run of shotguns being made here in the late 1960s[Kavanaghs The Fenian O/U,made in Birr Co Offaly]
There is or was a proof house in Dublin Castle set up for this,but we never hired a "master proofer" so the whole project with the demise of Kavanaghs and the political situation made an Irish proof house as useful as a ashtray on a motorbike.

tac foley

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Lothar Walther sells German profed barrells last time I looked for just about any rifle.In fact the Germans cant sell any barrels with or without actions by law unless they are in proof.



I ASSume there is some kind of permanently mounted breech block mechanism
with appropriate threading for the barrel and firing mechanism with a remote firing position.



Pretty simple,if the gun smith puts in an order for a say .308 It is fair to assume it will be going onto a .308 rifle.And it will have to have a chamber cut already.


-

As I said...DO we have in Ireland somone who does that kind of work???
Do we have anyone that can be handed a lump of wood a lump of steel block and a tube of steel and told."Right go off and make a gun with the following specs now.OH anf BTW no CNC machines,the action MUST be made by hand with files and drills a lathe and elbow grease." THAT is the test piece for being a gunsmith in Germany and Austria.
Could be wrong,but I dont think there is anyone with that sort of a qualification here... IOW we buy in already proof actions and barrels and build around them.
The proof act in Ireland only came in when there was a short lived run of shotguns being made here in the late 1960s[Kavanaghs The Fenian O/U,made in Birr Co Offaly]
There is or was a proof house in Dublin Castle set up for this,but we never hired a "master proofer" so the whole project with the demise of Kavanaghs and the political situation made an Irish proof house as useful as a ashtray on a motorbike.

Seems that I was labouring under the impression that there were Irish custom builders who obtained barrels from the usual makers, and actions, again from the usual makers, put them together in a stock from another maker, and thus made a custom-assembled rifle for his customer in Ireland.

Guess I was wrong about that.

tac

IRLConor

tac foley wrote: »

Seems that I was labouring under the impression that there were Irish custom builders who obtained barrels from the usual makers, and actions, again from the usual makers, put them together in a stock from another maker, and thus made a custom-assembled rifle for his customer in Ireland.

There are such people. Grizzly 45 doesn't consider them to be gunsmiths according to his definition of the title. It's a moot point though, since calling them gunsmiths, gun assemblers or whatever has no impact on whether or not the firearms they produce need to be proofed.

And as you pointed out, anyone making/assembling a gun can send it to a proof house in another country if/when they need to. My rifle is from a country with no proof requirements (Switzerland) but it was proofed so that it could be imported here via the UK. If I had imported it directly I wouldn't have bothered with getting it proofed.

tac foley

I no longer have any Swiss-made handguns, although I one time I had eight and my wife thad three. It's so long ago that I don't recall any obvious proof marks

However, I still have three military Swiss rifles and carbines, and all of them were proofed by the manufacturer - SIG at the Neuhausen arsenal.

As you say, Switzerland is not a CIP member, but although the quality of their arms is not open to any doubt, they STILL have to be proofed in any of the CIP signaturee countries before they can be sold. My last buy before the ban was a brand-new SIG P-210-6 with three calibre conversions. Because the parts were so hard, they could not be stamped, so a proof certificate was issued for each pressure-bearing component - barrel and slide.

tac

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=IRLConor;87329493]There are such people. Grizzly 45 doesn't consider them to be gunsmiths according to his definition of the title. It's a moot point though, since calling them gunsmiths, gun assemblers or whatever has no impact on whether or not the firearms they produce need to be proofed.

IF you haven't got the offical paperwork to say what you are,then you aren't what you claim to be..That's the standard accepted norm in any country ,bar here no doubt.
Doesn't matter how many years you have been doing whatever,how many exellent jobs and your auntie testifying for you.No paperwork,no proof.
That is a "moot point" in law,especially in EU law.

So you say you are a "qualified gunsmith" in Ireland,and build a gun whether from total and utter raw materials or put together a stock and action and sell it to the general public.Congrats..You have now created a product and offerd it for sale.Your product flys apart after the tenth shot ,proofed or not and the owner now wearing bits of your creation comes back for compensation. Which they can under product liability laws.
Good luck in the courts local and EU.First thing going to be asked is how long were you a gunsmith,and what are your OFFICAL qualifications to be claiming such....???There are very good reasons that certain professions have very long apprenticeships and qualifications to claim to be one.Gunsmithing is one of them.
Same as getting your brakes fixed in an Arthur Daly back street mechanic or the dealership.With one you have comeback with the other not.

BTW its not my definition..Its an accepted EU definition of what a gunsmith is.

IRLConor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

IF you haven't got the offical paperwork to say what you are,then you aren't what you claim to be..

Only if the title is a protected title. For example, "engineer" is not protected in Ireland but "chartered engineer" is. Anyone can call themselves an engineer, regardless of qualifications. Only those authorised by Engineers Ireland may call themselves "chartered engineer".

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

BTW its not my definition..Its an accepted EU definition of what a gunsmith is.

Interesting. Do you have a link to the relevant EU directive (or better, the law it's been transposed into here)?

EDIT:

All I could find is "DIRECTIVE 2005/36/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications" which mentions titles recognised in the following countries (all only at the grade of Meister/Maître):

• Austria: Waffengewerbe (Büchsenmacher) einschl. des Waffenhandels
• Germany: Büchsenmacher
• Luxembourg: armurier

There's no such protection/recognition here so anyone may freely call themselves a gunsmith for better or worse. The only impact I could think would be that it might be easier to get insurance if you had a qualification. If you make a gun here and it blows up and injures someone you're just as likely to be held liable if you're Büchsenmachermeister or just some lad with some tools trying his luck.

pedroeibar1

I really don’t see where the argument is here as most of you’re on the same page and fail to see it.

In Ireland anybody can call him/herself a gunsmith (or accountant or architect) and a scary number of them do; that is why I’ve yet to hear of an English gunsmith/gunshop buying an old quality gun at auction here – ask any UK shop about an ‘Irish’ Cogswell and Harrison 'Avant Tout' for example and the horror stories will unfold. Just look at the many butchered guns – s#ite work, guntered screws, nothing in line, ‘shur it’ll be grand for this season’ guns that abound here.

From an insurance perspective (product liability if you are a manufacturer) no insurer will cover you unless you can prove that you have a formalised quality program in place and that includes certified qualifications for staff. It does not matter s#it if you have spent years at a bench, no paper = no qualification. (Some nurses spend years in a theatre, but would you prefer one of them or a surgeon to use a knife on you?)

IRLConnor is correct when he says If you make a gun here and it blows up and injures someone you're just as likely to be held liable if you're Büchsenmachermeister or just some lad with some tools trying his luck.
Agreed, but what is missing is that when it goes to court your a$$ is seriously in a sling if you cannot prove to the court that you’re a properly qualified gunsmith and followed correct procedures. The first thing any legal team will do is attack the ability/experience/qualifications of the defendant and then move on in the same vein to the ‘expert witnesses’ as was seen recently in Dublin when a ‘handwriting’ expert was run out of court for lack of formal credentials (he was a schoolteacher!) and the case was lost.

It’s the height of stupidity to expect Ireland to have a proof house for a few guns every year. It is equally stupid to give a good gun to some unqualified gobdaw with a screwdriver and a hammer with ‘gunsmith’ on a placard over his door. Check them out, get the info or go abroad if you have a worthwhile gun. It’ll be cheaper in the long run. Or buy some cheap Spanish or Turkish POS and throw it away when it needs fixing.

Sparks

I'm just noticing that nobody gave the original poster the right answer and we're off on a tangent that doesn't look to be returning to that original question, so to give it a poke, the answer is that no, you do not require a full licence for an antique firearm in Ireland so long as you're not actually using it as a firearm.

The fly (well, flies actually) in the ointment is that, as we've said before (after we'd asked and found out):

Sparks wrote: »

True, section 26 of the 1925 Act was never modified:

26.—(1) Nothing in this Act relating to firearms shall apply to any antique firearm which is sold, bought, carried, or possessed as a curiosity or ornament.

Unfortunately, (a) it never defined what an antique was, and (b) it doesn't say you can use one, just possess it...
Basicly, when you get to antique firearms, it's all utterly undefined and down to whomever you're talking to. Some people say it's an antique if it predates modern ammunition (ie. seperate charge and bullet), some if it predates a set data (I've heard 1860-odd mentioned before on here), and then there's the question of what to do with modern replicas of antique designs. I've never seen any law anywhere that definitively says what you can do with what when it comes to antique firearms.

There are other mentions of specific dates in SIs here and there, but there just isn't anywhere in law (or more accurately, I've never found one despite looking for a while for one) a definition that says "in Article 26 of the Firearms Act, this is what antique means".

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

I'm just noticing that nobody gave the original poster the right answer and we're off on a tangent that doesn't look to be returning to that original question, so to give it a poke, the answer is that no, you do not require a full licence for an antique firearm in Ireland so long as you're not actually using it as a firearm.

The fly (well, flies actually) in the ointment is that, as we've said before (after we'd asked and found out):


There are other mentions of specific dates in SIs here and there, but there just isn't anywhere in law (or more accurately, I've never found one despite looking for a while for one) a definition that says "in Article 26 of the Firearms Act, this is what antique means".

Well i said in the second post in sparks, what i was told by the guards when i wanted to import an antique rifle in an obsolete calibre, namely that if the firearm is chambered for a metallic cartridge, rimfire or centrefire then you need a full firearms licence. I argued that rounds had not been produced since the start of the first world war and were nigh on impossible to obtain, this cut no ice, they reckoned "if i wanted to get it firing, i could work out a way to get/make ammunition".
They had no problems with original muzzleloaders though, which i find ironic as muzzleloader could be loaded and fired with a lot less problems than making a metallic cartridge.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

what i was told by the guards

The thing is rowa, that because we don't fund AGS properly, the average garda talking about firearms is talking without any training or experience and is trying to do the best they can with what they see as oddball questions.

The result from our point of view is that over the years, we've seen "what I was told by the guards" including gems like:

• You can't have more than one firearms licence per person
• You don't need a firearms licence for a paintball marker
• You can have a licence for a fully automatic centerfire pistol (even though EU law has a very different opinion)
• You can't have more than one firearms licence per category of firearm (where "category" had... a flexible definition)
• You don't need to worry about your ammunition limits on your licence (even when travelling to other countries)
• You can't carry your rifle slung over your shoulder when walking in the field
• You can carry your rifle slung over your shoulder when walking in the field
• You can transport firearms on public transport without a licence (and it was me was given that gem)

In general, we just try to get on with it and take the path of least resistance that lets us do what we need to; but we shouldn't really ever lose sight of the point that if a Garda thinks the law says one thing and it actually says something completely different, then it's the law that you obey and not the Garda (though thankfully, it's downright rare that you'd have such a conflict and even then you can usually avoid being bolshie about it and find a reasonable solution - the few cases where it all goes completely nonlinear and you wind up in court make for news precisely because they're so rare).

Practically speaking however, all this is just so much yadda-yadda-yadda anyway because if you actually want to use the thing as a firearm, you need a firearms licence, no matter when it was made or what its design is. It's only if you're hanging it on the wall as a very nonfunctional exhibit that you don't need the licence.

MacsuibhneR

rowa wrote: »

Well i said in the second post in sparks, what i was told by the guards when i wanted to import an antique rifle in an obsolete calibre, namely that if the firearm is chambered for a metallic cartridge, rimfire or centrefire then you need a full firearms licence. I argued that rounds had not been produced since the start of the first world war and were nigh on impossible to obtain, this cut no ice, they reckoned "if i wanted to get it firing, i could work out a way to get/make ammunition".
They had no problems with original muzzleloaders though, which i find ironic as muzzleloader could be loaded and fired with a lot less problems than making a metallic cartridge.

What rowa says would appear to be the Garda point of view as set out in the commissioners guidelines. Chapter 7, page 30 states

"Antique firearms are exempt from the provisions of the Firearms Acts provided they are held as ornaments or curiosities. In the absence of a definition for an ‘antique’ firearm, Ballistics section at Garda H.Q. applies the ‘Pre Unitary Cartridge’ rule which appears to conform to international standards. Unitary cartridge ammunition consists of a cartridge - usually metal which contains the primer – the propellant and the bullet within it. Modern reproductions of antique firearms are not exempt from firearms legislation".

While the Commissioners Guidelines are very far from being law (and it will really clutter this post if we start going into all the problems with the guidelines) it would appear that if you have an original pre-unitary cartridge rifle or pistol then you are allowed to own it, but not use it.

This would cover cap and ball (although some of these weren't made until after the first unitary cartridge was invented but that would be getting into a very fine point), flintlock, wheel lock and matchlock firearms.

While the Commissioner Guidelines are not perfect in the absence of a statutory definition or a trip to the High Court it would appear that these are the best we have.

Sparks

I'd walk a long long mile before accepting the Guidelines as anything other than guidelines to aid garda superintendents administer the law as written.

In other words, they're supposed to be there to stop us getting more of those gems I mentioned by directing supers back to the actual law; they're not supposed - and never ever should be accepted because of how they are prepared - as an adjunct to the law itself.

And yeah, I know, it's a fine point and one that's utterly irrelevant for anyone looking to ever use a muzzleloader or to do something practical like that - but as a general principle, it's one we don't pay enough attention to and that winds up burning us further down the line.

The guidelines are important; but they're not supposed to be guidelines for us so that we adhere to the law, they're supposed to be guidelines for the supers so they adhere to it.

Hm. "Adhere" might be too strong a word. Think of them as being in lieu of the government actually paying enough money to the AGS that they can train supers and FOs enough about the firearms acts that we don't get any more... anomalous interpretations of the law

rowa

The firearms officer i had at the time was a decent sort and he enquired with the superintendent (another very decent, now sadly retired man) , he in turn , not knowing a huge amount about firearms himself contacted either the ballistics section or the fpu, he got an answer and that was a firm no.

MacsuibhneR

Sparks, I agree entirely with what you say above but in the absence of a statutory definition then the Guidelines are the only thing anyone can rely on with any degree of certainty, if they want to collect "Antique" firearms. At least if AGS sought to prosecute someone for having unlicenced firearms then a person can refer to the Gardaí's own Guidelines in their defence which should make a successful prosecution nigh on impossible.

That is not to say that one couldn't rely on the UK obsolete cartridge rule or the US pre 1899 rule in an Irish court but it would be a bigger stretch. I have never had time to check if the pre-unitary cartridge rule is the norm (as stated in the guidelines) for antique firearms in other countries but it would be interesting to see if this is in fact the case as two of our most closely related common law neighbours (UK and US) don't use this rule. I wonder how an "Antique" firearm is defined in Canada and Australia, as the laws in other common law jurisdictions can be referred to in an Irish court if it came down to how to define an "Antique" firearm which is being possessed by a collector with no intention of firing it.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

contacted either the ballistics section or the fpu, he got an answer and that was a firm no.

Methinks that the answer he got might have depended to a large degree on which of those two he contacted

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Sparks, I agree entirely with what you say above but in the absence of a statutory definition then the Guidelines are the only thing anyone can rely on with any degree of certainty, if they want to collect "Antique" firearms.

I'd much rather try to argue for or against the mentions of firearms classification in other SIs as being intended (but heinously written) definitions relating to article 26. At least those are statutes and not simply a document that has no oversight in its drafting or revision procedure.
Simply put, the guidelines not only aren't law; but they're just not up to being law, not even a little bit (which, to be fair, was never a requirement for them in the first place). They're basically a word document on the Commissioner's computer.

I sure as fudge would't want them to form the basis for a legal defence in a criminal trial!

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Methinks that the answer he got might have depended to a large degree on which of those two he contacted

Yes the ballistics dept do come up with some cracking bits of logical and straightforward thinking :rolleyes:.

Sparks

I do sometimes think that there's a division of thinking in the AGS between those who've had contact with the target shooting/hunting communities and who know that there are people who safely use firearms for legit purposes... and those who don't!

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

I do sometimes think that there's a division of thinking in the AGS between those who've had contact with the target shooting/hunting communities and who know that there are people who safely use firearms for legit purposes... and those who don't!

I've suspected the same thing, some ags i know do or have done in the past, shooting as a sport and seem well disposed towards us, however some other ags do seem to have an attitude of suspicion against the shooting community, like we are all up to something.