GSG 522 Legality - Michael Healy Rae

Amonisis

Hi guys, I saw an advert for a programme scheduled to show on RTE on Monday 25th Nov 2013 at 9pm. It's about the Healy Rae family who have been politicians for several years/generations. One segment of the advert shows Michael Healy Rae shooting a GSG 522 (on his land I presume) which looks to have a 10 3/4" barrel, an unrestricted 22 round magazine and a pistol grip.
Can anyone clarify the legality of this firearm? As far as I was aware we can't possess any firearms which resemble assault rifles under any circumstances, have unrestricted mags, pistol grips and barrels this short.
I'd like to apply for one if this character has set a precedent for their possession.
Is it a case of one rule for these people and the rest of us can feck off?

juice1304

You would need a restricted licence for the mag anyway, The barrel length is in a grey area if it that length from the factory. And it doesn't matter about a pistol grip on a rifle only on a shotgun.
It is up to your local super to decide if he thinks it looks like an assault rifle. If he dose then it needs a restricted licence.
You can own any firearm if you have a reason/need for it. etc... Bar anything full auto unless your best friend is the minister for justice. lol

In most cases it is going to require a restricted licence and just fyi gsg anything are nothing more than a ball of scrap. Rubbish would be an understatement.

IRLConor

Going after rabbits I presume? Odd that an Irish TV station would televise hunting, they tend not to be particularly supportive of it.

I'm assuming he was hunting something since they wouldn't want to show him shooting targets while not on an authorised range of course!

BattleCorp

There's no hassle applying for a restricted rifle licence. The only problem is justifying why you need that particular rifle.

You'd have to prove to the Chief Super why you need that particular gun and why there's no other unrestricted rifle that would be able to do same job for you.

In my honest opinion, not really worth the effort.

rsole1

Are you allowed to hunt Pheasants with a rifle?

Cass

No.

Section 33 wildlife act 1976. Specifically:

33.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person to kill or injure—

(b) with a rifle, any protected wild bird.

The Aussie

I don't get the Michael Healy-Rae part of the question?

rowa

A journalist mixing up a shotgun and rifle on an upcoming programme perhaps ?

dc99

Hi, just saw a promo for a program on tv3 this coming Monday, near the end he seems to be shooting an mp3 in .22.

(I am presuming its a .22???).

Hummmmmm...

bravestar

dc99 wrote: »

Hi, just saw a promo for a program on tv3 this coming Monday, near the end he seems to be shooting an mp3 in .22.

(I am presuming its a .22???).

Hummmmmm...

Mp3? must not be a fan of lady gaga

Cass

As there have been three threads in the last few hours about the same program and same person(s) i merged all threads into one to keep the discussion central, and avoid multiple threads.

rowa

Its been done before cass, see link below

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=86014476

Cass

Not the first, won't be the last, but in the last 3 - 4 hours we've had 3 threads in target, hunting, and the main shooting forum. All about the same topic, just different questions. So i'm centralising them.

rowa

Anyway i can see carcrash tv waiting to happen :rolleyes:, god spare us.

Cass

Heh, heh. Funny because it's true.

dc99

The Aussie wrote: »

I don't get the Michael Healy-Rae part of the question?

hi Aussie,

The guy in question is a well known Politician, and the rifle in question is controversial when it comes to licence .....

So if he can have one like an "assault rifle" why can't we.

I can almost see it now, people that have been rejected for a licence for one, asking why not - like if he can why can't i?

Regards

bravestar

dc99 wrote: »

hi Aussie,

The guy in question is a well known Politician, and the rifle in question is controversial when it comes to licence .....

So if he can have one like an "assault rifle" why can't we.

I can almost see it now, people that have been rejected for a licence for one, asking why not - like if he can why can't i?

Regards

That's always been the way it is. Why the sudden uproar?

BattleCorp

dc99 wrote: »

hi Aussie,

The guy in question is a well known Politician, and the rifle in question is controversial when it comes to licence .....

So if he can have one like an "assault rifle" why can't we.

I can almost see it now, people that have been rejected for a licence for one, asking why not - like if he can why can't i?

Regards

Good luck trying "he has one, I want one" with the Super

Healy-Rae might have a restricted licence for it.

If he has a restricted licence, then the Chief Super thought his reasoning for having it was fair enough.

Or maybe his Super didn't think it warranted a restricted licence....... the way the law is written, it's all up to the opinion of the Super.

Witcher

People have got licences for "assault rifle" .22's. Lad I shoot with has one.

You can't just have one because you want it. Same scenario as applying for any restricted firearm.

Grizzly 45

Wonder is it registerd to him or did he borrow it to " big up his image?" of some kind of good ol Kerry boy politicans son??

So it will be intresting to see if Mr Haely Rae jnr TD actually is in possession of a FAC for such,and if not will he be prosecuted by AGS for unliscensed possesion of a firearm.
Or will this be the usual Irish "them and us" rule situation??

BTW.Thanks Jackie Haely Rae Jr for nothing...Just what we need ,some clown whom most of the nation thinks is soft in the head anyway waving a evil looking black machine pistol around on the TV.:mad::mad:
A positive shooting image I must say.:mad::mad::mad:

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

A positive shooting image I must say.:mad::mad::mad:

Its a golden opportunity to show a positive side to sports/game shooting on national tv, somehow though i don't think its going to work out like that.

skooterblue2

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Wonder is it registerd to him or did he borrow it to " big up his image?" of some kind of good ol Kerry boy politicans son??


Or will this be the usual Irish "them and us" rule situation??

I think you are right. You heard the phrase before "T.I.A." This is Africa. What goes on here is our business! Well "Th.I.C.K" This Is County Kerry! "and you can fupp back to wherever the hell you came from boy attitude".

Sure didnt they have this a couple of years ago when they were dividing the country up into Region 1 and Region 2 status for being disadvantaged in Europe? Kerry were well out side the out limits for Region 2. Jackie Healy-Rae said he was pulling out of Government. This is the Healy-Raes giving you the "ThICK" two fingers.

BTW I am not from Kerry or near it.

valerossi

Makes no difference their above the law down their, I shoot a lot with friends in Kilgarvan and certain pubs never close while others are literally being closed by cops across the road. Even seen a lad helped to his car and pointed in the right direction one night.

skooterblue2

BattleCorp wrote: »

the Chief Super thought his reasoning for having it was fair enough.

Or maybe his Super didn't think it warranted a restricted licence....... the way the law is written, it's all up to the opinion of the Super.

It was the opinion of the Super and is beyond reproach.<snip>

MOD: Edited to remove what might be seen as a defamatory implication of impropriety on the part of an identifiable individual.

rowa

When you live through administrations with the likes of the aherns (both of them) haughey, biffo, the flynns, the healy-raes and dozens of other self serving and borderline criminal (and sometimes not so borderline) idiots, it makes you sad that the men of 1916 gave their lives so this lot could live high on the hog and feather their own nests, disgusting.
Back on topic, a good few lads in our club have these .22lr gsg and s+w m+p type rifles, most applied for them as restricted and the gardai said they weren't. One lad in particular had to wait over a year for his as the super couldn't make up his mind if it was restricted or not, after getting advice (which i presume was the fpu and ballistics dept) said it was not restricted and issued the cert.

meathstevie

Well, one thing is for sure. It most definitely does not resemble an assault rifle. Any keyboard warrior knows it looks like a submachine gun and that's a term that's not mentioned in the description of the characteristics of restricted firearms.

Sure wasn't it the same clown who made an argument for higher drink driving limits as long as it was only the local in Ballygombeen you were driving back from pished as a lord ?

bravestar

skooterblue2 wrote: »

"that snooker table in the VIP lounge in the station in Killarney, bought under the art procurement for the station is just the business". One law for them another for the rest of us.

Where is that quote coming from?

skooterblue2

bravestar wrote: »

Where is that quote coming from?

hahahaha just messing but seriously there is money set aside to buy art for Garda stations. :rolleyes: Recession was never felt in Kerry

bravestar

skooterblue2 wrote: »

hahahaha just messing but seriously there is money set aside to buy art for Garda stations. :rolleyes: Recession was never felt in Kerry

Not that I have ever seen. Pool tables etc are bought by the social club for that station, the social club is funded by all the gardai stationed there who give a percentage of their wages every week.

The Aussie

dc99 wrote: »

hi Aussie,

The guy in question is a well known Politician, and the rifle in question is controversial when it comes to licence .....

I know who the hat wearing chimp is, the question posed had no context in the original thread, but does in this combined/merged thread, actually had a few beers it their Pub down in Kilgavan 3 years ago when down fishing the Roughty, had to walk through someone's living room past some old lady to get to the Dunny, great craic was had by all :pac:

skooterblue2

The Aussie wrote: »

hat wearing chimp

You are too kind, you should have seen the rest of the family

The Aussie

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You are too kind.

No, just don't want to be banned :pac:

Sparks

meathstevie wrote: »

Well, one thing is for sure. It most definitely does not resemble an assault rifle. Any keyboard warrior knows it looks like a submachine gun and that's a term that's not mentioned in the description of the characteristics of restricted firearms.

Reread the SI's definition of "assault rifle". You're thinking in real terms but they were writing in legal terms. In fact, Bravestar asked this exact question not too long ago. Short answer? The legal term "assault rifle" includes submachine guns.

Oh, and also?

BattleCorp wrote:

If he has a restricted licence, then the Chief Super thought his reasoning for having it was fair enough.

Or maybe his Super didn't think it warranted a restricted licence....... the way the law is written, it's all up to the opinion of the Super.

That's not right. And what the law actually says here is scary, because it doesn't say a darn thing apart from that it's your fault if you have the wrong kind of licence! Again, we talked about this only a few days back, when you started a thread on that topic Battlecorp :P

BattleCorp wrote: »

...
Supposing I apply for a rifle on the basis that it's an unrestricted rifle, the Super agrees with me and grants me an unrestricted licence for the rifle...
...
Then, a few years down the road, a new Super is appointed, and he doesn't think that my rifle is an unrestricted rifle due to the stock on it (same stock that previous Super thought was unrestricted).
...
Have I broken the law by being in possession of a restricted firearm without the proper licence through no fault of my own?

Sparks wrote: »

The horrible answer is practically yes.

I have strong doubts over anyone ever being prosecuted for such a change in opinion, mind you, because the theoretical answer is that the superintendent is no longer the persona designata for firearms licencing, that's now the district court judge (it's been that way since the '06 act). So in your hypothetical case, you could be charged with possession of an unlicenced firearm, but your defence would be that due diligence had been performed and you would contest the licence in the district court to establish what kind of licence it should be.

Thing is, this is about the hairiest, grayest area in the firearms act that I know about, especially when a rifle is on the restricted list because it looks like an assault rifle (where "assault rifle" is the legal term in the restricted SI's definitions, not the real life term); and the way the law is written, it is all on the applicant to have the right kind of licence so you're hosed either way.

In reality however this wouldn't arise; the new Super would just call you in and tell you his opinion had changed and you had to reapply and you'd just send in the new FCA1 to the chief super's office along with a photocopy of the old licence and a cover letter explaining the situation.



edit: We probably should point out that there have already been cases where licences were issued in error for firearms which couldn't be held, either unrestricted licences for firearms which were definitely restricted, or for firearms which weren't even legal to possess; those licences were legally voided by the Super not having the authority to issue them, so they almost weren't worth the paper they were printed on...

rowa

I haven't heard of anyone losing their licence or being charged with having an incorrect licence type, over these so-called assault rifle replicas Sparks. Neither have i heard of anyone appealing a refusal to the district courts. The main object of the doj/gardai's ire seems to have been the centrefire pistols and practical shooting, if they wanted to make a fuss over these assault rifles then i think it would have happened before now.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

Neither have i heard of anyone appealing a refusal to the district courts. The main object of the doj/gardai's ire seems to have been the centrefire pistols and practical shooting, if they wanted to make a fuss over these assault rifles then i think it would have happened before now.

AHEM,Cough,Cough!!;)

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

AHEM,Cough,Cough!!;)

Yeah, but yours was a centrefire, not a .22lr. I did ask the FO about the .22 replicas before, the feeling i got was, as far as they were concerned a .22lr semi is a .22 semi, be it a ruger 10/22 or a gsg mp5 look-a-like.

bravestar

rowa wrote: »

Yeah, but yours was a centrefire, not a .22lr. I did ask the FO about the .22 replicas before, the feeling i got was, as far as they were concerned a .22lr semi is a .22 semi, be it a ruger 10/22 or a gsg mp5 look-a-like.

Most of the time that would be the case, but then comes the time when the long hard c€ck of the law wants to bend you over and make you it's b%tch.

Amonisis

Are you sure about the pistol grip only being referred to on a shotgun in the guidelines? Do you have a link to the particular wording which differentiates between shotguns and rifles?

Witcher

Read the 2008 Restricted Firearms SI.

Only applies to shotguns.

Amonisis

Yep, I must admit you seem to be right. I had a look and reread it a couple of times. No mention of pistol grips being restricted on rifles. I'd previously heard that the GSG stuff was awful. The firearm I'd prefer is the Sig Sauer 522.

rowa

Amonisis wrote: »

Yep, I must admit you seem to be right. I had a look and reread it a couple of times. No mention of pistol grips being restricted on rifles. I'd previously heard that the GSG stuff was awful. The firearm I'd prefer is the Sig Sauer 522.

A lot of these .22 replicas of larger firearms are made by umarex under licence, they make , all the .22 colt, browning 1911's etc. Most are made of zinc pot metal are wouldn't be built to last.

http://www.umarex.com/

cw67irl

The gsg isnt as bad as you think, Put a little scope on it and its great craic shooting spinners and the like, Might not be a gun for shooting groups but definitely a fun gun!!

Amonisis

rowa wrote: »

A lot of these .22 replicas of larger firearms are made by umarex under licence, they make , all the .22 colt, browning 1911's etc. Most are made of zinc pot metal are wouldn't be built to last.

http://www.umarex.com/

The Sig Sauer 522 is made by Sig Sauer and has a milled aluminium breech. The rest of it seems very well made using high quality materials. I can't find a bad review of it anywhere.

Grizzly 45

Umarex stuff isnt "bad" as such...So long as it is blank firing,airsoft or air powered.When it comes to .22...Run away very quickly.. Things like the utter POS Walther p22 and SIG mossie .22 are Umarex products.

Maybe they have improved recently ,I dont know,but I do know you cant use pot metal castings for powder cartridge guns and expect them to last a lifetime.

That was their trouble they were using some non vital pressure components on the .22s that were used on their blank firers and airsoft models.

OK not too a biggie if you live in a country with civillised gun laws and can drop it into your gun dealer and have a full replacement within 24 hours,but try doing that here in Ireland if it breaks!!

Plus the GSG line are basically the same internal mechanism in the rifles with a clam shell outer covering to give its looks.None of them strip anyway like their bigger counterparts.

They are plinkers and fun guns that are relatively cheap& cheerful
.But as we all know any type of fun shooting " and plinking" is frowned upon by our legislators and betters here in Ireland and MUST be carried out under rigioursly controlled conditions of seriousness and humourlessness.:rolleyes:

tac foley

Yes, for G*d's sake don't let anybody actually ENJOY themselves shooting their so-hard-to get-anyway guns.

There's a lot wrong with the way it is over here, but we don't have ANY of the mental hangups that seem to bedevil the decision as to whether a gun looks dangerously military or not, depending on personal whim and opinion...

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

There's a lot wrong with the way it is over here, but we don't have ANY of the mental hangups that seem to bedevil the decision as to whether a gun looks dangerously military or not, depending on personal whim and opinion...

Tac, I know you're fond of the system you have over there, but unless my history's well out, the UK system is the end product of a few decades of appalling tragedies and resultant useless kneejerk legislation mangling an earlier, far more workable system. I think everyone knows I'm no fan of the system we have here (and I don't know anyone who knows our system well who is), but the current UK system wouldn't be the model I'd replace it with (I'd certainly swipe parts of it, like the one-person-one-licence approach, but no pistols and no SLRs? No thanks).

And somehow I suspect that you wouldn't have seen such widespread public support for those articles of kneejerk legislation at the time if those mental hangups you mention hadn't been more widespread than you think.

We've got more than our fair share of problems here... but I know of damn few countries that don't have that issue, and the UK is not amongst that small happy few by any measure, and with the possible exception of yourself, I've never met a shooter from the UK who thought the UK was one of the happy few.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Tac, I know you're fond of the system you have over there, but unless my history's well out, the UK system is the end product of a few decades of appalling tragedies and resultant useless kneejerk legislation mangling an earlier, far more workable system. I think everyone knows I'm no fan of the system we have here (and I don't know anyone who knows our system well who is), but the current UK system wouldn't be the model I'd replace it with (I'd certainly swipe parts of it, like the one-person-one-licence approach, but no pistols and no SLRs? No thanks).

And somehow I suspect that you wouldn't have seen such widespread public support for those articles of kneejerk legislation at the time if those mental hangups you mention hadn't been more widespread than you think.

We've got more than our fair share of problems here... but I know of damn few countries that don't have that issue, and the UK is not amongst that small happy few by any measure, and with the possible exception of yourself, I've never met a shooter from the UK who thought the UK was one of the happy few.

Sir, I'm thunderstruck that you think that I'm 'fond of the system' here. I AM fond of the long-term safety learning process that insists on new shooters being aware of the dangers of inattentive firearms handling and how safety and knowledge go hand in hand. But 'fond of the system' per se? You must have been reading somebody else. I lost eight semi-autos in 1988, and so many handguns in 1997 that it took a whole day to process them, in spite of the fact that around thirty had already escaped elsewhere.

My post above related to the UK authorities attitude to the .22 military lookalikes. As you know, here we can have any kind of a .22 rifle or carbine that we like, military-looking arms being very popular, and with thirty-round magazines]. Am I happy with the status quo? Of course not, but like you over in the RoI, I put up with what I CAN do, suffer for what I CAN'T do, and, just like you, am totally unable to do SFA about it.

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

I put up with what I CAN do, suffer for what I CAN'T do, and, just like you, am totally unable to do SFA about it.

Now that pain, I completely sympathise with

BattleCorp

Originally Posted by BattleCorp
If he has a restricted licence, then the Chief Super thought his reasoning for having it was fair enough.

Or maybe his Super didn't think it warranted a restricted licence....... the way the law is written, it's all up to the opinion of the Super.

SPARKS
That's not right. And what the law actually says here is scary, because it doesn't say a darn thing apart from that it's your fault if you have the wrong kind of licence! Again, we talked about this only a few days back, when you started a thread on that topic Battlecorp :P

That's one badly worded law.

Just to be clear...... you could go to the Super to licence a rifle, ask him if it's a restricted rifle or not.......he could answer you and say that it's not restricted.....grant you an unrestricted licence.......and you are still breaking the law?

Am I understanding that properly?

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Am I understanding that properly?

Yup.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to know which license is required and to apply for that license to the appropriate person.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

Yup.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to know which license is required and to apply for that license to the appropriate person.

But the licence required is dictated by the Supers opinion no, seeing as he is the person who decides if it looks like an assault rifle or not?