Colt /Umarex 1911 .22 Restricted or unrestricted?

Amonisis

I was told today by my local FO that a Colt/Umarex 1911 .22 which is certified to hold only five rounds is on the restricted list and that my application for a permit will be unsuccessful. He also stated that due to it's not being on the "guideline list" is another reason for the refusal. He confirmed to me (on enquiry about a rumour I heard in the last few weeks) that the Ballistics section have issued a "memo" to Supers advising against issuing permits for 1911s. No details of any particular reason for the "memo" were given. I was also told that the area I live in has a lot to do with their reticence to allow me to have one. I own a shotgun, bolt action .22 rifle, and semi auto .22 pistol, and was told a recent application for a semi- auto .22 rifle will be successful. The FO stated that there would be all hell to pay if my house was burgled and they got away with five guns as opposed to four, especially if the "fifth" firearm (Colt 1911) permit had been issued against the advice of the Ballistics section. He stated therefore that neither himself nor the Super would be willing to recommend or issue a permit for this particular firearm. No official refusal as yet, just a face to face verbal. Should I simply accept that I won't have any issues with the new rifle permit and forget about the 1911, or in the event of an official refusal should I appeal the decision? Is this worth bothering with or is it yet another erosion of our freedom to pursue our chosen sport to it's fullest extent? Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.

Witcher

It's unrestricted if it only holds 5 rounds.

Some supers won't licence pistols that aren't on the list, he probably will refuse it and then you could go to court etc. and fight for it.

Just remember if you go for it and he refuses you, you'll have to explain that refusal on any application you make in the future.

BattleCorp

There is nothing in the SI that says 1911's style pistols are restricted because of their style. Once they are .22lr calibre and have magazines that only hold 5 rounds, they should be grand.

Sounds like the Ballistics department are making up the law themselves.

The sad fact is that, one way or another, the Super calls the shots and even if he is incorrectly refusing you a pistol licence, it will cost you a shed load of dosh if you decide to take him to court.

Amonisis

Blay wrote: »

It's unrestricted if it only holds 5 rounds.

Some supers won't licence pistols that aren't on the list, he probably will refuse it and then you could go to court etc. and fight for it.

Just remember if you go for it and he refuses you, you'll have to explain that refusal on any application you make in the future.

My application is already in with my local station, so my only options are to let it run the course and see what happens, or contact the FO and ask him to scrap the application before it reaches the Super for a decision. In the event that I was to appeal a refusal and succeed in court, would the original refusal still have to be explained on any future applications? I don't envisage ever applying for another permit if I get the 1911, my collection will be complete.

Sparks

Your FO is incorrect about the restricted status of the pistol, and none of the rest of what he's saying has anything to do with the Firearms Act (though you should note that with that many firearms, you're moving up a class in the secure storage requirements (to class 3 in the list in this post)). The advice from the Firearms Policy Unit in cases like this is to be polite, thank the FO for his advice, and request that the application be sent directly to the Super anyway (the FPU were very clear on this - the call is not the FO's, it is the Super's). If the Super refuses, get the reasons in writing; then contact the FPU via your NGB or directly as a first step before even looking at a court.

The rumours about Ballistics are sadly believable; there's a bit of a split in the AGS with regard to firearms policy it would appear, and Ballistics by all reports are firmly on one side and the FPU on another, and the scuttlebutt all agrees that Ballistics would much rather none of us owned firearms at all.

To answer your last question, if you did go to court and the refusal was successfully appealed, no you wouldn't need to list it on future applications because the court would have found the refusal was in error. However, going to court is a bit like going to the races. Don't expect the more logical case to succeed - it's an adversarial system even in the highest of courts, and because the District Courts being the first line of contact with petty crimes and the like, they tend to be a bit more rough and ready than their four courts counterparts. And that's even before you remember that when people go to court, only the people who are being paid to be there win.

LIFFY FISHING

There is whispers about that any .22lr with a full size slide is under threat for new applications, heard a few 1911's and Sigs been refused recently, like I say its been whispered but it isnt the law, and it the man with the braid in your locall who gets the final say.

Sparks

There's whispers aplenty, and I have a horrible feeling that this time around some of them are closer to the truth than usual, and we've seen it coming from some ways off; but for the OP's current problem, that's all irrelevant. The law is (for now) what it is and the local super isn't free to draft new law if he sees fit.

That being said, it is generally a really bad idea to go into a meeting with your local super with your back up on the basis of rumours and pub gossip. Just apply and follow the normal procedures and remember that well over 99% of all firearms applications just go through without any problems. Wait until you're in the tiny, tiny minority of cases where there is a problem before worrying about it.

Sparks

Also, moving this to the general shooting forum as it's more to do with that than with the target shooting forum.

Amonisis

Sparks wrote: »

Your FO is incorrect about the restricted status of the pistol, and none of the rest of what he's saying has anything to do with the Firearms Act (though you should note that with that many firearms, you're moving up a class in the secure storage requirements (to class 3 in the list in this post)). The advice from the Firearms Policy Unit in cases like this is to be polite, thank the FO for his advice, and request that the application be sent directly to the Super anyway (the FPU were very clear on this - the call is not the FO's, it is the Super's). If the Super refuses, get the reasons in writing; then contact the FPU via your NGB or directly as a first step before even looking at a court.

The rumours about Ballistics are sadly believable; there's a bit of a split in the AGS with regard to firearms policy it would appear, and Ballistics by all reports are firmly on one side and the FPU on another, and the scuttlebutt all agrees that Ballistics would much rather none of us owned firearms at all.

To answer your last question, if you did go to court and the refusal was successfully appealed, no you wouldn't need to list it on future applications because the court would have found the refusal was in error. However, going to court is a bit like going to the races. Don't expect the more logical case to succeed - it's an adversarial system even in the highest of courts, and because the District Courts being the first line of contact with petty crimes and the like, they tend to be a bit more rough and ready than their four courts counterparts. And that's even before you remember that when people go to court, only the people who are being paid to be there win.

My security arrangements definitely comply with Class 3 as is. The inspecting officer was quite impressed with how secure my gun safe is. His comment was "Christ, there's no way anyone is getting that thing out of there!" House is alarmed and walled rear garden with large Alsatians too, which he said sounded like a pit full of werewolves. Thanks for the advice and information.

Sparks

Amonisis wrote: »

My security arrangements definitely comply with Class 3 as is. The inspecting officer was quite impressed with how secure my gun safe is. His comment was "Christ, there's no way anyone is getting that thing out of there!" House is alarmed and walled rear garden with large Alsatians too, which he said sounded like a pit full of werewolves. Thanks for the advice and information.

Well, if the inspecting officer is satisfied with the secure storage, then the FO's completely wrong to be worrying about burglary. That's the whole point of the inspection process...

bravestar

OP, out of curiosity, what reason did you give for wanting a second .22 pistol?

If I have read your post correctly you already own one. I owned one of the colt 1911 .22 and while it was fun, it was hardly a bronze medal winner in accuracy terms.

Amonisis

bravestar wrote: »

OP, out of curiosity, what reason did you give for wanting a second .22 pistol?

If I have read your post correctly you already own one. I owned one of the colt 1911 .22 and while it was fun, it was hardly a bronze medal winner in accuracy terms.

On advice, I didn't put for Timed and Precision, as some Supers see this as military/combat training leading to refusals. I couldn't state for standard target use as I already have a Buckmark. For gallery comps was a no-no too as an accompanying application was for a 1022 for gallery. The only option I could think of was benchrest. This can be argued as a way of increasing this pistols accuracy and shooting practice with this light pistol would increase ones accuracy with the heavier Buckmark. I've heard that the lighter pistols with the 1911s grip angle is very good for various disciplines.

Grizzly 45

Amonisis wrote: »

On advice, I didn't put for Timed and Precision, as some Supers see this as military/combat training leading to refusals

.

Whoever "advised " you is talking out their rear end!!:rolleyes:
Next time you encounter such a Bull sht statement and reason,ask how many people have been arrested in the ROI for actually participating in this "combat shooting" disipline.:mad: As in that case there must be some very negligent Garda Supers and cheifs and not to mind the Garda ballistics expert who holds a Det insp rank ,as they have been to numerous of these shoots of all these disiplines that they TRY to lump as combat shooting and yet NOT ONE person has ever been arrested by them .So either they are derelict in their duties or they know it is a baloney reason.

T&P ,and Bullseye is a perfect disipline for either full size pistols or .22s in the 1911 style.Bullseye evolved from the model 1911 in 45ACP,and is the most widely used design of pistol for that disipline.

Amonisis

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.

Whoever "advised " you is talking out their rear end!!:rolleyes:
Next time you encounter such a Bull sht statement and reason,ask how many people have been arrested in the ROI for actually participating in this "combat shooting" disipline.:mad: As in that case there must be some very negligent Garda Supers and cheifs and not to mind the Garda ballistics expert who holds a Det insp rank ,as they have been to numerous of these shoots of all these disiplines that they TRY to lump as combat shooting and yet NOT ONE person has ever been arrested by them .So either they are derelict in their duties or they know it is a baloney reason.

T&P ,and Bullseye is a perfect disipline for either full size pistols or .22s in the 1911 style.Bullseye evolved from the model 1911 in 45ACP,and is the most widely used design of pistol for that disipline.

Sheeiit! Thanks for the heads up on that. Hmm,I wonder if it's too late to get to the FO and change that on the application or if changing the reason would even be allowed?

Tackleberry.

Apply for your 1911 but be ready to go to court, and go to the high court that is because you will not get your costs payed if you win in the District court.
I'm in DC ( i had started this case before the case about costs was lost) and in the middle of a court case for a Gsg1911 .22 it is a restricted firearm until you modify the magazine and that where you will win or loose your case this needs to be done correctly i.e. tamperproof, if thats solid your off to a good start.
My case is finish next week ill pm yo my number when it done and will advice you further if you like...
I believe Ballistics dept has a chip on it shoulder after all the centre fire cases they lost and now for some reason nearly after 4 years rim fire pistols are now being challenged...there was no problem up to lately..

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Whoever "advised " you is talking out their rear end!!:rolleyes:

And yet in that rear end product was a grain of truth in that there have been licences pulled because their given good reason on the applications was IPSC. When IPSC went away, the good reason for those licences went too.

The advice, however, shouldn't have been "don't put specific sport #6 as your good reason", but just "put target shooting" because that's what it's for.

Also, while "I just want another one" is even less of a good reason than "I just want one", it is equally important to remember that "I want another pistol for target shooting" is not a good or sufficient reason for a refusal, any more than (and for the same reason as) a golfer wanting different golf clubs would be cause for suspicion.

Sparks

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Apply for your 1911 but be ready to go to court, and go to the high court that is because you will not get your costs payed if you win in the District court.

No point in going to the HC because (a) they can't issue you your licence if you win, and (b) you'll be fought on costs now.

there was no problem up to lately..

There was no 180-odd cases and lots of bad press from our little community until lately either. The phrase "poked the bear" comes to mind...

Sikamick

Amonisis wrote: »

I was told today by my local FO that a Colt/Umarex 1911 .22 which is certified to hold only five rounds is on the restricted list and that my application for a permit will be unsuccessful. He also stated that due to it's not being on the "guideline list" is another reason for the refusal. He confirmed to me (on enquiry about a rumour I heard in the last few weeks) that the Ballistics section have issued a "memo" to Supers advising against issuing permits for 1911s. No details of any particular reason for the "memo" were given. I was also told that the area I live in has a lot to do with their reticence to allow me to have one. I own a shotgun, bolt action .22 rifle, and semi auto .22 pistol, and was told a recent application for a semi- auto .22 rifle will be successful. The FO stated that there would be all hell to pay if my house was burgled and they got away with five guns as opposed to four, especially if the "fifth" firearm (Colt 1911) permit had been issued against the advice of the Ballistics section. He stated therefore that neither himself nor the Super would be willing to recommend or issue a permit for this particular firearm. No official refusal as yet, just a face to face verbal. Should I simply accept that I won't have any issues with the new rifle permit and forget about the 1911, or in the event of an official refusal should I appeal the decision? Is this worth bothering with or is it yet another erosion of our freedom to pursue our chosen sport to it's fullest extent? Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.

What a load of BOLL*x, we have been told that a lot of what is on the guidelines list would not be Olympic standard, and here is a pistol that probably should pass as Olympic standard and because it's not on the list it can't be considered. Who in there right mind would use a Smith & Wesson
22A for an Olympics competition or some on the list below.

Ráiteas Misín / Mission Statement:
An leibhéal insroichte is aired a bhaint amach maidir le
Cosaint Phearsanta, Tíomantas don Phobal agus Slándáil Stáit.
To achieve the highest attainable level of Personal Protection, Community Commitment and State Security
41
ANNEX F: SUITABLE OLYMPIC STANDARD PISTOLS
The following .22 calibre firearms, although not e
xhaustive, come within the definition of
section 4(2)(e)(iii) of the Firearms (Restric
ted Firearms and Ammunition) Order, 2008 as
amended. Accordingly, applicatio
ns for certificates for these
NON RESTRICTED
firearms (with a magazine
capacity not greater than
5
rounds) should be made to the local
superintendent
of the Garda Síochána where the applicant resides.
Baikal
IZH 35
Baikal
IZH 35M
Benelli
MP90S
Benelli
MP95E
Beretta
U22 Neos\87
Browning
Buckmark
FAS Domino
SP602
FAS Domino
SP607
FAS Domino
SP 607 Light
Feinwerbkau
AW 93
Feinwerbkau
AW 93 Light
Frankonia
Favorit
Hammerli
208\S
Hammerli
280
Hammerli
SP 20\SP 20 RRS\Xesse
Matchguns
MG2\E
Matchguns
MG2\E-RF
Morini
CM102E\CM22E\M\RF
Pardini
SPE
Pardini
SP or SP Rapid Fire
Pardini
SP1 or SP 1 Rapid Fire
Sako
Tri-Ace
Smith & Wesson
22A\41\617
Ruger
Mark I\ II\ III
Taurus
94
Tesro
TS 22-2
Unique
DES 69\U
Walther
GSP or GSP expert
Walther
SP22\SSP\M4
Walther
KSP\SSP

Olympic Standard should have never been included in the requirement for pistol license, most pistol shooters are plinkers or local club competition competitors. Has Ireland ever had someone compete in the Olympics pistol shooting competitions, Sparks can you please answer this. This is an important question to answer, because if we have never competed who or why was this included in the requirements.

Ireland what an ass hole of a country.

Sikamick

Sparks

It's not the country in that particular case sikamick, it's that particular FO not having been trained enough because we underfund the AGS.

Sikamick

Yea Sparks I believe you, I have Daughter that was smashed in the face with a crowbar by a scumbag on the 23rd of December 2013 and the Garda know the person and where he lives and have not questioned him to date. Boll*x. The likes of this is where they should be concentrating their efforts.

And you have not answered the question has Ireland ever Competed in Olympic Pistol competitions and why was it included as a requirement for a pistol license.

Sikamick

Witcher

Sikamick wrote: »

why was it included as a requirement for a pistol license.

Sikamick

It doesn't have to be 'Olympic standard' for you to get a licence for it. That list is non exhaustive and is just a sample list of pistols for supers to reference. Some supers won't licence one that's not on it but they're in the wrong, that wasn't the intention of the list.

When you see people getting Sig Mosquitos and Walter P22's you know pistols don't have to be up to Olympic standard for you to get them

rowa

The "guidelines" used to contain a little paragraph just beneath the famous list. Its how i was able to licence my old revolver when it was pointed out it wasn't on the list.

.I. No.337 of 2009 , article 4(2) part (iii)

“other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire ammunition provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is greater than 10cm”

The "Other firearms" bit i reckon is the important part because it refers to pistols NOT on the list of specific makes and models, but then again i don't speak legalise, so could be getting it arseways. Anyway the super seen my point and granted a licence.

Last time i checked, this paragraph had been removed. If the laws/guidelines etc don't suit your agenda, simply delete or ignore them and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for the court cases.

Witcher

rowa wrote: »

The "guidelines" used to contain a little paragraph just beneath the famous list. Its how i was able to licence my old revolver when it was pointed out it wasn't on the list.

.I. No.337 of 2009 , article 4(2) part (iii)

“other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire ammunition provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is greater than 10cm”

The "Other firearms" bit i reckon is the important part because it refers to pistols NOT on the list of specific makes and models, but then again i don't speak legalise, so could be getting it arseways. Anyway the super seen my point and granted a licence.

Last time i checked, this paragraph had been removed. If the laws/guidelines etc don't suit your agenda, simply delete or ignore them and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for the court cases.

That's in the Restricted SI here at the bottom;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0337.html

It's on page 9 of the guidelines too under 'Restricted or Non Restricted Firearm?'

Sikamick

Blay wrote: »

It doesn't have to be 'Olympic standard' for you to get a licence for it. That list is non exhaustive and is just a sample list of pistols for supers to reference. Some supers won't licence one that's not on it but they're in the wrong, that wasn't the intention of the list.

When you see people getting Sig Mosquitos and Walter P22's you know pistols don't have to be up to Olympic standard for you to get them

So is the OP telling lies and he may be, but I personally know of people that are being refused .22 revolvers and semi auto's that fall well within the requirements. These people are already licensed on other firearms.

Sikamick

rowa

Blay wrote: »

That's in the Restricted SI here at the bottom;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0337.html

Well spotted blay , but its not in the commissioners guidelines pdf on the garda.ie website, where are previously it was, i just checked. Someone made a conscious decision to remove it.

Witcher

rowa wrote: »

Well spotted blay , but its not in the commissioners guidelines pdf on the garda.ie website, where are previously it was, i just checked. Someone made a conscious decision to remove it.

It's on page 9.

Witcher

Sikamick wrote: »

So is the OP telling lies and he may be, but I personally know of people that are being refused .22 revolvers and semi auto's that fall well within the requirements. These people are already licensed on other firearms.

Sikamick

That's down to their supers though, other people elsewhere proabbly had no problem getting the same pistols.

The issue is that supers are misinterpreting the law and the guidelines and Garda ballistics are backing them up despite the FPU telling them they're talking bollocks.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

And you have not answered the question has Ireland ever Competed in Olympic Pistol competitions and why was it included as a requirement for a pistol license.

I didn't see the question Sikamick. To answer it, yes we have, up to the World Cup level, many times. I think the last World Cup entrant was in Atlanta by Tim Scannel, but I could be wrong. We've just had Irish Olympic Pistol shooters arrive back home from RIAC in the last month after making the finals there.

As to why it's in the guidelines and the act, my guess is that we were thought of as safe and harmless. It didn't help when (in front of you as I recall), someone stood up in front of Ballistics and that nice lady Super from Boston and pointed out that the ISSF rules allowed his 9mm so he should be allowed have it as well (after which came all the additional restrictions on calibre and so on).

rowa

Blay wrote: »

It's on page 9.

It says "olympic" pistols though Blay, a lad who wants a buckmark or ruger for club competitions knows full well he isn't shooting an olympic pistol in an olympic discipline.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

The "guidelines" used to contain <snip>
Last time i checked, this paragraph had been removed. If the laws/guidelines etc don't suit your agenda, simply delete or ignore them and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for the court cases.

Rowa, that quote isn't from the guidelines, that's from the restricted list SI, the latest one and it's still the law of the land.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

It says "olympic" pistols though Blay

Yes it does, and any pistol that meets the ISSF regulations counts. Which includes rugers and buckmarks. Please note, there was a lot of fighting (by the NGBs on the FCP as a whole) to ensure that the act didn't require you to be a world-class competitive shooter. The guy who buys a cheap ruger MkII and goes to the range once every few weeks as time allows and shoots his sport at a very low level, is legally treated the same as someone who trains every day and represents his country on the international circuit (and by the way, you can chalk that one up in the list of things the FCP achieved while you're at it).

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Rowa, that quote isn't from the guidelines, that's from the restricted list SI, the latest one and it's still the law of the land.

It used to be in the guidelines though sparks, thats where i got it from, i still have the copy i printed to bring with me to the meeting with the super. If the quote still stands, then it in a way makes the list academic, if you want a .22lr pistol not on the list , have its magazine restricted to 5 rounds and its barrel is longer than 10cm then it should be perfectly licencable.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

It used to be in the guidelines though sparks

Doesn't matter. Guidelines is guidelines, law is law. And the law wins.
Plus, it was in the guidelines because it was cribbed from the law - look to the publication dates.

if you want a .22lr pistol not on the list , have its magazine restricted to 5 rounds and its barrel is longer than 10cm then it should be perfectly licencable.

It is.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

So is the OP telling lies and he may be, but I personally know of people that are being refused .22 revolvers and semi auto's that fall well within the requirements. These people are already licensed on other firearms.

And that's wrong and they shouldn't be, but that's not down to the law being wrong (though if you know me at all you know I think it's a shambles of a thing) -- it's down to the super not making the right call (assuming his written reason for refusal is that the pistol isn't legally licencable).

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

It is.

Then why are so many, such as the op, having difficulty even making an application for a pistol (which meets the requirements legally) just because its not in these guidelines ?

Sikamick

Blay wrote: »

That's in the Restricted SI here at the bottom;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0337.html

It's on page 9 of the guidelines too under 'Restricted or Non Restricted Firearm?'

Blay I'm going to be totally over the top here, but when Governments change should the Ministers name not change on the Act/SI, if he/her is not in the Minsters Position how can it be legal.

Sikamick

I, DERMOT AHERN, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 2B (inserted by section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (No. 26 of 2006)) of the Firearms Act 1925 (No. 17 of 1925), hereby order as follows:

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Then why are so many, such as the op, having difficulty even making an application for a pistol (which meets the requirements legally) just because its not in these guidelines ?

Honest answer isn't short or singular but here's my best guess - it's one, more or all of the following in varying combinations depending on where in Ireland you happen to be:

• A reason that the applicant hasn't mentioned to anyone, as in (say) McCarron where the applicant sabotaged his case by - according to the court report - having a row with the Super in the station and then storming off to court; or alternatively some other reason which, if you and I knew about it, would make us say "whoa there, stall the digger" ourselves. We may not like to ponder it, but at least some applicants shouldn't be left within an ass's roar of a firearm (for a real example, remember that the Irish neonazi crowd on stormfront were trawling through here at one point -- I don't think anyone would want that lot given access to legal firearms).
• Poorly trained FOs who don't know the law, but who are tasked with implementing it and who inevitably make errors as a result.
• Poorly trained Supers who do the same thing (oddly, we're not top of the list of the Garda Training budget and if you read the papers today, you know they're saying themselves that they're horribly screwed for manpower and training)
• Actual, deliberate, Idontlikethelookofthat-based biases which are allowed to override the law. These are what the courts are for, but honestly, there really aren't as many of these as we fear. And the Supreme Court came down very heavily against this kind of thing as far back as Dunne (the gun safes case, as it's commonly referred to, even though that's not a fair description). They were explicit in stating that the Dail drafts the law, not the Gardai or the Minister.

And of late, after a long campaign to throw muck at the Minister using the 180-odd court cases and the press, I would hazard a guess that there was a lot more bias against us so that the first of those now has no leeway, the middle two aren't corrected as often, and the last one may well have a good chance now to go from a bias the courts won't permit to being a bias expressed in law and therefore unassailable.

Like I've gotten heartsick from saying, you can't use the courts as a stick to beat the government with -- but we did it anyway and we may now be looking at reaping what was sown.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Blay I'm going to be totally over the top here, but when Governments change should the Ministers name not change on the Act/SI

Short answer, no.
Longer answer, noooooooo.

if he/her is not in the Minsters Position how can it be legal.

Because there's a date on the SI and at that date, he was the minister and empowered by the act to effect that SI.

Seriously Sikamick, if it didn't work that way, every new government would have to start from scratch and re-pass every law on the books on day one, and for a brief moment while the paperwork churned, everything from jaywalking to premeditated mass murder would be utterly legal...

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

Doesn't matter. Guidelines is guidelines, law is law. And the law wins.
Plus, it was in the guidelines because it was cribbed from the law - look to the publication dates.

It is.

Law is law. And the law wins. And fu*k the commissioners guidelines unless I have to use them,. Ah so another court case, the OP states having being told if it's not on the Guidelines.

Garda / DOJ say well it might be, but then again it might not be, and then again it could be, I'll have to look into it. Sorry but Boll*x again.

Sikamick

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Law is law. And the law wins. And fu*k the commissioners guidelines unless I has to use them,

No; not feck the guidelines; just remember that the word guideline is spelt differently to the word law because they're not the same thing and have different words for a good reason (and maybe if some supers were told this over a pint by the FPU a bit more often, we'd all have quieter lives)

The original point and purpose of the guidelines was not supposed to be to make things awkward, but to make things more uniform; so that Super Joe in the heart of dublin who knows firearms law six ways from sunday because his district includes Sherrif St. applies the law the same way as Super Paddy in Mayo who's out in camo with his shotgun at 0500 on the first day of the season every year.

This, by the way, is what we were all clamouring for and what some of us are still calling for - a single reference point for how the law's applied. I have been saying for a few years now as loudly as I could that this wasn't a cure-all, but a single point of failure because if that one reference point is opposed to private firearms ownership, we're all screwed, but hey, what would I know?

Ah so another court case, the OP states having being told if it's not on the Guidelines.
Garda / DOJ say well it might be, but then again it might not be, and then again it could be, I'll have to look into it. Sorry but Boll*x again.

It would be a rather abnormally patient District Court Justice who sat quietly through a Garda saying something like that. They have... something of a reputation for not suffering fools who waste their time, regardless of what side of the courtroom they're sitting on, and "errra, I should look into that" said during a hearing would be comedy gold for the Phoenix reporter...

You're still going to get challanges in the courts Sika, even if everything was perfect; that's life. But when you politicise them as we've done... yeah, that's not wise, it burns everyone in the long run. And we might be starting to see the beginning of that now.

Tackleberry.

The Judge on my case said " don't worry about the guidelines the commissioner can't see into future and can't be expected to get everything right" And that this gun is either restricted or unrestricted within the law and that why we are here today"

Amonisis

Sikamick wrote: »

So is the OP telling lies and he may be, but I personally know of people that are being refused .22 revolvers and semi auto's that fall well within the requirements. These people are already licensed on other firearms.

Sikamick

The OP is not telling any lies. Why the hell would I?? My sole reason for the initial enquiry was to glean as much valid advice as possible. I included everything that was said to me by the local FO and included all relevant information regarding my current firearms ownership.

Grizzly 45

Tackleberry. wrote: »

A
I believe Ballistics dept has a chip on it shoulder after all the centre fire cases they lost and now for some reason nearly after 4 years rim fire pistols are now being challenged...there was no problem up to lately..

Putting it mildly...:P more like they were supposed to deliver wins on a daily basis and the odds now are 95% against them winning any arguements in court. Recently they were trying to make out that a Walther P22 POS is a "combat firearm":rolleyes::rolleyes:
And thats one of their standard arguements every handgun is a combat firearm or was/is used by criminals or police forces.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Like saying the Sun rises in the East.. No arguement whatsoever.

Amonisis

rowa wrote: »

The "guidelines" used to contain a little paragraph just beneath the famous list. Its how i was able to licence my old revolver when it was pointed out it wasn't on the list.

.I. No.337 of 2009 , article 4(2) part (iii)

“other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire ammunition provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is greater than 10cm”

The "Other firearms" bit i reckon is the important part because it refers to pistols NOT on the list of specific makes and models, but then again i don't speak legalise, so could be getting it arseways. Anyway the super seen my point and granted a licence.

Last time i checked, this paragraph had been removed. If the laws/guidelines etc don't suit your agenda, simply delete or ignore them and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for the court cases.

Could you let me have a PDF or copy of that Rowa? It would be really handy to have when I see my Super (which I presume I'll have to). I just checked the statistics of the Colt 1911 .22 and the barrel length is 5.3"/13.462cm. The mag is already restricted to five rounds. It definitely falls within the unrestricted SI. The guy I bought it from got an unrestricted permit for this firearm in mid 2012. I'm finding it hard to understand why my local FO told me that having checked the serial number in the system it returns a PULSE number which states it's a restricted firearm!?!? Did my FO lie to me? Is there any independent way to check the veracity of his statement? Is there any recourse to the attitude of "We're not going to issue a permit for a firearm which the ballistics section have said not to"?

rowa

Amonisis wrote: »

Could you let me have a PDF or copy of that Rowa? It would be really handy to have when I see my Super (which I presume I'll have to). I just checked the statistics of the Colt 1911 .22 and the barrel length is 5.3"/13.462cm. The mag is already restricted to five rounds. It definitely falls within the unrestricted SI. The guy I bought it from got an unrestricted permit for this firearm in mid 2012. I'm finding it hard to understand why my local FO told me that having checked the serial number in the system it returns a PULSE number which states it's a restricted firearm!?!? Did my FO lie to me? Is there any independent way to check the veracity of his statement? Is there any recourse to the attitude of "We're not going to issue a permit for a firearm which the ballistics section have said not to"?

I don't have it on pdf, but blay has a link to it earlier in this thread. Don't go steaming into the station with it and demanding your rights, thats a sure fire way to get everyone's back up and get yourself nowhere. I would take a copy of it to the Fo and ask him does he think it would apply to your pistol, along with a letter from the dealer stating it has been restricted to 5 rounds, and a picture if you can, of the barrel with a ruler along side showing its barrel is longer than the minimum 10cm. Have you contacted the fpu and asked them what they think ?
When i did this the super was happy, as in his words "my arse is covered" , which is what a lot of them are concerned about.

Witcher

The PDF is on the Garda website, top of the list on the right;

www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=4144&Lang=1

The list page references Section 4 (2) (e)(iii) of the Restricted SI, that's the section which states any 5 shot pistol is OK. So bring a copy of that SI too, I posted a link to it two pages ago I think.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

When i did this the super was happy, as in his words "my arse is covered" , which is what a lot of them are concerned about.

If you think about it, from their point of view they have no training, it's one of the most badly-written, overly-complex, scattered-to-the-winds-across-multiple-Acts pieces of law out there and they're being asked to make a judgement call without any backup and it's not terribly clear how liable they would be for getting it wrong. Doesn't make it right to feck about, but it does give a window into their mindset I suppose...

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

If you think about it, from their point of view they have no training, it's one of the most badly-written, overly-complex, scattered-to-the-winds-across-multiple-Acts pieces of law out there and they're being asked to make a judgement call without any backup and it's not terribly clear how liable they would be for getting it wrong. Doesn't make it right to feck about, but it does give a window into their mindset I suppose...

It's not that difficult to determine if a .22lr pistol is restricted or not. Only 5 in the mag - check. Barrel length ok - check. I think I have covered most of it there.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not that difficult to determine if a .22lr pistol is restricted or not. Only 5 in the mag - check. Barrel length ok - check. I think I have covered most of it there.

Sure, but you're posting on a forum where we've gone over that point a few dozen times in the last year or two alone -- that's a damn sight more training than the Supers got (and btw, the concept of ".22lr pistol" is a familiar one to you, but how many Supers are target shooters themselves?). Plus, that's just the one point in a large morass of law, and they don't have to just enforce that one law, but everything else on the books as well, in a nation where we seem to enjoy writing new laws more than fixing old ones. I don't have any sympathy for the tiny handful of Supers who just ignore the law because of personal bias (and given that they've been called "problem supers" by other AGS personnel indicates that they don't have much sympathy inside the AGS either) -- but for the vast majority of them, it's more down to FUD than deliberate malice. Knowing that might well be useful to an applicant...

rowa

Blay wrote: »

The PDF is on the Garda website, top of the list on the right;

www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=4144&Lang=1

The list page references Section 4 (2) (e)(iii) of the Restricted SI, that's the section which states any 5 shot pistol is OK. So bring a copy of that SI too, I posted a link to it two pages ago I think.

To me the link you posted last night is clearer and its in the link below. I'd print it off and go over it with a highlighter and ask the FO what he thinks.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0337.html

Amonisis

Thanks for all the clarifications and advice guys.