Statement from NASRPC

chem

http://www.nasrpc.ie/hot-news-1/statementfromthenasrpc

Whats all this about??

BillyBoy13

Can I just ask, what prompted this legislation review by government?

Cass

There are a lot of changes floating around about changes to the current legislation including .22lr pistols being further restricted, and even more rumors about them being done away with. Same with semi auto rimfires. One of the key rumors i've heard is they are afraid that an unrestricted pistol can be made restricted by simply putting in a larger capacity mag.


Again these are only rumors, and more to the point the ones that have been relayed to me. There is no source to verify them and as such they remain rumors. Also there could be a lot more to it that just these topics, but i'm not privy to the ins and outs of it.

BillyBoy13

Not including a ban, there is no real way to further restrict pistols. Its locked down pretty tight as it stands. All I can really think of is maybe take the list from the commissioners guidelines and make it the be all and end all- or even get rid of semis and keep revolvers. But after that there is nothing else left to restrict really that I can think of?


Also I wonder how feasible is it that they could pull off an all out ban on pistols? Or would we see a similar deal like with the centerfires.... ie whoever has one can keep it but no new applications.

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Not including a ban, there is no real way to further restrict pistols.

There are several. Amend the restricted list to add yet more stuff to it, for example.

Also I wonder how feasible is it that they could pull off an all out ban on pistols?

Approximately 100% feasible. We do no have any authority to stop them nor legal means to prevent them doing this if they so chose. That's why it was so important to keep people talking, and why burning the FCP was such a disaster. If these rumours turn out to have truth in them - and frankly, nobody outside of the Minister's office actually knows anything, they're just bull****ting people - then this will have been a disaster of our own making.

rowa

"one small shooting organisation may have already agreed with the garda siochanas proposed changes"

Here we go.........

Sparks

I loved that. The same "experienced people" who gave us, amongst other things, an attempt to do an end run around all the other shooting NGBs to get in the most restrictive and draconian bit of pistol legislation ever dreamed up anywhere (outside of a total ban); and the utter kick in the fork that was the criminal justice act 2006; and they can't even get through a press release about rumours they can't have any information about without trying to get the knife into someone else while simultaneously proudly claiming to have gone in and done exactly what they're saying someone else is bad and wrong for doing. But without giving any names, evidence or reasoning.

You know what lads, I'm just wondering - if the Usual Suspects are returning from where they were told to **** off to for the duration, in order to talk to the powers that be about firearms legislation, should I just sell everything now before they get them fecking confiscated?

Cass

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Not including a ban, there is no real way to further restrict pistols.

The thing is though you've just mentioned three possible further restrictions and that is off the top of your head.

1. maybe take the list from the commissioners guidelines and make it the be all and end all
2. or even get rid of semis and keep revolvers.
3. a similar deal like with the centerfires.... ie whoever has one can keep it but no new applications

Imagine what could be done with more time and from a source that has no invested interest in retaining the sport. Sparks has even mentioned that an all out ban is possible. So that's four.

My point is it can be restricted further. To the extent it in essence kills off the sport.

Rowa wrote:

"one small shooting organisation may have already agreed with the garda siochanas proposed changes"

Here we go.........

M'eh.

The proposals are rumors, and as has been said only the DoJ know where certain organisations stand, and what communications have been so until it is made public i'll dismiss these rumors with the contempt they deserve.

Secondly, how can any group have done a deal when no changes have been brought forward, and why would the DoJ need the co-operation of any shooting body to do as they please?

rowa

Cass wrote: »

M'eh.

The proposals are rumors, and as has been said only the DoJ know where certain organisations stand, and what communications have been so until it is made public i'll dismiss these rumors with the contempt they deserve.

Secondly, how can any group have done a deal when no changes have been brought forward, and why would the DoJ need the co-operation of any shooting body to do as they please?

Going by past examples , who knows what cloak and dagger bs goes on behind the scenes ?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Going by past examples , who knows what cloak and dagger bs goes on behind the scenes ?

Everyone, usually within six months to a year.
The idea that you can keep a secret in Ireland is funny enough, but the idea that you could do so in our little community is just downright hilarious.
The problem is that we have either really, really short memories, or just never learn from our mistakes.

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

There are several. Amend the restricted list to add yet more stuff to it, for example.

You're talking about legal avenues for restriction. Im talking about practical avenues. Like I said, at this stage, further restrictions (not including an all out ban) can only really be based on making a list of acceptable pistols and everything else is banned, or full ban on either semis or revolvers, after that your down to restrictions based on what.... Black pistols = bad, silver ones = good. GSGs = bad, Baikal = good.

Sparks wrote: »

Approximately 100% feasible. We do no have any authority to stop them nor legal means to prevent them doing this if they so chose.

Well, yes, I know legally there is nothing stopping them. But I was thinking more like... well actually, you thats familiar with the laws of the land can you answer me this. Surely there is a provision of some kind if for example we stupidy elect a rogue minister, there must be a judge that he can be made answer to if he does something the Irish people don't approve of or want reversed?

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Everyone, usually within six months to a year.

Yeah , but by then its all done and dusted, what will/can the rest of the shooting community do about it ? Nothing, maybe not talk to you for a while.

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

You're talking about legal avenues for restriction. Im talking about practical avenues.

In this case, those are the same thing. Ask anyone who had firearms in 1972.
The minister needs one sheet of blank paper and a pen and he can change the definition of "restricted short firearm" to include anything and everything he wants gone; and doesn't have to go via the Dail to do it. You'd just find yourself in possession of an unlicenced restricted firearm once he signed the dotted line and now it'd be your responsibility to turn it in and they would have a list of people in that position and if you didn't, that's a nice long jail sentence and a five-figure fine they could point in your direction.

Like I said, at this stage, further restrictions (not including an all out ban) can only really be based on making a list of acceptable pistols

No, you could do it on the basis of physical features of the firearm. Do you really want me to give a few examples here?

But read section 2B of the firearms act:

2B.— The Minister may, in the interests of public safety and security, by order—

(a) declare specified firearms to be restricted firearms for the purposes of this Act by reference to one or more than one of the following criteria:

(i) category;
(ii) calibre;
(iii) working mechanism;
(iv) muzzle energy;
(v) description;

and

(b) declare specified ammunition to be restricted ammunition for the purposes of this Act by reference to one or more than one of the following criteria:

(i) category;
(ii) calibre;
(iii) weight;
(iv) kinetic energy;
(v) ballistic co-efficient;
(vi) design;
(vii) composition;
(viii) description.”.

Well, yes, I know legally there is nothing stopping them. But I was thinking more like... well actually, you thats familiar with the laws of the land can you answer me this. Surely there is a provision of some kind if for example we stupidy elect a rogue minister, there must be a judge that he can be made answer to if he does something the Irish people don't approve of or want reversed?

Academically, there are possible verdicts in possible cases that might look like that if you squint real hard and are dead drunk while doing so. But the short, real-world answer is "no, not really".

We had a fairly telling example a few years ago - a case (McVeigh-v-Minister) taken all the way to the supreme court by a firearms dealer who said the Minister of the day had acted illegally by denying him an import licence. The courts agreed... and said effectively, "meh, what can you do, this stuff happens." Or, to quote them directly:

According to the case-law, especially Dunne v. Donohoe, it was not a lawful decision. In my view, it was such as should have been quashed on judicial review. However, it is difficult to discern, at this stage, any advantage to be gained by quashing the decision of the Minister made more than seven years ago. I would simply make a declaration that the Minister had made an unlawful decision by basing it on an inflexible policy.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Yeah , but by then its all done and dusted, what will/can the rest of the shooting community do about it ? Nothing, maybe not talk to you for a while.

You forget the end of that sentence, which is : "and then forget all about it and let it happen all over again."

Like I said, we either have very short memories or we never learn our lessons...

cookimonster

Cass wrote: »

....Secondly, how can any group have done a deal when no changes have been brought forward, and why would the DoJ need the co-operation of any shooting body to do as they please?

Don't be so sure, look at recent government actions based on the Croke Park and Haddington Road Agreements. Each in themselves where ment to be all encompassing but in the detail and the devil is in the detail, pandered to individual groups across the public sector.

If the authorities get some one from the concerned groups, ie shooters, on side then they can be seen to have support and there fore justify thier actions.

By the way the rumor mill kicked out 'possible restriction again on certain centre fire rifle calibers'....but that's only the rumor mill.....

Sparks

cookimonster wrote: »

If the authorities get some one from the concerned groups, ie shooters, on side then they can be seen to have support and there fore justify thier actions.

They need that support about as much as manhole covers need chocolate coatings.

We're gunowners. The media loves to kick us about and damn near nobody in the general public knows enough to differentiate between international target shooters and the 'RA and they have equal amounts of love for both. And the politicians know this and are perfectly willing to chuck us under the bus the minute they see a possible vote in it - just look at Jim Deasy and Olivia Mitchell, who triggered the handgun crackdown for no reason and got a range shut down so that illegally trespassing bikers on private land didn't have to worry about highly improbably escaping ricochet shots, respectively. And they're both Fine Gael, the party that was all happily signing up with the NARGC at the last election to protect our interests???

Truth is, if there's an axe swinging, we've as much hope of stopping it as the firewood does. The FCP used to be able to nudge it a bit left or right, which was about as much as was physically possible, but even then you couldn't stop it. The trick was preventing the axe from starting the downward trip in the first place, long before we get to where we are now with the rumours flying about and the usual suspects trying the usual little hitler end runs.

By this stage, the last twenty years tells us that if the axe is moving, it's already about a year or two too late to be trying to do something about it.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

If the authorities get some one from the concerned groups, ie shooters, on side then they can be seen to have support and there fore justify thier actions.

You are right, but the DoJ do not need the support of any group to push through any changes they want. Granted it might go "smoother" with support from some groups, but it's not a necessity. I mean it's not like shooters are going to go on strike.

By the way the rumor mill kicked out 'possible restriction again on certain centre fire rifle calibers'....but that's only the rumor mill.....

There are a dozen of these every year. The majority never see sunlight as they are simply ridiculous. Others have been around for years and get thrown around every few months.

Again i'll wait to get some sort of official statement from a Gov. body before believing.

Cass

Poxy internet connection. By the time i get a reply written and posted there are a few new posts.

cookimonster

Sparks & Cass,

Completely agree with you views.
My point is yes as gun owners we have no lobby or leverage and that any law, regulation may be changed without public discussion or approval once it is not constitutional. But regardless of the perceiption of the government attitudes or lack of it is in my opinion that they will try and smooth the waters by having certain groups on board. Divide and conquer seems to be the way. The shooting community is divided all ready over the different applications of the sport.
It would take an unfortunate incidence as seen in Great Britain to give them 'just cause' to publicly brandish the sledge hammer on the shooting community here.

Sparks

To be honest cooki, I don't think they'd need that. They didn't when bringing in a crackdown on handguns, they just had Deasy ranting at the Minister in the Dail and getting a bit of press, and that was it.

As to divide and conquer, we were all standing together as one united group in the FCP - and it wasn't the DoJ or the AGS or even the Minister who put the kibosh on that and splintered things again.

cookimonster

It does indeed look like we are splintered and in a perfect position for any and all hits. Lets hope our concerns amount to nothing.........

yubabill1

AGS having failed to stem the flood of illegal drugs into every town in the country, taking firearms out of the hands of citizens is a logical step to legalising said drugs.

bravestar

yubabill1 wrote: »

AGS having failed to stem the flood of illegal drugs into every town in the country

... like every other Police force in the entire world. I blame AGS for me not getting a Mr frosty when I was five. You do know AGS don't write the law don't you?

chem

bravestar wrote: »

... like every other Police force in the entire world. I blame AGS for me not getting a Mr frosty when I was five. You do know AGS don't write the law don't you?

Haha!

yubabill1

bravestar wrote: »

... like every other Police force in the entire world. I blame AGS for me not getting a Mr frosty when I was five. You do know AGS don't write the law don't you?

AGS are charged with maintaining law and order. From what I read in the papers, drug abuse is associated with crimes other than abusing illegal drugs.
As long as demand for illegal drugs stays at present levels, AGS will struggle without significant extra resources and will pass the heat on to people like us.
AGS also seem to have a big input into firearms legislation, from what I can see.

Witcher

What does the illegal importation and sale of drugs have to do with legally held firearms?

Tackleberry.

From what I have heard on these rumours is that its really the .22 pistol mag capacity issue that is the biggy then semi auto shotguns are included in the capacity issue and that .308 rifles may become restricted...
Hope it's all not true as I'm included in every issue, I may as well pack a bag...

Dian Cecht

bravestar wrote: »

... You do know AGS don't write the law don't you?

Pity some of them don't know it wouldn't be any need for a lot of shooters having to go to Court

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

From what I have heard on these rumours is that its really the .22 capacity issue that the biggy.

Same here

then semi auto shotguns are included in the capacity issue

Could be. Some, like my Beretta, come plugged by the manufacturer, and cannot be altered by simply removing a rod, or some other simple task. Others have this option. Very much like putting a ten round mag in an unrestricted pistol.

and that .308 rifles may become restricted...

Did not hear about this. Would be a silly move. A very popular caliber for hunters, and a key caliber for target shooters. Making them restricted would achieve nothing. No increase in fee for restricted firearms, and changin a caliber from unrestricted to restricted would require numerous interviews by Chief Supers, and then any refusals have a golden appeal. I was safe before so why am i not now.

Although those reasons amount to sweet feck all in terms of a reason to keep them as is.

Hope it's all not true as I'm included in every issue, I may as well pack a bag...

.308 and semi auto shotgun would have an effect on me too. No pistol anymore.

yubabill1

Blay wrote: »

What does the illegal importation and sale of drugs have to do with legally held firearms?

The way I see it, one of the more coherent arguments - from a pool of highly spurious ones - is that AGS are saying legally-held firearms could be stolen and fall into criminal hands:

We all know how weak an argument that is and that the undercurrent is AGS/DoJ need a cheap and convenient grandstand to show they are tough on gun crime, by tightening firearms legislation.
Joe Public doesn't care enough to discriminate between illegal and legal firearms, so the cheap shot gives AGS/DoJ payback every time.

Needless to say, I'm pretty pi**ed.

Tackleberry.

Hi Cass, how's the knees?
Well what I was actually told was that .243 is what there new limit would be and that all above would be restricted.

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Hi Cass, how's the knees?

Still fecked lad. Thanks for asking.

Well what I was actually told was that .243 is what there new limit would be and that all above would be restricted.

I wouldn't pay much attention to all the rumors. I know it's easy said, but i'm as affected by any changes, like the ones you said, as you or anyone else.

However i was told years ago that i'd never get my TRG re-licensed as they were being classed as military rifles. Needless to say i did not rush out and sell it, and funnily enough i got the license renewal without a bother. (Then i sold it )

I've heard the same rumors about 243 going to be the minimum for deer, Swifts being illegal for deer, semi auto rifles being banned, .223s being banned (again as military calibers :rolleyes: ), and .308s being restricted. None of it ever came to pass. Not that it cannot, but some rumors are pure speculation and fantasy. Others might have a basis in fact but are blown out of proportion.

rowa

yubabill1 wrote: »

is that AGS are saying legally-held firearms could be stolen and fall into criminal hands:
.

Using that flawed logic, all cars over 1.2L and motorcycles over 250cc should also be banned as they could be used in getaways. Total rubbish.

Dian Cecht

rowa wrote: »

Total rubbish.

Only to us. To the great unwashed who don't shoot it makes perfect sense though.

syklops

I'd love to know how many crimes were committed last year with licensed hand guns.

Seems to me, its easier to get a Glock 17 through unlawful methods than a registered .22 pistol.

cookimonster

Tackleberry,

We must be on the same rumor vine, that's more or less what I heard from a gun dealer last week, potential effect on all semi autos, rifle and shotgun, no more hand guns and maximum rifle calibre of .243.

The anti gun lobby is global at the moment, even the NRA are being kept on thier toes by home grown opposition and they and the gun industry are watching carefully the sabre rattling from both the EU and the UN.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

We must be on the same rumor vine, that's more or less what I heard from a gun dealer last week,

Gun dealers talk to each other, members of a range talk to each other, members of an association or organisation talk to each. My point being if you talk to any person(s) from the same social group chances are their stories will be the same to identical. From filling in gaps in what they were told, to repeating incorrect information rumors become fact, and it spreads.

As i said above if the organisations that will be directly effected don't know what is coming, the Gardaí involved in dealing with firearms don't know (at least the specifics) then no one else will. The DoJ is not in the business of giving heads ups on probable or possible legislation.

yubabill1

cookimonster wrote: »

Tackleberry,




The anti gun lobby is global at the moment, even the NRA are being kept on thier toes by home grown opposition and they and the gun industry are watching carefully the sabre rattling from both the EU and the UN.

brings to mind the recent EU consultation thread here a while ago and the metrosexual interpretation of the outcome.

At least shooters got together EU-wide on that one.

We have more political clout than you might think.

Drexl Spivey

I shouldn't have purchased a .22 (I have yet to receive the approval from Garda)

It seems an inevitability, one day, sooner or later, they will ban firearms.

I don't understand what would result out of this in their view, for example would it lower rate of any sort of crimes...

Very frustrating indeed.

bravestar

yubabill1 wrote: »

AGS are charged with maintaining law and order. From what I read in the papers, drug abuse is associated with crimes other than abusing illegal drugs.
As long as demand for illegal drugs stays at present levels, AGS will struggle without significant extra resources and will pass the heat on to people like us.
AGS also seem to have a big input into firearms legislation, from what I can see.

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Pity some of them don't know it wouldn't be any need for a lot of shooters having to go to Court

yubabill1 wrote: »

The way I see it, one of the more coherent arguments - from a pool of highly spurious ones - is that AGS are saying legally-held firearms could be stolen and fall into criminal hands:

We all know how weak an argument that is and that the undercurrent is AGS/DoJ need a cheap and convenient grandstand to show they are tough on gun crime, by tightening firearms legislation.
Joe Public doesn't care enough to discriminate between illegal and legal firearms, so the cheap shot gives AGS/DoJ payback every time.

Needless to say, I'm pretty pi**ed.

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Only to us. To the great unwashed who don't shoot it makes perfect sense though.

Extremism, regardless of which side it falls on, is never a good thing and undermines the cause which it purports. Some people would do well to remember that.

BillyBoy13

Drexl Spivey wrote: »

I shouldn't have purchased a .22 (I have yet to receive the approval from Garda)

It seems an inevitability, one day, sooner or later, they will ban firearms.

I don't understand what would result out of this in their view, for example would it lower rate of any sort of crimes...

Very frustrating indeed.

Im not going to get into whether or not the AGS/DOJ will ever get a complete firearm ban in the future.

But for you, if you are regretting your purchase you have a few options.

The most obvious is to call AGS and cancel your application. Dont worry if they tell you its in post- you wont be licenced until you pay the 80euros. But just to save them going to the bother of processing it, Id call and cancel it.

Next step is contact your dealer. Some dealers will give you your deposit back, others wont. You can either cut your loses and let him keep the deposit or you can pay him the rest of the money for the rifle and now you officially own it (you just cant possess it).

You have a few options from here- sell it back to him (or any dealer for that matter), or sell it yourself. Put some adds up here on boards or go round a few clubs. You should be able to recoup all and any money you spent.

Goodluck with it whether you keep or sell

Tackleberry.

From my cold dead hands the yanks say, they'll not take our guns...I taught they where all mad in the head with this stance once a time but I get there logic more now than ever before, even if they own some crazy sh*te over there, we here are as gun owners under attack from our own state,even when we have proved that we are safe and careful users of the firearms that we own they still look to amend our laws outta fear...

BattleCorp

Tackleberry. wrote: »

From what I have heard on these rumours is that its really the .22 pistol mag capacity issue that is the biggy then semi auto shotguns are included in the capacity issue and that .308 rifles may become restricted...

To be honest, the public safety arguement that will probably be put forward is bullsh1t. I wouldn't mind if licenced pistol holders were going around committing crimes but this isn't the case.

If changing the magazine to a larger capacity magazine is considered very dangerous and thus must be banned for pistols, what's to stop them doing the same with every CZ or Ruger semi auto rifle. Can't the magazine be changed on them?

If a ban on .22 pistols is indeed forced upon us, it will serve absolutely no purpose and achieve nothing except p1ss off the likes of me, a law abiding citizen who will no longer be able to take part in their chosen sport.

yubabill1

BattleCorp wrote: »

If a ban on .22 pistols is indeed forced upon us, it will serve absolutely no purpose and achieve nothing except p1ss off the likes of me, a law abiding citizen who will no longer be able to take part in their chosen sport.

shatter thinks there might be votes in it - but Joe Public could care less about law-abiding, mentally stable, vetted and profiled citizens owning handguns.

SmartpPeople would say "Weren't handguns already banned? .22 handgun, surely that's what Olympians use, so they must be safe?

There are NO votes in this, Minister.

Witcher

yubabill1 wrote: »

shatter thinks there might be votes in it - but Joe Public could care less about law-abiding, mentally stable, vetted and profiled citizens owning handguns.

SmartpPeople would say "Weren't handguns already banned? .22 handgun, surely that's what Olympians use, so they must be safe?

There are NO votes in this, Minister.

Read a firearms thread over on After Hours or an article about them on TheJournal, a lot of people in Ireland are against firearms. They don't care what sort of vetting is done. The public aren't our friends. Look at the objections made on radio to the new full bore range down the country, some people openly admitted that they didn't know the ins and outs of it would be objecting anyway. My own club had the same problem, people here just don't like firearms simple as that.

Sparks

Tackleberry. wrote: »

From my cold dead hands the yanks say

Actually, the majority of the yanks are for reasonable gun control according to damn near every survey. Even the NRA was calling for it not too long ago (yes, there are disagreements over what "reasonable" means, but honestly there wasn't much difference in most of the opinions out there).

And the "cold dead hands" thing is kindof like the "molon labe" thing - it's funny, but it doesn't bear up to thirty seconds thought (seriously, if more people knew what actually happened at thermopylae and who was fighting there and what they were really like, not one person in the world would try to associate themselves with them - the spartans made the nazis look like nice reasonable people).

And that's before you even get to the not-so-minor point that they can say that becuase their constitution grants them a legal right to own firearms; ours does not, our culture isn't pro-private-firearms-ownership, our national psyche is totally different, our culture and case law and pretty much everything else is wildly different from the US, and really, comparing here and there is like comparing chalk and the 1957 Bolivian world cup soccer team.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

shatter thinks there might be votes in it - but Joe Public could care less about law-abiding, mentally stable, vetted and profiled citizens owning handguns.

As I've tried explaining a few times, Joe Public doesn't know that law-abiding, mentally stable, vetted and profiled citizens own handguns.

Seriously. How many times have we heard, a decade after their return, that someone was shocked that we were allowed own them and that surely there was something wrong with that? And they're usually surprised that they're in the Olympics as well, for that matter -- though, for all the olympic-bashing the shouty people love to engage in, that particular argument is one of the very few we've found that give people pause for thought - we can bitch all we want about it, but people really do give the Olympics a lot of status in their own minds and that has worked to our benefit a lot in the past.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, the majority of the yanks are for reasonable gun control according to damn near every survey. Even the NRA was calling for it not too long ago (yes, there are disagreements over what "reasonable" means, but honestly there wasn't much difference in most of the opinions out there).

But the majority of american shooters are also afraid that if they give an inch in reasonable gun control, the ban everything brigade will take a mile. When you look at what happened in the uk and whats happening here, eg. The law abiding safe shooter paying for the sins of gangland criminals, you can't blame them. They don't want death by a thousand little cuts.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

But the majority of american shooters are also afraid that if they give an inch in reasonable gun control, the ban everything brigade will take a mile.

Yes, but (a) I was talking about the majority of americans not just american shooters (though it seems that the majority of american shooters are also fine with reasonable gun control); and (b) the ban everything brigade are seriously restricted by law as to what they can't do - just look at the recent ruling against the chicago ban where it was struck down (but also note that they didn't ban licencing - they struck down a ban on licenced firearms ownership in the city limits. These cases are rarely simple soundbites...).

When you look at what happened in the uk and whats happening here, eg. The law abiding safe shooter paying for the sins of gangland criminals, you can't blame them. They don't want death by a thousand little cuts.

They also don't (or at least, the majority in the surveys don't) mind having gun controls either. Ted Nugent aside, I don't think you'll find too many americans who think that felons or the insane (as in, medically diagnosed, not "gosh, you're just nuts you are") should have a right to own a firearm. The debate is, and always has been, about where the line is drawn, and that's a very different thing from having a debate about whether or not there should be a line at all.

And again, this has as much to do with us as that 1957 Bolivian world cup soccer team...

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

If changing the magazine to a larger capacity magazine is considered very dangerous and thus must be banned for pistols, what's to stop them doing the same with every CZ or Ruger semi auto rifle. Can't the magazine be changed on them?.

Yup. As said in post 3 or 4:

Cass wrote: »

There are a lot of changes floating around about changes to the current legislation including .22lr pistols being further restricted, and even more rumors about them being done away with. Same with semi auto rimfires. One of the key rumors i've heard is they are afraid that an unrestricted pistol can be made restricted by simply putting in a larger capacity mag.

Sparks

Or, more generally, what's to stop anyone with any firearm at all from taking a hacksaw to the barrel and cutting it down to less than the legal limits of 63/50cm? What's to stop anyone from buying more ammunition than they have a licence to hold at any one time? What's to stop someone from pointing their gun at another human being?

The answer's the same in all these cases - namely that it's against the law and we obey the law.

Kindof like the way a Garda's not legally allowed to take his baton and beat the everloving snot out of a random passerby on the street, and Gardai obey the law so they don't do that and that's considered sufficient control and so we don't think twice about giving them batons and regularly debate publicly if they shouldn't be given more.

Seems to me, what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, but hey, I'm an eternal optimist as anyone will tell you...