restricted pistol question.

blades1982

hi. have applied for a licence for a ruger single six .22lr revolver.

got a letter stateing one chamber will be perminatly plugged. so its a 5 round pistol.

a letter came back saying its restricted dto gone to the cheif super. is this correct ?

Cass

Firstly no new restricted licenses for short firearms can be given/issued. It's against the law. So it can only be an unrestricted license.

As such the Chief Super is not the person for the application it's the Super. now when you applied did you tick restricted or unrestricted on the FCA1?

If you tick unrestricted you need to contact them and inform them it's the Super that needs to decide. If you ticked restricted then it's a "moot application" in that it cannot be accepted and will be refused.

Lastly, and making the above somewhat irrelevant, the Chief Super should know that he cannot issue a restricted license and so should pass it on down to the Super. A chief Supeer can issue the license as an unrestricted, but it's unusual.

I'd contact the station, explain that it's an unrestricted application and ask for it to be given to the Super. Explain that a restricted pistol cannot be applied for or granted and then clarify why the Chief Super is looking at it instead of the Super.

blades1982

from the letter

i acknoweledge the receipt of y our applicatio for a firearms certificate in respect of a .22 ruger revolver.
i have sought the views of the ballistics section at garda headquarters concerning the specifications of this firearm
i am advised that the firearm fails to meet the requirements of si 337/2009 in order to be considered no restricted.
in this regard i am forwarding your application onto chief superintendant at kilkenny for consideration. he is the granting authority in respect of restricted firearms applications.

Cass

Does it not make you laugh that they refer to the Garda Balistics Dept the so called "experts" and they determine that the gun is restricted and so the application is sent to the Chief Super even though you cannot even apply for a restricted short firearm anymore?

What has happened is the "experts" have told the Chief Super's office that as a six shot revolver it's a restricted firearm. Your letter/claim that one chamber will be permanently plugged to render it incapable of being used as a restricted firearm (5 shot only) has been ignored or not accepted as being enough to classify it as an unrestricted firearm.

What you are going to get next is a letter saying that because no new licenses can be issued for a restricted short firearm, and as the gun has been classified as such, that the application stands as refused.

You now need to contact the Chief Super's office, and the Garda Ballistics, and ask them did they understand that one chamber would be permanently plugged and what their concern is over this being done and why they would consider a .22lr pistol that can only hold 5 shots as a restricted firearm? Either that or wait for the refusal and face a court case to appeal the refusal.

blades1982

dam, ok. thanks. is this a case i can win or should i just let it drop ?

blades1982

Cass wrote: »

Does it not make you laugh that they refer to the Garda Balistics Dept the so called "experts" and they determine that the gun is restricted and so the application is sent to the Chief Super even though you cannot even apply for a restricted short firearm anymore?

What has happened is the "experts" have told the Chief Super's office that as a six shot revolver it's a restricted firearm. Your letter/claim that one chamber will be permanently plugged to render it incapable of being used as a restricted firearm (5 shot only) has been ignored or not accepted as being enough to classify it as an unrestricted firearm.

What you are going to get next is a letter saying that because no new licenses can be issued for a restricted short firearm, and as the gun has been classified as such, that the application stands as refused.

You now need to contact the Chief Super's office, and the Garda Ballistics, and ask them did they understand that one chamber would be permanently plugged and what their concern is over this being done and why they would consider a .22lr pistol that can only hold 5 shots as a restricted firearm? Either that or wait for the refusal and face a court case to appeal the refusal.

rang the ballistics and they wouldnt even talk too me.

Cass

blades1982 wrote: »

is this a case i can win or should i just let it drop ?

I wouldn't be thinking of the court case right now. There are things that can be done before it gets to that point.

Write, don't ring, back to the Chief Super's office. Explain that the pistol will be permanently restricted to hold no more than 5 rounds. This makes it an unrestricted firearm. That the recent court cases where the issue of a firearm being permanently restricted to hold five rounds was accepted by the court as being in line with the definition of SI 337/2009 and completely legal. IOW no cause for refusing the applications.

Highlight that you understand and know that no new restricted short firearm licenses can be issued and that you are not applying for one. Explain how the Garda Ballistics department are not taking into consideration the plugging of the sixth chamber, and that as "experts" they should know that a new application for a restricted short firearm stands moot. Ask the Chief Super to talk to the Firearms Policy Unit who's very existence was designed for this very purpose (providing advice to both sides on the implementation of the current legislation) and see if they agree that a plugged pistol is a restricted firearm.

Send the letter or deliver by hand. Get a receipt if delivering by hand (do not leave it without getting a receipt) or better again register the letter and send it by post.

If after all this you still get refused then you can take legal action, but don't threaten legal action as it'll close any avenue for resolution, not to mention tip your hand.

blades1982

Cass wrote: »

I wouldn't be thinking of the court case right now. There are things that can be done before it gets to that point.

Write, don't ring, back to the Chief Super's office. Explain that the pistol will be permanently restricted to hold no more than 5 rounds. This makes it an unrestricted firearm. That the recent court cases where the issue of a firearm being permanently restricted to hold five rounds was accepted by the court as being in line with the definition of SI 337/2009 and completely legal. IOW no cause for refusing the applications.

Highlight that you understand and know that no new restricted short firearm licenses can be issued and that you are not applying for one. Explain how the Garda Ballistics department are not taking into consideration the plugging of the sixth chamber, and that as "experts" they should know that a new application for a restricted short firearm stands moot. Ask the Chief Super to talk to the Firearms Policy Unit who's very existence was designed for this very purpose (providing advice to both sides on the implementation of the current legislation) and see if they agree that a plugged pistol is a restricted firearm.

Send the letter or deliver by hand. Get a receipt if delivering by hand (do not leave it without getting a receipt) or better again register the letter and send it by post.

If after all this you still get refused then you can take legal action, but don't threaten legal action as it'll close any avenue for resolution, not to mention tip your hand.

thanks a lot man, i appreciate it. ill get on this.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Does it not make you laugh that they refer to the Garda Balistics Dept the so called "experts" and they determine that the gun is restricted and so the application is sent to the Chief Super even though you cannot even apply for a restricted short firearm anymore?

What has happened is the "experts" have told the Chief Super's office that as a six shot revolver it's a restricted firearm. Your letter/claim that one chamber will be permanently plugged to render it incapable of being used as a restricted firearm (5 shot only) has been ignored or not accepted as being enough to classify it as an unrestricted firearm.

What you are going to get next is a letter saying that because no new licenses can be issued for a restricted short firearm, and as

the gun has been classified as such, that the application stands as refused.


And you now can respond that under a recent high court decision in March 2015 or multiple decisions in relation to the 5 shot unrestricted/restricted palaver, such a decision is not an option anymore as it does not give you the applicant the right of appeal to the DC of the CS/Supers decision. They must decide on the merit of the application, not on the actual gun and what it might or might not be or could be.Nor can they "ping pong" your application between their revelant authorithy and absolve themselves of dealing with it.

As one of the HC applicants in this and have got the same refusal as outlined by Cass,you can tell them to take a running jump if they come up with this decision. I posted awhile back the HC decision on this here about March if you want to research the thread for it. Wm Egan Solr got the final HC judgement[?] instructions last week,so us applicants should be getting the instructions for the re application in the next week or so.

So its a refer back to Super for re consideration...Thats fine too...Because if they refuse it,it can go back to the DC and AGS if they lose ,will be responsible for your costs.Which have now gone up dramatically since this decision has been used.Solrs and counsel are smelling blood as this is state money and like sharks are homing in for a feeding frenzy on the AGS.
I ,going by previous experiance in Limerick and by a still dragging on caliber change expect mine to be in the DC yet again sometime this year.
Whoever is issueing these orders from the Park,as this is where this is coming from now with no doubt,should look up Einsteins definition of insanity.As it applies here.

Sparks

Mod Note: Just moving the question out to the main forum as it's more to do with the admin side than the sport side.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

...........And you now can respond that under a recent high court decision in March 2015 or multiple decisions in relation to the 5 shot unrestricted/restricted palaver, such a decision is not an option anymore ..............

Yup. Did not go into too much detail but skimmed that detail Grizz.

Cass wrote: »

............... That the recent court cases where the issue of a firearm being permanently restricted to hold five rounds was accepted by the court as being in line with the definition of SI 337/2009 and completely legal. IOW no cause for refusing the applications...............

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

the gun has been classified as such, that the application stands as refused.


And you now can respond that under a recent high court decision in March 2015 or multiple decisions in relation to the 5 shot unrestricted/restricted palaver, such a decision is not an option anymore as it does not give you the applicant the right of appeal to the DC of the CS/Supers decision. They must decide on the merit of the application, not on the actual gun and what it might or might not be or could be.Nor can they "ping pong" your application between their revelant authorithy and absolve themselves of dealing with it.

.

That will work right up until Frances signs the SI.

Cynical, moi?

Grizzly 45

Think we are awhile off from that Yuba...Everything and anything is still up in the air and will be fo rawhile yet..So as the old saying goes".If you are not in you cant win.." So FWIW,if you are considering a .22 or a semi CF,it might be no harm to stick in an application right about now.:)