Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

New SI released, changes to licencing upcoming.

2456

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,427 ✭✭✭Dr Strange


    Melodeon wrote: »
    Haven't lads had to butcher their 6 (and more) round .22 revolvers to only hold 5 for a good while now anyway?

    That's true, I saw some nice Webley's .22 changed to 5 rounds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Melodeon wrote: »
    Haven't lads had to butcher their 6 (and more) round .22 revolvers to only hold 5 for a good while now anyway?

    Yes, but some were still having issues because of the modified -vs- came-from-the-factory thing.
    Dr Strange wrote: »
    Ah crap, just when I planned to start .22 pistol shooting (after using .22 rifles for the last 10 years) :(

    You're still fine, nothing's changed for that other than that it just got a bit easier.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭gunhappy_ie


    You're dead right.

    Clarifies one thing, messes another

    (iii) firearms which are designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle
    rim fire percussion ammunition and use magazines that have
    been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to
    accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition”.

    The key word there would be "modified" that could cover revolvers but since it refers only to "magazines" and not cylinders you could get a snaggy cop..... !


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,427 ✭✭✭Dr Strange


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    You can licence a .22lr semi auto pistol if the mag can only hold 5 rounds.

    Looking for revolver but if 5 rounds are still OK than it doesn't change much as the 6 chambered revolvers had to be modified to only hold 5 rounds anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,420 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Right so .22 pistols with 5 round mags are now restricted correct?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    You're dead right.

    Clarifies one thing, messes another

    For legislation, that's better than average :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Strider wrote: »
    Right so .22 pistols with 5 round mags are now restricted correct?


    No, not at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Strider wrote: »
    Right so .22 pistols with 5 round mags are now restricted correct?

    Incorrect, they're unrestricted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    nastros wrote: »
    So is reloading possibly on the cards than?

    Not even mentioned. Different act. Its status remains unchanged - possibly on the cards, needs a rework of the explosives act.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,420 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Ok, I just saw they had substituted a paragraph in the Restricted SI and guessed the worst. I'm on a phone and didn't want to go and check what they had changed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Strider wrote: »
    Right so .22 pistols with 5 round mags are now restricted correct?

    No, exactly the opposite. Their categorisation as unrestricted has been clarified and underlined, along with the removal of the completely nonsensical requirement that they be "designed for" use in Olympic competition. It bases their requirement to remain unrestricted solely on mechanical, identifiable characteristics, being mag capacity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Sparks wrote: »
    Not even mentioned. Different act. Its status remains unchanged - possibly on the cards, needs a rework of the explosives act.

    A political can for kicking if there ever was one.FG promised that one when they got into power X years ago.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Like I've been saying for a few months Grizz, this is one can we want firmly booted, because a good solid kick to it is the best possible outcome for us.

    Also, the restart of the FCP is the best bit of news today. No more shouting, back in the process, a far better place to be in.

    Be interesting to see how the NARGC responds to this given their past statements...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭gunhappy_ie


    Sparks wrote: »
    You're still fine, nothing's changed for that other than that it just got a bit easier.

    Easier is the wrong word. Youll still have the same scrutiny but they will not refuse you a licence because of its magazine has been modified to suit the legislation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,420 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Sparks wrote: »

    Be interesting to see how the NARGC responds to this given their past statements...

    They'll be out burning bridges within the hour.

    They should be bitch slapped at this stage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭turismo2142


    The SI is designed to save the State litigation costs and nothing else. Everything else is still up in the air.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Easier is the wrong word. Youll still have the same scrutiny but they will not refuse you a licence because of its magazine has been modified to suit the legislation.

    No, easier is the right word because now you don't have the worry about being refused over a gray area, as has happened to several people of late with GSG-type pistols. That's no longer a concern, so it's slightly easier. They're not giving them out with cornflakes, but it's now the process will follow the actual written rules.

    Hopefully :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    This SI only deals with short firearms. Where's the legislation that puts applying for semi auto centrefire rifles on hold until there's an authority to deal with that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Strider wrote: »
    They'll be out burning bridges within the hour.
    To be entirely honest, given the experiences of the last few years, if they don't take a seat at the table this time, I think they can't expect the rest of us to stand with them outside the tent getting pissed on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭turismo2142


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    This SI only deals with short firearms. Where's the legislation that puts applying for semi auto centrefire rifles on hold until there's an authority to deal with that?
    There is none.

    The rest is on a "to do" list. Although there is a statement that says if you get one between now and then it can be revoked by whatever primary legislation they are considering.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    This SI only deals with short firearms. Where's the legislation that puts applying for semi auto centrefire rifles on hold until there's an authority to deal with that?

    Not yet released. That'll have to be... ah. Oh crap. An actual Act.
    /headdesk

    Didn't think of that.

    /looks for place to go hide for a year


    edit: They still have a template from 2009 to use, but yeah, they'll have to pass an Act and that means the whole circus, right before an election. ****e.

    Man. Finian McGrath debating with Michael Healy-Rae across the floor of the Dail about our stuff.

    Can we legalise recreational narcotics first? Please? They don't make tequila strong enough to watch that kind of ****e...


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Sparks wrote: »
    Not yet released. That'll have to be... ah. Oh crap. An actual Act.
    /headdesk

    Didn't think of that.

    /looks for place to go hide for a year


    edit: They still have a template from 2009 to use, but yeah, they'll have to pass an Act and that means the whole circus, right before an election. ****e.

    Man. Finian McGrath debating with Michael Healy-Rae across the floor of the Dail about our stuff.

    Can we legalise recreational narcotics first? Please? They don't make tequila strong enough to watch that kind of ****e...


    Like was mentioned earlier, it's probably on a to-do list. Hopefully it won't be touched before the election. The government would hardly want to p1ss off any more people coming up to the election.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Like was mentioned earlier, it's probably on a to-do list. Hopefully it won't be touched before the election. The government would hardly want to p1ss off any more people coming up to the election.

    Your lips to the minister's ears...


    edit: Actually, that came out way more dodgy-sounding than intended, sorry!


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Sparks wrote: »
    Your lips to the minister's ears...


    edit: Actually, that came out way more dodgy-sounding than intended, sorry!


    Hey, if I thought it would help. :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Hey, if I thought it would help. :pac:

    Love how you think it was you I was apologising to :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭gunhappy_ie


    Just wondering ....... how much money are the state saving by bringing in a crowd of civilians to arbitrate instead of going to the courts ?

    Having only quickly read through this verall Im happy with the results achieved. If this all goes ahead as proposed we could have a modern licencing system that allows for the growth of the sport (except centerfire pistols)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Just wondering ....... how much money are the state saving by bringing in a crowd of civilians to arbitrate instead of going to the courts ?

    Having only quickly read through this verall Im happy with the results achieved. If this all goes ahead as proposed we could have a modern licencing system that allows for the growth of the sport (except centerfire pistols)

    S/A C/F rifles to be capped = effective ban.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Just wondering ....... how much money are the state saving by bringing in a crowd of civilians to arbitrate instead of going to the courts ?
    Quite a lot, but so are we. We never had a 100% success rate there, don't forget, not to mention the unrecoverable portion of your costs as laid out in your Section 68 letter. This is a positive development, at least as laid out so far; and it doesn't take away the courts route even if you do appeal this way. It just adds another step before you have to get on the phone to a solicitor.
    Having only quickly read through this verall Im happy with the results achieved. If this all goes ahead as proposed we could have a modern licencing system that allows for the growth of the sport (except centerfire pistols)
    And centerfire rifles.
    But yes, there does appear to be a lot of positive stuff in there. Day one only, and all the normal caveats apply, but... yeah, that was a lot more positive than it might have been.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    S/A C/F rifles to be capped = effective ban.

    Actually,its an already outdated act before the ink is even on the paper for the proposed act and Dail debate.;):D.Technology has already moved on again to make even this reduntant.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭gunhappy_ie


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    S/A C/F rifles to be capped = effective ban.

    Thats jumping the gun :P


Advertisement