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.

12346»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 497 ✭✭boc121


    Deaf git wrote: »
    I wonder when we will see an amended Commissioner's Guidelines that reflects S391/15?

    Could somebody here have a go at a list?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,455 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Deaf git wrote: »
    I'm surprised it hasn't been updated. It was amended last November and there was no new legislation at the time.
    But there was yars between updates and it was a different commissioner that wrote the original. So i wouldn't expect a new update to be a priority.
    Much has been written on these pages about the complexity of the legislation, guidelines are very useful for all involved.
    Honestly, i'd like to see the Commissioner's Guidelines done away with. It's only a practical guide to the implementation of the laws, but has caused so much grief as it was used as though it was law with many lads here with problems saying the FO they dealt with directly quoted the guidelines and ignored the law.

    IOW the guidelines were used when it suited and ignored when it did not. So they are, imo, a nuisance more than anything.
    boc121 wrote: »
    Could somebody here have a go at a list?
    God no. Why would you want that?

    The SI has cleared up the law regarding .22lr pistols. Don't seek to restrict it again by making lists.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,256 ✭✭✭Melodeon


    boc121 wrote: »
    Could somebody here have a go at a list?

    Here be dragons!


  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Deaf git


    Well if not amended to take account of a new SI, then at least take them & bin them. As it stands they are substantively wrong.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,455 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    As i said above and dozen of times before they are ONLY guidelines. Whether they are up to date with the law is irrelevant.

    They have been the bane of all problems regarding the implementation of the law and other than being scrapped i can see little else could bee done with them. Based on past use of them that is.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    the commissioners guidelines were and are some of the most mis-leading pronouncements on firearms laws in ireland. The confused many people including many firearms officers, into getting the actual law and guidelines mixed up.

    They should be discontinued


  • Registered Users Posts: 497 ✭✭boc121


    Cass wrote: »

    God no. Why would you want that?

    The SI has cleared up the law regarding .22lr pistols. Don't seek to restrict it again by making lists.

    Its not that I want one, I just thought we were getting a new one.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,455 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Any list will only serve to prejudice, disallow or stop the licensing of certain guns for no good reason other than it not being liked. It's what happened before.

    With the introduction of this new SI that ability is gone. So it's now back to a legal reason. IOW once you have good reason no gun is out of limits (.22lr ones of course). The way it should be.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Deaf git


    Have any of the disputed .22 pistol cases been resolved as a result of the new SI? By resolved I mean licence issued and legalities settled.


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


    Monday AM my Super will be getting a call from moi to meet and discuss one of the HC GSG disputed pistols,with the blessing of Mr Egan.. ..Let the game begin.:)

    "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: 1,113 ✭✭✭Zxthinger


    Cass wrote: »
    Any list will only serve to prejudice, disallow or stop the licensing of certain guns for no good reason other than it not being liked. It's what happened before.

    With the introduction of this new SI that ability is gone. So it's now back to a legal reason. IOW once you have good reason no gun is out of limits (.22lr ones of course). The way it should be.
    Not a gig for all cass
    Revolver issue..
    I know that it has been mentioned but it's either being dismissed or deemed as irrelevant to the the majority of people but it's relocation to the restricted-list amounts to erosion of our shooting sports.
    This issues requires immediate redress, and a large scale campaign to put it right.
    I'm not directing this at you only but it's s point that is relevant and needs your support


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,455 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    I can understand the frustration, but does the new SI not specifically addresses the issue of magazine capacity:
    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
    So the excuse that used to be trotted out about the extra cylinder being plugged as NOT being sufficient should (and i say should as the SI addresses magazine, but in the case of a revolver the cylinder is the mag) be now moot or at the least clarified enough to put up a reasonable defence as to it's legitimacy.

    I've spoken to a good few people since the release of the SI and a couple have brought up this issue of us not getting the "6th round". However we were never going to get it. The objective in this whole process was to retain what we had, clarify the some troublesome aspects of how the law was implemented and i think all in all we done that.

    Now was not the time to try and change the law or seek to have previous SI's abolished or amended. I'm not saying it should not be done, but at a time when we thought we might loose a lot more the focus was on trying to keep what we had more than get something back. For example if we lost pistols altogether, lost semi auots altogether, and lost or had all semi auto shotguns restricted then what importance would be on whether revolvers could have 6 instead of 5.

    It's not capitulation. It's knowing which battles to fight and when. In the next two years, assuming FG get back into power, we're going to be facing into another Act or even a rewrite of all the firearms acts. Between now and then, especially with the reintroduction of the FCP, is the time to address this and other issues.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



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


    This issues requires immediate redress, and a large scale campaign to put it right.
    Or a five minute chat in the FCP. Which is far less likely to get people's backs up and cause Yet Another Row with the PTB, and far more likely to have someone say "well, of course that's not what we meant" and this time actually have that passed on down the line.
    It's not trivial; but there's an avenue to handle this now in a far faster, more efficient, less sexy, more lasting manner.
    Who you should be raising this with is your NGB; not the DoJ or AGS.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,113 ✭✭✭Zxthinger


    Sparks wrote: »
    Or a five minute chat in the FCP. Which is far less likely to get people's backs up and cause Yet Another Row with the PTB, and far more likely to have someone say "well, of course that's not what we meant" and this time actually have that passed on down the line.
    It's not trivial; but there's an avenue to handle this now in a far faster, more efficient, less sexy, more lasting manner.
    Who you should be raising this with is your NGB; not the DoJ or AGS.

    I can understand where your coming from but tbh your world or your view of this problem is a little bit too picture perfect!

    As of yet we have no FCP so we need to act as if it didn't exist. Obliviously this wAs another simple error but wouldn't it be reassuring if the dept admitted that and we all knew that possible redress was looming on the horizon.
    Currently I only see an erosion of our sports.

    Are there any revolver shooters out there who are now holdimg a restricted arm?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,455 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Zxthinger wrote: »
    As of yet we have no FCP so we need to act as if it didn't exist.
    That is short sighted, and rushed. It was only a week ago that the reintroduction of the FCP was announced. We need to give it time to get established. Going any other route no matter how fast you want it to happen will not be any quicker, and most definitely won't get any further as it's an "unofficial" route.
    Are there any revolver shooters out there who are now holdimg a restricted arm?
    Can you explain this for me? I'm having a blond moment and either i've forgotten or overlooked where you are getting this from. If a person has a revolver that is plugged for 5 shots as per SI 21/2008 & Si 337/2009 then it stil stands as unrestricted. Anyone buying a new revolver can now, with the aid of SI391/2015, get it plugged without having to face into a court battle or if they do they have a strong/stronger case.

    How has anyone i described above gone from unrestricted to restricted because of the SI?
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



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


    Zxthinger wrote: »
    I can understand where your coming from but tbh your world or your view of this problem is a little bit too picture perfect!
    Twenty years of shooting have knocked most of the corners off my view. And having seen the pound-the-table approach tried so often and seen it fail miserably more often than it broke even have somewhat soured me on the idea of taking that much risk on when negative outcomes hit so many more people than just those doing the pounding.
    In general, the more boring and less sexy the solution, the better the odds of it working and the longer it will work for. That's not theory; that's observed events.
    As of yet we have no FCP so we need to act as if it didn't exist. Obliviously this wAs another simple error but wouldn't it be reassuring if the dept admitted that and we all knew that possible redress was looming on the horizon.
    Currently I only see an erosion of our sports.
    That's because you're expecting this stuff to all happen overnight. It doesn't. It never ever has, ever, at any time in the state's history.
    Talk to your NGB, don't let it drop off the agenda, but don't expect it by next tuesday. This is only going to be a problem if someone is refused a licence on the specific grounds of a drafting error in the SI; that's less likely to happen now than it was before this. The FCP really is your best shot at changing this error with the least fuss and least trouble for shooting in general; especially as the SI needs to be rewritten again anyway because of all the other groups who the PTB know were accidentally included, like paintball and crossbow shooting. Adding a small tweak to fix a drafting error is a lot easier when you're already fixing larger stuff like that anyway.
    Are there any revolver shooters out there who are now holdimg a restricted arm?
    All the centerfire revolver owners for a start.


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


    Cass wrote: »
    How has anyone i described above gone from unrestricted to restricted because of the SI?
    As i understand it the argument comes down to whether a revolver's cylinder counts as a magazine under the SI.

    Thing is, it's never been an issue until now (and if it had not been counted as a magazine, six-round-cylinder owners would never have needed plugs for their cylinders).

    So until someone gets refused a licence on these grounds, I don't think this is a problem above the level of "drafting error". Fix it when fixing other stuff, in other words; not "gather the pitchforks and march on leinster house".


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,113 ✭✭✭Zxthinger


    Sparks wrote: »
    As i understand it the argument comes down to whether a revolver's cylinder counts as a magazine under the SI.

    Thing is, it's never been an issue until now (and if it had not been counted as a magazine, six-round-cylinder owners would never have needed plugs for their cylinders).

    So until someone gets refused a licence on these grounds, I don't think this is a problem above the level of "drafting error". Fix it when fixing other stuff, in other words; not "gather the pitchforks and march on leinster house".
    Pitch forks on standby for the FPC when the get going..
    However sparks over the years you have proclaimed the folly of making assumptions regrading legal interpretations especially when one might be hung out to dry in court.
    Your have always advocated strict adherence with statute laws and placed them as pinicale above any AGS interpretation or erroneous licensing practices.

    Now it seems that you are relaxing you view when it suits you.

    Perhaps I'm wrong to reach for my pitch fork (just yet)for this gross drafting error but I wouldn't like to be to person involved in the first test case to determine that a cylinder is not a magazine.
    A quick run into the kings-inn law library will produce several forensic firearm books in which all the relevant anatomical pistol detail is listed and each and every reference details cylinders and magazines as different beasts with different mechanical properties thus creating a pleather shooter based pros and cons for both systems.

    I simply want to know was this a genuine drafting error and if not perhaps then the ptb would furnish an explanation as to why such action was taken.


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


    Zxthinger wrote: »
    However sparks over the years you have proclaimed the folly of making assumptions regrading legal interpretations especially when one might be hung out to dry in court.
    Your have always advocated strict adherence with statute laws and placed them as pinicale above any AGS interpretation or erroneous licensing practices.
    Correct, and I still think that's how you should do things.
    Now it seems that you are relaxing you view when it suits you.
    No I'm not. I'm saying it is a problem, and I started saying that three seconds after seeing the SI text for the first time, and I said it in public both in here and outside of the forum and I send that concern on to the DoJ as well. But I'm also saying it's a problem that hasn't bitten anyone so far, has precedent to be argued against it in any court case (or far better, before any court case), and for which a far more viable avenue has just been announced and which has far higher odds for success and far lower costs and risk levels. Not trying that first would be dumb.
    I wouldn't like to be to person involved in the first test case to determine that a cylinder is not a magazine.
    Nor would I nor any reasonable person. Avoiding the courts is always the better option if it's possible.
    A quick run into the kings-inn law library will produce several forensic firearm books in which all the relevant anatomical pistol detail is listed and each and every reference details cylinders and magazines as different beasts with different mechanical properties thus creating a pleather shooter based pros and cons for both systems.
    And how many court cases will make that distinction?
    And how many licence applications?
    The dictionary the law uses and the dictionary that people who know which end of a firearm the little hard things come out of, are completely different and the law doesn't give two figs for our dictionary and happily redefines terms as it goes along. And for the last few years, they've been requiring people to plug cylinders in revolvers even though the SI referred to magazines.

    (And that's your precedent btw; turning around and suddenly stating that that has changed without notice isn't an orderly way to do things and "order" is a damn sight more worrying a topic to the law than "fair"...)
    I simply want to know was this a genuine drafting error and if not perhaps then the ptb would furnish an explanation as to why such action was taken.

    Have you asked them? I mean, you can just email them y'know, they're not the pope, they're civil servants doing a job, they do answer emails, it's part of the job.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,455 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Sparks wrote: »
    As i understand it the argument comes down to whether a revolver's cylinder counts as a magazine under the SI.
    .
    Right, bear with me here.

    Up until now and before SI 391 anyone with a 6 shot revolver because of the November 2008 statement, must have a cylinder plugged to license an unrestricted gun. Which means anyone with a revolver since that date has an unrestricted.

    The SI, to a certain extent, is irrelevant in whether it means a cylinder and mag are the same as the gun can still only hold 5 shots to be legal. If the SI does not cover cylinders, but the revolvers are modified or manufactured to hold only 5 rounds then does it not STILL comply with the law in that it's a 5 shot unrestricted.

    I know what you're saying about the terminology between cylinder and mag, but in practical terms the gun had to be restricted to 5 rounds before SI 391 and that still has not changed.

    Am i making sense?
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



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


    Cass wrote: »
    Am i making sense?
    Yes, but the law isn't.
    The problem is that the drafters tried to use firearms terminology instead of saying what they wanted.
    So instead of saying "the gun can only hold five rounds", they said it could only have five rounds in the magazine.
    So (a) they forgot about revolvers and (b) they forgot about the chamber itself. Except that "forgot" isn't the right word, since the AGs office wouldn't have known the terminology in the first place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Sparks wrote: »
    Yes, but the law isn't.
    The problem is that the drafters tried to use firearms terminology instead of saying what they wanted.
    So instead of saying "the gun can only hold five rounds", they said it could only have five rounds in the magazine.
    So (a) they forgot about revolvers and (b) they forgot about the chamber itself. Except that "forgot" isn't the right word, since the AGs office wouldn't have known the terminology in the first place.

    most laws have ambiguities, that ultimately have to be resolved in court if the applicants so desire. in the meantime the SI will be interpreted in the absence of a court decision . That will no doubt be the status quo situation

    what would be much better then worrying about this , is to get the new FCP un and running and lets get the law SI changed to support 6 round competitions like else where in the world


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


    Firearms offences have steadily fallen over the last 7 years, according to an article in ST 14/2/16- behind a paywall.

    Offences such as possession or discharging a firearm peaked in 2008 with 3660 offences and have fallen steadily since, with 2317 in 2014 - lowest since 2004.

    Breakdown

    Weapon offences

    Dublin peak 1760 (2010)
    1085 (2014)

    Limerick peak 283 (2007)
    163 (2014)

    Murders 2003-2015 Total 727 all areas

    Dublin 44%
    Limerick 7.4%

    2006 70 murders total
    2007 84

    2013 60
    2014 55

    Murder attempts, murder threats have grown from 47 in 2003 to 432 in 2014, with 450 to Q3 2015.

    So, firearms offences falling and AGS/DoJE invoking fear of legal firearms being used in crime as a reason for banning X Y and Z categories of firearms?

    Maths is not their best subject.


Advertisement