One gun, multiple barrels

ezra_

If you have a set up like this - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057646590

.223 and .308, do you need two licences? Or does a single licence have both calibres listed?

Luckysasha

I always thought if you had different calibres then you needed separate licenses. But talking to a RFD lately he maintains you don't need a separate license if your only changing the barrel. For example my Cz 455 has a .22lr barrel but it can be swapped to a 17hmr barrel. According to him because I'm not changing the action i.e. The bolt or trigger then I don't need a separate licence. I know this is going to be the subject of some debate so I'm wondering if anyone has got a definitive answer.

Witcher

If a barrel is a different calibre it needs another licence, how would you buy ammo for it without it?

Witcher

Luckysasha wrote: »

I always thought if you had different calibres then you needed separate licenses. But talking to a RFD lately he maintains you don't need a separate license if your only changing the barrel. For example my Cz 455 has a .22lr barrel but it can be swapped to a 17hmr barrel. According to him because I'm not changing the action i.e. The bolt or trigger then I don't need a separate licence. I know this is going to be the subject of some debate so I'm wondering if anyone has got a definitive answer.

Which RFD was this?

Sparks

The RFD is completely wrong, you need multiple licences if you have multiple calibers and if you don't have them, you're in possession of an unlicenced firearm.

The only case where you don't need multiple licences is where you are getting a replacement barrel - not a second barrel you interchange back and forth with your current one. This is covered in the Garda guidelines very clearly and in the act more clearly still - the definition of firearm is such that a second barrel is in and of itself a firearm and if you don't have the paperwork for it, you can be dropped right in it.

Bad_alibi

Never believe the salesman doesn't matter if it's a car, a firearm or magic beans .

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

The RFD is completely wrong, you need multiple licences if you have multiple calibers and if you don't have them, you're in possession of an unlicenced firearm.

It certainly is clear cut on multi caliber rifles.As each one is a seperate caliber,like the Husquvana multi cal system but
not quite on other types..We had this discussion on combo rifle/shotguns here before,and while that might be "law" per se.It is definately left up to the discretion of the Super as to what he wants to liscense it as.Shotgun/Rifle or both.[majority that I have seen have been liscensed as rifles here] Reason for this is simply the acts never took combination guns into consideration when being drafted .So it is an utter unknown on how to deal with it on a legal level.Just another very grey area of our gun laws.

Cass

Luckysasha wrote: »

But talking to a RFD lately he maintains you don't need a separate license if your only changing the barrel. .................... According to him because I'm not changing the action i.e. The bolt or trigger then I don't need a separate licence.............

I have to wonder how some of these dealers are still in business.

I i had multiple calibres barrels without a license for each one and was stopped i'd face arrest, loss of firearms, fine and possible imprisonment.

So how are dealers getting away with it?

I know the responsibility is on the buyer to get the correct license but there is a reason RFDs must keep registrars. If they hand out a gun to someone that has the wrong license or in this case no license they are guilty of an offence too.

Now there is enough information out there for anyone to educate themselves, but an RFD has no excuse. It's his job to know the law, and abide by it as it's his livelihood and not a sport/pastime. The scary part is some RFDs say they have been instructed by AGS that what they do is "fine". God knows they never get it wrong. :rolleyes:

Luckysasha

I completely agree that the RFD was wrong in what he was telling me but it's hard for someone like me being so new to the shooting world to argue with a guy who has been in business a long time. If it wasn't for forums like this I think a lot of people would just take the word of the salesman and possibly put themselves in the situation where they are unintentionally breaking the law. The RFD I was talking to is not the guy i dealt with in the past. I called in to this guys place last Saturday looking for CCI subs as my local man only had Winchester subs and happened to get talking about my Cz

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

So how are dealers getting away with it?

Because all offences under the Firearms Act that apply to shooters are on the head of the firearms owner. If you get advised by anyone other than a solicitor as to what is legal and what isn't and the advice turns out to be wrong, then the person giving the advice has no legal liability - it's all on your head.
So you walk into an RFD and buy a fully-automatic 20mm anti-tank rifle with explosive ammunition and get stopped three feet outside his door by the Gardai? The RFD hasn't done anything wrong legally with the sale or the advice that "erra, it'll be grand" (how he got a class A firearm and explosives might be another story, but I'm picking an outlandish example rather than any of the many real ones we could all cite because of the defamation act). It'd be all on your head because you made the purchase.

And since "naming and shaming" is a recipe for a lawsuit for defamation and a large claim for damages due to loss of earnings, there's really nothing to stop even flagrant reckless silliness. You just have to do your own research instead of believing anything you read (which, btw, applies to anything I post as well - I am not your legal team )

Cass

Luckysasha wrote: »

I completely agree that the RFD was wrong in what he was telling me but it's hard for someone like me being so new to the shooting world to argue with a guy who has been in business a long time.

Not blaming you in the slightest lad, i've been in the same position myself even recently.

Sparks wrote: »

Because all offences under the Firearms Act that apply to shooters are on the head of the firearms owner.

So the RFD has absolutely no liability in this?

If that is the case then can an RFD not sell a firearm without a license and if asked why he done it say it's the licensee's responsibility to make sure they have the right license or license at all?

The above would seem to suggest that this is technically what is happening when an RFD sells a gun to a person without the correct license. For example selling and giving them a restricted firearm on an unrestricted license.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

So the RFD has absolutely no liability in this?

If that is the case then can an RFD not sell a firearm without a license and if asked why he done it say it's the licensee's responsibility to make sure they have the right license or license at all?

The above would seem to suggest that this is technically what is happening when an RFD sells a gun to a person without the correct license. For example selling and giving them a restricted firearm on an unrestricted license.

I suppose bar the handing out of firearms without either seeing the lic or recording the lic number,they would claim the old one of CEVAT EMPTOR.Let the buyer beware,of faults and legal consequences. That,and proably product misuse indemnification...But no matter what it is no excuse to not know the revelant law to your trade anymore.

What really grinds my gears in this whole issue is that anyone who can aquire a RFD lic is suddenly a gunsmith as well. Be like saying a hat salesman is qualified to be a brain surgeon as well.And when you see some of the utter bollixing some of these "gunsmiths" have done to firearms with their Lidil DIY tools or mate up in the machine shop who threads rifle barrels after running off a few scaffolding pipes for a cattle crush on the same machine.... ..

Sparks

Well, think about it - the RFD says "this gun's grand" and the Super signs off on it by mistake; you buy the 20mm cannon and walk out the door. As of that moment, the RFD's covered, the Super's covered (explicitly in law) and you're in the dark brown stuff and the fan's on full blast. There's just no specific offence for "told someone something was legal" in the act, and the act is very heavy on the idea of the shooter being the person in the wrong at all times

Cass

That shows a mistake on the Super's behalf which the buyer/licensee is also responsible for.

What about this scenario.

Buyer/licensee see a rifle. It's a .22lr. He pays deposit and applies for it. Super grants license, but a mistake is made and it's down as a .308, not a .22lr. The buyer/licensee does not cop the mistake or does not care and goes to the RFD to pick up his new rifle.

The dealer takes the license, records the cert number and then sees the calibre is 308, not .22lr. The RFD sees the serial number is correct, and says feck it, and hands out the rifle.

There is fault on the Super for issuing a license for the wrong calibre, the buyer/licensee for not checking the details, but what about the RFD? He has now handed out a rifle to an unlicensed person.

The same thing applies to restricted firearms on unrestricted licenses. I actually witnessed this one personally. Licensee comes into RFD with his shiney new license. The firearm is restricted. The Super has granted the license as unrestricted (regardless of whether that was what was applied for or not). Licensee presents the RFD with unrestricted license and the RFD hands out a Restricted firearm to the licensee.

As above the Super should not have granted an unrestricted license for a restricted firearm, but without knowing what the licensee applied for we cannot apportion blame here. The licensee either applied for or got an unrestricted license for a restricted firearm and never checked either the firearm or license to make sure they were correct and matching. However the RFD should know the firearm is restricted, the license is moot/void, and not hand out the firearm. Correct?

I already know, from your answer above, that it's still on the head of the licensee, but i'm actually amazed that RFDs are not held to account for some of this. What is the point of them recording cert numbers and details when they're wrong? PULSE is a mess and this only adds to it.

I don't have a vendetta against RFDs, but with the theme of this thread being about RFDs giving poor advice, and it not being the first thread about this, i wonder how much longer can this go on.

Sparks

However the RFD should know the firearm is restricted, the license is moot/void, and not hand out the firearm. Correct?

Should, yes. But while in that case, 10(2) would seem to say the RFD shouldn't hand over the firearm, because the shooter has a firearms cert, not handing it over might be in violation of 10(3). The RFD would have to be willing to say no, I think the Super was incompetent and has issued a null-and-void firearms certificate. About the same Super who issues the RFD his RFD licence. And without being a solicitor or barrister with expertise in the firearms act, which is about the only way you could do that and not technically be defaming the Super...

Besides, 10(2) only says the buyer has to show the RFD a firearms certificate; it says nothing about the RFD having to make sure the firearms certificate is all in order (yeah, common sense due diligence would be to check the dates were right and it hadn't been signed by Superintendent Mickey Mouse, but whether or not it was legally issued because of the restricted/unrestricted thing or some other esoteric bit of law? You'd never get a court to convict them on the basis that they didn't show due diligence by studying the law for a decade). It's a real cop-out of a law.

In fact, about the only way I can see the RFD getting in trouble there is if he didn't fill out the paperwork (at which point the cuffs come out, his name gets struck off the register and he picks up a three grand fine - shows where the priorities are...)