For anyone that thinks An Gardaí don't enforce "smaller" laws.

Cass

Reading an article from a Donegal local paper about four guys, three of whom were arrested, charged and prosecuted for lamping.

At first the article said about deer then foxes.

However, the conviction applied only to the lesser charge of hunting foxes which did not have the same protected status as deer.

It caught my eye because with all the crap going on lately about the "sports coalition" calling for a curfew on lamping i thought it was actually being enacted, illegally, by some districts. However upon reading and re-reading it seems they were not prosecuted for lamping deer (no evidence and the judge took their word they didn't) nor for lamping foxes, but for lamping lands they had no permission to be on.

Now the men were not on the land, and this is where the "smaller law" comes into play. They did not shoot a fox. They were lamping land. Just the act of shining a light onto lands. No shooting. Some of the land they lamped no one has permission to be on and as hunting (and we've said this numerous times on the forum) also includes the definition of searching for they were convicted on this.


This should be a stark warning to all that the law is the law and all it takes is for someone to want to charge you and all the "i was told it's not enforced" or "i was told i was grand" will not count for spit. Zeroing, barrels under 20" (rifle), 10+ round mags (rimfire), lamping (just shining a light), etc. They are all illegal, but we've gotten so used to a blind eye being turned or a lack on interest in prosecution that it seems people don't think it's illegal or that they'll be done for it.

In the last 12 months this article makes the fifth incident i've heard of something that was done that was all thought was not possible or more accurately not probable.

1. A guy being done for a 25 round mag even though he had 10 rounds in it (rimfire 10/22). Lost his rifle and they took his shotgun too.
2. A lad with a ruger 10/22 and a 16" barrel. The rifle was originally sold as a 20" model and when An Gardaí checked out the serial number with Ruger, they done the guy for cutting it. He bought it second hand and it was done before he bought it, but as he owned the rifle and bought, what is essentially, an illegal firearm he was done for it.
3. Lad on FB getting sued for saying something under "free speech". I've said umpteen times that free speech is a social construct. This is not the USA and afaik (i'm not a constitutional solicitor/barrister) we have no such protection.
4. Now a few guys getting done for shining a light (legally speaking hunting) on land they had no permission to be on. Afaik they don't even have to step foot on the land. Once the light shines on it, you're breaking the law.
5. A guy had his rifle seized and license revoked because he applied for the "S" with his rifle and when his license came back with no "S" he, incorrectly, assumed as he applied for it and got no refusal letter he was granted it. He wasn't. Got caught when out with rifle and suppressor and the rest is history.

Grizzly 45

No3..An utter legal minefield these days.You do have freedom of expression and of opinion under the Constitution,with exceptions .Mostly that you do not scandalise or offend public morals.
However the more insidious might be that you "like" a post that is classified as "hate speech" and have a truck load of coppers making off with your guns.Has happened TWICE already this year in the UK and in Shweinfurt Germany.The UK one was thrown out of court.The German one is progressing to Federal court.

123shooter

Someone told me once that No 4 is tresspass without permission dunno?

But if that is the case how does google get away with filming you and yours?

Victor

How are people acquiring non-compliant firearms?

123shooter wrote: »

Someone told me once that No 4 is tresspass without permission dunno?

But if that is the case how does google get away with filming you and yours?

Is the Google Street View car armed? I think not.

123shooter

Victor wrote: »

How are people acquiring non-compliant firearms?



Is the Google Street View car armed? I think not.

??

Victor

123shooter wrote: »

??

OK, what did you mean by?

123shooter wrote: »

But if that is the case how does google get away with filming you and yours?

123shooter

If you can just be done for shining a lamp/torch on somebodies land (if true) then how come it's ok to point and film on someones property?

Cass

123shooter wrote: »

Someone told me once that No 4 is tresspass without permission dunno?

Techically, which still means legally, it would be. Its because of the definition of the term hunting which, as i outlined above, includes the use of a lamp to search for quarry.

There are exceptions which include farmers checking their own land/livestock and people involved in photography (not sure if this requires a license, but think it does).

But if that is the case how does google get away with filming you and yours?

Because they are not hunting for quarry/game. As said above there are exceptions for photography and while i'm not even current let alone an expert on the matter there are a number of different laws surrounding photography and taking pictures in the public. Something along the lines of you're free to do it in a public area, but if you request or refuse permission for your image to be used it must be removed.

Victor wrote: »

How are people acquiring non-compliant firearms?

Do you mean those with shorter barrels?

The law says you cannot legally own a firearm (rifle) with a barrel length less than 20" without lawful authorisation. This is black and white, there is no grey area and it's very clear. It even specifies cutting a barrel to below 20" and how it MUST be built back to to a legal length. How one would do this is beyond my technical ability and something a gunsmith would be better able to answer.

The "grey" area comes from rifles that are manufactured with barrels under 20". The FCA1 does not ask for the barrel length. Once you get the license you now have the "lawful authroisation" the Act specifies you need to have one which the law says is the only way you can have a rifle with a barrel of less than 20". However the Act still says that having this is still illegal.

Hence the grey area.

So buying a rifle that was legal and is now illegal (due to you or someone else cutting it below the 20" mark) is an offense.

123shooter wrote: »

If you can just be done for shining a lamp/torch on somebodies land (if true) then how come it's ok to point and film on someones property?

As above.

123shooter

Cass if the farmer owned a gun and was on his own property but his lamp was shining on a neighbours......is he still breaking the law or are we getting too legal here?

Cass

Depends on whether the farmer was hunting. You only ask if he owns a gun and shines it on other land not what he was doing.

See that is exactly the reason i posted this thread.

Say he is out hunting and shines it across his neighbours land where he has no permission. Technically and legally he is breaking the law and trespassing. Its a very fine line and unless there is a ranger or member of An Gardaí there to witness this as it happens then proving it is almost impossible.

This law and the enforce of it have always been, and you'll see it commonly enough on the forum, referred to as "erra, it'll be grand". We have always cautioned our members that if told this by anyone or even a member of An Gardaí to never act assuming that talking to them and getting this answer will act as a defense should someone decide to arrest, charge and try to prosecute you for doing it. It won't.

It also shows a willingness by An Gardaí to enforce laws that we all thought were never really that serious or unenforced.

Heavy handed

Where does that leave a guy that had a caliber changed on his action, like this guy has been done for having a barrel that was shortened.

Cass

I don't really understand the comparison.

Shortening a barrel and a barrel less than 20" is a legal issue. Anyone changing calibers on their action, which i assume you mean is someone having their rifle rebarreled to a different caliber, is a separate issue and one that is easily addressed with a substitution and/or cancellation.

Grizzly 45

123shooter wrote: »

But if that is the case how does google get away with filming you and yours?

Google street view is on a public road.They cannot enter private roads or avenues.And they have caught various people doing various naughty things globally too.So it is up to you to see f they did get you doing somthing you shouldn't have and contact them if you want the frontage of your house or car reg blocked on street view.And NO its not ok to photo or film the INSIDE of someons property without their consent[Inside means inside the gate for arguements sake] You can foto and film ,whats in plain view from a public road on street level.

Different to someone hireing a cherry picker to see over your wall to get pics of you in your bedroom.But if they can see your carry on from the street,because you neglected to draw the curtains[or not!] then your expectation to privacy is gone.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

How are people acquiring non-compliant firearms?

Cass wrote: »

Do you mean those with shorter barrels?

You also mentioned people with a 25 round mag and a suppressor.

Cass

Ah.

The law puts the onus on the firearm owner/licensee to be compliant. Its your responsibility to know what type of gun you have, get the correct license, apply for any "additionals" such as suppressor, NV, restricted, etc. and abide by that. If a Super grants you a restricted license it's moot as only the Chief Super can issue them. If you get an unrestricted license for a restricted firearm, it's moot as it's the wrong one. The Super/Chief Super is not responsible, you are. So if stopped you cannot claim that you just took the license you were given.

Same with suppressors. Its your job to know if you have authorisation and to prove it. RFDs should be checking licenses for them, but some obviously don't. Now that doesn't mean an RFD can hand out a firearm to someone without a license at all, but its not always the RFD. People buy mags and suppressors online, from friends, etc. The law says if i sell you a suppressor, as one civilian to another, then i must be sure you have the necessary authorisation to have it. IOW the "S" on your license. if you don't have this and i don't either chekc or care then i'm in breach of the firearms act and guilty of an offense.

As for the mags well this is a case of "i dont' care" and ignorance. The i don't care bit is self explanatory, but the ignorance part comes from people believing if they buy them and only load ten they are legal. Its not about how many you put in, but how many it can hold that is the legal issue.

ezra_

Cass wrote: »

Ah.

The law puts the onus on the firearm owner/licensee to be compliant. Its your responsibility to know what type of gun you have, get the correct license, apply for any "additionals" such as suppressor, NV, restricted, etc. and abide by that. If a Super grants you a restricted license it's moot as only the Chief Super can issue them. If you get an unrestricted license for a restricted firearm, it's moot as it's the wrong one. The Super/Chief Super is not responsible, you are. So if stopped you cannot claim that you just took the license you were given.

Same with suppressors. Its your job to know if you have authorisation and to prove it. RFDs should be checking licenses for them, but some obviously don't. Now that doesn't mean an RFD can hand out a firearm to someone without a license at all, but its not always the RFD. People buy mags and suppressors online, from friends, etc. The law says if i sell you a suppressor, as one civilian to another, then i must be sure you have the necessary authorisation to have it. IOW the "S" on your license. if you don't have this and i don't either chekc or care then i'm in breach of the firearms act and guilty of an offense.

As for the mags well this is a case of "i dont' care" and ignorance. The i don't care bit is self explanatory, but the ignorance part comes from people believing if they buy them and only load ten they are legal. Its not about how many you put in, but how many it can hold that is the legal issue.

Has there been a case of someone been issued an unrestricted licence for a restrictred firearm (and crucially, having applied for a restricted licence)?

Any good brief should be able to tear through such a scenario (but much harder if the initial application was wrong).

Burtman

Folks, is anyone on this forum actually qualified in interpretating the law?

Cass

ezra_ wrote: »

Has there been a case of someone been issued an unrestricted licence for a restrictred firearm (and crucially, having applied for a restricted licence)?

A case before the courts, i don't know.

I personally know of at least two scenarios where a person had the wrong license. The first was a person with an unrestricted license for a restricted firearm. I don't know what was applied for but the Super issued an unrestricted license for a semi auto centrefire and the person involved told me directly:

"Not my fault, it's the Super's fault. I've got the license".

The second scenario was when a chap, again i don't know what they applied for, got an unrestricted license for a restricted firearm. This one is easily misunderstood because the firearm was a .22lr semi auto and the mag only had ten shot capacity. However it was a Buckmark rifle and with the mag loading from behind the trigger its legally called a bullpup and now restricted.

He still presented his license, the RFD (or person working there) either did not check it or know any better and handed out the firearm on the wrong license.

Both of these scenarios have people with the wrong licenses and hence unlicensed.

Any good brief should be able to tear through such a scenario (but much harder if the initial application was wrong).

The problem there is, as i said above, is the Super does not issue restricted licenses, the license is wrong so the person is in possession of an unlicensed firearm and with the amendment to the principal act putting the onus on the applicant it's basically all the applicant's fault. Whether it was applied for correctly or not. You are meant to know what license you should have and make sure it's correct.

From a personal point of view i had first hand experience when my CS kept on sending my application for a restricted firearm down to the Super to complete. I done the interview, but the CS was under the impression the firearm was unrestricted. The Super corrected the CS and sent it back. Delayed the license, but i got the correct one out in the end.

Cass

Burtman wrote: »

Folks, is anyone on this forum actually qualified in interpretating the law?

You mean a solicitor or Barrister? Don't know, but even if they were, giving legal advice is prohibited on not only the forum, but the site. People can give their opinions but they should never be classed as or acted upon as legal advice.

As for the thread, what you are reading is what the law says. Not what i say or anyone else. For the very small bits that are as clear as mud it's personal opinion which on a forum is what discussion is about.

Take the mag limit for a rimfire. It's not interpretation, it's what the laws says:

(ii) single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds,

Taken from SI 21/2008 as amended by SI 337/2009 and later amended for pistols by SI 391/2015.

There is nothing ambiguous about any of that.

In relation to the license type well i covered that in the post above.

As for the topic of the thread, the lamping. It's covered under under section 38 of the principal act and section 45 of the amendment act of 2000. At the start of the principal act it states that hunting is:

“hunt” means stalk, pursue, chase, drive, flush, capture, course, attract, follow, search for, lie in wait for, take, trap or shoot by any means whether with or without dogs, and, except in sections 28 and 29, includes killing in the course of hunting, but does not in this Act include stalking, attracting, searching for or lying in wait for any fauna by an unarmed person solely for the purpose of watching or of taking or making photographic or other pictures, and kindred words shall be construed accordingly;

It's for the highlighted part that these men found themselves where they were and if you think that my interpretation is wrong then just look at the thread again. This thread is about people that were charged and convicted of just this.

As for shortening barrels well section 65 of the 2006 act (amending section 12 of the 1990 offensive weapons act) states clearly:

Subject to subsection (2), a person who shortens the barrel of—

(a) a shot-gun to a length of less than 61 centimetres, or

(b) a rifle to a length of less than 50 centimetres,

is guilty of an offence.

Now here is the grey area where each persons own opinion is valid:

(6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—

(a) a shot-gun the barrel of which is less than 61 centimetres in length,

(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,

(c) a converted firearm mentioned in subsection (3), or

(d) a firearm which has been modified as described in subsection (4).

I highlighted the bit above because the act says without lawful authority. Well a firearms license is lawful authority. So if you have a license can you have it? The acts says yes and no at the same time. As the FCA1 does not ask for barrel length then you are not making a fraudulent application.

This is the grey area i spoke of above.

Luckysasha

What about RFDs handing out firearms on a grant letter and not the actual license. Was in an RFDs lately where he explained to someone on the phone that unless he had the grant letter with proof of payment from the post office or better still the actual license the RFD wouldn't let the guy collect his rifle.

ezra_

Luckysasha wrote: »

What about RFDs handing out firearms on a grant letter and not the actual license. Was in an RFDs lately where he explained to someone on the phone that unless he had the grant letter with proof of payment from the post office or better still the actual license the RFD wouldn't let the guy collect his rifle.

The licence number is printed on the grant letter.

Victor

Cass wrote: »

I highlighted the bit above because the act says without lawful authority. Well a firearms license is lawful authority. So if you have a license can you have it? The acts says yes and no at the same time. As the FCA1 does not ask for barrel length then you are not making a fraudulent application.

This is the grey area i spoke of above.

I suspect that in this case, "lawful authority" refers to a member of the Garda or Defence Forces.

Cass

To me, and bearing in mind the context of the section, it means without legal permission. The "reasonable excuse" part would seem to enforce that belief. Same thing as having a knife. It's an offense unless you can show reasonable excuse for having it.

That is the part that is open to interpretation and until such a time as a case is actually heard on the barrel length issue all our opinions, mine included, don't count for squat. However i sure as chips don't want to be the test case.

Grizzly 45

Re qualifed people here on boards.We have two who contribute here one is a barrister and the other is[I think] a solicitor..They'll be along in due course no doubt.

ezra_

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Re qualifed people here on boards.We have two who contribute here one is a barrister and the other is[I think] a solicitor..They'll be along in due course no doubt.

Informal advice I'm sure!

Grizzly 45

Veryyy intresting..from the 2006 act

(4) Subject to subsection (5), it is an offence to modify a firearm so as to render its reloading mechanism fully automatic or to increase its calibre, irrespective of whether the firearm, as so modified, is a restricted firearm.



6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—

(a) a shot-gun the barrel of which is less than 61 centimetres in length,

(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,

(c) a converted firearm mentioned in subsection (3), or

(d) a firearm which has been modified as described in subsection (4).

So technically said as a Regd firearms dealer you can have a full auto in your possesion then??

ezra_

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Veryyy intresting..from the 2006 act

(4) Subject to subsection (5), it is an offence to modify a firearm so as to render its reloading mechanism fully automatic or to increase its calibre, irrespective of whether the firearm, as so modified, is a restricted firearm.



6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—

(a) a shot-gun the barrel of which is less than 61 centimetres in length,

(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,

(c) a converted firearm mentioned in subsection (3), or

(d) a firearm which has been modified as described in subsection (4).

So technically said as a Regd firearms dealer you can have a full auto in your possesion then??

You forget that a role of dealers is to take in guns which might not be licenced (normally, because someone has passed away, but from time to time because you dug up a cache).

The dealer can take the gun in and deal with the guards to get the gun disposed of.

1349

ezra_ wrote: »

You forget that a role of dealers is to take in guns which might not be licenced (normally, because someone has passed away, but from time to time because you dug up a cache).

The dealer can take the gun in and deal with the guards to get the gun disposed of.

So an RFD who does not have a restricted RFD license CANNOT legally have a Browning Buckmark rifle in his possession, but he CAN legally have a Browning M2 in his possession?

ezra_

1349 wrote: »

So an RFD who does not have a restricted RFD license CANNOT legally have a Browning Buckmark rifle in his possession, but he CAN legally have a Browning M2 in his possession?

assuming he isn't selling it, then probably yes.

Now, if they went in and found it upstairs in an attic, it would be a different story...

Larry60

So in reference to the original posting.. there must be a background story we are not being told, perhaps that this incident was the last straw.. or the land owner disproved of the culprit going out with his daughter ect!!!!! without pressure to persue this, I really cannot see the Gardai spending time on this matter.