Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.

Good news for centrefire pistol owners.

124»

Comments

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,628 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    I've said before, having some C/F pistols removed from the restricted SI list would solve that and requires nothing more than the stroke of the minister's pen (well not that easy, but a hell of a lot easier than repealing a section of the firearms act).

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭ smmember20


    Cass wrote: »
    How about the SC just publish it?

    So why not ask them to? Or a simple letter to doj might work, hardly needs a FOI as from recollection all members of the FCP were circulated with the communication


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,628 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    smmember20 wrote: »
    So why not ask them to?

    You seem to be well in with the SC, perhaps you might publish it or get them to do so on their site and then link to it here?

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 719 ✭✭✭ Uinseann_16


    Am I right in saying the stroke of a ministers pen can completely remove the whole 2008 new centrefire pistol licence crap and allow new licences to be issued?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,628 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    The firearms Act prohibits the licensing of new centrefire short firearms (section 3), iow restricted. By removing some/all of them from the restricted list they no longer qualify as restricted short firearms and hence can be licensed, like a 22lr.

    As it stands the SI says any centrefire short firearm is restricted. So when i say remove some/all of them in essence what would need to be done is to either list the calibers that remain as restricted, thus unrestricting the others, or remove centrefire altogether. Its not like each caliber is listed individually so it might be a big enough ask but amendments in the form of editing SI21/2008 or introducing a new SI which lists certain calibers rather than group all centrefires are two possibilities.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭ smmember20


    Cass wrote: »
    You seem to be well in with the SC, perhaps you might publish it or get them to do so on their site and then link to it here?

    Ah here what an attitude I'm finished in this thread

    I only contributed to help people understand a positive process for substitutions

    Seems like you are intent on putting as much crap into the discussion as you can

    Good luck to you and all the sceptics


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    smmember20 wrote: »
    Ah here what an attitude I'm finished in this thread

    I only contributed to help people understand a positive process for substitutions

    Seems like you are intent on putting as much crap into the discussion as you can

    Good luck to you and all the sceptics

    I do see where Cass is coming from.

    There has been no change in legislation. Of that we are 100% sure. So before people rush off and sub their centrefire pistols, Cass is just asking where is the proof that the PTB are happy, and more importantly that it's legal to allow centrefire pistol substitutions.

    Remember, it's up to us to have the correct licence. If I applied now for a centrefire pistol and it was granted by a CS, I'd be in possession of an illegal firearm as he isn't legally allowed to licence these firearms.

    So far, we only have the Sports Coalition's word that it's ok to substitute centrefire handguns that were licenced pre Nov. 2008. http://www.sportscoalition.org/press-release-centre-fire-sporting-handguns/

    And with respect, I wouldn't take anybody's word that it's ok to sub a centrefire pistol. I'd want to see the official documentation.

    That's not calling anyone a liar, it's just making sure that you stay on the right side of the law.


  • Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭ otmmyboy2


    Cass wrote: »
    The firearms Act prohibits the licensing of new centrefire short firearms (section 3), iow restricted. By removing some/all of them from the restricted list they no longer qualify as restricted short firearms and hence can be licensed, like a 22lr.

    Hmm, has a letter/email contacting campaign for your local TDs/MEPs/etc ever gotten a result in the firearms community?

    I was thinking how the minister may be swayed to do the above, especially on the foot of the NI magazine ban being stayed for the time being, but I don't recall a contact campaign ever making many waves down south.

    Open to correction on that though, hoping I'm wrong!

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban

    2023 Gun Ban - Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2022



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Ah sure wait until the Shinners get in !


  • Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭ freddieot


    Cass wrote: »
    The firearms Act prohibits the licensing of new centrefire short firearms (section 3), iow restricted. By removing some/all of them from the restricted list they no longer qualify as restricted short firearms and hence can be licensed, like a 22lr.

    As it stands the SI says any centrefire short firearm is restricted. So when i say remove some/all of them in essence what would need to be done is to either list the calibers that remain as restricted, thus unrestricting the others, or remove centrefire altogether. Its not like each caliber is listed individually so it might be a big enough ask but amendments in the form of editing SI21/2008 or introducing a new SI which lists certain calibers rather than group all centrefires are two possibilities.

    I think the best option for success on any of this would be a calibre by calibre approach. There is a history here of certain calibres being allowed for deer hunting for example (243 \ 270) while others were prohibited (308). In other countries also you could \ can get for example 9x21 or 10mm but not 9x19 as 9x19 was \ is considered military. Handguns are legal here already, the calibre is the real issue for new ones, we should focus on that aspect. You can legally get a Glock G44 in .22 but not a Glock G20 in 10mm.

    I'm not saying that approach is ideal but perhaps one that the PTB could go along with rather than any relaxation in general to allow a more overall relaxed approach to CF licencing for the future, which I think will never happen. It might be the best strategy to pursue as the Minister could, as Cass points out, put forward and SI tomorrow if he wished on this. It need not be overly complicated, a list of those calibres now deemed unrestricted is all that is required. Calibres could include those not generally used by military, police or any criminal underworld. 380, 5.7, 10mm, 9x21, 45 GAP, 357 SIG, 38, 38 Super to name a few. One consideration with these is that the local drug dealer is unlikely to get boxes of 357SIG coming over with his heroin consignment (too expensive, too awkward and too complicated).

    Just my own opinion, but I really don't see any appetite in Government or reason why the state would overturn the general laws regarding CF. Getting some part of them revisited and modified based on arguments like "when did you hear of anyone being shot anywhere in Europe with a 38 Super round" is the way to go.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭ freddieot


    tudderone wrote: »
    Ah sure wait until the Shinners get in !

    They have no issue at all with firearms ownership but only for a select few :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    freddieot wrote: »
    I think the best option for success on any of this would be a calibre by calibre approach. There is a history here of certain calibres being allowed for deer hunting for example (243 \ 270) while others were prohibited (308). In other countries also you could \ can get for example 9x21 or 10mm but not 9x19 as 9x19 was \ is considered military. Handguns are legal here already, the calibre is the real issue for new ones, we should focus on that aspect. You can legally get a Glock G44 in .22 but not a Glock G20 in 10mm.

    I'm not saying that approach is ideal but perhaps one that the PTB could go along with rather than any relaxation in general to allow a more overall relaxed approach to CF licencing for the future, which I think will never happen. It might be the best strategy to pursue as the Minister could, as Cass points out, put forward and SI tomorrow if he wished on this. It need not be overly complicated, a list of those calibres now deemed unrestricted is all that is required. Calibres could include those not generally used by military, police or any criminal underworld. 380, 5.7, 10mm, 9x21, 45 GAP, 357 SIG, 38, 38 Super to name a few. One consideration with these is that the local drug dealer is unlikely to get boxes of 357SIG coming over with his heroin consignment (too expensive, too awkward and too complicated).

    Just my own opinion, but I really don't see any appetite in Government or reason why the state would overturn the general laws regarding CF. Getting some part of them revisited and modified based on arguments like "when did you hear of anyone being shot anywhere in Europe with a 38 Super round" is the way to go.

    The problem with those rounds is price, i used to bang away with the 9mm and it wasn't expensive, 12.50 a box of 50. But the more unusual any round is, the more expensive it is. Economies of scale and all that. I have to say, i have as much fun with the .22, and it costs a lot less.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,628 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    smmember20 wrote: »
    Ah here what an attitude I'm finished in this thread
    But you restarted it.
    I only contributed to help people understand a positive process for substitutions
    You came onto a four year old thread to give praise to the SC for something that, in my opinion, has not been done. I believed, given your knowledge, that you were involved with them in some way so took the opportunity to ask the ONLY question that needs answered.
    Seems like you are intent on putting as much crap into the discussion as you can
    Nope.

    I only asked one question. Show me the law/legislation that allows this. If you believe that asking if something is legal is crap then you and i have very different opinions on what is crap.
    Good luck to you and all the sceptics
    There is no need to take the hump.

    The simple solution to the thread you revived is to link to the law or post a copy of the authorisation from the DoJ that allows the substitution of pistols. Once that is done you'll have answered my question and then receive the gratitude of me and every other "skeptic".

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭ freddieot


    tudderone wrote: »
    The problem with those rounds is price, i used to bang away with the 9mm and it wasn't expensive, 12.50 a box of 50. But the more unusual any round is, the more expensive it is. Economies of scale and all that. I have to say, i have as much fun with the .22, and it costs a lot less.

    Agree 100%. I have a Grand Power .22 myself and it is great fun. At least, I think it is, getting harder to remember my last day at the range at this stage.

    All those are more expensive but part of that is because virtually nobody here uses them and pretty much zero demand for the ammo. Granted you would not be popping off 5.7s the same way as .22 or even 9mm but then I had a .40 and you won't zap through them or 45s the same way you would with a 9mm either. A fair few of my friends also have those calibres and they don't use hundreds of rounds too quickly for the same reason.

    No matter what is available, or what else you have, a .22 is the choice for regular practice anyway. Shoot all day for about £20. However, nice to have a choice of a larger calibre for competitions and variety.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,628 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I do see where Cass is coming from.

    There has been no change in legislation. Of that we are 100% sure. So before people rush off and sub their centrefire pistols, Cass is just asking where is the proof that the PTB are happy, and more importantly that it's legal to allow centrefire pistol substitutions.
    Exactly. This is the key point.

    I'm not suggesting the DoJ are being "sneaky" about this by getting lads to sub and then refusing all those licenses because they're new and by doing so get rid of yet more C/F pistols. The grandfathered ones that will be the last holdouts.

    However its more likely, this is being done of someone's say so. Even if that say so is DoJ or AG there has to be law to support it and i don't see.

    As i've said previously, and frequently, if i don't see it and it exists point it out to me and we're good.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,628 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    freddieot wrote: »
    Calibres could include those not generally used by military, police or any criminal underworld. 380, 5.7, 10mm, 9x21, 45 GAP, 357 SIG, 38, 38 Super to name a few. .
    One thing i'd say on this, and its by no means a dig at you just you brought it up, is we shouldn't have to consider what criminals would do.

    We are not criminals and any association to them via legislation is not something we want. I understand the Government don't, and won't, think in those terms but we shouldn't perpetuate the myth that criminals and legal firearm owners are "one of the same" by having to consider what new law would do in terms of combatting criminality. Which some legislation already implies.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭ freddieot


    Cass wrote: »
    One thing i'd say on this, and its by no means a dig at you just you brought it up, is we shouldn't have to consider what criminals would do.

    We are not criminals and any association to them via legislation is not something we want. I understand the Government don't, and won't, think in those terms but we shouldn't perpetuate the myth that criminals and legal firearm owners are "one of the same" by having to consider what new law would do in terms of combatting criminality. Which some legislation already implies.

    That's not what I meant of course but you are right to mention \ clarify it. I fully agree and I know it's not a dig at me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,436 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    freddieot wrote: »
    I think the best option for success on any of this would be a calibre by calibre approach. There is a history here of certain calibres being allowed for deer hunting for example (243 \ 270) while others were prohibited (308). In other countries also you could \ can get for example 9x21 or 10mm but not 9x19 as 9x19 was \ is considered military. Handguns are legal here already, the calibre is the real issue for new ones, we should focus on that aspect. You can legally get a Glock G44 in .22 but not a Glock G20 in 10mm.

    I'm not saying that approach is ideal but perhaps one that the PTB could go along with rather than any relaxation in general to allow a more overall relaxed approach to CF licencing for the future, which I think will never happen. It might be the best strategy to pursue as the Minister could, as Cass points out, put forward and SI tomorrow if he wished on this. It need not be overly complicated, a list of those calibres now deemed unrestricted is all that is required. Calibres could include those not generally used by military, police or any criminal underworld. 380, 5.7, 10mm, 9x21, 45 GAP, 357 SIG, 38, 38 Super to name a few. One consideration with these is that the local drug dealer is unlikely to get boxes of 357SIG coming over with his heroin consignment (too expensive, too awkward and too complicated).

    Just my own opinion, but I really don't see any appetite in Government or reason why the state would overturn the general laws regarding CF. Getting some part of them revisited and modified based on arguments like "when did you hear of anyone being shot anywhere in Europe with a 38 Super round" is the way to go.


    Ah JEEEZEEES...Don't go anywhere near the PTB with THAT!!!:eek::eek: :eek::eek: Lookit, you are dealing with a bunch of people that really don't have any sort of in-depth knowledge of firearms and calibres and then they would more than likely BAN "common military /police calibers" and we would end up like France or Italy with all sorts of horrible legislation and abortions of workarounds. Like 9X21 mm pistols, .222 Remington AR15s and the like. Or spending stupid money on obscure caliber and hard to source as well.

    As for obscure calibres or obsolete calibres.Ask the UK how that's working out for them on the criminal non-use. Your .32 Largo is now a Sect 1 firearm,needing a liscense or a high-tech and awkward club as it has to be deacted, because of criminals actually acquiring them AND getting the ammo reloaded.
    So whats to stop them getting .357 SIG,etc reloaded and shifted in here as well?
    https://www.pfoa.co.uk/blog/nabis

    Occams Razor being applied here.The simplest solution is as Cass has said is get this substitution loophole procedure codified on paper by all parties,and we then know where we all stand. That is the simplest and requiring the least amunt of beuracratic and ministerial work on everyones part.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Seeing how hard, unfairly, and nastily they dealt with people with centrefire pistols (me being one of them), after the ban on new licences, i don't see the ptb helping anyone at all. The more difficult and expensive it is, the more likely the licence is to be given up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Ah JEEEZEEES...Don't go anywhere near the PTB with THAT!!!:eek::eek: :eek::eek: Lookit, you are dealing with a bunch of people that really don't have any sort of in-depth knowledge of firearms and calibres and then they would more than likely BAN "common military /police calibers" and we would end up like France or Italy with all sorts of horrible legislation and abortions of workarounds. Like 9X21 mm pistols, .222 Remington AR15s and the like. Or spending stupid money on obscure caliber and hard to source as well.

    As for obscure calibres or obsolete calibres.Ask the UK how that's working out for them on the criminal non-use. Your .32 Largo is now a Sect 1 firearm,needing a liscense or a high-tech and awkward club as it has to be deacted, because of criminals actually acquiring them AND getting the ammo reloaded.
    So whats to stop them getting .357 SIG,etc reloaded and shifted in here as well?
    https://www.pfoa.co.uk/blog/nabis


    I thought the ban on military calibres was gone in nearly all cases ? It didn't achieve anything, or stop anyone shooting, it was pointless.

    Watching a UK programme the other night, one of these "999 whats your emergency" sort of things, they said in the west midlands, there are now on average 60 stabbings a week. If these lowlife want to kill each other over a fiver's worth of dope, they will and a gun ban won't matter one way or the other.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    freddieot wrote: »
    They have no issue at all with firearms ownership but only for a select few :D


    :rolleyes:

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-councillor-organises-commemoration-for-ira-bomber-40104086.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭ Zxthinger


    hypothetical question here..

    What if the PTB did accidentally issued a restricted short arm licence after the "ban"

    Would you think you'd be allowed to retain it..

    I mean- its not prohibited to have one or apply for one..?? is it?

    Its just that the Gardaí aren't permitted to issue such licences anymore??

    But if they did issue one! who'd be at fault?
    The issuing body or the recipient...:confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Zxthinger wrote: »
    hypothetical question here..

    What if the PTB did accidentally issued a restricted short arm licence after the "ban"

    Would you think you'd be allowed to retain it..

    I mean- its not prohibited to have one or apply for one..?? is it?

    Its just that the Gardaí aren't permitted to issue such licences anymore??

    But if they did issue one! who'd be at fault?
    The issuing body or the recipient...:confused:

    It doesn't matter who is at fault, you cannot have the licence, it would be revoked and thats that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    Zxthinger wrote: »
    hypothetical question here..

    What if the PTB did accidentally issued a restricted short arm licence after the "ban"

    Would you think you'd be allowed to retain it..

    I mean- its not prohibited to have one or apply for one..?? is it?

    Its just that the Gardaí aren't permitted to issue such licences anymore??

    But if they did issue one! who'd be at fault?
    The issuing body or the recipient...:confused:

    The responsibility to have the correct licence lies with the recipient.

    The Gardai have no legal power to issue you with a licence for a restricted short firearm so if they do give you a licence for one, it isn't valid........therefore they made a mistake by issuing you with the licence but it's you who is in breach of the law by having a gun without a valid licence.

    Kind of sucks but that's the way it is.


Advertisement