Kildare case. Restricted shotgun.

Gorgeousgeorge

Also id like to add to this thread that we are blessed in kildare town and surrounding areas with our firearms officer and super.

Good people who are very accomadating and respectful of our sport.

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

Are the fcp no use in this particular instance ?

They are a consultancy panel, no more. They are there to aid in the smooth implementation of the firearms act and to advise both gun owners and AGS. However if a Super of CS doesn't use them, they [FCP] have no authority to override their decision. That is why we have the courts.

Grizzly 45

Ok. seems CS Roche has started with a clean leaf in Limerick.Grant authorisation letter was in the post this AM for a restricted semi-auto rifle.:D

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

Are the fcp no use in this particular instance ?

They are a consultancy panel, no more. They are there to aid in the smooth implementation of the firearms act and to advise both gun owners and AGS. However if a Super of CS doesn't use them, they [FCP] have no authority to override their decision. That is why we have the courts.

I still think central licencing is the way to go. Supers and chief supers ruling over an area like a little tinpot god turns licencing into a postcode lottery.

Sparks

The only problem with that idea is this:

Please picture Garda Ballistics in charge of every licencing application in the country.

Cass

Centralized licensing seems, on paper, to be the ideal situation. One Super and one Chief Super with a horde of civilians doing the admin work.

The problem, and it's only an assumptive problem, is what Super or Chief Super do we end up with? If we get someone who follows the law, the Acts, listens to the FCP and FPU and applies all that fairly then we're set.

If we get someone with a hatred of firearms, has their own illegal blanket ban policy on certain types of guns or suppressors then everyone faces an uphill battle.

If the position of FO is unwanted among rank and file imagine how "popular" such a posting would be for a Super of CS with aspirations of Commissioner.

I can see the benefit if its run right and i don't just mean a common sense Super/CS but a department with the man power and finances to do the work. At present each district has a Super and possibly CS (but usually one CS to a couple of districts). Each district has only one FO and most smaller stations don't even have that but simply send the applications onto the district station. So if that FO is out, missing, sick, busy, etc. the applications pile up and delays are had.

If a centralized system has no other work bar the processing of applications and can make it work then it'll speed up processing and delays will be reduced. However as they still work on a paper system it means if a chap in say Donegal or Kerry applies it goes tot he district station, the FO does their part, sends it to Dublin (guaranteed that's where the dept will be based) they process it, and then send out the grants/license.

An online system would be much quicker and no less secure given the amount of "lost" applications AGS say happen. The same type of system is in place in the north, but they have had issues and serious delays but to me, and i'm not overly familiar with their system, it seems as a result of implementing it all at once and not on a phased basis.

So many ways to improve but each must be well thought out implemented in a proper and controlled manner.

Grizzly 45

Thing is, if they refused all of a certain type of firearm, all over the 26 it's a blanket ban by then ONE CS, which puts him/her as a permanent resident in every witness box in the country on an almost weekly basis.

It's now at a point that if you have had a license for a restricted firearm, and have done nothing to have it revoked or refused, it's going to be damn hard for anyone to justify removing that license in a court off you.Esp, if it has been granted X number of times previously. So I doubt having this centralised would change much on the granting/refusing side of things and the process of appeal still stays the same, as there are crickets to be heard on this "FAAA" body that was supposed to be an intermediary...

FWIW, I think our more pressing enemies will be found in our own ranks, trying to cut deals in backrooms and throwing others to the lions in the hope the Lions will be full by the time they reach them,[to misquote Churchill]

Rifter

Sparks wrote: »

The only problem with that idea is this:

Please picture Garda Ballistics in charge of every licencing application in the country.

Why would senior Gardai need to be anywhere near, why not an all civilian staff??

Why can't AGS just perform a background check for your application and its a fully idependent civilian dept that deal with the application from that point on......

Or am I dreaming

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thing is, if they refused all of a certain type of firearm, all over the 26 it's a blanket ban by then ONE CS, which puts him/her as a permanent resident in every witness box in the country on an almost weekly basis.

Yup, and as i said above it's illegal and currently does happen on a smaller scale. Being centralized doesn't make it any less wrong and possibly a bit easier to spot, but the small issue of it still happening is an issue.

Even if he were in court each week its still an inconvenience and i don't have to tell you the amount of people that have surrendered firearms or taken something else because of the possibility of a court case.

Plus no such blanket ban would come as "i'm banning it because i don't like it". They will use a perfectly legal excuse.

FWIW, I think our more pressing enemies will be found in our own ranks, trying to cut deals in backrooms and throwing others to the lions in the hope the Lions will be full by the time they reach them,[to misquote Churchill]

Agree.

Rifter wrote: »

Why would senior Gardai need to be anywhere near, why not an all civilian staff??

Why can't AGS just perform a background check for your application and its a fully idependent civilian dept that deal with the application from that point on......

Or am I dreaming

Because of the way our firearms licensing works. AGS are the sole body for authorising licenses. To make it so a civilian body can do it would require either a rewrite or completely new firearms act.

The district court can direct a Super to issue a license and in extreme cases issue it themselves, but it still requires AGS to do the actual issuing.

Rifter

Cass wrote: »

Because of the way our firearms licensing works. AGS are the sole body for authorising licenses. To make it so a civilian body can do it would require either a rewrite or completely new firearms act.

The district court can direct a Super to issue a license and in extreme cases issue it themselves, but it still requires AGS to do the actual issuing.

Maybe I was being waaaaay too optimistic when a Centralised Licencing Authority was floated that this would be the case!! I apologise, ill continue with the normal and appropriate amount of cynicism : )

gunny123

The way the licencing system is carried out here, is a left-over from the civil war times i would imagine.

Its hardly very efficient, tying up gardai in the processing of licences either. Add that to the fact that they have been caught time and again, breaking the law by having blanket bans. My own super will not issue certs for moderators on centrefire rifles.

Grizzly 45

Should remind him of the EU directives on noise abatement at the source.
The very same legislation he would use to persecute boy racers with extremely loud exhaust boxes.
This BTW is written as an acceptable good reason by Garda ballistics themselves for possession of a silencer. As this was also a reason I put in my application back in 2014.It was signed off on the report as an acceptable good reason by Sgt[?] J Cummins, should he wish to verify this.

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

.Its hardly very efficient, tying up gardai in the processing of licences either.

They [AGS] don't want to be doing this.

Every FO i've had over the last 5 years has only lasted 12 months or less then either retired, moved on, or been reassigned. And that is only the local station. The district station has been stable enough until recently, but with 3 Supers in the last 5 years, a new FO that doesn't even work out of the district station, and each with their own "style" its hard to know what will happen with each application.

liberx1

Good for them. Any and all "assault weapons" laws are stupid

Cass

Bumping this thread because i was looking at one of these shotguns today and something clicked.

We talk about the person in this case winning, but does section 12 as amended by section 65 of the 2006 act not already prohibit this firearm?

12A.—(1) 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.

(2) It is not an offence under subsection (1) for a registered firearms dealer to shorten the barrel of a shot-gun or rifle to a length of less than 61 or 50 centimetres respectively if the sole purpose of doing so is to replace a defective part of the barrel with a barrel of not less than 61 or 50 centimetres, as the case may be

Or is this the Ruger 10/22 all over again?

solarwinds

My understanding of that section is that it relates to the after market shortening of an existing barrel by an individual with a hacksaw, I dont know would it apply to a factory produced short barrel already fitted to the firearm.
Is it me or does section 2 contradict itself in the same paragraph.

Cass

solarwinds wrote: »

I dont know would it apply to a factory produced short barrel already fitted to the firearm.

That is what had me curious. It's why i wondered if its the "Ruger 10/22" case no one wants to take.

Rifles cannot be shorter than 50cm and shotguns 61, but SI 21/2008 says a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 24" (61cm) is restricted.

I'm lost again.

Is it me or does section 2 contradict itself in the same paragraph.

The bit about not being allowed to have it, but an authorised person can?

Yeah that raises a good debate each time it's brought up. Your license gives you authoirsation and RFDs are authorised and as the FCA1 does not ask for barrel length then technically if granted the license you're authorisd, even though the Act/SI says its illegal.

Ya gotta love the Irish Firearm Laws.

Nekarsulm

Just a quick question, if I were to try and obtain a Bullpup Unlimited kit for my Mossberg 500, would it be permissible under Irish law?
Bullpup designs are, I believe, prohibited.
But only because the magazine is behind the hand grip/trigger.
This does not apply to the 500.
Barrel length would still be 28 inches, and overall length approx. 40 inches.

Cass

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Bullpup designs are, I believe, prohibited.

Not prohibited, restricted. Its why the Buckmark "rifle" is a restricted firearm. The mag loads from behind the trigger so even though its a ten round mag and 22lr as its a bullpup, technically and legally, its restricted.

SI 21/2008 says the following are unrestricted (i've highlighted the exception)

(c) the following long firearms (not being assault rifles or bullpup rifles):

(i) single-shot or repeating rifled centre-fire firearms of a calibre not exceeding 7.62 millimetres (.308 inch) and whose overall length is greater than 90 centimetres,

(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,

(iii) air-operated rifled or smoothbore firearms;

Glass fused light

solarwinds wrote: »

My understanding of that section is that it relates to the after market shortening of an existing barrel by an individual with a hacksaw, I dont know would it apply to a factory produced short barrel already fitted to the firearm.
Is it me or does section 2 contradict itself in the same paragraph.

It's really poor English.
After a couple of readings I think what the wording is for where a firearms dealer has to cut a long barrel to the size of an existing short barrel to do a like for like replacement of a defective barrel that action is not an offence.

Cass

I'm not actually confused by the wording. It allows for an authorised dealer to cut the barrel below the legal minimum but ONLY if they build it back up to the legal minimum (or longer). However they are light on the details of how exactly you'd do that, not that it matters.

My only "pause for thought" is the actual barrel length. The SI says under 24 is restricted, and the law says nothing under 24". Perhaps i'm reading it wrong or more accurately interpreting it wrong.

Nekarsulm

Cass wrote: »

Not prohibited, restricted. Its why the Buckmark "rifle" is a restricted firearm. The mag loads from behind the trigger so even though its a ten round mag and 22lr as its a bullpup, technically and legally, its restricted.

SI 21/2008 says the following are unrestricted (i've highlighted the exception)

So in the case of the 500, as it loads from a position in front of the trigger, is it still restricted in this converted format, or is it simply a case of "re-stocking" ?

Do they consider the original trigger, still present and fully operational, or the new "ancillary" trigger?
Sorry to appear dim!

Cass

To be honest you have me at a disadvantage. I'm not familiar with the conversion kit.

If its this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOuaj2hPNL0

Then it has the mag behind the trigger so it's bullpup. Besides if it has a pistol grip its restricted anyway.

LIFFY FISHING

Slightly different....but on the same vain regarding "grey areas" on what is or not regarded as a restricted licences...I have to wonder why the Ruger Percision Rifle is been granted as a non restricted licence when it clearly is a restricted firearm..folding stock...pistol grip...am I missing something here ??

Cass

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

..folding stock...pistol grip...am I missing something here ??

Only applies to shotguns. Not rifles.

LIFFY FISHING

Cass wrote: »

Only applies to shotguns. Not rifles.

Tks for that info..but it makes the law even more nonsense now...two firearms...the exact same in physical features ....and one is an apple the other is an orange..

Cass

Yup. Welcome to the wonderful world of the firearms acts.

Glass fused light

Cass wrote: »

I'm not actually confused by the wording. It allows for an authorised dealer to cut the barrel below the legal minimum but ONLY if they build it back up to the legal minimum (or longer). However they are light on the details of how exactly you'd do that, not that it matters.

My only "pause for thought" is the actual barrel length. The SI says under 24 is restricted, and the law says nothing under 24". Perhaps i'm reading it wrong or more accurately interpreting it wrong.

Dumb question but would anyone join or weld two barrels together to fix a defective one?

Nekarsulm

Glass fused light wrote: »

Dumb question but would anyone join or weld two barrels together to fix a defective one?

Perhaps as part of sleeving, but I dont think there's a welder on the planet who would stand over a bsrrel welded in the middle.
https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/articles/barrel-lining/

Cass

Glass fused light wrote: »

Dumb question but would anyone join or weld two barrels together to fix a defective one?

As said above it can be done, but would you fire that gun? I wouldn't.

This is one of those "the law is an ass" pieces of legislation. They tell you what you have to do without considering for a moment that the act of doing is damn near impossible. I've seen guns that haven't been touched fail because of the pressures involved.