Updated Garda Commissioners Guidelines

NASRPC

Updated (2018) Garda Commissioners Guidelines in relation to the licensing of Firearms

gunny123

What has been updated ?

Vegeta

Not finished reading this but the bit on zeroing is very refreshing.

Paragraph on semi auto rifles is.....weird. Any license between announcement in 2015 and possible future legislation are revoked. That doesn't seem even remotely legal does it. You cant license this because of potential future laws

Grizzly 45

Exacta mundo... Its the self-prohibiting 1972 TCO trick again. "We won't license it , because your license might be revoked...Sometime!"
Not very good law,and probably challengeable EU unconstitutional under EUCHR.
How many of the M1 carbine boys might attest to this being BS??

Still got the stupid "assault style" weapons definition too....They are really hard of learning.
Also,the IPSC definition is brilliant,as it could be sooo easily legally circumvented.As it is the exact definition of what it is in German law,and Germany has a growing by the day IPSC community.

GolfVI

Its seems all the reccomended ammo allowances have been increased

Farmer -up to 200 rounds
Deer stalker -up to 500 rounds
Clay pigeon shooting- up to 750 rounds
Target shooter - up to1000 rounds

wexfordman2

GolfVI wrote: »

Its seems all the reccomended ammo allowances have been increased

Farmer -up to 200 rounds
Deer stalker -up to 500 rounds
Clay pigeon shooting- up to 750 rounds
Target shooter - up to1000 rounds

WhAt in God's name does a deer stalker need 500 rounds for ?


I only.hold about 100 at any time, and that's loads (I am now going to.duck and run for cover).

GolfVI

wexfordman2 wrote: »

WhAt in God's name does a deer stalker need 500 rounds for ?


I only.hold about 100 at any time, and that's loads (I am now going to.duck and run for cover).

Maybe the deer are starting to fight back and they want us to be well armed

solarwinds

Well there is an epidemic of deer out there, maybe its a hint to shoot more.

solarwinds

No change on the substitutions of restricted pistols.

gunny123

wexfordman2 wrote: »

WhAt in God's name does a deer stalker need 500 rounds for ?


I only.hold about 100 at any time, and that's loads (I am now going to.duck and run for cover).

Any decent deer ammo is nearly 40 yoyos a box, which is 1,000 euros worth. Maybe estates might need that amount ?

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Also,the IPSC definition is brilliant,as it could be sooo easily legally circumvented.As it is the exact definition of what it is in German law,and Germany has a growing by the day IPSC community.

WHOO-HOO, lets get shooting ipsc again !

Cass

Few things have changed and some mistakes were made.

Here are the mistakes, illegal bits, and bits i don't like.

Additionally, any rim fire rifle with a magazine holding in excess of 10 rounds is defined as a restricted firearm

See the mistake, because the law says capable of holding, not actually holding.

....... with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds

This mistake would mean if you have a 25 round mag for your 10/22 but only load 10 you're fine, well you're not.

This bit has me concerned and confused:

It shall not be lawful for any person to sell a firearm to a person under 18 years of age. Additionally, an application for a firearm certificate, where the applicant is under 18 years of age, shall be accompanied by the written consent of the applicant's parent or guardian. Statutory Instrument No: 493 of 2010 refers

SI 493/2010 refers to someone under 18 being registered as a business in firearms/firearms dealer and for someone to sell them firearms for the purpose of their business without the person (under 18) having written consent from their parents/guardians.

The sale of firearms to anyone under 18 is not illegal, hence not a crime if it's done a one to one or private basis. IOW outside of a business. Putting the above in where it is is wrong, violates the actual firearms act, and makes a completely legal transaction seem illegal.

The bit about the semi auto defacto ban is annoying and worrying. Three years since the former Minister made that statement and not a budge or hint of legislation coming. This could go on indefinitely and after 30 years a ban would still be in place without any legislation to make it legal. Time to get writing me thinks.

The issue of the firearm dealer SI. No real discussion with actual RFDs just the three on the so called coalition of vested interests group, one of whom is only an ammo dealer. Leaving the other 99.6% out in the dark.

Under the Fox heading they once again mention this bullsh*t about notifying AGS before going out. Other than being impractical i wonder how i would dot his as three local stations around me were closed, one closes at 8pm, and the main station would think it's a terrorist calling in a threat. Also the last time i had to call AGS it took them 3 hours to get back to me as no one local was available so i had to wait for someone from a station 50 miles away to contact me back.

In the "Hunting" paragraph there is a worrying sign of "don't give this type of rifle for this type of hunting". They even hint, under the fox hunting bit, that centrefire rifles like the 223 need a large degree of skill to use and are really only suitable to highland areas. You all might find it harder to get a certain caliber because they don't think it's safe.




A few points i like.

They clarified the competence part of getting a firearms license. No more "only a cert will do". In the same paragraph they also state what we've been saying on this forum for years. Proficiency is NOT to be confused with competence and is NOT required to be proven when applying for a firearms license.

They ahve clarified that refusals MUST be in writing and must clearly outline why they person was refused making it clear that citing a paragraph of one of the acts does NOT count as an explanation.

Garda Supts MUST now meet gun clubs twice a year to discuss any problems or issues.

The zeroing aspect is addressed and it's good to see common sense being used, but i'd be happier if, like the illegal semi auto ban, they addressed the legislation and rubber stamped it to make it completely legal.

The ammo allowances have all been raised. Farmer from 100 to 200, Deer from 200 to 500, Shotgun from 500/750 to 750 only figure and target shooter goes from 750/1000 to 1,000 only figure.

When talking about suitable firearms as they pertain to the land the person shoots on a brief mention is made of how sometimes an applicant may find they need a different caliber/type than is usual for the type of shooting. This may, and i stress may, allow for 22-250/243, etc. for lads with no deer licenses. Long shot, but it seems like it.




In the end its not of any great concern because they are simply GUIDELINES. While the Super or Chief Super may adhere to them they will need legislation to support any decision made based on the guidelines and if it's not there then they have acted outside the law and the remit of their authority.

I don't want to come across as confrontational or looking for problems, but while there are some good points others have been made murkier or harder when the law, in some cases, doesn't make it so.

BattleCorp

The defecto ban on semi auto centrefire rifles is what has me p1ssed off.

Buy a gun today legally. Licence it in the next few months legally. Use it legally. Then have your licence revoked because of a statement by a Minister years ago with no legislation to back it up. How the foooook can they backdate a ban like that?

meathstevie

That .223 and hills etc etc is some UK bull crap copied into Irish guidelines. They look at whether land is "suitable" for a certain caliber.

Well I can shoot a .50BMG perfectly safely sitting in a high seat in a twenty foot tree firing into the ground in a completely flat 1000 acre farm. At the same time a clown with a .17 hmr can seriously hurt someone 600 yards away firing over the brow of 300 foot hill.

judestynes

COLLECTORS
Antique firearms are exempt from the provisions of the Firearms Acts provided they are
held as ornaments or curiosities. In the absence of a definition for an 'antique' firearm,
Ballistics section at Garda H.Q. applies the 'Pre Unitary Cartridge' rule which appears to
conform to international standards. Unitary cartridge ammunition consists of a cartridge -
usually metal which contains the primer - the propellant and the bullet within it. Modern
reproductions of antique firearms are not exempt from firearms legislation.
Some people will occasionally wish to purchase an old or antique firearm, or one which
is valuable because of its historical significance, for no reason other than as an
investment. This may sometimes be regarded as 'good reason' having regard to all the
circumstances, and if capable of being fired, these firearms will require a firearms
certificate.

So obsolete calibre's aren't exempt but being a collector is acceptable as "good reason" I wonder will fire arms officer or supers' apply rigid security requirements to firearms which effectively can't be shot .

Cass

Vegeta wrote: »

Paragraph on semi auto rifles is.....weird. Any license between announcement in 2015 and possible future legislation are revoked. That doesn't seem even remotely legal does it. You cant license this because of potential future laws

Last year i brought up this topic (semi autos facing possible ban) in another thread outside of the main thread discussing this and other stuff and was told i was scaremongering. I said then that a cap was illegal and no legislation is in place to uphold any sort of cap let alone a ban.

It all started with a proposal by the so called coalition of vested interests for, among other things, a temporary cap on semi autos AFTER 1950 (to preserve their interests so vintage, classic, and the likes wouldn't be affected) in 2015. The Minister made her statement on Sept 18th of 2015 in which she said categorically:

Legislation will provide for the revocation of any licenses issued between today (18 September 2015) and the enactment of the legislation and it is intended that anyone applying for licenses of this nature will be informed of that fact.

No cap was ever put in place because its ILLEGAL. However with the statement comes the possibility of a "back dated" ban most likely with Grandfathering like the restricted short firearm ban.

As for the legalities of such a retrospective ban, it is more than likely illegal as the constitution says you cannot introduce and apply legislation retrospectively to make something that was not criminal, criminal, but it'll take a Supreme court case i'd imagine to resolve it which requires a serious amount of money and an invitation (if my understanding of the court is correct).

The worrying part of this is the fact the Commissioner has brought this topic back to the fore with his updating of the guidelines. It reinforces that they intend to revisit this matter (ban/legislation) at some point and serves as a reminder to anyone licensing such a firearm that they WILL (not may) loose it.

IOW an illegal and stealth ban.

yubabill

Just seen this and had a quick read.

On the semi auto centre fire rifles, I don't read the guidelines as meaning a current ban ( the bit I found is on page 23?).

I read it as saying that the applicant and the issuer should remember that future proposed legislation will mean the licence will be revoked.

Now I know that some FO's will use this as an excuse to refuse an application and it does sound very like the 1972 TCO, but it can be reasonably argued that an application is not inadmissible until any new SI/legislation is in effect.

And I do note the prejudice in favour of single shot/bolt action rifles elsewhere, so just saying.

Grizzly 45

Both of you are correct on those points.It is unconstitutional legislation both under Irish law and EU law. Ex post facto law to give it it's legal terminology.
From an EU parliment written question in Dec 2012

Keep this bookmarked or on the legal sticky Mods,as no doubt this WILL come up one day,and it will save hunting about for it again.

IOW refuse a cert under those current guidelines and see you in court!

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+P-2012-011005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

One of the fundamental principles of European Union law is the requirement for a guarantee of legal certainty, which includes the prohibition of ex post facto legislation. This can also be seen in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. There is also an explicit ban on ex post facto law in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since, under Article 6 of the convention, the European Convention on Human Rights is a signatory to the Treaty and the fundamental principles which it contains form part of EC law, the ban on ex post facto law can also be regarded as a requirement of the rule of law laid down in Article 2 TEU. Ex post facto legislation may also violate citizens’ right to effective legal redress and a fair trial, which is laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

WHOO-HOO, lets get shooting ipsc again !

Yes,all we need to do is actually get a roundtable discussion with AGS and DOJ and hammer out exact definitions of what would be considered "combat shooting" and IPSC.Can get the German legislation on what is considered combat training no problem,and their restrictions on IPSC, and it could be worked on. Also, seeing we have a NI chief commissioner who is well aware of IPSC in NI and what "combat training" actually is, seeing he comes from an armed police force...:)...Ok, who wants to help out on this??

Cass

yubabill wrote: »

On the semi auto centre fire rifles, I don't read the guidelines as meaning a current ban ( the bit I found is on page 23?).

It's not as there is no current ban. As i said back then, and above, a temporary ban/cap is illegal and so no such thing exists.

I read it as saying that the applicant and the issuer should remember that future proposed legislation will mean the licence will be revoked.

Yup.

So this is where my "stealth ban" comes into it. As a perspective new semi auto owner/licensee would you now buy one knowing that future legislation will make them illegal and it'll be back dated to Sept 18th 2015?

Most people knowing, and the Minister's statement with the updated guidelines make it clear, this would not dare buy one to have the license revoked and end up with a few grand sitting in some dealers waiting to sell.

Its the pistol ban all over again only much longer between the statement date and any legislation.

Now I know that some FO's will use this as an excuse to refuse an application and it does sound very like the 1972 TCO, but it can be reasonably argued that an application is not inadmissible until any new SI/legislation is in effect.

Not only can it be argued, but it is currently the law. IOW if they refuse an application, and given the Commissioner's update on what is required in a refusal, you will absolutely win and be granted the license (assuming you meet all the other criteria).

The issue is for how long? This is the dangerous part of this proposed legislation. There is no "end date". It could be done in the next 6 days, weeks, months or years. Perhaps longer. However for as long as this "limbo" is in place there is a self imposed stealth ban.

.270 remington

Just had a quick read in the hunting section on page 32 its interesting to see that
22-250 is 5.7 mm and .223 is 5.7 mm :rolleyes::rolleyes:

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yes,all we need to do is actually get a roundtable discussion with AGS and DOJ and hammer out exact definitions of what would be considered "combat shooting" and IPSC.Can get the German legislation on what is considered combat training no problem,and their restrictions on IPSC, and it could be worked on. Also, seeing we have a NI chief commissioner who is well aware of IPSC in NI and what "combat training" actually is, seeing he comes from an armed police force...:)...Ok, who wants to help out on this??

I doubt we will ever see ipsc shooting in the republic again, the government/ags would keep moving the goalposts so it could never happen. I am surprised they have not gotten rid of the embassy cup already.

gunny123

.270 remington wrote: »

Just had a quick read in the hunting section on page 32 its interesting to see that
22-250 is 5.7 mm and .223 is 5.7 mm :rolleyes::rolleyes:

More crap, under eussr law , imperial measurements are verboten.

.270 remington

gunny123 wrote: »

I doubt we will ever see ipsc shooting in the republic again, the government/ags would keep moving the goalposts so it could never happen. I am surprised they have not gotten rid of the embassy cup already.

Are they still allowed to use slugs ?

gunny123

.270 remington wrote: »

Are they still allowed to use slugs ?

Yes, as far as i know.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

It's not as there is no current ban. As i said back then, and above, a temporary ban/cap is illegal and so no such thing exists.


Yup.

So this is where my "stealth ban" comes into it. As a perspective new semi auto owner/licensee would you now buy one knowing that future legislation will make them illegal and it'll be back dated to Sept 18th 2015?

Most people knowing, and the Minister's statement with the updated guidelines make it clear, this would not dare buy one to have the license revoked and end up with a few grand sitting in some dealers waiting to sell.

Its the pistol ban all over again only much longer between the statement date and any legislation.


Not only can it be argued, but it is currently the law. IOW if they refuse an application, and given the Commissioner's update on what is required in a refusal, you will absolutely win and be granted the license (assuming you meet all the other criteria).

The issue is for how long? This is the dangerous part of this proposed legislation. There is no "end date". It could be done in the next 6 days, weeks, months or years. Perhaps longer. However for as long as this "limbo" is in place there is a self imposed stealth ban.

All of which is ex-post facto law and illegal...So if they do this they will be facing court cases aplenty. I think this just shows the arrogance of the PTB to think that they think we are all ignoramuses of the law and that for some reason we wouldn't look up this and challenge them on it?? Now I would ask if this is a reality in the fact is, how many people have joined Gallery rifle in the last couple of years that are shooting M1 carbine?? If there is an increase in numbers,then it shows two things, either people are accepting this risk and running with it, or CS are issuing licenses with good reason anyway?

Personally, I think they would only kick off with this if there was a surge of license applications like with the handguns, but again this is different, in that the pistol ban defined a cutoff date to become legislation,[IE Nov 16th 2008] this does not, as there is no cutoff date enacted in when the legislation commences.

TBH,I'm more worried about the deafning silences on the new EU legislation which was supposed to be enacted by all member states by Sept 10th 2018.Especially in relation to semi autos whether we are CAT A prohibited with a mag of more than 10 shots,but with exemption granted to persure disiplines requiring more than shots,or CAT B 3 semi autos with a mag capacity of ten shots.as it opens the question of hi cap mags here that hold greater than 10 shots?Dowe block our 20 shot mags?How do we do such? Or do we hand them in and what recompense do we get for them?

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

I doubt we will ever see ipsc shooting in the republic again, the government/ags would keep moving the goalposts so it could never happen. I am surprised they have not gotten rid of the embassy cup already.

Errr NO...The whole idea of getting definitions laid out exactly and on paper is to prevent ambiguity and goal post moving. Things like, one aGS objection in IPSC was "shooting out of "doors and windows" Fine, well let's define what you classify as a "door/window" exactly in the legislation so that there is no fukups then? Grey areas and ambiguity has always been AGS and the beuracrats friend here....remove it and it makes it difficult for either side to screwup.
Look,if the Germans can do this,and have a growing community of IPSC and under strict definitions of whats allowed or not to define the differences of combat or IPSC shooting I cant see why we cant do the same here?

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

Yes, as far as i know.

Of course.You need slugs to shoot it, and it's no different in shooting a rifle discipline.

gunny123

Any movement in muzzleloading/blackpowder shooting ? It is a discipline that seems to be constantly getting kicked into the long grass and never dealt with, which is a pity as it is something i would really like to try. A nice cap and ball revolver would be great fun to shoot.

yubabill

Cass wrote: »

The issue is for how long? This is the dangerous part of this proposed legislation. There is no "end date". It could be done in the next 6 days, weeks, months or years. Perhaps longer. However for as long as this "limbo" is in place there is a self imposed stealth ban.

Now there's the question.

Personally, given that new legislation was promised by a previous minister and there seems to be no mention of it since, I imagine they are waiting to see if the new EU firearms directive stands up to the court challenge(s?).

And while I'm at it, Griz I think they can extend the implementation date for themselves and in the meantime hi-cap mags are legal and aren't they going to be grandfathered?

Grizzly 45

Nope, the high cap mags are not grandfathered FIK. It is this fecked up legislation from the EU that causes this problem.

paraphrasing for this point

CAT A are prohibited firearms that can accept a detachable mag[above.22lr] with a mag capacity of ten rounds in long arms or 20 rounds in short arms. Unless they are used in a nationally recognised discipline which MAY be accepted as the good reason to possess, and which an exemption will be granted.

CAT B Are semi-auto long firearms with a detachable mag of ten rounds or less or short firearms with a mag capacity of 20 rounds or less[above .22lr]

On an aside,this has now legalised ultra short stocked CAR type handguns in Italy as perfectly legal CAT B rifles with 20 shot mags. This is how stupid this legislation is.:(,

Now this is the kicker. Say you had an AR15 on Cat B, and you had a bunch of different mags like STEN,AK etc.You can have a house full of mags,as some people in the EU collect m ags only.But say you have an M16 20 rounder of Vietnam vintage.You are screwed!!As you hold a CAT B with no permission to use it in a CAT A gun.

So relevance to us?Some of us might have bought old surplus mags for our rifles that are 20 0r in some cases 30 shot. What's our position? Can we block them to te n rounds,and be able to keep them for aesthetic purposes? If so, how are they to be blocked?Or do we have to destroy, hand in etc?And in that case whats the going the rate for surrendered property?

Another problem is that some ex select-fire rifles out there that were converted to SA only that a few of us own,are now CAT A firearms and people might be unaware of this change until licensing them.

By and large, in the big pic it's really minor concern to us here as we more or less have most of this directive in national legislation already. But there is always the wild card that could hit us on those points.

Other point is this,this legislation is national and hasn't much to do with the EU . TH EU legislation is being challanged on the Czech,Polish and Swiss fronts as it messes with national defence policies and in the Czech case with Right to carry and ownership of ex military rifles converted to semi auto.

Grizzly 45

Anyone also notice the mention of Bullpup rifles and shotguns has disappeared from the guidelines??

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Anyone also notice the mention of Bullpup rifles and shotguns has disappeared from the guidelines??

An oversight ?

yubabill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Both of you are correct on those points.It is unconstitutional legislation both under Irish law and EU law. Ex post facto law to give it it's legal terminology.
From an EU parliment written question in Dec 2012

Keep this bookmarked or on the legal sticky Mods,as no doubt this WILL come up one day,and it will save hunting about for it again.

IOW refuse a cert under those current guidelines and see you in court!

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+P-2012-011005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

One of the fundamental principles of European Union law is the requirement for a guarantee of legal certainty, which includes the prohibition of ex post facto legislation. This can also be seen in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. There is also an explicit ban on ex post facto law in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since, under Article 6 of the convention, the European Convention on Human Rights is a signatory to the Treaty and the fundamental principles which it contains form part of EC law, the ban on ex post facto law can also be regarded as a requirement of the rule of law laid down in Article 2 TEU. Ex post facto legislation may also violate citizens’ right to effective legal redress and a fair trial, which is laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Missed this earlier, somehow. Had to google ex post facto - wiki says "retrospective".

I'm no legal eagle, but this says to me that the only thing that might - might, mind - make Frannie's semi auto ban get around the prohibition of retrospective lawmaking is the fact that she warned applicants about revocation of their licence.

I still think they will try to bring this ban in under the EU directive, rather than by their own legislation or SI, because why?

Well, just look at who was the instigator of banning semi auto rifles here?

Hint: His name is not calumny and his initials are Martin Callinan.

yubabill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nope, the high cap mags are not grandfathered FIK. It is this fecked up legislation from the EU that causes this problem.

paraphrasing for this point

CAT A are prohibited firearms that can accept a detachable mag[above.22lr] with a mag capacity of ten rounds in long arms or 20 rounds in short arms. Unless they are used in a nationally recognised discipline which MAY be accepted as the good reason to possess, and which an exemption will be granted.

CAT B Are semi-auto long firearms with a detachable mag of ten rounds or less or short firearms with a mag capacity of 20 rounds or less[above .22lr]

On an aside,this has now legalised ultra short stocked CAR type handguns in Italy as perfectly legal CAT B rifles with 20 shot mags. This is how stupid this legislation is.:(,

Now this is the kicker. Say you had an AR15 on Cat B, and you had a bunch of different mags like STEN,AK etc.You can have a house full of mags,as some people in the EU collect m ags only.But say you have an M16 20 rounder of Vietnam vintage.You are screwed!!As you hold a CAT B with no permission to use it in a CAT A gun.

So relevance to us?Some of us might have bought old surplus mags for our rifles that are 20 0r in some cases 30 shot. What's our position? Can we block them to te n rounds,and be able to keep them for aesthetic purposes? If so, how are they to be blocked?Or do we have to destroy, hand in etc?And in that case whats the going the rate for surrendered property?

Another problem is that some ex select-fire rifles out there that were converted to SA only that a few of us own,are now CAT A firearms and people might be unaware of this change until licensing them.

By and large, in the big pic it's really minor concern to us here as we more or less have most of this directive in national legislation already. But there is always the wild card that could hit us on those points.

Other point is this,this legislation is national and hasn't much to do with the EU . TH EU legislation is being challanged on the Czech,Polish and Swiss fronts as it messes with national defence policies and in the Czech case with Right to carry and ownership of ex military rifles converted to semi auto.

There has been so much talk on this that I concede I might be wrong on grandfathering. It seems the only way to go, though as otherwise it's impossible to enforce the new directive.

For instance, in the bold part above, will it not be legal to possess a mag greater than 10 rds cap as long as it's not placed in a Cat B firearm?

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

Any movement in muzzleloading/blackpowder shooting ? .

For everyone, freely. No.

In limited circumstances, yes. It's shot in the Midlands.

yubabill wrote: »

..... I imagine they are waiting to see if the new EU firearms directive stands up to the court challenge(s?).

I'm more cynical. I believe it's because this defacto ban is working and with the retrospective aspect of any new legislation they are covered either way.

So why rock the boat by finalising things with a new law when the ambiguity works so well.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Anyone also notice the mention of Bullpup rifles and shotguns has disappeared from the guidelines??

No, missed that. Still it's only guidelines, and they haven't been removed from the firearms Act so no change.

yubabill wrote: »

I'm no legal eagle, but this says to me that the only thing that might - might, mind - make Frannie's semi auto ban get around the prohibition of retrospective lawmaking is the fact that she warned applicants about revocation of their licence.

They wouldn't be so "cute". They will simply plough in, initiate the ban, and sit back while we all bitch, then eventually accept it because who the hell wants to spend a small fortune fighting it in court? And i do mean a small fortune. Low six figures at the minimum.

Sparks

I liked that it advises that all paintball markers must be licenced.

While saying nothing about the minor point that through oversight, paintball markers may not be licenced by law; so any piece of paper a super puts his or her name to is (a) not worth its weight in paper; and (b) a way to be brought in as a defence by a plaintiff when the inevitable happens, in the "He said it was fine your honour!" way.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

While saying nothing about the minor point that through oversight, paintball markers may not be licensed by law;

We've always worked under the assumption/guidance of a paintball gun being a restricted short firearm.

Few things that have me questioning this.

• In the guidelines and the Act the limit of 16 joules or under is mentioned. This seems to apply to paintball guns only.
• Most paint ball guns fire a 3 gram marker at a max of 300 fps (91mtrs per second) which translate into 12 to, a max of, 13 joules.
• So does this make them unrestricted?
• Is it the barrel length or some other feature that makes them restricted?
• Is special exemption given for their licensing as with their ranges (not classed as a range so the tacti-cool stuff is perfectly legal).

Grizzly 45

I'm no legal eagle, but this says to me that the only thing that might - might, mind - make Frannie's semi auto ban get around the prohibition of retrospective lawmaking is the fact that she warned applicants about revocation of their licence.

Utterly irrevelant..It is EU legislation which trumps Irish legislation as it is NOT firearms legislation! This applies over all EU legislation and as IRL signed up to it they cant pick and choose as to what they apply.You cant do it END OF!!

I still think they will try to bring this ban in under the EU directive, rather than by their own legislation or SI, because why?

It has nothing to do with EU legislation as the 2015 EU gun ban is passed,written and being implimented as we speak.And even if they could,they would be violating EU directives again as it is perfectly legal to posses CAT B and CAT A rifles and mags under the EU directive.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

For everyone, freely. No.
.

They wouldn't be so "cute". They will simply plough in, initiate the ban, and sit back while we all bitch, then eventually accept it because who the hell wants to spend a small fortune fighting it in court? And i do mean a small fortune. Low six figures at the minimum.

I will!! Because they will be looking at having to explain that in the European court,the supreme court as well as high court and as Ireland is a signatory to this they are fuked.I would bet my house and farm on this one!This kind of attitude is exactly what our lords and masters expect and this is why they get away with literally murder in this country.

Grizzly 45

yubabill wrote: »

There has been so much talk on this that I concede I might be wrong on grandfathering. It seems the only way to go, though as otherwise it's impossible to enforce the new directive.

For instance, in the bold part above, will it not be legal to possess a mag greater than 10 rds cap as long as it's not placed in a Cat B firearm?

No, you can possess ANY OTHER TYPE of high cap mag. Say you had an AR style rifle,you can have STEN,AK,HK,FAL,heck even a 20mm Wehrmacht Vierling flack gun mag. So long as you don't have a 20 round AR15 mag to fit your CAT B AR Modern sporting rifle.

BUT if you shoot, say IPSC,and you need a 20 round mag, you can apply to your local govt and as you are shooting a recognised sport* you can be granted a license for a CAT A firearm** Also,sofar you can still purchase any high cap mag, irrespective of whether you possess a gun to fit it. This is how convolutedly stupid this legislation is.

Also,it is utterly impossible to enforce this mag ban,same as with the deacts,because there are simply hundreds of thousands of hicap mags out there in the EU,and no one knows who has what.So being picked up with having a hicap mag in your CAT B gun is well,utterminiscule,unless you are doing somthing daft with it,and there is no word from the EU on how these are supposed to be dealt with if you have one.IE can you block it to 10 rounds?etc etc.Plus with 3D printing coming along,if you want disposable untracable mags...

*Does not apply to the ROI as we have banned IPSC
**Does also not apply if your country has a national civillian armed reserve force,or you are a armed security company charged with gaurding property,persons or places

Grizzly 45

Sorry ,I just had to put this as this is an almost a ready-made test case to prove or disprove the hypothesis on SA's here.

It would be most interesting to see if anyone is refused a lic for this on the above grounds of possible future revocation,or are granted it with a clause mentioning that possibility,or are just granted with "good reason" of Gallery rifle?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=108304022#post108304022

yubabill

The new EU firearms directive is a minimum, member states are free to impose more restrictions if they wish.

So it is possible for member states to ban semi auto firearms when drafting the directive into their own legislation.

Regarding the retrospective ex post facto thing, the signalling of intent to revoke semi auto licences granted after sept 2015 could only be tested in court.

I haven't read the new EU directive in a good while, but I still think it allows possession of hi cap mags and the firearm status only changes from Cat B to Cat A when a hi cap mag is inserted into it.

yubabill

Cass wrote: »

I'm more cynical. I believe it's because this defacto ban is working and with the retrospective aspect of any new legislation they are covered either way.

So why rock the boat by finalising things with a new law when the ambiguity works so well.



They wouldn't be so "cute". They will simply plough in, initiate the ban, and sit back while we all bitch, then eventually accept it because who the hell wants to spend a small fortune fighting it in court? And i do mean a small fortune. Low six figures at the minimum.

Beginning to think that if they do not ban SA rifles when drafting the new EU directive into Irish law, I don't think we will see a separate ban any time soon. because of what Griz said about ex post facto and what you said about the ambiguity working.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

We've always worked under the assumption/guidance of a paintball gun being a restricted short firearm.

Few things that have me questioning this.

• In the guidelines and the Act the limit of 16 joules or under is mentioned. This seems to apply to paintball guns only.
• Most paint ball guns fire a 3 gram marker at a max of 300 fps (91mtrs per second) which translate into 12 to, a max of, 13 joules.
• So does this make them unrestricted?
• Is it the barrel length or some other feature that makes them restricted?
• Is special exemption given for their licensing as with their ranges (not classed as a range so the tacti-cool stuff is perfectly legal).

So the 16 joules thing only shows up in the Act in one place that I know of, the ban on dynamic shooting. And I would hazard a guess that paintball is why that's there.

But the problem is purely based on the barrel length, which for pretty much every paintball marker is less than the 30cm listed in the Act (and in the restricted firearms SI but the Act takes priority); combined with the SI limiting the calibre of unrestricted air pistols to 4.5mm only (so if you have a .22 air pistol like a crosman you're in the same boat).

There's no special exemption possible either - the ban on the licencing is in the main Act and the SI can't override that. The only reason the restricted list can say we can have air and smallbore pistols is that Section 3D says anything listed as unrestricted in section 4(2)(e) of the 2008 SI is licencable even if it's a short firearm. And paintball markers aren't covered by 4(2)(e). And from discussions with the DoJ Firearms Unit, that's completely by accident because nobody was talking to the Irish paintball association at the time and they didn't know this was coming up (and up to that point, the Gardai had refused to issue licences for markers on the grounds that "Sure, that's thing's not a gun, it's harmless, feck off home lad I'm not doing the paperwork").

So they've always been in limbo and now the Commissioner is demanding they be licenced but doesn't seem to know they legally cannot be licenced, hasn't given any guidance in the guidelines on this point, and sooner or later, that's going to come to a head because paintball's kinda visible what with being something people do on corporate days and stag parties and the like, and according to the law, it's not just the guy who owns the marker who's in trouble if it all kicks off, it's the guys who run the fields, it's the people who work for them, it's their customers, it's basically everyone:

(18) It is an offence—

(a) for a club or the owner or operator of a shooting range—

(i) to contravene subsection (1) of this section, or

(ii) without reasonable excuse, not to comply with any conditions attached to an authorisation under this section,

(b) for a person not to comply with subsection (12) of this section, or

(c) for a person, without reasonable excuse, to participate in the activities of such a club or shooting range for which an authorisation under this section is not in force.

(19) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (18)(a)(i) of this section it is a defence to prove that the defendant took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid committing the offence.

(20) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (18) of this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €2,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both, and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both.

Note that (19) there only applies to paragraph 1 of that section which is about making sure the section 4A authorisation is up to date if anyone's using the range and that only applies to the owner of the range (so that someone sneaking onto a range at 3am and using it doesn't land the owner in as an accomplice even if they knew nothing about it).

And even if you get past the direct prosecutions under paragraph 18, you now find the entire paintball field business model - of the general public coming in and using club guns - is toast because you can't have restricted firearms as club guns. So that's people out of jobs and you'd be removing their ability to earn a living on the basis of a drafting error in an SI, so I'd expect a court case out of it and while the court can't argue it, I'd suspect that'd be a strong motivation for a redraft of the restricted firearms SI.

Emphasis added there so nobody goes asking "who cares about paintball?".

Cass

I was writing a response then something finally clicked. Its amazing how you can read something an ignore a word that changes everything.

Section 4 says "a firearm with a muzzle energy of less than 16 joules". So it is aimed at paintball guns, but the key word that i glossed over is firearm. It didn't say item, tool, etc. They call it a firearm and the 16 joule is aimed at it being a "low powered firearm" rather than contravene/contradict the 1 joule limit which makes it a firearm.

IOW i believed there was a special "exemption" of 16 joules for paintball guns that meant they didn't have to be licensed, but when my brain finally kicked in and i read the word firearm i realised it's already called a firearm and so it needs a license.

This is when the restricted status of the gun kicks in, due to the features of the guns used.

So they've always been in limbo and now the Commissioner is demanding they be licenced but doesn't seem to know they legally cannot be licenced, hasn't given any guidance in the guidelines on this point,

Yup.

I'm surprised that the changes made to these guidelines have such errors including the ones i pointed out in my first post (regarding unrestricted/restricted mag size). I know some will say it's only the wording, and the SI hasn't changed, but its important to get these things right.

Note that (19) there only applies to paragraph 1 of that section which is about making sure the section 4A authorisation is up to date

But aren't paintball "ranges" not classed the same a clay ranges and require no authorisation.

While they are legally restricted short firearms the act relating to ranges says paintball ranges don't need authorisation so their restriction status won't change that, will it?

.......... I'd suspect that'd be a strong motivation for a redraft of the restricted firearms SI.

Emphasis added there so nobody goes asking "who cares about paintball?".

Given the attack on semi autos what are the chances any such redrafting would lessen or loosen the restrictions on restricted short arms?

Sparks

But aren't paintball "ranges" not classed the same a clay ranges and require no authorisation.

You can duck that one if you can get markers classified as something other than rifles or pistols (the section just talks about rifle or pistol ranges, it never mentions the purpose of the range so it's just the classification that counts) but I don't know if or how that'd be done; we don't even have a definition to fall back on of what a rifle or pistol is in the act, it only ever defines "firearm".

And the ban on club guns being restricted firearms isn't limited at all - it was supposed to apply to everything so that'd still catch them in the business model.

Given the attack on semi autos what are the chances any such redrafting would lessen or loosen the restrictions on restricted short arms?

Or tighten them. It could go either way and the chances are nearly impossible to predict given how volatile the politics around the DoJ and Gardai are right now. I'd be holding my breath from start to finish if it happened, and I suspect you'd have one faction looking to crank down the ratchet harder all around, one looking for a very limited exemption to save political face for the Ministers, and five or six other factions looking for their own exemptions with loose cooperation via the FCP, and then possibly another faction who didn't care so much about the final effect on the law so much as about trying to gather either more power or to create new markets to make money from.

I mean, we're not even talking about the normal three sides here, it'd be a complete furball.

Cass

The reason i ask about the range authorisation is the guidelines say no authorisation is required, but the Act doesn't specifically exempt it (nor shotguns for that matter) it simply names pistols or rifles which as you highlighted above have no actual definition.

The problems with the firearm Acts have been known for a long time with even the law society calling for a complete redrafting/rewriting of it, but with the updating of the guidelines these faults, errors, and basically illegalities are highlighted and show the shortfalls.

Grizzly 45

QUOTE=yubabill;108346418]The new EU firearms directive is a minimum, member states are free to impose more restrictions if they wish.

So it is possible for member states to ban semi auto firearms when drafting the directive into their own legislation.[/QUOTE]

Quite correct,however they have to keep in mind EUCHR articles 5and 7 as does our own lot Article 42 of the Irish constitution,and that could be quite expensive in other EU countries as well as here if not handled correctly.:) Not to mind opening a few big worm cans in the Irish case of shennanigans in general done by this state since its foundation to citizens.

Regarding the retrospective ex post facto thing, the signalling of intent to revoke semi auto licences granted after sept 2015 could only be tested in court.

Of course,but OTOH,if an utter layman like me can figure this one out,and there are EU directives that Ireland has signed up to on this that can be found by anyone with a computer these days.

I haven't read the new EU directive in a good while, but I still think it allows possession of hi cap mags and the firearm status only changes from Cat B to Cat A when a hi cap mag is inserted into it.

Correct, however be careful of National LE implying INTENT to insert the mag and turn it into a CAT A.Which has been done before. EG the UK claiming that if you have the DIY SMG book by PA Luty either in paper or cyber that you have "Documents likely to be of use to terrorists/criminals" under the RIP act 2001. Or in the US BATFE have raided people and convicted them of making illegal class 3 SMG's because they had straight exhaust pipe and a copy of the STEN construction manual.Not that they had a STEN parts kit or had glued templates to said pipe.Having the two articles together at the same address was enough for IMPLIED INTENT to construct a SMG.

Now whether any of those charges stuck is another thing, but it just shows to what length police forces in a "Western democratic society":rolleyes: will go to try and nail a ligit firearms owner.Of course, we know our lot are paragons of virtue and law upholding and would never even consider such tactics.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sparks

if an utter layman like me can figure this one out

So obviously I'm not going to say that only barristers and judges can read the law, but I would say one thing Grizz - even when the law is clear, it can take years and tens of millions of euro to get a decision that upholds that law. And that's if you get it; courts and sure things don't exist in the same universe, and we've seen decisions in the last decade that threw common sense out the window, not to mention the mainstream interpretation of laws.

I mean, ffs, whether Texas has 2 senators in the US senate or 10 came down to how a colon was interpreted (and the interpretation ruling said, sure, split it up, that's fine).

So is it possible? Yes, definitely. Would it be fast, easy or cheap? No, no, and *** no.

Grizzly 45

True,but then again remember a Govt or organisation can NEVER be seen to be the wrong either.Especially here,as what would happen if the hoi polli realised that those we elcet and allow to govern us hav feet of clay??

That's why they will fight, every and any.Its why we had a woman die last week because of this from cervical cancer, and when they do realise its a no-hoper, they offer" undisclosed sums for no disclosure."in the hope it goes away. Just the nature of the beast..:)