Updated Garda Commissioners Guidelines

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..:)

Sparks

Especially here,as what would happen if the hoi polli realised that those we elcet and allow to govern us hav feet of clay??

What, you mean they'd have to resign publicly for breaking departmental rules about lobbying for broadband contracts as the norm and not as something so unusual as to catch the entire oireachtas flat-footed when they were revving up to call for it?

Jaysus, keep that up and you'd have nobody in government who felt comfortable breaking the rules...

Cass

So in short the gudielines don't clear this point up, make it more confusing by demanding licenses for a firearm that cannot legally be licensed, have errors and bits that are actually illegal, and the few points that could be of benefit have no basis in law so you can still be done for it (zeroing, etc).

Terrific. :rolleyes:

Sparks

Yup, that seems to be pretty much it in a nutshell.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

So in short the gudielines don't clear this point up, make it more confusing by demanding licenses for a firearm that cannot legally be licensed, have errors and bits that are actually illegal, and the few points that could be of benefit have no basis in law so you can still be done for it (zeroing, etc).

Terrific. :rolleyes:

They do not do a lot of proof reading or fact checking we can take it then ?

Cass

The thing that gets me is the Commissioner put his name to this. So regardless of who wrote it, proof read, etc. he signed it.

Grizzly 45

Guess they are breaking him in gently to the quaint customs and traditions in our force down here?? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Guess they are breaking him in gently to the quaint customs and traditions in our force down here?? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You know how it is :rolleyes:.

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

BryanL

I don't shoot foxes, but it's amazing to read someone else decide what is or isn't sport. It seems foxes are only to be shot where they have a demonstrable effect on farming and nowhere else?

"Shooting foxes is not a sport and therefore their culling in areas where their activities are not interfering with farming may not be a 'good reason' to possess a firearm for that purpose."

gunny123

BryanL wrote: »

I don't shoot foxes, but it's amazing to read someone else decide what is or isn't sport. It seems foxes are only to be shot where they have a demonstrable effect on farming and nowhere else?

"Shooting foxes is not a sport and therefore their culling in areas where their activities are not interfering with farming may not be a 'good reason' to possess a firearm for that purpose."

I did not see that, stupid, but then again what do you expect ?

BryanL

The bit on "Silencers"  WTF?????????????