Happy new year to all and let's start to make a change.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,lets let someone else stick their head over the ramp on that one shall we?

Why?

The law says it cannot be done (the sub is the sticking point, but the re-application come the end of the license clearly says no new short firearm restricted licenses).

So some poor sod will spend thousands on a court case to get a sub for a few months to three years, to have to go back to their original gun, and then start it all over again to license the "spare".

Last figures I have seen was still around the mid 600s And that was the 2012stats.

Thats my point. 6-7 year old information.

The latest figures i have not seen, it's why i said i'm working off old numbers but the numbers i seen were what you said, around 600+, but that covered all restricted short arms, and iirc nearly 400 or so were rimfires that were restricted.

It's why i asked, as you seem so certain, where you get your numbers from that show we still have over 600 C/F pistol licenses out there.

But its still bad and unenforceable law in reality.Anyone been prosecuted yet for shooting on their land at a paper target?

It's not unenforceable with people receiving writs to stop, and one chap i do know that was in court for that and having a 25 round mag on an unrestricted license (he mistakenly thought once it was only loaded with 10 he was fine).

There is a great quote from the film "Fury" that applies here. "If you won't fight for what you got, then don't cry then for what you lost!"

Those plucky sayings and €5 will get you a nice coffee, thats about it.

The vast majority will not and don't want the hassle of court. They won't fight and if refused or denied anything will simply end up accepting it. So while the sentiment is right, the outcome will not be the same.

Mount Sinai.:)

Ha, ha, ha, was thinking of the Popeye joke when i wrote that.

Then don't keep making obvious points, that we all know and understand, and then saying it won't work,or he won't see you from your "personal experiences".

Never said personal experience. Never even said my experience. I just said experience.

......... you can then say "I told ya!":)

What good will that bring? Do you think i say these things just to be able to say "told ya so"?

But if we never try, we'll never know.

But it has been tried, time and time again. This is what i mean by experience. We [shooting community and individuals] have done this ad nauseam over the decades and we never really gain that much, if at all. But if you want to burn some time and money, have at it

?

The entire decade from 2008 to 2014 perhaps?? 95% wins in court cases?? Was that not "fighting da power?"

In terms of the thread topic and what we've been discussing. Actual changes via redrafting, amending or repealing of law?

All those court cases done nothing for the next lad coming in.

How is that changing something to something else??

As i said before if you put a fourth round into an unrestricted shotgun then you are breaking the law. Say these "free" air rifles come in, under a certain limit, and a lad puts a stronger spring into an air rifle then they are intent on breaking the law and to say something won't work because someone might not follow the law is no reason not to try.

I'm not supporting the "free" air rifles thing, i agree with you that it's a pipe dream and its why i asked you above why you think i'm for it. I'm just saying the law is there to tell you what you can and cannot do. If someone is intent on breaking the law then no amount of laws will stop that, so why should others not be able to do certain things because of a small minority?

Not really getting out what i want to say, but hopefully that makes sense.

Its never happened in ANY state, or country that gun laws have been rescinded to make them easier to access. So we are not unique there.

This, this is what i meant when i asked what good has come from "fighting the power"? Nothing.

The fleeting victories we see on an individual basis has no improvement for the community and is usually followed by a swift draft of hastily written and piss poorly implemented legislation.

We aren't the only ones to cherry pick bits of other countries firearms laws.

I don't care about other places, only here.

Its why i hate the comparisons to the UK, America, Germany, etc. It works there, more or less, because it's all they have known. Same here.

I don't want anything UK based, as it stands, in lieu of something we have here. IOW the UK might "envy" (as you said) us for still having handguns, but we're a dying breed and soon to be extinct. I wouldn't swap the few of us that remain for a supped up toy gun that doesn't require a license.

No more than i would like to live in the land of the free and home of the brave where you can buy what you want (as long as you're not a criminal, mentally ill, wife beater, dishonourably discharged, etc) but have to have a federal license or stamp i think they call it and a small fortune to own a suppressor. We can just have an "S" on our license and buy as many as we like. Plus kids here not having to wear flak jackets to attend school and other such things is a bonus.

I like our system. Don't love it, but like it. There is plenty of room for improvement, and if we were as trusted as the PTB claim we are then i see no reason why a person cannot own pretty much anything they want, but in reality the few things we cannot have are of little appeal to the majority and the one or two things that most would like to try could be introduced again if the appropriate associations didn't spend their time trying to simultaneously milk the shooting community dry of money while tightening their grip on any modicum of power.

Cass

yubabill wrote: »

I spoke to several MEP's and/or their secretaries at considerable length during the EU firearms directive debacle and found at least some support or sympathy from all bar one;

Mairead McGuinness

whose final message was palpably hostile.

My point exactly. MEP or EU does not mean we will get on any better than we would with our own lot.

yubabill wrote: »

I wonder are they planning to do these things when transposing the new EU firearms directive into Irish law (assuming the Cz etc challenges to the directive fail)?

I don't know, but the 3+ years it's been in limbo is a disaster and a travesty.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So IOW someone was acting the complete dick, on numerous occasions then? We can only speculate on this, but it was hardly Dad and Johnny setting up a bunch of tins one Sat , once a year to zero the rifle?

I'll give a qualified yes here because Defamation Act; there were multiple levels of pisstaking in multiple events.

Errr...I was talking about the Garda chief Commissioner Sparks.:P:)

Ah, I see, I was still thinking of the OP.
The new commissioner - I don't know. Give him more time in the job, so far he's not immediately jumped down the same foxhole as his predecessors.
I don't want to say I have hope yet, the universe is too hostile.

Yes, its exactly why the EU brought that part in,

I don't believe that's an EU law.
EU firearms law does have the idea of a class D firearm but it does not impose that class on any member state. Nor do we have that concept in our law - we simply have class B for everything (I'm paraphrasing slightly). We just took everything under 1J out of the act completely so that they're not legally firearms here at all.
Bringing in Class D or C for airguns here would be a more complex endeavour; raising the 1J to the 7.5J used in Germany or the 12 ft/lb used in the UK and elsewhere would be easier but it'd come down to who would support what in the end.

a directive so that people wouldn't be prosecuted as you have often rightly pointed out for having a WH Smiths toy crossbow or the like.

I don't think you can legally issue such a directive in Ireland. You can remove a law from the books or modify what it applies to, but I don't believe that a per-person exemption from the law (or a directive to not enforce a law on the books) would be constitutional here.

2]How is this going to be sold to the most anti-gun ownership permanent govt in the EU?
3]Doing this without changing statue law,and to whose benefit?

(3) required a change to the definitions, so it must modify statute law. No way round that. As to (2) it's not that hard a sell because you immediately cut the number of firearms in circulation and by making other non-firearm tools useful for things like controlling rats you lower the number of shotguns needed on farms somewhat. Plus, you bring us into closer harmony with EU regulations and right at this point in time, being closer to the EU is very, very, very, very fashionable. In fact, going against the EU politically right now lands you in the same seat as Peter Casey in the government's eyes. So pushing a pro-EU policy right now is a lot easier than, say, before the UK voted for Brexit and making a mess out of the Irish economy and the GFA.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I'll give a qualified yes here because Defamation Act; there were multiple levels of pisstaking in multiple events.

Thought as much.

I don't believe that's a EU law.

It must have EU origins tho. Because I've seen this 1joule limit situation being discussed in Germany.France, Belgium,Italy etc in the late 90s, early oughties,and they all have this 1joule limit on toys nowadays.

3) required a change to the definitions, so it must modify statute law. No way round that. As to (2) it's not that hard a sell because you immediately cut the number of firearms in circulation and by making other non-firearm tools useful for things like controlling rats you lower the number of shotguns needed on farms somewhat.

3] The problem is there a willingness to do so by the PTB and for the Irish shooting body to carry such?

2]Unless you can convince them that "air weapons" are not actual firearms then this would hold water.but as been pointed out we are dealing with people who are paranoid about state security and armed insurrection or terrorism and to them a gun,is a gun,is a gun be it a 177 or a 50 cal. They can't or won't make such fine decisions,as they all think we are potential terrorists/nutters .Plus our biggest gun owning group,look on firearms as tools not a piece of sport equipment. Its not just rats you have on a farm, its dogs, foxes,cats or two-legged rats.what do you think they will more likely want to use in the majority of times.A glorified toy with limited use or a multipurpose gun?I understand the concept, but the practical reality, in this case, is a hard sell again to that group.

Plus, you bring us into closer harmony with EU regulations and right at this point in time, being closer to the EU is very, very, very, very fashionable. In fact, going against the EU politically right now lands you in the same seat as Peter Casey in the government's eyes. So pushing a pro-EU policy right now is a lot easier than, say, before the UK voted for Brexit and making a mess out of the Irish economy and the GFA

.

TBH, Ireland, as a whole, can be very ala carte in EU membership.all for it when grants and cash and jobs for the good boys and girls in the EU are on offer. Not so much when it comes to things of benefit to Paddy in the street betimes. So I doubt that this lot would consider this of any great benefit to them, and frankly, I wouldn't put it on my priority of EU wishlist things.When there is stuff like the illegal VRT still in existence, that the ESB haven't been arsed in the last decade in looking after and transferring migratory eels and salmon up the Shanon to bypass Ardnacrusha in contravention to EU directives on migatory fish.Or that our streams and rivers are not clean enough under EU water directives for example.But thats just me.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thought as much.

Unfortunately "gardai having operational discretion" and "citizens having legal protection" are about six light years apart.

It must have EU origins tho. Because I've seen this 1joule limit situation being discussed in Germany.France, Belgium,Italy etc in the late 90s, early oughties,and they all have this 1joule limit on toys nowadays.

AFAIK it's the amount of energy the pellet could have and not penetrate a rabbit's eyeball, and has more to do with consumer law than firearms law because it was introduced to govern toys, not firearms.

3] The problem is there a willingness to do so by the PTB and for the Irish shooting body to carry such?

That's a perennial issue, but the point is that in this case it's got a lower degree of resistance than for other ideas. Lower is not the same as "none", obviously.

2]Unless you can convince them that "air weapons" are not actual firearms

See: paintball and stag parties and perceived harmlessness.
Pointing out that air rifles have half the muzzle energy of a paintball gun has triggered "wait, what?" moments in principal officers and other officials before and airguns in general in Ireland today enjoy more leeway than other firearms for the same reasons (it's not like you can get away with not having a licence, but these things are definitely easier to licence even with the postcode lottery).

Plus our biggest gun owning group,look on firearms as tools not a piece of sport equipment. Its not just rats you have on a farm, its dogs, foxes,cats or two-legged rats.what do you think they will more likely want to use in the majority of times.

I know I'm falling prey to a stereotype, but my answer is "the cheapest one".
Mainly because I think there's a grain or two of truth to the stereotype - there's just not much money free day-to-day on a farm. So if you need a shotgun anyway, well, why pay 80 more quid a year (I know it's over three years, but the bill falls due in whole, not in part) for an airgun, why not just use the shotgun you already have? But if you didn't have the hassle, if you could spend, say, €100 for a cheap break-barrel airgun and then buy cheap rathunting pellets for less than a cent apiece instead of the price of shotgun shells, well, suddenly there's a cheaper option. Maybe you won't drop your shotgun... or maybe you'll talk to the local gun club, give them sporting rights in return for vermin control and that saves you 80 quid a year.

(Yes, I can hear someone thinking "what about other reasons for keeping the shotgun" from here, and well, people who think that way won't change their mind regardless - but not everyone is going to be thinking that way).

Point is, you can make a case that you would see a reduction for purely hardnosed economic reasons, rather than ideological ones. A costs less than B, therefore we expect many to choose A over B. That kind of thing.

I doubt that this lot would consider this of any great benefit to them, and frankly, I wouldn't put it on my priority of EU wishlist things

On its own, no, I agree with you, it's insufficient.
But as an additional item in the overall package though, well, it doesn't hurt and frankly introducing a legal measure that aligns us with a larger group like the EU is easier than one which says we're trying something new and different ("How very brave, Minister" and so on).

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Why?

The law says it cannot be done (the sub is the sticking point, but the re-application come the end of the license clearly says no new short firearm restricted licenses).

So some poor sod will spend thousands on a court case to get a sub for a few months to three years, to have to go back to their original gun, and then start it all over again to license the "spare".

Unfortunately,its the only way of finding out is this a genuine situation in law or not. We have to test it in law to see its validity.

Thats my point. 6-7 year old information.

The latest figures i have not seen, it's why I said i'm working off old numbers but the numbers i saw were what you said, around 600+, but that covered all restricted short arms, and iirc nearly 400 or so were rimfires that were restricted.
It's why i asked, as you seem so certain, where you get your numbers from that show we still have over 600 C/F pistol licenses out there.

I'm pretty certain in the time period post-2008,we had a figure here from some Dail question possibly?That there were still about 600 CF pistols here,down from 1250 +/- and that the restricted.22 never came into the equation,until pre and post the .22 mag capacity HC case.

It's not unenforceable with people receiving writs to stop, and one chap i do know that was in court for that and having a 25 round mag on an unrestricted license (he mistakenly thought once it was only loaded with 10 he was fine)

.

As I said, people acting the multiple dick, multiple times or being stupid like your 25 round mag man.I doubt very much that any of those cases have been some lad setting up a few cans in the family farm silage pit once every 6months on a Sat afternoon to pop a few rounds.Only to be suddenly accosted by a ghillie suit wearing chief range inspector appearing before him to accuse him in the dastardly act. Which brings me back to my original point ...If the "looks like an assault rifle !" is "the law".How come numerous judges accepted the fact that it isn't so, that it is bad law and that the cases were won.on.that.point? Surely it would have been open and shut case where they could say."Nope, sorry guys...These look like assault rifles, therefore they are, as its the law!" Or was it because simply said there is no definition in lawas to what an assault rifle looks like? So, therefore, its bad law in the fact like "combat shooting/training" there is no definition in law as to what it is??There has been an assumption always made by law makers that we all know what everyday items are like "tractors" and "assault rifles"

Those plucky sayings and €5 will get you a nice coffee, thats about it.
The vast majority will not and don't want the hassle of court. They won't fight and if refused or denied anything will simply end up accepting it. So while the sentiment is right, the outcome will not be the same.

JEEEZE!You must have money to burn! Paying a fiver for coffee?WTF do you drink?is it one of those coffee beans that's eaten by hippos or monkeys and freshly roasted from their crap?:P:)

Well then the saying holds true. Please don't bewail the loss of your firearms of freedoms and dont begrudge those who did fight and win, because it was inconvenient to you.It certainly was not convenient or fun or other for those that did.i just finished paying back the loan that I took from the family bank this Xmas for the fights in 2012

Ha, ha, ha, was thinking of the Popeye joke when i wrote that.

OK...Should have seen that one.

Never said personal experience. Never even said my experience. I just said experience.

What good will that bring? Do you think i say these things just to be able to say "told ya so"?

No,but then at least we have a genuine example and know more on what the lay of the land is. And if we are wrong you can say it then genuinely.I won't be offended.

But it has been tried, time and time again. This is what i mean by experience. We [shooting community and individuals] have done this ad nauseam over the decades and we never really gain that much, if at all. But if you want to burn some time and money, have at it

OTOH,if some people had never arisen off their asses and said they would like their CF handguns,and large cal rifles back, please? Where would we be? Someone has to lead the cat and bell the charge...? Something like that. You dont ask ,you dont get,[not without a lot of hassle that is]



I

n terms of the thread topic and what we've been discussing. Actual changes via redrafting, amending or repealing of law?
All those court cases done nothing for the next lad coming in.

believe he can shoot a .22 pistol of his choice, albeit with 5 rounds, but is not limited to 20 or so dated Olympic style pistols? He can also license,if he wants to run the risk, of a semi-auto CF rifle too?And let us not forget not to have to fear being arrested for shooting from" behind a barricade" in WA1500.

As i said before if you put a fourth round into an unrestricted shotgun ....etc .etc.

Understand totally what you are trying to say, and I'm playing Devil's advocate here.Look at it from the PTB/AGS eyes. You don't have to convince me or anyone else here. Its them you have to convince that this is a good thing,and so far,we haven't really come up with a knock your socks off reason.

I don't care about other places, only here.

Being" Europeans"[not Irish anymore,or soon wont be] we unfortunately do have to consider other places and rules these days.

Its why i hate the comparisons to the UK, America, Germany, etc. It works there, more or less, because it's all they have known. Same here

.
Hence my point, on the Irish govt cherry-picking legislation from other countries regarding firearms laws, usually all not to our favour. Because if they did, we wouldn't even be discussing airguns as most Western countries consider them non-firearm, toys and not worth licensing.

No more than i would like to live in the land of the free and home of the brave where you can buy what you want (as long as you're not a criminal, mentally ill, wife beater, dishonourably discharged, etc) but have to have a federal license or stamp i think they call it and a small fortune to own a suppressor. We can just have an "S" on our license and buy as many as we like. Plus kids here not having to wear flak jackets to attend school and other such things is a bonus.

The US is a complete and utter aberration, and really any comparison, pro or anti on firearms laws or ownership to any EU country is comparing a blue whale to a dormouse.So a non-starter from the word go. If you did want to compare on a more realistic situation, compare NI or the Czech Republic to us.Its at least somewhat more realistic.

I like our system. Don't love it, but like it. There is plenty of room for improvement, and if we were as trusted as the PTB claim we are then i see no reason why a person cannot own pretty much anything they want, but in reality the few things we cannot have are of little appeal to the majority and the one or two things that most would like to try could be introduced again if the appropriate associations didn't spend their time trying to simultaneously milk the shooting community dry of money while tightening their grip on any modicum of power

.

Thats nail .on .head there.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Unfortunately,its the only way of finding out is this a genuine situation in law or not. We have to test it in law to see its validity.

No, we would need to test it if you were renewing a licence every three years, but we don't -- instead we apply for a completely new certificate. That's why the whole idea falls apart; there is no continuity for the certificates, it's not like renewing a driving licence.

I'm pretty certain in the time period post-2008,we had a figure here from some Dail question possibly?That there were still about 600 CF pistols here,down from 1250 +/- and that the restricted.22 never came into the equation,until pre and post the .22 mag capacity HC case.

Maybe one figure is for all pistols and the other is for centerfire pistols.

my original point ...If the "looks like an assault rifle !" is "the law".How come numerous judges accepted the fact that it isn't so, that it is bad law and that the cases were won.on.that.point?

To my knowledge, the validity of that portion of the law has never actually been tested (there are laws that govern how specific laws have to be, but I don't know of anyone who applied those to the firearms act). Whether the superintendent correctly gauged the appearance of the firearm according to that "does it look like an assault rifle" test is a wholly separate question to the "is this a stupid test" question in a court of law. And in real life, if we're honest. AFAIK, a few cases challenging whether or not the super correctly considered the question were taken and won; but none asking whether the question was constitutionally sound in the first place.

I don't think we want to take that kind of case by the way. That's a nuclear can of worms right there, and the fallout would not be good for us or for the general public.

JEEEZE!You must have money to burn! Paying a fiver for coffee?WTF do you drink?is it one of those coffee beans that's eaten by hippos or monkeys and freshly roasted from their crap?:P:)

Lad, anywhere inside the M50 you are not getting coffee for less than three quid a cup and a fiver is almost normal in the city. Nobody is up in arms about it because coffee isn't as big a problem as rent levels and being homeless, and nobody is expecting that to improve thanks to Brexit and the current government.

extremetaz

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It must have EU origins tho. Because I've seen this 1joule limit situation being discussed in Germany.France, Belgium,Italy etc in the late 90s, early oughties,and they all have this 1joule limit on toys nowadays.

Sparks wrote: »

AFAIK it's the amount of energy the pellet could have and not penetrate a rabbit's eyeball, and has more to do with consumer law than firearms law because it was introduced to govern toys, not firearms.

It was introduced by British Home Affairs in 2000 in order to clear up some issues with the previous precedent set for qualifying a lethal barreled weapon set by Moore v Gooderham some 35 years earlier. The 'Forensic Science Service' of the time stated 1J as the minimum energy a projectile required in order to penetrate even vulnerable parts of the body such as the eye. The figure was revised upwards on 2 occasions since (that I'm aware of) by both the Northern Ireland forensic folk, and the a study into penetrating wounds by some one of the US military branches. Depending on which you subscribe to the number goes up as high as 4J; but both of these studies were the context of causing a penetrating wound through the skin rather than to the eyeball hence the 1J level has prevailed.

Good info on the point here

Grizzly 45

Ah ! Here is some of the figures. Taken from the Journal.ie[For what that is worth!:rolleyes: the rest of the article is the usual Journal.ie standard]
Article
https://www.thejournal.ie/gun-licences-2584691-Feb2016/

As of 28 of March 2014, the number of non-restricted handgun licences stood at 1,076 and the number of restricted handgun licences at 590. As of February 2014 there were 178,191 firearms certificates across the state for all types of firearms.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.............. and the number of restricted handgun licences at 590. .............

That is what i said above, but with the added bit (highlighted)

Cass wrote: »

........... around 600+, but that covered all restricted short arms, and iirc nearly 400 or so were rimfires that were restricted. .

As said i've no official figures, no more than yourself, but the ones you linked to, while not the most reliable i'd grant you, would be in line with what i said. 600 restricted short arms, but what is needed is to find out if the majority actually are rimfire.

Wonder would an FOI sort this out?

Grizzly 45

Worth an FOI request...But I wonder can PULSE actually break it down that fine into calibres?

Cass

How could it be that difficult?

Two categories.

1. 22lr
2. Everything else

I have a sneaking suspicion the number i quoted above for c/f handguns may be a little low, but not as far off as the 600 you think there are and that is not a "i told you so", it's a case of there are not as many c/f handguns left as you think there are.

Grizzly 45

Input rubbish into a computer, you get the same out.And when we look at what was input into PULSE as to what "firearms " were defined as,I'd say that alot of them have been incorrectly added to the system.

jb88

"The "self-ban" is currently in effect and works. The retrospective aspect of it will prevent anyone from buying and anyone who dares will, according to the dept, find themselves having their license revoked in the near future. "

In reference to your quote above.


I dont think so, I myself know of about a dozen new applications in the last year and thats only the people I know.

There is no legislation yet introduced for this and a member of the Gardai publishing something is not legislation, particularly when it relates to their powers under as yet not introduced legislation.

Until the minister of Justice brings forward proposed legislation on a ban on CF Semi auto rifles all of this is just rubbish.

Cass

jb88 wrote: »

In reference to your quote above.

Whose?

There is no legislation yet introduced for this and a member of the Gardai publishing something is not legislation

This i know.

Until the minister of Justice brings forward proposed legislation on a ban on CF Semi auto rifles all of this is just rubbish.

Rubbish how?