Nite site wolf etc. Legality?

Tikka391

Hi all,

Just wondering what are the exact legality issues regarding the Nite Site nv set up's.

Are they completely legal or are they falling into a grey area type of thing.

Many thanks.

cookimonster

You can own any form of night vision - IR, Thermal etc weather it be hand held, headsets or firearms mountable and you may hunt with them as stand alone resources with out any hassle or restrictions (except in the case of sec 42 for deer at night time if stated)

.....BUT....

.... once you mount any of the above onto a firearm by any means, ie off the self dedicated firearms sighting system, DIY System, the addition of after market or non purposed mounts etc or even sticky tape and blue tack, you need authorisation from the Gaurds.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

You can own any form of night vision - IR, Thermal etc weather it be hand held, headsets or firearms mountable and you may hunt with them as stand alone resources with out any hassle or restrictions .............

Slight correction there.

The handheld stuff you're 100% on, but if its a dedicated firearm mountable unit like a NV scope then it needs authorisation regardless of whether you have a firearm or not.

Section 4(g)(i) of the 1990 offensive weapons act:

4.—(1) In the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, “firearm” means—

g) (i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e), and

Another gem from our firearms laws.

Tikka391

Thanks lads.
So just to be clear do I need to go to the super if i want to put a Nite Site on my foxing rifle?

cookimonster

My bad, I was under the impression that it had to be 'mounted' to require authorisation...
..... that clearly sows that up.

I wonder do the shops ask to see your authorisation before selling a sight to you, as they are obliged to do with sound moderators?

cookimonster

Tikka391 wrote: »

Thanks lads.
So just to be clear do I need to go to the super if i want to put a Nite Site on my foxing rifle?

Yes..

Tikka391

cookimonster wrote: »

My bad, I was under the impression that it had to be 'mounted' to require authorisation...
..... that clearly sows that up.

I wonder do the shops ask to see your authorisation before selling a sight to you, as they are obliged to do with sound moderators?

See that's what I was wondering, they are so freely sold.
You can just walk in and pick one up and work away.

tac foley

Tikka391 wrote: »

You can just walk in and pick one up and work away.

Sure you can, but you'll be arresticated for thievery.

Cass

Tikka391 wrote: »

See that's what I was wondering, they are so freely sold. .

For the same reason you can buy deer calls, decoys, reloading equipment. It's perfectly legal to to sell, just some requires licensing/authorisaton and the rest is outright illegal to use, but not sell.

slipperyox

according to that act, a lamp attached to the scope is also prohibited.

g) (i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic

Zxthinger

This is not the correct.
No one applys for a permit to buy a Nv scope. No requests permission to obtain one.

You simply apply for a gun and declare the scope type in the "REAL" firearm application (gun, rifle, whatever)
Once you get your licence with no restrictions that preclude your requested accessories then your good to go.

There is no written requirement required and there is no letter or marks attached to the licence to show you have such authority.

Just because a 'NV weapon-mountable scope' is a firearm under the 'catch-all' definitions of the statute book does not mean that it is automatically treated the same a silencers.

The pigeon man

slipperyox wrote: »

according to that act, a lamp attached to the scope is also prohibited.

g) (i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic

It looks like you're right. I wasn't aware of this until now but it looks like you would need authorisation for a scope mounted light.

Thankfully my brother has always been holding the lamp so I can go to bed with a clear conscience.

The laws in this country are very inconsistent.

Ziggieire

I have permission to use NV on 3 of my firearms.
I Sent a letter to the FO, he then asks you to fill out an amendment form FCA2.
He may also ask you to Add a page on why you need the NV Unit.
In that you fill in the reason for amendment and sign it for each firearm you want to use the NV on.



It is passed to the super to sign off on , He may want a meeting like mine did.

he signs off and you get a note on your PULSE Record that those firearms are authorised for NV.
There is no extra letters on your Licence, And just ticking the Optics/other Box without adding a reason for the tick does nothing.

If you ticked the box and you are not sure of you have permission call your FO and check.

tac foley

The only thing that IS consistent in Irish firearms laws, rules and regulations is the inconsistency.

Take comfort, friends, you are not alone.

Here in UK you can walk into a gun store and buy a sound moderator for your air rifle with money of some kind, and proof that you are over 18 years old. Then, having bought it, you can walk out with it.

No paperwork of any kind.

But walk into the same store and try to buy the exactly identical device for your rimfire rifle, and you need the permission detailed on your FAC - the UK version of your 'S'.

Sure, you COULD buy it for your air rifle, and 'try it out' on your section 1 firearm, but getting caught means a hefty fine and permanent loss of your FAC.

Zxthinger

The pigeon man wrote: »

It looks like you're right. I wasn't aware of this until now but it looks like you would need authorisation for a scope mounted light..

That not what the law is trying to control. In fact it's not even what they are referring to. A beam is a laser beam. A standard torch does not produce a beam. It scatters light in all directions and is not a beam. You don't need permission to use a torch strapped to your scope.

The pigeon man

Zxthinger wrote: »

That not what the law is trying to control. In fact it's not even what they are referring to. A beam is a laser beam. A standard torch does not produce a beam. It scatters light in all directions and is not a beam. You don't need permission to use a torch strapped to your scope.

We're going to have to disagree on this. The law clearly refers to a light beam. It does not refer to a laser beam in the first sentence. A torch does throw a light beam. That's exactly what the reflector in the torch does. It concentrates the light into a beam.

I think you are manipulating the wording of the law to suit your notion that you don't need authorisation to fit a torch to a scope.

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

tac foley

The pigeon man wrote: »

I think you are manipulating the wording of the law to suit your notion that you don't need authorisation to fit a torch to a scope.

You mean the way that the weasel-wordmongers among our boys in blue do to justify their often odd decisions?

slipperyox

To throw another spanner in the works.
A silencer is only authorised for 1 year. NOT the life of the permit.

(3) The superintendent of the district where the holder of an authorisation under this section resides may, at any time, attach to the authorisation such conditions as he considers necessary for the purpose of preventing danger to the public or to the peace or of ensuring that the silencer is used only to satisfy the special need for which the authorisation was granted.

(4) An authorisation under this section may be granted for such period not exceeding one year as is specified in the authorisation and may be revoked by the superintendent of the district where its holder resides.

Zxthinger

The pigeon man wrote: »

We're going to have to disagree on this. The law clearly refers to a light beam. It does not refer to a laser beam in the first sentence. A torch does throw a light beam. That's exactly what the reflector in the torch does. It concentrates the light into a beam.

I think you are manipulating the wording of the law to suit your notion that you don't need authorisation to fit a torch to a scope.

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

I'm not going to agree to disagree when your complete in error. A torch is not a light beam. A torch is a simply a light source (glowing wire or a candle) with a reflector on one side.
Just because you think that a torch emits a beam means nothing compared to the facts. No one in Ireland requires or sought permission for such foolishness. Someone here who understood that it referred to a laser sought to clarification on wheather or not they needed authority for a rangefinder riflescope. They were told by AGS that no such authority was required as it was only related to targeting aids. Lasers!

Zxthinger

slipperyox wrote: »

To throw another spanner in the works.
A silencer is only authorised for 1 year. NOT the life of the permit.

(3) The superintendent of the district where the holder of an authorisation under this section resides may, at any time, attach to the authorisation such conditions as he considers necessary for the purpose of preventing danger to the public or to the peace or of ensuring that the silencer is used only to satisfy the special need for which the authorisation was granted.

(4) An authorisation under this section may be granted for such period not exceeding one year as is specified in the authorisation and may be revoked by the superintendent of the district where its holder resides.

Yes that was the case but now with written authority stamped onto the three year licence with an expiry date. Your covered.

Cass

slipperyox wrote: »

according to that act, a lamp attached to the scope is also prohibited.

g) (i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic

No.

That part refers to a scope with a light emitting function. IOW range finding, NV, etc. It does not mean a scope mounted torch/lamp.

This was clarified some time ago by the DoJ.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

This is not the correct.
No one applys for a permit to buy a Nv scope. No requests permission to obtain one.

Yes they do, when applying for a firearm you tick "Sights".

There is no written requirement required ........

Yes there is on section 3.2 of the FCA1. The "Sights" box.

Just because a 'NV weapon-mountable scope' is a firearm under the 'catch-all' definitions of the statute book does not mean that it is automatically treated the same a silencers.

Yes it does. That is exactly what it means. It's why it's called a firearm under the Act. Same as a suppressor. And the same as a suppressor you tick a box when applying for a firearm to obtain authorisation for one.

Your disapproval of it's definition does not overwrite the law.

The only catch here is very few to nobody would apply for it [the NV scope] on it's own. They would apply with a firearm. However if one wanted a NV scope on it's own with no firearm to attach it to, then you would still need authorisation.

Cass

slipperyox wrote: »

To throw another spanner in the works.
A silencer is only authorised for 1 year. NOT the life of the permit.[/I]

That is the 1990 act when we had one year license. Since the introduction of the three (3) year licenses it now lasts for the length of time the license runs for as per section 3(7) of the firearms act.

(7) A firearm certificate which is in force, other than a relevant firearm certificate continued in force under section 3(3) of this Act, as amended by section 28 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, shall continue in force for a period of 3 years from the date on which it was granted, unless revoked, and for any further such period for which it may be renewed.

Section 3(3) refers to hunting licenses for deer and other wild game.

Zxthinger

Zxthinger wrote: »

This is not the correct.
No one applys for a permit to buy a Nv scope. No requests permission to obtain one.

You simply apply for a gun and declare the scope type in the "REAL" firearm application (gun, rifle, whatever)
Once you get your licence with no restrictions that preclude your requested accessories then your good to go.

There is no written requirement required and there is no letter or marks attached to the licence to show you have such authority.

Just because a 'NV weapon-mountable scope' is a firearm under the 'catch-all' definitions of the statute book does not mean that it is automatically treated the same a silencers.

No! Cass. I wrote it already that you apply for it when filling in the FCA1. Your cherry picking sentences and taking them out of context.

And no again, silencers are not treated exactly the same in the statute book.



I had this argument here before and I seem to remember that you and other insisted that a NV scope needed written permission. I alway insisted that you apply for it via section 3.2 accessories.

Silencers are different because you require written permission. You don't require written permission for a NV scope.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

No! Cass. I wrote it already that you apply for it when filling in the FCA1.

You said:

Zxthinger wrote:

No one applys for a permit to buy a Nv scope. No requests permission to obtain one

Which is wrong. You DO need to apply for it and DO need permission for one.

You also made absolutely NO mention of FCA1 in any of previous posts.

Your cherry picking sentences and taking them out of context.

Which bits did i "cherry pick"? I merely disregarded the useless parts. By the by the written word has no context, so if you mean something it's best to explain it fully so there is no doubt as to your inference.

And no again, silencers are not treated exactly the same in the statute book.

Both are firearms, both require authorisation, both are recorded on PULSE, both are an offense to have without authorisation.

The only difference is the suppressor (because they're not silencers) is shown as a "S" on your license, but the NV has no mark on your license to denote authorisation to use one.

So tell me again how they're different in "statute book".

I had this argument here before and I seem to remember that you and other insisted that a NV scope needed written permission. I alway insisted that you apply for it via section 3.2 accessories.

You've had many arguments here before questioning many things that are law that you don't see as such so you'll forgive me for not remembering them all.

Did i say written permission? Don't recall, but i'll look.

Perhaps you misread it and i said written reasons as to why you want when applying.

Silencers are different because you require written permission.

Erm, no you don't. You get the "S" on your license which i've said from the start, and just above in this post, but that is a far cry from a letter of authorisation which i still maintain i never said is needed, but again i'll check it out in case i did say so.

You don't require written permission for a NV scope.

Why has the issue of written permission become an issue.

You need authorisation which Ziggieire above explained very well comes in the form of authorisation recorded on PULSE, with no letter, but a letter of explanation with the FCA1.

If you have moved your argument from "you don't need permission at all" to "you don't need written permission but DO need authorisation from the Super" then you're just agreeing with what i orginally posted in post #3 and won't waste time arguing with you over semantics.

Zxthinger

I said in my original post, you apply for the NV Scope in the real FIREARMS application. That's that put to bed.

You use all the semantics and cherry picking you like. But that's what I said. If you can't get that into your head then I can't help you.



I have NV equipment that I use and I applied for it in section 3.2 with the FCA1 when licensing the gun. I obtained the licence with no written conditions stipulated and I have no written permission for the NV. So how does that leave me.. lol.

There is no part of the statue that states that you must have written permission for a NV scope.. and you or other are using the wording as it supply's to silencers to for your own opinions about how you think written permission is required. Yes you must apply for it. But this nonsense won't be sorted until they start putting NV beside the S on the front face of the licence.

slipperyox

Cass wrote: »

That is the 1990 act when we had one year license. Since the introduction of the three (3) year licenses it now lasts for the length of time the license runs for as per section 3(7) of the firearms act.



Section 3(3) refers to hunting licenses for deer and other wild game.

I get a letter from the super for 1 year, AND the "S" on my permit for 3. Which is correct?

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

I said in my original post, you apply for the NV Scope in the real FIREARMS application. That's that put to bed.

You use all the semantics and cherry picking you like. But that's what I said. If you can't get that into your head then I can't help you.

Calm down, you're getting very lit about this.

You didn't say to use the FCA1 and the "real FIREARMS application" only works in your head. Like i said above, there is no context in the written word so it helps when you use the correct terminology when trying to explain things.

The term you wanted was FCA1.

I have NV equipment that I use and I applied for it in section 3.2 with the FCA1 when licensing the gun. I obtained the licence with no written conditions stipulated and I have no written permission for the NV. So how does that leave me.. lol.

As i said above:

Cass wrote:

Why has the issue of written permission become an issue.

You need authorisation which Ziggieire above explained very well comes in the form of authorisation recorded on PULSE, with no letter, but a letter of explanation with the FCA1.

If you have moved your argument from "you don't need permission at all" to "you don't need written permission but DO need authorisation from the Super" then you're just agreeing with what i orginally posted in post #3 and won't waste time arguing with you over semantics.

So if you've moved your position from you don't need authorisation at all to you don't get a letter, well that is what i've already said and you agreeing with me. So i don't know why you are getting so upset about it.

There is no part of the statue that states that you must have written permission for a NV scope..

Never said there was.

and you or other are using the wording as it supply's to silencers to for your own opinions about how you think written permission is required.

Not sure what supplies have to do with anything, but i never said written permission was necessary, and you are now arguing against a non existent point.

As for suppressors (again there is no such thing as a silencer) you don't get a letter for them either. So ONCE AGAIN, i don't know what this has to do with the conversation.

Yes you must apply for it.

Well at least you're getting it now. Had you just posted this a few posts back, while redundant as i said it in post 3, it would have saved a lot of unnecessary back and forth.

But this nonsense won't be sorted until they start putting NV beside the S on the front face of the licence.

Agreed.

Along with the picture we supply with each application as was the intent of them. However rushed legislation, lazy implementation and apathy towards fixing these problems will prevent all that.

Zxthinger

Hard to not get over excited sometimes. Lol

Agreed once the NV is stacked beside the S on licence we'll be sorted.

slipperyox

"As for suppressors (again there is no such thing as a silencer) you don't get a letter for them either. So ONCE AGAIN, i don't know what this has to do with the conversation."

Silencer is the term used in the act. Not suppressor.
Say that's not a silencer and see how you get on with no authorisation..:p

I get a letter for 1 year because that's whats in the act (and an S on permit), and it hasn't been amended since 1990.

I can certainly agree, there is much confusion regards interpretation of the act, as it was written by legal teams not fully versed in both terminology and function. And subsequent amendments have fortified this, and led to even more confusion, but more importantly, left it open to interpretation.

Cass

slipperyox wrote: »

Silencer is the term used in the act. Not suppressor.

And it's the Firearms Act yet every Garda i've ever spoken to at any rank call them a weapon.

It's our job to educate them whenever and wherever possible but that can only happen when we [the shooting community] stop using the same wrong terminology ourselves. I know, i've been guilty of it myself, but i try not to help spread the false narrative.

Say that's not a silencer and see how you get on with no authorisation..:p

I did and do.

One such time nearly got me in trouble, to a degree. A meeting with a new Super and i was asked why i wanted a silencer to which i said i didn't, i wanted a suppressor. He gave that "over the glasses" look as if i were dirt, but i held his gaze forcing him to engage. We went back and forth for a few moments and i explained there is no such thing as a silencer, only a suppressor as the shot is suppressed not silenced. He gave the same line you did about it being called that in the act, and i came back with my line about it being called the firearms act so why does he kept referring to my application as one for weapon?

It ended in stalemate but i went off the happier as i got my suppressor and whether he uses the right terminology i know i held my ground.

I get a letter for 1 year because that's whats in the act (and an S on permit), and it hasn't been amended since 1990.

The reason for the "S" on the license is when the license is printed and the authorisation for it entered onto PULSE the "S" is automatically printed on the license. If you receive a license with no "S" then it's not recorded on PULSE.

The other reason for this "S" is when you are out and about if stopped the "S" shows immediately that you have authorisation for the suppressor. A letter is only a bit of paper and if you are out without it, and have no "S" on your license, you have no proof you have the authorisation as a check on PULSE will come back with nothing.

As for it not being amended since 1990. The 1990 act is only an amendment act and not the primary legislation as in the 1925 act. The 2009 act changed the time limit of a license from 1 to 3 years and the authorisation for a suppressor, when applied for via the FCA1, is to run concurrently with the firearms license.

If you are getting yearly letters and no "S" then you have no authorisation recorded on PULSE which poses the problems above as well as no PULSE history of being granted the suppressor should you someday be refused. Also if you are only being granted them yearly i'd be onto my local station and asking for it to be granted via the "S" on the license as mandated by the 2009 act and FCA1.

I can certainly agree, there is much confusion regards interpretation of the act, as it was written by legal teams not fully versed in both terminology and function. And subsequent amendments have fortified this, and led to even more confusion, but more importantly, left it open to interpretation.

Some bits fo the law are outright stupid, some contradict themselves, and some are grey. However a lot of it is black and white and the only confusion, as you said, comes from the wrong interpretation of it.

I've spoken to, heard, and helped lads over the years who have been "victims" of this. Those who fought their corner won, but more than i'd like to admit don't bother and just move on.

It's this apathy towards your "rights" (we don't actually have rights, but you get the idea) that allows for the slow erosion of what AGS are doing even though some of it is wrong and some even against the firearms act.

slipperyox

well said Cass. we're all on the same side

Zxthinger

slipperyox wrote: »

well said Cass. we're all on the same side

The men of Innishfree bid you welcome. Lol

Grizzly 45

However,the actual correct and original term for these are silencers.It's what Hiram Percy Maxim who invented them called them in his patent about 110 years ago.
It is really semantics as to what you call these.Calling them suppressors is technically correct,as they do not completely silence the gunshot.Calling them silencers is more legally and historically correct.Either way,both terms are correct and are interchangeable.
https://www.silencershop.com/blog/post/silencer-suppressor/

Cass

The thing is just because the fella that invented them called them that, they don't do it. So inventor or not he is still wrong or as i like to say he has just been wrong for longer.

I mean i can stick teats on a bull and call it a cow, but it's just not.

Sorry, it's my incessant need to have the last word. :D

rugerfanatic

How can the inventor of something, who names it, be using the wrong name?


Or am I having a blond moment?

Cass

You're not having a blonde moment, it's me just prolonging an absolutely pointless and frankly boring point of debate.

What i meant by it's called the wrong thing is it doesn't do what the name suggests. It doesn't silence sh*t, it suppresses the heard report. Now i'll get someone that'll say with the right firearm, ammo, and a large enough can you'll get next to silence, but that is the exception.

It just bothers me how AGS call them silencers, weapons, etc. and we go along with it for fear of annoying them. They're wrong and should be told as much no matter how much they don't like haring it.

Bogwoppit

Why do we call radiators radiators? Well that’s what they were called from the start, but they don’t work by radiating heat, they work by convection, we should call the convectioners, but we don’t.

rugerfanatic

OK

For me, they can call 'em what they want once the licence them. Life is too short to be worrying about it.

Now for a right good tangent

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shift-mind/201103/why-is-it-so-important-be-right

Cass

Bogwoppit wrote: »

Why do we call radiators radiators?

As soon as they restrict, ban or limit the number of radiators based on their Hollywood image i'll accept that comparison.

Now for a right good tangent

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...rtant-be-right

You're right, ok here goes:

rugerfanatic

Cass wrote: »

You're right,

If you say so

Cass wrote: »

ok here goes:

Which is exactly how I feel about your issues with what a silencer is or isn't called :pac:

Cass

Too cruel, too cruel.

rugerfanatic

Cass wrote: »

Too cruel, too cruel.

Grizzly 45

Semantics,shamantics!!!
Its the same as anyone calling any 4wd vehicles a "Jeep".We all know there are 100 of variations of the theme, but it is just common word parlance in the English language. Now if you were to be technical, IE in court or otherwise,then Yes a "2000 Toyota Landcruiser mod XYZ" would be a better and appropriate description.

Calling them either term is correct. were it an application a suppressor is probably technically better, but it's not fooling anyone in the know. Least of all people like BATF...who copped the "sound suppressor" import trick from the UK, sometime around the 1950s.

Also, when Mr Maxim invented and patented these 100 odd years ago, in America[also kind of important,as they do have different words for things over there..] people weren't that pedantic on what every word meant literally.
As he was more interested in eliminating noise at source, and that new fangled contraption the automobile was making its appearance.He sold a few patents with "engine silencer" on them as well.Only later did they become "mufflers" or "exhaust boxes".
"Suppressors" only really came into fashion around the 1960s Vietnam era, when the US military got involved in their usage. And if anyone who has experience of the US armed forces, just about everything, has to be called something military and given a lengthy serial number. IE a "shovel becomes a "Current issue spec general purpose entrenching tool shovel,serial number USMC mod blah,blah,yada.":eek: So no wonder the poor ol silencer, so known by the US OSS and UK equivalent in the 1940s became the "suppressor":)