Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Our Sport is Under Attack Again

Options
1235712

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭cavan shooter


    solarwinds wrote: »
    greencap wrote: »
    solarwinds wrote: »
    I can see why they wanted to bring in marking of firearm components, to probably combat back yard shops manufacturing illegal firearms. But again it wasnt thought through to an everyday implementable level.
    Also i dont think the manufacture of illegal firearms is a serious issue, its just as easy and cheaper to get the real thing than to go out and buy the necessary machinery to do it.
    When you see some of the hardware these lads have you have to wonder who is supplying them.
    And sure when all else fails just use a truck, a car or even a knife. No amount of laws or restrictions on law abiding people will stop certain elements from achieving their goals.

    but they will get in the way as much as possible, which is what a govt is supposed to do.
    the best we can do is elect people to hinder criminality, we cant just fix the world.
    we'll never stop drug smuggling, or people smuggling, they'll always find a way.

    but thats not a reason to do away with patrols and customs/passport checks.


    Imposing more laws and restrictions on law abiding gun owners is not going to hinder or inconvenience criminals one bit.
    So if criminal activity will always find a way whats the point in imposing more daft laws.
    No one ever mentioned doing away with border checks or passport control. On the contrary if the borders were better resourced it would definitely have a positive impact on ILLEGAL gun imports for the purpose of murder.
    The law abiding citizen raised to respect the Gardai and the Law is an easy target. We will moan and groan but we will comply because we want to continue to shoot. Its easier to go after us than it is to target criminal gangs that have illegal firearms, assault rifles and sub machine guns, why?.. we will comply, they on the other hand will tell the Gardai to fuxk off and continue to do what they want they are untouchable, but the Garda press office will make a great deal how they have insured that nasty guns and ammunition are controlled.....and then you'll read in the paper or hear in the news that a drug dealer was popped with a Glock an illegally held Glock or some other black nasty looking gun or an AK and the Gardai are sitting in the Park scratching their heads wondering How can this happen....we implemented the Law.....and none of them realise that the law only works with law abiding citizens, and then the circle starts again we the lazy Politicos and pinko start shouting we need to control guns we need to ensure we dont have a gun culture......and then we get targeted again......and so if will fo on forever until they're banning Hurley's cause they are lethal weapons. Rant over..I'm going to the pub....if I can get a lift


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,788 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    solarwinds wrote: »
    I cant wait to see how the firing pin being made for my .22lr is going to be engraved with a serial no. it is a vital component so therefore must be marked.
    Is this the level of daftness we are facing now, its not very workable from what I can see. Ok for the major components barrel, action, bolt or other essential parts but it doesn't draw the line at individual components.
    I am going to try an engrave my serial no. on my new recoil spring, will let ye know how I get on.

    You don't need your firing pin engraved.

    The essential components which need to be marked in compliance with the requirements of Directive 2017/853 are defined in Article 1 of the Directive as:-

    the barrel
    the frame
    the receiver (including both upper and lower receivers where applicable)
    the slide
    the cylinder
    the bolt or breech block.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    You don't need your firing pin engraved.

    The essential components which need to be marked in compliance with the requirements of Directive 2017/853 are defined in Article 1 of the Directive as:-

    the barrel
    the frame
    the receiver (including both upper and lower receivers where applicable)
    the slide
    the cylinder
    the bolt or breech block.

    If I want to sell my gun , do I need to get the bolt engraved?


  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭solarwinds


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    solarwinds wrote: »
    I cant wait to see how the firing pin being made for my .22lr is going to be engraved with a serial no. it is a vital component so therefore must be marked.
    Is this the level of daftness we are facing now, its not very workable from what I can see. Ok for the major components barrel, action, bolt or other essential parts but it doesn't draw the line at individual components.
    I am going to try an engrave my serial no. on my new recoil spring, will let ye know how I get on.

    You don't need your firing pin engraved.

    The essential components which need to be marked in compliance with the requirements of Directive 2017/853 are defined in Article 1 of the Directive as:-

    the barrel
    the frame
    the receiver (including both upper and lower receivers where applicable)
    the slide
    the cylinder
    the bolt or breech block.


    Thanks for that. At least it is defined in there somewhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,788 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Chiparus wrote: »
    If I want to sell my gun , do I need to get the bolt engraved?

    I don't know to be honest. I'm in the dark about that one too.

    Take this with a pinch of salt as I am probably wrong but I think it only applies to guns that were brought in from outside of the EU since 14th September 2018. If your gun was brought into the EU since 14th September 2018, then I'd guess that it needs to be marked but I don't know for sure.

    If I'm wrong in the sentence above, imagine the impossible task for all the gun dealers who have second hand guns sitting on their shelves. Every single one of them would need to be marked so I doubt that's the case.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,995 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    greencap wrote: »
    so you might have to change magazine. who cares.
    When you have paid over 75 euros per magazine,or want to import a SA rifle that is a vintage,and it only comes with a default 20 rounder,and is not made anymore...THATS why we care!:rolleyes:

    Or you have a perfectly legal gun,that is now illegal,and cant be sold in the EU or USA,same as the mags,as they are valueless...Thats why we care!

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,995 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    solarwinds wrote: »
    I can see why they wanted to bring in marking of firearm components, to probably combat back yard shops manufacturing illegal firearms. But again it wasnt thought through to an everyday implementable level
    .

    Pretty much,and the fact that our dear leaders had been sitting on a deact directive in Brussels for seven years,before the Paris attacks happened with reactivated deacts from the Czech republic,that had been done very shoddily..
    Also i dont think the manufacture of illegal firearms is a serious issue, its just as easy and cheaper to get the real thing than to go out and buy the necessary machinery to do it.

    Mr PA Luty,and " Prof Parabellum" would disagree with you on that.Luty put together a SMG in the UK out of bits from a hardware shop and with a drill and set of files and taps.Whats harder to do is rebuild a proper deact to firing condition,as that does require some machining and engineering skills.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIhGCRIQnCA
    [
    QUOTE]When you see some of the hardware these lads have you have to wonder who is supplying them.
    And sure when all else fails just use a truck, a car or even a knife. No amount of laws or restrictions on law abiding people will stop certain elements from achieving their goals.
    [/QUOTE]

    Alot of it is coming from Turkey,and from the Russian enclave in Europe of Kaliningrad.They are blank firing pistols like what our friend was caught with last week in the UK,that are concieved FROM THE WORD GO,to be converted to fire live ammo.Yemen and Pakistan have literally factories there to do this,and they fire .380 and 9mm no problem.Kaliningrad,they are Russian Baikal"Markarov" blank fireing pistols,that are cheap&cheerful,but are based on the original Makarov frame,slide,mechanism and mag.So all thats changed is a simple barrel.

    Yup,even the terrs know this,its much easier these days to get kitchen knives and rental trucks,than bother with illegal black mrket guns,that might be sold by a police sting operation.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭oldgit1897


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    .

    Pretty much,and the fact that our dear leaders had been sitting on a deact directive in Brussels for seven years,before the Paris attacks happened with reactivated deacts from the Czech republic,that had been done very shoddily..



    Mr PA Luty,and " Prof Parabellum" would disagree with you on that.Luty put together a SMG in the UK out of bits from a hardware shop and with a drill and set of files and taps.Whats harder to do is rebuild a proper deact to firing condition,as that does require some machining and engineering skills.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIhGCRIQnCA
    [
    QUOTE]When you see some of the hardware these lads have you have to wonder who is supplying them.
    And sure when all else fails just use a truck, a car or even a knife. No amount of laws or restrictions on law abiding people will stop certain elements from achieving their goals.

    Alot of it is coming from Turkey,and from the Russian enclave in Europe of Kaliningrad.They are blank firing pistols like what our friend was caught with last week in the UK,that are concieved FROM THE WORD GO,to be converted to fire live ammo.Yemen and Pakistan have literally factories there to do this,and they fire .380 and 9mm no problem.Kaliningrad,they are Russian Baikal"Markarov" blank fireing pistols,that are cheap&cheerful,but are based on the original Makarov frame,slide,mechanism and mag.So all thats changed is a simple barrel.

    Yup,even the terrs know this,its much easier these days to get kitchen knives and rental trucks,than bother with illegal black mrket guns,that might be sold by a police sting operation.[/QUOTE]


    What is a gun ? Basically its a length of tube closed off at one end, they are not guided missiles with technology costing millions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,995 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I don't know to be honest. I'm in the dark about that one too.

    Take this with a pinch of salt as I am probably wrong but I think it only applies to guns that were brought in from outside of the EU since 14th September 2018. If your gun was brought into the EU since 14th September 2018, then I'd guess that it needs to be marked but I don't know for sure.

    If I'm wrong in the sentence above, imagine the impossible task for all the gun dealers who have second hand guns sitting on their shelves. Every single one of them would need to be marked so I doubt that's the case.

    The Irish SI says "without delay..." The EU directive says Sept 2018.So which one is it?? more I read of this,this is a sambles as the Irish Govt has tried to directly impose this bit of legislation without considering local law.
    Sofar they have;

    1] Made valueless between 10 and possibly 70 peoples legal personal property in the shape of converted to semi auto rifles and magazines,.As these cant be exported or sold in any other EU country or sold to the USA.Due to EU legislation or ITAR regulations

    2]Contary to EU legislation and Irish law,made no offer of compensation at market value for either guns or mags at good time prices,as they are required to do under EU law when a state deprives its citizens of legally owned and enjoyed property "for the common good"

    3] Have placed now an undue burden on gun dealers in now shifting valueless stock,should they have any mags or guns in stock on their shelves. As well as adding the problem of stamping parts,which will require either proper punching equipment,or investing in lazer engravers

    4] Held no consultation with any shooting rep bodies on how this could be implimented on a national level,and where some solutions could be worked on to everyones satisfaction

    5] Have refused to consider exempting the mags under the EU "sports shooter "exemption,which is fairly open to interpertation by the EU directive.No it doesnt have to be just IPSC either.

    6] Have not considerd the option of "permantly converting" the mags to 10/20 shots.As we have precedent to do so here.

    7] Have proably finished off movie prop armourers and some re enactors in the ROI as well,as even now full auto blank firing guns are prohibited under this SI.

    Please add your own. after this list.All in all,I wonder could an injunction be sought to freeze this SI until the above points are sorted out and clarified?

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭solarwinds


    I remember being told by an engineer before when I queried as to how he thought a particular process should be carried out, as at the time it was not possible to do what he wanted.
    His answer was "Its my job to tell you what I want, it's not my job to tell you how to do it" basically jog on mate and sort it out yourself because I don't know either.
    I get that feeling here in that we are being told these are the new laws but it seems to be left up to everyone else to figure out how to implement them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭solarwinds


    " Please add your own. after this list.All in all,I wonder could an injunction be sought to freeze this SI until the above points are sorted out and clarified? "

    Did the dealers not try something that time there was a new SI regarding the new security arrangements, were they not told that this is now the law and suck it up. Now i could be wrong on that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 560 ✭✭✭Asus1


    Is something like this classed as suitable for transporting ammunition
    https://www.decathlon.ie/ie_en/storage-case-for-200-cartridges-en-s10511.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,255 ✭✭✭.243


    Asus1 wrote: »
    Is something like this classed as suitable for transporting ammunition
    https://www.decathlon.ie/ie_en/storage-case-for-200-cartridges-en-s10511.html
    Why not,just stick a padlock around the handle in the centre


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    solarwinds wrote: »
    Imposing more laws and restrictions on law abiding gun owners is not going to hinder or inconvenience criminals one bit.
    So if criminal activity will always find a way whats the point in imposing more daft laws.
    No one ever mentioned doing away with border checks or passport control. On the contrary if the borders were better resourced it would definitely have a positive impact on ILLEGAL gun imports for the purpose of murder.

    well yes imposing more laws and restrictions will hinder criminals.
    a simple example might be if there are fewer pistols around then the odds of a criminal stealing a pistol are lower, and so the criminal has reduced odds of killing someone with a pistol in that example.

    The point of imposing daft laws is to hinder criminality. As best as humanly possible.

    It doesnt matter if no-one mentioned border or passports, thats a metaphor.
    You could use electrical goods standards, and import documentation instead.

    We elect people to make sure that dodgy imported electronics dont get into the country. It may not always work, you may find a house fire somewhere caused by one dodgy radio that slipped through.
    That doesn't mean that we say 'hey smugglers found a way so no point in trying'.

    Same with firearms restrictions. Someone intent on hurting people might substitute acid, or a car or a bomb, that doesn't mean we say 'fck it have whatever you firearms you like'.

    Guns are a very efficient means of hurting people.
    Bombs, acid, car attacks, etc are all far inferior means. Full of unforeseen difficulties and contingencies.

    And thats why we have a govt to put up obstacles around gun ownership, to reduce odds, to hinder people from possibly using a gun to hurt the public.

    Its mildly annoying for a small number of enthusiasts, you might for example have to change magazine after firing a small number of rounds where you were previously accustomed to having twice the capacity and not having to change magazine.

    That may mildly inconvenience you, but too bad. If that mild inconvenience also acts as an inconvenience to a criminal, even in a hugely improbable possible scenario, then its better for the people of the country overall.


    (also < MOD SNIP > the support here is not representative of the general populations opinions, you're far outvoted within the greater public, i only arrived here cause the thread was on the front page, )


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    greencap wrote: »
    well yes imposing more laws and restrictions will hinder criminals.
    Theoretically. In practice, the whole point of criminality is that you don't adhere to laws and restrictions. And given that any crime you would commit with a firearm carries a heavier penalty than anything in the civil law section of the Firearms Act, those parts might as well not exist from the point of view of prosecuting criminals.
    (In fact there are quite a few examples of cases brought against criminals who had used firearms where the charges from the civil side like possession of a firearm without a licence were simply not even put on the list of charges).
    a simple example might be if there are fewer pistols around then the odds of a criminal stealing a pistol are lower, and so the criminal has reduced odds of killing someone with a pistol in that example.
    A single intercepted smuggled drugs shipment a few years ago had more pistols in it than were legally held in the country at the time, IIRC. So I'd say that your example doesn't survive contact with historical facts.
    Same with firearms restrictions. Someone intent on hurting people might substitute acid, or a car or a bomb, that doesn't mean we say 'fck it have whatever you firearms you like'.
    Actually, our laws say *precisely that*. Or did until Jim Deasy started whining in order to get more press coverage (and the outcome of that was a Firearms Act that arguably could be constitutionally invalid due to insufficiently precise and/or contradictory drafting). The act was written in the wake of a civil war and successfully aimed to de-escalate things. If you wanted a firearm, we didn't ask what kind; we asked what you wanted it for and would it be safe for you to have it. We still do, that's still the core of section 4.

    I'm of the opinion that if it worked in the aftermath of a civil war when we were still shooting each other in public, it's probably still fit for purpose today.
    Its mildly annoying for a small number of enthusiasts, you might for example have to change magazine after firing a small number of rounds where you were previously accustomed to having twice the capacity and not having to change magazine.
    Phrased like that, it's a minor point.
    Phrased as a precedent for the state to declare that your property is no longer legal to possess and rendering its value zero without compensation on the other hand, it's not quite so minor. It might only be a few people, but when you have the precedent, you can apply it more widely. Imagine if you will this precedent applied to situations where previously CPOs were used.

    (also < MOD SNIP >, the support here is not representative of the general populations opinions, you're far outvoted within the greater public, i only arrived here cause the thread was on the front page, )
    You do, of course, know that you're advocating for a thing called the tyranny of the majority, something that has a rather long history of philosophical debate going back a few hundred years about, and which has led many countries to introduce protections against. In Ireland, that function is fulfilled by the courts normally, and it's usually a good idea to avoid that route wherever possible by just doing things in a better way instead.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,995 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Sure,by simply banning Class A drugs,we won the war on drugs globally.

    Same as prohibition stopped anyone ever drinking again in the USA.

    Same as our most stringent in the entire EU gun laws have stopped criminals aquiring firearms,and Ireland having the highest guncrime stats in the EU.As well as prevented 35 years of virtual open civil war in the North.

    Same as UK anti knife laws stopped over 180 knife deaths in the UK last year and their handgun ban stopped over 200 shootings with handguns in the UK last year.

    Fuk it !!! This guy has it sorted!!We just need to ban porn and there will be no more rapes. We ban cars that can go over 50mph,and we'll sort out the road deaths instantly.We ban fast food and our obesity problem will be gone too... WHAT were we thinking when the simple solution is to just ban things???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭oldgit1897


    greencap wrote: »
    well yes imposing more laws and restrictions will hinder criminals.
    a simple example might be if there are fewer pistols around then the odds of a criminal stealing a pistol are lower, and so the criminal has reduced odds of killing someone with a pistol in that example.

    The point of imposing daft laws is to hinder criminality. As best as humanly possible.

    It doesnt matter if no-one mentioned border or passports, thats a metaphor.
    You could use electrical goods standards, and import documentation instead.

    We elect people to make sure that dodgy imported electronics dont get into the country. It may not always work, you may find a house fire somewhere caused by one dodgy radio that slipped through.
    That doesn't mean that we say 'hey smugglers found a way so no point in trying'.

    Same with firearms restrictions. Someone intent on hurting people might substitute acid, or a car or a bomb, that doesn't mean we say 'fck it have whatever you firearms you like'.

    Guns are a very efficient means of hurting people.
    Bombs, acid, car attacks, etc are all far inferior means. Full of unforeseen difficulties and contingencies.

    And thats why we have a govt to put up obstacles around gun ownership, to reduce odds, to hinder people from possibly using a gun to hurt the public.

    Its mildly annoying for a small number of enthusiasts, you might for example have to change magazine after firing a small number of rounds where you were previously accustomed to having twice the capacity and not having to change magazine.

    That may mildly inconvenience you, but too bad. If that mild inconvenience also acts as an inconvenience to a criminal, even in a hugely improbable possible scenario, then its better for the people of the country overall.


    (also this place is obviously a circle jerk of hobbyists, the support here is not representative of the general populations opinions, you're far outvoted within the greater public, i only arrived here cause the thread was on the front page, )


    Absolute Horse feathers. The firearms acts here don't do anything either way for criminals. Ak47's have never been legal for civilians to own here, plenty of them about though, hundreds in the hands of the provos, and the Kinehans didn't seem to consult the firearms acts or fill in the licence application forms before shooting up the Regency hotel.

    Dunno about circle jerk, thats probably your sort of thing, but not ours. But we are a tiny very abiding community, by definition the most law abiding, as any criminal record or involvement will make it highly unlikely you will get a firearms cert. As for the general publics opinion of us, most people either don't care, or are against us because they believe the sensationalised rubbish in our atrocious "media".

    Rather than having a pop at us, why not park your opinions temporarily, and visit your local clay pigeon club or rifle range, you might be pleasantly surprised at the people you meet and the way they conduct themselves and their sport.


  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭solarwinds


    greencap wrote: »
    solarwinds wrote: »
    Imposing more laws and restrictions on law abiding gun owners is not going to hinder or inconvenience criminals one bit.
    So if criminal activity will always find a way whats the point in imposing more daft laws.
    No one ever mentioned doing away with border checks or passport control. On the contrary if the borders were better resourced it would definitely have a positive impact on ILLEGAL gun imports for the purpose of murder.

    well yes imposing more laws and restrictions will hinder criminals.
    a simple example might be if there are fewer pistols around then the odds of a criminal stealing a pistol are lower, and so the criminal has reduced odds of killing someone with a pistol in that example.

    The point of imposing daft laws is to hinder criminality. As best as humanly possible.

    It doesnt matter if no-one mentioned border or passports, thats a metaphor.
    You could use electrical goods standards, and import documentation instead.

    We elect people to make sure that dodgy imported electronics dont get into the country. It may not always work, you may find a house fire somewhere caused by one dodgy radio that slipped through.
    That doesn't mean that we say 'hey smugglers found a way so no point in trying'.

    Same with firearms restrictions. Someone intent on hurting people might substitute acid, or a car or a bomb, that doesn't mean we say 'fck it have whatever you firearms you like'.

    Guns are a very efficient means of hurting people.
    Bombs, acid, car attacks, etc are all far inferior means. Full of unforeseen difficulties and contingencies.

    And thats why we have a govt to put up obstacles around gun ownership, to reduce odds, to hinder people from possibly using a gun to hurt the public.

    Its mildly annoying for a small number of enthusiasts, you might for example have to change magazine after firing a small number of rounds where you were previously accustomed to having twice the capacity and not having to change magazine.

    That may mildly inconvenience you, but too bad. If that mild inconvenience also acts as an inconvenience to a criminal, even in a hugely improbable possible scenario, then its better for the people of the country overall.


    (also this place is obviously a circle jerk of hobbyists, the support here is not representative of the general populations opinions, you're far outvoted within the greater public, i only arrived here cause the thread was on the front page, )


    You are equating illegal criminal behaviour with the law abiding firearms owners, something the uninformed general population do with help from our leaders and media because at the minute its popular.
    Drug use illegal here, does not stop children over dosing weekly.
    Alcohol illegal to under 18's, go to any A&E at the weekend and see how that law is working out.
    Certain firearms were illegal here for 30 years and some still are, that law didn't stop a hotel being shot up.
    Show me one law or further restriction that wasn't a knee jerk reaction to be seen to do something that actually saved a life.
    I am sorry if you think our government are going to do anything to help its people. Time has proven they are reactionary only when forced to by public outcry. Look at the cervical scandal for example, how many reports were conducted last year and lessons had to be learned yet today they are still covering up scandals and putting peoples lives at risk.
    It is that same thinking of faith in our government that got the greens elected to help save the world because "Green" is the popular buzz word, let us see how popular they still are after they hit the general population in the only place they care about, their wallets and purses.
    Great advice given above, call to a local club and see for yourself what actually happens, I think you will be surprised at the professionalism people there conduct themselves with, the overwhelming array of safety rules we abide by and the fun that can be had, and see does that equate to what is portrayed about us in the media. You will be only too welcome to come along any time you like and no shortage of people here willing to bring you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭yubabill


    Cass wrote: »
    [*]I'm not a big user of higher capacity mags. I own a few, that i'll now have to dispose of, but the majority of my mags are ten round.
    [/LIST]

    .

    Get a bolt rifle that accepts the hi cap mags - they did not ban them for B/A rifles.

    Though illegal to use with semi auto, you can keep the mags for use in the B/A.

    Also, was waiting to see if they banned S/A rifles in this SI - since they have not done this now, we can be sure that the "future legislation" they were threatening to ban S/A rifles is not coming any time soon and probably will be used from time to time when Eamonn Ryan or some other snowflake raises the question.

    Ammo lock in the car is ridiculous.

    Maybe they thought the "export" reference saved them from having to compensate for banning private property?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,995 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    yubabill wrote: »
    Get a bolt rifle that accepts the hi cap mags - they did not ban them for B/A rifles.

    Though illegal to use with semi auto, you can keep the mags for use in the B/A.

    Very few BA rifles out there that will accept HK G3 mags for example.Its a non runner.
    Also, was waiting to see if they banned S/A rifles in this SI - since they have not done this now, we can be sure that the "future legislation" they were threatening to ban S/A rifles is not coming any time soon and probably will be used from time to time when Eamonn Ryan or some other snowflake raises the question.

    Ammo lock in the car is ridiculous.

    Maybe they thought the "export" reference saved them from having to compensate for banning private property?

    Read the EU Directive in its entirety...YES THEY DID BAN THEM FOR BA AS WELL..But for some strange reason did not transpose that category here?Maybe cherry picking what they wanrmred.?No the export option is not an option either.As where can you export then to in the EU,if they are prohibited EU wide,and impossi le to export to the US?Ditto the rifles...
    Dont be so sure its over either.This legislation will be reviewed on an EU level in four years tine to see how successful or not it will be,and we had be better be pepared to fight it properly again this time.So get your acts together and support EU level organisations and lobby even on club level to recognise and support them as well.
    Add on.
    NO you cant keep the mags either if you are liscensed to a gun that uses that type of mag either under the full directive!That was one of the most bizzare points on this whole EU fiasco.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 473 ✭✭The pigeon man


    Yet another law that will not contribute in anyway to public safety. I wonder how many lives will be saved by the new SI?

    I think I'll go from permission to permission on my bicycle to save me having to carry an ammo box. Or maybe just walk along the road because it isn't far.

    As for the ammo storage in the house, I've found a nice plastic box that I had lego in for the kids. It has a little hole in it for a lock. So that will do the job.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    While it's true that that would technically fulfill the SI pigeon, taking the piss like that is going to get another supplemental SI drafted; and it won't need anything but a Minister's signature. So rather than risk more errors from another SI, perhaps pick your battles.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭garv123


    So, in short, you can throw your ammo into a ziplock bag, and throw a jacket over your gun, and you're good to go? as long as you seal the zip lock bag? :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Sure, if you can find such a thing as a ziplock bag.
    If you're thinking of a ziploc bag on the other hand, you might find that taking the piss is also an Olympic sport in this country :P


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭garv123


    Sparks wrote: »
    If you're thinking of a ziploc bag on the other hand, you might find that taking the piss is also an Olympic sport in this country :P


    That looks like a locked receptacle to me, its in the name :D


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,757 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Sparks wrote: »
    While it's true that that would technically fulfill the SI pigeon, taking the piss like that is going to get another supplemental SI drafted; and it won't need anything but a Minister's signature. So rather than risk more errors from another SI, perhaps pick your battles.

    In the country where I live for as long as I've been here that's been the law (for B-A and shotguns) and that's essentially what I've always done when I buy ammo, stick a small padlock on my backpack.. of course it's a different situation here since technically anyone can walk into a gunshop and buy the bullets so there's no need to steal them.. but it's still an EU country. And I know from other people it's similarly lax when it comes to storage of B-A rifles and shotguns. Basically just 'secure' without any further instructions


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,995 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Lads ,your range bags with a cheap 99cent padlock on the zipper for the compartment where you have the ammo wil do you just fine as it stands.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭yubabill


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Read the EU Directive in its entirety...YES THEY DID BAN THEM FOR BA AS WELL..
    NO you cant keep the mags either if you are liscensed to a gun that uses that type of mag either under the full directive!That was one of the most bizzare points on this whole EU fiasco.

    Must have missed that bit - have you got the relevant part handy? Would appreciate it.

    Doesn't affect me, have nothing above 10 rds, just curious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,995 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Have to dig it out for you ,its in there somewhere.;) It was again to do with the mags and moving them as prohibited items and they turn the BA into a CAT A ,or something on those lines.

    On other news,had a chat with my legal team....they are going to be looking at this SI in the next few days.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭yubabill


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Have to dig it out for you ,its in there somewhere.;) It was again to do with the mags and moving them as prohibited items and they turn the BA into a CAT A ,or something on those lines.

    On other news,had a chat with my legal team....they are going to be looking at this SI in the next few days.

    Don't remember seeing that bit at all, read the directive a good while ago courtesy of your good self.

    Reckon the car/ammo thing was proposed by a genius to prevent poaching. Somebody give them a raise and get them to solve Brexit.


Advertisement