Our Sport is Under Attack Again

yubabill

Just found this bit - it says C/F mags over 10 rounds can only be acquired by collectors/museums etc. (Article 6) or licensees (Article 7(4a)), which by my logic, the licensees must include people with B/A C/F accepting AR mags.


"Article 10 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 10

1. The arrangements for the acquisition and possession of ammunition shall be the same as those for the possession of the firearms for which the ammunition is intended.
The acquisition of loading devices for centre-fire semi-automatic firearms which can hold more than 20 rounds or more than 10 rounds in the case of long firearms shall be permitted only for persons who are granted an authorisation under Article 6 or an authorisation which has been confirmed, renewed or prolonged under Article 7(4a)."

BattleCorp

yubabill wrote: »

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The EU directive does not ban the magazines, it bans Category B firearms owners from possessing them;

"3. Member States shall ensure that an authorisation to acquire and an authorisation to possess a firearm classified in category B shall be withdrawn if the person who was granted that authorisation is found to be in possession of a loading device apt to be fitted to centre-fire semi-automatic firearms or repeating firearms, which:
(a)
can hold more than 20 rounds; or
(b)
in the case of long firearms, can hold more than 10 rounds,
unless that person has been granted an authorisation under Article 6 or an authorisation which has been confirmed, renewed or prolonged under Article 7(4a)."

I don't see where the Irish SI bans the mags either.

yubabill wrote: »

Just found this bit - it says C/F mags over 10 rounds can only be acquired by collectors/museums etc. (Article 6) or licensees (Article 7(4a)), which by my logic, the licensees must include people with B/A C/F accepting AR mags.


"Article 10 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 10

1. The arrangements for the acquisition and possession of ammunition shall be the same as those for the possession of the firearms for which the ammunition is intended.
The acquisition of loading devices for centre-fire semi-automatic firearms which can hold more than 20 rounds or more than 10 rounds in the case of long firearms shall be permitted only for persons who are granted an authorisation under Article 6 or an authorisation which has been confirmed, renewed or prolonged under Article 7(4a)."

Apologies if I am wrong but I don't think that the EU Directive is law in Ireland. The SI that transposes the directive is the law so if it's not in the SI, then it's not law.

Cass

The directive is a legal act in Europe that all member states are obliged to transpose into their national laws. If the law of the member state is the same as the directive then no action is needed, but if the country has no law that follows the directive then the country MUST draft legislation to make it so.

A quick search shows that the directives are not only legally binding but the member state is liable if they don't already have such laws in place or if they don't draft new laws to make the directive functional in their country.

So it appears that even if the SI were not drafted and enacted there is a case for the implementation of the directive regardless.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

The directive is a legal act in Europe that all member states are obliged to transpose into their national laws. If the law of the member state is the same as the directive then no action is needed, but if the country has no law that follows the directive then the country MUST draft legislation to make it so.

A quick search shows that the directives are not only legally binding but the member state is liable if they don't already have such laws in place or if they don't draft new laws to make the directive functional in their country.

So it appears that even if the SI were not drafted and enacted there is a case for the implementation of the directive regardless.

But because we have implemented the SI, that has now made the directive null and void, yes?

Cass

No.

The directive is the "foundation" on which any law/statutory Instrument among member states is based. IF the directive were null and void then any member state that had not implemented it yet would have no need to do so.

Like an SI here. Without the principle act the SI amends/adds to the SI would have no basis on which to function. Same applies to the directives and in some cases regulations that the EU sets out.

An SI amends the principal Acts it refers to, but does not need the same process as an Act. It is done and signed by the Minister and can be "undone" as quick. Just FYI.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

No.

The directive is the "foundation" on which any law/statutory Instrument among member states is based. IF the directive were null and void then any member state that had not implemented it yet would have no need to do so.

Like an SI here. Without the principle act the SI amends/adds to the SI would have no basis on which to function. Same applies to the directives and in some cases regulations that the EU sets out.

An SI amends the principal Acts it refers to, but does not need the same process as an Act. It is done and signed by the Minister and can be "undone" as quick. Just FYI.

Bad choice of words on my part using null and void.

My point is that the directive is just a bit of paper 'now' and not law because we have implemented it in a way that we see fit.

That's the point of a directive. It sets out the aims to be achieved but broadly leaves it up to the individual States to decide how to go about doing it.

So the SI is the law but the directive is the instruction to make the law, it's not the law itself once the SI has been drafted.

Cass

In that sense, yes.

However the directive is still there, it's still in place, and still legally enforceable if for no other reason than if the SI (or the equivalent in other countries) does not properly address the directive's objective(s) then the EU can take legal action against whichever member state has improperly implemented the directive to make it more germane to the directive.

Grizzly 45

yubabill wrote: »

The acquisition of loading devices for centre-fire semi-automatic firearms which can hold more than 20 rounds or more than 10 rounds in the case of long firearms shall be permitted only for persons who are granted an authorisation under Article 6 or an authorisation which has been confirmed, renewed or prolonged under Article 7(4a)."

Again, this is a emergency exit built into the SI by Europe,and left open to interpertation by each state.The Italians land others left it,that id you are a liscensed holder and a paid up member of a range and shoot a recognisedd disipline .IRRESPECTIVE of round count.You are good to go.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Again, this is a emergency exit built into the SI by Europe,and left open to interpertation by each state.The Italians land others left it,that id you are a liscensed holder and a paid up member of a range and shoot a recognisedd disipline .IRRESPECTIVE of round count.You are good to go.

As Marian Harkin told the few of us who attended the meeting in Athlone, look out for the 'gold plating'.

Grizzly 45

Very true.

yubabill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Again, this is a emergency exit built into the SI by Europe,and left open to interpertation by each state.The Italians land others left it,that id you are a liscensed holder and a paid up member of a range and shoot a recognisedd disipline .IRRESPECTIVE of round count.You are good to go.

I interpret that section as anyone licensed for a B/A C/F which accepts large cap mags can possess them, while those licensed for S/A cannot, outside the exemptions.

Also, anyone know how the legal challenges to the directive (CZ) are going?

Grizzly 45

yubabill wrote: »

I interpret that section as anyone licensed for a B/A C/F which accepts large cap mags can possess them, while those licensed for S/A cannot, outside the exemptions.

Also, anyone know how the legal challenges to the directive (CZ) are going?

The word to watch is "repeating firearms" A VERRY broad definition.As every mag fed gun is a repeater by design.
Anyhoo, they are not mentioned in the SI here so those vew that are out there are ok.But remember ,if you have a semi auto that can accept these mags and a bolt action that can do likewise you are still in trouble.As one of them must go,either th semi rifle or the mags.

And lets Not go to things like pistol cal carbines that take Glock mags,and owning both a pistol and carbine.[IE the new Ruger PC9] Possesing both are legal and illegal to own at the same time.. A HUGE can of worms at the moment in Germany,along with the fact some calibers like the 450 SOCOM,which are great wild boar droppers, and the like NEED a 20 round sized magazine,just to be able to hold the legal ten rounds. Or how do you deal with the Lancer magazine that is adaptable and extendable?
And we think we have problems??:)

The Czech appeal,is in preliminary EU court at the moment.The EU has issued their justification for this ,and even why it didnt do an impact study on this legislation.T[RANS ..We wanted to ban stuff in a hurry,and werent arsed].Think it should be heard next year.

I'l update it if I find out anything.

yubabill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The word to watch is "repeating firearms" A VERRY broad definition.As every mag fed gun is a repeater by design.
Anyhoo, they are not mentioned in the SI here so those vew that are out there are ok.But remember ,if you have a semi auto that can accept these mags and a bolt action that can do likewise you are still in trouble.As one of them must go,either th semi rifle or the mags.

And lets Not go to things like pistol cal carbines that take Glock mags,and owning both a pistol and carbine.[IE the new Ruger PC9] Possesing both are legal and illegal to own at the same time.. A HUGE can of worms at the moment in Germany,along with the fact some calibers like the 450 SOCOM,which are great wild boar droppers, and the like NEED a 20 round sized magazine,just to be able to hold the legal ten rounds. Or how do you deal with the Lancer magazine that is adaptable and extendable?
And we think we have problems??:)

The Czech appeal,is in preliminary EU court at the moment.The EU has issued their justification for this ,and even why it didnt do an impact study on this legislation.T[RANS ..We wanted to ban stuff in a hurry,and werent arsed].Think it should be heard next year.

I'l update it if I find out anything.

Only semi auto people are banned from possessing mags over 10 rounds by my reading. Bolt action (interpreted as repeating long guns over 60 cm) are not and by the legal axiom of not being specifically described as illegal, are legally allowed to have mags over 10 rounds. That's my interpretation.

Now, if you own both semi and bolt with rounds over 10 capacity as above, then you cannot have.

Grizzly 45

I never understsnd this logic.Having 10 rounds in packs of x numbet is fine.But somehow having a greater number in a single box is more leathl?

hiddenmongoose

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I never understsnd this logic.Having 10 rounds in packs of x numbet is fine.But somehow having a greater number in a single box is more leathl?

It makes no sense nor does it make any impact on any sort of criminal behavior/act.

What it does achieve is hinder law abiding firearms owners and erode away slowly at what we can own, mags down to 10 rounders in this go, next time mags to 5 rounders, next time its 3 rounders then internal mags only. A slow process but each step is a victory for the anti-gun brigade/legislators who want no guns in private ownership. Therein lies the root of why we should all support each other, regardless of whether the mag capacity or whatever law affects you, because if they can nibble away at one part today it is another tomorrow and so on, soon it will be something that does affect you and then its too late. Irish shooting community is too fractured, too small minded, lacking tact and unfortunately not represented at the levels needed to make any difference.

greencap

solarwinds wrote: »

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.

i consider myself unable to fully reply. im choosing my words carefully.

i believe the laws on this issue will be tightened, despite protest by members here. and that that will be the last word. long after any replies here. i welcome this. bye.

Grizzly 45

greencap wrote: »

i consider myself unable to fully reply. im choosing my words carefully.

i believe the laws on this issue will be tightened, despite protest by members here. and that that will be the last word. long after any replies here. i welcome this. bye.

IOW you have bitten off more than you could chew with this??? Yeah you are better off on the political thread with the other idiots blathering on about a country that they have no knowledge of, or of its firearms laws,orhave never owned a gun in it and are just echo chambering opinions they have learned from MSM, or Hollywood to each other,and have zero clue about the reality of trying to disarm a country of 320 million people with now about half a billion firearms and over one trillion rounds of ammo.Belive me if they were a problem ,the world would know about it. Bye bye now..

oldgit1897

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

IOW you have bitten off more than you could chew with this??? Yeah you are better off on the political thread with the other idiots blathering on about a country that they have no knowledge of, or of its firearms laws,orhave never owned a gun in it and are just echo chambering opinions they have learned from MSM, or Hollywood to each other,and have zero clue about the reality of trying to disarm a country of 320 million people with now about half a billion firearms and over one trillion rounds of ammo.Belive me if they were a problem ,the world would know about it. Bye bye now..

You know what they say Grizz, don't feed them.

Grizzly 45

I know,but there are some things best left SAID!

meathstevie

greencap wrote: »

i consider myself unable to fully reply. im choosing my words carefully.

i believe the laws on this issue will be tightened, despite protest by members here. and that that will be the last word. long after any replies here. i welcome this. bye.

Bye bye, I don't know what you were doing here in the first place attempting to preach to a bunch of law abiding gun owners who are concerned that they're facing more needless hoops to jump through based on rather poorly concocted legislation.

If you're worried about firearms crime you're in the wrong forum in the first place. As firearms owners we're collectively worried about gun crime as well.

First and foremost out of concern for the victims and second because we know that eventually some knee-jerk reaction will come from some level of government negatively affecting us while the criminal and the terrorist happily swagger on whistling a merry tune.

Grizzly 45

And the ultra irony...This type of gun would still be legal in Ireland under the SI as restricted. And legal under the directive...

A German sanctions buster,just not legal as a pump action over there due to their besek laws.

Extended stock length 87 cms
Folded stock length 61 cms
Barrel length 36 cms.

So what exactly is being achived here with these bans?
http://egun.de/market/item.php?id=7571564&fbclid=IwAR32KVQAgYP_NpQFE0sqIiroI0WU1laaL2VQkGjLwjS-rbIEFrHQ1-0Zdy4#img

BryanL

Wasn't the EU to facilitate free movement of goods, services, money and people?

When did it become a legislator for each and every nation?

Grizzly 45

To answer that question Bryan,I's suggest you read the Ventotene decleration,and it's history, and who wrote it,then have a read of the history of the Frankfurt school of economics,and who actually thought up a common currency for Europe,their rather dubious past in Germany in the 1940s,and what price we actually did pay for the Euro being introduced by the twin power brokers in the EU. Once you have done that ,you will know more about the EU than the average TD and no doubt MEP.

yubabill

BryanL wrote: »

Wasn't the EU to facilitate free movement of goods, services, money and people?

When did it become a legislator for each and every nation?

Answer: we gave them the power when we passed the Lisbon referendum (that is, after they made us vote a second time on it). Lisbon was a thinly-disguised re-hash of the failed EU Constitution, which gave the EU sweeping powers over member nation states. Only Ireland and one or two other members had laws that required the treaty be put to a referendum, most other members only needed to pass it in parliament, but Lisbon could not be enacted without the agreement of all EU member states.

And this firearms directive should be an illustration for all citizens in the EU into how the institution works in reality.

An unelected and unaccountable elite (the EU Commission) has the power to formulate laws affecting 500 million people, which it expects to be rubber-stamped by the relatively new EU Parliament, which was formed to give the appearance of democracy.

Everything from vacuum cleaners to horsemeat in your burger to the appropriation of the minerals 3 metres below the land you own are the result of lobbyists and failed politicians getting together in broad daylight.

oldgit1897

yubabill wrote: »

Answer: we gave them the power when we passed the Lisbon referendum (that is, after they made us vote a second time on it). Lisbon was a thinly-disguised re-hash of the failed EU Constitution, which gave the EU sweeping powers over member nation states. Only Ireland and one or two other members had laws that required the treaty be put to a referendum, most other members only needed to pass it in parliament, but Lisbon could not be enacted without the agreement of all EU member states.

And this firearms directive should be an illustration for all citizens in the EU into how the institution works in reality.

An unelected and unaccountable elite (the EU Commission) has the power to formulate laws affecting 500 million people, which it expects to be rubber-stamped by the relatively new EU Parliament, which was formed to give the appearance of democracy.

Everything from vacuum cleaners to horsemeat in your burger to the appropriation of the minerals 3 metres below the land you own are the result of lobbyists and failed politicians getting together in broad daylight.

And yet despite all you correctly say, and then the bank bailout which saddled ireland with massive debts, the Irish are the biggest supporters of the eu ! I suppose national stereotypes are sometimes right. We can see the vitriol aimed at the British over brexit. Personally i think the brits are right getting out. But the theory seems to be, yes we will be a vassel state, but we'll have loads of money, so democracy does not matter.


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

Sparks

yubabill wrote: »

An unelected and unaccountable elite (the EU Commission) has the power to formulate laws affecting 500 million people, which it expects to be rubber-stamped by the relatively new EU Parliament, which was formed to give the appearance of democracy.

Jaysus Gemma, are you not tired from your day outside Google?

The EU commission is not unelected or unaccountable - the government we elect here nominates candidates and the MEPs we elect here votes to accept or reject them. That's every single bit as elected and accountable as your government (did *you* get to vote on who'd be Minister for Justice?). Now, if you want to say that our government are unelected, well, it'd be consistent at least...

And btw I'm old enough - and so are you - to remember the good old days before EU money took our De Valera theocracy and turned it into an actual country. I remember it well enough that I'd happily fight to stop us going back to that absolute hellhole of a failed state run by kinder****er priests and white slavers, thankyouverymuch.

oldgit1897

Instead of Devalera theocracy, we'll have the leo theocracy, led by imported imam's and their halal and sharia laws, i suppose in the next few decades, we'll find out which is worse.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Jaysus Gemma, are you not tired from your day outside Google?

The EU commission is not unelected or unaccountable - the government we elect here nominates candidates and the MEPs we elect here votes to accept or reject them. That's every single bit as elected and accountable as your government (did *you* get to vote on who'd be Minister for Justice?). Now, if you want to say that our government are unelected, well, it'd be consistent at least...

And btw I'm old enough - and so are you - to remember the good old days before EU money took our De Valera theocracy and turned it into an actual country. I remember it well enough that I'd happily fight to stop us going back to that absolute hellhole of a failed state run by kinder****er priests and white slavers, thankyouverymuch.

I suggest you have a look at the "Triloge" part of the EU decision making process is done,and then come back to us on the accountability and democratic part??

These are unrecorded meetings,held away from the public and press and outside the entire parlimintary process held behind closed doors that can go non stop until a decision or consensus is arrived at...And of course we all know good law and decisions are made at 4AM...But dont take my word for it.Ask Marian Harkin,Dita Chernosivka and Vicky Ford about it .

Especially the last two,about the insufferable Sir Peter King and Guy Verhoffstadt throwing utter wobblers and their teddies out of their respective anti gun prams at 3AM ,because neither of these two good ladies were going to accept any sort of bullying on Kings attitude,sanctified by then Home secetary ,Theresa May and that idiot, Cameron.That a UK style gun ban of semi rifles and handguns was the "best " for the entire EU!!:mad::mad::mad:

And these are considerd as normal decision making processes of EU law making on just about any bit of legislation! Unaccountable,undocumented deals done behind closed doors in Star chambers.:mad: I know our shower are now not much better than a glorified county council in the Dail in a Vichy style govt at the beck and behest of Brussels,and that the Irish state abjugated all its power to the second occupying country of Ireland.The Vatican,and I'm older than you to know what it was really like here when this place was a genuine theoracy,where Life of Brian was on a banned list still along withPlayboy,and condoms.Yes life was **** back then too...Now it seems we are swinging to another extreme of intolerance,that of suppesssion of dissenting views,deplatforming them as well by claiming "no free speech for hate speech"Handing more and more of our privacy and civil liberties over to the watchful eys and ears of the state on local and EU level,and let ourselves be led by an unremoveable unelected alcholic form Luxembourg as head of the EU.

I fear we really have swopped the Crown for the Harp [and Crozier],and now for the stars of the EU Federal Superstate... Do we really want to be a "free people" at all??
BTW EU monies...We have paid it back with intrest.Since 1973 we got 60 billion.The EU has taken in fish out of our waters over 650 billion euros in the same time. The red Indian tribe that sold Manhattan island to the Dutch got a better deal than we have in the long term with the EU.

Grizzly 45

oldgit1897 wrote: »

And yet despite all you correctly say, and then the bank bailout which saddled ireland with massive debts, the Irish are the biggest supporters of the eu !

Remember the EU didnt expect us to pay this either!! It was speculated monies on a ponzi scheme of property sales.Speculators are basicaly gamblers,and this was the equivilent of them going to Monte Carlo,betting everything on 13 black,and losing it,but the house saying not to worry...Heres your money back with intrest. The country was actually on National debt in the good books,with a manageable debt.But when private bank debt was linked by the fianna failures to the national debt in one very dirty deal one night in Nov by a minister with terminal cancer ,and was completly out of his depth with his breif..Thats when the pooch was screwed! Anywhere else would have told the banks not our problem...Here the banks said."If we are going down,so are ye! Good luck looking for campaign loans for anytime ye lot want to even run a local election.There will be no intrest free loans to the party!And BTW we'll be looking at your own personal loan book!"
Problem in Ireland is.Everyone has their hands on each others dangly bits and in each others pockets.Everyone knows everyone else in the political,building,barrister,and banker clique,and they'll protect themselves first and fuk the rest of us.Until election time of course.where we are the fools and vote the crooks back in again.

yubabill

Sparks wrote: »

Jaysus Gemma, are you not tired from your day outside Google?

The EU commission is not unelected or unaccountable - the government we elect here nominates candidates and the MEPs we elect here votes to accept or reject them. That's every single bit as elected and accountable as your government (did *you* get to vote on who'd be Minister for Justice?). Now, if you want to say that our government are unelected, well, it'd be consistent at least...

And btw I'm old enough - and so are you - to remember the good old days before EU money took our De Valera theocracy and turned it into an actual country. I remember it well enough that I'd happily fight to stop us going back to that absolute hellhole of a failed state run by kinder****er priests and white slavers, thankyouverymuch.

1.That is not a fair comparison - and you know it - because the Minister for Justice is normally elected to the Dail before receiving the nomination. We both know that a minister is technically not required to be a TD, but there have been very few nominees who were appointed this way.

JC Juncker was appointed Commission head after he resigned as Luxembourg PM following a review which found him deficient in the role the previous year.

2.I'm old enough (just) to remember life before the EEC. It was hard, sometimes oppressive but we had something - freedom. There was a palpable sense of liberty and a sense of pride which was fogged by the emerging Troubles. Neither I, nor anyone I know had experience with paedophilic clergy but I'm not denying it was widespread and it was obviously well-hidden. And I'm not denying that life was hard and hard-lived.

Many, many things are better now than back then and largely thanks to EU money, as you point out.

The turning point for me was the Maastricht Treaty: When asked on RTE why should we vote for the treaty, Taoiseach Albert Reynolds had a simple answer; "Because we'll get eight billion".

And so here we are today.