Are long barrel centrefire pistols legal here?

BattleCorp

This is a .357 long barrel pistol that's UK legal. My question is, are they legal here?

[img][/img]https://i.img.ie/uW3.jpg

juice1304

Technically it could be because its a long arm, it would still be restricted though because of the caliber. However you know how it is they make it up as they go along. And they would be perticuarlly ignorant in that regard im sure, they will say all a criminal needs to do is lob off the barrel.

BattleCorp

juice1304 wrote: »

Technically it could be because its a long arm, it would still be restricted though because of the caliber. However you know how it is they make it up as they go along. And they would be perticuarlly ignorant in that regard im sure, they will say all a criminal needs to do is lob off the barrel.

If it's counted as a pistol, then it won't be allowed as they aren't allowed to issue restricted licences for pistols.

But if it was considered a rifle due to its length, then it might be possible.

Cass

What is the barrel length?

3) For the purposes of this section, “ short fire arm ” means a firearm either with a barrel not longer than 30 centimetres or whose overall length (excluding the length of any detachable component) does not exceed 60 centimetres.

The on the other side you have the definition of a "long" fire arm:

“long firearms” means firearms other than short firearms;

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

What is the barrel length?



The on the other side you have the definition of a "long" fire arm:

The barrel length is 12 inches or 30.48cm and with the fixed extension at the back, it would easily be longer than 60cm.

So, is it a restricted rifle then? Seems to be or am I missing something?

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

If it's counted as a pistol, then it won't be allowed as they aren't allowed to issue restricted licences for pistols.

Pistols aren't banned.
The exact law is that you cannot issue a licence for a restricted short firearm.
If that doesn't qualify as a short firearm, you can issue a licence for it (it might need to be a restricted licence, but that still can be licenced).

The definition is:

“short firearms” means firearms either with a barrel not longer than 30 centimetres or whose overall length (including the length of any detachable
component) does not exceed 60 centimetres;

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

Pistols aren't banned.
The exact law is that you cannot issue a licence for a restricted short firearm.
If that doesn't qualify as a short firearm, you can issue a licence for it (it might need to be a restricted licence, but that still can be licenced).

The definition is:

Apologies, poor choice of words in using pistol instead of short firearm.

But given that the barrel is 30.48cm and overall it isn't difficult to get it over the 60cm overall length with the rod extension at the back, then it does appear not to be a restricted short firearm.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Sparks

It's not a poor choice of words; it's something we've been saying for a few years now - licencing restricted short firearms is what's currently impossible. If you aren't in that category, problem avoided.
And from what I remember, in the UK at least, LBRs were one way to do that so you could still have pistol target shooting. It's not very surprising that they'd do so here too, but it is kindof surprising we've not taken them up here in larger numbers.

Cass

I suppose it comes down to would the Chief Super view it as a pistol with arm brace or a rifle with shoulder-able stock.

There is also the SI which prohibits rifles with barrels less than 50cm. You know that "grey" bit we're always talking about.

gunhappy_ie

BattleCorp wrote: »

This is a .357 long barrel pistol that's UK legal. My question is, are they legal here?

[img][/img]https://i.img.ie/uW3.jpg

Yes they are legal provided they do not fall meet the minimum length requirements as sparks mentioned.

HK have the USC, a 9 or 40 cal rifle with a 16" barrel. It is a long arm (so a rifle) which you can apply to licence (good luck). The same gun with a 8" barrel to look like its badder brother (the UMP) would make it a short arm and unable to licence here.

Same funny enough with a tommy gun. The model 1928 cant while the 1928A1 could (in theory) simply because of the barrel length.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

There is also the SI which prohibits rifles with barrels less than 50cm. You know that "grey" bit we're always talking about.

Ah, a potential fly in the ointment.

kowloon

Cass wrote: »

There is also the SI which prohibits rifles with barrels less than 50cm. You know that "grey" bit we're always talking about.

So, if it's a pistol it's banned for being restricted by calibre and if it's a rifle it's banned for having a barrel under 50cm? Is there any grey?

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Same funny enough with a tommy gun. The model 1928 cant while the 1928A1 could (in theory) simply because of the barrel length.

Does the compensator count towards barrel length?

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Same funny enough with a tommy gun. The model 1928 cant while the 1928A1 could (in theory) simply because of the barrel length.

But they're fully automatic so Category A...

Sparks

kowloon wrote: »

So, if it's a pistol it's banned for being restricted by calibre and if it's a rifle it's banned for having a barrel under 50cm? Is there any grey?

The gray is that you can't cut down a barrel below 50cm, but if it was made that way in the factory, that's not explicitly banned.

Does the compensator count towards barrel length?

Not if it's removable, no. Integral compensators or suppressors might have a different status; I don't think anyone's ever set a precedent there.

juice1304

Cass wrote: »

I suppose it comes down to would the Chief Super view it as a pistol with arm brace or a rifle with shoulder-able stock.

There is also the SI which prohibits rifles with barrels less than 50cm. You know that "grey" bit we're always talking about.

Not if theyre manufactured that way, it says it cannot be shortened less than 50cm, technically speaking. :pac:

He would have to view it as a pistol because its a long barreled revolver but its not a short arm haha. Ive had a revolver in my hand with an 18" barrel they are comical clown guns but fun to shoot.

kowloon

Sparks wrote: »

The gray is that you can't cut down a barrel below 50cm, but if it was made that way in the factory, that's not explicitly banned.

I get you, so you're in the clear as long as it's manufactured that way. I assume buying a shorter barrel also skips past this?

A Colt Buntline would come in at just a tiny bit over 30cm. Stick a stock on it.

Sparks

We don't know kowloon, that's why it's a gray area. At some point this will either be resolved in legislation or there'll be a court case, but neither's happened yet...

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

But they're fully automatic so Category A...

You can get S/A copies Auto ordinance. All legal here,as they are above 60cms .Even the Short Barrel rifle configurationand can come supplied with a 10 round factory stick mag
https://www.auto-ordnance.com/thompson-1927-a1-long-guns/

Grizzly 45

Going from the UK.These "Joker guns" [ in reference to the gun Jack Nicholson used as the Joker in the 1st Batman Movie].Seem to need a bit of gunsmith work to get them to function reliably.Whether that is the .22 "pistol" with the fake silencer and clothes hanger on it,or the revolver,I cant say.

I'd say it has never caught on here is,cost of the gun,ammo costs for larger calibers,restricted liscense and that it isnt that mch of a bother to get a .22 perhaps?

kowloon

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Going from the UK.These "Joker guns" [ in reference to the gun Jack Nicholson used as the Joker in the 1st Batman Movie].

If they get that telescoping barrel technology up and running you can sign me up for a pair of them .

oldgit1897

I know, but why ? These long barrel revolvers are something i could never take too in a million years. Give me a neat little lever action .38 carbine any day of the week.

Cass

juice1304 wrote: »

Not if theyre manufactured that way, it says it cannot be shortened less than 50cm, technically speaking. :pac:

Yes, if they're manufactured that way. This is the grey bit.

Section 65 of the 2006 act adds section 12A to the 1990 offensive weapons act, and part 6(b) of that says:

(6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—

(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,

This section is completely different and separate to the shortening of a barrel as covered in 12(A)(1) which says shortening a barrel is an offence.

It's why we call this a grey bit because while it's an offense to have such a firearm, it is only an offense if the person is without lawful authority which is your firearms license, but as the FCA1 doesn't ask for barrel length such "banned" firearms are never identified. We have also said umpteen times that the only way this would be settled is if there were a test case in the courts, and who wants to be first?

freddieot

Devils advocate here for a few minutes...there is another issue...

Even if the application could fit into the unrestricted category, IMO seems possible, It would be interesting to see what reason could fairly be used for requirement /section 4.2. Keeping in mind that the applicant would be stating this is a rifle (e.g. in .357) not a handgun.

If it went to Court, quite possible, the Judge might view the application as someone trying to exploit a loophole to get a centrefire handgun rather than having any pressing sporting requirement. The argument would be made that any new .22 handguns are unrestricted and certs are being issued and that rifles are restricted or unrestricted depending on calibre etc. and that there is no real problem with getting certs for them either.

This version of a 'whatever' would be unable to be used in a handgun competition here and would be uncompetitive in any rifle competition. Why then would the applicant possibly require such a firearm.

It would be totally different if these were in circulation prior to the ban a few years ago and had remained in circulation. At the very least there would possibly have been competitions for this category of firearm. However, given the size of the shooting community in Ireland compared to the UK, I doubt that it ever would have been big enough to guarantee the continuity needed for making a valid sporting argument for ownership.

juice1304

freddieot wrote: »

Devils advocate here for a few minutes...there is another issue...

Even if the application could fit into the unrestricted category, IMO seems possible, It would be interesting to see what reason could fairly be used for requirement /section 4.2. Keeping in mind that the applicant would be stating this is a rifle (e.g. in .357) not a handgun.

If it went to Court, quite possible, the Judge might view the application as someone trying to exploit a loophole to get a centrefire handgun rather than having any pressing sporting requirement. The argument would be made that any new .22 handguns are unrestricted and certs are being issued and that rifles are restricted or unrestricted depending on calibre etc. and that there is no real problem with getting certs for them either.

This version of a 'whatever' would be unable to be used in a handgun competition here and would be uncompetitive in any rifle competition. Why then would the applicant possibly require such a firearm.

It would be totally different if these were in circulation prior to the ban a few years ago and had remained in circulation. At the very least there would possibly have been competitions for this category of firearm. However, given the size of the shooting community in Ireland compared to the UK, I doubt that it ever would have been big enough to guarantee the continuity needed for making a valid sporting argument for ownership.

Its restricted because of of the diameter of the bullet there is no way around that. Its not classed as a rifle its a long barreled pistol it is just not a short arm, its a long arm but it is still a pistol. There is no stock and it was not designed or manufacturered to function as a rifle/carbine.
They would require the firearm for taking part in long barrel pistol competitions in england. That is all they need as a reason the same way people still have firearms for competing in IPSC comps even if it is banned here.

BattleCorp

freddieot wrote: »

Even if the application could fit into the unrestricted category, IMO seems possible, It would be interesting to see what reason could fairly be used for requirement /section 4.2. Keeping in mind that the applicant would be stating this is a rifle (e.g. in .357) not a handgun..

Your reason would be target shooting. Nothing in law says you have to use it in competitions.

That said, all you need is another person with one of them and you can invent a discipline and shoot away in competitions.