Pistol for use on authorised range only.

Uinseann_16

Hi lads a bit off topic ive been trawling through the firearms acts
Im looking for a specific bit i cant find it, a pistol can only be used on a authorised range ?

cookimonster

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

Hi lads a bit off topic ive been trawling through the firearms acts
Im looking for a specific bit i cant find it, a pistol can only be used on a authorised range ?

Have a read if the Commissioners Guidelines. I know this is not the 'Legislation or Act' but it gives reference to court cases and therefore case law.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/online-services/firearms-licensing/commissioner-s-guidelines-2018.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjY2Yf1pI3pAhWqShUIHS0VCZAQFjAAegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw3PQDpG5hYc-seGtrmDH-vg

CHAPTER 3: CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED
RELEVANT WHEN GRANTING A FIREARM CERTIFICATE
AND CASE LAW
Section 4(2)(g) of the Firearms Act 1925 as substituted by section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 provides that when a firearms certificate is granted it may be subject to a condition or conditions. Furthermore in the case of Joseph
Magee v Patrick Murray and Dennis Roche, a judgment delivered by Birmingham J. in the High Court on 24th November 2008, confirmed that the statutory scheme allows a superintendent to impose conditions when granting a
firearms certificate under the Firearms Acts.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/26/section/32/enacted/en/html

If interpreted right then the issuing authority can indicates that the granting of a particular certificate is partly based on the requirement that the firearm must only be used on a authorized range.

Cass

If memory serves there is no specific line of legislation that says you can only use it on an authorised range.

What does happen is the various parts of the various Acts say different things which when taken together all but prohibit the use of a pistol outside a range. For example you must be a member of an authorised range to apply for a pistol license. That only states you must be a member not that it can only be used ona range, but then another piece of the Wildlife Act says you cannot hunt wild game with certain items such as crossbows, spears, slingshots, and restricted firearms.

There is a vagueness and i don't, off the top of my head, recall a specific line about unrestricted pistols being used for vermin but in order to do that legally you would need to tick the hunting box on your FCA1 and i doubt any Super would sign off on someone applying for a pistol for both target AND hunting.

Of course if they did there is nothing to stop you using the pistol in that manner but it requires you to apply for it for hunting, as well as target shooting, and the Super to either "miss" the ticked hunting box or allow it to go through for that to happen.

TheEngineer1

I know of a lot of hunters carry pistols for humane dispatch of wounded quarry species at close range on the continent and in the states. I wonder if anyone applied for a cf pistol for this reason before the cf pistol ban came in?

Grizzly 45

Yeah...I advocated for that here many years ago,and was ridicilued both here and with the deer societies.Went down like a concrete balloon.
Yet eeven the Brit professional deer stalkers have them nowadays,albeit castrated down to two shots.But better than some 12 in yoke with a coat hanger stuck in the butt,that they call a "handgun" over there.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah...I advocated for that here many years ago,and was ridicilued both here and with the deer societies.Went down like a concrete balloon.
Yet eeven the Brit professional deer stalkers have them nowadays,albeit castrated down to two shots.But better than some 12 in yoke with a coat hanger stuck in the butt,that they call a "handgun" over there.

A couple of bucko's fcuked it up for themselves over there, posting pictures online of semi-auto 9mm's they had, which had been restricted to 2 shot, with new smuggled in magazines giving 15 + shots. Of course they were caught and since then i think its only single or two shot revolvers allowed for humane dispatch.

TheEngineer1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah...I advocated for that here many years ago,and was ridicilued both here and with the deer societies.Went down like a concrete balloon.
Yet eeven the Brit professional deer stalkers have them nowadays,albeit castrated down to two shots.But better than some 12 in yoke with a coat hanger stuck in the butt,that they call a "handgun" over there.

That's a shame, I'm new to deer hunting and I've been fortunate enough not to have yet put one down at close range, although I'm sure that time will come. The thought of putting a full power rifle shot through its head at close range seems excessive.

LIFFY FISHING

TheEngineer1 wrote: »

That's a shame, I'm new to deer hunting and I've been fortunate enough not to have yet put one down at close range, although I'm sure that time will come. The thought of putting a full power rifle shot through its head at close range seems excessive.

You can humanley dispatch a deer with a knife, so you dont need to worry about applying for a pistol licence, buying ammo, licences for same, storing requiremenrs and then the issue of carrying a pistol while out stalking, it is illeal to carry or conceal any short firearm on your person, so there wont be a chance of pistols allowed.
Btw a humane dispatch pistol as defined is " a captive bolt or single shot revolver" , and they can only be issued to a vet or slaughter man ( person), and have strict protocols.

TheEngineer1

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

You can humanley dispatch a deer with a knife, so you dont need to worry about applying for a pistol licence, buying ammo, licences for same, storing requiremenrs and then the issue of carrying a pistol while out stalking, it is illeal to carry or conceal any short firearm on your person, so there wont be a chance of pistols allowed.
Btw a humane dispatch pistol as defined is " a captive bolt or single shot revolver" , and they can only be issued to a vet or slaughter man ( person), and have strict protocols.

Would it not be dangerous getting in close to a wounded stag with a knife?

cookimonster

TheEngineer1 wrote: »

Would it not be dangerous getting in close to a wounded stag with a knife?

A: neck vertebrae;
B: trachea;
C: oesophagus;

Arrow above skull represents the line of shot at right angles to forehead, down through the brain stem.

Use of Knife. Humane Slaughter.
In the field situation, the most practical method of bleeding is to make a deep, transverse cut across the animal’s throat at the angle of the jaw (see dotted line). Cut deeply, severing the blood vessels, trachea and oesophagus, until the blade of the knife touches the spine. There should be two powerful jets of blood from the carotid arteries and a flow from the jugular veins. The heart may continue to pump until the carcass is ex-sanguinated.
To carry out this task effectively, the operator needs a sharp knife with a blade at least 120mm (five inches) long. copyright: Humane Slaughter Association

From my own method I would recommend inserting a knife (Mora Companion sized and shape) in under the jaw line in a stabbing motion and drawing the knife around to the opposite side. Once the neck is open and you see the pumping blood you are good. If not change the direction of the cutting edge and draw the knife across the open wound insuring you have cut from ear to ear and down to the spine.
I emphasise this method because Hollywood has a lot to answer for. The trachea lays out front with the arteries either side and to the rear, if the hunter is timid, week or the knife poor then the effort of cutting through fur, skin and trachea before reaching the arteries can cause distress and potential harm to the hunter if the animal begins to flail. After the fact it is still good practice to check eye response and even heart beat.
For the purpose of the post I've included a cropped image of a shot deer that was dead to the shot. As my way of field gralloch I always cut the throat as seen in the picture. The same wound would apply if I was to dispatch the animal with a knife. You should be able to see the extent of how deep anď wide the cut is.




To dispatch with a rifle at close range be situationaly aware of your surroundings. Be aware of the probability of ricochet etc. If the animal is struggling to get up it is difficult to get a steady target on thier head and even a clear sight picture when using a high powered scope. If you go in for the coup de grace if possible wind the scope down.
Either way approach the animal from the rear to lesson the degree of distress. I find a shot to the rear of the head at the base of the skull at the Axis joint will not only dispatch the animal but more than likely preserve the upper skull.

If shooting positively into the vitals (heart and lungs) the animal will die out and it is best to stand off. Obviously if crippled then an appropriate follow up shot is the best option. This could be a well placed neck or head shot or simply a good chest shot.

The German method, which I can't find the name of, uses a long thin bladed knife inserted around the Atlas joint which severs the spinal cord and dispatches the animal quickly. This requires practice and a suitable knife. Gizzley45 may have more detail on this.

Grizzly 45

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

You can humanley dispatch a deer with a knife,

It's also incredibly dangerous,if you have never been trained to do it properly.
An injured stag,even a little roe buck is a formidable creature to go up against.i speak from experiance as our professinal hunter got a roe buck tine thru his left hand while holding onto a buck he thought he had dispatched properly.

Forget any of this Sykes Fairbairn knife fighting throat cutting busisness,an injured animal is NOT going to let you come anywhere near its throat,and depending on the injury you would be going up against their full armament ,their antlers. Your target is behind their head namely between the skull and first vertebrae of the spine,as this severs the spinal cord and brainstem,and shuts down everything going to and from the brain and heart.

Why it's not a good idea to deal with throat cutting,is simply even bleeding out the animal can still charge or buck in it's death throes and stab you with its antlers. Up close& personal a deer has the advantage on you every time in strength,armament,and limbs.Anyone who has even been kicked by a deer calf will know how strong they can be,and they will be pumped on adrenaline too from the injury

It's also proably illegal now under EU animal protection laws to use throat cutting as a humane dispatch method,and even nebelous about the spinal "nicking".Point you might want to keep in mind should you ever have to deal with a injured deer in a public,which you or anyone else can do,and as a trained hunter,you really have a moral obligation to do to IMO.What will look better?A pool of blood with Bambi breathing it's last with a throat cut,or a swift knife stab in the back of theneck in our hypothetical situation?

You are going to have to access the situation on a case by case basis,how badly injured is the animal,can it still stand and move?In that case you would be better off stepping back and putting another round into the boiler house if you can do it safely with a rifle of course. Is it paralysed from a spinal shot,and still able to move on its forelegs?Again ultra caution required.

All in all,it is NOT adviseable to engage in knife play with wild animals that are injured and standing or mobile.You will come out badly from it.

Different story ,if the animal is down and immobile but still alive,which you of course tested for by the blink test on the eye..Right? Then you can do the throat cutting or heart stab.

Grizzly 45

cookimonster wrote: »

.


The German method, which I can't find the name of, uses a long thin bladed knife inserted around the Atlas joint which severs the spinal cord and dispatches the animal quickly. This requires practice and a suitable knife. Gizzley45 may have more detail on this.

Called "Abnicken" in German hunting terminology[Trans" to cut off"] Its what the German "Nicker" knives are used for. They are really nothing special,the blade design is isoceles like a kitchen knife that has been used domestically for centuries.So a std bowie style blade wil do it too.You can even do it with a Swiss Army folding hunting knife blade,thats big enough.

See above post for the pros and cons.

Grizzly 45

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Btw a humane dispatch pistol as defined is " a captive bolt or single shot revolver" , and they can only be issued to a vet or slaughter man ( person), and have strict protocols.

Have a read of the AGS guidelines on that again;)...Those are examples,and bad ones too."A single shot revolver":P It's another mess of the firearms laws of bad definitions and legislation,that would even make HILTI nail guns illegal or restricted firearms.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

A couple of bucko's fcuked it up for themselves over there, posting pictures online of semi-auto 9mm's they had, which had been restricted to 2 shot, with new smuggled in magazines giving 15 + shots. Of course they were caught and since then i think its only single or two shot revolvers allowed for humane dispatch.

What is it with social media that morons always decide to post their illegal activities on it?
Tac posted about this some months ago about some vet deciding to go try out his humane dispatch pistol at some range in the UK too.Contravening his entire conditions of possesion and usage.You can still get pistols over there but the mags are blocked to two shots.It is still pretty open if you have a professional need for one,it can be got. IE professional deer stalker,kennall master,vet and some others.

hiddenmongoose

Cass wrote: »

but then another piece of the Wildlife Act says you cannot hunt wild game with certain items such as crossbows, spears, slingshots, and restricted firearms.

.

Can you show me where it states I cannot hunt wild game with a restricted firearm.

cookimonster

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

Can you show me where it states I cannot hunt wild game with a restricted firearm.

Wild Life Act

Restriction on use of certain firearms etc.

Section 33.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person to kill or injure—

(a) with a repeating or automatic shotgun (other than a repeating or automatic shotgun which is adapted or modified so as to render it incapable of carrying more than three shotgun cartridges), with an airgun, air-rifle, gas-rifle, pistol or revolver, or with any firearm fitted with a silencer device, any wild bird,


(4) Subject to the foregoing subsections of this section, the Minister may make regulations specifying the type and calibre of firearms and ammunition which may be used to hunt wild birds and wild mammals and providing that firearms and ammunition of any other type and calibre shall not be used to hunt such birds or mammals.

Certain use of traps, snares etc. prohibited.

Section 34.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section but subject to section 42, a person shall not—

(a) hunt any wild bird or wild mammal by means of a trap, snare, net, line, hook, arrow, dart, spear or similar device, instrument or missile, or birdlime or any substance of a like nature, or any poisonous, poisoned or stupefying bait, or

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/39/section/34/enacted/en/html


I would say if you applied for a restricted firearm licence for hunting and were granted it then you are good to go. But from looking at the wording I'd say that pistols would be blanked even for small game. While any rifle calibre over .30 cal as long as it meets the required technicalities related to deer hunting licences should have no issues.
I've met lads who hunt deer with 338 Lapua here, now wheather everything is above board I don't know. I do know of one individual who owns a dangerous game calibre who is or was not aloud to hunt with it here. If that is still the case I can't tell you.

Uinseann_16

cookimonster wrote: »

Wild Life Act





http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/39/section/34/enacted/en/html

My understanding is that crows etc under derogation are able to be shot with air rifles
And for mammals well most of us use moderators so it must be just for birds
Thanks for that cookimonster its the bit i remember reading years ago i just couldn't find it again!:D

Cass

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

Can you show me where it states I cannot hunt wild game with a restricted firearm.

Section 33(1)(a) of the principle act as amended by section 41 of the 2000 act deals with restricted shotgun hunting:

33.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person to kill or injure—

(a) with a repeating or automatic shotgun (other than a repeating or automatic shotgun which is adapted or modified so as to render it incapable of carrying more than three shotgun cartridges), with an airgun, air-rifle, gas-rifle, pistol or revolver, or with any firearm fitted with a silencer device, any wild bird,

For Crossbows, which are restricted firearms under law the same section 33 above prohibits their use by banning the use of darts, arrows, spears or similar devices to hunt which is extended to wild animals too under section 42 of the 2000 act which amends the principle act:

(a) hunt any wild bird, wild mammal or protected wild animal by means of a trap, snare, net, line, hook, arrow, dart, spear or similar device however propelled, instrument or missile

Restricted centre fire rifles are the exception i believe, to an extent. I'm not aware of any ban or prohibition on using a semi auto or restricted rifle caliber for wild animals but they cannot be used on birds or hares for the same reason an unrestricted rifle cannot be used. So basically only good for deer or foxes, but good luck trying to get a 500 nitro express for foxes.

As for the rest such as a restricted pistol i'll refer you to my post(s) above:

Cass wrote:

If memory serves there is no specific line of legislation that says you can only use it on an authorised range.

What does happen is the various parts of the various Acts say different things which when taken together all but prohibit the use of a pistol outside a range.

Cass wrote:

There is a vagueness and i don't, off the top of my head, recall a specific line about unrestricted pistols being used for vermin but in order to do that legally you would need to tick the hunting box on your FCA1 and i doubt any Super would sign off on someone applying for a pistol for both target AND hunting.

And of course my comment about it being legal if "all the stars align":

Cass wrote:

Of course if they did there is nothing to stop you using the pistol in that manner but it requires you to apply for it for hunting, as well as target shooting, and the Super to either "miss" the ticked hunting box or allow it to go through for that to happen.

So in short you should be fine for some shooting with a restricted rifle, but for everything else you either cannot via legislation or simply won't be issued the license for hunting in the first place.

At least that is my understanding.

cookimonster

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

My understanding is that crows etc under derogation are able to be shot with air rifles
And for mammals well most of us use moderators so it must be just for birds
Thanks for that cookimonster its the bit i remember reading years ago i just couldn't find it again!:D

Not an English lesson, so not offence but for clarification and good old Google-Derogation by definition -'an exemption from or relaxation of a rule or law. "countries assuming a derogation from EC law"

As worded in the derogation in column 4.



But interestingly doesn't mention the use of Moderators!

Cass

Lads, the firearm act(s) are like the Bible. You don't want to read them too carefully for fear you're doing wrong, and one part will contradict the other so use best common sense.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

Lads, the firearm act(s) are like the Bible. You don't want to read them too carefully for fear you're doing wrong, and one part will contradict the other so use best common sense.

Ah here, this is Ireland ya know.

Uinseann_16

The bibles a bit easier to get the jist of though :pac:

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

What is it with social media that morons always decide to post their illegal activities on it?
Tac posted about this some months ago about some vet deciding to go try out his humane dispatch pistol at some range in the UK too.Contravening his entire conditions of possesion and usage.You can still get pistols over there but the mags are blocked to two shots.It is still pretty open if you have a professional need for one,it can be got. IE professional deer stalker,kennall master,vet and some others.

Blue bloody murder in the apartments my sister lives in the other day. The girl who lives downstairs decided to check her fellas phone while he was in the shower. She comes across a video of him cavorting starkers with the village bicycle the previous week. A small nuclear explosion happened and 5 squad cars, including 2 aru's turned up, she was going to bobbett him when he came out of the bathroom :eek:.

I knew a lad in the UK who is a gamekeeper. He gets called out to deer hit by cars and things like that, by the police. Its a poisoned chalice, he gets to keep in with the local force, but you can be called out in the dead of night. He had a .38 revolver for it, but gave it up, and for humane dispatch he uses a .410 shotgun with the barrels cut back to 24". Reckons its far better.

tudderone

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

The bibles a bit easier to get the jist of though :pac:

Its a bit like Lord of the rings, fellas with big beards and swords doing all sorts of unbelievable things.

hiddenmongoose

cookimonster wrote: »

Wild Life Act





http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/39/section/34/enacted/en/html


I would say if you applied for a restricted firearm licence for hunting and were granted it then you are good to go. But from looking at the wording I'd say that pistols would be blanked even for small game. While any rifle calibre over .30 cal as long as it meets the required technicalities related to deer hunting licences should have no issues.
I've met lads who hunt deer with 338 Lapua here, now wheather everything is above board I don't know. I do know of one individual who owns a dangerous game calibre who is or was not aloud to hunt with it here. If that is still the case I can't tell you.

Cass wrote: »

Section 33(1)(a) of the principle act as amended by section 41 of the 2000 act deals with restricted shotgun hunting:



For Crossbows, which are restricted firearms under law the same section 33 above prohibits their use by banning the use of darts, arrows, spears or similar devices to hunt which is extended to wild animals too under section 42 of the 2000 act which amends the principle act:


Restricted centre fire rifles are the exception i believe, to an extent. I'm not aware of any ban or prohibition on using a semi auto or restricted rifle caliber for wild animals but they cannot be used on birds or hares for the same reason an unrestricted rifle cannot be used. So basically only good for deer or foxes, but good luck trying to get a 500 nitro express for foxes.

As for the rest such as a restricted pistol i'll refer you to my post(s) above:


And of course my comment about it being legal if "all the stars align":



So in short you should be fine for some shooting with a restricted rifle, but for everything else you either cannot via legislation or simply won't be issued the license for hunting in the first place.

At least that is my understanding.

My Point being that certain named firearms or crosbows are not allowed for hunting of game but nowhere is it stated that it is illegal or an offence to use a restricted firearm to hunt, so unless it is one of the specified restricted firearms then you can indeed hunt with your restricted firearm. To simply state that you cannot hunt with a restricted firearm is incorrect.

Cass

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

To simply state that you cannot hunt with a restricted firearm is incorrect

Was the use of "restricted firearms" as a broad general term incorporating all restricted firearms incorrect, absolutely. However it was a case of a simply omission of an additional word which would have clarified the point, had i known it was so badly needed i would have done so..

However with only one type of restricted firearm not being mentioned as being a problem you cannot cite the exception and call it the rule.

My Point being that certain named firearms or crosbows are not allowed for hunting of game but nowhere is it stated that it is illegal or an offence to use a restricted firearm to hunt,

This contradicts itself.

You cannot use Crossbows to hunt, you cannot hunt birds with a restricted shotgun, you cannot use pistols to hunt (except in the exceptional circumstances i mentioned above), you cannot even hunt certain species with a restricted rifle unless it meets other criteria set out in various SIs such as S.I. No. 239/1977. Contrary to your post about it not being illegal or an offense, it is.

So when a lot or most restricted firearms are prohibited in some form, or an outright offense to use, it's a fair comment (without going into the detailed listing as has been done) to say they are not for general use. I did not mean to imply all restricted firearms could not be used, however i did not want to bore the OP or anyone else for that matter with a list of various acts, SIs, etc. of why as most people, myself included, can simply get glazed eyes and skip past it.

It seems more and more that people are being pedantic about certain things. Had i put in just one other word in my reply this wouldn't be an issue:

Cass wrote:

If memory serves there is no specific line of legislation that says you can only use it on an authorised range.

What does happen is the various parts of the various Acts say different things which when taken together all but prohibit the use of a pistol outside a range. For example you must be a member of an authorised range to apply for a pistol license. That only states you must be a member not that it can only be used ona range, but then another piece of the Wildlife Act says you cannot hunt wild game with certain items such as crossbows, spears, slingshots, and other restricted firearms.

It's always good to get the right and best information and for my part in not completely, as i had to do in the last few post, explain every single point i apologise. However to take a single exception and use it as the rule is not really an argument against what i'm saying.

cookimonster

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

'To simply state that you cannot hunt with a restricted firearm is incorrect'

Fair point and it is a very general statement.

It is often asked here about 'good reason' especially when an individual has been granted thier FAC based solely on range membership but now wants to hunt. The general consensus is that it is a change of circumstances and therefore needs notification.

If you consider something like this :

Centrefire Gallery Rifle (GRCF) is for lever action rifles chambered in pistol calibres.  Any calibre between .354 and .455 is permitted.  The most common calibres used are .38 & .44 and the most common rifles used are the Marlin 1894 and Rossi 92.

These type of rifles are restricted by their calibre but are suitable for deer hunting, if you applied for them solely as deer hunting firearms, would you get approval. Would you get approval for dual purpose such as target and hunting or are they restricted to target use only.


The Commissioners Guidelines deals with -
ASSESSING GOOD REASON

This section sets out the issues that a superintendent or chief superintendent may wish to consider in assessing "Good Reason" in individual cases. Some of the more common
good reasons that the issuing person may consider ‘good’ for the possession of particular firearms and ammunition are also highlighted.
This guidance is simply illustrative, and cases may be encountered which are not covered here, but which may nonetheless form the basis of a "Good Reason".
Good Reason for requiring a firearm in respect of which the
certificate relates.
The case of William Goodison v Superintendent D. J. Sheahan (High Court, 2nd May
2008) is instructive. Peart J ruled that in relation to “Good Reason” a superintendent is
entitled to have regard to the particular firearm and the use to which it is intended.
The effect of this judgment means that while the firearm in question can form the basis of considering the application, it is not the sole criteria to be considered, nor can it be the
sole reason for refusing the application. The use to which the firearm is to be put is a significant element in deciding whether the applicant has ‘Good Reason’

So there is case law (and contrary case law) to support the authorities if they should wish to excempt certain firearms or calibres applications for specific uses.

But again, if someone has a "restricted' firearm licenced to hunt that does not fall foul of the current Wild Life Act then so be it.

hiddenmongoose

Cass wrote: »

It seems more and more that people are being pedantic about certain things. Had i put in just one other word in my reply this wouldn't be an issue:


.

No need to get your knickers in a twist about it, but you are a MOD on the shooting forum so unfortunately people will take what you say as gospel as you will be deemed to be correct when you state something. I have heard things posted here repeated, and the post about not being able to hunt with restricted firearms is one that has been said to me before, and is false.

cookimonster wrote: »

Fair point and it is a very general statement.


But again, if someone has a "restricted' firearm licenced to hunt that does not fall foul of the current Wild Life Act then so be it.

I am in that boat and is why this interested me.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Its a bit like Lord of the rings, fellas with big beards and swords doing all sorts of unbelievable things.

Too much smiteing and begetting going on there for my liking.

Grizzly 45

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

My Point being that certain named firearms or crosbows are not allowed for hunting of game but nowhere is it stated that it is illegal or an offence to use a restricted firearm to hunt, so unless it is one of the specified restricted firearms then you can indeed hunt with your restricted firearm. To simply state that you cannot hunt with a restricted firearm is incorrect.

100% correct.There is nothing stopping you using a SA CF rifle with a 100 drum[if you can hump that weight about and get one legally anymore under EU law] to go deer hunting here.The 1976 Wildlife act never forsaw such an event happening.

These type of rifles are restricted by their calibre but are suitable for deer hunting, if you applied for them solely as deer hunting firearms, would you get approval. Would you get approval for dual purpose such as target and hunting or are they restricted to target use only

Short answer YES! I am a case in point.I dual applied for my AR10 from the word go for both target and hunting,and have been using such ever since. We can speculate and estimate here,but the thing is,it is on an individual case by case what a CS decides,and if you want to fight it or not. But as for the legislation itself.There s NO mention that RIFLED restricted CF firearms of any kind one they meet the velocity and bullet weight cannot be used to hunt game here.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

I knew a lad in the UK who is a gamekeeper. He gets called out to deer hit by cars and things like that, by the police. Its a poisoned chalice, he gets to keep in with the local force, but you can be called out in the dead of night. He had a .38 revolver for it, but gave it up, and for humane dispatch he uses a .410 shotgun with the barrels cut back to 24". Reckons its far better.

Apart from that awkward long barrel,thats pushing out a slug with about.357 magnum capability at the muzzle.

Cass

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

No need to get your knickers in a twist about it,

I appreciate your concern about my knickers, and all is well on that front.

My point is that you quoted the sections of law both Cookimonster and i quoted and linked to and still maintained that shooting with a restricted firearm is perfectly legal. In essence the same mistake i made by saying it's not. While we're both right, there are also limits to what we say.

As i said i'm not interested in an argument, at all, nor one on semantics but a lot of restricted firearms cannot be used and there is law to say so on most of them however direct or indirect. If there was no law then it wouldn't be illegal or an offense.

but you are a MOD on the shooting forum so unfortunately people will take what you say as gospel as you will be deemed to be correct when you state something. I have heard things posted here repeated, and the post about not being able to hunt with restricted firearms is one that has been said to me before, and is false.

While i appreciate the standing some may see me in i have said many, many times over the years that no one, ABSOLUTELY no one should act on any advice by ANY member on here when it comes to legal matters.

We can discuss what we think and our perspectives/interpretations on the law, but in the end each person will be held accountable for their own actions so acting on the word of others is not recommended and the site rules actually prohibit giving legal advice for this very reason.

As with all things its also subject specific. For example if i say don't rob a bank, you'll go to jail. Well i'm not a solicitor nor am i a member of An Gardaí but its a safe bet that you can take such advice as Gospel.

Other examples are also as clear cut such as mag limits, what type of license a person should have for a specific type of gun, what is deer legal calibers, etc, etc. All that advice is easy to give and very straight forward in understanding.

However with the topic of this thread there are fine lines, and certain things that must happen to allow the hunting of game and vermin with a very specific set of restricted firearms, while the rest are not permitted.

The same vagueness has plagued us on other topics such as shooting outside a range, barrel length of rifles, etc..

So not so clear cut.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

100% correct.There is nothing stopping you using a SA CF rifle with a 100 drum[if you can hump that weight about and get one legally anymore under EU law] to go deer hunting here..

There is something stopping you, as you mentioned, the recent EU/Irish law which places a limit on mag size for semi autos and the fact that the rifle caliber must still meet a set of criteria to be considered deer legal as i outlined previously.

The 1976 Wildlife act never forsaw such an event happening

I don't see why not other than the same pencil pushers drafting legislation on a topic they know nothing about. Look to the recent Canadian ban and their entire list. They have banned websites, not just firearm manufacturers/types.

Also it's not like AR type platforms are a new thing and even those semi-autos not built off an AR type platform work on the same principle of autoloading, one trigger pull - one shot system.

Perhaps its also because the 1976 act cam so soon after the 1972 "temporary custody order" and they [the legislators] believed they had closed off anything bigger than a 22 rifle or shotgun to the public?

Cass

How many times has it been mentioned that there are now, iirc, 19 firearm Acts, 63 SIs, and three (was two, but think it's three now) EU directives governing shooting in Ireland.

Who in the world can know everything in all that and how it relates to each aspect of shooting. I mean if someone wanted to know something about the legalities of hunting they could read the three Wildlife Acts from 1976 to 2010, but it only gives a partial picture as some aspects are governed by SIs (such as the deer calibers) and yet other aspects depend on the EU directive on storage during transport and even some Road traffic acts regarding using public transport.

This is what i mean when i say you need to take all aspects of the various acts to piece together what you actually need to know. Its also why most quarters have called for a complete restatement of all this legislation to make it more understandable, centralised and easier to access.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Apart from that awkward long barrel,thats pushing out a slug with about.357 magnum capability at the muzzle.

Well he liked the long barrel, muzzle awareness with a pistol flys out the window, if you have a large wounded deer jumping about the place, onlookers, police standing around etc. Be a bit much to carry a second long arm on a stalk though.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

There is something stopping you, as you mentioned, the recent EU/Irish law which places a limit on mag size for semi autos and the fact that the rifle caliber must still meet a set of criteria to be considered deer legal as i outlined previously.

True,but it doesn't stop you from using that particular firearms type from hunting here.10 shots is by any standards both in EU and the US,a VERY generous amount to have in your rifle,be it semi,pump,or lever,aand again mag capacity is a free for all if you were to use a rifle with any of those systems other than semi auto,as neither EU or Irish law mentions them.So long as they are deer legal as you said.

I don't see why not other than the same pencil pushers drafting legislation on a topic they know nothing about. Look to the recent Canadian ban and their entire list. They have banned websites, not just firearm manufacturers/types.

Perhaps its also because the 1976 act cam so soon after the 1972 "temporary custody order" and they [the legislators] believed they had closed off anything bigger than a 22 rifle or shotgun to the public?

Apart from that idiot in Canada also banning a US coffee company[Black rifle coffee] with his dictatorial plans.Which is now also running into another problem.Lots of rural Canadian police depts have bought also for personal duty guns,semi autos of all types.There is no exclusion clause for police officers in this legislation.So guess who he has piddled off now as well?:rolleyes:

More than likely,as you say.But its odd they never thought of pump or lever action rifles,of which there were/are a few models in 220 Swift and 22./250,that were boxloaders .Browning BLR springs to mind even back then.But then again,in the enforced Cyro sleep shooting found itself in in those 35 years,unless it was connected to lads of a 3 letter orgaisation much intrested in liberating a part of this island.It didnt really feature on shooters or the PTB radar.:rolleyes:

tudderone

Banning the looking at of an AR15 website, should have bells going with the free speech advocates in Canada. Its very like the Chinese only allowing the use of their own search engines, banning the access to google and the like. Very illiberal these liberals.

Grizzly 45

Canada will be like N Korea with the internet.Everything you ever need to know is on the Dear Leader Kim approved N Korean internet.No need for any other internet information.:rolleyes:

meathstevie

Cass wrote: »

Section 33(1)(a) of the principle act as amended by section 41 of the 2000 act deals with restricted shotgun hunting:



For Crossbows, which are restricted firearms under law the same section 33 above prohibits their use by banning the use of darts, arrows, spears or similar devices to hunt which is extended to wild animals too under section 42 of the 2000 act which amends the principle act:


Restricted centre fire rifles are the exception i believe, to an extent. I'm not aware of any ban or prohibition on using a semi auto or restricted rifle caliber for wild animals but they cannot be used on birds or hares for the same reason an unrestricted rifle cannot be used. So basically only good for deer or foxes, but good luck trying to get a 500 nitro express for foxes.

As for the rest such as a restricted pistol i'll refer you to my post(s) above:


And of course my comment about it being legal if "all the stars align":



So in short you should be fine for some shooting with a restricted rifle, but for everything else you either cannot via legislation or simply won't be issued the license for hunting in the first place.

At least that is my understanding.

I know a lad who through a medical event has reduced use of his left arm and hand and discussed applying for a semi-auto shotgun with a pistol grip stock for the purpose of shooting crows and pigeons with the powers that be. As we all know that type of stock would make it a restricted firearm.

He told me he was informed he would have to explain and document his circumstances on his application form so the Chief Super could deal with the “need” for a restricted firearm on those grounds.

From that I gather he definitely wasn’t told it was impossible.

The three round capacity rule for hunting with semi-auto firearms has been in force for a good few years across the EU. Ireland has adapted it by using the unrestricted/restricted categorisation.

Grizzly 45

But Ireland never ratified it into national law for SA rifles into the wildlife act 1976/2000!IOW your national law has to reflect the EU legislation as we have seen last year with the mags and the receptables.There has never been any mention of this anywhere in the acts 76 or 2000!

He should have no problem with such,as "pistol gripped stocks" are all the rage for international clay shooters on O/Us these days. I give you made in Ireland.



or


BOTH of these would fall foul of our legislation making a twin-pipe a restricted firearm because they are "prominent pistol grips below the stock. So if these are legal on an unrestricted shotgun of two shots,why not on a semi auto for three?
Also,he could aquite a thumbhole stock or "Turkey gun stock" by Remington and others and have pretty much the same thing.As they were designed with "Californian law" in mind about these matters.

Grizzly 45

Wouldnt allow me to post two pics for some reason.An Irish made pistolgripped shotgun stock

Cass

meathstevie wrote: »

From that I gather he definitely wasn’t told it was impossible.

It would be the same situation with a Super granting a license for a restricted firearm. It would be moot/void upon issue.

In your mate's situation the license would be valid if issued by the CS, but the use of it for hunting any wild game/fowl with it would be prohibited by law which AGS cannot supercede or overwrite/rule.

Cass

@ Grizzly.

There is no actual definition of what is a pistol grip in Irish law, well none i know off, but the two examples you showed above do not meet the criteria for pistol grips.

A pistol grip would be a grip that is separate to the buttstock and in some/most cases not connected to the buttstock. If you look at AR platforms in rifles or restricted semi auto shotguns with pistol grips you'll see how the grip is either completely separate or separate to such an extent that it [the grip] can be considered a separate part and that the buttstcok joins the firearmvia connection to the rear of the receiver with little to no contact or connection to the actual grip.

Before you start into a pedantic argument about how some firearms have the grip "merging" into the buttstock i'm not saying the description of mine above is perfect but showing pictures of unrestricted shotguns that are not and never have been restricted and claiming they fall foul of Irish law is planting seeds in the minds of those that would use that as an argument to further restrict such guns and make what is an unrestricted gun, restricted.

The first picture you show is the fancy ass stock seen on some trap guns and they are few and far between with the grip connected directly to the buttstock

The second picture is no different to any standard unrestricted shotgun it simply has a more palm fitting design around the grip but still the stock comes directly from the grip.

Lastly thumbhole stocks are not even close to restricted because its essentially a solid stock with a thumbhole bored into it for better fitment, but also connected on the end of the grip which in Ireland is meaningless as pistol grips only make shotguns restricted, not rifles.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

@ Grizzly.

There is no actual definition of what is a pistol grip in Irish law, well none i know off, but the two examples you showed above do not meet the criteria for pistol grips.

Have a read of the Garda guidelines.It states what makes a shotgun restricted in this category of stocks.
Folding,collapsing or telescoping stock,or one that can be removed without tools.
A pistol grip only.
A stock with a prominent pistol grip protuding below the stock

Doesn't say by how much or what shape or whatever,the word is prominent.
Ergo by that definition those kinds of stocks designed for better clay shooting are making a restricted firearm out of unrestricted firearms

A pistol grip would be a grip that is separate to the buttstock

Or being the sole bit to hold onto in lieu of a proper shoulder mounted stock.

and in some/most cases not connected to the buttstock. If you look at AR platforms in rifles or restricted semi auto shotguns with pistol grips you'll see how the grip is either completely separate or separate to such an extent that it [the grip] can be considered a separate part and that the buttstcok joins the firearmvia connection to the rear of the receiver with little to no contact or connection to the actual grip

.

Unless you are talking about some type of weird AR or AK or Military /Police based platform, like a Saiga,SPAS or such that doesn't hold true for most civillian designed stocks.The majority are one piece stocks with a pistol grip integrated into the stock,to absorb felt recoil in a linear direction.Its the reason most post 1945 military rifles are built with a prominent pistol grip seperate from the buttstock

Before you start into a pedantic argument about how some firearms have the grip "merging" into the buttstock i'm not saying the description of mine above is perfect but showing pictures of unrestricted shotguns that are not and never have been restricted and claiming they fall foul of Irish law is planting seeds in the minds of those that would use that as an argument to further restrict such guns and make what is an unrestricted gun, restricted.

The first picture you show is the fancy ass stock seen on some trap guns and they are few and far between with the grip connected directly to the buttstock

There is no point in hiding the head in the sand,as it leaves your arse exposed to a kicking!This needs to be pointed out,just because you have a 3 grand grip on your 12 grand trap gun that is technically restricted,shouldnt give you a free pass from the guy who has a 3shot semi auto/pump and wants to put a 50 euro aftermarket accessory on it to improve his shooting.

I will also contend that certain shotguns modified for people with physical disabilities IE so called "cripple stocks" depending on their disability "could" also fall foul of this legislative definition as some have very distinctive prominent pistol grips.Do we now dissallow the disabled from hunting and shooting because of a restricted stock being used on an unrestricted gun?We'll be signing up with the Brits then on banning MARS rifles from physically disabled shooters.

Doesnt matter if it is 1 or 10,000 of them here.They are I contend and always have contended since 2008 that they fall foul of this VERY BAD description.BUT the reason they are not picked on is simply they are on two shot "traditional" shotguns,and the worry here is the mag capacity with the "concealability factor" in the AGS mind. Hey! I didn't write this dumbass legislation or guidelines,but this is how these people think.How the Hell you are going to conceal a solid stock shotgun with a bit sticking out underneath is beyond us all... And before someone says "they are only guidelines!"..Well the Health dept and govt have been issuing "guidelines" here sinch Feb 29th,and they have been enforced as LAW by AGS!!
Without a doubt unconstitutional,and challengeable in a court.Not much help when discussing it with Garda Muldoon at a checkpoint .

Lastly thumbhole stocks are not even close to restricted because its essentially a solid stock with a thumbhole bored into it for better fitment, but also connected on the end of the grip which in Ireland is meaningless as pistol grips only make shotguns restricted, not rifles.

Hello??? Also considerd a thumbhole stock.Again,no definition in law,here s to what an item is.Point being one of those stocks has all the features of a prominent pistol grip,but is legal here I'd contend,because of the connection piece of material between base of the pistol grip and butt making it a "thumbhole stock.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Have a read of the Garda guidelines.

First mistake.

Guidelines don't overwrite or supercede the law which is SI 21/2008 and states:

(b) shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns—

(i) with a detached, folding or telescopic stock, or

(ii) with a pistol grip, or

(iii) whose barrel is less than 60.9 centimetres (24 inches) in length;

It states what makes a shotgun restricted in this category of stocks.

No it doesn't. It simply repeats what is in the SI, and this bit:

A stock with a prominent pistol grip protuding below the stock

The guidelines add the word "prominent" which does not appear in the SI or any legislation and you added the bit about "below the stock" as neither the guidelines nor the SI/Legislation states this.

Doesn't say by how much or what shape or whatever,the word is prominent.

Not in the law so irrelevant.

Ergo by that definition those kinds of stocks designed for better clay shooting are making a restricted firearm out of unrestricted firearms

Ergo nothing.

AGS cannot legislate, only enforce the current law(s).

There is no point in hiding the head in the sand,as it leaves your arse exposed to a kicking!This needs to be pointed out,just because you have a 3 grand grip on your 12 grand trap gun that is technically restricted,shouldnt give you a free pass from the guy who has a 3shot semi auto/pump and wants to put a 50 euro aftermarket accessory on it to improve his shooting.

Jesus H Christ.

Just stop. You're calling unrestricted firearms restricted and saying that your made up definition of what a pistol grip is means that lads all around the country with grips on their shotguns like as you describe are unlicensed because you deem them to be restricted.

I will also contend that certain shotguns modified for people with physical disabilities IE so called "cripple stocks" depending on their disability "could" also fall foul of this legislative definition as some have very distinctive prominent pistol grips.Do we now dissallow the disabled from hunting and shooting because of a restricted stock being used on an unrestricted gun?

You stop that nonsense too with the "won't someone think of the children" defence.

Restricted does not mean prohibited/banned. So they can license them, just not use them for certain purposes.

We'll be signing up with the Brits then on banning MARS rifles from physically disabled shooters.

Well if you keep spouting off with nonsense that unrestricted guns are actually restricted you're laying some good ground work for AGS.

Doesnt matter if it is 1 or 10,000 of them here.They are I contend and always have contended since 2008 that they fall foul of this VERY BAD description.

The legislation is simple and easily understood, you're the one muddying up the waters. If a shotgun has a single barrel its unrestricted. Stick on a pistol grip and it's restricted. So it has nothing to do with being a double barrel.

And before someone says "they are only guidelines!"..Well the Health dept and govt have been issuing "guidelines" here sinch Feb 29th,and they have been enforced as LAW by AGS!!

Such as.
Without a doubt unconstitutional,and challengeable in a court.Not much help when discussing it with Garda Muldoon at a checkpoint .

Hello???

Hi!

Also considerd a thumbhole stock.

Because it is. The hole doesn't have a specific set of dimensions, only that the thumb goes through a hole.

Again,no definition in law,here s to what an item is.Point being one of those stocks has all the features of a prominent pistol grip,but is legal here I'd contend,because of the connection piece of material between base of the pistol grip and butt making it a "thumbhole stock.

So not a pistol grip.


I'm starting to wonder what the hell is going on with this forum lately. Lads, known members, asking stupid and probing questions that have never been challenged by AGS, are set out CLEARLY in law and cause no need for concern.

clivej

meathstevie wrote: »

I know a lad who through a medical event has reduced use of his left arm and hand and discussed applying for a semi-auto shotgun with a pistol grip stock for the purpose of shooting crows and pigeons with the powers that be. As we all know that type of stock would make it a restricted firearm.

He told me he was informed he would have to explain and document his circumstances on his application form so the Chief Super could deal with the “need” for a restricted firearm on those grounds.

From that I gather he definitely wasn’t told it was impossible.

The three round capacity rule for hunting with semi-auto firearms has been in force for a good few years across the EU. Ireland has adapted it by using the unrestricted/restricted categorisation.

This is what I have on my Mosberg pump shotgun but shoud also fit a semi-auto.
Large thumbhole stock is legal on any shotgun.




unnamed.jpg

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

First mistake.

Guidelines don't overwrite or supercede the law which is SI 21/2008 and states:

Yes we know that Cass,But how many times have AGS tried to push the guidelines as law,on everything from looks like and "asault rifles" and their own definitions.All that had to be sorted out by court cases.Not by arguing definitions with them in corrospondence and in interviews.
:

The guidelines add the word "prominent" which does not appear in the SI or any legislation and you added the bit about "below the stock" as neither the guidelines nor the SI/Legislation states this.

No sorry!!! It did appear in the l guideline copy I have otherwise I would not have mentioned it maybe you have a different copy?I dont go around making up stuff as you well know!!

SNIP
Not going to bother.. Belive what you will.I'm done with this.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But how many times have AGS tried to push the guidelines as law,on everything from looks like and "asault rifles" and their own definitions.All that had to be sorted out by court cases.Not by arguing definitions with them in corrospondence and in interviews.

How did those court cases go for you and most everyone else that took one? The majority won didn't they, because their case is based on law.

Secondly this is not about one of those vague issues like barrel length, what defines an "assault rifle", that bulls**t about "looks like", etc. This is a straight forward issue of restricted and unrestricted. Saying a lot more shotguns should be or would be classed as restricted based on your definition above is wrong and to draw attention to it based on no legislative basis, wrong information, and non existant guideline quotes could lead to problems where none exist.

Not to mention if it were an issue it would have been dealt with in the 2009 Act or one of the half dozen SIs since 2008.

No sorry!!! It did appear in the l guideline copy I have otherwise I would not have mentioned it maybe you have a different copy?

There is no different copy. There are the guidelines as issued on September 2018. Link to it is here. Do a simple word search for "below", "stock" and you'll find two results for "below", neither of which are in a sentence describing anything protruding from the stock, and three results for "stock", none of which describe or refer to a pistol grip and nothing about it protruding from the stock.

I dont go around making up stuff as you well know!!

Didn't say you made it up, i said you added those words yourself, as they don't appear in the guidelines and if they did it would still be irrelevant as they are not included in the SIs referring to restricted firearms.

That is not is not an accusation of fabricating things, it could be something as simple as elaborating in your own words, which i've done myself, and that elaboration changes the meaning of what you're talking about so as to make it now wrong.

Look at my post in this thread where i casually said about restricted firearms and using them for hunting. I knew that line was right, but also wrong because of the way i worded it, in that it did not explain the situation fully and it lead to ten posts about what exactly it means and what exactly i meant. Had i just said it "correctly" at the start it would have saved all that back and forth.

SNIP
Not going to bother.. Belive what you will.I'm done with this.

There is no need for belief, simply the ability to read. Its not in there.

Here comes the Olive branch. I'm not out to bust your balls on this and if i came across as overly strong or a bit of dick, i apologise. However this is the fifth or sixth time this week something has come up which "challenges" what is laid out, fairly clearly, in law and drawing attention to it doesn't really matter that much because AGS and the DoJ are not fools and if there was a problem, especially a serious problem, it would have been addressed by now, but i still don't see the point in bringing up what is an already settled issue and possibly give some bored beaurocrat a scab to pick at.

No SI, no amendment, no Act deals with pistol grips and their length/protrusion from the stock. Its a "given" (based on current legislation, the types of licenses for currently licensed firearms and the attitudes/actions of AGS towards licensing) that pistol grips are grips which resemble those on AR type platforms (its the only example i can think of that everyone will usually recognize immediately) so to me there is no need to drag this up and make an issue out of something that is not an issue, especially if that causes thousands, or tens of thousands of firearms to become unlicensed/voided overnight by a change to the definition of their appearance. We already deal with enough crap on that front with the "idon'tlikethelookofthat" law.

jb88

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

100% correct.There is nothing stopping you using a SA CF rifle with a 100 drum[if you can hump that weight about and get one legally anymore under EU law] to go deer hunting here.The 1976 Wildlife act never forsaw such an event happening.


Griz
New laws on SA CF rifles, mags now restricted to 10 rounds, no more. Had to spend a fortune on Mag blockers recently, all to appease this Fe&ked up state we live in.

Bagpipe

So if I understand this thread correctly, this type of rifle http://cilldarahunting.com/shop/firearms/new-centre-fire-rifles/sig-sauer-516-g2/ can be used for target shooting and hunting if both were ticked and approved of by the superintendent?

Secondly, this type of buttstock/grip is NOT restricted? https://www.combathunting.com/MAVERICK_88_SHOTGUN-Maverick_88_Shotgun_Pistol_Grip_Buttstock_ATI.html

Cass

Bagpipe wrote: »

So if I understand this thread correctly, this type of rifle can be used for target shooting and hunting if both were ticked and approved of by the superintendent?

By the Chief Super as its a restricted firearm (centrefire semi autos are automatically restricted and i believe they are 223 or 308)

Secondly, this type of buttstock/grip is NOT restricted? ]

It IS restricted as its clearly sold as, and is, a pistol grip.