New rules from Revenue?

CJhaughey

Interesting article here about a Garda who imported a stock which was subsequently seized by revenue.
He is taking a case to the High Court regarding this.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40023698.html

Cass

Well if nothing else it'll solve this matter once and for all.

We also have to be careful about what we discuss on this topic. As an ongoing case it may be sub judice. I'll ask for a review as this is an important case.

meathstevie

Cass wrote: »

Well if nothing else it'll solve this matter once and for all.

We also have to be careful about what we discuss on this topic. As an ongoing case it may be sub judice. I'll ask for a review as this is an important case.

Indeed Cass, a classic scenario for a test case to determine what’s a component part of a firearm and what isn’t.

By the interpretation used by Revenue it looks like every piece of hardwood timber and every screw and spring coming into the country is liable to seizure.

Cass

Just had a quick chat with someone that knows more than me on legal issues.

The consensus is that as long as our discussion remains on the topic of the case, up to the start of the case, we're fine. IOW once the case starts we can no longer discuss actions/comments made by either party or the justice as this is sub judice and could venture into technical contempt of court.

So we're grand for the time being.

tudderone

Reading the article, it seems the garda did it right. The gardai say yes no problem import the parts, the revenue say no they cannot be imported without a licence. Surely it should be only pressure bearing components that should be controlled like this ? A wooden stock is completely harmless on its own.

Witcher

Revenue have been seizing stocks for years, this is nothing new. They seized one on me about 5 years ago, scanned licence and sent it to them and they released it.

Their interpretation of the legislation is technically correct, there is no allowance for 'pressure bearing' components. Each and every part is considered a firearm component and requires a licence.

tudderone

Witcher wrote: »

Revenue have been seizing stocks for years, this is nothing new. They seized one on me about 5 years ago, scanned licence and sent it to them and they released it.

Their interpretation of the legislation is technically correct, there is no allowance for 'pressure bearing' components. Each and every part is considered a firearm component and requires a licence.

What if its a firearms part for a non firearm, such as a new stock for a de-activated rifle ? You have no licence to show, and even if the part was used as intended, its still a wall hanger and not a firearm.

What if i buy a slab of walnut from abroad and it lands here marked with a return address "Fritz bloggs gunstocks, Berlin" ? Is that shapeless slab of wood classed as a firearms component and seized ? I mean where does it all end ?

Bolts, bolt heads, action bodies, and barrels i could understand, we have all heard the Johnny Cash song "One piece at a time". But i would imagine the Judge will think someone is pulling his wig when the stock is produced as evidence.

juice1304

tudderone wrote: »

What if its a firearms part for a non firearm, such as a new stock for a de-activated rifle ? You have no licence to show, and even if the part was used as intended, its still a wall hanger and not a firearm.

What if i buy a slab of walnut from abroad and it lands here marked with a return address "Fritz bloggs gunstocks, Berlin" ? Is that shapeless slab of wood classed as a firearms component and seized ? I mean where does it all end ?

Bolts, bolt heads, action bodies, and barrels i could understand, we have all heard the Johnny Cash song "One piece at a time". But i would imagine the Judge will think someone is pulling his wig when the stock is produced as evidence.

If its deactivated you have a letter of autorization from the local superintendent.

You can buy the walnut but if you make it into a stock you are manufacturing a firearms compnent without a firearms dealers licence and can be charged as such.

This can go two ways clarity or they make you get an import licence for everything.

It has nothing to do with revenue anyway they are there to collect revenue not dictate or inturpate the firearms act. That is down to the department of justice. Its more than likely some ignorant fool on a mission.
I wouldnt hold my breath that anything good will come of this. They do whatever they want anyway and cant even implement european law that they are told to. The level of ignorance within AGS and the DOJ is unbeleiveable.

tudderone

[QUOTE=juice1304;114173271]If its deactivated you have a letter of autorization from the local superintendent.

You can buy the walnut but if you make it into a stock you are manufacturing a firearms compnent without a firearms dealers licence and can be charged as such.

This can go two ways clarity or they make you get an import licence for everything.

It has nothing to do with revenue anyway they are there to collect revenue not dictate or inturpate the firearms act. That is down to the department of justice. Its more than likely some ignorant fool on a mission.
I wouldnt hold my breath that anything good will come of this. They do whatever they want anyway and cant even implement european law that they are told to. The level of ignorance within AGS and the DOJ is unbeleiveable.[/QUOTE]

But thats not a firearms cert and you are not subjected to the same rigours to get an authorisation as you do a licence. A gunstock is a component part of a firearm, but not a really a critical part, a gun can be fired without one. I've seen plenty of pictures of sawn off shotguns without a stock and just duct tape around the tangs.

Who is funding this case ? Is it the garda himself ? Its a bit drastic isn't it, get a relatively cheap stock seized, and rather than going to the customs and showing them his licence, he heads to the High court ?

Zxthinger

juice1304 wrote: »

If its deactivated you have a letter of autorization from the local superintendent.

You can buy the walnut but if you make it into a stock you are manufacturing a firearms compnent without a firearms dealers licence and can be charged as such.

This can go two ways clarity or they make you get an import licence for everything.

It has nothing to do with revenue anyway they are there to collect revenue not dictate or inturpate the firearms act. That is down to the department of justice. Its more than likely some ignorant fool on a mission.
I wouldnt hold my breath that anything good will come of this. They do whatever they want anyway and cant even implement european law that they are told to. The level of ignorance within AGS and the DOJ is unbeleiveable.

Revenue is customs too! ...?

What about importing from outside the EU especially when you have a licence fir the firearm in question. Weren't some firearms owners told that rhey didn't need a import licence as long as they weee importing a firearm from outside EU and for which they already had a licence.

There is also the part of the firearms act that states that your entitled to spare or replacement parts..

Mellor

meathstevie wrote: »

By the interpretation used by Revenue it looks like every piece of hardwood timber and every screw and spring coming into the country is liable to seizure.

No. Because hardwood is a raw material and hasn't been manufactured into anything.

Eg, I can legal buy metal blanks. And with some time in the shop, I could turn that into a banned knife or weapon, an illegal car part, etc.
The point at which it becomes the object in question is the point I have broken the law.

tudderone wrote: »

Surely it should be only pressure bearing components that should be controlled like this ? A wooden stock is completely harmless on its own.

Of course is should be that way.
I don't think customs and revenue are saying a stock is dangerous. But they are saying that's what the law says.

tudderone wrote:

But thats not a firearms cert and you are not subjected to the same rigours to get an authorisation as you do a licence. A gunstock is a component part of a firearm, but not a really a critical part, a gun can be fired without one.

Nor is a suppressor a critical part, but still it's deemed a firearm.
Additionally, change a stock could change a firearm to a restricted firearm.


In your example replacing the stock on a deactivated firearm, makes the stock a part of a deactivated firearm. So that'd be the angle to go down when producing the letter of authorization.

Who is funding this case ? Is it the garda himself ? Its a bit drastic isn't it, get a relatively cheap stock seized, and rather than going to the customs and showing them his licence, he heads to the High court ?

It's drastic, he could have fixed his situation easily. But then the next guy has the same bother.
This guy taking the hassle of the high court, so that hopefully, the situation can be clarified for everyone else.

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

Who is funding this case ? Is it the garda himself ? Its a bit drastic isn't it, get a relatively cheap stock seized, and rather than going to the customs and showing them his licence, he heads to the High court ?

From reading his comments on FB he is funding it himself.

My understanding, and i could be wrong as i'm reading between the lines, is the stock was seized as essentially an "illegal import" and is up for destruction or they're (customs) simply not going to return it to him.

The case is an important one and i don't think it drastic that he is taking the case. The EU has free movement of people and goods yet were forced to apply for import paperwork for goods, we're hit with VAT, charges, and Taxes on products under the guise of some bullsh*t green initiitave (NOx on cars, etc).

This case will, for better or worse, settle this issue once and for all. Much like someone taking a court case against the barrel length issue. It won't be pleasant but its going to have to be done at some point.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

From reading his comments on FB he is funding it himself.

My understanding, and i could be wrong as i'm reading between the lines, is the stock was seized as essentially an "illegal import" and is up for destruction or they're (customs) simply not going to return it to him.

The case is an important one and i don't think it drastic that he is taking the case. The EU has free movement of people and goods yet were forced to apply for import paperwork for goods, we're hit with VAT, charges, and Taxes on products under the guise of some bullsh*t green initiitave (NOx on cars, etc).

This case will, for better or worse, settle this issue once and for all. Much like someone taking a court case against the barrel length issue. It won't be pleasant but its going to have to be done at some point.

The firearms laws here are a cobbled together mess by all accounts. The original British law, redrafted to be Irish law, bits tacked on here and there, bandaids stuck on as issues came up, like crossbows being restricted firearms, the centrefire handgun ban, practical shooting going. The plonkers in the dail get paid enough, they should do a better job. How many other things like this import nonsense, possession of blackpowder for muzzleloaders, reloading etc are there falling between two stools ?

Grizzly 45

Zxthinger wrote: »

R

What about importing from outside the EU especially when you have a licence fir the firearm in question. Weren't some firearms owners told that rhey didn't need a import licence as long as they weee importing a firearm from outside EU and for which they already had a licence.

There is also the part of the firearms act that states that your entitled to spare or replacement parts..

From outside the eU you use this form .free from the DOJ website.The Non eU import document.
By rights this is only done by the DOJ to satisfy many quieries they were getting from the US side of things for some sort of paperwork to show the Feds on expoerting stuff to Ireland under ITAR rules. From the DOJ website.

Individuals importing from a country which is not a member of the EU:
Read these instructions carefully before submitting your application.
Complete the application form fully
Make sure you have filled in:
(a) the exact make and model of the firearm
(b) the correct Category A-C (PDF - 88KB)
Category B (PDF - 88KB)
Attach to the application a copy of the valid firearms certificate for the firearm or ammunition to be imported.
You can fill in the form using type or in handwriting. If completing it in handwriting please use black ink and block capitals.
New marking requirements under the EU Firearms Directive came into effect on 1 September 2019. In accordance with Statutory Instrument No. 420 of 2019, firearms and their essential components being imported into the European Union must be marked in compliance with the Directive. Essential components are defined as the barrel; the frame; the receiver (including both upper and lower receiver); the slide; the cylinder; and the bolt or breech block.
Forward the documentation to the Firearms Unit of the Department of Justice and Equality. We will issue a transfer document to you so that you can use it to legally import the firearms and/or ammunition.


I dont know how the Hell this is supposed to be enforced from the US side,as the only marked component there is the Reciver,the upper and everything else is a component part under US law,so technically freely exportable[ITAR notwithstanding]. This will be fun with Brexit too.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

The firearms laws here are a cobbled together mess by all accounts. The original British law, redrafted to be Irish law, bits tacked on here and there, bandaids stuck on as issues came up, like crossbows being restricted firearms, the centrefire handgun ban, practical shooting going. The plonkers in the dail get paid enough, they should do a better job. How many other things like this import nonsense, possession of blackpowder for muzzleloaders, reloading etc are there falling between two stools ?

They were told this by Sparks here at the Dail public enquiry almost six years ago now.But in the good tradition of can kicking with difficult matters,it will never be dealt with properly by our glorified county councillors running this country.
We can see the fiasco of the TCO 1972 still.t
The Army is left sitting gaurding basically now heaps of airguns and air pistols,and other scrap,with the odd gem still in there forever more,incase someone does come back after finding grand dads old firearm cert,and wants to reclaim their property.When in fact AGS/Govt is supposed to be making the effort to trace these peoples next of kin to return this stuff.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

They were told this by Sparks here at the Dail public enquiry almost six years ago now.But in the good tradition of can kicking with difficult matters,it will never be dealt with properly by our glorified county councillors running this country.
We can see the fiasco of the TCO 1972 still.the Army is left sitting gaurding basically now heaps of airguns and air pistols,and other scrap,with the odd gem still in there forever more,incase someone does come back after finding grand dads old firearm cert,and wants to reclaim their property.When in fact AGS/Govt is supposed to be making the effort to trace these peoples next of kin to return this stuff.

They couldn't run the proverbial in Guinesses brewery, the work would be done by civil servants, and whatever village idiot happened to be minister would scrawl his x at the bottom.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

It's drastic, he could have fixed his situation easily. But then the next guy has the same bother.
This guy taking the hassle of the high court, so that hopefully, the situation can be clarified for everyone else.

How could the Garda have fixed his situation easily?

I'd guess most of us on here have imported bits and pieces at some stage. I bought a Boyd's stock from the US for my 10/22. Didn't think I committed a crime when I did that.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd guess most of us on here have imported bits and pieces at some stage. I bought a Boyd's stock from the US for my 10/22. Didn't think I committed a crime when I did that.

Post #6 outlines the situation where they were released on showing his license.
Further to that, a letter from his super outlineing it's an approved replacement stock for a licensed firarm.

I'm not sure in tax offense at this scale count as criminal offenses. But people get away with import offense all the time. There are number of online retailers where you can buy premium whiskey and great prices. As long as you don;t get hit for the duty on the way in. As they caught on, some retailer stopped sending to ireland as they were liable not the recipeint

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

Post #6 outlines the situation where they were released on showing his license.
Further to that, a letter from his super outlineing it's an approved replacement stock for a licensed firarm.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Post #6 is specific to Witcher. It looks like his stock was released when he showed the licence.

The aren't releasing the stock to the Garda in the current case even though he has a licence therefore giving him little option other than either accepting the loss of the items or going to court to get them.

Grizzly 45

I wonder is it more the mags than the stock?
Plus reading this report again, it has the usual Irish journalism inaccuruaccies.[Single bolt action:rolleyes:]. Intresting too this bit about contacting the DOJ,and the DOJ person "changing their mind" on the legality of importing these bits.
Which again makes no sense as it is statue law,and irrevelant to the opinions of anyone in the dept.
There is definately more to this story.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but Post #6 is specific to Witcher. It looks like his stock was released when he showed the licence.

The aren't releasing the stock to the Garda in the current case even though he has a licence therefore giving him little option other than either accepting the loss of the items or going to court to get them.

We done know what other recourse he had attempted. Full details aren’t published. As Grizzly said above, there’s more to this.
But maybe this is his last resort and he’s not taking on the case for the greater community as I suggested.

meathstevie

tudderone wrote: »

Reading the article, it seems the garda did it right. The gardai say yes no problem import the parts, the revenue say no they cannot be imported without a licence. Surely it should be only pressure bearing components that should be controlled like this ? A wooden stock is completely harmless on its own.

Pressure bearing parts and another few components like for example a trigger mechanism of which the sole purpose is to initiate the sequence of making a gun go “bang” is what a lot of countries deem to be firearm parts or components.

Sling swivels, slings, stocks, bipods, conventional optical sights and so on that are not essential to the functionality of a firearm are not deemed to be firearm components in a lot of jurisdictions.

Going by the interpretation used by Revenue making a little metal plaque with your initials or ordering one from a non gun dealer business and later attaching it to the stock of your shotgun would be an offence.

BattleCorp

I know under the new EU rules, a centrefire semi-auto can't have a mag that can take more than 10 rounds (unless the National government allows it for sports shooting, which ours don't), but can a bolt action rifle here in Ireland legally take a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds?

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know under the new EU rules, a centrefire semi-auto can't have a mag that can take more than 10 rounds (unless the National government allows it for sports shooting, which ours don't), but can a bolt action rifle here in Ireland legally take a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds?

Simple answer ,Yes. as can a lever action.lever release,MARS,pump or straight pull.They were not coverd in the EU directive.Nor were .22LR rifles either.
AND if you just so happened to have a belt feed system for your semi auto CF.You are good to go too. Nothing in the directive about such either.:D

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Simple answer ,Yes. as can a lever action.lever release,MARS,pump or straight pull.They were not coverd in the EU directive.Nor were .22LR rifles either.
AND if you just so happened to have a belt feed system for your semi auto CF.You are good to go too. Nothing in the directive about such either.

Yet..........

Mellor

meathstevie wrote: »

Pressure bearing parts and another few components like for example a trigger mechanism of which the sole purpose is to initiate the sequence of making a gun go “bang” is what a lot of countries deem to be firearm parts or components.

That’s the logical definition. Any item solely related to the function, ideally without which it fails to cycle properly.
Basically the idea should be to prevent someone building a gun from a piece by piece.

Going by the interpretation used by Revenue making a little metal plaque with your initials or ordering one from a non gun dealer business and later attaching it to the stock of your shotgun would be an offence.

Well no it wouldn’t, as the little plaque could have been for anything it wasn’t firearm related until it was attached.
Where as a stock and magazines are specifically made for firearms. At not sensible but revenue aren’t making up their own law here. This goal should be to challenge the validity and the workability of the law. Not the interpretation of it, imo.

meathstevie

Mellor wrote: »

That’s the logical definition. Any item solely related to the function, ideally without which it fails to cycle properly.
Basically the idea should be to prevent someone building a gun from a piece by piece.


Well no it wouldn’t, as the little plaque could have been for anything it wasn’t firearm related until it was attached.
Where as a stock and magazines are specifically made for firearms. At not sensible but revenue aren’t making up their own law here. This goal should be to challenge the validity and the workability of the law. Not the interpretation of it, imo.

If the content of the article posted at the start of this discussion is correct the real issue is essentially not very complicated but the solution could be.

Is it the DoJ or the Dept. for Finance who determines what constitutes a firearm or a component part and subsequently the need for an importation licence.

I suppose from a practical point of view the real lesson here is to have all that sort of communications with people in either the DoJ or Customs in writing,

Grizzly 45

The smarter thing would post this case is a push for the legislation to be changed to pressure-bearing components the only items requiring import licensing and holding on certificates,as on par with the EU directives.,and any other EU country. Otherwise, we could up with legislation being drawn up requiring licensing for every stupid little part on a gun, as well as things like scope rings, Picatinny rails, the screws to hold them onto the barrel etc.Which will be unenforceable with things like Ebay,Amazon and China and would require a tenfold increase in staff in the DOJ firearms and explosive sections to handle this paperwork.

It would be just feel good legislation doing nothing,except making our lives harder and increasing beuraccy for no eventual gain.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Yet..........

Innovation trumps legislation..All the time.An almost extinct breed in the UK, the garage tinkerer and inventor.The kind who made Britan great with inventions like TV,radar,bouncing bombs and other stuff. Invented THIS to beat the MARS/Lever release ban.:D:D

Munsterlad102

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Simple answer ,Yes. as can a lever action.lever release,MARS,pump or straight pull.They were not coverd in the EU directive.Nor were .22LR rifles either.
AND if you just so happened to have a belt feed system for your semi auto CF.You are good to go too. Nothing in the directive about such either.:D

Would a belt not count as a loading device?

Grizzly 45

Define a loading device in Irish or EU law?
Magazines are mentioned not belts..:)
Plus a loading device is a rather bad term on a firearm.A mag is a container to hold the rounds.A loading device could be the spring,the shell lifter in the mag.The whatsit that catches the shell off the mag and feeds it into the chamber,could also be a "loading device".

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Innovation trumps legislation..All the time.An almost extinct breed in the UK, the garage tinkerer and inventor.The kind who made Britan great with inventions like TV,radar,bouncing bombs and other stuff. Invented THIS to beat the MARS/Lever release ban.:D:D

Yeah but the gits can keep moving the goalposts to suit themselves, as they did in the UK with the MARs things.

Munsterlad102

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Define a loading device in Irish or EU law?
Magazines are mentioned not belts..:)
Plus a loading device is a rather bad term on a firearm.A mag is a container to hold the rounds.A loading device could be the spring,the shell lifter in the mag.The whatsit that catches the shell off the mag and feeds it into the chamber,could also be a "loading device".

Yeah it’s a fairly cac classification, it sounds like they’re talking about speed loaders for revolvers. Would classifying them as magazines not make more sense or is there some loophole I’m missing, apart from belts?

Brontosaurus

juice1304 wrote: »

If its deactivated you have a letter of autorization from the local superintendent.

You can buy the walnut but if you make it into a stock you are manufacturing a firearms compnent without a firearms dealers licence and can be charged as such.

This can go two ways clarity or they make you get an import licence for everything.

It has nothing to do with revenue anyway they are there to collect revenue not dictate or inturpate the firearms act. That is down to the department of justice. Its more than likely some ignorant fool on a mission.
I wouldnt hold my breath that anything good will come of this. They do whatever they want anyway and cant even implement european law that they are told to. The level of ignorance within AGS and the DOJ is unbeleiveable.

What if I buy an airsoft stock, grip etc. and then put it on a firearm? What if I simply hose clamp a rifle chasis to a 2x4?

Mellor

Brontosaurus wrote: »

What if I buy an airsoft stock, grip etc. and then put it on a firearm? What if I simply hose clamp a rifle chasis to a 2x4?

Both of those are fine as they aren't a firearm part until they are part of a firearm. A part specifically for a firearm is fundamentally different.

I don't agree with the law/interpretation but the absurd examples like 2x4, lump of walnut etc are not really helping the case. If anything they are making the Revenues case for them.

kunekunesika

To me it should be like a car. Tyres, wipers, bulbs etc are all clearly car parts or components, which you are free to trade, purchase, fit etc. . But the chassis is a a numbered key component, for which you must have the correct paperwork provided by the state.The engine number should match the paperwork.

So for firearms, tell exactly what the key components that must be numbered and identified on the paperwork. Everything else is free to posses, own, buy etc.

Too simple for our lot to run with??

BattleCorp

kunekunesika wrote: »

To me it should be like a car. Tyres, wipers, bulbs etc are all clearly car parts or components, which you are free to trade, purchase, fit etc. . But the chassis is a a numbered key component, for which you must have the correct paperwork provided by the state.The engine number should match the paperwork.

So for firearms, tell exactly what the key components that must be numbered and identified on the paperwork. Everything else is free to posses, own, buy etc.

Too simple for our lot to run with??

Get outta here with your logic and sense. Our guys don't do that.

Brontosaurus

Mellor wrote: »

Both of those are fine as they aren't a firearm part until they are part of a firearm. A part specifically for a firearm is fundamentally different.

I don't agree with the law/interpretation but the absurd examples like 2x4, lump of walnut etc are not really helping the case. If anything they are making the Revenues case for them.

I'm not trying to be daft, it just seems to me that their own logic, and that of the legislation or the interpretation thereof, makes absolutely no sense. It seems to me that it's a case of "technically every little bit on a firearm is a firearm part, down to the springs and screws, but we'll turn a blind eye to people importing such parts or making their own, apart from the odd time when we feel like making someone's life miserable".

I'd hope the absurdity of my previous examples would highlight to such people how unworkable the legislation is, rather than inspire them further, but you're probably right that they'd sooner use this interpretation than use common sense, even if it means it leads to paradoxical scenarios.

Mellor

Brontosaurus wrote: »

I'm not trying to be daft, it just seems to me that their own logic, and that of the legislation or the interpretation thereof, makes absolutely no sense.

It does make no sense. But there’s a big difference between the actual legislation making no sense, and the legislation being fine and revenue creating a daft interpretation.

It’s a case of the former imo.

I'd hope the absurdity of my previous examples would highlight to such people how unworkable the legislation is, rather than inspire them further, but you're probably right that they'd sooner use this interpretation than use common sense, even if it means it leads to paradoxical scenarios.

I think you misunderstood what I meant.
In your example you’re talking about importing a generic (non-firearm) item, as it’s clearly fine.
But a stock is specifically for a firearm, so pointing out that generic items can be imported freely, ends up singling out the stock.

The solution is to target the poor law not the poor interpretation imo.

donkeykingkong

I am the applicant in this case and once matters have been disclosed in open court then they can be discussed. I noticed a comment saying along the lines of why go through the effort over a cheap stock, and also risking high court costs as I am self funding this case. I hope you have some appreciation for this effort on my part to have the legislation clarified and if it comes to costs that is the burden I bear to uphold the legislation correctly.
I am satisfied with my course of action from how I dealt my notice of claim and process to date regards taking the high court action and have acted within the law at all times. A stock nor magazine are NOT essential components. I would suggest people read up on the firearms act and it's definitions of components especially Section 1 (1)(g)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended by Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Also Statutory instrument 420/2019. Also section 21 of the firearms act as amended relating to section 17 of the principle act.

2011

donkeykingkong wrote: »

if it comes to costs that is the burden I bear to uphold the legislation correctly.

If you were to set up a “go fund me” account I would certainly contribute towards your costs. I wish you the very best of luck with this.

I am satisfied with my course of action from how I dealt my notice of claim and process to date regards taking the high court action and have acted within the law at all times.

I don’t doubt you however my concern is that this isn’t a guarantee that you will win

Bogwoppit

donkeykingkong wrote: »

I am the applicant in this case and once matters have been disclosed in open court then they can be discussed. I noticed a comment saying along the lines of why go through the effort over a cheap stock, and also risking high court costs as I am self funding this case. I hope you have some appreciation for this effort on my part to have the legislation clarified and if it comes to costs that is the burden I bear to uphold the legislation correctly.
I am satisfied with my course of action from how I dealt my notice of claim and process to date regards taking the high court action and have acted within the law at all times. A stock nor magazine are NOT essential components. I would suggest people read up on the firearms act and it's definitions of components especially Section 1 (1)(g)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended by Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Also Statutory instrument 420/2019. Also section 21 of the firearms act as amended relating to section 17 of the principle act.

Best of luck and thanks for your efforts.

Mellor

donkeykingkong wrote: »

I noticed a comment saying along the lines of why go through the effort over a cheap stock, and also risking high court costs as I am self funding this case. I hope you have some appreciation for this effort on my part to have the legislation clarified and if it comes to costs that is the burden I bear to uphold the legislation correctly.

As mentioned above;

This guy [is] taking the hassle of the high court, so that hopefully, the situation can be clarified for everyone else.

It’s not unnoticed, and I think we all wish you (and common sense) the best of luck.

I would suggest people read up on the firearms act and it's definitions of components especially Section 1 (1)(g)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended by Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Also Statutory instrument 420/2019. Also section 21 of the firearms act as amended relating to section 17 of the principle act.

For anyone interested:

(g)except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:

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

(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e), and

(iii) any object—

(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and

(II) without which it could not function as originally designed,

zeissman

donkeykingkong wrote: »

I am the applicant in this case and once matters have been disclosed in open court then they can be discussed. I noticed a comment saying along the lines of why go through the effort over a cheap stock, and also risking high court costs as I am self funding this case. I hope you have some appreciation for this effort on my part to have the legislation clarified and if it comes to costs that is the burden I bear to uphold the legislation correctly.
I am satisfied with my course of action from how I dealt my notice of claim and process to date regards taking the high court action and have acted within the law at all times. A stock nor magazine are NOT essential components. I would suggest people read up on the firearms act and it's definitions of components especially Section 1 (1)(g)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended by Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Also Statutory instrument 420/2019. Also section 21 of the firearms act as amended relating to section 17 of the principle act.

Can you tell us what type or make of stock it was ?
I have imported numerous stocks from boyds over the years without any hassle, I also bought a krg bravo chassis from brownells as well.
I really appreciate what your doing and I would do the same if it happened to me.
Good luck.

meathstevie

“ (II) without which it could not function as originally designed,“

You can definitely argue that a bolt action rifle can function quite adequately without a stock fitted.

It’s a different story for some semi and automatics where the stock acts as not only as a stock but also as an essential part to hold the assembled firearm together but most of these are military and law enforcement tools that are near if not impossible to licence anyway.

In a bolt action you can easily load a cartridge into the chamber cock and lock the action and actuate the trigger mechanism and fire the cartridge without there being a stock fitted. It might not be the most comfortable shot you’ve ever fired but the firearm will function as designed nonetheless.

Feisar

meathstevie wrote: »

“ (II) without which it could not function as originally designed,“

You can definitely argue that a bolt action rifle can function quite adequately without a stock fitted.

It’s a different story for some semi and automatics where the stock acts as not only as a stock but also as an essential part to hold the assembled firearm together but most of these are military and law enforcement tools that are near if not impossible to licence anyway.

In a bolt action you can easily load a cartridge into the chamber cock and lock the action and actuate the trigger mechanism and fire the cartridge without there being a stock fitted. It might not be the most comfortable shot you’ve ever fired but the firearm will function as designed nonetheless.

I was thinking the opposite. I don't know how one could argue that a rifle designed to be shoulder mounted could function as originally designed without a stock. Yes the gun will function however not as designed. It wouldn't be fit for purpose without a stock.

meathstevie

Feisar wrote: »

I was thinking the opposite. I don't know how one could argue that a rifle designed to be shoulder mounted could function as originally designed without a stock. Yes the gun will function however not as designed. It wouldn't be fit for purpose without a stock.

The presence or absence of a stock does nothing for a bolt action’s ability to mechanically function as designed.

I agree with you that it won’t be a very comfortable way of using it but it’s ability to go boom and more importantly to go boom again after simply reloading according to it’s mechanical design is not affected.

Feisar

meathstevie wrote: »

The presence or absence of a stock does nothing for a bolt action’s ability to mechanically function as designed.

I agree with you that it won’t be a very comfortable way of using it but it’s ability to go boom and more importantly to go boom again after simply reloading according to it’s mechanical design is not affected.

Yer right, I was reading function but in my head I was thinking how the rifle would be used. Ineffectual in use is very different from it's ability to function.

Limerick Sovereigns

2011 wrote: »

If you were to set up a “go fund me” account I would certainly contribute towards your costs. I wish you the very best of luck with this.

@DonkeyKingKong, I would also contribute to a GoFundMe account. Thanks for taking the case. Even if you are unsuccessful it will bring clarity.

Feisar

Limerick Sovereigns wrote: »

@DonkeyKingKong, I would also contribute to a GoFundMe account. Thanks for taking the case. Even if you are unsuccessful it will bring clarity.

Yea definitely do one.

donkeykingkong

2011 wrote: »

If you were to set up a “go fund me” account I would certainly contribute towards your costs. I wish you the very best of luck with this.


I might have to hold you to this down the line but hopefully it won't come to that😂


I can't say the name of the stock as it wasn't disclosed yet in court but I can describe it as below which im sure if you copy and paste into google will most likely give you a fair idea of the stock in question

"A one-piece integrated aluminium chassis and buttstock created to improve the consistency and accuracy of your bolt action rifle

Free Floating Barrel.
We let the bore do the chore. This keeps your barrel free of any contact with the chassis components for greater consistency.

Solid Action Interface.
It is designed for your specific rifle model - holding your action solid for better accuracy.

Integrated Rifle Stock
From the forend to the buttpad - the stock is one piece of aircraft grade aluminium. Solid. Straight."

As Meathstevie has said a bolt action rifle will work without a stock even the one named in the news article" including .243 calibre Savage Axis II rifle."

Absence of the stock does not stop it from functioning. Also the part of it having to be shoulder mounted is nowhere to be seen in legislation.
This would also set in effect that any accessory could then be in some way deemed a component, scopes, bipods, even picatinny rails as they are in theory same as a stock, an accessory for your firearm

Also even if by some exceptional circumstance it was decided that a stock was an essential component then I am still entitled to import it under section 21 of firearms act amendment. Which seems to have been skipped over or the fact that its an indictable offence to illegally import a firearm into the country so should these matters be passed onto the department of public protections, should I expect an armed garda unit to be kicking in my door and arresting me whilst also seizing my other firearms?? This is the reality of the situation but I have no information being given to me hence the high court application and why it was granted ex parte of the state representation being there. Hopefully in October I will have some more answers

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/act/1/section/21/enacted/en/html

There are also a large number of other issues which will be presented in court if need be which were not mentioned in the newspaper article. Although conflicting evidence from the Dept of justice firearms member should make for good Cross examination as to giving me one decision in writing and apparently a different one to revenue officer dealing with the matter.

I will go into full detail once I am allowed to do so without jeopardising the court case, but what I can say is even reading the comments that some people have imported stocks and no issues but others have them seized it's clear there is no sufficient precedent set regards this matter, it just depends on who you are unfortunate or lucky to have process your items so when people act outside the remit of their department and make themselves legislators there is a serious issue.