Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

New rules from Revenue?

14567810»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭ Zxthinger


    Mellor wrote: »

    The determination above was based entirely on the function of the items. He had nothing to do with the fact that the poster in question already possessed similar parts. Which is what you claimed.
    Lets keep it focused.. can you show me where this explicit determination on function exists..


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,500 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    Zxthinger wrote: »
    Lets keep it focused.. can you show me where this explicit determination on function exists..

    The Act defines components parts required for functioning, as firearms in themselves.

    Specifically, Section 1, 'firearm', subsection (g), article (iii)
    ( g ) ... and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:

    ...

    (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,
    You need to read the entire subsection. Subsection (g) (in red above) defines article (iii) as a component part, and therefore a firearm under section 1.

    Important to note that part (I) uses the indefinite article, "a firearm", not "the firearm". Therefore part (II) is referring to the function of any firearm, not a specific firearm.

    In the case in question, the Applicant argued that the objects did not meet the requirements of part (II), therefore it was not a component under subsection (g).
    The judge agreed;
    "...the goods did not constitute component parts within the meaning of the Firearms Acts..."
    That meaning of the firearm act is specifically subsection (g) above.
    The goods in themselves are not firearms.
    Now, hopefully that's clear. I'm surprised that that was still being questioned tbh. But lets move on.

    Now, you claimed that (additionally or otherwise) it's not a firearm/component under the act because he had functioning versions in his possession.

    Can you show me where this explicit determination on possession exists? Including the definitions referenced.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭ Zxthinger


    My three items as sought to be imported represent features which affect the appearance of my firearm but are not necessary to its functioning. My firearm is complete and functioning without any of these new items and as such under the firearms act they cannot be classified to be component parts, only accessories.

    This is what the OP said as a line of his defense..

    I cant tell you what the deliberations of the judges were.. We only seen their statement..

    He says"My firearm is complete and functioning without any of these new items and as such under the firearms act they cannot be classified to be component parts, only accessories"

    Do you see how I am drawing this point out..

    I respectfully acknowledge your argument and thank you for time you have taken explaining your points.. Thanks..


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,500 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    Zxthinger wrote: »
    This is what the OP said as a line of his defense..

    I cant tell you what the deliberations of the judges were.. We only seen their statement..

    He says"My firearm is complete and functioning without any of these new items and as such under the firearms act they cannot be classified to be component parts, only accessories"
    I'm aware he made that statement in his defense. But as I said, I think you are misinterpreting that statement.
    He is using simple language to drive the point relating to his accessories. He is not writing a legal act, and technically some of that may not be correct in other situation - irrelevant in his case.

    Basically, his statement doesn't form the law.
    The law is formed by the act, and judges determination of how to apply it.
    The judge didn't reference possession. Nor does the act.

    The object and it's function defines a firearm, not the person using it and what they have at home.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22 Excavo


    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.

    This case is now settled. Revenue lost. A precedent has now been set. You can order away directly from MDT.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,489 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    Excavo wrote: »
    This case is now settled. Revenue lost. A precedent has now been set. You can order away directly from MDT.

    I think the law has been clarified but I don't think a precedent has been set because (according to my understanding) the parties came to an agreement rather than the judge making a ruling.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    It was not a "court step" settlement but a decision read out in court. Meaning if revenue reneged the OP could go to court and the judge would review the case including the reading and see they [revenue] agreed they were wrong and it'd be a quick case. IOW precedence "by default".

    So if you find yourself in a similar situation you could cite this case, the reading would be reviewed and revenue would have to ask why your case differs from the one they agreed they were wrong on.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    Excavo wrote: »
    This case is now settled. Revenue lost. A precedent has now been set. You can order away directly from MDT.

    Yeah i know. We've been discussing the ramifications of it since it was settled. The post you quoted was from July last year when news of the case broke, but well before it was heard.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 22 Excavo


    Cass wrote: »
    It was not a "court step" settlement but a decision read out in court. Meaning if revenue reneged the OP could go to court and the judge would review the case including the reading and see they [revenue] agreed they were wrong and it'd be a quick case. IOW precedence "by default".

    So if you find yourself in a similar situation you could cite this case, the reading would be reviewed and revenue would have to ask why your case differs from the one they agreed they were wrong on.

    I was indeed in the same position and I've had mine handed back to me since this decision.
    Just a point of note, I was particularly disappointed by the NARGC - I've been a member for over 20 years and when I contacted them and spoke to them they didn't wish to get involved. It will only get harder for all of us unless our associated bodies start making a bigger effort to support individuals in bringing cases like this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭ Zxthinger


    Excavo wrote: »
    I was indeed in the same position and I've had mine handed back to me since this decision.
    Just a point of note, I was particularly disappointed by the NARGC - I've been a member for over 20 years and when I contacted them and spoke to them they didn't wish to get involved. It will only get harder for all of us unless our associated bodies start making a bigger effort to support individuals in bringing cases like this.

    I don't suppose you can divulge what types of items you acquired or the content of the correspondence issued following the items release.

    Regards zx


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22 Excavo


    Zxthinger wrote: »
    I don't suppose you can divulge what types of items you acquired or the content of the correspondence issued following the items release.

    Regards zx

    I have much correspondence in relation to my own dealings with this. Not exactly something you'd publish publicly but if anyone is in the same position I am happy to share my experiences from this 18 month long ordeal..pm me no problem.
    I can say that the goods I acquired where identical (item for item, Howa instead of Savage, chassis, poly mag 10 round, butt spacer kit, swivel stud) and purchased directly via MDT, Cananda in the same fashion.
    I found MDT to be an extremely professional and friendly company with outstanding customer service. It was a pleasure to deal with those lads and they were most helpful at all times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭ Zxthinger


    Excavo wrote: »
    I have much correspondence in relation to my own dealings with this. Not exactly something you'd publish publicly but if anyone is in the same position I am happy to share my experiences from this 18 month long ordeal..pm me no problem.
    I can say that the goods I acquired where identical (item for item, Howa instead of Savage, chassis, poly mag 10 round, butt spacer kit, swivel stud) and purchased directly via MDT, Cananda in the same fashion.
    I found MDT to be an extremely professional and friendly company with outstanding customer service. It was a pleasure to deal with those lads and they were most helpful at all times.

    That's sufficient info to be honest.. However how did they justify or explain the reasons behind the or change of direction..

    Thanks,, Dont mean to be noisy..


  • Registered Users Posts: 22 Excavo


    Zxthinger wrote: »
    That's sufficient info to be honest.. However how did they justify or explain the reasons behind the or change of direction..

    Thanks,, Dont mean to be noisy..

    At no time was a detailed explanation given, just a section of the law quoted. Pointing to, and tapping the sign so to speak. These guys are not proficient in this.
    A subsequent Garda ballistics inspection also stood over the Revenues initial seizure decision however their assessment report proved to be insufficient and lacked convincing detail. In short, you are dealing with multiple government departments here where, in all cases, a number of public servants interpreted the law incorrectly. So it went from "Your items will be destroyed" to "Your items may be returned to you" - no additional reasons given.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    Guilty till proven innocent, so to speak.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



Advertisement