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?

2456710

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 500 ✭✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,520 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭ 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??


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,513 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,520 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,192 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 2011


    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 :(


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,815 ✭✭✭ Bogwoppit


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,520 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    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,


  • Registered Users Posts: 853 ✭✭✭ zeissman


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    “ (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.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    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.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    @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.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭ 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 255 ✭✭ Scalachi


    Best of luck with the case, and as others have said, I am sure you will have plenty of people willing to contribute, myself included.

    Personally I have imported at least 2 stocks without issue in the past, the only issue I ever had was with a barrel which was seized, I had to send a copy of my license through to prove I had a legitimate reason and the barrel was released next day.

    The issue we have is the same as Garda Districts or local "policies", I have never really had any issues over the years, but others who live close by have had refusals for the same firearm... its very frustrating.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭ meathstevie


    Donkeykingkong, I’m not a legal professional, only an interested punter but does one’s firearms certificate not permit the possession of component parts for that particular firearm if that’s the road Revenue wants go down ?

    If a certain part is deemed to be a component part or not than surely a judgement call from the powers that be in the DOJ on the requirement for an importation licence should be the end of it.

    Firearms accessories for use in connection with legally held firearms and firearms for sale to certificate holders are definitely not subject to import prohibitions into the State because if that was the case there wouldn’t be a single professional importer or trader in business anymore.

    Your entitlement to possess such items for your firearm, with the exception of stuff like night vision sights or suppressors as clearly defined in law, is already established by your local Superintendent having granted a certificate.

    Anyway, my thinking aloud is probably veering too close to arguing legal points so mods please delete if it is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,431 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Simple answer to all your points MS..is Yes!
    Your cert does permit you to hold and import replacement parts and spare barrels in the same caliber.
    Ditto point 2,3 and 4.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,805 ✭✭✭ juice1304


    Good luck with the case, If you need witnesses to talk about firearms components etc.. i would be happy to help out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭ donkeykingkong


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Simple answer to all your points MS..is Yes!
    Your cert does permit you to hold and import replacement parts and spare barrels in the same caliber.
    Ditto point 2,3 and 4.


    This is the issue where I have been baffled from the start and highlighted long before this should have reached the high court. If the state runs this case for its duration and a stock is deemed a component part then I revert back to Section 21 of firearms act where I already have a licence (obviously produced numerous times in this issue to revenue in both original not
    ice of claim, DOJ and high court affidavit)
    So the revenue commissioner still are in breach by not releasing the stock to me as the holder of a valid licence specifically for that stock.

    So am I possibly looking at a situation where the state will not run the case or withdraw and release the stock to me as they know they will incur the costs which would be substantial as expected.

    The problem here is in that event it doesn't set any legal precedent or clarification on relevant legislation. If I then accidentally break the new stock and reorder could I be faced with the same issue again (along with any Joe soap) after this unless a judge makes a ruling on it as case law


  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭ donkeykingkong


    :rolleyes:
    juice1304 wrote: »
    Good luck with the case, If you need witnesses to talk about firearms components etc.. i would be happy to help out.

    Drop me a PM thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,431 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    juice1304 wrote: »
    Good luck with the case, If you need witnesses to talk about firearms components etc.. i would be happy to help out.

    Likewise...

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,431 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    QUOTE=donkeykingkong;114324708]This is the issue where I have been baffled from the start and highlighted long before this should have reached the high court. If the state runs this case for its duration and a stock is deemed a component part then I revert back to Section 21 of firearms act where I already have a licence (obviously produced numerous times in this issue to revenue in both original not
    ice of claim, DOJ and high court affidavit)
    So the revenue commissioner still are in breach by not releasing the stock to me as the holder of a valid licence specifically for that stock.


    AFICS thats correct. Only thing I could see is that if it is a US import,did you apply for a Non EU import permit from the DOJ???Which again makes zero sense as that is AFICS it only applies to firearms and ammo,not component parts and DOJ has always said,to me at least ,your liscense is your import cert as far as they were concerned. Even importing from the EU it is a non requirement ,under free goods movement,and the stock is a non pressure bearing,or even today under the new EU directive,a "non vital function component" if that makes sense?


    So am I possibly looking at a situation where the state will not run the case or withdraw and release the stock to me as they know they will incur the costs which would be substantial as expected.


    Yup...That would be their smartest tactical move. Unless your legal team and you want to push for your day in court regardless and force the issue to be heard? Which can be a double edged sword,as is any court case. Is it about the stock or getting legal clarification and slapping customs for over exceeding their authorithy?"Principles or possesion" as my solicitor said to me handling the liscense cases.The latter can be alot more expensive legally.
    The problem here is in that event it doesn't set any legal precedent or clarification on relevant legislation. If I then accidentally break the new stock and reorder could I be faced with the same issue again (along with any Joe soap) after this unless a judge makes a ruling on it as case law

    100% correct!:(

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,520 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    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.

    Exactly. The stock doesn't affect the mechanical function.
    But the language is poor. It should specify that the function is the full range of mechanical function only.

    The "as designed" part just adds confusion. Yes a rifle is designed to be fired with the the stock shoulder mounted. But every element is design fr some function.
    If that definition includes a stock, there it also includes a replacement fluorescent sight on a shotgun - which obviously is not the intention.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭ donkeykingkong


    Mellor wrote: »
    Exactly. The stock doesn't affect the mechanical function.
    But the language is poor. It should specify that the function is the full range of mechanical function only.

    The "as designed" part just adds confusion. Yes a rifle is designed to be fired with the the stock shoulder mounted. But every element is design fr some function.
    If that definition includes a stock, there it also includes a replacement fluorescent sight on a shotgun - which obviously is not the intention.

    It would mean that hypothetically any accessory you purchase which is not defined as a component could then be classified as a component and therefore a firearm under the Act,

    The outcome of the ruling on this would mean that theoretically if a stock which in this case does not alter the function or change the category of the firearm will be deemed as a component. Then either revenue/garda ballistics/DOJ/Garda Firearm policy and procedures can at a whim make themselves legislators and decide that a bipod, scopes, scope rings, picatinny rails, shooting sticks, or as you said fluorescent sight on a shotgun or any other accessory even a sling, all become components as they are all "designed" for use with a firearm although they have no impact on the mechanical function of the firearm same as the stock in this case.


    Also although the traditional and most comfortable way to fire a rifle is that it is shoulder mounted, there is no where in the firearms act where this is stated, again people acting as legislators and writing the laws to suit their opinion knowing that in 99% of the cases people will not challenge their decision.

    If i was born with cerebral palsy like christy brown or had some other condition and could only use my feet to fire the rifle but had the scope adapted by some engineer to be able to see it while sitting in a seat or lying on my back and the rifle did not need to be shoulder mounted for me to see the target and safely fire that rifle then how can the issue of "shoulder mounted" even be a point to be argued. same as a shotgun, what if due to some spinal condition I am by far safer and more accurate firing from the hip does this make me reckless with the discharge and guilty of such an offence??

    So many questions and this is just on 1 sub -subsection of the whole Act yet it will take a high court challenge and a potential huge expense on my part to even look for clarification on this.


Advertisement