Legality of ordering magazines/cylinders

Southerner45

*Rookie question coming up*

Just wondering if its legal to order magazines or cylinders online provided they conform to the 5 round limit?

Thanks lads

Cass

Yes, assuming you have the requisite license. In other words you must have a firearms license to order mags for the firearm. I know that is beyond obvious, but no harm mentioning it.

Also the 5 round limit only applies to pistols, and even then you can get 10 round ones, block them as per SI 391/2015

firearms which are designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition and use magazines that have been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition”.

Rimfire rifles can have 10 rounds (bolt or semi auto) and the same now applies for centrefire under SI 420/2019

Southerner45

Cass wrote: »

Yes, assuming you have the requisite license. In other words you must have a firearms license to order mags for the firearm. I know that is beyond obvious, but no harm mentioning it.

Also the 5 round limit only applies to pistols, and even then you can get 10 round ones, block them as per



Rimfire rifles can have 10 rounds (bolt or semi auto) and the same now applies for centrefire under

Thanks for the info. I already know laods about guns themselves but it feels like even for experienced shooters there is still a lot to learn about the Irish gun laws.

By the way, where exactly in the first link does it say up to 10 rounds are permitted? It would be nice to be able to get a .22lr revolver and not have to worry about getting a cylinder specially manufactured/plugged to hold FIVE rounds instead of the usual 6. Plus plugging chambers is just a headache when it comes to shooting the damn thing.

Cass

Southerner45 wrote: »

By the way, where exactly in the first link does it say up to 10 rounds are permitted?

It doesn't because its not, well not for pistols. Going by the rest of the post that seems to be what you are referring to.

It would be nice to be able to get a .22lr revolver and not have to worry about getting a cylinder specially manufactured/plugged to hold FIVE rounds instead of the usual 6..

You cannot. As I said above:

Cass wrote:

Also the 5 round limit only applies to pistols, and even then you can get 10 round ones, block them as per SI 391/2015

All rimfire pistols MUST be blocked (mag or cylinder) to hold no more than 5 rounds. That is SI 21/2008 as amended by SI 337/2009:

SI337/2009 wrote:

(iii) other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is greater than 10 cm.

The link above regarding SI391/2015 refers to blocking/modifying the magazine/cylinder to hold no more than 5 which allows a person to buy a magazine that holds more than 5 THEN have it blocked/modified down to only 5 rounds:

SI391/2015 wrote:

...... use magazines that have been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition

The 10 rounds limit applies to rimfire rifles under an unrestricted license and is specifically mentioned in SI21/2008:

SI21/2008 wrote:

(ii) single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds,

Of course you can have more than 10 rounds in a rimfire rifle if you apply for a restricted license.

However you cannot get restricted licenses for ANY pistol anymore which means you cannot get one for a 22lr pistol and hence can never have more than 5 rounds. Some lads have restricted licenses for rimfire pistols but they were licensed prior to 2008 and hence got to keep them.

Southerner45

Cass wrote: »

It doesn't because its not, well not for pistols. Going by the rest of the post that seems to be what you are referring to.


You cannot. As I said above:

All rimfire pistols MUST be blocked (mag or cylinder) to hold no more than 5 rounds. That is SI 21/2008 as amended by SI 337/2009:


The link above regarding SI391/2015 refers to blocking/modifying the magazine/cylinder to hold no more than 5 which allows a person to buy a magazine that holds more than 5 THEN have it blocked/modified down to only 5 rounds:



The 10 rounds limit applies to rimfire rifles under an unrestricted license and is specifically mentioned in SI21/2008:

Of course you can have more than 10 rounds in a rimfire rifle if you apply for a restricted license.

However you cannot get restricted licenses for ANY pistol anymore which means you cannot get one for a 22lr pistol and hence can never have more than 5 rounds. Some lads have restricted licenses for rimfire pistols but they were licensed prior to 2008 and hence got to keep them.

I'm aware of all this, which is why I was surprised when you said "even then you can get 10 round ones, block them as per SI 391/2015"

I thought you meant 10 rounds were permitted but I understand you now. My mistake.

Ridiculous laws. I like to think someone will challenge these like what happened in 2004 because our laws are totally unfair for people interested in shooting and hunting. Fingers crossed we see some positive change and representation in the near future. We are not criminals.

BattleCorp

Southerner45 wrote: »

I'm aware of all this, which is why I was surprised when you said "even then you can get 10 round ones, block them as per SI 391/2015"

I thought you meant 10 rounds were permitted but I understand you now. My mistake.

Ridiculous laws. I like to think someone will challenge these like what happened in 2004 because our laws are totally unfair for people interested in shooting and hunting. Fingers crossed we see some positive change and representation in the near future. We are not criminals.

Even if they changed the bloody 5 round rule for pistols/revolvers to 6 rounds, it would be a huge help and wouldn't result in the end of the world. Most Gallery competitions have strings of 6 so having a 5 shot magazine makes no sense.

It would also stop people having to block one chamber on a standard 6 shot revolver. It's just dumb having to do that.

Cass

Olympics dude. That was the basis for the 5 round thingy, iirc.

Southerner45

BattleCorp wrote: »

Even if they changed the bloody 5 round rule for pistols/revolvers to 6 rounds, it would be a huge help and wouldn't result in the end of the world. Most Gallery competitions have strings of 6 so having a 5 shot magazine makes no sense.

It would also stop people having to block one chamber on a standard 6 shot revolver. It's just dumb having to do that.

Exactly what I've been saying my man. Incredibly unreasonable.

Southerner45

Cass wrote: »

Olympics dude. That was the basis for the 5 round thingy, iirc.

I understand that but its deeper than that. All the gun laws here are restricted beyond any reasonable level, to the point where they make no sense and appear to be written by people who have never touched or seen a firearm in their life.

I hate to complain, but I, along with everyone else on this board, am interested in shooting. I'd even call myself a gun enthusiast. I've always loved them, and from a young age was taught to respect, but not fear or hate them. No self respecting shooting enthusiast should be happy with these irrational laws .

I'm not saying everyone should be armed. Truth be told I actually like feeling like I'm in a special club as a gun owner. Like it's my "thing" that not many others have.

And, credit where it's due, I think the application process is quite good, as it weeds out people who have no knowledge of guns, as well as people who are a danger to themselves or the public. Which is exactly why people who HAVE been cleared to own guns should have a little more freedom in terms of choice of caliber, magazine capacity, etc. As gun owners, we must behave better than the average citizen, as any wrong move and we could have our licence revoked. And yet these nanny state laws treat us like criminals. Whenever there's a shooting with an unregistered firearm, from the black market or whatever, they restrict our laws further, which perperuates this problem. Restricting laws for the good guys (us) and not for the bad guys is really where the problem is.

Apologies for any spelling or grammar mistakes, typing this at work.

And sorry for the rant but this is what most of us are thinking. I don't think we should settle for this.

Cass

I don't disagree with your opinion(s).

Look at it this way. When the state was first founded AGS was originally or intended to be an armed force. However as it was made up of ex freedom fighters/IRA men there was concern about them having guns and being unhappy with RIC men getting senior jobs so the force "became" an unarmed one. Well that is the story anyway and its a contentious issue which many would dispute and just as many agree with.

My point is the reason we have the gun laws we have is because of mistrust. We, regardless of licensing, are not trusted. Not entirely. The firearms act, originally, was meant to control and register the amount of guns because back then a gun was primarily a tool to source food and prtect livestock/crops. However it has evolved, especially in recent years, into something that is more social justice warrior and virtue signaling than actual workable laws. Hell some laws had to be amended and even scrapped because they were illegal, contradicted existing laws or were just so badly written they were useless.

The pistol ban of 2008 was as a result of the senseless murder of Shane Geoghahan, yet banning those who would abide by the law from having guns similar to those used did not impact gun crime or the people that exist outside the law. In other words we, the shooting community, are now judged and penalised on the actions of others and not on our own character/actions.

Our sport is under constant "attack". By those that don't want any guns in civilian hands, those that don't understand the sport and mostly by the general public who through ignorance don't care what our reasons are, just the fact we use guns is enough to hate us and the sport. That will not change. Those same people become legislators, politicians and civil servants and bring that attitude to their job and hence we now have the same fight with someone that has the power to strip us of our sporting tools.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Even if they changed the bloody 5 round rule for pistols/revolvers to 6 rounds, .

The only hint of light there is its an SI which if the Minister were to address could be undone in days/weeks or even amended as quick. Does not require a change to the primary legislation.

For whatever worth that is.

Southerner45

Cass wrote: »

I don't disagree with your opinion(s).

Look at it this way. When the state was first founded AGS was originally or intended to be an armed force. However as it was made up of ex freedom fighters/IRA men there was concern about them having guns and being unhappy with RIC men getting senior jobs so the force "became" an unarmed one. Well that is the story anyway and its a contentious issue which many would dispute and just as many agree with.

My point is the reason we have the gun laws we have is because of mistrust. We, regardless of licensing, are not trusted. Not entirely. The firearms act, originally, was meant to control and register the amount of guns because back then a gun was primarily a tool to source food and prtect livestock/crops. However it has evolved, especially in recent years, into something that is more social justice warrior and virtue signaling than actual workable laws. Hell some laws had to be amended and even scrapped because they were illegal, contradicted existing laws or were just so badly written they were useless.

The pistol ban of 2008 was as a result of the senseless murder of Shane Geoghahan, yet banning those who would abide by the law from having guns similar to those used did not impact gun crime or the people that exist outside the law. In other words we, the shooting community, are now judged and penalised on the actions of others and not on our own character/actions.

Our sport is under constant "attack". By those that don't want any guns in civilian hands, those that don't understand the sport and mostly by the general public who through ignorance don't care what our reasons are, just the fact we use guns is enough to hate us and the sport. That will not change. Those same people become legislators, politicians and civil servants and bring that attitude to their job and hence we now have the same fight with someone that has the power to strip us of our sporting tools.

As hopeless as all that is, its true. And you are 100% right. Total ignorance is what it is.

I have to accept some ignorance on my part though, as I didnt know about the Geoghann murder. I was under the impression the re-restriction was due to "far too many high caliber easily concealable weapons of mass destruction in the state" or whatever insane justification they have for it. I do take gun safety very seriously though and it truly disgusts me what some people use firearms for.

However I think our community is far too complacent. A lot of people have a hopeless attitude of lie down and take it, theres nothing we can do. But you habe to remember the people who write the laws and rules don't work exclusively for any one community. They work for me and you just as much as they work for the general public, and it should be their best interest to achieve a win-win situation for everyone, which is not what we have at the moment...

I hate to sound like an agitator or something but we need to do something about this. For most of us here, shooting isn't something thats taken lightly. Its taken seriously and means too much to us to let these ignorant, unqualified people take it away from us. I know this is somewhat unrelated but women (and men) cant even legally carry pepper spray for self defense. I think that really quantifies the ignorance and laziness of the people we are dealing with. Something's got to give, man.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

Olympics dude. That was the basis for the 5 round thingy, iirc.

Ah yeah, I know that.

Still can't understand though why the 'powers that be' couldn't be encouraged to increase it by one round so that we don't have to bastardise revolvers and can shoot a T&P with a pistol without having to have one 'up the spout'.

Cass

Simples, they didn't want them at all and once the "official" stuff was catered for (where the money and international recognition comes from) the rest of us can go sh*te. If lads decide to give up shooting, then its a bonus to them.

Grizzly 45

Southerner45 wrote: »

However I think our community is far too complacent. A lot of people have a hopeless attitude of lie down and take it, theres nothing we can do. But you habe to remember the people who write the laws and rules don't work exclusively for any one community. They work for me and you just as much as they work for the general public, and it should be their best interest to achieve a win-win situation for everyone, which is not what we have at the moment..

.

Dude,if you had been here 15 years ago on Boards.ie , you would have seen hopelessness and complacency,as well as in the shooting orgs. Things have changed alot, and it is debatable,but alot would say for the better.;)

Southerner45

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Southerner45 wrote: »

.

Dude,if you had been here 15 years ago on Boards.ie , you would have seen hopelessness and complacency,as well as in the shooting orgs. Things have changed alot, and it is debatable,but alot would say for the better.;)

Thats good to hear, and thats the kind of optimism i like to see. I suppose being bitter doesnt help either.

Im still young. In my lifetime I hope to see more positive changes that benefit us in the community while not harming society. Fingers crossed we see plenty of new blood in the community in years to come and hopefully some more rational, mature and informed lawmakers. If the community keeps growing they'll have to make some compromises

kellbag91

Its true laws are tight and it's not the easiest of sports to get into. But you'd be surprised what you can own, and what's being more commonly licensed these days, restricted semi-auto rifles for one. But I have often wondered will we ever get full bore pistols back. Is there even a group lobbying for it to be reintroduced. Its a thriving sport up North yet dying out down here.

tudderone

kellbag91 wrote: »

Its true laws are tight and it's not the easiest of sports to get into. But you'd be surprised what you can own, and what's being more commonly licensed these days, restricted semi-auto rifles for one. But I have often wondered will we ever get full bore pistols back. Is there even a group lobbying for it to be reintroduced. Its a thriving sport up North yet dying out down here.

Nope, thats come and gone and i don't see it back down here.

tudderone

Southerner45 wrote: »

As hopeless as all that is, its true. And you are 100% right. Total ignorance is what it is.

I have to accept some ignorance on my part though, as I didnt know about the Geoghann murder. I was under the impression the re-restriction was due to "far too many high caliber easily concealable weapons of mass destruction in the state" or whatever insane justification they have for it. I do take gun safety very seriously though and it truly disgusts me what some people use firearms for.

However I think our community is far too complacent. A lot of people have a hopeless attitude of lie down and take it, theres nothing we can do. But you habe to remember the people who write the laws and rules don't work exclusively for any one community. They work for me and you just as much as they work for the general public, and it should be their best interest to achieve a win-win situation for everyone, which is not what we have at the moment...

I hate to sound like an agitator or something but we need to do something about this. For most of us here, shooting isn't something thats taken lightly. Its taken seriously and means too much to us to let these ignorant, unqualified people take it away from us. I know this is somewhat unrelated but women (and men) cant even legally carry pepper spray for self defense. I think that really quantifies the ignorance and laziness of the people we are dealing with. Something's got to give, man.

The Geoghan murder was just an excuse, it was senior gardai of a certain vintage blowing horror stories into ministers ears, namely hob goblin Dermot Ahern. The twit up north giving armed bodyguard courses, with his Irish wolfhound and stupid kilt, was what really had bumholes twitching in Leinster house.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Nope, thats come and gone and i don't see it back down here.

It could be,because there has been a change in govts,staff,politcans etc since then,been over a decade now.But there is no shooters will in the organisations either to take this on

kellbag91

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It could be,because there has been a change in govts,staff,politcans etc since then,been over a decade now.But there is no shooters will in the organisations either to take this on[/quote

The powers that be have indeed changed. Never has there been a better time to start bringing up the issue with lobby groups. With Drew Harris as Commissioner there is a more sympotethic response. He comes from a place where pistol shooting is common, and understands the world doesn't fall in.

Appoliges for the grammar it's late

Grizzly 45

kellbag91 wrote: »

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It could be,because there has been a change in govts,staff,politcans etc since then,been over a decade now.But there is no shooters will in the organisations either to take this on[/quote

The powers that be have indeed changed. Never has there been a better time to start bringing up the issue with lobby groups. With Drew Harris as Commissioner there is a more sympotethic response. He comes from a place where pistol shooting is common, and understands the world doesn't fall in.

Appoliges for the grammar it's late

Harris isnt pro gun either.He wont do anything to help us out much.But he would certainly know the difference between IPSC and "combat training"comeing from NI.
Thats if we had a repersentative body who could be arsed trying to restart it down in the South .

tudderone

Why not look for .32's initially ? Thats whats used by paper punchers in the centrefire class.

Cass

Its not the caliber that is the problem, its the license. You cannot even get a 22lr with a 6+ round mag/cylinder as its a restricted license hence no longer allowed to be applied for.

There is no use in going looking for relaxing for specific calibers. It'll only add to the internal conflict among shooters of various comps.

The better option is the removal or repeal of SI21/2008 (& SI337/2009 by default) or more realistically an amendment/repealing off section 3(D) of the principal act.

Zxthinger

I still hold firm to the idea that the magazine restrictions apply to magazines and not to cylinders.
One is removable at speed by design and many can be carried
The other is possibly removable without tools but not in style or speed of a magazine

A magazine fed gun with six shots can be had by follow the somewhat unsafe or practice of placing one in the chamber. This is possible with a cylinder.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

I still hold firm to the idea that the magazine restrictions apply to magazines and not to cylinders.

How so?

One is removable at speed by design and many can be carried

Irrelevant.

The other is possibly removable without tools but not in style or speed of a magazine

Irrelevant.

A magazine fed gun with six shots can be had by follow the somewhat unsafe or practice of placing one in the chamber.

Now making it a six shot, hence restricted, hence illegal after 2008 without the requisite license.

This is possible with a cylinder.

Now making it a six shot, hence restricted, hence illegal after 2008 without the requisite license.

Your belief that a loophole exists is flawed in the simple fact that not one person has availed of it, and the law says, in black and white, the complete opposite. Seriously, this is one of the issues that is fairly straight forward.

Lastly we spend a lot of time convincing people that we are not criminals and should not be lumped in with them. Every time a new law comes in because of some criminality that has nothing to do with the shooting community we all get, rightly, pissed off. How about we not give even the slightest hint that such accusation may have merit by suggesting breaking the law, even if its only hypothetical and whatifery.


Its late so if any of that comes across as aggressive, its not intended.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

Lastly we spend a lot of time convincing people that we are not criminals and should not be lumped in with them. Every time a new law comes in because of some criminality that has nothing to do with the shooting community we all get, rightly, pissed off.

You could put that to music and write a song. I lost my pistols, as did many others, due to some scummy floater shooting an innocent man in Limerick. Not the sort of person i want to be lumped in with.

Zxthinger

A magazine stores ammunition. The ammunition is not chambered or ready to be fired.

A cylinder is part of the firing mechanism, as all rounds of ammunition are already chambered and ready to fire in turn.

Clips fill magazines. Speed loaders fill chambers......!

No one is looking for a loophole but rather the limits of a unfare and over zealous law. The same law that has not fully addressed included the correct nomenclature for the components it wishes to control.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

A magazine stores ammunition. The ammunition is not chambered or ready to be fired.

It holds the rounds, not store them, but I get your point.

A cylinder is part of the firing mechanism, as all rounds of ammunition are already chambered and ready to fire in turn.

See here is the problem.

To get a proper answer on the magazine issue (5 in the mag and one in the spout) would require a court case. That would only happen if someone were "caught" doing it. At this point you are now in court to defend your actions, meaning someone believes you have broken the firearms act and breached the conditions of your license (having a restricted firearm on unrestricted license).

Now i personally don't believe such a court case would turn out well for the defendant (shooter), but even if it did your head would spin on how quick a new SI would be written that would not only clarify that but, given past history, be even more severe/harsh than it's predecessors.

Now onto the crux of the matter. The revolver. A semi auto with a mag stands a chance of being argued, but a revolver with a cylinder does not because, as yo rightly pointed out, the cylinder is an integral part of the gun and cannot be removed (without tools) like a magazine can. Therefore the "option" of putting one in the spout does not exist as a revolver does not have a spout on the sense of a semi auto. IOW you cannot place a round in the spout and then load 5 more into the loading device (the cylinder). So you end up putting 6 into the cylinder and bingo, you have now breached the conditions of your license (restricted firearm on unrestricted license) and violated the firearms act.

That one will never win in a court case as its a clear violation of the Act and SIs.

Clips fill magazines. Speed loaders fill chambers......!

Unless you are using an M1 or similar type firearm i have no idea what a "clip" has to do with anything. Semi auto pistols use magazines and revolvers use cylinders. Clips have no place in that discussion and without trying to be a dick, "gangsta" talk form the TV is useless on a forum discussion.

Same applies to the speed loader comment. I don't see the relevance. If there is one please explain it or elaborate on your point. How quickly a firearm can loaded is moot. Its the quantity not the speed that is legislated for.

No one is looking for a loophole but rather the limits of a unfare and over zealous law. The same law that has not fully addressed included the correct nomenclature for the components it wishes to control.

I don't disagree with this. The first SI (21/2008) had no part (iii) for section (e) in article 4(2). Then the 2009 SI (337/2009) added the third part to article 4(2) section (e) by legislating for the magazine size and it defined it by the amount of rounds a firearm can hold. Not the magazine or cylinder or loading device, the firearm.

Then in the last SI of 2015 (SI391/2015) that entire subparagraph was replaced with an updated one which removed the round limit on the firearm and instead placed it on the magazine. IOW the limit was now on the mag holding no more than 5 instead of the previous SI which said the firearm could not be loaded with more than 5.

There is the possibility of the court case for the semi auto, but again its only a possibility and requires a court case to finally settle the issue, but that "grey" area does not extend to revolver and cylinders as the cylinder is "fixed" and to load a sixth round would require it to be in the "magazine" of the revolver, that being the cylinder, as there is no way or option to put one directly into the spout.

Zxthinger

No gangster talk here. A clip is used to feed a fixed magazine. Some call it a stripper clip.
I also made a typo with the ref to one in the spout regarding a revolver, of course that's not possible with that configuration.

The real issue is that a magazine is not a cylinder, and pistols(short-arms) can only be configured to use a mag that's restricted to 5 shots.

so it could be taken that revolvers which don't have magazines are not licencable here in Eire.

The one this is certainly true, the person the made this five shot rule was a sadistic bas&£&£&£

Grizzly 45

Zxthinger wrote: »

No

The one this is certainly true, the person the made this five shot rule was a sadistic bas&£&£&£

Or some ol Coot who was using a single action Colt, or watched a lot of Westerns, where old-time gunslingers used to carry a hammer on an empty chamber as a safety feature.[Yes folks did believe in gun safety in the not so wild west, contrary to what Hollywood informs us:rolleyes:] Known as the" Dead man's chamber" Some gunfighters used to stuff it with folded up big dollar bills for "burial money" when their time came.

So don't be surprised if some aul twit remembering his childhood Tom Mix and Roy Rodgers matinee specials, decided that all revolvers were still in this single action only configuration today, and this was still a prudent law to have.NOTHING would surprise me here with the logic applied in Ireland to firearms law that this proably happened.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

No gangster talk here. A clip is used to feed a fixed magazine. Some call it a stripper clip.

I understood the reference, hence my explanation of both uses of the word however my point still stands. The method of loading a magazine/cylinder is redundant in the context of this conversation. How you put the bullets into the loading device is moot, only the quantity is relevant.

so it could be taken that revolvers which don't have magazines are not licencable here in Eire.

Nope.

By plugging the sixth chamber of the cylinder you reduce the capacity of the firearm to 5 shots, hence legal. No debate or confusion on that matter. That is how it has been for over 11 years now.

The one this is certainly true, the person the made this five shot rule was a sadistic bas&£&£&£

Not sadistic, not even uninformed, just poorly informed and listened to only one group above all else because it suited their agenda to do so.