M&P 15/22

EoghanS

question on an M&P 15/22
has anyone encountered significant resistance in applying for one of these.
am considering with lack of holidays likely this year.

have heard a few stories "black gun" etc.

2011

Some seem to regard these firearms as “useless inaccurate toys” that mimic the appearance of real military weapons so that owners can give the illusion that they own “the real thing”. I am not saying I support this view, I am just saying that I heard this view expressed more than once. Based on this I would not be surprised if sometimes the authorities are more reluctant to license these than something like a CZ 452 bolt action rifle.

Grizzly 45

Anyone get Licensed for a S&W 15-22? thread covered this.:pac:

kellbag91

I recently got a hammerli tacr1, which is an AR15 in appearance. No issues with the license. I stated clearly I wanted it for: mini-rifle and gallery-rifle. If you want one I'd say membership of a club is the strongest route to getting one.

otmmyboy2

EoghanS wrote: »

question on an M&P 15/22
has anyone encountered significant resistance in applying for one of these.
am considering with lack of holidays likely this year.

have heard a few stories "black gun" etc.

Define "significant" :P

Currently waiting 2.5 months so far for a sub for one.
Initially told it would have to be classed as restricted based on looks.

Thanks to Firearms United Ireland I got the ok from the firearms officer to do a sub for the 15-22, non restricted no less.

However it has still yet to come through, so watch this space :P

Best I can say, chat to your FO and see what the attitude is and go from there.

I will massively plug FUNI though, bloody marvelous folks with a great depth of knowledge in this arena!

smmember20

2011 wrote: »

Some seem to regard these firearms as “useless inaccurate toys” that mimic the appearance of real military weapons so that owners can give the illusion that they own “the real thing”. I am not saying I support this view, I am just saying that I heard this view expressed more than once. Based on this I would not be surprised if sometimes the authorities are more reluctant to license these than something like a CZ 452 bolt action rifle.

Happy to put my 15-22 against yours (what ever you have) any day and show you that what you hear is not always accurate.

Single hole groups at 25M opening to 1" at 50M but then I use it for Gallery rifle and it is perfect for the job!

Should be licenced as non-restircted if limited to 10 shot mag, but once you go over ten shot mags then the law is clear that it must be licenced as a restricted firearm, personally I don't need more than 10 shot mag to shoot Gallery Rifle, but mine is licenced for about 10 years and was deemed restricted at the time.

Mellor

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Initially told it would have to be classed as restricted based on looks.

Thanks to Firearms United Ireland I got the ok from the firearms officer to do a sub for the 15-22, non restricted no less.

I'm not surprised you were told that. As illogical as it is, the restricted list does refer to appearance as a criteria.

Is there anything you can share along how you change their mind. Or is it private and confidential?

Has there been anything on that issue that would amount to case law?

otmmyboy2

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not surprised you were told that. As illogical as it is, the restricted list does refer to appearance as a criteria.

Is there anything you can share along how you change their mind. Or is it private and confidential?

Has there been anything on that issue that would amount to case law?

Indeed, and I had seen on boards here a few times that the appearance criteria argument had been thrown out in court.

I'd advise you to contact FUNI yourself if you find yourself in a similar situation, and they'd be able to advise you on your particular circumstance.

Mellor

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Indeed, and I had seen on boards here a few times that the appearance criteria argument had been thrown out in court.

I’m not applying any time soon. But I do have a future addition in mind that might be consider mean and scary looking.

I’ve seen appearance discounted in the case of the EU assault rifle ban. But that she’s sense, that law doesn’t mention appearance (afaik).
But the restricted list does mention it. And I’ve never seen it discounted in that setting.

It shouldn’t be there. It’s almost redundant. But nonetheless, it’s there.

Grizzly 45

The latest Commissioners guidelines under CC Harris has removed this looks like and all other references to SA CF...For obvious reasons.
It's still in the act,but practical day to day employing of this has been proven to be rather difficult or practical from a Garda point of view.

There isn't HC case law on this particular point, but there is certainly HC precedent law on definitions. The famous case in 1984 of the "Waterford tractor". Where Revenue tried to get a conviction against a farmer who had converted his Hi lux pickup to a low-pressure ground sprayer and was using green diesel. The case collapsed on definitions...What is a "tractor" defined in law? We all know what one might look like,but it has to have a definition in law.Same as here What is the definition in Irish law of an "assault rifle"? If you can't define it, how can you discuss and prove that another gun looks like one?

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The latest Commissioners guidelines under CC Harris has removed this looks like and all other references to SA CF...For obvious reasons.
It's still in the act,but practical day to day employing of this has been proven to be rather difficult or practical from a Garda point of view.

That's better than nothing. But guidelines can change at the drop of a hat. I'd rather see it referenced in law, either the SI or precedent law.

Do the guidelines state that in relation to all rifles, or SA CF?
As SA CF is restricted anyway. So the looks like clause is redundant.

The only rifles that are really affected are "mitary looking" rimfires other than bullpups. It's really a small class affected. I'd just like it removed as a messy law that they agree to ignore is just sloppy and puts shooters at risk.

There isn't HC case law on this particular point, but there is certainly HC precedent law on definitions. The famous case in 1984 of the "Waterford tractor". Where Revenue tried to get a conviction against a farmer who had converted his Hi lux pickup to a low-pressure ground sprayer and was using green diesel. The case collapsed on definitions...What is a "tractor" defined in law? We all know what one might look like,but it has to have a definition in law.Same as here What is the definition in Irish law of an "assault rifle"? If you can't define it, how can you discuss and prove that another gun looks like one?

I'm familiar with that case. You've referenced it before.
But there a huge difference, a tractor wasn't defined. But as assault rifle is defined in the SI. In industry jargon, and select fire firearm is an assault rifle. There is no ambiguity in that.

(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,

The "looks like" is maybe subjective for some models. But it shouldn't be there to begin with.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

That's better than nothing. But guidelines can change at the drop of a hat. I'd rather see it referenced in law, either the SI or precedent law.

So would we all,but lets be grateful for whatever breaks we can get.

Do the guidelines state that in relation to all rifles or SA CF?
As SA CF is restricted anyway. So the looks like the clause is redundant.

It was implied as to all rifles pre the Harrison revision.
Basically, it was what we called the "Idontlikedelookodatnow" clause used to try and refuse licenses on features alone and the "might be used by IRA/Criminals" excuse. That's now gone and the licenses have to be granted on merits of the licensee and their good reasons to possess,NOT on the guns looks.
They are restricted because of calibre and mag capacity .

But there a huge difference, a tractor wasn't defined. But as assault rifle is defined in the SI. In industry jargon,

Nope, "Industry jargon" does not define an assault rifle just on that.
It has also got to be of an intermediate calibre, below a full-powered battle rifle calibre and have a detachable magazine as well.
Ergo, these 22 rifles fall again out of this definition were it to be used. Non-select fire, and below the calibres

And select-fire firearm is an assault rifle. There is no ambiguity in that.

Not necessarily true either .

The "looks like" is maybe subjective for some ALL models. But it shouldn't be there, to begin with.

As there are civilian Semi-auto rifles too and no way in Hell that could be classified as "assault rifles" or looking like one. There are even military rifles that would miss the assault rifle definition used here in Ireland on looks alone.

So what does an assault rifle look like under Irish law? The act is silent on features it must have, what sort of barrel length, stock configurations,etc... If those aren't there how can you say that it "looks like" a genuine assault rifle?
.

Peppa Cig

Now does it look ok Super?

Grizzly 45

Was that a MARS/Lever release hand back in the UK for destruction under the "paint it pink!" campaign??:eek::)

Munsterlad102

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Was that a MARS/Lever release hand back in the UK for destruction under the "paint it pink!" campaign??:eek::)

I’d heard about that campaign, have most people been painting their rifles pink or is it just a few? It’s actually a pretty good idea, stops the police taking their trophy photos with big scary black guns.

Grizzly 45

It's over now and it worked...
Even to a point that the Home office had to intervene and tell the police forces to accept guns painted ANY colour, as some police forces were refusing to pay compensation for pink painted rifles.
By and large, the working coppers who had to deal with this at the station desks thought it a great idea for an "Up yours UK Govt!" stunt.

Of course, there were a couple of sht in the pants who didn't do this,and of course their guns featured in press release photos of the "look at the dangerous guns we took off the streets!" type news articles.
Mostly in the Lower Tidmarsh daily or the Scunthorpe express. It never made the nationals.;) So a small flame of defiance in the sea of defeat.:)

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So would we all,but lets be grateful for whatever breaks we can get.

Agreed.
But I like clarity. Words have a specific meaning.
And it’s just sloppy from the law making.

That's now gone and the licenses have to be granted on merits of the licensee and their good reasons to possess,NOT on the guns looks.
They are restricted because of calibre and mag capacity .

I was referring to the guidelines you mentioned.
If they say it in relation to SA CF then it means nothing in relation to others.

Nope, "Industry jargon" does not define an assault rifle just on that.
It has also got to be of an intermediate calibre, below a full-powered battle rifle calibre and have a detachable magazine as well.
Ergo, these 22 rifles fall again out of this definition were it to be used. Non-select fire, and below the calibres

Select-fire (jargon) was my words.
The law describes an assault rifle for the purpose of the SI very clearly.

There’s no reference to calibre, detachable magazine, in the law. I appreciate technical manuals and Wikipedia do. But that’s irrelevant, as you proved.

You are conflating your extensive knowledge of what an assault rifle is, with what the laws says. The former is irrelevant.

Not necessarily true either .

I’m sorry, but thats exactly true, as defined in the SI.
I agree it’s not what it should say. It’s a bad definition. But it exists.

As there are civilian Semi-auto rifles too and no way in Hell that could be classified as "assault rifles" or looking like one.

If they miss the definition then they miss the definition. I don’t see the relevance of semi-auto civilian arms to the topic.

There are even military rifles that would miss the assault rifle definition used here in Ireland on looks alone.

Can you give an example?
Military rifles cover the full spectrum of function. So not sure what types you refer to.

So what does an assault rifle look like under Irish law? The act is silent on features it must have, what sort of barrel length, stock configurations,etc... If those aren't there how can you say that it "looks like" a genuine assault rifle?
.

Ok, I’ll give you an example.
As AK47 is classed as an assault rifle, under Irish law (restricted SI), due to select-fire. Agreed?

A modified AK, to be SA only, still resembles the above model in appearance. I can’t see how anyone can argue otherwise. Therefore it meets the definition ( fully aware that AKs foul other restrictions, just an example)


Edit:
I just realised your error and where the confusion is coming from.

If those aren't there how can you say that it "looks like" a genuine assault rifle?

The law doesn’t say “an assault rifle is a firearm that looks like an assault rifle”.
That’s a cyclic definition and would be meaningless.

It actually says “looks like a select-fire rifle”.
A terrible definition, but that’s what it says. That’s not debatable.
I’m looking for any precedent, or even a court case that has rule it doesn’t apply in relation to the SI.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

Agreed.
But I like clarity. Words have a specific meaning.
And it’s just sloppy from the law-making.

Thats because this was drawn up by people who should have a better knowledge of firearms in their profession who also had an agenda advised the politicans,and produced this mess.

I was referring to the guidelines you mentioned.
If they say it in relation to SA CF then it means nothing in relation to others

.

As I said pre Harris guidelines it implied ALL rifles/shotguns?That had these supposed features.

Select-fire (jargon) was my words.
The law describes an assault rifle for the purpose of the SI very clearly.

It describes a PROHIBITED weapon under both EU and Irish law.So its already a failed description and moot.As you cant liscense prohibited weapons here.

There’s no reference to calibre, detachable magazine, in the law. I appreciate technical manuals and Wikipedia do. But that’s irrelevant, as you proved.

Well its kind of VERY revelant if you are discussing refusing licenses on looks and features and have no clue on what you dont like.

I’m sorry, but that's exactly true, as defined in the SI.
I agree it’s not what it should say. It’s a bad definition. But it exists.

As said it defines a prohibited weapon and is so bad a definition every DC judge has agreed it is unworkable and found for the plaintiffs in 95% of these cases.



I

f they miss the definition then they miss the definition. I don’t see the relevance of semi-auto civilian arms to the topic.

It is relevant as they have tried to refuse licenses in theses court cases for semi-auto civilian rifles under the same lame "looks like an assault rifle" excuse.IE rifles like the Benelli semi-auto, the Remington 7400 woodmaster seris.Which have NEVER been, intended or designed for military life in any shape or form.

Can you give an example?
Military rifles cover the full spectrum of function. So not sure what types you refer to.

M1 carbine, M1 Garand, Springfield M1a1.German Reservist HK SL7, Soviet Chinese SKS, Swedish Lungman, Egyptian Hakim, Belgian FN49.German G43 Ruger mini14.*

All built-in semi-auto from the spec, all without any evil features of an "assault rifle" bar detachable mags Ergo, military semi-autos that don't look like the assault rifles definition.

* Was originally going to be Rugers competition to the AR15 in military trials,it never got there.But has been used by various police and paramilitary units globally as well being the std issue arm of the Bahamian army.

Ok, I’ll give you an example.
As AK47 is classed as an assault rifle, under Irish law (restricted SI), due to select-fire. Agreed?

Nope,it is classified as a prohibited weapon under both Irish and EU legislation,as are TRUE "assault rifles"

A modified AK, to be SA only, still resembles the above model in appearance. I can’t see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Wrong again! You cannot possess anymore converted from select-fire to semi-auto former assault rifles under both Irish or the EU firearms directive of 2017 which came into force in Sept 2019. So again irrelevant.

Those that are for sale today in Europe and here are "modern sporting rifles" not assault rifles in any shape or form.so again the Irish definition is moot.

The law doesn’t say “an assault rifle is a firearm that looks like an assault rifle”.
That’s a cyclic definition and would be meaningless.

It actually says “looks like a select-fire rifle”

.

Which is just as meaningless!
As what does a select-fire rifle look like?
I can convert a Ruger 10/22 to select fire, does that make normal 10/22s then assault rifles as they now look like the one I have converted to select-fire??
So I sporterise the AK mechanism by putting a nice thumbhole stock on it a
take away the bayonet holder:rolleyes:[ and therefore lose the cleaning rod as well] and put a 10 round mag in it You still want to say that looks like an AK?:eek: Cmon Man!

This looks like nonsense has been debunked in the USA,Europe and here...Its a strawman at this stage.

A terrible definition, but that’s what it says. That’s not debatable

.

Exactly, and has been found to be utterly unworkable in practical day to day application of the law. FORM does not dictate FUNCTION.

I’m looking for any precedent or even a court case that has a rule it doesn’t apply in relation to the SI.

You'll be looking...Unless you want to take into consideration over 150 district court cases with decisions for the plaintiffs over a time period 2009/13?

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As I said pre Harris guidelines it implied ALL rifles/shotguns?That had these supposed features.

I asked about current guidelines.

It describes a PROHIBITED weapon under both EU and Irish law.

We’re talking about the restricted firearms SI not the EU prohibited weapons.

They are separate laws. Classification and definitions under one doesn’t apply to the other.

Well its kind of VERY revelant if you are discussing refusing licenses on looks and features and have no clue on what you dont like.

Nope. You’ve proved as much yourself with the humus/tractor example.
Everyone knows what a tractor is. But if the law doesn’t exclude a Hilux, then a hilux was a tractor.

As said it defines a prohibited weapon and is so bad a definition every DC judge has agreed it is unworkable and found for the plaintiffs in 95% of these cases.

There are no prohibited weapons in the restricted SI. You are getting confused between two separate laws.
Of those 95% successful cases how many were licensed as non-restricted firearms?

IE rifles like the Benelli semi-auto, the Remington 7400 woodmaster seris.Which have NEVER been, intended or designed for military life in any shape or form.

Both are restricted firearms. So that argument is redundant.

M1 carbine, M1 Garand, Springfield M1a1.German Reservist HK SL7, Soviet Chinese SKS, Swedish Lungman, Egyptian Hakim, Belgian FN49.German G43 Ruger mini14.*

All built-in semi-auto from the spec, all without any evil features of an "assault rifle" bar detachable mags Ergo, military semi-autos that don't look like the assault rifles definition.

And all restricted firearms under the SI. Just like select fire (assault) rifles (as defined by the SI).

Nope,it is classified as a prohibited weapon under both Irish and EU legislation,as are TRUE "assault rifles"

I am referring to the restricted firearms SI, and the SI only. As I’ve repeated many times.

Wrong again! You cannot possess anymore converted from select-fire to semi-auto former assault rifles under both Irish or the EU firearms directive of 2017 which came into force in Sept 2019. So again irrelevant.

I acknowledged that it was not permitted for other reasons. It was an example for of appearance.
That you asked for.

Which is just as meaningless!
As what does a select-fire rifle look like?

I agree it’s useless. But the fact is that’s the law.
Pretend it’s not there in just head in the san ignorance.

Exactly, and has been found to be utterly unworkable in practical day to day application of the law. FORM does not dictate FUNCTION.

The law as written exclude both FORM and FUNCTION. That’s a fact.
I’m looking for some legal support to negate the form aspect as it pertains to the restricted firearms SI

You'll be looking...Unless you want to take into consideration over 150 district court cases with decisions for the plaintiffs over a time period 2009/13?

They won’t form case law. But a judgement could still be useful.

How many outcomes resulted with firearms licensed as non-restricted?
There is a method to the madness btw. Ideally is should be removed from the SI

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

I asked about current guidelines.

And I answered you three times,and I will a fourth...It applied to both non-CF and CF semi autos... This whole palaver about" looks like", or is an assault rifle is now GONE!!! And has been since the guidelines were reviewed under Comm Drew Harris at least 18 months ago... Can't make it any clearer for you.

We’re talking about the restricted firearms SI not the EU prohibited weapons.

No we are talking about both as it has to be taken in that context as they both apply under Irish law ,with the EU directive trumping national law . Assualt rifles are prohibited both under EU and Irish firearms legislation,because of their select fire function...Therefore the definition of describing modern sporting rifles as those is incorrect . END of!

They are separate laws. Classification and definitions under one doesn’t apply to the other.

Yes it does... You cant license or apply for a prohibited firearm under EU/Irish legislation, so, therefore, talking about assault rifles in the Irish legislation implies you are trying to license a prohibited weapon category as a restricted firearm..."Words have meanings....:)"

Nope. You’ve proved as much yourself with the humus/tractor example.

Everyone knows what a tractor is. But if the law doesn’t exclude amodified Hilux, then a Hilux was a tractor.

No ... Everyone might think what they know what a tractor is...But if there is no definition in law , well then you are arguing in abstracts. Does a tractor necessarily have to have wheels for instance? Does a tractor necessarily have to have two big wheels in the back and two small ones in the front?

There are no prohibited weapons in the restricted SI.

We'll all await you showing us your license and pics for a UZI in the near future then?:p

You are getting confused between two separate laws.
Of those 95% successful cases how many were licensed as non-restricted firearms?

[/QUOTE]
None as they were restricted on magazine capacity and calibre...Which no one had any problem with.

Both are restricted firearms. So that argument is redundant.

Wrong! They were being classified as "looking like assault rifles." When they clearly were not.
[
QUOTE]And all restricted firearms under the SI. Just like select fire (assault) rifles (as defined by the SI).
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but they have not prohibited firearms as they do not have the select-fire capability and are semi-automatic"battle rifles" for want of a better description. Hence they are not "assault rifles" or look like select-fire rifles...whatever they are...:rolleyes:
Even were you to turn them into UK straight-pull style rifles. Now even removing that primary function, some would still try the "looks like" argument when in fact the correct category is a bolt action repeater.

I acknowledged that it was not permitted for other reasons. It was an example for of appearance.
That you asked for.

Nrver asked for an example.I know the difference...Thanks all the same.:)

I agree it’s useless. But the fact is that’s the law.
Pretend it’s not there in just head in the san ignorance.

Well take that up with the learned judges ...:) they have to deal with it on a daily basis...ever hear "The law is an ass"?

The law as written exclude both FORM and FUNCTION. That’s a fact.
I’m looking for some legal support to negate the form aspect as it pertains to the restricted firearms SI

The law might say this or imply it.But the JUDGES cared to interpret it... differently in our favour. It address neither and alludes to one[Form] so vaugely as to be challengeable

They won’t form case law. But a judgement could still be useful.

150 for you in the DC courts...

How many outcomes resulted with firearms licensed as non-restricted?
There is a method to the madness btw. Ideally is should be removed from the SI

None, but that was never the point of the exercise to get them into a non-restricted category The whole point was to prove that they are not assault rifles,or that they looked like them and should be licensed in a a totally different category of Modern Sporting Rifle which they are, and has been agreed on in the DC courts.

Yes, it should be removed,but at the moment where any licenses es issued post 2017 could be revoked at a moments notice,if and when... Renders that a pointless exercise.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And I answered you three times,and I will a fourth...It applied to both non-CF and CF semi autos...

You said SA CF in your post. Which it why I asked.
And I’ve asked you to provide it. If you

No we are talking about both as it has to be taken in that context as they both apply under Irish law

The laws are not taken together. 100% wrong.

It was my question to the forum. I’ll decided what law I was asking about and not he dictated to.

Yes it does... You cant license or apply for a prohibited firearm under EU/Irish legislation, so, therefore, talking about assault rifles in the Irish legislation implies you are trying to license a prohibited weapon category as a restricted firearm..."Words have meanings....:)"

No firearms under the restricted SI are classed as prohibited.
I’m not sure why you are pretending otherwise.

No ... Everyone might think what they know what a tractor is...But if there is no definition in law

And an assault rifle is defined in law.
Anyone that suggests otherwise should go and read the SI. Saying it’s not is being obtuse.

We'll all await you showing us your license and pics for a UZI in the near future then?:p

Where have I suggested that all restricted firearms are license. comprehension is lacking a lot here Griz.

[/QUOTE]
None as they were restricted on magazine capacity and calibre...Which no one had any problem with.[/quote]
So none of them have any impact on the topic I asked about.
Again, the question was about the SI.

Wrong! They were being classified as "looking like assault rifles." When they clearly were not.

They are restricted firearms.quote]
Saying they are not simply a lie.

[Yes, but they have not prohibited firearms as they do not have the select-fire capability and are semi-automatic"battle rifles" for want of a better description. Hence they are not "assault rifles" or look like select-fire rifles...whatever they are...:rolleyes:[/quote]
I never said anything about prohibited. Nor does the SI. So of all the examples you gave, none where relevant.
If you have examples great, but posting irrelevant stuff doesn’t help.

Even were you to turn them into UK straight-pull style rifles. Now even removing that primary function, some would still try the "looks like" argument when in fact the correct category is a bolt action repeater.

Until the SI is cleaned up attempted that arbiemebt is valid.

The law might say this or imply it.But the JUDGES cared to interpret it... differently in our favour. It address neither and alludes to one[Form] so vaugely as to be challengeable

Not have to get the verdict of a judge in court is a much better solution.

150 for you in the DC courts...

I asked if anyone have examples.
If you don’t have any. But the above “find it yourself is not helpful”.

None, but that was never the point of the exercise to get them into a non-restricted category The whole point was to prove that they are not assault rifles,.

That may have been the point of that exercise.
But that has nothing to do with why I am asking. We all due respect Grizley, this is a entirely unrelated exercise.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

Y

SNIP,due to same old pernickety circular arguement

.We have done this dance before on another thread, and nothing changes.

The facts are there. This BS of "assault rifles and looks like assault rifles " has been disproven in enough DC courts to the point it has been removed from the Garda guidelines as unworkable in day to day licensing and court dealings. Despite whatever you or I say to the pro or contrary.

Any Super or chief who wants to go into court with this idea of a refusal on either type of firearms as their sole argument is looking at a hiding onto nothing.

Deal with it any way you want, argue whatever you want here. The simple fact, in reality, is this is what is happening in the really-real world of Irish firearms licensing for these types of guns and has been since 2015/16.


Can I ask.?What is your purpose behind all of this???
Are you planning some great legal challenge to the 2008 act that will get us all unrestricted semi-auto rifles? Are you an actual qualified legal professional? A law student doing a thesis on these? Do you intend to actually license one of these here? Are you ANTI these types of guns???

Or are you just here for nitpicking and hair-splitting academic arguments on a variety of topics?? Which is fine too.But be honest about it .

Cmon ..Fess up!! We'd all like to know at this stage:)

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Can I ask.?What is your purpose behind all of this???
Are you planning some great legal challenge to the 2008 act that will get us all unrestricted semi-auto rifles? Are you an actual qualified legal professional? A law student doing a thesis on these? Do you intend to actually license one of these here? Are you ANTI these types of guns???

Challenge the 2008 act? No. I’d guess it’d be legal mess.
The SI is changed with the stroke of a pen however

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

The SI is changed with the stroke of a pen however

[/QUOTE]

So what are you saying?Im still mystified???

2011

smmember20 wrote: »

Happy to put my 15-22 against yours (what ever you have) any day and show you that what you hear is not always accurate.

Single hole groups at 25M opening to 1" at 50M but then I use it for Gallery rifle and it is perfect for the job!

I don't think that a 1" group at 50m is a particularly impressive result for a target .22 rifle.

I'm not going to describe myself as an accomplished shooter but this was not too hard for me to achieve with a brand new rifle on day one and I did not have to break the bank.

Grizzly 45

Because the MP is a fun gun not a serious target rifle...It's there to plink tin cans, pop off the odd bunny, shoot at bits of wood floating down a stream,etc. IOW its a gun to enjoy shooting with.But unfortunately, the Irish law sees this differently,inso much as "fun" is a danger that we cant go and pop a few tin cans in our back lot in a safe manner,and must dedicate ourselves to sub MOA groupings on ranges in a disciplined and serious manner.:rolleyes:
Hence your MP is being asked to do a thing it was never asked to do in its design..Be target rifle accurate over 50 meters.:P