Ruger target lite

aidan.mcintyre

My local firearms officer is refusing to allow me to licence a new ruger target lite for my sons 18th birthday saying the barrel is too short. The gun is completely standard and is in stock with the distributor, it has a 16.13 inch barrel. As far as I know most of the Ruger 10/22s have this. Is this guy nuts or is this the law.

cookimonster

The Act -
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/26/section/65/enacted/en/html

This may be a grey area or not as the act talks about 'modified' barrel length' either the act of doing so or possession. But in this case the rifle barrel is not modified but a manufacturer design, factory stock in its dimensions.

I remember that there was talk about this before in relation to someone taking a test case for the likes of your situation as there are many companies who produce short barrelled rifles.

You could use the above section to politely argue your case differentiating between modified and factory stock.

tudderone

Your local fo has no power to grant or refuse sfa. Tell him to process the application and if the Super refuses it, fine, get it in writing and head to the district court.

zeissman

tudderone wrote: »

Your local fo has no power to grant or refuse sfa. Tell him to process the application and if the Super refuses it, fine, get it in writing and head to the district court.

I just bought a new tikka 22lr and the local officer who checks gun security did ask me the barrel length stating that anything less than 50 cm was illegal .
Mine is OK as I bought the 20in model

tudderone

Whats the maximum length of a pistol barrel ? Isn't there a certain length thats too short for a rifle licence and to long for a pistol licence ? A barrel length no-mans-land ? There has to be a rational solution, a muzzle brake threaded on and pinned to take it over 20".

clivej

Best to ask that FO to show you the relevant firearms section that states, what he is saying. And then tell him to process your application as you are within the limits.
I think anything under 12" is a short firearm, a handgun. I've seen 10/22 with a 12.5", 14",and the usual 16" barrels and up.

Mellor

tudderone wrote: »

Whats the maximum length of a pistol barrel ? Isn't there a certain length thats too short for a rifle licence and to long for a pistol licence ? A barrel length no-mans-land ? There has to be a rational solution, a muzzle brake threaded on and pinned to take it over 20".

In the restricted firearms SI;
Short firearm is a barrel under 30cm or overall length under 60cm.

Everything else is a long firearm.
Shotguns are the only long firearm with a barrel length restriction. 24”/61cm.
A 16” barrel on a rifle is 100% not restricted.
If this were a CF rifle, it would be too short overall. But not such limit applies to RF.

The restricted SI isn’t the be-all-end-all of what you can license. But the shotgun length is important when comparing to the firearms act.

Section 65 of the Act outlines that it’s an offence to shorten a rifle under 50cm or a shotgun under 61cm. The act of shortening is illegal. This does not apply here as we are dealing with a stock barrel.
This is to prevent people modifying a firearm after it has been licensed.

Note the restricted length of a shotgun in the SI is the same as the above. Clearly a conscious effort was made to restrict shotgun shorter than this length. The same was not applied to rifles.
If these ruin 65 implied that those were the legal limits, then there would be no need to include the 61cm shotgun restriction in the SI. Therefore they are demonstratably not a legal limit.

Subsection 5 also makes it an offence to possess a firearm under these limits without good reason or
lawful authority. A firearms license is lawful authority. So that section does not apply either.
It also mentions that a register dealer can posses without reason or lawful authority - why would a dealer be permitted or need to possess a firearm that can’t be licensed? Again, because they can actually be licensed.

It’s a easy mistake to make to be fair. But go in with a cool head and lay it all out and it will hopefully resolve.

(Hopefully I haven’t missed some other section that creates a limit)

cookimonster

Mellor wrote: »

Subsection 5 also makes it an offence to possess a firearm under these limits without good reason or
lawful authority. A firearms license is lawful authority. So that section does not apply either.

I would assume that this is a belt and braces approach, covering the eventuality of a pre exsisting licenced firearm being altered in its barrel lenght. Then it could be construed that the licence is no longer vaild as it was issued on the particulars of that firearm in its orginal configuration.

Mellor wrote: »

It also mentions that a register dealer can posses without reason or lawful authority - why would a dealer be permitted or need to possess a firearm that can’t be licensed?

This may cover a multitude of things from destruction, repair, modification, storage etc.

aidan.mcintyre, if you follow the link in my first post, simply print it off and highlight the sections detailing modifications and draft a letter pointing out that the act doesn't cover stock models.

A stalking buddy of mine had to gently steer his new FOafter he sent his substitution up to the Super for consideration as in his opinion it was a restricted firearm. After a swift but polite conversation the young Garda soon realised his mistake in processing a bolt action 308 substitution that was like for like right down to the same maker and model.

Mellor

cookimonster wrote: »

I would assume that this is a belt and braces approach, covering the eventuality of a pre exsisting licenced firearm being altered in its barrel lenght. Then it could be construed that the licence is no longer vaild as it was issued on the particulars of that firearm in its orginal configuration.

The way I see it.
Subsection 1 cover the person who modifies the rifle.
Subsection 6 covers a situation where somebody posses a rifle somebody else modified unlawfully.

Regarding the second part. The modifying shouldn’t affect a license. As you could modify a 24” to 21” without issue imo.

This may cover a multitude of things from destruction, repair, modification, storage etc.

Repair and modification are covered and permitted under subsection 2.

The long and short of it is that the only sections that refer to 50cm also refer to modification.
Except (6) which permits lawful authority possession, ie a licence.
Printing it off and running through that should be easy enough.

smmember20

aidan.mcintyre wrote: »

My local firearms officer is refusing to allow me to licence a new ruger target lite for my sons 18th birthday saying the barrel is too short. The gun is completely standard and is in stock with the distributor, it has a 16.13 inch barrel. As far as I know most of the Ruger 10/22s have this. Is this guy nuts or is this the law.

So this is a strange one:
1) Question for FO, is what specific regulation is he using in his judgment that the firearm cannot be licenced
2) If it is in the country and in the posession of a firearms dealer then by definition it must be capable of being licenced, in additon many have been licended to date of that model.

The only reference to length is defining a rifle of less tham 90cm being restricted as per commissionoers guidelines, so you are not in that arena.

Maybe there is some confusion here in the act?

12A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who shortens the barrel of—

(a) a shot-gun to a length of less than 61 centimetres, or

(b) a rifle to a length of less than 50 centimetres,

This section only relates to the act of shortenting the Barrel efectively meaning if an individual other than a firearms dealer shortens the barrel to less than 50 cm they are guilty of an offence.............. nothing more.

(6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—

(a) a shot-gun the barrel of which is less than 61 centimetres in length,

(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,

Part 6 states what it states, lawful authority is having a firearms certificate, so in essence you can licence any barrel lenght you wish.

In my view this is a pathethic effort as is usual to have defined in the legislation the act of shortening and also define criminal trangressions by having firearms with shortend barrels

My view of course
Only a firearms dealer can shorten a barrel to less than 50cm
You need a licence to have a rifle with a barrel length of less than 50cm

So whats new, you FO is way off whack.

Suggest as in all these cases make an appointment to meet the super who is the licening person and see where in lies the issue!

Good Luck with the process

Apologies I may have just duplicated Mellors advice, I hadn't see it prior to my response, but essentially it is good to see many opinions all of the same mind.

aidan.mcintyre

Thanks all. That what i thought from my reading of the act also. It looks like the FO is just making things up again. Nothing new I suppose.

jb88

aidan.mcintyre wrote: »

My local firearms officer is refusing to allow me to licence a new ruger target lite for my sons 18th birthday saying the barrel is too short. The gun is completely standard and is in stock with the distributor, it has a 16.13 inch barrel. As far as I know most of the Ruger 10/22s have this. Is this guy nuts or is this the law.

Its on the statute books 19.65 inches is the minimum for a rifle. I think Criminal Justice Act 2006. But its definately in the legislation. Its 24 inches for a Shotgun, looked this up not too long ago.

Mellor

jb88 wrote: »

Its on the statute books 19.65 inches is the minimum for a rifle. I think Criminal Justice Act 2006. But its definately in the legislation. Its 24 inches for a Shotgun, looked this up not too long ago.

The act quoted above is the Criminal Justice Act 2006. There’s no legal limit on a rifle length that I can see. But firearms law comes from a number of sources, so maybe it’s somewhere else.

BattleCorp

Have a look at Section 65 below, specifically 12A.-(6)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/26/section/65/enacted/en/html


Here it is if you are too lazy to look at the attached link. :pac:

(6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—


(a) a shot-gun the barrel of which is less than 61 centimetres in length,


(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,


(c) a converted firearm mentioned in subsection (3), or


(d) a firearm which has been modified as described in subsection (4).



You can possibly argue what 'lawful authority' or 'reasonable excuse' means. Does lawful authority mean your licence? Does reasonable excuse mean that you needed the shorter barrel for certain target shooting competitions, easier to carry when hunting etc? Who knows?

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

You can possibly argue what 'lawful authority' or 'reasonable excuse' means. Does lawful authority mean your licence? Does reasonable excuse mean that you needed the shorter barrel for certain target shooting competitions, easier to carry when hunting etc? Who knows?

That was covered above. A license is lawful authority to possess a rifle. That subsection doesn’t apply.
Which is reinforced by the fact the shotgun length limit in that section is also the restricted length. Which is legal on a restricted license. No such requirement exists for rifles.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

That was covered above. A license is lawful authority to possess a rifle. That subsection doesn’t apply.
Which is reinforced by the fact the shotgun length limit in that section is also the restricted length. Which is legal on a restricted license. No such requirement exists for rifles.

Just to be awkward I'll argue with you here.

If you don't have lawful authority (possibly a licence) you can't have a firearm of any length so why would there be a need to put in that section if it wasn't going to apply?

Just because you have a licence doesn't mean 100% that you have lawful authority, e.g. if I was granted a centrefire pistol licence, I wouldn't have lawful authority because the law forbids me from having one. Same thinking for barrel length. If I've a licence for a gun that's too short, maybe the licence isn't valid.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

Just to be awkward I'll argue with you here.

If you don't have lawful authority (possibly a licence) you can't have a firearm of any length so why would there be a need to put in that section if it wasn't going to apply?

By all means play the devils advocate.
I believe that was covered by the above though. That subsection (6) covers the possession of a rifle/shotgun shortened by somebody else.
If that subsection wasn't included, only the person who shortened the firearm has committed a crime under subsection 1. Meaning the licensed owner would be free to posses it.

It would seem that shorting a rifle from 24" to 22", for example, would be premitted.

Just because you have a licence doesn't mean 100% that you have lawful authority, e.g. if I was granted a centrefire pistol licence, I wouldn't have lawful authority because the law forbids me from having one.

Can you point out the law that prevents you from having one?
I'm not a pistol shooter so not fully up to speed on the details. But I was under the impression that the law states that no application for CF pistols would be considered, rather that any new licenses being null and void.
If somebody comes up with a good reason, and the commissioner wanted to permit it. I can't see why a restricted license couldn't be issued for a pistol under current laws.

And If it is the case that they are void, there has some in law to state as much.

Same thinking for barrel length. If I've a licence for a gun that's too short, maybe the licence isn't valid.

I don't know of any law that render licenses void like that. That's not to say it doesn't exist. Can you clarify which law/section nullifies a license as lawful authority for the purpose of section 6?

As it sounds like you are saying maybe a license isn't lawful authority for the purpose of section 6, as it is not permitted under section 6. This is a circular reference, and could just as easily be read the opposite way. That, section 6 doesn't apply to licensed firearms, therefore licenses are lawful authority for section 6"

cookimonster

Is the onus not on the licensees to ensure they are compliant, in other words if a license was issued under the wrong circumstances or details then it is up to us to bring this to the attention of the relevant authorities.

Examples of these mistakes or inaccuracies-

Wrong firearm serial numbers - common enough

Restricted licence issued on an unrestricted firearm and vice versa-

30-06 standard bolt action issued as a restricted firearm

Walther G22 license issued as an unrestricted firearm

Only a few things I suspect that would nullify a license or have the owner possibly in contravention of licensing conditions.

Mellor

cookimonster wrote: »

Is the onus not on the licensees to ensure they are compliant, in other words if a license was issued under the wrong circumstances or details then it is up to us to bring this to the attention of the relevant authorities.

Examples of these mistakes or inaccuracies-

Wrong firearm serial numbers - common enough

Restricted licence issued on an unrestricted firearm and vice versa-

30-06 standard bolt action issued as a restricted firearm

Walther G22 license issued as an unrestricted firearm

Only a few things I suspect that would nullify a license or have the owner possibly in contravention of licensing conditions.

Both of those would be example of invalid licenses. Or in the case of the former, possibly a valid license for a firearm that the holder doesn't possess.
There's a responsibility on licensee. As there is on issuer to ensure what they are issuing is valid and/or correct. There's no legal requirement for an applicant to know the licensing laws in detail. (although obviously good practice)

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

Can you point out the law that prevents you from having one?
I'm not a pistol shooter so not fully up to speed on the details. But I was under the impression that the law states that no application for CF pistols would be considered, rather that any new licenses being null and void.
If somebody comes up with a good reason, and the commissioner wanted to permit it. I can't see why a restricted license couldn't be issued for a pistol under current laws.

The legislation forbids the granting of licences for centrefire pistols if they weren't licenced before November 2008. So if the Commissioner wanted to permit it and issue a licence, he/she/they (I'm being very woke ) is breaking the law because they aren't legally permitted to issue such licences. If issued, the licence would be invalid and the person in possession of the firearm would be breaking the law (even though they had a licence for it). It would be like me issuing you a pilot's licence. Wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

I know of one case where a person was incorrectly issued a licence for a centrefire pistol after the ban on new licences came in. It was issued in error on an unrestricted licence.

Can you clarify which law/section nullifies a license as lawful authority for the purpose of section 6?

Looks like I was wrong about section 65. I didn't notice that it seems to only apply to shortened firearms.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

The legislation forbids the granting of licences for centrefire pistols if they weren't licenced before November 2008. So if the Commissioner wanted to permit it and issue a licence, he/she/they (I'm being very woke ) is breaking the law because they aren't legally permitted to issue such licences.

I was under the impression that the wording implied they won’t be issued, not that they can’t. Unless you’re referring to a different section to me.

Regardless, no such section exists in relation to barrel length.

I know of one case where a person was incorrectly issued a licence for a centrefire pistol after the ban on new licences came in. It was issued in error on an unrestricted licence.

Did he apply chancing his arm or how did it come about?

tudderone

Anytime i have heard of a licence being issued for something that shouldn't have been, its hushed-up and a lot of arse covering goes on. Never heard of anyone being cautioned or charged with anything like that.

cookimonster

Mellor wrote: »

There's no legal requirement for an applicant to know the licensing laws in detail. (although obviously good practice)

The old nutshell - 'ignorance of the law is not a defense' ....although it may play a determining factor when sentencing or punishment comes around, but there are plenty of defences ranging from health and safety, employment regulations, driving offences and so forth that have failed was on 'I didn't know plee'.

Mellor

cookimonster wrote: »

The old nutshell - 'ignorance of the law is not a defense' ....although it may play a determining factor when sentencing or punishment comes around, but there are plenty of defences ranging from health and safety, employment regulations, driving offences and so forth that have failed was on 'I didn't know plee'.

That example doesn’t hold up. If you are driving on the road you are obliged to know the rules and keep to that. That’s not the case in licensing (unlike using a firearm).

In those cases the “ignorant” person has broken a law. Whereas applying for the wrong license in ignorance isn’t an offence. If there license was issued in error, then the ignorant person who breached the law is the one that issued it.

I supposed they could technically say you possess an unlicensed firearm. But bringing that to court would expose them to proceedings more than anything else.
Regardless, there’s nothing to suggest a 16” barrel would/should be void.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

That example doesn’t hold up. If you are driving on the road you are obliged to know the rules and keep to that. That’s not the case in licensing (unlike using a firearm).

In those cases the “ignorant” person has broken a law. Whereas applying for the wrong license in ignorance isn’t an offence. If there license was issued in error, then the ignorant person who breached the law is the one that issued it.

I supposed they could technically say you possess an unlicensed firearm. But bringing that to court would expose them to proceedings more than anything else.
Regardless, there’s nothing to suggest a 16” barrel would/should be void.

How about this example.

If you apply for a firearm that's deemed restricted according to the legislation but you tick the unrestricted box and you are granted an unrestricted licence for it, you are in deep doo doo.

So you at least need to know if something is restricted or not.

cookimonster

Whereas applying for the wrong license in ignorance isn’t an offence.

In most cases I would say an applicant would have thier application queried and if found to be incorrect then returned for re-submission, but then again there is always Murphys Law no matter what checks and balances are applied.

But I can't see the GS letting a mistake go on thier side if it came down to something even as simple as them unintentionally issuing a non restricted licence for a restricted firearm. You'll most likely retain your firearm once you comply with the terms of them issuing you a restricted firearm license. This may not suit you and you end up with an unlicensed firearm sitting in a RFD gun room.


Having said that an applicant should know the prodecure and the terms and conditions attached to the application. The FCA1 is riddled with sections compelling the applicant to various declarations- so if the applicant just blindly fills out the form with out any knowledge then its beyond ignorance.

I think the final declaration covers most eventualities.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

How about this example.

If you apply for a firearm that's deemed restricted according to the legislation but you tick the unrestricted box and you are granted an unrestricted licence for it, you are in deep doo doo.

So you at least need to know if something is restricted or not.

The person applying hasn’t broken the law. They made a mistake, but hasn’t broken the law afaik, (it is smart to know the laws, but not an obligation).
The issuer has issued an license that contravenes the law. He fail to do his job correctly.
If they tried to charge the applicant, he’d could easily sue everyone involved for damages.

I’ve heard that happening above has happened on a few occasions. And it’s usually a phone call and quickly sorted out to cover asses, as mentioned above.

Mellor

cookimonster wrote: »

In most cases I would say an applicant would have thier application queried and if found to be incorrect then returned for re-submission,

Yes this is what should happen, and does happen in most cases.

But I can't see the GS letting a mistake go on thier side if it came down to something even as simple as them unintentionally issuing a non restricted licence for a restricted firearm. You'll most likely retain your firearm once you comply with the terms of them issuing you a restricted firearm license. This may not suit you and you end up with an unlicensed firearm sitting in a RFD gun room.

Yes, the solution I’ve heard about when it did happen was to quickly re-issue a restricted license. Which includes restricted license requirements (as they are required by law).

Having said that an applicant should know the prodecure and the terms and conditions attached to the application. The FCA1 is riddled with sections compelling the applicant to various declarations- so if the applicant just blindly fills out the form with out any knowledge then its beyond ignorance.

Don’t get me wrong, they absolutely should know the laws. Licensing, restricted firearms, and all the other legalities around firearms. It’s just common sense to be prepared. In general I think the average shooter needs to up their knowledge.
I was simply pointing out the difference between something being a best practise/common sense vrs a legal obligation to be across them.

tonysopprano

Mellor wrote: »

Yes this is what should happen, and does happen in most cases.


Yes, the solution I’ve heard about when it did happen was to quickly re-issue a restricted license. Which includes restricted license requirements (as they are required by law).



Don’t get me wrong, they absolutely should know the laws. Licensing, restricted firearms, and all the other legalities around firearms. It’s just common sense to be prepared. In general I think the average shooter needs to up their knowledge.
I was simply pointing out the difference between something being a best practise/common sense vrs a legal obligation to be across them.

Try this:
1964 24
Onus of proof.
24.—(1) Where, in a prosecution for an offence under the Principal Act, the
existence or non-existence of a firearm certificate, a licence under section 17 of
the Principal Act, an authorisation under section 2 of the Principal Act, a permit under section 3 of this Act or an authorisation under section 13 of this Act is
material, it shall not be necessary to prove that the certificate, licence,
authorisation or permit does not exist.
(2) Where, in a prosecution for an offence under the Principal Act, possession,
use or carriage of a firearm or ammunition by a person is proved, it shall not be
necessary to prove that the person was not entitled to have in his possession,
use or carry a firearm or ammunition

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

Mellor

tonysopprano wrote: »

Try this:
1964 24
Onus of proof.
24.—(1) Where, in a prosecution for an offence under the Principal Act, the
existence or non-existence of a firearm certificate, a licence under section 17 of
the Principal Act, an authorisation under section 2 of the Principal Act, a permit under section 3 of this Act or an authorisation under section 13 of this Act is
material, it shall not be necessary to prove that the certificate, licence,
authorisation or permit does not exist.
(2) Where, in a prosecution for an offence under the Principal Act, possession,
use or carriage of a firearm or ammunition by a person is proved, it shall not be
necessary to prove that the person was not entitled to have in his possession,
use or carry a firearm or ammunition

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at there. How does that apply here?
The very first line says "in a prosecution for an offence". The OP doesn't commit any offence by possessing a licensed rifle with a 16" barrel. So none of that applies.

In regards to actual offenses. That seems reasonable. If somebody commits an offence - for example, using a firearm to steal a car. Then once it's proved that a firearm was used in the crime. Then there's no need to proved that they were not entitled to use or carry a firearm in general.

But obviously, I'm reading the above in isolation and without context.

jimbobmalones

Interesting thread


So what is your take (I know this isn't definitive) about

a rifle that is over 60cm in length but with a barrel that is

say 10"?


It would seem to qualify as a long firearm on the basis overall length?


Another issue is how is this length decided - is it from the receiver to the end of the barrel or is it from the butt of the stock.


Very badly drafted legislation IMHO as it provides a lack of clarity on things which should be simple to define



J

Mellor

jimbobmalones wrote: »

Interesting thread
So what is your take (I know this isn't definitive) about
a rifle that is over 60cm in length but with a barrel that is
say 10"?

It's not a rifle.
(Does it even exist)

It would seem to qualify as a long firearm on the basis overall length?

Nope. It's a short firearm due to the barrel.
Which means it's restricted (presuming it doesn't meet Olympic standard, open to correction)

Another issue is how is this length decided - is it from the receiver to the end of the barrel or is it from the butt of the stock.

Very badly drafted legislation IMHO as it provides a lack of clarity on things which should be simple to define

Over all length is over overall. ie includes the stock.
There are poorly drafted and ambigious firearms laws, this isn't one imo.
Lengths in cm are pretty objective.

Wadi14

The ban on under 20 inch barrels seems to have gone County wide up here now. A friend of mine wants to change his .223 to a ruger 10/22. I rang the local FO on his behalf after talking to a RFD, she informed me they have received a circular about it , stating minimum 20 inch.

She rang Dublin for me I think it was the firearms branch and they told her they were aware of this and had sent for some kind of review, sorry I cant remember where she said they had asked for guidance.

tudderone

Wadi14 wrote: »

The ban on under 20 inch barrels seems to have gone County wide up here now. A friend of mine wants to change his .223 to a ruger 10/22. I rang the local FO on his behalf after talking to a RFD, she informed me they have received a circular about it , stating minimum 20 inch.

She rang Dublin for me I think it was the firearms branch and they told her they were aware of this and had sent for some kind of review, sorry I cant remember where she said they had asked for guidance.

Firearms policy unit ? Sounds like the supers up your way are deciding to make up their own laws again. They seem to do that from time to time.

Wadi14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058170326/ruger-target-lite

I got a call back on Monday from my local Super's office, up here in Donegal good to go if the rifle comes from the factory with a barrel shorter than 20 inches. I didn't ask about sticking a 12 inch carbon fiber on it lol.

Chiparus

https://www.rte.ie/news/leinster/2020/0522/1140106-meath-gun-seizure/

I would say it is related to this : "Idontlikethelookofthat"

Wadi14

No it wasn't related to that incident. I do know what the cause of semi auto barrel length problem was, but wont discuss it here. Or maybe I should have said cant discuss it here.

Wadi14

On the pic from the article, are the Guards going to leave evident of a firearms crime laying in the rain for a journalist to take pics of the rifle and ammo ?

I think this is another one of the staged photo shoots.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117981830#Comment_117981830

Photo was likely taken by garda forensic team and passed to the papers. Even if a journalist got to the scene, they'd be unlikely to have the proper gear if unless that also moonlighted in photography.

Claiming it's a stage photo is a big claim. The guy in in custody would have a pretty obvious defense if that were the case.

Agree its not related to any barrel length. And still maintain the 20" limit doesn't exist.

Grizzly 45

Another issue is how is this length decided - is it from the receiver to the end of the barrel or is it from the butt of the stock

Measured internally from chamber face to muzzle tip.Muzzle tip also includes any permantly attached devices.

So what is your take (I know this isn't definitive) about a rifle that is over 60cm in length but with a barrel that is say 10"?

A very awkward contraption!😀

Cass

Mellor - And still maintain the 20" limit doesn't exist.

You don't believe it exists? Sorry but I'm a little lost on context as I haven't read the entire thread. If so then its section Section 12(a) as Amended by Section 65 of 2006 Firearms Act.

“Shortening barrel of shot-gun or rifle.

12A.— (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who shortens the barrel of—

(a) a shot-gun to a length of less than 61 centimetres, or

(b) a rifle to a length of less than 50 centimetres,

is guilty of an offence.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117981830#Comment_117981830

More like the guy also had a supply of wacky baccy for sale possibly?If a crime happens at your address,they will take everything legally held or not , as possible evidence of a crime. So maybe whoever this genius was he hadn't time to change his possibly legally held Ruger back into a longer barrel configuration?

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117993995#Comment_117993995

That describes the act of shortening a firearm. It does my say that factory rifles under 50cm are illegal.

I haven’t stayed on top of recent posts in the thread. But it was outlined pretty clearly previously.

Cass

Mellor - That describes the act of shortening a firearm.

Some of it. Part 6 deals with possession of such a firearm:

(6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—

(a) a shot-gun the barrel of which is less than 61 centimetres in length,

(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,

And its for this purpose we have the grey area that is so often spoken about on the forum. The law is very clear on shortening a barrel below the stated length, its illegal plain and simple, but not as clear on possessing one especially, and this is where the grey area originates from, one that is factory made with a barrel less than the listed legnth(s). Its been this way for decades and without a court case it'll never be settled.

Mellor - It does my say that factory rifles under 50cm are illegal.

Are you saying "it doesn't say that factory rifles under 50cm are illegal"? If so then you have arrived at the grey area. Part six of section 12 as amended by section 65 says its an offence for anyone, except a firearms dealer, to possess a firearm with a barrel length less than the specified length, without lawful authority.

The "without lawful authority" bit is what creates this grey area. A firearms license is lawful authorisation and as the FCA1 does not ask for barrel length when filling it in and the act(s) do not expressly prohibit the firearms with barrel lengths less than the specified lengths under ALL circumstances then there is a tiny bit of grey which makes it illegal, yet not at the same time.

Mellor - I haven’t stayed on top of recent posts in the thread. But it was outlined pretty clearly previously.

What was outlined? As I said above I have not read the thread so seen nothing "previously", and only popped in when I seen your post where you say there is no legal limit:

Mellor - And still maintain the 20" limit doesn't exist.

My post points out there is a limit, a legal one, but it is and has been in a state of flux for some time now in one aspect only. Factory manufactured barrels less than the "legal" limit.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117994665#Comment_117994665

To clarify, I did say there was no legal limit. I was saying the legal limit referred to doesn’t exist.

For the reasons above, lawful authority to possess a firearm would include a license. If the intention was to make 20” the limit. They would need to fixed that section. There may well be guidelines coming. My comments were made at a given time.

Cass

Mellor - They would need to fixed that section.

We've been saying that for years on this forum. I've no doubt the 20" limit was intended as a way to stop all rifles from having barrels of less than 20" and shotguns of less than 24", but the way it was worded (seemingly to allow for repairs, etc) leaves that loophole that both sides seem "happy" to allow to continue as is.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117997372#Comment_117997372

I disagree. If we look at the shotgun length it strongly suggests that’s not the case. This was covered earlier in the thread.

A shotgun under 24” is a restricted firearm under the 2008 SI. If the intention of the 2006 Act was the make such shotguns illegal, then there would have been no point in its inclusion in the SI. Which suggests that was not the intention and that the s.65 can be read at face value.

Worth pointing out that the rifles below 20” were not added to the restricted SI. Have to also assume that the different treatment was intentional.

Cass

But the point you raise, and its a good one, only highlights what I said above about those who write the laws.

The 2006 act, section 65 part 6, amends section 12 and makes it an offense to possess, without lawful authority, a shotgun with a barrel of less than 61cm (24"). IOW the same loophole as the rifle issue. SI 21/2008 says they are restricted, but an SI is not, afaik, able to supercede primary legislation as it gets its "authorisation/legitimacy" from statute law, but does not create it.

Realistically section 65, part 6, of the 2006 would need to be repealed to have SI 21/2008 be 100% "foolproof" or without the ability to be challenged. Overall, and it was mentioned once again this last week given what has been in the news, what is needed is a complete restatement of all the acts to eliminate these issues.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118000271#Comment_118000271

I agree that the various parts are not well written. Requires a bit of assumption to figure out the intent. Agree there are grey areas also.

Regarding the shotgun above. It’s an offence to posses one without lawful authority. I’d argue that a restricted license for such a restricted shotgun is the authority to possess the shotgun. Although I’ve no idea if it’s possible to produce the required reason for one.

Cass

Mellor - I’d argue that a restricted license for such a restricted shotgun is the authority to possess the shotgun

There is no need to argue the fact, I agree. Same situation with the rifles. A court case would settle the matter once and for all, but as we've said for years who wants to be the unlucky sod to go first and secondly when such cases are won, as with C/F pistols its not long before legislative change comes which means we lose in the long run. As it stands, while imperfect, it works so no one wants to rock the boat.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118001958#Comment_118001958

I meant argue with the powers that be if they ever dragged me up over it.

I certainly would be raising the issue on my own. In the meantime, I would be comfortable with a 18" barrel on a rifle being licensed.