Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Revoking of SACF rifles & New Legislation

2456789

Comments



  • Same as they tried in EU, but that failed so they went after magazines, and when that failed they went after lead ammo. Never ending battle (excuse the pun)




  • Cass wrote: »
    Banning them and revoking them is the same thing, but i get your point.

    She would have to pay compensation to anyone before 2015. Its a small enough amount, at a rough guess about €400,000 (max), but to be seen to pay gun owners money would not go down well, or she just doesn't want to knowing it'll die by attrition like C/F pistols over time.

    Who knows?

    I mean why do this at all? Simple. The then Minister wanted the headlines for "taking guns off the streets" and this was in the same time as some high profile mass casualty events, so like the pistol ban they reacted for the virtue signaling effect. I mean not one mass shooting like those in America, Norway, New Zealand, etc. in the history of the state, and with about 200 firearm owners of these types of guns what exactly are they trying to prevent?

    My impression at the time was that the Garda Commissioner made an argument around the possible future proliferation of CF SA rifles.

    It came out that there were 150 or 160 such rifles in the state and the Mnister had to do something to placate AGS while facing the arguments put forward by an unusually united shooting community.




  • Completely possible and believable. However they account for approx. 0.07% of the total firearm licensed so not even close to being near proliferation. It was simply a case of they were not wanted (SA/CF rifles) in the state, and having "got rid" of CF pistols this was they're next target.

    The last number I got was 167. That was a few years back so it may have grown, but at the time and if she really wanted to it would have cost the exchequer about €250,000 to compensate and ban all SA licensed and the matter would be moot now.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • yubabill wrote: »
    My impression at the time was that the Garda Commissioner made an argument around the possible future proliferation of CF SA rifles.

    It came out that there were 150 or 160 such rifles in the state and the Mnister had to do something to placate AGS while facing the arguments put forward by an unusually united shooting community.

    Sorry but why ? The AGS are public servants who follow the laws as drafted by the dail. They should stick to enforcing the laws of the land, not be making up laws and reg's they would like to enforce.

    As said before, the German firearms licencing system is the way to go. The police only do background checks, the rest of the application is done by a civilian office.




  • Out of curiosity, is there any precedent for this sort of "pre-prohibition" exempting the state from paying compensation for the property they are potentially revoking permission to use?

    Seems a tad shaky to me.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban



  • Advertisement


  • tudderone wrote: »
    Sorry but why ? The AGS are public servants who follow the laws as drafted by the dail. They should stick to enforcing the laws of the land, not be making up laws and reg's they would like to enforce.
    AGS have to and should have input into laws. How many criminal justice acts, road traffic acts, etc. were drafted because AGS saw loopholes, problems with enforcement or simply non existent laws for acts that were, by every standard, *criminal?

    In this instance we don't like it, and rightly so, but we cannot argue they should have no input in one instance then complain when their hands are tied in another (non shooting/firearm) related issue.
    As said before, the German firearms licencing system is the way to go. The police only do background checks, the rest of the application is done by a civilian office.
    I have no idea about the German system, but that still seems like civilians do the admin, but require the police to do the actual legal stuff. Does anyone believe that the head of the German police (or various heads of the different States/counties) don't have input into what happens in their area?


    * I use the term criminal to cover all aspects of anti social, criminality, and other violations of common good.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • otmmyboy2 wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, is there any precedent for this sort of "pre-prohibition" exempting the state from paying compensation for the property they are potentially revoking permission to use?.

    They done it, on a much shorter time frame/scale, with pistols. Anyone that licensed a CF pistol between November 2008 and June 2009 would have faced the same problem (license revoked).

    If you mean in other aspects of law (outside of firearms), I've no idea.
    Seems a tad shaky to me
    Shaky, not so much, but unfair, absolutely. Why have laws when you can ban something via non existent/ghost bans? The reason this will be much worse than the pistols is the time frame. 6years this September since the original statement and so much has changed since then.

    As I said above anyone with a license after the statement date, and assuming any actual legislation is drafted, will have a strong case for keeping their firearm regardless due to the unfair and possibly illegal length of time between the statement and legislation. IOW unlike the pistol ban this is a strong case for anyone wanting to go to court to fight it. I can perhaps see, if legislation is brought in, an exemption being made with a new date rather than the original one.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • Cass wrote: »
    I have no idea about the German system, but that still seems like civilians do the admin, but require the police to do the actual legal stuff. Does anyone believe that the head of the German police (or various heads of the different States/counties) don't have input into what happens in their area?

    They can point out possible problems[like maybe a rise in neo nazis or ANTIFA types acquiring possession to carry in public blank firing pistols]. But they certainly cannot do solo runs,or deciding for themselves what the law is on anything.Its up to the legislators to legislate on the info given, not for every Komisar to decide how he wants to interpret it.
    Their job is a background check for any criminality and to collate info with the German secret services to see if the applicant is a good citizen and not supporting subversive groups,or a "Reich burger" and that they have done the relevant tests and whatnot,and to issue export permits and do basically our DOJ C4 sections job on a regional level. Thats where the German police involvement ends with civilian firearms.

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





  • yubabill wrote: »
    My impression at the time was that the Garda Commissioner made an argument around the possible future proliferation of CF SA rifles.

    It came out that there were 150 or 160 such rifles in the state and the Minister had to do something to placate AGS while facing the arguments put forward by an unusually united shooting community.

    While pulling the hot Garda chestnuts out of the fire of 1million faked drunk driver tests.,A dodgy chief and assistant chief commissioner being possibly on the take., Arresting a sitting TD on her way home from the Dail for possible DUI. The Templemore brotherhood closing ranks and going into OMERTA mode.
    The entire forces morale being in their boots. with the Garda Authority starting to sniff around as well.
    It going public from the High Court that Garda chief Supers had "retired" for mucking about with peoples firearms applications would have destroyed the public trust in the force completely.

    So this was along with the promise of the Firearms Arbitration Authority being set up a political noisemaker, that she knew she wouldn't have to deal with There was obviously a fear of a "surge" of applications for CFSA that so far hasn't emerged since this has been suggested, and quite frankly I can't see happening either,as they aren't everyone's cuppa tea.

    The telling information will be to see exactly how many new licenses for these types of rifles have been issued post 2015/17 until the present day. Which would give us a good idea of whether this is a problem or not, and to also point out that how are these a problem that needs dealing with as they are what....0.00000001% of licensed firearms in the ROI and have ASFIK been NEVER used in a crime here either?

    There is a lot of the UK MARS/Lever release controversy similarity here too.
    Small amounts of a particular firearm,that is never used in a crime,but displeases those in power,so the best way is to legislate it out of existence and pay the owners a trifling sum...Except for the UK Home office grossly underestimating the buyback figure, that a 100k would sort it all out...It is now running in compensation cases at over 2 million Sterling I belive!!!

    Just something the DOJ might have to keep in mind too.

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





  • Same as they tried in EU, but that failed so they went after magazines, S]S]and when that failed[S[/S Succeeded they went after lead ammo.

    Never ending battle (excuse the pun)

    They left it open to member states on how to interpret the mag ban.We LOST that one here,as did pretty much most of Europe.:mad:

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



  • Advertisement


  • Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    But they certainly cannot do solo runs
    Nor can AGS.
    ,or deciding for themselves what the law is on anything.
    Nor can AGS.
    Its up to the legislators to legislate on the info given
    As it is here, and more importantly where do you think the information comes from? As I asked above do you really think any police force is NOT consulted before legislation is drafted?
    , not for every Komisar to decide how he wants to interpret it.
    Lets not paint Germany, or any country, as the land of Unicorn farts and fairy dust. Every police force will enforce the law as they see fit, and the courts will decide if their actions are legal or not. Same as here.

    We deal with AGS in a singular issue (firearms) and our viewpoints are always going to be at odds with AGS'. There will be conflict and every victory in court, on the shooter's behalf, show that the system of checks and balances works.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • Cass wrote: »
    There will be conflict and every victory in court, on the shooter's behalf, show that the system of checks and balances works.

    Even if the potential for cost incurred is significantly higher than it should be, to appeal a potentially unlawful or excessive decision.

    I do think that AGS can make up the law in some cases.
    IE they have been given excessive leeway in licencing decisions, which as you noted have often lead to court.
    Both in granting licences and the conditions attached to same.

    However said court, in it's current format, is rather unfairly biased towards those with the means to fight such cases.

    I think to significantly make the system fairer all discretion should be removed from AGS in regards to firearms licencing(no more fiefdoms), and/or the recourse to court should be freely available(and covered by grants/or even free) to everyone who wishes to appeal a decision by AGS regarding licencing.


    So while we do have a system of checks and balances, it is far from foolproof, or even adequate in a lot of cases.

    How many people here would have taken their S/CS to court over applications if there was no question of means?
    I certainly would have, several of them :P

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban





  • Cass wrote: »
    Nor can AGS.
    " I firmly belive no civilian should have access to such weapons,as they are much too dangerous and should be only possessed by trained Garda and military personnel,therefore I would not license Mr .... firearms in my district"
    Paraphrasing CS J Kerin [ Retired]in the witness box Tralee DC 2009 [?]

    Would say that is a pretty good example and attitude of a solo run and interperting the law as he saw fit.
    Nor can AGS.

    The attempted blanket ban on CF handguns in 2010?
    As it is here, and more importantly where do you think the information comes from? As I asked above do you really think any police force is NOT consulted before legislation is drafted?

    Certainly, they are...But theirs is NOT the final word on everything to do with a proposed legislation change. Here them and the DOJ it seemingly is...They might give us a pretence of consultation as required by law in Ireland on any topic affecting a group in the public arena,but the decisions are already made,I believe,behind closed doors...Have you ever seen any major changes to proposed core legislation after a public consultation?
    Lets not paint Germany, or any country, as the land of Unicorn farts and fairy dust. Every police force will enforce the law as they see fit, and the courts will decide if their actions are legal or not. Same as here.

    They might do that in some 3rd world dictatorship shthole. Here its enforcing by the letter of the law,as it is written and agreed on in the Dail and Senad. Not AGS fault if it is badly and vaguely worded,but bad for us ,as it can be left open to interpretation by a police force,and be decided on by a learned judge.

    We deal with AGS in a singular issue (firearms) and our viewpoints are always going to be at odds with AGS'. There will be conflict and every victory in court, on the shooter's behalf, show that the system of checks and balances works.

    Not to the point where we have utterly childish and "We'll get ya no matter what!" type retaliation as we saw in 2016 when we had the desperate and total gun grab.That blew up spectacularly in their faces, because the architect of the failed handgun cases was on short notice for his incompetence and lashed out in desperation after being wiped out in Limerick DC,and seeing the court coast clause being used. It was "strange" that the chief Garda ballistics officer"retired" after that Dail public inquiry...
    Any other force would have said with those decisions "Ok fair cop! The courts say otherwise.We'll get ya next time!"

    And get on with life,but even here we see again a possibility that this is coming from, yet again,possibly the AGS? If it ain't broke...Why are they trying to fix it?

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





  • tudderone wrote: »
    Sorry but why ? The AGS are public servants who follow the laws as drafted by the dail. They should stick to enforcing the laws of the land, not be making up laws and reg's they would like to enforce.

    As said before, the German firearms licencing system is the way to go. The police only do background checks, the rest of the application is done by a civilian office.

    Actually, that's the law - AGS cannot advocate for legislation. I pointed this out in some detail in my submission to Dept Justice, who swept it under the carpet.




  • otmmyboy2 wrote: »
    So while we do have a system of checks and balances, it is far from foolproof, or even adequate in a lot of cases.

    I'm not arguing its perfect, but as you said it exists.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Would say that is a pretty good example and attitude of a solo run and interperting the law as he saw fit.
    Interpreting, but not implementing.
    The attempted blanket ban on CF handguns in 2010?
    Attempted, next.
    Certainly, they are...
    There ya go, then.
    But theirs is NOT the final word on everything to do with a proposed legislation change.
    Only supporting my point.
    Have you ever seen any major changes to proposed core legislation after a public consultation?
    I wasn't discussing public consultation.
    Not AGS fault if it is badly and vaguely worded,but bad for us ,as it can be left open to interpretation by a police force,and be decided on by a learned judge
    .
    This is exactly what I've been saying, checks and balances.
    Not to the point where we have utterly childish and "We'll get ya no matter what!" type retaliation as we saw in 2016 when we had the desperate and total gun grab.That blew up spectacularly in their faces,
    Again, a failed attempt because they cannot legislate and the courts/law will prevent them doing otherwise (doing, not trying).
    ..Why are they trying to fix it?
    Because its their job to. Even in America, where they have a constitutional right to firearms, they still get crap and its up tot he courts to decide.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Just got to look at the many cases of them abusing their powers under COVID regulations to see that in action.:mad:
    Read that again, slowly. :D

    They have the powers granted to them. I'm not arguing that you're wrong, nor am I saying there is rampant abuse, but you even said it, they are working within the powers granted to them.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • All covid/mask talk moved to Off Topic thread.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • Just another thought about compensation that's related to CF SA. If the government banned all CF SA "loading devices" over 10 rounds, shouldn't they have had to pay compensation? If so, could this be an argument that CF SA magazines aren't restricted because there's no definition of loading device and since the government didn't offer compensation, then they mustn't have banned such magazines? Maybe I'm overlooking something, but this seems like a situation of ownership vs possession.




  • If the government banned all CF SA "loading devices" over 10 rounds, shouldn't they have had to pay compensation?
    No, because the EU court of justice ruled that such devices were not a right or entitlement (or something along those lines).
    If so, could this be an argument that CF SA magazines aren't restricted because there's no definition of loading device and since the government didn't offer compensation, then they mustn't have banned such magazines?
    The device itself is not restricted or unrestricted, its either allowed or not. So 10 round capacity is fine, over ten, illegal. In other EU countries, and in keeping with the EU directive, they allowed for the use of up to 20 round devices if used in a sporting context, however Ireland made no such allowances when drafting SI 420/2019. Also it only applies to SA CF rifles. BA CF can have as many as you like.
    Maybe I'm overlooking something, but this seems like a situation of ownership vs possession.
    As said above the Czech Government took a challenge case against the directive but they failed in the EU courts. So its already been ruled on.

    Couple to that the fact that a "warning" was given months before that such legislation was coming and people had until March of 2019 (iirc) to sell, destroy or surrender their magazines that were in violation of this ruling (over 10 rounds). When the SI was released in August 2019 it stipulated that anyone with one would have their license revoked as well as the devices seized.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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



  • Advertisement


  • Just another thought about compensation that's related to CF SA. If the government banned all CF SA "loading devices" over 10 rounds, shouldn't they have had to pay compensation? If so, could this be an argument that CF SA magazines aren't restricted because there's no definition of loading device and since the government didn't offer compensation, then they mustn't have banned such magazines? Maybe I'm overlooking something, but this seems like a situation of ownership vs possession.
    n




  • This thread is about to get a lot busier in the very near future.

    The PTB are 100% intent on going after semi-auto centrefires granted after September 2015.

    There were two questions asked in the Dail on 27th July 2021 regarding semi-auto centrefires. They were Questions 1385 and 1388.

    Seeing as I've often been questioned regarding my sources in the past, here's the link to show I'm not making stuff up.

    Proposed Legislation – Tuesday, 27 Jul 2021 – Parliamentary Questions (33rd Dáil) – Houses of the Oireachtas



    Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Justice when the proposed legislation on restriction of licencing of centre fire semi-automatic rifles will be introduced and he also asked if existing licence holders will be allowed to retain their licence for centrefire semi-automatic rifles under the proposed new legislation. Below is the answer.



    I propose to take Questions Nos. 1385 and 1388 together.

    As you may be aware, in 2015, the then Minister for Justice, Frances Fitzgerald, T.D., announced plans to implement a number of changes to Firearms Licensing, including restrictions on the licensing of any new centre-fire semi-automatic rifles. I am sure the Deputy will agree that these are potentially very dangerous weapons in the wrong hands.

    This remains settled policy and it is my intention to legislate to introduce restrictions on the licensing of centre-fire semi-automatic rifles, including the revocation of licenses issued after 18 September 2015, as flagged at the time.

    People who have obtained licences since the 2015 announcement have been advised the licences will be revoked when the legislative ban is introduced. Any licence issued after the announcement to introduce a curtailment on the licencing of these firearms will be revoked following the enactment of the legislation.

    My Department has also engaged with Registered Firearms Dealers to monitor the number of these firearms imported and to advise the dealers that any firearms brought into the State that do not have a firearms license associated with them dated prior to 18 September 2015 will become unlicensable when the new legislation is introduced. As the Deputy may also be aware, a similar process applied when restrictions were introduced for the licensing of centre-fire handguns.

    The proposed legislation referred to by the Deputy forms part of the General Scheme of a Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020. The General Scheme for this Bill was approved by Government in September 2020. It was referred to the Justice Committee for Pre–Legislative Scrutiny in January and I await the views of the Committee in due course. It is my intention to progress this General Scheme and to publish the required Bill at an early date, as other priorities in my Department’s legislative programme may allow.


    Judging from that reply, it doesn't look like they are intending on grandfathering any licences issued since 18th September 2015. I reckon we have a serious fight on our hands.





  • Its been coming. The Government may be slow to act at times, but they usually never forget.


    The grandfathering thing is a problem and one I hope lads after 2015 will fight and win. The pistol bn was similar but also very different in that it was in reaction to a criminal using an illegal weapon to kill an innocent (Shane Geoghahan) and the legislation followed within 7 months of the declaration. This debacle has been ongoing for going on 6 years so there is a strong case to fight for grandfathering.


    They will use the "we told you it was coming" excuse and frankly they may win that (actually they don't have to win as the law is on their side so it'll necessary for the shooting bodies to win). They seem to have the bit between their teeth now and if not for Covid it might already be a thing so expect ructions next year.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • Going to be an intresting Autumn...Again...

    And can see another great clanger with this straight off...What happens if you want to substitute on a pre 15 license?Are we going to do this dodgy "legal loophole" like with the CF handguns???

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





  • Yeah, this bill will not be a single issue bill. Expect crap from all sides.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information thread - RFDs by county - For Sale Section - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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





  • Here we go again .......... another nail in the coffin for our sport.





  • So are they likely to just be collected after licenses have been revoked or can they be left with RFD's and sold to new owners outside the state?





  • You only lose what you dont fight for via the courts if necessary.





  • At best, I'd hope that they will be grandfathered, but it doesn't look like that is going to be the case. If the authorities grandfathered all the ones that are currently licensed, that would be the best option for those who have those firearms and would also give the authorities the least amount of headaches as they'd have no court cases to fight etc.

    At worst, I would expect the State to adequately compensate me for the cost of my firearm, which was by no means a cheap gun. And will they compensate me for the accessories that probably add up to over a thousand euro too?

    I wouldn't expect things to go smoothly for the authorities. I expect there will be court cases and maybe more court cases because it's a bit ridiculous to allow someone to have a firearm for six or seven years and then swipe it back off them.

    But to answer your question, I would assume (a dangerous thing to do) that you can sell it overseas. But that won't be easy either, and financially doing that probably wouldn't make sense given that these guns are far more expensive here than they are in the likes of the US or Europe for example. A gun that is €5k here is often well less than half that in the States.



  • Advertisement


  • I can't believe this is happening, mine has only just been renewed, 3 months late but better late than never. I know selling your rifle to an over seas owner is not the best solution and your unlikely to get back what you put in but still better than the big fat 0 the state will offer plus it will go to a new owner who will care about it.



Advertisement