Firearm use on private land

irishshooter32

I am a member of a club however I would like the ability to shoot on private land (not authorised ranges) that I have been given the permission to shoot on would I have to inform the Garda about the shooting activity or could I just go ahead (with permission) from the land holder and would I have to be “hunting” or could I engage in “target shooting” aswell would the types of firearms that I use be restricted for use on the land help much appreciated

Cass

If you wish to hunt on lands you have permission to shoot on you can do so. There is/was a debate on a similar topic a while back, but for the purpose of this thread its relevant because it poses the question of whether you could go hunting if you did not tick the hunting box on the FCA1 when applying for the firearm as this would have been your good reason. In other words if you only applied for the firearm for target shooting?

As for target shooting outside a range, not allowed.

Lastly your firearms can only be used for the reason for which you applied for them, the good reasons you provided that is.

Zxthinger

what is target shooting?

its the competition or the training for that comp and it generally involves shooting with two or more.

If your a hunter, you need to verify your POI at sever ranges and reverify before a hunt and as required and theres nothing wrong with doing what sensible but if you want to shoot endless strings off ammo then best to join a range TBH.

The laws an ass but shooting large volumes of rifle rounds on farm land isn't a great idea. Just shoot enough to verify your zero and know your drops and stay ready.. lol

BattleCorp1

I don't like to be the d1ckhead in the thread but it's still technically illegal to zero a gun outside of an authorised range.

The Commissioners Guidelines 2018 (https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/online-services/firearms-licensing/commissioner-s-guidelines-2018.pdf) seem to allow for zeroing outside of an authorised range but the primary legislation has never been amended to allow this.

So we are in a situation where the Gardai say it's ok but the legislation says it's not. And the legislation will probably be used against you if you get up the nose of the Gardai.

otmmyboy2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118690564#Comment_118690564

Completely true, but given such guidelines have been published by the AGS and are actively used to guide firearms licencing there would likely be enough ambiguity there to give any judge pause, particularly if it was an uncomplicated case, ie hunter Bob goes and zeroes his (legally held for hunting) rifle using some tin cans on his permission before starting his hunt.

Guards are called and arrest him for target shooting outside a range.

Letter of the law he is in the wrong, but I imagine it'd be a tough sell to a judge given the ambiguity of the guidelines, and the acknowledged safety aspect of requiring a zeroed gun.

Coillte also mention zeroing in their usage of forestry permits section.

Stupid Irish restriction which everyone then has to work around with some common sense but at the peril of the law.

IE most Irish gun laws 😋

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118691094#Comment_118691094

Can judges ignore legislation?

Legislation deems it illegal. I'm fairly sure legislation takes precedence over guidelines.

Certainly the guidelines give you a footing to defend a prosecution, but there's no guarantee of a win. And yep, you are 100% correct, another example of our screwed up firearms laws.

Vizzy

Battlecorp1, yes you are 100% correct that legislation will trump guidelines every time.

But you would want to meet a very vindictave Garda for you to be cautioned or arrested for discharging a legally held firearm for the purposes of checking zero, unless you were being a complete d**k and firing 50 or more rounds or there is some other reason why the Gardai might want to clip your wings.

I would also hope that the Super would have a word in the Garda's ear to stop wasting his time, and this is coming from an area where the Super is very anti-guns. So much so that he has tightened up on issuing or renewing licences in the light of the incident the other day. Nice guy and a good lawman - just anti-guns

Grizzly 45

I would also hope that the Super would have a word in the Garda's ear to stop wasting his time, and this is coming from an area where the Super is very anti-guns. So much so that he has tightened up on issuing or renewing licences in the light of the incident the other day. Nice guy and a good lawman - just anti-guns

He can hold whatever personal opinions that he likes. Free country and all...But the moment his opinions impinge on his impartiality of judgement and he uses his powers to affect those opinions. Then it's a different story.

Judges cannot ignore the law,but they are entitled to interpret it as how the case may be. In this case, there would be a conflict of legislation. You are required to zero, and you can do so outside of a range in a safe manner. But be also done for target shooting outside a range.He'd have to weigh up the pros and cons of the individual case to pronounce a judgement.

JP22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118691115#Comment_118691115

On the ladder tier, EU Legislation/Regulation comes first, Irish Statute Legislation/Regulation is next and Legislation does take precedence over guidelines and SOP’s.

However, SOP’s and Guidelines (example - Garda Comm Guidelines), if in use for some time, accepted/used by all concerned (issuing authorities/courts, etc), and not having being overturned by later legislation or courts then they/it becomes “Semi Quasi Legal” and is basically considered law, meaning you can be taken to court and prosecuted for not complying with them.

Look at Health & Safety Legislation (I’m ex OHS/Risk Man for my sins), mainly old but some new and good solid bits of statute law but underpinned by numerous guidelines and SOP’s which are accepted by all concerned. Lots of H&S cases taken to court are a direct result of not complying with the SOP’s/Guidelines.

Always remember, it’s not the big fat terrifying bear in the woods that’s going to get you, it’s the little midge/bee/wasp, etc. you have to look out for.

Zxthinger

You can't be prosecuted on guidelines..? No matter how long they have been followed..

HSA stuff is different as the law references the code of practice as something to be followed or guide by.. this they're connected..

Thats how I see it..

Grizzly 45

However, SOP’s and Guidelines (example - Garda Comm Guidelines), if in use for some time, accepted/used by all concerned (issuing authorities/courts, etc), and not having being overturned by later legislation or courts then they/it becomes “Semi Quasi Legal” and is basically considered law, meaning you can be taken to court and prosecuted for not complying with them.

Our mutual friend once removed in our division in Limericks response to this was on reducing an ammo allowance on one of my guns back in the time was " They are only Guidelines as to how I should apply the legislation.Not the written law as to how I must!" I think I still have that written reply somewhere in my files...So with attitudes of officialdom like that to guidelines...

smmember20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118660700#Comment_118660700

Cass:

I don't believe your firearms application declaration of use, totally restricts you to that specific use and excludes all other legitimate uses as long as you are working within the law.

Because I didn't tick vermin control on the FAC1 does not exclude me from shooting rabbits, if I am invited.

I'd be happy to agree with you if you can show me legislation that specifically prohibits use of a firearm for other than was ticked on a FAC1?

A fella might take a notion to join an authorized club having been shooting rabbits for years, are you saying they would be prohibited from using the firearms on the range of the authorized club.

I am also a little at sea on how an individual specifically using a rifle for vermin control can zero that rifle if the legislation is claimed to prohibit shooting at a target anywhere other than a shooting range, in addition when I shoot a rabbit, it transforms to a target as soon as I put the cross-hairs on the animal, wherein is the definition of a target in the firearms acts!!!!

At the end of the day I am not trying to stir it but so much of the time shooters are their own worst enemy by making dogmatic decisions on firearms legislation that firearms legislation being fundamentally a mess and unfit for purpose, realistically that's all I am saying

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118707301#Comment_118707301

A fella might take a notion to join an authorized club having been shooting rabbits for years, are you saying they would be prohibited from using the firearms on the range of the authorized club.

Just on the point I quoted above. You don't even need a firearms licence to use an unrestricted firearm on a range so that's not a relevant example.

I am also a little at sea on how an individual specifically using a rifle for vermin control can zero that rifle if the legislation is claimed to prohibit shooting at a target anywhere other than a shooting range, in addition when I shoot a rabbit, it transforms to a target as soon as I put the cross-hairs on the animal, wherein is the definition of a target in the firearms acts!!!!

The law says target shooting outside of an authorised range is illegal. That part is 100% clear. The problem here is that the legislation doesn't define what type of target shooting is illegal, therefore all target shooting outside of an authorised range is potentially illegal.

If you stick up a piece of paper in a field to zero your gun, you are shooting at a target. Therefore are you target shooting? I would argue that you are. It's an example of the law being an ass by not being clear enough. The Gardai didn't mean for zeroing to be illegal, but whoever drafted the legislation didn't make it clear that zeroing is necessary. They forgot about zeroing and accidentally made it illegal.

Plenty more examples of the law being an ass. For example, a toy crossbow that fires little plastic darts is technically illegal because they didn't put in a draw weight/joule limit. Also, paintball guns are restricted short firearms according to the letter of the law and therefore shouldn't be allowed. Loads of badly drafted laws.

You are 100% correct when you say that our firearms legislation is a mess.

Cass

smmember - Cass:

I don't believe your firearms application declaration of use, totally restricts you to that specific use and excludes all other legitimate uses as long as you are working within the law.

That is perfectly fine. My above comment was not a statement of fact but to inform the OP that there was such a debate a few months back about that topic.

smmember -Because I didn't tick vermin control on the FAC1 does not exclude me from shooting rabbits, if I am invited.

My own belief is if you ticked only target shooting (example) and nothing else then you applied for the firearm for that purpose and given you have the license means it was granted under those conditions (target shooting). So any other use was not "means tested" or verified for suitability. For example in the case of hunting if you done so without ticking the hunting box on the FCA1 then AGS would not require land permission or gun club membership. So if you proceed to hunt without applying for the firearm license for that reason, I believe, you're technically in breech of the condition/granting of the license.

smmember - I'd be happy to agree with you if you can show me legislation that specifically prohibits use of a firearm for other than was ticked on a FAC1?

Afraid I cannot point to a single line that specifically states what you want, hence the reason I'm not claiming my view point is law, only an opinion. It [my viewpoint] is based on factors, like most other legislation, from mulitple section of mulitple Acts and SIs.

smmember - A fella might take a notion to join an authorized club having been shooting rabbits for years, are you saying they would be prohibited from using the firearms on the range of the authorized club.

Another example of the law being a bit backward. It really only applies in the reverse (applying for target shooting only and then hunting) as target shooting on ranges is covered under section 2(4) of the firearms act so legally a person can shoot on a range without a license let alone authorisation on their license via the FCA1. Of course there is a case of someone applying for a firearm for hunting then going target shooting, but outside of a range, however this would be covered under the "no target shooting outside a range" laws rather than not ticking the relevant box on an FCA1.

smmember - I am also a little at sea on how an individual specifically using a rifle for vermin control can zero that rifle if the legislation is claimed to prohibit shooting at a target anywhere other than a shooting range, in addition when I shoot a rabbit, it transforms to a target as soon as I put the cross-hairs on the animal, wherein is the definition of a target in the firearms acts!!!!

I'm searching for it, but it does exist. It specifically names tin cans, paper, reactive targets, etc. A Rabbit is not a target, its a wild animal and hence covered under the Wildlife act(s).

smmember - At the end of the day I am not trying to stir it but so much of the time shooters are their own worst enemy by making dogmatic decisions on firearms legislation that firearms legislation being fundamentally a mess and unfit for purpose, realistically that's all I am saying

I understand that and appreciate the desire/need to clarify it. I'm not AGS and I'm not trying to dictate what someone should do off this forum, and have zero inclination to do so even if I had such authority. I'm simply giving the best information and my interpretation of it based on the various acts, SIs, etc. and allowing anyone reading it to make up their own mind.

In this instance its not a dogmatic approach/viewpoint, but a belief based on previous experiences and/or court cases and so I would urge caution rather than issue any sort of edict on the matter.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118707301#Comment_118707301

I also share your view that you aren’t restricted to the FAC1 usage. A legitimate usage is a requirement for licensing, not a status update on pulse of ongoing usage. As Cass will attest we’ve disagree and discussed this before.

I think it depends on what the usages question are, specifically.

Can a collectors shotgun be used for clays. I believe so.

Can a target rifle used for vermin. Again yes imo.

Hunting is the slightly more complicated one. But I do believe in some situations a target licensed firearm can be used legally for hunting.

For example in the case of hunting if you done so without ticking the hunting box on the FCA1 then AGS would not require land permission or gun club membership. So if you proceed to hunt without applying for the firearm license for that reason, I believe, you're technically in breech of the condition/granting of the license

Regardless of licensing, the requirement to have permission to hunt on any land would apply legally anyway, no?

Cass

Mellor - Can a collectors shotgun be used for clays. I believe so.

Can a target rifle used for vermin. Again yes imo.

Hunting is the slightly more complicated one. But I do believe in some situations a target licensed firearm can be used legally for hunting.

To be clear, my belief is NOT that a firearm cannot be used for another purpose, but instead I believe you must declare such intended use when applying as part of the good reason for having the firearm, hence getting the license based on that reason(s). So its licensing over use I'm discussing.

To use one of your examples. I apply for a 308 F-Class rifle for long distance target shooting on an authorised range. I can of course use it to shoot rabits on lands I have permission for. However if I did not declare my intent during the application process, via the FCA1, by ticking the hunting box then my license would have been granted based on the only good reason I provided which was long distance target shooting on an authorised range. Perhaps AGS would have granted the license if I declared such intended use, but as I did not they did not ask for land pemermissions, they did not evaluate the suitability of a 308 for Rabbit hunting, and have no idea I'm going to use the firearm for such a purpose.

Mellor - Regardless of licensing, the requirement to have permission to hunt on any land would apply legally anyway, no?

The requirement to have permission on land is a requisite, but it cannot be "regardless of licensing" as you must apply to An Gardaí for permission/authorisation to use the firearm on that land. AGS would determine if the firearm is suitable for the type of hunting, that the lands are suitable, and that you actually have land permission to carry out the purpose for which you seek the firearm/license.

In essence you are showing AGS that the "Good Reason" for having such a firearm is either hunting only or something else and hunting and the land permission you must provide in the application process shows you have the requisite land to use the firearm on.

Were you, as in the given example above, to hunt on lands (with permission from the land owner) but did not tick the box for hunting on the FCA1 (in other words did NOT declare to AGS that you intend to hunt with the rifle) then AGS would not seek to verify if you have land permission/to shoot on, and therefore did not vet you based on the suitability of the firearm for the purpose being sought.

I'll repeat that its my belief that this is the case and its why I always tick all relevant boxes on the FCA1 when applying for any firearm. In other words if I think I may use the firearm for nother purpose I tick hunting, target shooting, and vermin/other on the FCA1. I can provide the land permission and range membership to "verify" all three, so it doesn't delay my application and once granted, without any conditions on the grant letter, I'm "covered" for all uses.

My point being its easier, legally safer, and so much less hassle to simply tick the boxes on the FCA1 than to become a test case. We have already seen/heard about people being brought to court or issued with cease and desist writs for target shooting outside a range, 30 round mags only loaded to 10, more ammo than what is on a license, and other instances where we believed one thing but the AGS thought otherwise.

No one wants to be the test case because even if you "get away with it" in court the cost and ramifications afterwards may be more hassle than its worth to simply tick a box.

After that its each man to himself in terms of what they wish to do and/or believe is correct.

Mellor

To be clear, my belief is NOT that a firearm cannot be used for another purpose, but instead I believe you must declare such intended use when applying as part of the good reason for having the firearm, hence getting the license based on that reason(s). So its licensing over use I'm discussing.

Fully understand your position, and the reason for it. I simply disagree.

Collector’s shotgun on clays being the clearest example.

The requirement to have permission on land is a requisite, but it cannot be "regardless of licensing" as you must apply to An Gardaí for permission/authorisation to use the firearm on that land. 

Permission to hunt on land is required in its  own right. Not just in regards to licensing. That’s an indisputable legal fact.

If you hunt on land without permission, you  are breaking the law, no matter what the license was issued for.

Similarly, you can get new permissions after you are licensed. You don’t need to report these to AGS. You could even then lose all of the permissions you used when applying. If the application was binding in terms of use, that person would be in breach of their grant - they are not though.

Were you, as in the given example above, to hunt on lands (with permission from the land owner) but did not tick the box for hunting on the FCA1 (in other words did NOT declare to AGS that you intend to hunt with the rifle) then AGS would not seek to verify if you have land permission/to shoot on, and therefore did not vet you based on the suitability of the firearm for the purpose being sought.

As I said, I understand why you have these view. But I don’t believe the law backs it up. And as I said above, hunting “licenses” add a complexity. But consider a simplistic example.

If I apply for a shotgun for field use. I have all the required permissions. Then later a sporting gun for clays. 

If your position was correct it would be illegal to ever hunt with the sporter, and also illegal to shoot clays with the field gun. I don’t think that is the case.

My point being its easier, legally safer, and so much less hassle to simply tick the boxes on the FCA1 than to become a test case. 

I agree it’s best to cover all bases. But more so as a future proof changes, or to avoid have to explain the above to a Garda who doesn’t know the laws in detail.

Cass

Mellor - Collector’s shotgun on clays being the clearest example

I'm failing to see the relevance as clay pigeon shooting is NOT target shooting (by law) so falls outside the remit of ticking "Target", "hunting" or "other/vermin/clay" on the FCA1. By "falls outside the remit" I mean as it [clay pigeon shooting] is not classed as target shooting, if the license was applied for for hunting and you tick the hunting or vermin/other/clays box on the FCA1 then you went clay pigeon shooting there is no breech of the conditions of the license, as there would be with a rifle which requires membership to a range for target shooting as all rifle shooting is classed as target shooting by law.

The other aspect, which I suppose is secondary if relevant at all, is why a Collector? An antique firearm being bought solely for ornamental purposes which cannot/is not capable of being fired, does not require a license. If the firearm is capable of being fired it requires a firearms license and hence the above applies where clay pigeon shooting is not target shooting so no breech of conditions of a license would be forthcoming.

Permission to hunt on land is required in its  own right. Not just in regards to licensing. That’s an indisputable legal fact.

Which no one is disputing.

If you hunt on land without permission, you  are breaking the law, no matter what the license was issued for.

I'm not discussing land permission as it pertains to an individual having it or not, as said above. Only as to how it pertains to obtaining a license if it is not declared and hunting not ticked, but the applicant uses the firearm for such a purpose upon being granted the license.

Similarly, you can get new permissions after you are licensed. You don’t need to report these to AGS. You could even then lose all of the permissions you used when applying. If the application was binding in terms of use, that person would be in breach of their grant - they are not though.

Again I'm not discussing whether a person has land permission or not. I'm discussing the need to disclose all purposes/uses/good reasons for a firearm when applying for it and the possible, as I see it, consequences of not declaring all uses if the person decides to use the firearm for any other purpose other than what they declared when applying.

Mellor - If I apply for a shotgun for field use. I have all the required permissions. Then later a sporting gun for clays. 

If your position was correct it would be illegal to ever hunt with the sporter, and also illegal to shoot clays with the field gun. I don’t think that is the case.

As with your example about a collector using a shotgun, the example above is also moot as clay pigeon shooting is not target shooting so "exempt" from any "confinement" to a single use.

The issue surrounding what to declare when applying on the FCA1 and what you can use the firearm for afterwards really only applies to rifles and I suppose to a much lesser extent (if at all) pistols. This is a result of clay pigeon shooting not being target shooting (its why it has its own box to tick on the FCA1), but having to use the same application form for all types of firearms.

If there were individual application forms for the various types of firearms then I'd imagine they would be more comprehensive and allow for a narrowing of the questions when applying. In other words the application would be more streamlined. For example the "Target" option for shotguns could be removed as it would be covered by hunting and/or other/clays/vermin.

Mellor

I'm failing to see the relevance as clay pigeon shooting is NOT target shooting (by law) so falls outside the remit of ticking "Target", "hunting" or "other/vermin/clay" on the FCA1.

I’m aware it’s not target shooting, but I didn’t mention target shooting.

It’s relevant, as you claimed that you apply for a specific purpose, and once granted the license is for that purpose ONLY.

If that were true, somebody who applied for a rare shotgun with the stated purpose of collecting(or investing) would not be able to use it for clays/hunting/vermin, as they are different specific purposes.

Seems you agree now that the above in bold is incorrect? And you are now saying you are confined to box(es) you tick not the reason you give. Which is a small bit of progress at least, but still incorrect imo.

The other aspect, which I suppose is secondary if relevant at all, is why a Collector? An antique firearm being bought solely for ornamental purposes which cannot/is not capable of being fired, does not require a license.

A collectible firearm doesn’t have to be ornamental. A choose collector as it is a the legitimate reason for a license, and one that doesn't require it ever be fired (if you so wished)

Again I'm not discussing whether a person has land permission or not. I'm discussing the need to disclose all purposes/uses/good reasons for a firearm when applying for it and the possible, as I see it, consequences of not declaring all uses if the person decides to use the firearm for any other purpose other than what they declared when applying.

You disclose your good reason when applying. The is nothing is law that says the scope of your reason cannot change over time. Such as gaining/losing permissions or interests.

As with your example about a collector using a shotgun, the example above is also moot as clay pigeon shooting is not target shooting so "exempt" from any "confinement" to a single use.

If the field gun was granted for hunting, and the applicant only ticked the hunting box, then how (if what you say is true) can the firearm but used for clays, which falls under the other box? It's completely contradictory to the idea that you are confined to the box you tick. So it's not moot in the slightest.

Where does the law say clay shooting is exempt from the alleged confinement?

Cass

Scenario for you:

You see a 308 rifle you want so you apply for it using the FCA1 for target shooting. You join a range, and are granted the license.

After a year or so into a three year license you want to shoot Deer and perhaps even Foxes (vermin). So you apply for the Deer license, are granted it, and go out shooting Deer and Foxes. One day a Garda stops you and asks for your license. You provide the gun license and Deer license. You have permission on the land so all good.

The Garda is back at the station and checks your details on PULSE. When s/he checks PULSE it says "Reason for firearm: Target shooting". There is no mention of hunting/vermin/other. S/he gets out your FCA1 and sees in section 4.2 that only target shooting is ticked. There are no land permissions included in the FCA1, no copy of the Deer license, and "vermin/other" is also NOT ticked.

The rifle was granted for the sole reason of target shooting. So the Garda submits a "report" (or however that works) to his Sargeant who (if not the FO) gives it to the FO. The FO either contacts you dfirectly or send it to the Super for viewing. The Super discusses it with the FO/Sargeant (or both) and asks that you be brought in for an interview.

You attend the interview and are asked why you are using the firearm for purposes you did not disclose on the FCA1. You say that you don't need to disclose such other uses as you have the license and therefore you can use it for whatever you wish as you have the firearm license.

What do you think is the outcome?

That is not a loaded question by the way, some sort of attempt to "trip you up", or catch you out. Its a genuine question.

JP22

As Cass says, everything is great until things go pear shaped.

This is why I tick all box's for all use.

Cass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118718348#Comment_118718348

I'm not multi-quoting this again. I had a reply written out and lost it so I'll summarise.

Collecting/collector has been addressed above, including the legal definitions of such (firing/non firing), but has no bearing on the OP or my original reply. Not sure of the relevance of collectors/collecting/collectables still.

FCA1 is for all firearms so the three boxes are designed to "make do" for all types of firearms. For rifles they are perfectly appropriate, but for shotguns less so as clay shooting is not target shooting so the target shooting box is moot for shotguns.

My original reply was in direct response ot the OP as, without saying it, they seem to be talking about rifles given they said shooting outside an authorised range which only applies to rifles (pistols too, but you cannot hunt with them and shotgun shooting is not classed as target shooting so no need to be on an authorised range).

As time changes so too can the reasons or purposes for having a firearm. I have never said you cannot use it for another purpose only that such purposes should be disclosed to AGS either in the form of a letter to the FO/Super, or the FCA2 amendment form.

Finally with regard to showing you where the law "doesn't say something" (clay pigeon shooting being exempt), there is no way to prove a negative. Section 4, as amended over the years, with regard to range authorisation makes no mention of clay ranges. Only of rifles and pistol ranges.

Cass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118719122#Comment_118719122

This is the thing. All this back and forth about "who is right" is meaningless and why I'm trying to not engage from a "I'm right, you're wrong" point of view. This is only my opinion, as stated from the outset, and for the sake of ticking a box on a 9 page application it seems so little trouble to make sure one is covered, legally.

All the semantics in between are pointless.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118719058#Comment_118719058

In that scenario, you are at the very least going to have an awkward conversation down the station. You may get it bother over it. You may not actually have all the legal prerequisites, etc. Which is why I didn't use that example. Not sure what you thought I'd say.

I have never claimed you had free permission to do whatever you liked one you had a license, and I specifically said hunting is the complicated one (as it requires more than just land and firearm permission). However, you said you can never use it for another purpose, but you've now acknowledged multiple situations where that apparently doesn't apply.

Collecting/collector has been addressed above, including the legal definitions of such (firing/non firing), but has no bearing on the OP or my original reply. Not sure of the relevance of collectors/collecting/collectables still.

I've already responded, but I'll repeat

You claimed that you apply for a specific purpose, and once granted the license is for that purpose ONLY. If somebody gets a license collectible or investment, but later used it for clays. They are using it to an additional reason to the one they put down. Which we all agree is ok. But that proves the above statement (in bold) was incorrect. Which is why it is relevant.

The hunter doing a bit of clay shooting example shows that the box ticking claim is also incorrect.

As time changes so too can the reasons or purposes for having a firearm. I have never said you cannot use it for another purpose only that such purposes should be disclosed to AGS either in the form of a letter to the FO/Super, or the FCA2 amendment form.

But you say that clays are exempt from the above? Do you see how this is a very ad hoc application of these apparent laws?

Finally with regard to showing you where the law "doesn't say something" (clay pigeon shooting being exempt), there is no way to prove a negative.

Sorry, you've lost me.

You claimed that clays are exempt. I've asked you to show me the where the laws says that clays are exempt. Where does "doesn't say" come into it. "Clays are exempt" is not a negative.

Section 4, as amended over the years, with regard to range authorisation makes no mention of clay ranges. 

Correct, but that has no relevance to the above. Clays are not target shooting, but they are also not hunting. Hunting and Clays are indicated by separate boxes. If your stance was correct, then a shotgun approved solely for hunting couldn't be used for clays, or vermin for that matter. Which we all agree it is incorrect.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118719122#Comment_118719122

I don't disagree with that approach. I do it myself. I'm just saying that the powers that be makes it hard enough for us, and that we shouldn't be giving them additional powers based on laws that don't exist.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118719443#Comment_118719443

Hi Cass, to be really clear. It's not about "I'm right, you are wrong". It's about a) posting the correct information for other users, and b) Not imagining laws or rules that don't exist.

My posts too are just my opinion, as are everyone's really. As my opinion opposes yours, the only what I can reinforce it, is to highlight the times that your opinion is wrong. Again, not to get one over, but purely to get the correct information for the the other posters. If we can get to the bottom of it, as written by the law. Then surely that's a positive for all.

Cass

Mellor - It's about a) posting the correct information for other users,

So what is the right information? Its a pain in the ass I have to keep saying this, but that is not intended as hostile, but as the written word lacks content and I'm not in form for a pissing match I need to explain that.

Mellor - b) Not imagining laws or rules that don't exist.

Imagined anything by its very nature doesn't exist, but which laws specifically are you referring to as being imagined? Everything I have said above, as I have said from the start, is an educated guess. Possibly overly cautious in nature, but I've been accused of worse things.

Mellor - My posts too are just my opinion, as are everyone's really. As my opinion opposes yours, the only what I can reinforce it, is to highlight the times that your opinion is wrong. Again, not to get one over, but purely to get the correct information for the the other posters. If we can get to the bottom of it, as written by the law. Then surely that's a positive for all.

An opinion, in this instance anyway, cannot be wrong as its a view built without fact. You've asked for me to show the law that says my opinion is correct which I have said I cannot point to, but you have shown no law to support your opinion.

By the way I dislike this latest trend, which I've seen creeping across the forum of late (not just you and I), of "show me the law or its bulls**t". Its a discussion forum and demanding laws to support any and all opinion(s) is a discussion killer as it shifts the focus of the thread to "one-upmanship" over useful content. So apologies for using it as it is not a "call out", but if you have it then by all means post it, however like myself I'll wager you'll only have interpretation and so your opinion is based on that. So the same as me.

The only difference between you and I, as I see it, is if people were to follow my line of thinking they would be absolutely covered by being overly cautious and ticking all boxes and/or amending the conditions of their license by informing AGS before/during/after the fact, whereas if they follow your opinion then they may (or may not) be "exposed". In other words there is/may be room for a problem.

I'll have one last shot and then stop after your forthcoming reply as I think most people have well and truly lost interest in this (God knows I'm on the verge of losing interest myself). If you change gun club, range membership, address, Garda Station, occupation, name or anything that relates to your currently licensed firearm you have to inform AGS using the FCA2. Its why it was introduced. For errors and changes. So I don't think that process is any different when amending the good reason(s) for having a firearm when it comes to notable changes, as discussed/outlined above. It may not require the FCA2 so I'm not claiming that, but if they want to be notified of any changes that have occured since the issue of the "original" license I doubt they would be ok with any changes to how that firearm is used if it drastically or notably differ from the reason(s) it was originally authorised/granted under.

If the end result of the last few days and posts is people can read all the above and decide themselves which they would rather do, and with the lack of a definitive answer on the matter (barring a court case), that is the best that can be hoped for.

Mellor

So what is the right information? Its a pain in the ass I have to keep saying this, but that is not intended as hostile...

Cass, I genuinely don't take it as hostile at all. We are all shooters here try to share information.

As to the right information. I think I've established above that you aren't confined to the specific reason you give, or the box you tick, in at least some situations. I think those examples prove that there is in fact no confinement to the reason in Irish law. Although certain uses such are target hunting, and hunting have other legal requirements.

The Law states that a firearm can be restricted in it's use by a condition attached - which means it's not automatic. [Section 4.2 (g)]

The commissioner's guidelines reinforce that and make it clear a firearm is only confined when the issuing person attaches a condition to that affect.

Rifles may be single shot or bolt action of any calibre. There may be cross-over between rifles used for hunting or those for target shooting. However, an issuing person may consider attaching a condition to a firearm certificate restricting use of the firearm to the reason(s) as specified by the applicant when applying for the firearm certificate.

May consider...So that basis, I think that it's correct to say there is no confinement, unless they actively restrict you (other laws permitting).

Imagined anything by its very nature doesn't exist, but which laws specifically are you referring to as being imagined? Everything I have said above, as I have said from the start, is an educated guess. Possibly overly cautious in nature, but I've been accused of worse things.

The "assumed law" that we're restricted in our use. If this were the law, it would have to say that in the law and not say that it only happens when a condition is attached. I was also referring to the idea that "clays are exempt", again if they was the law it would say it. If the law doesn't say it, then it has been imagine unnecessarily.

By the way I dislike this latest trend, which I've seen creeping across the forum of late (not just you and I), of "show me the law or its bulls**t". Its a discussion forum and demanding laws to support any and all opinion(s) is a discussion killer as it shifts the focus of the thread to "one-upmanship" over useful content. So apologies for using it as it is not a "call out", but if you have it then by all means post it, however like myself I'll wager you'll only have interpretation and so your opinion is based on that. So the same as me.

We deal quite regularly in matter of law here. You claimed there was a legal exemption for clays. I don't think its unreasonable asking you to point to that. Pretty sure that is standard on any of the legal threads around here when people make legal claims.

And well no, I don't only have my interpretation. I also have the commissioner's guidelines - which shows how Section 4.2 (g) should be applied - as I referenced above

The only difference between you and I, as I see it, is if people were to follow my line of thinking they would be absolutely covered by being overly cautious and ticking all boxes and/or amending the conditions of their license by informing AGS before/during/after the fact, whereas if they follow your opinion then they may (or may not) be "exposed". In other words there is/may be room for a problem.

As I said, ticking all boxes is great to cover your ass if in doubt. But also consider it could be used against you too.

Say you apply for a varmint rifle. And tick hunting/target/other to cover yourself. Then down the line you want to add a lightweight stalker in the same calibre, or a dedicated target rifle, in again the same calibre. And the Local Super declines your application on the basis that you already have a rifle dedicated to that purpose, in the same calibre.

Mellor

It may not require the FCA2 so I'm not claiming that, but if they want to be notified of any changes that have occured since the issue of the "original" license I doubt they would be ok with any changes to how that firearm is used if it drastically or notably differ from the reason(s) it was originally authorised/granted under.

For the sake of clarity. If you original reason that was granted ceases to apply or exist. Then you absolutely should go the FCA2 rout and let them know. The above discussion is only in terms of the original reason being ongoing, with additional uses.

Cass

Mellor - The Law states that a firearm can be restricted in it's use by a condition attached - which means it's not automatic. [Section 4.2 (g)]

That piece says "complies with such OTHER conditions (if any) specified in the firearm certificate,". To me this means the license is granted for the reasons the person applied for (only) and then any other conditions the issuing person may attach to it (which is actually on the grant letter, not the license itself). So its a case of additional conditions outside the ones the license for granted for.

Mellor - The commissioner's guidelines reinforce that and make it clear a firearm is only confined when the issuing person attaches a condition to that affect.

That piece is only about suitable firearms for target shooting and clay pigeon shooting. Its a guide to the types of firearms and calibres used and the Commissioner's guidelines reference no legislation to support this as a law, only best guide.

Mellor - You claimed there was a legal exemption for clays.

I did not. I posited that they would be viewed as exempt.

Mellor - And well no, I don't only have my interpretation. I also have the commissioner's guidelines - which shows how Section 4.2 (g) should be applied - as I referenced above

Which I've said is your interpratation of it as I read it that the license is granted for the reason(s) applied for and OTHER conditions may be attached as the issuing person deems necessary.

Mellor - As I said, ticking all boxes is great to cover your ass if in doubt. But also consider it could be used against you too.

Say you apply for a varmint rifle. And tick hunting/target/other to cover yourself. Then down the line you want to add a lightweight stalker in the same calibre, or a dedicated target rifle, in again the same calibre. And the Local Super declines your application on the basis that you already have a rifle dedicated to that purpose, in the same calibre.

I've done this. That is, applied for and been granted multiple firearms of the same calibre and for the same purposes. I currently have multiple rifles of the same calibre and not once were my previous firearms "used against me". I ticked all relevant boxes when applying so its either a case of AGS not inspecting the FCA1 closely enough or the more likely reason being they have no problem with me having mulitple firearms of the same type/calibre as I've given a good reason for needing it.

Cass

Mellor - For the sake of clarity. If you original reason that was granted ceases to apply or exist. Then you absolutely should go the FCA2 rout and let them know. The above discussion is only in terms of the original reason being ongoing, with additional uses.

Then why is there a need to tell them about any change, ever?

After all they [AGS] don't know the original reason is no longer valid and according to everything you've said so far, once granted (the license) there is no confinement or restriction on the firearms' use (unless specifically stated in the grant letter under conditions).

Why is the original use of the firearm still being "current" a condition of notifying AGS of any change of use of the firearm?

JP22

Lads, with due respect to all concerned, this thread is going nowhere fast; Ground-Hog Day comes to mind and I think it’s time we put it to bed. We are all human, therefore, our opinions on laws/regs, etc, as we read them will be different, its human nature, the nature of the beast.

IMHO the main issue here is clarity or should I say the total lack of clarity in Irish Legislation, most of which from a to z is bonkers, crazy, full of holes, totally out of date and most certainly not fit for purpose in a modern Irish/European society. For this reason I always tick all the boxes, cross the tee’s and dot all the eyes plus cross me fingers I don’t fall foul of some AGS nit-picker with nothing better to do.

Just me tuppence worth, I think those of us he who have held legal firearms forever understand the issues/anomalies to hand and we need to move forward please.