Firearm use on private land
Comments
-
Cass - 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
And we established the part in bold is not true. The examples above etc prove that.
That piece is only about suitable firearms for target shooting and clay pigeon shooting.
Maybe read it a bit more carefully. It literally refers to rifles used for hunting. The point being it clearly states if a firearm is restricted to the reason given when apply, this is attached a s a condition to the grant - it does not occur automatically.
I did not. I posited that they would be viewed as exempt.
In order to be exempt, from this apparent law, there would need to be a legal exemption. There is not one.
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.
Come on Cass. It's a bit naive to think that because it hasn't happen that it could never happen.
Why is the original use of the firearm still being "current" a condition of notifying AGS of any change of use of the firearm?
I assume this isn't a serious question. As if you obviously know the reason why.
I agree, the law is confusing, and many people struggle to read legalese. It's also restrictive for shooters - so I'm just pointing out that these imagined restriction doesn't actually exist. And the commissioner doesn't think they exist. The above shows that clearly, so I've no intention to keep Groundhogging it.
I'm not advising anyone to stop ticking all boxes. Especially if the firearm will be used for multiple uses. But it's also perfectly legal to crossover between purposes.
1 -
Mellor - And we established the part in bold is not true.
"We"? No such thing has been establised I'm afraid, its just your opinion.
Mellor - The point being it clearly states if a firearm is restricted to the reason given when apply, this is attached a s a condition to the grant - it does not occur automatically.
Afraid not, otherwise this thread would have been settled many posts ago or more accurately would not have even gotten as long as it did as you and I had this exact discussion some months back on another thread which also ended in stalemate.
Mellor - In order to be exempt, from this apparent law, there would need to be a legal exemption. There is not one.
Yes there is. Section 4(A) as amended by section 33 of the 2006 lists rifle and pistol ranges but makes no mention of shotgun "ranges". The Commissioner's guidelinesfurther enforce that shotgun shooting is not target shooting by referencing these section of the two acts. So clay pigeon shooting is not target shooting, hence exempt.
Mellor - Come on Cass. It's a bit naive to think that because it hasn't happen that it could never happen.
As naive as thinking that once a firearm certificate is issued its a "free for all" as to how its used. I'dpoint you to the couple of hypothetical examples I created and the lack of a response to them.
Mellor - I assume this isn't a serious question. As if you obviously know the reason why.
That is not an answer.
If the original reason is still there, according to you, then you can do as you please in terms of using your firearm for any purpose even though you have not informed AGS of such by either ticking the relevant boxes on the FCA1 and/or providing a letter of explanation as requested/demanded in section 4.2 of the FCA1.
However if the original reason is "gone" then you say you must inform AGS of the change in circumstances. Why? If you can do as you please once the firearms license is issued why inform them at all?
Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo
0 -
-
ZERO A RIFLE
The Garda Commissioner's Guidelines as to the Practical Application and Operation of the Firearms Acts, 1925-2009.
0 -
So we are actually allowed to zero our rifle on private land not just a range.I assume zeroing is as many rounds as it takes onto a paper target not shooting 50 rounds at clays or bottles.
0 -
Advertisement
-
It looks like it but see my caution below.
Just to be 100% clear....................... Oops, I can't be 100% clear because the law in this instance is an absolute ass............. but....................The law says you can't do target shooting outside of an authorised range. This bit is 100% clear. Is zeroing your gun a type of target shooting? I would think that it is a type of target shooting (just my opinion) because you are shooting at a target but I can't say for certain because the legislation doesn't define what target shooting is. In other words, it's very poorly written legislation.
The Gardai (in the Commissioners Guidelines) essentially say that they don't deem zeroing to be target shooting, but it isn't the Gardai's opinion that counts. It's a judge's opinion as to whether or not you are engaging in target shooting because legislation will trump guidelines.
My thinking is that you should be fine but p1ss off the wrong Garda and you could find yourself in court with no guarantee of a win because you might be in breach of the legislation no matter what the Guidelines say.
2 -
It would want to be a bad fella that would bring you in front of a judge for shooting 10-20 rounds in a safe environment to zero your rifle.I can totally understand that having 5 or 6 people up the bog shooting all day could be classed as dangerous and maybe that's why the legislation was brought in.
I'm sure this whole subject has been debated to death and yet it's still open to interpretation.
1 -
17hmr1 - So we are actually allowed to zero our rifle on private land not just a range.
No, but yes.
17hmr1 - I'm sure this whole subject has been debated to death and yet it's still open to interpretation.
It has, but its not open to interpretation, its a case of some leeway being given by AGS.
Target shooting cannot be done outside an authorised range. The then Minister for Justice, McDowell iirc, said afterwards that his intent was not to ban zeroing (when he was informed his target shooting only on a range law would ban zeroing) and that he would make an amendment to allow for zeroing. He never did.
So to this day zeroing is no different than target shooting and should only be done on a range.
Now the "leeway" bit I mentioned above.
In 2018 the new Garda Commissioner updated the guidelines. As @BattleCorp1 rightly pointed out the law did not change, but what the Commissioner did do was highlight the need for zeroing as an essential safety aspect of shooting and the guidelines (rememeber they're guidelines to the best practical implementation of the 2009 Act, not laws themselves) being updated to reflect this meant that lads would not "have their collar felt" for performing this function (zeroing) outside a range.
As the Commissioner cannot alter/amend legislation his updated guidelines gave shooters the freedom they needed to carry out zeroing without being on, or a member of, a range and AGS in general the ability to ignore "target shooting" ourside a range in cases of zeroing. This was very important not only from a safety point of view, but also a humane point of view and lastly because day membership was banned in the 2009 act lads couldn't join for a day to zero so effectively the guidelines update in 2018 were a reprieve from prosecution for a law that made no common sense.
In short its a truce of sorts. Shooters don't abuse the leeway the guidelines offer and AGS don't have to worry about lads without unzeroed firearms.
There have been one or two cases of people being prosecuted/charged for actual target shooting outside a range and others getting cease and desist orders from the DoJ/AGS for doing the same. So it is a law and it is enforced, but again one, perhaps two, lad(s) actually zeroing their firearms is a far cry from a dozen or more shooting all day.
Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo
3 -
Yes there is. Section 4(A) as amended by section 33 of the 2006 lists rifle and pistol ranges but makes no mention of shotgun "ranges". The Commissioner's guidelinesfurther enforce that shotgun shooting is not target shooting by referencing these section of the two acts. So clay pigeon shooting is not target shooting, hence exempt
Cass nobody has disputed that clay shooting is not target shooting, the matter has nothing to do with target shooting. Your "hence exempt" makes absolutely no logical sense.
Clay shooting falls under the "Other" tick box.
If somebody applied for a firearm certificate for hunting, and ticked hunting only. According to your interpretation, they should not be able to use that firearm for clays. Because clay shooting is not hunting
How does clay shooting not being target shooting some amount to an exemption for hunting granted firearms? It doesn't there is no logic there. But using a hunting (or investment, or collectors) shotgun for clays is perfectly legal.
If the original reason is still there, according to you, then you can do as you please in terms of using your firearm for any purpose even though you have not informed AGS of such by either ticking the relevant boxes on the FCA1 and/or providing a letter of explanation as requested/demanded in section 4.2 of the FCA1.
However if the original reason is "gone" then you say you must inform AGS of the change in circumstances. Why? If you can do as you please once the firearms license is issued why inform them at all?
It is not really obvious why?
The reason one gives on the application was the reason the firearm license was granted. That was deemed sufficient in order to grant a license - a legal requirement. If you add additional purposes to it, the requirement is still valid on the back of the original purpose, the secondary use is supplemental. The reason has not fundamentally changed.
However if you want to stop one use and replace it with another, then The reason has fundamentally changed. The new use would need to justify the license entirely on its own. And maybe it would be, but its not for the license holder to decide. It to be approved by AGS. That situation only exists where the original purpose is ceased.
As I said, that should have been really obvious. I'm a bit surprised you didn't see that. It's certainly isn't a "gotcha" or refutes my point in any way. And I never said you can do as you please, that's a bit of a strawman. There are many laws governing use, they still apply.
As I've said all along, I fully get the logic behind ticking all applicable boxes. It would be great if the law was clearer. But it isn't, and there are clearly areas where it's deem acceptable, and areas where it is not. Almost like a hierarchy of usage.
0 -
Mellor - If somebody applied for a firearm certificate for hunting, and ticked hunting only. According to your interpretation, they should not be able to use that firearm for clays. Because clay shooting is not hunting
No, you're not understanding and hence not following. I said shotguns for clays is the one thing that most likely (again only an opinion) can be used for clays and hunting regardless of the boxes ticked as clay pigeon shooting is not target shooting. I thought that was obvious given the amount of times I've said it.
Mellor - How does clay shooting not being target shooting some amount to an exemption for hunting granted firearms? It doesn't there is no logic there. But using a hunting (or investment, or collectors) shotgun for clays is perfectly legal.
Again this is glaringly obvious and I cannot understand how you're not grasping this. Clay pigeon shooting is not legally target shooting. So if you hunt with a shotgun and use it for clays what law can you be prosecuted under? Breech of the conditions of the license? Right, so what breach? I'm not target shooting as clays are not classed as target shooting.
If you ticked target shooting only when appling for the shotgun then its a "wasted" application and the FO or Super should, at the very least, ask the applicant to alter their good reason (in section 4.2 of the FCA1) as target shooting with a shotgun doesn't exist so no license could be granted for it**. Its why there is a hunting AND other/clays box. Again back to my point about the FCA1, as long as it is, not being good enough as a "one size fits all" application form.
Remember that I was responding to the OP, seemingly many years back now, in reference to rifle shooting because he said target shooting and as the only legal thing that is target shootig is rifle (and pistol) but not shotgun shooting I went under the assumption it was a rifle. If its not then this whole thread has been one long exercise in futility. If its a rifle then my original assertion applies. You must apply for the firearm license listing all reasons you need the firearm for/intend to use it for. As the OP seemingly has a firearm, I'm working under the assumption of rifle, I was informing him to b cautious in relation to the reasons he provided when applying for it.
Mellor - The reason one gives on the application was the reason the firearm license was granted. That was deemed sufficient in order to grant a license - a legal requirement. If you add additional purposes to it, the requirement is still valid on the back of the original purpose, the secondary use is supplemental. The reason has not fundamentally changed.
How do you know the license would have been granted for both reasons if they were appled for initially? You don't. You're also guessing that if you apply for it for "Reason A", that supplemental "Reason B", "C", etc. is somehow automatiaclly granted yet the process for deciding if those reasons are, or would have been, good enough was not followed by not declaring them on the FCA1 initially.
As I've said ad nauseum, if you apply for the firearm for say target shooting and are granted it after fulfilling all requirements, then using it for hunting is not automatically a given as you did not provide land permissions, gun club membership, or any good reason for using it for such, and most importantly declare the firearm for that use, when applying. Same applies in reverse. Apply for the rifle for hunting and then go target shooting. Sure you're legally allowed to shoot on a range as a guest, but its not the location that the license was granted for its the act. Target shooting. So if it was not declared then AGS did not demand membership to a range and any other criteria that must be met for getting a license for a firearm for target shooting.
Mellor - However if you want to stop one use and replace it with another, then The reason has fundamentally changed.
As is the case if you use it for a secondary purpose regardless of the "status" of the primary reason/purpose. The law makes no distinction on which use you use it for at any given time only that you declare the intended use(s) when applying so that those reasons can be decided upon and deemed to be sufficient to grant the license.
Mellor - The new use would need to justify the license entirely on its own. And maybe it would be, but its not for the license holder to decide. It to be approved by AGS.
Exactly. Its for AGS to decide, not the applicant. So in the case of the primary reason for applying still being in effect why is it not up to AGs to decide if that secondary reason is also good enough to issue the license? Why is it, according to you, that such a decision by AGS only becomes relevant/lawful when the primary reason is "gone"?
Mellor - That situation only exists where the original purpose is ceased.
That comment is your opinon only and should not be passed off as being a legal position as you did in post #32:
Mellor post #32 - But it's also perfectly legal to crossover between purposes.
** - There is one caveat which I won't go into on an open forum so if you don't mind I'll PM you on it.
Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo
0 -
Advertisement
-
No, you're not understanding and hence not following. I said shotguns for clays is the one thing that most likely (again only an opinion) can be used for clays and hunting regardless of the boxes ticked as clay pigeon shooting is not target shooting. I thought that was obvious given the amount of times I've said it.
I understand perfectly, that the scenario I've been describing exactly.
If a shotgun if it can be legally used for both purposes, regardless of what boxes were ticked. Then there would need to be either (A) A legal exemption to the apparent law restricting usage, or (B) no law restricting usage. And since we can't find any legal exemption, it must be (B).
The third explanation would be that its not actually permitted to use both. But we seem to agree that's not the case in this instance.
Again this is glaringly obvious and I cannot understand how you're not grasping this. Clay pigeon shooting is not legally target shooting. So if you hunt with a shotgun and use it for clays what law can you be prosecuted under?
The supposed law restricting usage to the purpose you write on the form. This is a law that you claim exists. I do not agree because of the above examples and other like it.
I'm not sure what you are not following. The fact one can do the above, and no law is broken is exactly the point. The fact you agree its not illegal, undermines your position that you are confinement to the purpose you put down. Either you are or you aren't, the ad hoc application is not how the laws is written.
0 -
You have only replied to the bit above (and throughout the thread) regarding clays, which you introduced to the discussion. Where as I have been discusssing rifles since the start.
Have you any thoughts on the above with regard to rifles? You seem to have "avoided" answering anything to do with the rifle scenarios I outlined a few days back and nothing in response to my last post above about rifles and the duality of thier usage.
Also there is a difference between not being legally allowed to do something and doing something because the law makes no mention of it/doesn't expressly prohibit it.
The one thing we have all agreed on is that the law is far too amniguous at times, utterly vague at others, and rarely clear due to either the lack of knowledge of the persons who drafted it or the purposefullness of its drafting so as to leave it open to interpretation by the powers that be. In other words the law can "change" as it suits their needs.
Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo
0 -
Seeing the above back and forth between you two lads I can only imagine what two opposing barristers would make of the legislation,it seems if they wanted to clear it up they could but clearly it's not a major problem in government eyes at the moment.
2 -
As has been said on the forum over the years, and the problem keeps growing, there are some 19 Acts that deal either directly or indirectly with firearms, 63 Statuatory instruments, and either 2 or 3 EU directives (which usually get folded into Irish law but still stand on their own). No one, and I do mean no one, knows them all.
Some are simply bad laws, some are quickly "folded into" Irish law and poorly written (be that knee jerk legislation or EU directive), and even more are so vague that the argument on what it means is not clear even to those that wrote them.
The laws are so poor that even the Law Society has called for a complete revision of the various acts, SIs and directives to make them clearer, more easily understood and also to eliminate useless or bad legislation. It has never happened for exactly what you said, there is no urgency so the attitude seems to be "if its not broken, don't try to fix it".
I do apologise to all others that might be fed up of the back and forth between myself and Mellor, however there is no other medium for us to debate such a topic.
Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County
If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.
Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo
1 -
Totally agree with CASS on this. Unless, and until, you hit the wall with PTB, and have to go to court, you have no idea about if's, buts, maybe's, and ABSOULOUTLY NO IDEA about how low they will go, and how much they will try to bankrupt you. Better that you start from a high position.
If you can do the job, do it. If you can't do the job, just teach it. If you really suck at it, just become a union executive or politician.
0 -
I think the fundamental point that the debate between the two of us to really highlight how disjointed the laws are, and how removed they are from the reality of how that are or could be applied. The horse is well and truly flogged at this point.
As Cass said, it's it the only medium we have to highlight these issues. The one thing we both agree on completely is that the blame or this lies entirely with how the law is written and structured, and it's not that difficult to fix it if they bother to.
Do everything you can to protect yourself. I completely agree there, and have done from the start.
The point was more about people who didn't put down a certain use, or couldn't justify it at the time, and how they don't need to limit themselves. Everyone just make their own decisions and do what is best for you and for the situation.
2 -
And if the powers that be go about rewriting the laws and consolidating them, we'll lose something else in that process.
Death by 1000 cuts.
5 -
Here's an example of what I did yesterday after getting my new Mauser 223.
Went up the bog to an area of cutaway which has a 30ft high area of raised bog at the end approximately 250yrds.Now in my eyes this area which is owned by a friend couldn't be safer to zero my rifle on as I had a straight line of sight 250yrds and a 30ft bank at the end.Surley taking 20 or 30 shots to zero in rifle in a safe spot is altogether reasonable and is something that should be advised and applied.
Similarly I could go up and shoot with 10 lads at clays all day and not a bother as clays are not classed as target shooting, which seems weird.
4 -
Fundamentally there is no firearms legislation that specifically restricts any class of firearm to anything other than is declared on the application. The overriding principal of firearms licensing has been the suitability of the individual to hold a firearm, legislation has become convoluted complex and certainly open to interpretation since 2006 however, until such time as there are exclusions under the specific conditions of licensing a particular firearm I cannot see any impediment to using any firearm in any circumstances that is a lawful use of the firearm regardless of the original nature of the application, I simply refer to the first line on all our firearms licenses "you are herby authorised to have in your possession, use and carry XYZ" there is no exclusion saying you can only use the firearm for the purpose you specifically applied for! The Wildlife act regulates the use of firearms for wild game and vermin, the limitations clearly are on minimum caliber for deer, exclusion of the use of a shotgun on deer, etc etc.................. The firearms legislation is a mess but lets not make it worse than it is, of course this is only my opinion and open to being contradicted 😊
1 -
Just to add from my own experience.
I applied for a 243 on the basis of target shooting and fox control.
I had all intention of then getting permission and completing a deer stalking course for deer hunting, but I hadn't these done at that stage.
The license was granted with conditions "Target and Fox only" attached.
I completed the deer stalking course, got on a lease, applied and was granted the deer hunting licence from NPWS.
I rang my FO and (just to be 100% on side) explained I now had these (course, land permission, deer hunting licence), and asked if the conditions on my licence need to be amended or was I OK to proceed as is.
I was asked to bring in all relevant paperwork to confirm same and after I did, I received a new licence without the conditions.
Now, I'm not saying I did things in any correct order or that this will be the same for everyone in every jurisdiction, but my licence entitled me to possess a specific firearm and the conditions on it outline the limitations in which I can use it.
In my mind, the fact that I had the rifle license, land permission and deer hunting licence, didn't trump the fact that the conditions stated Fox and Target only and so I followed up locally to make sure I wasn't going to be on the wrong side of anything.
Just my two cents.
3 -
Advertisement
-
To be crystal clear, ignoring those conditions would be 100% be in breach of the law, regardless of what permission or certificate you had.
The discussion was only in relation to people who licenses are granted without condition.
Or to look at it another way, if you were restricted to the reasons you gave anyway. Then why would the legal means to apply conditions like that exist in the first place.
1 -
Yes, if the conditions had not been there for me to see, I would probably not even of thought twice after I had the deer hunting licence aquired.
I hadn't put deer hunting down on the rifle licence application, because at the time, I had no permission or deer hunting licence and so, no supporting paperwork which I would have needed to attach to the application.
1
