S&W 15/22 - Restricted or not?

Munsterlad102

As the title would suggest, I’m wondering if a Smith and Wesson M&P 15/22 is restricted or not, with just the 10 round magazine of course. I rang the FPU in the Park a couple of days ago but I didn’t get a straight answer and was just told that the dealer would tell me if it was restricted or not. My problem is my new FO is a bit over zealous and doesn’t know the law, he tried to tell me my pistol was restricted. So is the 15/22 an “assault rifle” under the law or not? Have the Park made a decision on the definition of appearing like an “assault rifle” or is it down to each individual FO and super to make a decision?

Grizzly 45

Its a .22 rifle in semi-auto unrestricted with a 10 round mag. Irrespective of its looks if they are trying on that angle.

If they do...Refer your FO to the Garda guidelines on this, and the conspicuous lack of any mention anymore of "looks like an assault rifle" And if he/she goes into "makey up law based on FEC recommendations. Point out that [1] The FEC couldn't agree on this either. [2] There have been over 18 DC cases up to 2015 involving semi-auto centre fire rifles, that failed on AGS part on form not following function,with High Court precedents for the previous and he can check this out with Insp Greene of the FPU,as Greene was involved in 95% losing AGS cases [3] There is no definition of what an "assault rifle "is in Irish legislation that describes what an assault rifle looks like [4]No army ever in the world issued a .22lr rifle as an assault rifle to is forces. [5] The Park does not make decisions on legislation, That's what we have DC judges for if they want to let a judge decide on it for you all.[6] There is no new law regarding SACFs.Even the new CJMPA pt 2 2023, clearly states what a semi-auto rifle is as being centrefire.

otmmyboy2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058310092/s-w-15-22-restricted-or-not

No, it is not.

I had this out with my FO previously and they ended up contacting the FPU(and I ended up sending in photos of the rifle in question) and the FPU's reply was so long as it was rimfire and with a mag capacity of 10 or less it was non-restricted.

slipperyox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121004652#Comment_121004652

The Israeli army issued 10/22 rifles, as a step up from rubber bullets.

otmmyboy2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121005474#Comment_121005474

Yup, as a "less than lethal" weapon 😂

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058310092/s-w-15-22-restricted-or-not

Short answer: As Grizzly said, a 22 rifle in semi-auto with a 10 round mag is unrestricted based on guidelines. That should be enough for 97% of FOs.

Longer, more complicated answer: Guidelines are not law, the Restricted Firearms Order is law (conveniently linked above by @otmmyboy2). The Guards, be it your local FO, or the Boys in the Park don't write the law, nor can they decide what a law as written actually means. They can only make an their interpretation. Unfortunately the always still states that “assault rifles” are select fire firearms and "firearms that resemble such rifles". That is the law. Fact.

If the FO wants to overzealously, and incorrectly interpret the second part as meaning "anything that looks like it could be select fire/black and scary" is an assault rifle. He's be wrong, but unfortunately you don't have a clear law to point to prove this. Logically, that line exists for a reason, so saying "that line is meaningless or irrelevant" is not a strong legal argument. You need to highlight the correct interpretation - this is not difficult and I'd be happy to help (can post here if mods Ok it).

But best action is to apply and see what comes see what comes up. He may open his eyes and read between the lines of the guidelines.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121004652#Comment_121004652

[1] The FEC are legally irrelevant. 😁

[2] We've discussed those cases before. I agreed that the outcome was that the rifles were licensed, they were also (afaik) all licensed as restricted firearms. So doesn't really help prove a lack of restriction here. (We can ignore DC decisions don't form precedent)

[3] I agree there is no definition of what it looks like. But I don't think it's a good pathway to rely on the lack of a definition. As that is basically conceding that looks like would be valid if it could be defined. As above, I think there is a much stranger interpretation.

[4]Do the military even use the term assault rifle. .22lr rifles been used by IDF and also the Russians. But both were/are a marksman platform iirc.

[5] Correct. But this is double edged as it reinforces that the guidelines are not law.

[6] SACF are irrelevant here, as they are already restricted under 2c(i) of SI 21/2008

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121005474#Comment_121005474

And then pulled them, after many legitimate protests by the Palestinians to the UN human rights commission as the Geneva Convention prohibits any military force from using non-FMJ ammunition as it is considered ammo that creates unnecessary suffering and injuries.[IE Dum Dum rounds] Even if the military is being used in a policing or riot control role.

Ironically if the Israeli,or any other recognised national police force used them in the world it would be ok, as police forces are exempt from the Geneva Convention. So it would be perfectly legal for say the ERU to use deer hunting ammo to shoot at Civilians here. if they thought it was effective. Nor were they standard-issued rifles to the IDF, but were considered riot control equipment. So another point, international law of warfare prohibits the .22 lr round from being used for combat.so these rifles cant be "assault rifles" either.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121005549#Comment_121005549

1] Indeed it is. However, we have seen that AGS seem to think it is law [or know already a pre-determined outcome?] By transposing parts of it already into the new FAC form and with NV. IOW exceeds their authority. So what's to say some zealot decides to use this on the rifle at hand?

2] Be a VERY brave/stupid Superintendent or state attorney to challenge a consensus decision by 20-plus district court judges in saying they are all wrong on this matter because there isn't an official decision and he is appealing it to the HC for a ruling. Yes,academically and in a perfect world you would be correct. The reality on the ground in day-to-day court life would say otherwise. A majority consensus decision of DC judges carries a lot of legal weight in the four courts.

3] There is HC precedent decision on the definition in law of the item being contended.

Was around 82/84 in revenue Vs a local Waterford farmer in what the definition of a "tractor" was in law. The farmer won, as the HC judgement said We might all know what a tractor might look like,but if it is not defined in legislation it cant be adjudged on. So if you can't/won't define what an assault rifle is in the statute law, how can you define what it looks like?

4] Yes, its an internationally recognised term and definition to describe a particular weapon by every major govt body, the UN,NATO and Western countries' armies and police forces since...oh ...1944 when the Allies captured the first "SturmGewehr" [Sturm in German means to assault or storm]. The Russians call theirs "automatic rifles" but recognise the term assault rifle too. Nor do we have assault rifles as civvies anywhere, in the EU we have modern sporting rifles.

Which Russian rifle was that? Can't find any listing of a .22lr rifle issued to Russian troops as a marksman rifle. As said RE the IDF and Russia too as signatories to the Geneva Convention,[although it doesn't seem to mean much to Russia going by their war crimes in Ukraine at the moment].It would be illegal equipment to use in a war situation, and being captured with either such a gun and /or ammo on a battlefield entitles your captors to deny you POW status at best.

6] Yes, but the no doubt thrown-up argument will be by some uninformed FO/Super will be "They were banned recently so FO!" So this is a pre-emptive point for this.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121006647#Comment_121006647

2] When did 20+ DC judges make a ruling that were unrestricted? Wasn't the outcome universally that they were not banned but still restricted? A Super decided a semi auto rifle is also restricted doesn't go against those decisions.

3] "So if you can't/won't define what an assault rifle is in the statute law"... Assault rife is defined in law (Select fire capability).

That definition could be extended very easily to include appearance. Hence why I think it's a poor argument to rely on the current lack of an appearance description, as you are conceding that it would be restricted if described, which makes no sense to be. I think there is a better way to interpret the SI.

4] I'm aware it was and is as an official term. I meant it's not used universally for select fire rifles (that I'm aware) as in legislation. Eg M16 is an assault rifle. M14 is more accurately a battle rifle. But I don't think that would fly to bypass the legal definition of assault rifle. Nor would a FA Rifle that lacks a selector.

The Russian rife is the SV-99. A takedown sniper rifle for special ops in urban areas. Straight pull.

I think US have also issued .22lr firearms (not rifles) for special ops. Would that also be considered illegal equipment? (I have never read the Geneva Convention)

Munsterlad102

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121005533#Comment_121005533

a 22 rifle in semi-auto with a 10 round mag is unrestricted based on guidelines.

And not being a bullpup of course. At least they define what a bullpup is.

 You need to highlight the correct interpretation - this is not difficult and I'd be happy to help (can post here if mods Ok it).

I'm all ears, please do elaborate.

Of course I'm just doing my due diligence, chances are my FO won't bring it up. He doesn't really seem to know what he's doing and has said some questionable things. But of course I'd rather do my homework and be prepared for anything.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121007263#Comment_121007263

1] The whole defence of the state for refusing the licenses was that these looked like assault rifles and there was no reason to own one by civilians as they were especially dangerous and used by elite police forces,and some other codswallop reasons of no competition.It failed multiple times on the point that the state could NOT define what an assault rifle looked like,and the fact there is precedence there to justify the decisions. They stayed restricted on the Magazine's capacity and the fact that they are SA rifles. END of story...The FACTS are they do not have a definition in law as to "what an assault rifle looks like" .They tried to obtain one in the FEC, and they have asked us in these FEC questions do we want a broader definition, and this "looks like" nonsense has gone from the last up-to-date commissioner's guidelines.Where is this ban thing coming from??? It was about refusal to grant certs.

3] OIooioi oi You forgot that the looks like ...You know the point we are discussing is STILL part of the definition? The point is its unworkable in day-to-day legislation.So if it was so easy to do, why didn't FEC come up with a workable solution either? I've never seen such a word dance in an official Govt report that is trying to twist words to suit an agenda.As well as that this looks like has been found to be literally unworkable in the US during the crime control act 1994/2004, and was dumped in Germany which had it from 1972 to 2001. As simply everyone removed the features that made them "assault rifles".In short AGS is arguing the toss with this. They have lost in numerous DC courts on using this point and will lose again As form does not follow function and 20-plus DC judges arrived at the same conclusions

4] makes no sense whatsoever you are saying.You wanted to know is an assault rifle is a universally accepted term to describe a particular weapons group...yes it is by all organisations and groups concerned.Being pedantic about the definition of an assault rifle yes guns like the M1carbine,the AR15, FAL, would fall outside the definition as they do not fire an intermediate cartridge either. But pretty much all select-fire rifles post-1944 are lumped into this category.But whether armed forces don't use this term...What exactly are you asking?

SV 99 is a POLICE weapon, not issued to the general Russian military. The way the Russians get around this is their Special forces police units, or paramilitary police units are also capable of being drafted into the army, as seen in Ukraine. It is still a prohibited weapon to use in warfare, but as I said the Russian thugs don't give a toss for Hauge or Geneva Conventions. I wouldn't like to be caught with one on a battlefield mind.As you would immediately lose any and all rights of a POW and could be summarily executed by your captors there and then for possession of an illegal weapon of war.https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/standart-caliber-rifles/russia-standart-caliber-rifles/sv-99-eng/

Yes, the US did in Vietnam, for a limited time. Navy SEALS used Ruger mk1 pistols with silencers for dog dispatch and NVA sentry elimination. It was dropped mostly because it was ineffective as well as illegal, and S&W developed the Mod 39 into the Mod 22 9mm suppressed "Hush Puppy" pistol.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121008537#Comment_121008537

[1] Being an assault rifle under the SI makes a firearm restricted. That is all the SI says, Period. It does not imply it cannot be owned. Any other interpretations are wrong and do not need to be entertained.

[2] Can you point to these cases where a DC judge ruled they were unrestricted. Which is the discussion. I can recall ever hearing that. Has it happened?

[3] You claimed above there was no definition whatsoever in statue law. I as pointing out that is not true. You literally just reference the definition.

[4] You say it's universal. Then agree that certain rifles (M1, M14) technically fall outside it, that contradicts the claim it's universal. It was a statement not a question. I'm just saying that select-fire rifles are not universally assault rifles. It should be isolated to the technical description not labels, surprised if you disagree.

ReSV99. There are many military weapons not issued to the general military. The point is that SV-99 is used by Russian special forces units. If they achieve this by seconding police units is irrelevant. It's designed for discreet work. Dog as you said, or lights, or anti-personnel if the situation called for it. I assume that special forces only used for specops and not on the battlefield.

Can you clarify what makes .22lr illegal weapons of war? Genuinely curious.

I'm aware of the hush puppy, and the HDM. But the US definitely continued to use it past the Vietnam war. Used in the cold war, referenced in the 90s. I've seen photos on special ops using them in Iraq in 2000s.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121010334#Comment_121010334

RSV99 first. As I stated its used illegally by Russian SF police units that also have a military role.It's the way Russian armed forces are set up that they can intermingle their military, civil,and paramilitary units as needed Now unless you want a treatise on how the Russian military works, pre and post Soviet times,can we just accept this point? So the relevancy of using seconding police units to a combat role is VERY relevant, as they are then obligated to obey the "rules of war" laid down by both Hauge and Geneva conventions.

As to why the .22 round is illegal in warfare . Simply, it is NOT a full metal jacketed round. It's a lump of hardened lead that expands on impact and falls foul of The Hauge Convention Rule 77.Its the reason ALL military ammo in small arms must be FMJ.Doesnt means it can't be cheated on in the design.IE fragmentation in the 5.56 round and deforms on its tip and tumbles in the case of the 5.45X39 Russian.

The prohibition in respect of international armed conflicts was introduced in 1899 by the Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets in reaction to the development of the so-called “dum-dum” bullet for use in military rifles.[1] The Declaration was ratified or acceded to by 28 States in the early years of the 20th century and 6 States succeeded to the Declaration in the second half of the 20th century.[2] The use of expanding bullets is listed as a war crime in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.[3] The prohibition has also been included in other instruments.[4]

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule77

In fact even when the USAF issued their M6 O/U survival rifle in 22 hornet/410 gauge in the 50s.There is an explicit warning in the USAF survival manuals and on the original ammo packages that this .22Hornet ammo was not to be used in a self-defence situation because it was unjacketed ammo.

So as said being captured,or in possesion of such a rifle and or ammo on a battlefield is going to go very badly for youBut then again,an army that uses cluster munitions on residential areas, executes civilians, and turns a blind eye to rape and torture of civilians isn't going to be too bothered about these minor nuances. Yes, the Russians have used their SPECOPS troops as literal cannon fodder a few times in Bakmut and Soledar they are that desperate/incompetent.

I'd be most interested in your references to the US military using the .22 post-Vietnam as you state.

1] Agreed,and your point being?

2]Not A one! Because no one was ever fighting that point of them being licensed unrestricted. 99 % of the cases were simply AGS refusals to license them on "the looks like "point.1% being the aGS claim of there being no suitable use for them in Irish society, and that they were being used in dynamic shooting at a range in Ireland.

3] Because you had left the looks-like out in a previous post.

4] In a perfect world where we are all gun nerds and know the tech difference between battle rifles and assault rifles, then yes. In the really real world where items of a specific type are labelled under a generic word.IE referring to all 4WDs as "Jeeps," different brands of vacuum cleaners as "hoovers" and all select fire rifles as "assault rifles" then its kind of a pointless discussion and point.

Grizzly 45

Does this look like an "assault rifle" to anyone?

Its the German army Reservists HK SL7 in [7.62 NATO 10 round ]it was built specifically in Germany for reservists and the German civilian market, post 1972 to comply with the German "looks like an assault rifle" legislation ban because the original HK reservist rifle was too close to a copy of the then issue German G3 . This never had select fire capability from the word go . The SL is still used today as the German parade rifle.

Looks are irrelevant and impossible to define in any legislation as they can be changed or removed to comply. This is basically the HK 91 [civvie G3] action in a wooden stock

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121011696#Comment_121011696

Sure, SV99 first. If you rope police units, or other units into the military. They are bound by military laws. Seconding police units for warfare doesn’t change international conventions. Not that they respect them either..

The statement was they used 22lr. If it’s their seconded special units are using it, legal or illegally, they are still using it. So yes, talking about seconded units, or illegal use is irrelevant to the whether or not they use it. As do “others”.

The Hague convention requires FMJ ammo. That’s well known. It’s a mistake to assume that as meaning .22lr is illegal for military use. I hadn’t heard of a 22lr rule.

The US issued FMJ .22lr rounds to their specops units. M24 Ball. Which presumably meant it was not illegal. No idea if the Russians were as considerate.

I’m on the phone, but I’ll be on PC later. And will post that info about .22lr use by US marines/seals/special forces.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121011696#Comment_121011696

Second half.

[1] The point is arguing about FEC, incorrect interpretations, or any thing like that is a waste of energy. It’s a strawman.

[2] So no judge made that ruling. it hasn’t happened.

I think a strong arguement could be made. But saying it’s happened many times seems incredibly disingenuous.

3] Getting off track. But above you said there was no definition in law. Pointing out that there is a definition.

and, I’ll clarify tomorrow. But the definition doesn’t say “looks like” ;)

4] assault rifle is increasingly meaningless. Most people think a SACF ar pattern rifle is an assault rifle. I’d just like to see “select fire” divorced from the Hollywood aspect.

Grizzly 45

Jeezee its like herding cats here

22LR is a banned round in military usage because it is NOT FMJ and is an expanding round that is hollow point in the majority of cases, The Hauge convention fits it to a T. You just proved this point by stating that the US military developed a FMJ ball round!!! Why would they do such if it was to not be accused of using an illegal weapon in warfare?

This seems to verify what I said about .22lr being a llegal round in a lead-only configuration. Also, it was a limited run and not a general issue to regular forces. "The original T42 FMJ rounds were developed at the request of the OSS in WWII. It was brought to their attention that the lead bullet .22lr ammunition issued with the silenced High Standard pistol was in violation of the Hague Accords ban on soft lead bullets in combat. They still continued to issue standard Remington .22lr lead bullet ammo until the T42 was developed, and after that as well. I assume since any agent caught behind enemy lines would likely get executed anyway, the spy agency really didn’t get THAT concerned about lead bullets being used.*

The M24 was just a later production version of the T42. As most USAF survival weapons were chambered for .22 Hornet and not .22lr, there weren’t great opportunities for using it against small game animals. But the suppressed HD pistols and a few other offensive .22lr weapons were used up through Vietnam and later, and the M24 is the specified round for all combat usage of .22lr guns.

https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/looking-for-u-s-military-22lr-fmj-box-lots/2096/4

It's not going to be a "moot point" in future Hauge war crimes trials of any said Russian commanders who authorised it or soldiers who are caught with such rifles or ammo in Ukraine or elsewhere.Esp if anyone in those mass graves in Bakmuht and others has been found executed "Russian style" by shooting in the base of the skull with .22 ammo.Was apparently a favourite of the ol NKVD. so lets wait and see

the potted history of the use of .pistols by US SFs.However it seems a very short life in Vietnam until better came along, and note, even the author says their usage is embellished or not known exactly how.https://blog.refactortactical.com/blog/special-operations-suppressed-22/

*Being a spy or partisan in a conflict puts you outside the Hauge and Geneva protection of military combatants anyway if caught. So moot what ammo you might use unless caught of course and the survivors get to work you over before shooting you with your own ammo I suppose

Grizzly 45

1] the fact of the FAC2 and NV changes says otherwise.If it hasn't occurred to anyone now that we were lied to by Browne on this as well."There will be no changes made to the firearms legislation until all parties have been consulted!" James Browne TD May 2023 ring any bells?

2] WTF are you on about? I said it was NEVER a point of contest in any of the cases about changing them to unrestricted..it was about the looks like reason and the perceived threat to society that AGS was using to refuse renewals or 1st applications. . Its certainly disingenuous to keep bringing up a point that was never made by either side in the cases and claiming it as a fact.

3] "Resembles" if you are going to be pedantic.

4] I think the better definition is simply what it was all along. Select fire, with a detachable box magazine of over 20 rounds. If it does not have the primary feature of concern to everyone select fire. Its not an assault rifle. It can have as many bits on it ,be made by any company making genuine military assault rifles, but without that 3rd position, it's a semi-auto rifle

Grizzly 45

Anyhoo,to get this back on track, and off how many angels can dance on a pinhead sideshow? It's becoming Ireland's answer to the 9mmVs 45ACP or Revolver Vs Pistol debates one sees on US gun boards. Go on forever and go nowhere.

At this stage, I contend this is now at the moment, this "looks like, resembles, is similar to, an assault rifle" point in the legislation is simply a nonworkable reason for refusal by the Gardai as an assault rifle is not defined properly in the legislation as the core of what one looks like is not addressed in the legislation no mention of features or the like is mentioned in any act.

As said there is a HC precedent for this point that stands. Define what object you are legislating in law or go home. I can only relate to four personal DC cases where the judge ruled on these points of "looks like" and supposition of a possible crime or misuse being committed with one is not a valid reason to refuse a firearm to a lawful application with good reason and proven in cases of previous licensing of safe usage, and 16 other such cases nationwide with the same verdicts.

Friend Mellor will no doubt contend that this isn't what the legislation means that these judges meant something different and not relevant to semi-auto. 22s that looks odd and this is a going concern to stop any future licensing of .22 semi-autos, and now shotguns.

We have been bashing this topic now for the last four years off and on and really have nothing new to add to this on either side. So at this point, I'm agreeing to disagree as neither side is going to move and the info is here for everyone to find on boards. It's up to you now to decide what,or who you want to believe on this topic.

AGS has granted licenses for these types of guns in 10-round capacity, the FCP stated that as far as they are concerned its an unrestricted .22. The super will be asking the FCP, not boards.ie/shooting for an opinion on this if they do, and the best advice to the OP is go and apply for one and see what happens. Come back to us if there is a problem either here or to FUNI or your organisation of choice.

G

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121014093#Comment_121014093

lol @Grizzly 45 there's a lot of moving the goal posts there. Had to stop when you start on about lead ammo. We were talking about 22lr firearms, not civilian 22lr ammo or expanding ammo. You literally said the 22lr firearms and pistols were illegal weapons of war.

I said .22lr was used my the Russians and the US. And point to a number of .22lr firearms . You said the use of .22lr weapons was legal. Right?

I said I didn't think so as it was used right to the early 2000s by the US. when you confirmed you were talking about expanding lead ammo. I pointed out that they had FMJ ball ammo for military use. All good. (If you ere aware of the FMJ ball 22lr ammo, I'm really not sure why you didn't believe me).

So to be clear. .22lr calibre firearms were used by the US and others, and that use of 22lr firearm with appropriate ammo is not by illegal as previously claimed. Agreed?

(I'm not claiming that it has never been used illegal, I'm sure it has.)

And as I said I'd come back to it.

I'd be most interested in your references to the US military using the .22 post-Vietnam as you state.

I'm sure you are aware of High Standard HDM in the OSS day up to Vietnam.

Post this the Navy Seals started using Ruger Mark II pistols. The details are largely classified. But most notable, they hand a internally supressed variant created called the Amphibian that was design to be fire from water - apparently water in the suppressor improved the dB reduction.

The use of the Ruger (standard and suppressed) continues to at least the 90s. It was listed in an International Weapons directory, and International Defense Review, lists it under small arms the seals can be equipped with. From here it spread to other divisions, such as Marines Force Recon. I don't know when they shopped using it, or is they even have. But the latest example I have seen is the below image, which I guess if from the early 2003 or soon after.

That is Travis Haley, former CEO of Magpul. He is holding a Ruger Mark 2, with red dot and suppressor, on duty in Iraw. I assume he was using FMJ rounds.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121014196#Comment_121014196

I'm not sure what you're not following tbh. I't been point out may times. It's not complicated either.

@Munsterbhoy@Munsterlad102 asked about a SA rimfire, and whether it would be unrestricted or restricted. That's his question.

You brought up, and I quote "18 DC cases up to 2015 involving semi-auto centre fire rifles..." and said it would be a "stupid Superintendent ... to challenge a consensus decision by 20-plus district court judges". I'm not saying unrestricted or restricted was a topic in any of those 18/20 cases. I'm saying that's the question that was asked in relation to the SA rimfire here. It's disingenuous to say interpretation of the restricted SI could go against decisions by 20-plus district court judges when, as you just admitted, it wasn't a point raised in any of those cases. I really don't see the difficulty here.

Friend Mellor will no doubt contend that this isn't what the legislation means that these judges meant something different and not relevant to semi-auto. 22s that looks odd and this is a going concern to stop any future licensing of .22 semi-autos, and now shotguns.

Restricted firearms can be license, as you well know. The shotguns in question are restricted, as I pointed out. Do you really think see can't follow your bait and switch, or do you genuinely get mixed up.

"Resembles" if you are going to be pedantic

In the past, I'd have agree that resembles = looks like. But I'm changing my mind on that, not being pedantic, it actually benefits shooters to distinguish.

otmmyboy2

/Mod hat on

Howdy chaps,

Reminder to play the ball, not the man in your replies(ie attack their argument rather than their person).

Also, this thread was about whether a 15-22 is classified as a restricted because of the "resembles" law, keep it on topic.

Munsterlad102

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121005533#Comment_121005533

You need to highlight the correct interpretation - this is not difficult and I'd be happy to help (can post here if mods Ok it).

And what is the correct interpretation? Like it seems pretty ambiguous to me, hence why I made the post. So do please elaborate.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015334#Comment_121015334

Exactly. That's simply what the laws says. It's always open to interpretation. Guidelines can be adjusted on a whim. We all know appearance is irrelevant. But if an overzealous FO insists on a restricted license for a 15-22. Pointing to SACFs rifles that were ruled as legal to own on restricted license, does not seem helpful. Not does telling the FO, that you're supposed to ignore that line.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121007966#Comment_121007966

Hopefully it doesn't come up. Sense seems to prevail a lot. I've not had to personally deal with an FO like that. But if he does;

The clause exists, it was added for a reason, but we don't actually know why that was. We always assumed it was appearance, but maybe it actually wasn't. I've wonder what firearms are intended to be cover by the clause. SACFs are already excluded from unrestricted firearms. Any "assault shotgun" is cover by its own features. All that "resembles" could cover is rimfires and bolt actions. I'm not convince they were the target. Because why would they be?

So I went back to the wording.

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

(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

The criteria for (a) is clearly the function of the rifle being select fire. Part (b) does not mention appearance, it does not say firearms "that resemble in appearance". It just says resembles such rifles, and as we just stated the defining criteria for "such rifles" is function. It could in fact mean "firearms that resemble in function such rifles". Which would be the likes of rifles with devices* fitted that allow a SA action to approach or resemble an automatic fire mode.

Obviously neither in appearance nor in function is stated, whichever it is, it is implied. But given function is the subject criteria, I'd argue that it is the more logical interpretation. Restricting appearance make no sense. But restricting a device* that while not technically select fire, resembles a select fire capability suddenly makes a lot more sense considering the purpose of the restricted list.

*There are multiple devices that do that. I trust we all know what I'm referring. I'm trying to start a discussion about the status of them here.

otmmyboy2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121017024#Comment_121017024

devices* = Jerry Miculek's trigger finger 😁

https://gfycat.com/cautiousbeneficialclingfish

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121017024#Comment_121017024

[MOD SNIP] How about applying Occam's razor to some of this? Maybe this clause exists because the person who wrote the guidelines in the first editions didn't have a clue about what they were on about in the first place and tried to cover all bases but didn't have the legal knowledge or firearms knowledge in depth to do this job right, and it wasn't run thru a proper legal filter like the attorney generals office? I say this as the first editions of the guidelines in 2008 had statements in them that were borderline sedition by AGS and the person who wrote them or advised on them was left a stuttering mess in many witness boxes around the country's courts when questioned on their own documents.

Quite frankly,in reality, do you think a Garda tasked with being the FO of wherever is going to go into all these academic nuances and arguments? He doesn't get to decide anyway. That's someone's job 4 pay grades above him .IOW what exactly are we trying to prove here? Does this have any real benefit to the OP or anyone else to go into this minute academe theory of what this might mean or not? If the Super objects he has to put in writing his reasons on the application, and something as convoluted as the above reasoning is not going to feature in any man's reasoning who has more important things to do in police work and really doesn't want to be involved in this stuff in the long run.

So what is the purpose and your motive for all this Mellor?Do you want us to have these types of guns or not. As you seem hell-bent on talking us out of them or giving the AGS more ammo to deny them?

Really want to know.

Munsterlad102

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121005048#Comment_121005048

Do you have any record of this or was it just a phone call with the Park? I'd just rather have proof of a decision from the FPU prior to applying for the license.

Cass

MODERATOR WARNING.

It's becoming very clear that an interpersonal dispute between certain users is derailing every thread where the posters post.

That ends NOW.

• Any post that is solely designed to provoke a rise from another.
• Any post that replies to such provocation.
• Any post which has the only purpose to single out another individual.
• Any post which rises to the level of stalking ( not interacting with other uses, only the person to whom they have a dislike for).
• Any post which is insulting, defamatory or outright name calling (however subtle).

Will all result in deletion, infraction and/or thread ban for all users involved. Continued behaviour of this sort will result in forum ban.

In short disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated, even if it's polite.

This is the final warning on the matter. No excuses will be listened to if Moderators have to act further.

otmmyboy2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121018316#Comment_121018316

Oh you know how much AGS love to leave a paper trail of their decisions that can bite them in future.

Nope, emails between myself and my FO, and then the FO taking that and talking to the FPU and emailing me back the result of their call, but nothing concrete from the FPU itself.

If your FO is throwing a strop at this state of affairs might I recommend going with what the FPU have said, calling them up and saying your FO wants to know if something is restricted or not, and the FPU have said the dealer can specify, so could you get an email from the FPU stating that the dealer has the last word on whether the firearm is restricted or not?

That email, if they are good enough to furnish you with one, along with a dealer's letter stating the firearm is non restricted, should be sufficient to convince all but the most, er, stringent, of FOs.

An alternative, which might not have occurred to the FO, would be to ask them to check PULSE for S&W 15-22s which are licenced as non restricted, and if there are(I know of a few dozen) then that should give an answer to the matter too?

dalalada

It’s a total farce that a .22lr can be restricted at all ffs what a joke.

Is a moderator for a centerfire restricted?