NV/THERMAL

Rifter

I appreciate there are some threads on this already, however I didn't want tgis to get lost in the threads.

Just to be clear from the outset I do not own or possess either a stand alone or clip on/add on NV/Thermal unit.

I was a bit confused by the legislation so I called Firearms Unit in DOJ.

I asked about clip on/add on units specifically, eg Pard 007s, and was told that all thermal/nv units, stand alone scopes or units that can be mounted to a scope require a licence.

I then asked whether the unit itself required a licence or whether the firearm it was to be attached to combined with the unit required a licence.... I was told I'd have to consult AGS as they deal with processing the licences.

So now I've to ask my FAO whether I require a restricted licence for the Pard itself or whether I need a restricted licence for the firearm combined with the Pard.

Just as an aside, I have no problem with oversight when it comes to firearms, and if thermal/nv units required authorisation same as a moderator I would see no issue, but does anyone know if legsilating and item as a firearm when it clearly technically is not a firearm could be challenged? It just seems ludicrous to me that they can call piece of optical equipment a firearm in law when it is clearly not.

Cass

@Rifter - does anyone know if legsilating and item as a firearm when it clearly technically is not a firearm could be challenged?

Not being a dick, but if you have a hundred plus grand to challenge it in the high court then any legislation can be challenged.

Whether you're successful or not is another matter.

This law has been in place since 1990. Section 4(g)(I) states a firearm as defined in the 1925 Act now includes;

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

It was always the case just never enforced and like with pistols, semi auto rifles, etc once their popularity grows and AGS starts to take notice either existing law is enforced (as with sights) or new legislation is created to curtail or eliminate their future licensing and hence ownership.

There is still, imo, not clear definition on this. As I've said before the law states only items designed to be fitted to a firearm are regarded as firearms. So obviously scopes with such capabilities are firearms under the law.

The confusion comes from the various models and types. Now I know nothing about NV/thermal stuff so excuse any errors in my example, it's for explanation purposes only.

A dedicated scope is a firearm under the law. No issues there, it needs a restricted license.

A unit such as a Pard, or other brand, which it's only function is to be mounted to a scope should fall under this categorisation but it's not a telescopic sight as we know it or would class it. It has lenses but afaik does not magnify the target, only works with a standard telescopic sight and has no reticle (again I don't know so open to correction ).

So how does this fall under the same categorisation as a dedicated scope? If it does then the law is wrong in it's definition of them as a telescopic sight, hence open to challenge and if it does not come under the category of telescopic sight then at worst it needs authorisation and not a restricted license.

Finally the handheld unit. Not designed to be attached to a firearm at all, is not a dedicated scope, and so falls under no part of the act.

So technically it shouldn't need any authorisation at all.

We all know that "firearm officers" don't exist. There is no such posting in AGS. There is someone who deals with applications. I say that not to be an ass, but it's a mistake to think they know the laws inside and out. That comes from my own experience over the years having dealt with about 10 "FOs" whose knowledge ranged from good to not a clue. It would seem they receive no training on the position or at best the basic amount of administrative training to process the applications.

We have seen plenty of errors, mistakes and at times advice/information supposedly contrary to legislation given to applicants by "FO's".

Now that does not mean they're always wrong, frequently wrong, nor does it mean I am in any way suggesting to ignore their advice. However the "blanket" labelling of all such units as restricted firearms is, to me, wrong.

Until a court case is had and the matter clarified it'll be down to the discretion of AGS and they will always go with, license it.

Rifter

1. I wish I did have the money Cass, I really do, if I did I would challenge it, but unfortunately I don't

2. Section 4(g)(I) is why I was confused, a Pard is not a telescopic sight, it can be attached to a telescopic sight and it does emit an IR beam, inbuilt within the unit, but it has no reticle, it is essentially a screen.

I also thought, at first, an add on/clip on unit, as it is not a dedicated telescopic sight.

freddieot

Based on the definition in (i) it does seem that even something as basic as say the Burris Eliminator Laserscope would fall foul of this legislation.

It is telescopic and does emit a light beam (laser for the rangefinder function) ?

Cass

Yup.

Grizzly 45

On the point of the Dual-use NV handheld/ clip-on /head-mounted monocular units

As the legislation stands currently these was literally unknown when this legislation was drawn up.So TBH it could be also argued that as there is no specific legislation covering these devices they are exempt. However, playing within the rules the ultimate point would be.Does it have the capability of being mounted to a scope from the get-go,or do you have to acquire the mounting unit as an extra as it is a handheld with that capability.

I dunno much about the PARD units,but I ASSume they are a straight fit/clamp on to a scope with extra shim rings? IF it doesn't have that feature straight off then it is a handheld unit and it is free to own without a license, as it is then a simple monocular. if you have to buy the mounting adapter separately to fit it to a riflescope on a firearm,then you would have to license it for NV hunting usage. Or Not...As these can also be mounted on cameras, binoculars,spotting scopes etc. A proverbial large can of worms opened because back in the 1990s two FFers wanted a quick solution to a non-existent problem.

Rifter

The Pard units, rear clip on, are designed out of the box to mount to the rear of a scope. They come with a mount to do it.

I have an awful feeling it'll require a licence, which to me on technical point seems ridiculous, an optic cannot be defined as or meet the definition of a firearm.

I'll have a chat with the Sgt in my station and go from there.

I suppose the point if licencing is to make it more difficult than it should be to purchase one, if it becomes prohibitive through expense and awkward to buy one, Ill just get a Handheld thermal unit for spotting and continue to use my current lamping setup to dispatch foxes.

Rifter

Just thought Id post an update.

So stand alone nv/thermal scopes AND optic mounted units(clip on/add on) require a Restricted Licence. I'm still considering whether to bother, which I suppose is what DOJ/AGS want.

I could be completely misreading the Firearms Act but from my reading NV/Thermal required authorisation from a Super, same as a "silencer". Not a licence from a Chief Super. But thats an aside as no matter what the law says, I/we need a Restricted Licence from AGS irregardless as that is how they are interpreting the legislation.

Grizzly 45

Riddle me this.

On the clip-on/add-on.Which is basically a handheld spotting scope held by an attachment to your rifle scope.Suppose you want this unit for nighttime photography/videoing, and you have no intention of ever mounting it on a firearm,in fact you might not own any firearm at all. Will you still need a Restricted firearms license because it is "capable of being mounted on a weapon."

Cass

Yes, in the same way if you bought a dedicated nv scope you'd need the license.

The law says "designed to be fitted to", not "intend to use for X".

The handheld units that are not capable is where I say there is/should be no authorisation or licensing required as it's not a dedicated unit nor designed to be fitted to a firearm.

Rifter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121353062#Comment_121353062

From what I was told Grizz by Firearms Policy, both DOJ and AGS, is yes!!

Im not a solicitor or barrister so I'm clearly reading the Firearms Act incorrectly, but my reading was they required authorisation, same as a moderator, AGS approach is to require an application for a restricted licence to possess both dedicates nv/thermal units and clip on/add on units.

Dedicated handheld units, that are not designed to be mounted to an optic/firearm, require no licence/authorisation.

Cass

@Rifter "but my reading was they required authorisation, same as a moderator"

A suppressor is also a firearm under the act but unlike a dedicated Nightvision set up suppressors were made unrestricted by SI21/2008 as amended by SI337/2009.

NV stuff was classified as a firearm in the 1990 act as outlined above however the same SIs made them restricted in 2008/2009 and as such they remain so.

A suppressor, like NV, does require authorisation however we often confuse or blur the line on what authorisation means. Authorisation takes the form of a license. It is represented on our license as a "S" but make no mistake if you wanted a suppressor and had no firearm you would still need to apply for one with an FCA1 as with any firearm.

The same applies with NV stuff. I'm assuming (terrible thing to do for obvious reasons) the reason for the separate application for the NV stuff is because it is restricted and the firearm unrestricted (in the majority of firearm applications).

I actually looked back on some old threads, because of this topic, were I cautioned people that such authorisation/licensing was required (to much rebuttal by some) and even our for sale rules (rule no. 5) specifies NV among other items as needing authorisation before being allowed to possess them. That means, as said above, licensing of it. What is not there, and will be amended shortly to clarify, is the need for a restricted license for them.

Rifter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121353847#Comment_121353847

Thats where the confusion on my part, and many others, was I suppose Cass. I haven't had a chance to talk to the Sgt who deals with applications. I already have 3 firearms, under the law if I applied for a licence for NV I would, on paper, have 1 restricted Firearm and 3 unrestricted.

I suppose my biggest problem with it all is having a Firearms Licence for something which is not a Firearm, no matter what way the ptb define it in law. I really don't see why it can't be dealt with the same as a silencer on an application, I'd have no problem with the use of an NV/thermal being tied to the specific firearm for which it was applied for, the same as a silincer but thats moot at this stage I suppose.

Cass

Never let common sense get in the way of bureaucracy. 🙄

It reminds me of zeroing outside a range. It was made illegal by the wording in the act and the Minister even said it was not his intent to do so.

Yet here we are some 15 or so years later and it's never been amended or changed.

Rifter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121354472#Comment_121354472

Thats a fair point 🤣

Sure why fix it when somebody could only end up in court

dalalada

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121354472#Comment_121354472

zeroing an optic is illegal outside a range?

Cass

Zeroing a firearm, also known as target shooting, is not permitted outside of an authorised range.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121354472#Comment_121354472

Reason its never changed is simply we never push back . Quoting from the Garda guidelines page 24 of the 2018 version. They now recognise this as a necessary safety practise for hunting, and state while it is recommended to use a range, if it is not possible to do so an area CAN be used that is away from occupied buildings, has a suitable backstop and is not a danger to the public. It's another "Yes, but no, but yes, but no" solution/answer/fudge whatever you want to call it for this situation.

I'm sure if you were extracting the urine and you and your mates were dropping rounds into someone's house or property every Saturday AM until late saying you were "Zeroing for hunting" wouldn't wash with anyone. I think that was the original spirit of this legislation was to prevent people from shooting in unsuitable locations,or opening up spurious "clubs" on unsuitable grounds or preventing such from happening during the Celtic Tiger building boom.But it was so badly worded and thought out by people unaware of the shooting that it became a Hames again, which has kept us occupied here in many a debate.

As for the NV hand held, and or with clip on capability.I can't see people who are utterly unaware of and would have no reason to be involved in the firearms law applying for restricted licenses for their thermal/NV unit that they are using for purposes other than and far away from hunting at night being prosecuted for having a "restricted firearm" on the end of their camcorder. Eventually I think we will end up with a law of some sort and lots of Fudge when it is realised this will be more unenforceable legislation. Simply because technology ,global trade and laziness of politicians in defining stuff in law will never be fitted by legislation.

Cass

@Grizzly 45 Reason its never changed is simply we never push back .

There was push back, it's why the Minister later admitted it was an error but was still never changed.

@Grizzly 45 Quoting from the Garda guidelines page 24 of the 2018 version

That does not repeal or negate the legislation. It does mean AGS can use discretion which is a good thing, but how sad is it that when bad legislation is enacted, admitted as being wrong, and then nearly a decade later AGS "throw us a bone" by saying you may not be prosecuted for breaching the firearms act, we think of this as a good thing?

Grizzly 45

That does not repeal or negate the legislation. It does mean AGS can use discretion which is a good thing, but how sad is it that when bad legislation is enacted, admitted as being wrong, and then nearly a decade later AGS "throw us a bone" by saying you may not be prosecuted for breaching the firearms act, we think of this as a good thing?

Guess we didn't push back hard enough to sort this out,and politicians and their decisions are of course never wrong or admitted as such in the public domain.But we should be used to this as Irish gunowners as we deal with this chaos in legislation daily.

dalalada

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121355149#Comment_121355149

If you’re not a range member how can you zero your rifle for hunting so

Cass

Now you see the problem.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121355834#Comment_121355834

It's been recognised, there there are guidelines/policy to allow it to happen outdoors in a safe location. But, as alluded to above. It is, technically, not permitted by law.

Where possible, an authorised shooting range would be the safest location to carry out a zeroing test. Where this is not possible, it has been the practice to test zero a firearm in an outdoor location. It is vitally important that any such location is a safe distance from occupied buildings and does not pose a risk to the safety of members of the public

laoismanj

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058319740/nv-thermal

Thank the eejits shooting deer illegally at night and a few quid to be made by the tay team

Cass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121357599#Comment_121357599

I don't believe that is the reason. I won't dismiss it completely but it sounds like the narrative coming from some Deer associations without any data to back up their claim.

The 1990 act made such sights a firearm which was 34 years ago, and the si of 2008 made them restricted.

As said above, or perhaps in another thread, the junior Minister saw an opportunity to enforce current law and ban some guns which while not a problem are great virtue signalling opportunity and will serve as a good sound bite come the next election.