More licensing restrictions?

clivej

Maybe more than a rumour.

"Any firearm with a sight that uses a battery will need a restricted license"

Anyone else hear of this?

otmmyboy2

Sounds like some Chinese whispers version of the night vision/thermal sights licencing change which now requires a restricted license.

Well, technically always did but now is being enforced.

delboythedub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121456996#Comment_121456996

Would this include a sight with a illuminated reticle. ?

otmmyboy2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121457126#Comment_121457126

The rumor above would, yes. Pretty much anything battery powered, so red dot sights, holosights, scopes with one or more of - illuminated reticles, range finders, bluetooth connections, kestrel connections, etc.

Basically most modern scopes. with anything but a glass etched reticle afaik.

Thermal/Night vision would not include an illuminated reticle, and currently illuminated reticles do not require any licencing of any sort.

TheEngineer1

So they're going after BB gun attachments now too?

Munsterlad102

A fella in my gun club got a letter from his local super about this a couple months ago.

zeissman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121458656#Comment_121458656

Probably just another super making up his own laws again.

Munsterlad102

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121458736#Comment_121458736

What a surprise.

Grizzly 45

Another unenforceable bit of legislation even if they were thinking about this.

night vision/thermal sights licencing change which now requires a restricted license.

Well, technically always did but now is being enforced.

Stick with me here a minute?

The primary legislation for this is the 1991 Offensive Weapons Act where these sights are legislated as "firearms"?

The categories of non restricted and restricted firearms came in 2006/08 in the CJMPA

Both of these are statute legislation that requires a Dail amendment to change said act[s]?

Can anyone point out where these acts have been changed to now categorise NV/thermal as Restricted firearms? Or under what ministerial action in the last 10 months changed this act under ministerial power and where we might find this action or Dail proceedings? Or by what authorisation are AGS now deciding and acting on these are "restricted firearms" and demanding they be licensed as such? Because I can't find anything in the legislation that has changed the primary acts, ministerial order to do so or anything else.

Simply put.This looks like AGS exceeding their authority and acting contrary to the primary legislation of the OWA 1991.Unless that is changed they still have to deal with any applications and licenses under that act.

What are we missing here?

Cass

Sorry if I'm not following and taking you up wrong but are you saying that the NV (etc) classification as a restricted firearm is unlawful?

The 1991 act lists them as firearms, as you said. The 2006 acts defines and amends the principle act with regard to restricted/non restricted status.

There is no 2008 act (God I hope I'm right on that)

There is an SI (statutory instrument) for 2008, no 21, which more clearly defined restricted and non restricted which was also amended by 337 of 2009.

Statutory Instrument are orders designed to amend (for clarification, listing, etc) primary legislation without altering it. As the 1991 and 2006 acts already make this definition the SIs clarify which firearms are of what status.

The two acts (1991 & 2006) do not stand opposed to each other and as they had to go through the full process of an act they are lawful. As such I'm not sure why you think they were amended and amended without proper "parliamentary procedure"!

So help me understand your thinking. This is not a change in law but a case of existing law not being properly enforced or enforced at all. So what is unlawful about it.

Cass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058325759/more-licensing-restrictions

Not possible, must be just rumor.

As normal scopes, even those with battery powered illuminated reticles, are not light amplifying.

Even if such madness was being considered or tested, remove the battery, problem solved. Scope works just fine without a battery whereas a NV, IR, thermal, etc. will not function without power/battery.

Besides would AGS really want to stir that hornets nest. Restricted firearms license for all scopes! The Chief Supers will love that as all their time will be taken up with applications for them.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121461567#Comment_121461567

There was no change to the law. They were restricted by the original relevant legislation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469145#Comment_121469145

I'd assume it was just rumour/pub talk too.

Possibly a super generalised "electronic light amplification" scope too broadly, or was unaware that other electronic scope exist. or maybe an applicated misunderstood "electronic light amplification" are simplified it for the pub talk

TheEngineer1

The 2006 SI just says night vision/ thermal vision rifle scopes and silencers must be "authorised" by the Gardaí.

I can't find a reference to "light amplifying" scopes or such in the 2008 SI.

Its a bit open ended as to what authorised means. The scopes aren't defined as restricted or non-restricted. So what was wrong with getting the old "SE" stamped on the license for electronic sights the same as getting "S" stamped for silencers?

tonysopprano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469386#Comment_121469386

CJA 2006, (https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec25)

definitions, “ firearm” means—

,

(f) any article which would be a firearm under any of the foregoing paragraphs but for the fact that, owing to the lack of a necessary component part or parts, or to any other defect or condition, it is incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile or projectile or of causing a shock or other disablement, as the case may be,

(g) except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:

(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),

(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e), and

(iii) any object—

(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and

(II) without which it could not function as originally designed,

THEREFORE, all the above must be licenced

Cass

TheEngineer1 - Its a bit open ended as to what authorised means. The scopes aren't defined as restricted or non-restricted.

It's not open ended at all .

The problem with the firearm acts is the way they are "spread out". It is why everyone and their Granny has been calling for a complete restatement of them for years (decades almost).

You cannot point to one specific act or SI a lot of the time for an answer, and this is the case with these sights. At the risk of repeating myself:

1991 offensive weapons act states any sight with light amplification capability designed to be fitted to a firearm, is a firearm. Section 4(g) iirc.

2006 act defines authorisation of such firearms as being restricted and unrestricted. Authorisation is granted for any firearm in the form of a firearms license.

SI 21/2008 lists what is unrestricted, and everything else is restricted.

SI 337/2009 further clarifies this as well as amending errors (such as making suppressors restricted in the 2008 SI).

Such sights are not listed in section 4 of the SIs (either 2008 or 2009) hence they are classed as restricted. In the same way as a semi auto centre fire rifle was not listed, so is therefore restricted. The same as a 50 cal is not listed and so is restricted. Yet no one questions their status as a restricted firearm (albeit for good reason as they're actually a firearm and not a scope, but that debate is for another thread on another day).

This is not a "told ya" moment, but I've been saying for years that all the above has been the law for many years, and I'm not the only one. The , then, new Garda Commissioner mentioned on page 41 of the updates guidelines that anyone seeking such a sight should apply for it when applying for the firearms as subsequent applications will incur a fee of €80 (he also spoke in the same manner on suppressors).

People didn't listen then, perhaps they will now.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469386#Comment_121469386

The fact there is no reference to "light amplifying" scopes or such in the 2008 SI is pretty much the point. You might need to re-check the wording.

The scopes aren't defined as restricted or non-restricted. 

They are defined as restricted.

dalalada

What about PEQ, DBAL and NGAL devices

Grizzly 45

The word TRITIUM and Occuled Eye Gunsight [OEG] or any sight with a radioactive glow-in-the-dark aiming reticle make this idea a moot point.

Cass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121470874#Comment_121470874

Please understand, I'm not an authority on these devices, nor IR, nor thermal, nor NV, etc. I've never owned one, used one, and have only "Google" knowledge of them.

My comments above and henceforth are opinions based on how the law is written.

That being said the devices you listed are the laser designators you see on TV. They are not a dedicated telescopic sight and seemingly have not the capacity for light amplification in that they will not increase the visibility of quarry or targets (open to correction on their functionality).

So as with the add ons, and again an opinion, I believe the practice of them requiring a restricted license is an error as they do not meet the legal definition of a telescopic sight designed to be mounted to a firearm, well not completely.

They can be used in conjunction with a normal telescopic sight, but not without one whereas a dedicated telescopic sight (with magnification, cross hairs, elevation/windage adjustment, etc) fulfills all these requirements.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469407#Comment_121469407

SI 21/2008 lists what is unrestricted, and everything else is restricted.

Back to front there. It lists everything that's Restricted, and oddly there is no mention of NV in any shape or form in there.

SI 337/2009 further clarifies this as well as amending errors (such as making suppressors restricted in the 2008 SI).

EH? That defines what are legal pistols are under that Aherne creature.No mention of NV or anything else in that act

Such sights are not listed in section 4 of the SIs (either 2008 or 2009) hence they are classed as restricted.

This above is the crux. It's a proven point in law that if you don't include or define something in an act as far as I understand,it can't be legislated without an amendment adding such to the act or judged on in a court. IOW How can AGS claim these are now "restricted firearms" when there is no mention of them whatsoever in the SI 21/2008 to make them restricted? And under what authority of the laws do they now have the right to demand them to be relicensed as restricted as they are not mentioned in any act post the Offensive Weapons Act 1991. This is the thing I don't understand.

As you said Its all over the legal law shop these acts.so maybe I'm missing something that is pertinent here?

In the same way as a semi-auto centre fire rifle was not listed, so is therefore restricted. Well, they are but because they didn't make a definition between civilian SACF and "assault rifles" and lumped them together in the act and perceived all SACFs as "assault rifles" IOW a Remington model 7400 semi-auto deer rifle is the same in their eyes as an M16.

assault rifles” means—

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

(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

And “semi-automatic firearms” means firearms that reload automatically from a magazine or cylinder each time a round is discharged but can fire not more than one round with a single pull on the trigger

The same as a 50 cal is not listed and so is restricted. Yet no one questions their status as a restricted firearm

Simply because that was defined in the SI 21 2008 by its calibre (i) single-shot or repeating rifled centre-fire firearms of a calibre not exceeding 7.62 millimetres (.308 inch) and whose overall length is greater than 90 centimetres,

Not trying to trip you up or anything with the above examples,but it just shows how we can all read this differently and come to differing conclusions.

Cass

@Grizzly 45 - Back to front there. It lists everything that's Restricted, and oddly there is no mention of NV in any shape or form in there

Nope. From the SI:

"4. (1) Firearms other than those to which subparagraph (2) relates are declared to be restricted firearms for the purposes of the Act"

As for "mentioning" NV (which from here on I will use to encompass the whole spectrum of such devices), it doesn't have to as the 1991 act defines them and an SI cannot alter primary legislation only amend meaning the SI by not listing such scopes in section 4(2) has deemed them to be restricted.

@Grizzly 45 - EH? That defines what are legal pistols are under that Aherne creature.No mention of NV or anything else in that act

I know. I said so above that it amends SI 21/2008!

@Grizzly 45 - This above is the crux. It's a proven point in law that if you don't include or define something in an act as far as I understand,it can't be legislated without an amendment ...

An SI is NOT an act and the definition of these devices is covered in the 1991 offensive weapons act. The SIs merely define restricted/unrestricted and the scopes are not included in the unrestricted categorisation therefore are restricted.

Do you see semi auto centerfires listed in the SIs? How about 338 Lapua magnums or 50 cals? Are they therefore unrestricted?

@Grizzly 45 - Cass- In the same way as a semi-auto centre fire rifle was not listed, so is therefore restricted.

Grizzly45 - Well, they are

No they are not. What you quoted above is the definition of semi auto and assault rifle, but the only mention of semi auto in section 4(2) is with regard to rimfire. As semi auto centre fire are not listed, they're restricted. Semantics aside (assault rifle Vs semi auto).

@Grizzly 45 - Simply because that was defined in the SI 21 2008 by its calibre (i) single-shot or repeating rifled centre-fire firearms of a calibre not exceeding 7.62 millimetres (.308 inch) and whose overall length is greater than 90 centimetres,

So where does it say .50cal? Specifically as you seem to think it must with NV. It doesn't. It eludes to anything over a certain caliber as restricted which makes the 50 cal restricted without specifically naming it.

Same with NV scopes. They are not specifically named in the SI in section 4 as unrestricted, and again the 1991 act defines them as a firearm, so therefore they are restricted.

@Grizzly 45 - Not trying to trip you up or anything with the above examples,but it just shows how we can all read this differently and come to differing conclusions.

Sorry but no, absolutely not. With the exception of the status of handheld units or an add on, the law is clear in this matter as I've quoted and outlined numerous times in this thread. The 1991 act defines them, the 2008 SI makes them restricted.

It's as simple, as black and white, as can be which is odd for firearm laws.

I'm utterly lost as how you don't grasp this. The principle firearms act is from 1925 and is amended by all the subsequent acts and SIs since but it's still the primary legislation. The 1991 act still stands and has not been repealed so I fail to see why you are focused on an SI and ignoring what the 1991 act is also telling you.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121471610#Comment_121471610

Back to front there. It lists everything that's Restricted...

No it doesn't. It defines restricted restricted firearms by listing non restricted firearms, all other firmarms are restricted, including NV scopes.

It's a proven point in law that if you don't include or define something in an act as far as I understand,it can't be legislated without an amendment adding such to the act or judged on in a court.

No, that's not a proven point in law. Where something is ambiguous, a lack of a definition could be challenged (eg the Tractor case). But the vast majority of words in legal text are not defined in law, and the common understanding applies. But that's moot here, and NV scopes are defined as firearms in law.

IOW How can AGS claim these are now "restricted firearms" when there is no mention of them whatsoever in the SI 21/2008 to make them restricted?

They are not only now restricted, they have been restricted since the 2008 SI. T

Simply because that was defined in the SI 21 2008 by its calibre (i) single-shot or repeating rifled centre-fire firearms of a calibre not exceeding 7.62 millimetres (.308 inch) and whose overall length is greater than 90 centimetres,

That definition does not include 50cal though. "...not exceeding 7.62 millimetres". Which is precisely the point. The fact they are not includes by that definition is why they are restricted. NV is not included in the list of non-restricted firearms, therefore it is restricted (as there were previous defined as firearms, legally)

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121470874#Comment_121470874

They would not be included. My understanding is that they are basically laser sights/illuminator combos to use with NV goggles. They are not scopes.

Using a illuminator with a NV googles would be fine. But using one with a dedicated NV scope, not fine, but the scope is the issue.

Munsterlad102

If NV scopes are restricted firearms, then wouldn't a super not be able to license or authorize them? And then, someone who has been authorized by a super instead of a chief super be in possession of an unlicensed firearm?

Cass

If a Super issues authorisation in the form of a license for a "NV" unit, a restricted firearm, then it would stand void, immediately.

It is, legally, no difference than a Super granting a license for a semi auto centre fire, centre fire pistol, etc.

I do not know the intricate legalities of "passing down" the power from Chief Supers to Supers that would allow them to issue such a license but I have my doubts, if this is being done, as to it's legality.

freddieot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121476211#Comment_121476211

Just my opinion, but in Restricted cases, as I understand it, the Commissioner can delegate the responsibility to a Chief Super. This is supposed to be done in writing. I think the 'writing' issue actually went to court some years ago (2011ish) so I'm not sure where that aspect stands at present.

However, AFAIK, there is no process where a Super can issue a Restricted cert and no process where he can be delegated or be authorised to do so, ever.

One point worth noting is that the application form, a Garda origin document, is set up in such a manner that an applicant can apply for an unrestricted firearm and also then tick a box for a sight. Therefore it could be argued that it is implied that this misinforms the applicant. In other words, it should be clear from the form that you cannot tick the unrestricted option and then tick the sight box.

Furthermore, as the Superintendant is supposed to check / review the application, one could expect that the application would be returned for amendment or rejected in such cases.

In summary, there is no deception by the applicant. If anything, it is the State that has caused confusion through the incompetent way the application form and process was put in place.

Cass

I don't disagree with your opinion that this has caused, and will continue to cause, problems however your point about the form and how it should be made clearer (while completely valid and I agree with) is not necessary for AGS as section 3 of the firearms act states the onus is on the applicant to know what they should be applying for (license wise as appropriate for the firearm type).

tonysopprano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121476427#Comment_121476427

Where exactly in Sect 2, as finding it hard to locate?

freddieot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121476427#Comment_121476427

Agreed. You are correct the onus is always legally on the applicant.

However, the law and the application process should not be unnecessarily confusing. In particular the application form should be crystal clear. Right now it is extremely misleading for any citizen just trying to comply with the law.

No doubt, after reading this exchange and others, the option will be there, for the PTB to immediately amend the on line form. Failure to do so could of course potentially be seen as at best indifference to providing the correct process and ensuring that applicants can fairly understand the correct requirement.

I've said before that there is also an onus on the State to basically make it reasonably easy for applicants to understand the requirements. Nobody should need to seek legal advice to fill out a publicly available form.

Also, AFAIK, as an EU member state, The government should be under an onus to strive to make all legislation, and this is a perfect example, intelligible by the general public. This is an application for a firearms cert at the end of the day and not a planning application for a nuclear power plant.

Cass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121476476#Comment_121476476

Sorry, fat fingers. Section 3.

freddieot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121476596#Comment_121476596

He might have big fingers but its a bit off to call them fat...