Importing a Scope

recipio

:rolleyes: Hi all.
Anybody here have experience of importing a scope from the USA. ? Would an import licence be necessary ? I could get one mail order from the U.K. but top end scopes are very tempting on U.S sites and eBay.I'm not forgetting my local retailer but I'm afraid they just can't compete on price.

gouda

recipio wrote:

:rolleyes: Hi all.
Anybody here have experience of importing a scope from the USA. ? Would an import licence be necessary ? I could get one mail order from the U.K. but top end scopes are very tempting on U.S sites and eBay.I'm not forgetting my local retailer but I'm afraid they just can't compete on price.

Some US retailers will not ship some scopes but if you can find one that is prepared to ship it here remember that there is a good chance that you will have to pay VAT and duty on it. You might get lucky and not get hit for VAT and Duty but you should add it into the overall cost and don't forget to include shipping and the exchange rate also. I brought in a high end scope and even with having to pay VAT and Duty still saved a lot compared to what the scope retailed at here. There is no need to obtain an Import Licence for scopes.

Sparks

...though that's assuming it's a normal 'scope and not something like a night vision scope

Terrier

Sky Optics is where I have got serveral scopes. They only except American registered credit cards, but there is a link for International orders on the bottom left, you pay a little extra for this service but it is worth it. Once you email them they will send you a quote with all the details of price, charges and shipping.

I have brought several scopes from them and in the process saved myself a lot of money!

mcguiver

I got in a scope recently from hunting4bestbuys.com.
I was hit for tax of about 30euro... but still saved a big chunk on Irish rip off prices... no hasttle..took about 3 weeks.

bernard93

recipio,

you should look at www.swfa.com
thats were i got my two leopold scopes and theres been no problems with them

bernard

Longslide45

Never had a problem with importing scopes from the EU or Europe.As they are optical instruments ,they are never classified as gun parts anyway[although,you wont use one for much else].Saves a mint,even with import duty.

recipio

Thanks for the info guys.
I was a little hesitant as a friend of mine had to get an import licence for a night vision scope . It did'nt cost anything just the time and the usual faxes/phone calls but the courier company would'nt release it without the licence. Might try for a top end Burris or Leupold scope.

cheers.

Sparks

recipio wrote:

I was a little hesitant as a friend of mine had to get an import licence for a night vision scope.

Yeah, hence my comment. But night vision scopes are different because they're specifically mentioned in legislation along with sound moderators and so on as being parts of a firearm.

woody

I use www.gunaccessories.com in the states and have been for years they are A1 and have a great range of parts even bought 2 x25rd mags for my ruger 10/22 and the bullpup stock, folding stock for my remi 870 shotgun

Longslide45

There is a perfectly LEGAL way around the nite vision affair here in Ireland.Not cheap tho
You can see it in action on any news article about Iraq featuring the US troops. Purchase one head mounted pair of nite vision goggels or monocular,at about 1500 Euros,depending on what you buy,and one HOLOsight or COBRA sight @ about $500.[Not laser as that is illegal here as well.Thanks to Messers O Dea and Burke :mad: ]
It can take some getting used to wearing and aiming,not to mind mounting the sight on some guns,but it is 100% legal.
As the act mentions scopes.It mentions NOTHING about two unrelated components being brought together to serve a common purpose.Holosights do not project a beam of light,visible or otherwise,they illuminate a reticle.
Again this is bad law falling foul of technological advancement.Our German friends have the same problem in their law,but are using the same system to hunt at night wild boar.And I might add they have much more stringent and clearly worded law about nite vision scopes than we have.Yet their hunting and govt agencies dont have any problems with this system.
Of course use this advice with your best intelligence!If you go out and do somthing moronic or just plain stupid with this you will screw it up for the rest of us.Thussly increasing my and everyone elses ire!

Sparks

Holosights do not project a beam of light,visible or otherwise,they illuminate a reticle.

You know longslide, technically speaking, if holosights didn't project a beam of light, you couldn't see them...

And the perfectly legal way around the night vision scope restrictions is to actually explain to the superintendent why you need one (shooting foxes at night and wanting to ensure that you can see clearly where the round is going to go would be about the only use I can think of for them, and the recent accidental shootings by lampers in the UK show how necessary that clear view can be). There's no law that says you can't have one, anymore than there's a law that says you can't have the rifle that they attach to; it's just that there's paperwork to be filled out.

Longslide45

[

QUOTE=Sparks]You know longslide, technically speaking, if holosights didn't project a beam of light, you couldn't see them...

Err NO Sparks!
They do NOT project anything.Otherwise they wouldnt be much use in combat.It wouldnt make much sense having visible light sources which the enemy could home their fire onto.Hence military lasers are infrared,and active infra red gear went out with Korea.
The holosight illuminates a LCD dot or cross in a piece of glass.It does not shine a beam anywhere as does a searchlight or laser.It is based on "heads up" cockpit technology.
Look thru the holosight with NVG you see a cross hair pattern,put it on target ,away you go. The only way this would be illegal here is if you are using an ACTIVE IR system[IE a infrared searchlite to illuminate the area].Modern day stuff is Passive[IE it collects the little light there is at nite and magnifys it appx 5000 times to give you a picture].So there is no reason to use active light sources.Unless you hunt down a coal mine or some totally dark place like that.

And the perfectly legal way around the night vision scope restrictions is to actually explain to the superintendent why you need one (shooting foxes at night and wanting to ensure that you can see clearly where the round is going to go would be about the only use I can think of for them, and the recent accidental shootings by lampers in the UK show how necessary that

Right,but you go and try it!! The Super will proably say use a searchlight or go shooting in the day!Or some other ill informed idea like the contra sound suppressor arguement of wearing earmuffs.Most of the FAO 's that I have talked to havent the foggiest about night lamping.Or nite scopes for that matter.Last one I talked to had last seen a nite scope that was in the 1970s on the Border and sounded like a Vietnam era 1st Gen scope.
He couldnt belive that nite vision technology was now appx300 Euros.
Nor could he tell me the difference between a sound suppressor,sound modifier and silencer,for that matter."The silencer is illegal I do know that." Said he.Enuff said!

Also I speak from experiance on this one a colleuge tried to import and sell in the Republic appx 200 Russian nite scopes for rifles.Five years later, they are still stuck in customs,because the good ol DOJ cant figure out wether they are firearms or not,legal or not,or whatever.I can easily send you to two nitevision dealers and one gun dealer,who have tried this and have had zero sucess .So I'll put this import thing down to possibly a very lucky once or twice off.

There's no law that says you can't have one

Thats questionable and debateable


And if you can find me that paperwork that will fly this through past bolshie DOJ civil servants and non informed Supers.I know at least three people that will gladly cut you in on a percentage of their sales.

Not only that,you have to dedicate a gun to it.It is a reugular PITA to remove and refit day or nite optics,what with re zeroing and all.It's no fun rezeroing a nitescope in day or nite conditions.

My solution is legal, cheap enough albeit in the context on NV,and easily zeroed in daylight,and allows dual day nite use of your gun.You are really going to have to kill alot of foxes to make this system worthwhile,or to dedicate a rifle and at least £3000 STG for a worthwhile effective scope.
More $$$ than I have

Sparks

Longslide45 wrote:

Err NO Sparks!
They do NOT project anything.Otherwise they wouldnt be much use in combat.It wouldnt make much sense having visible light sources which the enemy could home their fire onto.Hence military lasers are infrared,and active infra red gear went out with Korea.

Er, Longslide, your eyes work by detecting light that impinges on your retina - so the holosight does project light, it just projects it at you rather than at the target, hence the "technically speaking" thing

The holosight illuminates a LCD dot or cross in a piece of glass.It does not shine a beam anywhere as does a searchlight or laser.It is based on "heads up" cockpit technology.

Yes, but the red-dot sight technology does work by projecting a collimated beam like a laser (though not always with an actual laser) - if it didn't, you couldn't use it as a sight.
It's actually a nifty bit of technology, though I still think it's cheating compared with iron sights
It does mean that those whose eyesight falters in later life can remain competitive in bullseye pistol for longer though, so there's merit in it.

Right,but you go and try it!! The Super will proably say use a searchlight or go shooting in the day!

See, this is where the problem comes up - I know there are one or two supers out there who really don't have a clue about firearms law or the technical details, and don't want to, but most of them are just wary of stuff that sounds dodgy. If you make the effort to establish a personal working relationship with them, and pay attention to not being confrontational, you generally don't get too many problems. I know that my local garda, after I got to know him, had no problem with any of the stuff I need from him. The trick seems to be understanding that they're thrown into the job without any training and with their necks on the line personally (as shown in all the court cases over the last few years, you don't sue the Gardai or the Minister's Office, you sue individuals). If you were in that situation, you'd be wary too. So I take time to call ahead to the station and arrange a time to meet with the guy, I make sure to explain exactly what it is I need, why I need it and why it's not dangerous, and if he has any problems with whatever it is, I try my best to reach a comprimise. In fact, some clubs (the TCD college rifle club comes to mind immediately) make it a rule that the people running the club must forge a personal relationship with the relevant people (the superintendent and the head of security in the college in DURC's case) within a set time period following their election in the AGM, it's that critical to the club.

Thing is, a lot of the people I know who have problems with their local gardai don't always do this - and in one or two individual's cases, I can fully understand the gardai's lack of helpfulness because even I can't stand talking to them for very long

Or some other ill informed idea like the contra sound suppressor arguement of wearing earmuffs.

In fairness, that was a valid response - I mean, in most target shooting disciplines, you don't use supressors, you use earplugs!

Most of the FAO 's that I have talked to havent the foggiest about night lamping.Or nite scopes for that matter.Last one I talked to had last seen a nite scope that was in the 1970s on the Border and sounded like a Vietnam era 1st Gen scope.
He couldnt belive that nite vision technology was now appx300 Euros.
Nor could he tell me the difference between a sound suppressor,sound modifier and silencer,for that matter."The silencer is illegal I do know that." Said he.Enuff said!

Ah, but did you sit down with the guy and go through things with him and show him that he wouldn't be putting his neck on the line for some random joe punter that he's only met once or twice and who could be a danger to the public for all he knows? Remember, most supers will have seen what happened in abbeylara and had a nasty shock when they realised that there but for the fickle choice of fate go they...

Thats questionable and debateable

Well, yes, but not for very long, it's covered explicitly in Section 4 of the Firearms & Offensive Weapons Act, 1990:

[...defining the term 'firearm':]
( g ) save where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, for the purposes of this definition, the following articles shall be deemed to be such
component parts as aforesaid.
(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), and

That therefore says that those component parts are treated for licencing as though they were firearms and therefore you have to meet the demands of section four of the principal act. Do that, and there's the legal requirement met.

Not only that,you have to dedicate a gun to it.It is a reugular PITA to remove and refit day or nite optics,what with re zeroing and all.It's no fun rezeroing a nitescope in day or nite conditions.

Er, huh? If I can rebuild my rifle completely to shoot in any of three positions (standing, kneeling or prone) and do it repeatably and reliably every time, then how hard can it be to take one scope off a rail and put another kind of scope on?

demonloop

One advantage ebay.com has over buying from a US dealer is that you can usually talk an ebayer into telling porkies about value on the customs forms, a business might not do this. You want to pay no import duty if possible!

Go to www.ebay.com the American ebay has everything, mostly brand new.

Longslide45

[

QUOTE=Sparks]Er, Longslide, your eyes work by detecting light that impinges on your retina - so the holosight does project light, it just projects it at you rather than at the target, hence the "technically speaking" thing

Ok but does make it fall foul of the act?No! As it still does not project any artifical light on the target.

Yes, but the red-dot sight technology does work by projecting a collimated beam like a laser (though not always with an actual laser) - if it didn't, you couldn't use it as a sight.
It's actually a nifty bit of technology, though I still think it's cheating compared with iron sights

It does mean that those whose eyesight falters in later life can remain competitive in bullseye pistol for longer though, so there's merit in it.

That depends on the system.Some work by Occulded eye gunsights,[Armson,BSA,etc] some by a scope with a red dot or cross hair,that is battery powers or some by holosight.However NONE project an actual beam apart from lasers to the target.
In a combat/self defence situation you dont have time or chances for fair play.However most of the rifles I have seen have backup iron sights.Dont think it would be accurate enough for target shooting of the precision kind.The reticle is pretty crude,desinged for shots under 50 meters.

See, this is where the problem comes up - I know there are one or two supers out there who really don't have a clue about firearms law or the technical details, and don't want to, but most of them are just wary of stuff that sounds dodgy. If you make the effort to establish a personal working relationship with them, and pay attention to not being confrontational, you generally don't get too many problems.

This is my local garda and super we are talking about.Between them I have had to educate them on the following;
Irish firearms law as it now stands,
the technical details of a Glock 17 9mm.The technical details of a 243 Steyr SSG bolt action carbine.The solution of me importing the Glock to Ireland,without the import cert from DOJ,and the current nebelous state affairs there.What powers the Super has in granting firearms certs on a tempoary basis to import firearms ala diplomatic protection personel,or UK/US secret services.An update on NVG technology and an offer of use of the equipment/demo if they so wish.A loan[still not returned] of my Guns digest 1998,a link to a online weapons site to speed up any quiries they might want on guns. A voulantary inspection of my security and gun cabinet [And these are the folk who are in charge of gun licensing??] I reckon I must have coverd the non confrontational helpful side of things pretty well.

Take your point about the uninformed ,being thrown unwilling into an unknown field of knowledge[.Happens to me every day in my job.]BUT If I was landed in that situation,I would make it my busisness to get to know as much about it as quickly as possible,that I could understand.Plus with this marvellous method of communications,the internet,you are really hard pushed not to be able to excuse not having the basics of a subject you would be asked on or be responsible for

In fairness, that was a valid response - I mean, in most target shooting disciplines, you don't use supressors, you use earplugs!

Ahhh.But in hunting it has a very valid use in not spooking your game on a follow up shot if you missed.Or other domestic animals of a nerrvy disposition.In target shooting of the informal kind[plinking] you are not annoying all and sundry on a sunday afternoon with high power 22 cracks.
The sound suppressor was desinged to remove much noise from the world,yet it is considerd evil and dangerous.Paradoxily,if you drive with a defective or nosilencer on your car the Gardai will do you.Yet if you want to minimise gunfire noise,it is looked upon with susspicion.

Ah, but did you sit down with the guy and go through things with him and show him that he wouldn't be putting his neck on the line for some random joe punter that he's only met once or twice and who could be a danger to the public for all he knows?

They know me long enough at this stage,although the Super is a new fellow here in Limerick and is very anti gun.And it has nothing to do with his beat here in Limerick BTW.Just apprently one of these fellows who wants a smooth passage upwards to a bigger mahogeny desk in the park.

Remember, most supers will have seen what happened in abbeylara and had a nasty shock when they realised that there but for the fickle choice of fate go they...

At that they should look to themselves and their unmitigated cluster F&*K handling of a situation whilst serious never warrented the tactics employed nor the overkill response.They cannot blame the ligit Irish shooter for that one!That one falls fair and square on the Garda Siochanna!

Well, yes, but not for very long, it's covered explicitly in Section 4 of the Firearms & Offensive Weapons Act, 1990:

That therefore says that those component parts are treated for licencing as though they were firearms and therefore you have to meet the demands of section four of the principal act. Do that, and there's the legal requirement met.

No it doesn't
It says; "telescopic sights with a light beam"
The Holosight does not have telescopic or magnification capability,neither do nite vision goggles.They might have focus capability,but that is not magnification.
"Telescopic sights with a light amplification or infra red device"
Again the Holosight does not amplify light,nor is it infra red passive or active.Look thru it in the dark and you will see is dark.The NV goggles are light amplifying.However they are NOT telescopic sights.
And finally "desinged to be fitted to a firearm"
NV goggles cant be fitted to any gun.[Well maybe the fire controls of a tank,maybe.]And the holosight,does not project ,or amplify light outwards,but can be fitted to a gun.However the main point here is CONNECTABILITY
As neither the sight or the NV is connected in any physical way together,they fall outside this act compleatly.Unless I am completly missing a part of this act there is no mention of nite vision goggles.Nor of any mention of illuminated reticile/dot devices.

If anything the traditional way of lamping falls within it as a "telescope with a light source" is a very common method of connecting the two together.

Er, huh? If I can rebuild my rifle completely to shoot in any of three positions (standing, kneeling or prone) and do it repeatably and reliably every time, then how hard can it be to take one scope off a rail and put another kind of scope on?

[/QUOTE]

Err,try mounting a STANAG or weird ex Wasaw pact mount on a weaver base securely,or vise versa then re zero the nite scope to max visible effective range of 100 meters,adding in the fact that most 1st gen nite scopes are rather lage affairs,where you will have some intresting bullet drop calculations,or better still just use "kentucky windage" as it is somtimes very difficult just to bore sight a NV scope,and down right impossible on some guns.Then making double damn sure your pinhole lens cap doesnt come astray,and you frying by overloading the optics with light ,as some of the older units dont have a light overload saftey cutout.Take the whole mess out to the range and shoot a bushel full of ammo to get this thing to print a somwhat decent group.you will soon figure out buying a second rifle and leaving the nite scope on it is a splendid idea! Easiest ever to do was the German HK91.A STANAG claw mount that comes to zero every time.Also VERY expensive.

BTW FORGET EBAY for doing anything with guns!They have a strict NO GUN dealing policy.That includes parts,mags,etc.Only thing they will allow is
airsoft ! See Sparks post awhile back about the Aussie trying to sell deacted 303 drill rounds.

demonloop

BTW FORGET EBAY for doing anything with guns!They have a strict NO GUN dealing policy.That includes parts,mags,etc.Only thing they will allow is
airsoft ! See Sparks post awhile back about the Aussie trying to sell deacted 303 drill rounds.

Thats funny, I buy and sell gun parts on ebay every day!

They do not allow any ammo, deact or not, of component parts such as barrels, firing pins etc etc

After market items and accessories are fine. do a search for 'glock' on ebay.com and see what I mean.

Longslide45

Welll,Most of the US groups I am on bitch and moan about Ebay refusing point blank to handle ANYTHING to do with firearms or accessories for them.There are folks who were even thrown off Ebay for trying to sell the RIVETS for a sten gun kit!!!But airsoft seems to be no problem?Maybe there are folks selling real stuff under the cover of "airsoft"?

Sparks

Longslide45 wrote:

I reckon I must have coverd the non confrontational helpful side of things pretty well.

It does sound like it, but remember that this isn't always the case...

Take your point about the uninformed ,being thrown unwilling into an unknown field of knowledge[.Happens to me every day in my job.]BUT If I was landed in that situation,I would make it my busisness to get to know as much about it as quickly as possible,that I could understand.Plus with this marvellous method of communications,the internet,you are really hard pushed not to be able to excuse not having the basics of a subject you would be asked on or be responsible for

You might think so, but after eleven years of shooting, running one club, serving on a national governing body committee twice, winning a national championships once, acting as a team manager at international shoots, and a few other bits and bobs, I still don't know all the technical details of just my discipline. And your average garda has to cope with all forms of firearms - shotguns, rifles, pistols, in hundreds of different chamberings and calibres, and he is expected to know what's safe and what's not, which isn't always intuitive even for an experienced shooter, let alone someone who's never picked up a firearm in his life and who gets no training and who would be looked on rather displeasingly by his superiors if he were to actively seek education on the technicalities from the people who know about them, because they're the people he's meant to be licencing most of the time...
It's a very difficult position for someone to find themselves in, and it's important to keep that in mind even if they are infuriating you because they don't understand something you consider basic common knowlege!

Ahhh.But in hunting it has a very valid use in not spooking your game on a follow up shot if you missed.

But the application was made for target shooting, that was rather explicit!

Yet if you want to minimise gunfire noise,it is looked upon with susspicion.

It's the hollywood image again.

No it doesn't
It says; "telescopic sights with a light beam"

I was referring to the "electonic amplification" bit which is what a night vision scope is. Ergo, proper NV scopes are covered legally and you can pursue them instead of a lashed-up solution.

Err,try mounting a STANAG or weird ex Wasaw pact mount on a weaver base securely

Well, there you're just bringing the problem on yourself by buying gear that doesn't fit a standard rail, really...

Longslide45

And your average garda has to cope with all forms of firearms - shotguns, rifles, pistols, in hundreds of different chamberings and calibres, and he is expected to know what's safe and what's not, which isn't always intuitive even for an experienced shooter, let alone someone who's never picked up a firearm in his life and who gets no training and who would be looked on rather displeasingly by his superiors if he were to actively seek education on the technicalities from the people who know about them, because they're the people he's meant to be licencing most of the time...

Yeah,but arent they supposed to have a ballistic and technical dept whose sole responsibility is to be au fe with such matters???If they dont have this after 30 plus years of trouble with firearms of the illegal kind in Ireland.Well God help us!!Also I will have to put it down to bad policy and staff management with dare I say,a typically Irish outlook on dealing with somone who is trying to do his job better and more efficently.Jump down his throat because he used somthing the top Brass cant or wont understand.Not only that he should have the backup to verify any information by a competant and body of knowledge in the law?

It's a very difficult position for someone to find themselves in, and it's important to keep that in mind even if they are infuriating you because they don't understand something you consider basic common knowlege!

Ergo my point! Why isnt there ONE dedicated knowledgeable FAO whose sole job should be dealing with this subject per reigon,who then advises the Super on the legality of the applications or whatever firearms related.?Not stuff the most dopeiest useless member of the station in the firearms dept?Not to mind that by doing that you are actually using up more garda time than if you had somone competant there straight off.


It's the hollywood image again.
Yeah,the fantasy factory has alot to answer for.Same BS screwd up a INMHO a very useful bit of kit worldwide, the switchblade.

I was referring to the "electonic amplification" bit which is what a night vision scope is. Ergo, proper NV scopes are covered legally and you can pursue them instead of a lashed-up solution.

Wouldnt call a piece of very functional "GI proof "kit lashed up.It's a solution to a problem somone might encounter if they run into a brickwall of ignorant and dont want to learn Garda personel.

Well, there you're just bringing the problem on yourself by buying gear that doesn't fit a standard rail, really...

[/QUOTE]

Nice if you have the ££ to be able to pick and choose the mounting systems.
But at least the newer and more expensive models are standardising to weaver mounts and bases.Buts thats the FUN of getting somthing adapted to your fav shootin iron.

Sparks

Longslide45 wrote:

Yeah,but arent they supposed to have a ballistic and technical dept whose sole responsibility is to be au fe with such matters???

I always thought that their ballistics department was supposed to be of more of a forensic science unit myself. I would have thought the DoJ firearms unit would have had more technical knowlege of that type, but there is a problem here in that as Dunne v. Donoghue pointed out, it has to be the Superintendent and not any other party who makes the final decision on whether or not something will be licensed. Now if a third party advises the Superintendent on the legality of something, well, you are heading for sticky territory since it's likely the Super might be accused of just letting that third party make the decision. It's not really a case of impropriety, more the appearance of same, if you follow me. Personally, I think there ought to be something along the lines of a call centre for supers to use in the case of wondering if something's illegal or not, but who'd run it? If it was the Gardai, or the DoJ, there'd be complaints from our side of the discussion that they were just following whatever DoJ policy happened to be when we'd in fact prefer them to follow the Firearms Acts as written with no other unseen policy or rules being applied; if it was an independent group, who supplies the experts? ("Independent" would be a difficult description to live up to here).
It's a messy problem, and definitely one I don't have a solution of my own for, but the non-High-Court appeals process that the NARGC are looking for seems like a good idea to me. That way you can use the current system to handle the 90% or so of cases that are just rubber-stamped and use the new system to handle the contentious cases with more experts being brought in for both the technical firearms details and the technical legal details.

Also I will have to put it down to bad policy and staff management with dare I say,a typically Irish outlook on dealing with somone who is trying to do his job better and more efficently.Jump down his throat because he used somthing the top Brass cant or wont understand.

Well, I wouldn't say that it was that ignorant a situation, I think there's actually a nugget of truth in there in that the law says that it's the Garda Supervisor who must make the decision and if he's deferring expertise to the applicants, it does make things a lot less clear-cut.

Ergo my point! Why isnt there ONE dedicated knowledgeable FAO whose sole job should be dealing with this subject per reigon,who then advises the Super on the legality of the applications or whatever firearms related.?

A lack of people. They don't have enough Gardai to do the basic gardai jobs of enforcing the 99% of the rest of the law in the country, and legitimate firearms is just a tiny part of what they have to do. If you can't even enforce speed limits effectively, the more esoteric stuff (and remember, we account for around 2% of the population here) gets given short shrift.

Buts thats the FUN of getting somthing adapted to your fav shootin iron.

Ah, "Fun"
Sounds more like the "Personality" my Citroen used to have if you ask me Brakes that encouraged forward planning, a head gasket that encouraged frequent oil top-ups, tyres that encouraged gentle curves and an earned nickname of "the Citroen Valdeez" Personally, I prefer "Boring" these days

Longslide45

[QUOTEPersonally, I think there ought to be something along the lines of a call centre for supers to use in the case of wondering if something's illegal or not, but who'd run it? If it was the Gardai, or the DoJ, there'd be complaints from our side of the discussion that they were just following whatever DoJ policy happened to be when we'd in fact prefer them to follow the Firearms Acts as written with no other unseen policy or rules being applied; if it was an independent group, who supplies the experts? ("Independent" would be a difficult description to live up to here). QUOTE]

The security industry in Ireland is having this exact problem.Yet the one who is in charge of the sector who I am involved in has admitted her lack of knowledge in my field and has asked and met and accepted,and is open to recommendations on how further legislation should proceed.Icant see what the major problem is that a super could/should be allowed to consult with all parties involved in the firearms field and then be able to make a sound judgement with all pertinent info wether somthing is legal or not.Or better still be given clear and unambigious guidelines and law as to what is legal or not and strict criteria that a prospective gun owner must follow that allows him to own whatever.That way if anything goes wrong the Super has the fall back position of saying,Well he fulfilled all the criteria of a legal gun owner,so under law I was obliged to issue the liscense.Not this ambigious mess that we have now where personel grudges and ignorance of their responsible field influence liscenseing policy.As to whom this body could be a knowledgeable person from DOJ,Gardai and the shooting fraternity


It's a messy problem, and definitely one I don't have a solution of my own for, but the non-High-Court appeals process that the NARGC are looking for seems like a good idea to me. That way you can use the current system to handle the 90% or so of cases that are just rubber-stamped and use the new system to handle the contentious cases with more experts being brought in for both the technical firearms details and the technical legal details.

A lack of people. They don't have enough Gardai to do the basic gardai jobs of enforcing the 99% of the rest of the law in the country, and legitimate firearms is just a tiny part of what they have to do. If you can't even enforce speed limits effectively, the more esoteric stuff (and remember, we account for around 2% of the population here) gets given short shrift.

It cant take THAT much to go and train up a bunch of pro gun shooting gardai,who are relegated and paid for an extra duty that they would already have an intrest in doing anyway.Oh Sorry...forgot...we are tightwads as well here,there is an overtime and extra duty pay ban in force.Well we will have to hope that somtime mc Dowell gives us an extra 5K Gardai.

Ah, "Fun"
Sounds more like the "Personality" my Citroen used to have if you ask me Brakes that encouraged forward planning, a head gasket that encouraged frequent oil top-ups, tyres that encouraged gentle curves and an earned nickname of "the Citroen Valdeez" Personally, I prefer "Boring" these days [/QUOTE]

Thats the French motors for you.If you wer French it would be non probleme.
Same as the old Landrover I had.You have to be British to enjoy and use such a mashoistic vechicle.In the end with so many oil leaks,I just used to say it isnt leaking,it's just marking it's terrtitory