nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Like for like

alanmc

Hi all,

So I just had a call from a very nice Sargent in Mullingar station telling me that I'm unable to sub a .223 for a .308. Which is fair enough. At least now I know

It was a bit woolly before that.

Anyway, she also made a point of telling me that a .308 is just on the cusp of a restricted firearm and she wasn't sure what the Super would do with it. Eeek.

I'm going in on Wednesday to amend my application to a separate FCA2/FCA1 combo and have a chat with her. But she's gotten me a little worried about being granted a .308 at all.

I'm a member of MNSCI and I'm looking to get into longer range stuff ... which is my reason for the firearm.

I'm going to see if I can gauge from her the likelihood of being granted the .308 license. I don't really want a refusal on my record.

I guess this is just a FYI about Like for Like in my district (Mullingar).

Cheers,
Alan.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sparks

.308's still unrestricted though. Anything larger is restricted, though it's a bit wooly because calibre's not a number (eg. the .303 isn't restricted, even though the bullet diameter is about .312 due to the British measuring land-to-land rather than groove-to-groove, because the law says "calibre" not "bullet diameter").

Cass

Unfortunately you are on the receiving end of someone applying the law as they see it and frankly she is not wrong. I've said for years that because a lad in one district gets a sub from a .22lr to a 338 LapMag doesn't mean you (the general you) will.

As you said you'll have to cancel the 223 and apply for the 308.

However the 308 is not restricted and this nonsense about it being "on the cusp" is more of the ridiculous nonsense spouted by an ignorant person that serves no purpose other than to do what it has done and worry you unnecessarily. A 308 is an unrestricted firearm and the Super MUST deal with it.

RossiFan08

Had the same BS about my 308 when I dropped the paper work into the local station. 308 is over 30 cal so it's restricted, not sure if it will be granted, I wouldn't bother applying etc etc.

I knew that 308 was unrestricted and told him I wanted to apply for it regardless of his reservations. Never heard any of that BS from the FO or super at the district office and was granted the license no bother.

alanmc

To be fair, the FO (it was the FO who called me) didn't tell me not to apply, but I did get the impression she was urging me to think long and hard about it.

As I said, I'll gauge her thoughts on it a little more on Wednesday and make my decision then.

Glad to hear you're license went through OK though.

BattleCorp

alanmc wrote: »

To be fair, the FO (it was the FO who called me) didn't tell me not to apply, but I did get the impression she was urging me to think long and hard about it.

As I said, I'll gauge her thoughts on it a little more on Wednesday and make my decision then.

Glad to hear you're license went through OK though.

No point gauging her thoughts. She doesn't get to make the decision on your application. It's the local Superintendent who is responsible for that. She's only responsible for putting the information into the Pulse.

If you are a member of MNSCI and already have a .223, I can't see you being refused a .308 seeing as that calibre is one of the mainstays of MNSCI (F Class and all that).

RossiFan08

You beat me to it BattleCorp. 100% agree, you have storage requirements (selling the 223 to make room for the 308) and have good reason (want to shoot long range (800+ yards) which the 223 is not sufficient for)

alanmc

Yeah, you're right of course lads. The phone call just threw me a bit is all.

I'll keep you posted.

Thanks for the replies.

Cass

alanmc wrote: »

To be fair, the FO (it was the FO who called me) didn't tell me not to apply, but I did get the impression she was urging me to think long and hard about it.

Excuse me, but what the f**k has her thoughts, opinions or notions got to do with it. She should just do her job and process the application.

This stuff has been rearing it's head an awful lot lately and not just in one area/district. Reports about illegal forms, people being told lamping foxes is illegal, scopes need a license, firearm illegally seized then returned.

I'm starting to think our organisations and representative bodies on the FCP need a swift kick to the backside and told to wake the f**k up and do something. There are serious problems which your case only highlights that are happening everyday and lads, through not knowing any better or trying to respect the uniform, are having to take this crap.

Apologies for the language but things like this boil my piss.

g00167015

Last December, our Superintendant said (under oath) during my appeal (refusal of a 204 ruger)..........."Judge, it is our instruction from the Commissioner to apply the broadest possible definition of the term like-for-like where substitutions are concerned"

Frankly I think he was telling porky pies, but that is what he said when asked directly by the judge.

Just something else to throw in the mix for you. Technically, one non-restricted long firearm may be substituted for another unrestricted long firearm, however that has not been the way the rules have typically been applied since '09 by AGS.......

Now THAT is as clear as mud :-D

.....and yes, my refusal (204 ruger) was overturned & costs awarded

alanmc

I don't know lads. I can understand the like for like meaning caliber for caliber on a very simplistic basis. I knew I was taking a punt submitting a sub application. I was told by the good people here that it was very much dependent on the district. Mullingar (for the moment anyway), like for like means caliber for caliber.

As Cass says, it's the "308 is such a long range weapon!" (her words, not mine) that made me a little uneasy.

I'm prepared to make my case on Wednesday anyway. Happy enough I'm getting a face to face to be honest.

tac foley

It's NOT a freakin' 'weapon' until it is used in anger on another human being as such.

It's a sporting firearm.

And yes, 1000m IS a long way, it's a kilometer, six-and-a-bit-tenths of a mile, a MILLION millimetres...whatever. The longest range at the Midlands is, I might need correcting, 1200 YARDS, and by Jeebers, that's even further, eh? Her point being, what, exactly? At least she is not suggesting, as one infamous 'expert' did a few years back, that it would 'kill at five miles'.

And again with the 'weapon'. We have firearms licenses, not weapons licenses, but I get the feeling that we are going over well-travelled paths here.

tac

alanmc

tac foley wrote: »

It's NOT a freakin' 'weapon' until it is used in anger on another human being as such.

It's a sporting firearm.

And yes, 1000m IS a long way, it's a kilometer, six-and-a-bit-tenths of a mile, a MILLION millimetres...whatever. The longest range at the Midlands is, I might need correcting, 1200 YARDS, and by Jeebers, that's even further, eh? Her point being, what, exactly? At least she is not suggesting, as one infamous 'expert' did a few years back, that it would 'kill at five miles'.

And again with the 'weapon'. We have firearms licenses, not weapons licenses, but I get the feeling that we are going over well-travelled paths here.

tac

I know. It was the 'weapon' quote that made me flinch. Very much a red word. I didn't argue with her on the phone though.

She may just have personal misgivings. The super may be much more amenable. We'll see.

BattleCorp

alanmc wrote: »

I know. It was the 'weapon' quote that made me flinch. Very much a red word. I didn't argue with her on the phone though.

She may just have personal misgivings. The super may be much more amenable. We'll see.

I'll have a bet that you won't hear a peep from the Super. Like you say, it's just that the FO has personal misgivings because she hasn't a clue about firearms.

If you are licenced for a .223, then you must be considered of good character by the Gardaí.

If you are a member of Midlands, then you have a legitimate use for the .308.

I don't see what the problem is for her. You are ticking all the boxes.

cookimonster

Just to add to the catalogue of various experiences happening out there.....

My location ..... Dublin Northside ....
1st .....queried over the 'renewal' of my semi auto shotgun license in respect to the cartridge capacity. " Please verify that its restricted "- poor choice of wording on behalf of GS. I sent in a typed and signed letter saying that my 'unrestricted shotgun had a capacity of three cartridges as per it's design and in accordance to my original license and the terms of reference in the Commissioner guidelines.....

2nd.....Substituting shotgun for shotgun - 6 months later, 2nd set of application forms etc. I finally get my U/O.

3rd.....My location a year latter, different GS processing paper work, other fella away. Sub'd a .22 for .270 - one phone call from GS, 'how are you, yeah de yeah' 2 weeks later I 've the license.

4th......Meanwhile my .22 license is up for renewal, you should have seen the cock up of the information on the form, had me living on my permission, had my local Garda station as the permissions local GS etc etc etc....

Other location in Meath, a lad I know.....I'm been purposely vague on details.....
Previous multiple firearms owner, including a deer legal .22 calibre with deer hunting license. Applys for and finally gets a 'non-restricted' 30 cal bolt action standard run of the mill rifle. His local GS insists that it's a restricted firearm and issues him a license in respect of that, so now he has a restricted firearm license for a unrestricted firearm......

......If it was me in his circumstances I'd be down the road slapping a healthy deposit on a BAR in one of the classic .30's

ntipptop

Cass wrote: »

Excuse me, but what the f**k has her thoughts, opinions or notions got to do with it. She should just do her job and process the application.

This stuff has been rearing it's head an awful lot lately and not just in one area/district. Reports about illegal forms, people being told lamping foxes is illegal, scopes need a license, firearm illegally seized then returned.

I'm starting to think our organisations and representative bodies on the FCP need a swift kick to the backside and told to wake the f**k up and do something. There are serious problems which your case only highlights that are happening everyday and lads, through not knowing any better or trying to respect the uniform, are having to take this crap.

Apologies for the language but things like this boil my piss.

Hi Cass
I keep on hearing, here on boards and elsewhere about problems about getting firearm certs/renewals etc . My question is this, does this information make it back "truthfully" to the fcp ???

I have it at work, lads keep on, don't take this the wrong way, bitching!! but don't let senior management know of the problems, yes I know that the management "hear" the problems but they really don't have to act as it is "hear say" if you like, and therefore it there is no problems

Is there or should there be a system in place ,that all of these instances and court cases are recorded and maybe that we could access it for information to use in our own cases etc ???
As you know once you mention a social media site, it is discounted straight away by those who think they have power, that's when I said truthfully above, that if it is recorded and can be brought in as proof that mismanagement or misguidance is taking place still, that this may stop some of the b/s that goes on

Cass

I don't know is the simple answer. I cannot guarantee or say for definite that those sitting on the FCP are fully aware of what is happening and if those incidents, the ones reported, are what actually happened or embellished reports of the person involved.

I would say this much. Most of the FCP guys are on Boards, Facebook and other social media. Contact with them is usually through one of these or via some e-mail. It's rarely face to face. How they record any reports is up to them. I cannot say if they do, don't, or in what manner they assign credence to the reports.

However we're not talking about a few isolated incidents. There are more and more people being hit with the most ridiculous demands and most of them are either without legal basis or done in an illegal manner. The topic of this thread is one of the milder incidents and one that the OP can basically ignore as the "FO" is a non position, just a regular Garda, and not someone that makes the decision or signs the license.

We've spoken about this in detail on other threads. I even mentioned it above. People are being told lamping is illegal, lamping foxes is illegal, they cannot go out with a deer calibre rifle after dark, having firearms seized because it has a scope, being told a scope needs a license, being given forms to fill in to get a license that are not a legal requisite, told certain firearms are illegal/prohibited/restricted when they're not, being made to surrender one firearm to gain another, told there are limits on the amount of firearms you can own, that you cannot have a certain type of firearm, etc.etc.

The stories i've heard have been told to me, passed on to me, asked of me, and stuff i've read by lads that post something and when i question it they say it's what they were told. Now if a lad is going to embellish a story all you can do is question it and try to eliminate the crap, but from what iv'e read lads are spreading the word that they have been told by the guy/girl at the front desk. IOW they either don't know any better or don't want to argue with the Garda for fear they are wrong.

These stories then gain traction and soon enough it is stated as law, which they're not. A few examples i've heard in the last forthnight. Semi auto rifles are illegal/cannot be licensed, you need a house alarm for anything more than 2 guns, a gun seized for having a scope on it (regular scope, not NV) and lastly a guy i now told he cannot substitute an already substituted license. These are happening in Donegal, the West, Tipp, Wexford, and the midlands. That is pretty much the entire country and it's growing.

I'd have thought with the surge in social media that people would be better educated and to an extent they are, but they still lack the confidence to argue their "rights" even when they know they are in the right.

We've had firearms for hundreds of years and since the founding of the state yet some 100 years later we are still running the system like it was all that time ago. No official firearms Officer position, no applying the law as it is, questionable actions of An Gardaí dealing with people, skewed figures on crime relating to firearms by An Gardaí, etc, etc.

That was has me with my recent attitude. I'm fed up, for the people involved, of the sh*t they have to deal with. The problem being who do you complain to? An Gardaí, they issue the licenses so it's like asking the fox to guard the hen house. GSCO? A toothless facade.

Vegeta

Any chance the increase in issues correlates to new Gardai recruitment?

yubabill1

With numbers of breath tests reported exceeding the number of breathalyser mouth-pieces received; 14,000 wrongful prosecutions over non-receipt of fixed penalty notices; the commissioner not knowing about this and that, sounds like AGS is having a meltdown.

As we are the only citizens who have regular contact with AGS apart from criminals, I'm sure what we are seeing here is a symptom of the above.

And frankly, as a licence holder for well over 30 years, it was never any better and at times far, far worse.

When Frank Brophy criticised the -illegal- AGS firearms licensing policy in Shooter's Digest in 1986, I wrote him a letter of support. For months after, all my mail arrived torn across the top and crudely sellotaped back.

Sparks

cookimonster wrote: »

His local GS insists that it's a restricted firearm and issues him a license in respect of that, so now he has a restricted firearm license for a unrestricted firearm......

......If it was me in his circumstances I'd be down the road slapping a healthy deposit on a BAR in one of the classic .30's

If it was me, I'd be handing in my firearm to the nearest RFD as fast as I could. Your local GS cannot legally grant a restricted firearms licence. He doesn't have that legal authority at all. If he (or she? do we have any women superintendents?) was to give out a restricted firearms licence, it would be null and void and you'd be in possession of an unlicenced firearm and the law says you're the one who's liable.

cookimonster

Sparks, thanks for that, didn't know it wouldn't be valid.
There where other issues in ref to minimum security requirements that I brought up with him in relation to restricted firearms that he should have in place if they every decided to do a home visit.

Hunter456

i will be subbing my 223 for a 243 soon i hope i don't get hit with this bull****, i always thought it was like for like as in rifle for rifle and shotgun for shotgun.

BattleCorp

Hunter456 wrote: »

i will be subbing my 223 for a 243 soon i hope i don't get hit with this bull****, i always thought it was like for like as in rifle for rifle and shotgun for shotgun.

It's hit and miss to be honest. One district might allow such a substitution, another mightn't. That shouldn't be the situation but unfortunately that's the way things are.

Cass

Battlecorp is spot on. I've seen rifle for rifle, shotgun for shotgun which makes sense. I've also seen rifle for shotgun, deer calibre for deer calibre. IOW like for like but under a strict set of circumstances. Then there are those that use a liberal attitude such as any unrestricted firearm for any other unrestricted firearm.

The law is too vague and as no specifics are set out for what can be done it's up to each district as to what is done.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

Battlecorp is spot on. I've seen rifle for rifle, shotgun for shotgun which makes sense. I've also seen rifle for shotgun, deer calibre for deer calibre. IOW like for like but under a strict set of circumstances. Then there are those that use a liberal attitude such as any unrestricted firearm for any other unrestricted firearm.

The law is too vague and as no specifics are set out for what can be done it's up to each district as to what is done.

Here are the three main causes of this problem (and lots of other problems).

1. The legislation isn't clear enough in lots of cases.

2. There aren't guidelines for most of the processes.

3. The GardaÃ႒á‚’ simply don't get enough training regarding firearms rules and paperwork in Templemore and they don't seem to get sent on booster training courses once they qualify either.

The legislation aspect of things is probably the most difficult to rectify. Our firearms acts need to be tidied up and put into one document if possible. To be fair, this is something that the GardaÃ႒á‚’ aren't in control of.

I don't understand why the Garda authorities don't invest a bit of time and devise clear guidelines for the most common firearms processes, e.g. substitutions etc. They should clarify what 'like for like' means, have timeframes that actually mean something etc. There should be one document that tells GardaÃ႒á‚’ what to do in the most common situations that FO's find themselves dealing with.

In my job we have written processes that people can follow to do certain tasks. It should be the same for GardaÃ႒á‚’ dealing with firearms.

Regarding the training that GardaÃ႒á‚’ receive, I know that officially there's no such post as FO but why not? Why not create an official role and actually train GardaÃ႒á‚’ to fulfill this role correctly. Surely a 2 week booster course for anybody appointed to this role would give them a good foundation to do the job properly.

alanmc

Just back from my meeting with the FO.

We amended my FCA1 and I signed a FCA2 for my .223 (which is already with the dealer).

After talking a little to her, she freely admitted to not knowing very much about firearms. She had to call around to some of her colleagues to ask what type of firearm a .308 was. And somebody had told her it was a "sniper rifle from World War 2" - which was where her misgivings came from I think. She was quite happy to be educated though. I talked a little about the sort of stuff the guys do on the longer ranges in Midlands.

I asked her what exactly the "Like for Like" guideline was and how it was applied. She said, I could go down in caliber no problem or stick at the same caliber no problem or sub a single barrel shotgun for a single barrel shotgun of the same gauge. But making an upwards step, is a fresh application. But as the lads have said above, this is just the Mullingar district interpretation.

At the end of it she seemed to think that it should go through just fine.

So, disaster averted. I think the face to face time was beneficial though.

I kinda felt a bit sorry for her, trying to do a job she hadn't been trained for.

Anyway, thanks for your comments lads. Much appreciated.

For now it's a waiting game.

BattleCorp

alanmc wrote: »

Just back from my meeting with the FO.

We amended my FCA1 and I signed a FCA2 for my .223 (which is already with the dealer).

After talking a little to her, she freely admitted to not knowing very much about firearms. She had to call around to some of her colleagues to ask what type of firearm a .308 was. And somebody had told her it was a "sniper rifle from World War 2" - which was where her misgivings came from I think. She was quite happy to be educated though. I talked a little about the sort of stuff the guys do on the longer ranges in Midlands.

I asked her what exactly the "Like for Like" guideline was and how it was applied. She said, I could go down in caliber no problem or stick at the same caliber no problem or sub a single barrel shotgun for a single barrel shotgun of the same gauge. But making an upwards step, is a fresh application. But as the lads have said above, this is just the Mullingar district interpretation.

At the end of it she seemed to think that it should go through just fine.

So, disaster averted. I think the face to face time was beneficial though.

I kinda felt a bit sorry for her, trying to do a job she hadn't been trained for.

Anyway, thanks for your comments lads. Much appreciated.

For now it's a waiting game.

Am I right in thinking that her interpretation of what like for like is has cost you â‚¬80.

alanmc

BattleCorp wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that her interpretation of what like for like is has cost you â‚¬80.

There is that.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that her interpretation of what like for like is has cost you â‚¬80.

Thing is, that's all there is. There is absolutely no law laying out what can and cannot be covered by a like-for-like, it's all operational convenience. We've all heard anecdotes about people going from airguns to F-class rifles on like-for-likes in the past, this is the flipside of that laxness.

Nekarsulm

Left in the paperwork for a sub. last Friday. U/O changing to an Auto.
Local village station not open on the Thursday or the Friday, and no answer to the phone so went to the main Station in the county town.
Thought I had paperwork complete, but was told I need new photos to accompany the form, and also told it should be left into local station.
I asked if he was sure a new photo was needed for a sub, and the young guard went to ask the guard acting as FO.
Answer came back as a YES, so off I trotted to find a photo booth.

When I left all back in, in conversation I asked the lad "Why not put the photo on the licence card"?

His answer " That is so far above my pay grade, it isn't even funny"

Hoping for a quick turnaround!

alanmc

Nekarsulm wrote: »

When I left all back in, in conversation I asked the lad "Why not put the photo on the licence card"?

His answer " That is so far above my pay grade, it isn't even funny"
Hoping for a quick turnaround!

This reminded me. I was talking to one of the guys at work about shooting and I showed him one of my licenses. First question he asked was, 'how do they know it's you when your picture isn't on there'? (when I'm buying ammo like). It was a fair question that I couldn't answer. I never had to show any photo ID.