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

Rabbits

Kerry stalker

I am looking for some rabbits in and around the munster area to test out my air arms s410 extra fac.

Any suggestion welcome

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sniperman

Kerry stalker wrote: »

I am looking for some rabbits in and around the munster area to test out my air arms s410 extra fac.

Any suggestion welcome

best way to get permission is to go knock on doors,or through a mate that has permission already,thats how i did it;)

thunderduck

sniperman wrote: »

best way to get permission is to go knock on doors,or through a mate that has permission already,thats how i did it;)

Thats it some farmers would be happy to see yoi coming

sniperman

thunderduck wrote: »

Thats it some farmers would be happy to see yoi coming

well you will get no at some doors,but you will also get yes,not all farmers will refuse,good idea to show some kind of insurance as well;)

Kerry stalker

Thanks for the all the advise, i am always keeping an eye out for bunnies around my area.. i guess it just takes time to find out who ownes the land that they are on, and aproching them.Hopfully word of mouth will get a few spots awell...

dodderangler

Kerry stalker wrote: »

Thanks for the all the advise, i am always keeping an eye out for bunnies around my area.. i guess it just takes time to find out who ownes the land that they are on, and aproching them.Hopfully word of mouth will get a few spots awell...

Don't walk up with the rifle though.

J.R.

dodderangler wrote: »

Don't walk up with the rifle though.

Agree......also - don't knock on the door in fully camo clothing - can be unnerving to some people not used to it.

Base price

J.R. wrote: »

Agree......also - don't knock on the door in fully camo clothing - can be unnerving to some people not used to it.

+ 1
Over the years I have had lads arriving to the yard complete with gun, wearing camo and maybe a dog in tow. Instant reaction is to run them out of the yard.
I never had issue with anyone calling to the house of an evening to ask permission. However I never allowed anyone to shoot over the farm unless they were known to the lads that had permissions.
As an aside, why do you need live quarry to prove your rifle/shot. I used to use paper targets for my .22lr at 50, 75, 100m.

ezra_

Base price wrote: »

+ 1

As an aside, why do you need live quarry to prove your rifle/shot. I used to use paper targets for my .22lr at 50, 75, 100m.

Strictly speaking, that is illegal use of a firearm.

You are either hunting or target shooting. And target shooting has to take place in an authorised range.

Base price

ezra_ wrote: »

Strictly speaking, that is illegal use of a firearm.

You are either hunting or target shooting. And target shooting has to take place in an authorised range.

Oh feck. I remember reading some bolloxoligy about zeroing in rifles on here a few years ago.
Most farmers like me have a simple .22lr for vermin, some may have magnum's but I guarantee that most have never set foot in a "range" let alone outside their own land. Only time that I was off farm with my brno was 6 years ago assisting a near neighbour who had a problem with dogs worrying his cattle.

RS98

Base price wrote: »

+ 1
Over the years I have had lads arriving to the yard complete with gun, wearing camo and maybe a dog in tow. Instant reaction is to run them out of the yard.
I never had issue with anyone calling to the house of an evening to ask permission. However I never allowed anyone to shoot over the farm unless they were known to the lads that had permissions.
As an aside, why do you need live quarry to prove your rifle/shot. I used to use paper targets for my .22lr at 50, 75, 100m.

If a young enough lad came up to your door to ask for permission to shoot, and he was local, would you say yes? And if not, would you be annoyed?
RS

Base price

RS98 wrote: »

If a young enough lad came up to your door to ask for permission to shoot, and he was local, would you say yes? And if not, would you be annoyed?
RS

within

Base price

RS98 wrote: »

If a young enough lad came up to your door to ask for permission to shoot, and he was local, would you say yes? And if not, would you be annoyed?
RS

Depends on whether I knew him/his family or not and what age he was.
I would be very annoyed if permission wasn't asked for first and they would never be allowed on the farm again.

thunderduck

sniperman wrote: »

well you will get no at some doors,but you will also get yes,not all farmers will refuse,good idea to show some kind of insurance as well;)

that is it exactly hence why i said some farmers

hedzball

ezra_ wrote: »

Strictly speaking, that is illegal use of a firearm.

You are either hunting or target shooting. And target shooting has to take place in an authorised range.

Strictly speaking you have to zero your rifle on a living animal so...

'hdz

J.R.

hedzball wrote: »

Strictly speaking you have to zero your rifle on a living animal so...'hdz

Sighting in your rifle to ensure accuracy is allowed.

Firing 5-6 shot at an object to test / adjust / ensure accuracy is permitted.

Firing 50 - 100 shots at objects would be classed as target shooting.

Crazy rule..........but we're stuck with it.....as they say, "The law is an ass!"

Free-2-Flow

J.R. wrote:

Crazy rule..........but we're stuck with it.....as they say, "The law is an ass!"

J.R. wrote:

Firing 50 - 100 shots at objects would be classed as target shooting.

There is no definition in the firearms act of what Target Shooting actually consists of.

Sparks

Base price wrote: »

Oh feck. I remember reading some bolloxoligy about zeroing in rifles on here a few years ago.

Bolloxology it is, but unfortunately it's was the Minister-of-the-day's bolloxology, rather than ours

Shoot at a target outside of an authorised range and it is indeed illegal, unless you're shooting with a shotgun at clay pigeons because that wasn't deemed to be target shooting by the Minister.

And yes, the law is indeed an ass

Luckysasha

Has this law ever been tested ? Let's face it hands up who has ever done a bit of target practice on their land. If your using subsonics through a moderator far enough away from main roads or houses you would have to be very unfortunate for a Garda to find you. I'm not condoning it or making justification for doing it but I'm sure the law is more to do with lads banging away 200-300 rounds of HV ammo at tin cans behind the neighbors house

ezra_

Luckysasha wrote: »

Has this law ever been tested ? Let's face it hands up who has ever done a bit of target practice on their land. If your using subsonics through a moderator far enough away from main roads or houses you would have to be very unfortunate for a Garda to find you. I'm not condoning it or making justification for doing it but I'm sure the law is more to do with lads banging away 200-300 rounds of HV ammo at tin cans behind the neighbors house

I wouldn't be recommending that you ask for people to admit to having broken the law on this.

I test my rifles out at a couple of ranges every so often; either where I'm a member or where I'm invited as a guest. I'll spend an hour or so making sure that the zero is good and that my adjustments / aim offs are good. Pro tip - bring a range finder to the range, because I've been in places where the stated range wasn't close to the actual range!

Sparks

Luckysasha wrote: »

Has this law ever been tested ?

Short answer yes; Longer answer yes, but the specific circumstances may or may not match what you're talking about. Target shooting outside of an authorised range has definitely seen more than one person land in hot water, but zeroing being picked on, I'm not sure.
Problem is, the law makes no distinction between the two at all.
Worse, case law is built upon nit-picking detail, where the details are picked by people paid and trained to be more pedantic than me.

Some people might not believe such people exist; but yes, they do.

End result is that a case on target shooting outside of an authorised range would be precedent for any case where zeroing was being picked on

It's a god-awful piece of law, ill-conceived by someone who was ignorant of the operational details of both target shooting and hunting and who was utterly convinced he knew better than all of us. And after it was made law and we pointed out the problem, it was acknowledged as an error, but he never bothered to fix it. So we're stuck with it for the moment.

1349

Sparks wrote: »

Short answer yes; Longer answer yes, but the specific circumstances may or may not match what you're talking about. Target shooting outside of an authorised range has definitely seen more than one person land in hot water, but zeroing being picked on, I'm not sure.
Problem is, the law makes no distinction between the two at all.
Worse, case law is built upon nit-picking detail, where the details are picked by people paid and trained to be more pedantic than me.

Some people might not believe such people exist; but yes, they do.

End result is that a case on target shooting outside of an authorised range would be precedent for any case where zeroing was being picked on

It's a god-awful piece of law, ill-conceived by someone who was ignorant of the operational details of both target shooting and hunting and who was utterly convinced he knew better than all of us. And after it was made law and we pointed out the problem, it was acknowledged as an error, but he never bothered to fix it. So we're stuck with it for the moment.

I know nothing about the law, but would it be possible for the NARGC to take a judicial review to find out if zeroing is covered by the law? It seems a bit unjust that the only way to find out if something is illegal is to get charged with it and wait and see if you get convicted or not.

Would it not be a very safe bet that the vagueness doctrine would apply and that there's no way in heck a court would convict for something that MAYBE is illegal? Does the vagueness doctrine, or anything similar even apply in Ireland. Pretty crappy if it doesn't.

Free-2-Flow

There is no definition of what Target Shooting is in Ireland according to the Firearms act, How may shots is considered target shooting? 1? 100? It doesn't specify.
Therefore they do not enforce it by the law.

Sparks

Free-2-Flow wrote: »

There is no definition of what Target Shooting is in Ireland according to the Firearms act, How may shots is considered target shooting? 1? 100? It doesn't specify.

This is entirely correct.

Therefore they do not enforce it by the law.

This is factually inaccurate. It *has been* enforced.

Sparks

1349 wrote: »

I know nothing about the law, but would it be possible for the NARGC to take a judicial review to find out if zeroing is covered by the law?

The problem with that is a judicial review requires a decision to review in the first place; which means you would require that someone be accused of breaking this law and having some decision made about that accusation (whether that be the local Super revoking a certificate or a court case judgement); and then that decision could be subjected to judicial review. But that carries the risk of the volunteer suffering penalties that could be significant - loss of their firearm or anything more serious up to large fines and jail time.

It would be better to fix it at the legislative level rather than in the courts.

Does the vagueness doctrine, or anything similar even apply in Ireland. Pretty crappy if it doesn't.

The "vagueness doctrine" specifically is a US thing because it's based in the US constitution, but we do have the same principle in Irish law:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2359085

The problem is, you still have to go to court. I'm not certain if you'd need a test case as you would with a judicial review (I think you wouldn't but I'm not a barrister); but I still think the fix would be better done at the legislative level rather than the court level (especially since a court ruling in "our" favour could be overruled by legislative changes anyway).

Grizzly 45

For whats it's worth.
I had a chat in my kitchen with the DOJ's current cheif range inspector on this very topic a few years ago. To sum up the conversation it amounted to;

Dont act the utter bollix firing off hundreds of rounds every weekend with a dozen of your mates,in places you shouldn't be,dont own or is unsafe to do so, and claim it's zeroing.So maybe use proper paper targets.Not the collection of bottels,the junk tractor,or whatever..

Make sure the bullets CANNOT,under any circumstances,absolutely never leave your property.SO IOW have a proper and decent backstop.[Never said anything about tempoary or permanent]
Pretty much it.

From what I take of it..Don't be an irresponsible ,annoying dick to all and sundry on a regular basis at 8AM Sunday morning.

If you can safely zero on your property and do it in moderation without being an annoyance or a danger go ahead.

The cheif range Ins is IMO a guy on our side,as much as his offical position allows,who would rather" convince us than prosecute us"[his words].But take the urine with him and I'd say the wrath of God and law would befall you

My 2cents

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

S

It's a god-awful piece of law, ill-conceived by someone who was ignorant of the operational details of both target shooting and hunting and who was utterly convinced he knew better than all of us. And after it was made law and we pointed out the problem, it was acknowledged as an error, but he never bothered to fix it. So we're stuck with it for the moment.

God protect us from solicitors and barristers who become politicos .THREE of the worst bits of Irish gun laws came from former people in the law smithing profession.:(

"I know nothing about the law"

Own a gun in Ireland and stick around here long enough.You'll be up on Irish firearms law in no time to a point you can be more knowledgeable on it than some solicitors out there.:)

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

For whats it's worth.
I had a chat in my kitchen with the DOJ's current cheif range inspector on this very topic a few years ago.

We'd share the same opinion of the man, but -- it's a very dangerous idea to have the character of the office holder be the sole safeguard against abuse of the powers of the office.

There are other considerations; I'd love to hear a professional barrister's opinion on whether or not the lack of a definition for "target shooting" in the Act coupled with its proposed jail sentence for target shooting outside of an authorised range was sufficiently in violation of the principles of vagueness in the law to render it unconstitutional. I don't know if it is; but if it was, it would raise questions over quite a lot of the law. And it's not the only part of the law that has this problem (but it is probably the most clear-cut and serious part). And the thing about that sort of thing happening is that it almost never tends to go the way you'd think; the law of unintended consequences is a vicious thing...

Base price

Well all I can say after reading the above posts and responses from Sparks and others, is that we will continue to zero/range our .22lr on our land. As far as I know, we have never received any communication from the Garda stating that we cannot do so.

Base price

As a matter of interest, what stance do the farming originations IFA, ICMSA, INHFA, ICA take over the issue.

grassroot1

1349 wrote: »

I know nothing about the law, but would it be possible for the NARGC to take a judicial review to find out if zeroing is covered by the law? It seems a bit unjust that the only way to find out if something is illegal is to get charged with it and wait and see if you get convicted or not.

Would it not be a very safe bet that the vagueness doctrine would apply and that there's no way in heck a court would convict for something that MAYBE is illegal? Does the vagueness doctrine, or anything similar even apply in Ireland. Pretty crappy if it doesn't.

Just saw your first post and in reply I would hope the NARGC would never ever again take a judical review. What has been achieved other than making legal teams richer?