clivej wrote: »

I'm hearing from 2 people that the Garda are not going to license these firearms.

1. A close friend bought a Ruger precision 2.22lr rifle from Red Mills in Kilkeeny within the last couple of months. He was in during this week and the dealer told him 'How lucky' hs was to get it as the Garda are not going to issue licenses for these in the future.

2. A friend and club member has been refused a license lately for the Ruger precision .22lr rifle in a Dublin district.
Two reasons in writing are (goes someting like)........
'There are too many criminals using these weapons on my streets'
'It looks like a Military weapon'

He is going the High court route to get the license.
Are his costs covered now when he wins??

Heard about the person out in hh. Was their not a third person a few months ago? Mad though when you see all the hammerli tac r1 and the issc mk22 being licenced no prob.

clivej wrote: »

I'm hearing from 2 people that the Garda are not going to license these firearms.

1. A close friend bought a Ruger precision 2.22lr rifle from Red Mills in Kilkeeny within the last couple of months. He was in during this week and the dealer told him 'How lucky' hs was to get it as the Garda are not going to issue licenses for these in the future.

2. A friend and club member has been refused a license lately for the Ruger precision .22lr rifle in a Dublin district.
Two reasons in writing are (goes someting like)........
'There are too many criminals using these weapons on my streets'
'It looks like a Military weapon'

He is going the High court route to get the license.
Are his costs covered now when he wins??

Sounds like utter bollix from his Super TBH.

First off it is a a bolt action .22 rifle so nothing restricted or even unrestricted in it either.Just has a target stock

2] The reasons given for refusal in this case are rubbish,and are harking to the olf "Idont like de look o dat now!" time again. There have been enough DC cases to prove time and time again with Restricted firearms ,FORM DOES NOT FOLLOW FUNCTION,and before anyone starts with "DC cases are not courts of record etc... True,however there are too many DC cases now taken that were in our favor,for a judge to go against the grain on those points.

Also,the Super will need to explain and define what does a "military weapon" look like and [2] his own statement that there are too many weapons of this type on HIS streets!! The fecking AUDACITY of that statement will sound great in court:mad:. This super sounds like they need a good legal biatch slapping for a starter on where their authorithy begins and ends.Also,they dont sound very competent if they cant get those weapons offf "their " streets.Another point in your friends favour.

3] Think the District court would be first port of call,not the High court?:pac: And yes and no on costs.It can be the left to the judges discretion whether he awards costs or reserves judgement on a case. So NEVER take it as a done deal either.Also,it would be stupid for a Super to allow this to go to court on just what you have presented here,as there are no good reasons for refusal. I have the feeling there is more to this story?

Black plastic is pure evil i tells ya.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

thats what the FPU is for to issue guidelines on this to Supers and other Garda personel when they have a question like this

The last time I had reason to speak with the FPU, there was a sea change in their attitude towards licensees. Not a good change either.

This attitude is now pervasive unfortunately.

Kramer wrote: »

The last time I had reason to speak with the FPU, there was a sea change in their attitude towards licensees. Not a good change either.

This attitude is now pervasive unfortunately.

Must have been awhile ago,they got badly burned ,and lost their cheif expert in the DC cases,and after the Dail enquiry.And have been burnt again in a DC case by one of our friends here.