Cass wrote: »

Well if nothing else it'll solve this matter once and for all.

We also have to be careful about what we discuss on this topic. As an ongoing case it may be sub judice. I'll ask for a review as this is an important case.

Indeed Cass, a classic scenario for a test case to determine what’s a component part of a firearm and what isn’t.

By the interpretation used by Revenue it looks like every piece of hardwood timber and every screw and spring coming into the country is liable to seizure.

Reading the article, it seems the garda did it right. The gardai say yes no problem import the parts, the revenue say no they cannot be imported without a licence. Surely it should be only pressure bearing components that should be controlled like this ? A wooden stock is completely harmless on its own.

Witcher wrote: »

Revenue have been seizing stocks for years, this is nothing new. They seized one on me about 5 years ago, scanned licence and sent it to them and they released it.

Their interpretation of the legislation is technically correct, there is no allowance for 'pressure bearing' components. Each and every part is considered a firearm component and requires a licence.

What if its a firearms part for a non firearm, such as a new stock for a de-activated rifle ? You have no licence to show, and even if the part was used as intended, its still a wall hanger and not a firearm.

What if i buy a slab of walnut from abroad and it lands here marked with a return address "Fritz bloggs gunstocks, Berlin" ? Is that shapeless slab of wood classed as a firearms component and seized ? I mean where does it all end ?

Bolts, bolt heads, action bodies, and barrels i could understand, we have all heard the Johnny Cash song "One piece at a time". But i would imagine the Judge will think someone is pulling his wig when the stock is produced as evidence.

[QUOTE=juice1304;114173271]If its deactivated you have a letter of autorization from the local superintendent.

You can buy the walnut but if you make it into a stock you are manufacturing a firearms compnent without a firearms dealers licence and can be charged as such.

This can go two ways clarity or they make you get an import licence for everything.

It has nothing to do with revenue anyway they are there to collect revenue not dictate or inturpate the firearms act. That is down to the department of justice. Its more than likely some ignorant fool on a mission.
I wouldnt hold my breath that anything good will come of this. They do whatever they want anyway and cant even implement european law that they are told to. The level of ignorance within AGS and the DOJ is unbeleiveable.[/QUOTE]

But thats not a firearms cert and you are not subjected to the same rigours to get an authorisation as you do a licence. A gunstock is a component part of a firearm, but not a really a critical part, a gun can be fired without one. I've seen plenty of pictures of sawn off shotguns without a stock and just duct tape around the tangs.

Who is funding this case ? Is it the garda himself ? Its a bit drastic isn't it, get a relatively cheap stock seized, and rather than going to the customs and showing them his licence, he heads to the High court ?

meathstevie wrote: »

By the interpretation used by Revenue it looks like every piece of hardwood timber and every screw and spring coming into the country is liable to seizure.

No. Because hardwood is a raw material and hasn't been manufactured into anything.

Eg, I can legal buy metal blanks. And with some time in the shop, I could turn that into a banned knife or weapon, an illegal car part, etc.
The point at which it becomes the object in question is the point I have broken the law.

tudderone wrote: »

Surely it should be only pressure bearing components that should be controlled like this ? A wooden stock is completely harmless on its own.

Of course is should be that way.
I don't think customs and revenue are saying a stock is dangerous. But they are saying that's what the law says.

tudderone wrote:

But thats not a firearms cert and you are not subjected to the same rigours to get an authorisation as you do a licence. A gunstock is a component part of a firearm, but not a really a critical part, a gun can be fired without one.

Nor is a suppressor a critical part, but still it's deemed a firearm.
Additionally, change a stock could change a firearm to a restricted firearm.


In your example replacing the stock on a deactivated firearm, makes the stock a part of a deactivated firearm. So that'd be the angle to go down when producing the letter of authorization.

Who is funding this case ? Is it the garda himself ? Its a bit drastic isn't it, get a relatively cheap stock seized, and rather than going to the customs and showing them his licence, he heads to the High court ?

It's drastic, he could have fixed his situation easily. But then the next guy has the same bother.
This guy taking the hassle of the high court, so that hopefully, the situation can be clarified for everyone else.

Cass wrote: »

From reading his comments on FB he is funding it himself.

My understanding, and i could be wrong as i'm reading between the lines, is the stock was seized as essentially an "illegal import" and is up for destruction or they're (customs) simply not going to return it to him.

The case is an important one and i don't think it drastic that he is taking the case. The EU has free movement of people and goods yet were forced to apply for import paperwork for goods, we're hit with VAT, charges, and Taxes on products under the guise of some bullsh*t green initiitave (NOx on cars, etc).

This case will, for better or worse, settle this issue once and for all. Much like someone taking a court case against the barrel length issue. It won't be pleasant but its going to have to be done at some point.

The firearms laws here are a cobbled together mess by all accounts. The original British law, redrafted to be Irish law, bits tacked on here and there, bandaids stuck on as issues came up, like crossbows being restricted firearms, the centrefire handgun ban, practical shooting going. The plonkers in the dail get paid enough, they should do a better job. How many other things like this import nonsense, possession of blackpowder for muzzleloaders, reloading etc are there falling between two stools ?

tudderone wrote: »

The firearms laws here are a cobbled together mess by all accounts. The original British law, redrafted to be Irish law, bits tacked on here and there, bandaids stuck on as issues came up, like crossbows being restricted firearms, the centrefire handgun ban, practical shooting going. The plonkers in the dail get paid enough, they should do a better job. How many other things like this import nonsense, possession of blackpowder for muzzleloaders, reloading etc are there falling between two stools ?

They were told this by Sparks here at the Dail public enquiry almost six years ago now.But in the good tradition of can kicking with difficult matters,it will never be dealt with properly by our glorified county councillors running this country.
We can see the fiasco of the TCO 1972 still.t
The Army is left sitting gaurding basically now heaps of airguns and air pistols,and other scrap,with the odd gem still in there forever more,incase someone does come back after finding grand dads old firearm cert,and wants to reclaim their property.When in fact AGS/Govt is supposed to be making the effort to trace these peoples next of kin to return this stuff.

Mellor wrote: »

It's drastic, he could have fixed his situation easily. But then the next guy has the same bother.
This guy taking the hassle of the high court, so that hopefully, the situation can be clarified for everyone else.

How could the Garda have fixed his situation easily?

I'd guess most of us on here have imported bits and pieces at some stage. I bought a Boyd's stock from the US for my 10/22. Didn't think I committed a crime when I did that.

Mellor wrote: »

Post #6 outlines the situation where they were released on showing his license.
Further to that, a letter from his super outlineing it's an approved replacement stock for a licensed firarm.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Post #6 is specific to Witcher. It looks like his stock was released when he showed the licence.

The aren't releasing the stock to the Garda in the current case even though he has a licence therefore giving him little option other than either accepting the loss of the items or going to court to get them.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but Post #6 is specific to Witcher. It looks like his stock was released when he showed the licence.

The aren't releasing the stock to the Garda in the current case even though he has a licence therefore giving him little option other than either accepting the loss of the items or going to court to get them.

We done know what other recourse he had attempted. Full details aren’t published. As Grizzly said above, there’s more to this.
But maybe this is his last resort and he’s not taking on the case for the greater community as I suggested.

I know under the new EU rules, a centrefire semi-auto can't have a mag that can take more than 10 rounds (unless the National government allows it for sports shooting, which ours don't), but can a bolt action rifle here in Ireland legally take a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds?

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Simple answer ,Yes. as can a lever action.lever release,MARS,pump or straight pull.They were not coverd in the EU directive.Nor were .22LR rifles either.
AND if you just so happened to have a belt feed system for your semi auto CF.You are good to go too. Nothing in the directive about such either.

Yet..........

Mellor wrote: »

That’s the logical definition. Any item solely related to the function, ideally without which it fails to cycle properly.
Basically the idea should be to prevent someone building a gun from a piece by piece.


Well no it wouldn’t, as the little plaque could have been for anything it wasn’t firearm related until it was attached.
Where as a stock and magazines are specifically made for firearms. At not sensible but revenue aren’t making up their own law here. This goal should be to challenge the validity and the workability of the law. Not the interpretation of it, imo.

If the content of the article posted at the start of this discussion is correct the real issue is essentially not very complicated but the solution could be.

Is it the DoJ or the Dept. for Finance who determines what constitutes a firearm or a component part and subsequently the need for an importation licence.

I suppose from a practical point of view the real lesson here is to have all that sort of communications with people in either the DoJ or Customs in writing,

tudderone wrote: »

Yet..........

Innovation trumps legislation..All the time.An almost extinct breed in the UK, the garage tinkerer and inventor.The kind who made Britan great with inventions like TV,radar,bouncing bombs and other stuff. Invented THIS to beat the MARS/Lever release ban.:D:D

Define a loading device in Irish or EU law?
Magazines are mentioned not belts..:)
Plus a loading device is a rather bad term on a firearm.A mag is a container to hold the rounds.A loading device could be the spring,the shell lifter in the mag.The whatsit that catches the shell off the mag and feeds it into the chamber,could also be a "loading device".