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 ?
Zxthinger wrote: » R What about importing from outside the EU especially when you have a licence fir the firearm in question. Weren't some firearms owners told that rhey didn't need a import licence as long as they weee importing a firearm from outside EU and for which they already had a licence. There is also the part of the firearms act that states that your entitled to spare or replacement parts..
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.
tudderone wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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 ?
juice1304 wrote: » 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.
tudderone wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
