Grizzly 45 wrote: » 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
Grizzly 45 wrote: » 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".
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.
Brontosaurus wrote: » What if I buy an airsoft stock, grip etc. and then put it on a firearm? What if I simply hose clamp a rifle chasis to a 2x4?
kunekunesika wrote: » To me it should be like a car. Tyres, wipers, bulbs etc are all clearly car parts or components, which you are free to trade, purchase, fit etc. . But the chassis is a a numbered key component, for which you must have the correct paperwork provided by the state.The engine number should match the paperwork. So for firearms, tell exactly what the key components that must be numbered and identified on the paperwork. Everything else is free to posses, own, buy etc. Too simple for our lot to run with??
Mellor wrote: » Both of those are fine as they aren't a firearm part until they are part of a firearm. A part specifically for a firearm is fundamentally different. I don't agree with the law/interpretation but the absurd examples like 2x4, lump of walnut etc are not really helping the case. If anything they are making the Revenues case for them.
Brontosaurus wrote: » I'm not trying to be daft, it just seems to me that their own logic, and that of the legislation or the interpretation thereof, makes absolutely no sense.
I'd hope the absurdity of my previous examples would highlight to such people how unworkable the legislation is, rather than inspire them further, but you're probably right that they'd sooner use this interpretation than use common sense, even if it means it leads to paradoxical scenarios.
donkeykingkong wrote: » if it comes to costs that is the burden I bear to uphold the legislation correctly.
I am satisfied with my course of action from how I dealt my notice of claim and process to date regards taking the high court action and have acted within the law at all times.
donkeykingkong wrote: » I am the applicant in this case and once matters have been disclosed in open court then they can be discussed. I noticed a comment saying along the lines of why go through the effort over a cheap stock, and also risking high court costs as I am self funding this case. I hope you have some appreciation for this effort on my part to have the legislation clarified and if it comes to costs that is the burden I bear to uphold the legislation correctly. I am satisfied with my course of action from how I dealt my notice of claim and process to date regards taking the high court action and have acted within the law at all times. A stock nor magazine are NOT essential components. I would suggest people read up on the firearms act and it's definitions of components especially Section 1 (1)(g)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended by Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Also Statutory instrument 420/2019. Also section 21 of the firearms act as amended relating to section 17 of the principle act.
donkeykingkong wrote: » I noticed a comment saying along the lines of why go through the effort over a cheap stock, and also risking high court costs as I am self funding this case. I hope you have some appreciation for this effort on my part to have the legislation clarified and if it comes to costs that is the burden I bear to uphold the legislation correctly.
This guy [is] taking the hassle of the high court, so that hopefully, the situation can be clarified for everyone else.
I would suggest people read up on the firearms act and it's definitions of components especially Section 1 (1)(g)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended by Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Also Statutory instrument 420/2019. Also section 21 of the firearms act as amended relating to section 17 of the principle act.
(g)except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts: (i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e), (ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e), and (iii) any object— (I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and (II) without which it could not function as originally designed,
meathstevie wrote: » “ (II) without which it could not function as originally designed,“ You can definitely argue that a bolt action rifle can function quite adequately without a stock fitted. It’s a different story for some semi and automatics where the stock acts as not only as a stock but also as an essential part to hold the assembled firearm together but most of these are military and law enforcement tools that are near if not impossible to licence anyway. In a bolt action you can easily load a cartridge into the chamber cock and lock the action and actuate the trigger mechanism and fire the cartridge without there being a stock fitted. It might not be the most comfortable shot you’ve ever fired but the firearm will function as designed nonetheless.
Feisar wrote: » I was thinking the opposite. I don't know how one could argue that a rifle designed to be shoulder mounted could function as originally designed without a stock. Yes the gun will function however not as designed. It wouldn't be fit for purpose without a stock.
meathstevie wrote: » The presence or absence of a stock does nothing for a bolt action’s ability to mechanically function as designed. I agree with you that it won’t be a very comfortable way of using it but it’s ability to go boom and more importantly to go boom again after simply reloading according to it’s mechanical design is not affected.
2011 wrote: » If you were to set up a “go fund me” account I would certainly contribute towards your costs. I wish you the very best of luck with this.
Limerick Sovereigns wrote: » @DonkeyKingKong, I would also contribute to a GoFundMe account. Thanks for taking the case. Even if you are unsuccessful it will bring clarity.
2011 wrote: » If you were to set up a “go fund me” account I would certainly contribute towards your costs. I wish you the very best of luck with this. I might have to hold you to this down the line but hopefully it won't come to that😂 I can't say the name of the stock as it wasn't disclosed yet in court but I can describe it as below which im sure if you copy and paste into google will most likely give you a fair idea of the stock in question "A one-piece integrated aluminium chassis and buttstock created to improve the consistency and accuracy of your bolt action rifle Free Floating Barrel. We let the bore do the chore. This keeps your barrel free of any contact with the chassis components for greater consistency. Solid Action Interface. It is designed for your specific rifle model - holding your action solid for better accuracy. Integrated Rifle Stock From the forend to the buttpad - the stock is one piece of aircraft grade aluminium. Solid. Straight." As Meathstevie has said a bolt action rifle will work without a stock even the one named in the news article" including .243 calibre Savage Axis II rifle." Absence of the stock does not stop it from functioning. Also the part of it having to be shoulder mounted is nowhere to be seen in legislation. This would also set in effect that any accessory could then be in some way deemed a component, scopes, bipods, even picatinny rails as they are in theory same as a stock, an accessory for your firearm Also even if by some exceptional circumstance it was decided that a stock was an essential component then I am still entitled to import it under section 21 of firearms act amendment. Which seems to have been skipped over or the fact that its an indictable offence to illegally import a firearm into the country so should these matters be passed onto the department of public protections, should I expect an armed garda unit to be kicking in my door and arresting me whilst also seizing my other firearms?? This is the reality of the situation but I have no information being given to me hence the high court application and why it was granted ex parte of the state representation being there. Hopefully in October I will have some more answershttp://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/act/1/section/21/enacted/en/html There are also a large number of other issues which will be presented in court if need be which were not mentioned in the newspaper article. Although conflicting evidence from the Dept of justice firearms member should make for good Cross examination as to giving me one decision in writing and apparently a different one to revenue officer dealing with the matter. I will go into full detail once I am allowed to do so without jeopardising the court case, but what I can say is even reading the comments that some people have imported stocks and no issues but others have them seized it's clear there is no sufficient precedent set regards this matter, it just depends on who you are unfortunate or lucky to have process your items so when people act outside the remit of their department and make themselves legislators there is a serious issue.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Simple answer to all your points MS..is Yes! Your cert does permit you to hold and import replacement parts and spare barrels in the same caliber. Ditto point 2,3 and 4.
juice1304 wrote: » Good luck with the case, If you need witnesses to talk about firearms components etc.. i would be happy to help out.
So am I possibly looking at a situation where the state will not run the case or withdraw and release the stock to me as they know they will incur the costs which would be substantial as expected.
The problem here is in that event it doesn't set any legal precedent or clarification on relevant legislation. If I then accidentally break the new stock and reorder could I be faced with the same issue again (along with any Joe soap) after this unless a judge makes a ruling on it as case law
Mellor wrote: » Exactly. The stock doesn't affect the mechanical function. But the language is poor. It should specify that the function is the full range of mechanical function only. The "as designed" part just adds confusion. Yes a rifle is designed to be fired with the the stock shoulder mounted. But every element is design fr some function. If that definition includes a stock, there it also includes a replacement fluorescent sight on a shotgun - which obviously is not the intention.
