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

New rules from Revenue?

CJhaughey

Interesting article here about a Garda who imported a stock which was subsequently seized by revenue.
He is taking a case to the High Court regarding this.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40023698.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mellor

donkeykingkong wrote: »

It would mean that hypothetically any accessory you purchase which is not defined as a component could then be classified as a component and therefore a firearm under the Act,

The outcome of the ruling on this would mean that theoretically if a stock which in this case does not alter the function or change the category of the firearm will be deemed as a component. Then either revenue/garda ballistics/DOJ/Garda Firearm policy and procedures can at a whim make themselves legislators and decide that a bipod, scopes, scope rings, picatinny rails, shooting sticks, or as you said fluorescent sight on a shotgun or any other accessory even a sling, all become components as they are all "designed" for use with a firearm although they have no impact on the mechanical function of the firearm same as the stock in this case.

Exactly. Once it's used for one component if used for them all.
There needs to be a line draw somewhere, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere and they should be focused on function being mechanical function and the ability of the action to complete a cycle (and even then it's not even great)

If i was born with cerebral palsy like christy brown or had some other condition and could only use my feet to fire the rifle but had the scope adapted by some engineer to be able to see it while sitting in a seat or lying on my back and the rifle did not need to be shoulder mounted for me to see the target and safely fire that rifle then how can the issue of "shoulder mounted" even be a point to be argued.

That situation the firearm isn't used as designed. It's adapted for use by the individual who presumably has a license for that firearm.
I don't agree with the "used as designed argument" - but that's the only way to translate the law into the classification of everything as a firearm.

But maybe that's not the angle. Maybe its simply a scary pistol grip, of scary black material replacing a wood. Who knows what people think.

tudderone

Mellor wrote: »

But maybe that's not the angle. Maybe its simply a scary pistol grip, of scary black material replacing a wood. Who knows what people think.

I'll bet that more often than not rifles are being stocked in synthetic materials - read plastic, and a lot of the time those stocks are black in colour. Its cheaper, more rugged, easier to manufacture than walnut. So its about time the PTB realized its 2020, not 1875, things have moved on.

JP22

[QUOTE=........... Who knows what people think.[/QUOTE]

That's half the problem I think, excuse the pun.

Basically, when you have either old antiquated laws or new laws not fit for purpose, it lets people in authority (who more often than not have no experience/qualifications) interpret them to suit their own thoughts.

Laws/Regulations should be clear and concise and not open to interpretation.

ED E

This is a little off topic but there are cases where stock for a firearm is intercompatible with that of a RIF(Realistic Imitation Firearm, in lay terms an airsoft gun or replica). As it stands technically a customs official can determine that to be a firearm component. Some clarity on this from the firearms side could remove grey area for the RIF community. The likes of optics are more problematic than a stock (same rail systems).

Uinseann_16

ED E wrote: »

This is a little off topic but there are cases where stock for a firearm is intercompatible with that of a RIF(Realistic Imitation Firearm, in lay terms an airsoft gun or replica). As it stands technically a customs official can determine that to be a firearm component. Some clarity on this from the firearms side could remove grey area for the RIF community. The likes of optics are more problematic than a stock (same rail systems).

Its very relevant imo if they say all stocks are components every lad with a real magpul stock on his airsoft gun could be in illegal possession of a firearm

However a firearm is defined as having over 1 joule of energy so they would be firearm components on a non firearm making them legal?
Grey area imho

BattleCorp

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

Its very relevant imo if they say all stocks are components every lad with a real magpul stock on his airsoft gun could be in illegal possession of a firearm

However a firearm is defined as having over 1 joule of energy so they would be firearm components on a non firearm making them legal?
Grey area imho

So how does a customs officer determine 'at the point of entry into the country' that you want your stock for a firearm that requires a licence or for an airsoft toy?

This case shows how screwed up the legislation or the interpretation of the legislation is.

Uinseann_16

BattleCorp wrote: »

So how does a customs officer determine 'at the point of entry into the country' that you want your stock for a firearm that requires a licence or for an airsoft toy?

This is the issue :pac:
They're clueless and the sheer audacity of government and gardai handling firearms issues in the past few years is astounding. You cant argue facts or law they just do as they please it seems until they get brought to court

Kramer

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

You cant argue facts or law they just do as they please it seems until they get brought to court

After which, they'll just rewrite/reword the law, invariably making things worse for legitimate firearms owners/sportspeople etc.

Get ready for the SI in the aftermath of this case, designating anything & everything as a component part of a firearm & illegal, rubber bands, grub screws, bits of timber :eek:.

Governments now know they can do anything, for "public safety", imprison people in their own homes, enter private homes, ban travel, breach data protection laws, close businesses in perpetuity etc.
Firearms owners - no chance.

meathstevie

JP22 wrote: »

That's half the problem I think, excuse the pun.

Basically, when you have either old antiquated laws or new laws not fit for purpose, it lets people in authority (who more often than not have no experience/qualifications) interpret them to suit their own thoughts.

Laws/Regulations should be clear and concise and not open to interpretation.

You’ll have a mob of solicitors and barristers with torches and pitchforks outside your door yet my man...:)

meathstevie

Kramer wrote: »

After which, they'll just rewrite/reword the law, invariably making things worse for legitimate firearms owners/sportspeople etc.

Get ready for the SI in the aftermath of this case, designating anything & everything as a component part of a firearm & illegal, rubber bands, grub screws, bits of timber :eek:.

Governments now know they can do anything, for "public safety", imprison people in their own homes, enter private homes, ban travel, breach data protection laws, close businesses in perpetuity etc.
Firearms owners - no chance.

I don’t think so, we still have a fairly robust and independent legal system with courts and judges that have shown that they’re not afraid to give a senior Garda or Minister a slap on the wrist when it’s due.

We can all criticise them by times, most often for appearing to be soft on criminals, but they have enough of a backbone to see right from wrong and speak up by times.

Also, agree or disagree with the formation and make up of the current coalition, you can’t deny that quite an effort was made to comply with the requirements of the Constitution. If it’ll still be there comes Christmas is a different matter.

Kramer

meathstevie wrote: »

I don’t think so, we still have a fairly robust and independent legal system with courts and judges that have shown that they’re not afraid to give a senior Garda or Minister a slap on the wrist when it’s due.

Using the judiciary to hammer the legislature is never a good idea - the legislature can just change the rules by SI the following day.

The justice minister can add any stock or magazine to the restricted list at the stroke of a pen, in effect banning anything she wants.
Didn't franny in effect ban semi auto centerfire rifles, without even needing an SI, just arbitrarily banned them, by saying she would, but she didn't, but they are now, in effect, banned.

Kramer

But in this case, I can not see what difference it makes whether a stock is or isn't a component part - the person is licensed. It makes no sense for revenue to decide he can't have it.

Best of luck to him

Cass

Kramer wrote: »

Using the judiciary to hammer the legislature is never a good idea

But the guy is not challenging the legislature or the DoJ, he is challenging the Revenue as AGS and DoJ seemingly gave consent by directly saying so or not requiring an import.

- the legislature can just change the rules by SI the following day.

So long as it does not alter the primary legislation.

The justice minister can add any stock or magazine to the restricted list at the stroke of a pen, in effect banning anything she wants.

Be another court case if she did because she would have to name certain brands in order to distinguish them which could lead to a challenge on creating a monopoly. By the by i'm only spit balling here, not saying for definite.

Didn't franny in effect ban semi auto centerfire rifles, without even needing an SI, just arbitrarily banned them, by saying she would, but she didn't, but they are now, in effect, banned.

By default, yes. Has it been done yet, no.

The longer that goes on the worse it gets. I reckon there will be court cases over that too. The pistol ban was done on the same grounds but it was legislated for within 7 months of the Dail announcement. It's been over 5 years since she made her announcement and nothing.

I've brought this topic up oce of twice myself and the Garda Commissioner even mentioned it in his updated guideline release, but again thus far nothing has been done.

Kramer

Cass wrote: »

But the guy is not challenging the legislature or the DoJ, he is challenging the Revenue as AGS and DoJ seemingly gave consent by directly saying so or not requiring an import.

Good point, if it hadn't been for the fact the department of justice apparently changed tack & emboldened revenue, who then dug their heels in on this.

It really is a farcical situation where one has to go to the high court over a stock, where one is licensed to possess the firearm.
Imagine sending off one's own stock to be repaired/modified, only for it to be seized on re import, because...........well, who knows, just because :rolleyes:.

Cass wrote: »

semi-autos.........but again thus far nothing has been done.

Of course nothing has been done. It suits them that way. Make a statement, act as if legislation has been enacted & run off to europe before you miss the gravy train

Cass

Kramer wrote: »

Good point, if it hadn't been for the fact the department of justice apparently changed tack & emboldened revenue,

After the fact. Had the guy been told by the DoJ no you cannot do this then it'd be a different story.

The problem here is someone, not the DoJ as a department but an actual person, told him its ok based on their interpretation of the legislation and when revenue made the opposite decision the DoJ (so as not to be seen to be liberal or contradicting revenue) changed their mind.

It happened me twice with DoJ and AGS over the past years to the extent the FPU is now just a mouthpiece/backstop for whatever each local FO makes up.

It really is a farcical situation where one has to go to the high court over a stock, where one is licensed to possess the firearm.

Yup.

Same with reloading (and i don't want to take from the OPs thread as its too important, but you can possess the "finished product" in the form of ammo by the thousands but cannot be trusted with the propellant.

Imagine sending off one's own stock to be repaired/modified, only for it to be seized on re import, because...........well, who knows, just because :rolleyes:.

Forget modifying it, anyone now considering a new stock, like i was for my CZ, is now wondering are they going to have the same crap.

It also opens up other issues. EU stuff on the free movement of goods, now import licenses needed within the EU, all buying having to be done via RFDs with no personal imports which seemingly contradicts the firearms act, possible re-writing of the legislation to change the meaning of a firearm, etc, etc.

Of course nothing has been done. It suits them that way. Make a statement, act as if legislation has been enacted & run off to europe before you miss the gravy train .

In a nut shell.

Grizzly 45

Kramer wrote: »

After which, they'll just rewrite/reword the law, invariably making things worse for legitimate firearms owners/sportspeople etc.

Get ready for the SI in the aftermath of this case, designating anything & everything as a component part of a firearm & illegal, rubber bands, grub screws, bits of timber :eek:.

Governments now know they can do anything, for "public safety", imprison people in their own homes, enter private homes, ban travel, breach data protection laws, close businesses in perpetuity etc.
Firearms owners - no chance.

You are still ever the optimist I see...;):):)

Grizzly 45

Kramer wrote: »

Using the judiciary to hammer the legislature is never a good idea - the legislature can just change the rules by SI the following day.

The justice minister can add any stock or magazine to the restricted list at the stroke of a pen, in effect banning anything she wants.
Didn't franny in effect ban semi auto centerfire rifles, without even needing an SI, just arbitrarily banned them, by saying she would, but she didn't, but they are now, in effect, banned.

NO!! There is nothing stopping you from applying and doing the DC route if need be as Ultima Ratio on this. We just like the TCO self ban ourselves this because of the threat of a worse ban coming down if we push it. And if they could have banned them with the EU directive they certainly would have. Also I might point out there is nothing stopping anyone applying for a MARS /Lever release UK style semi auto here either.As it is NOT a semi auto,it doesnt fall into the restricted category or the mag capacity ban.

Imagine sending off one's own stock to be repaired/modified, only for it to be seized on re import, because...........well, who knows, just because .

In this case .KEEP YOUR ORIGINAL RECIPTS! You are sending your already owned component out of the state for service /repair/custom work.So you have proof of ownership already and a liscense to prove permission to own. Had this when I first imported my Glock to Ireland.i still had the original recipts from San Diego 15 years later,and it really took the wind out of the Customs sails when I proved that it was my personal property I was importing.All they could grumply get out of me was a 50 euro "admin fee " for looking in the box.

Kramer

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You are still ever the optimist I see...;):):)

Have you seen the news recently?
Apparently, a 15 second instagram story will soon empower Gardaí to enter any home, anywhere, at any time, count the occupants, ascertain their true addresses & arrest the fourth, poor unfortunate individual who they question (the first three from separate addresses are OK, the fourth, not so much).

It's just 6 months incarceration though, for public safety you see.

Would you like to borrow my tinfoil lined, green hat? It matches my green jersey

Uinseann_16

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

NO!! There is nothing stopping you from applying and doing the DC route if need be as Ultima Ratio on this. We just like the TCO self ban ourselves this because of the threat of a worse ban coming down if we push it. And if they could have banned them with the EU directive they certainly would have. Also I might point out there is nothing stopping anyone applying for a MARS /Lever release UK style semi auto here either.As it is NOT a semi auto,it doesnt fall into the restricted category or the mag capacity ban.

Unfortunatly ill have to disagree there i had the same bright idea becuase 30 round mags have become ridicouloisly cheap from ZIB or D&B ,
Thanks so this little beauty in SI/420
2F. An issuing person shall revoke a firearm certificate in respect of a firearm classified in Category B of the Directive granted by the person where the holder of the certificate is found to be in possession of -

(a) a loading device which can hold more than 20 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating short firearm, or

(b) a loading device which can hold more than 10 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating long firearm.”

SI/420 efferectivly banned all Stanag mags over 10 rounds and also all glock mags, basicaly any pistol magazines over 10 rounds capable of being loaded into a PCC

Cass

Kramer wrote: »

It's just 6 months incarceration though, for public safety you see.

Don't sweat it, you'll be released immediately due prevent covid spreading.

Makes you wonder why they don't just have all prisoners wear masks if they're so successful.

Kramer

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

NO!! There is nothing stopping you from applying and doing the DC route if need be

They are using the hassle, expense & risk of DC court proceedings to limit people applying for licenses. It's ultimately the state using state apparatus to silence/chill/prevent citizens engaging in a legal sport.

It's like a US cop dishing out an unwarranted ticket & saying you can challenge it in court. You'll be the one needing an attorney, taking a day off work & going to great hassle to uphold your rights.
Most just pay up - it's not worth the hassle.

Same here.

Best of luck to the op - I do wish him success & will await the outcome. He was put in an impossible position & fair play to him for challenging it.

Kramer

Cass wrote: »

why they don't just have all .........wear masks if they're so successful.

Say what now? Masks you say? Prevent covid?

Can I borrow your scuba gear? If masks work, surely tanked oxygen & a regulator are better?

Can't be too careful

Cass

Just don't order them off WISH.com

/sorry OP. Back on topic.

Uinseann_16

I was quite worried when this popped up as i had a Atlasworx tikka metal bolt shroud in the post! to replace a cracked plastic one:(
Arrived no issue luckily

But im defintely going to avoid ordering any bits like that for the next while

The question really is wheres the line its a big grey area right now

Mellor

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

Unfortunatly ill have to disagree there i had the same bright idea becuase 30 round mags have become ridicouloisly cheap from ZIB or D&B ,
Thanks so this little beauty in SI/420
2F. An issuing person shall revoke a firearm certificate in respect of a firearm classified in Category B of the Directive granted by the person where the holder of the certificate is found to be in possession of -

(a) a loading device which can hold more than 20 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating short firearm, or

(b) a loading device which can hold more than 10 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating long firearm.”

SI/420 efferectivly banned all Stanag mags over 10 rounds and also all glock mags, basicaly any pistol magazines over 10 rounds capable of being loaded into a PCC

The 10 round mag limit for rifles is still in place due to the above.

But what Griz was referring to (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the criteria for restricted centrefire long rifles makes no reference to mag capacity.

So a 10-round, semi auto, centrefire rifle is unrestricted if a MARS device is fitted. As this moves it to the repeating firearm category.

repeating rifled centre-fire firearms of a calibre not exceeding 7.62 millimetres (.308 inch) and whose overall length is greater than 90 centimetres,

Grizzly 45

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

Unfortunatly ill have to disagree there i had the same bright idea becuase 30 round mags have become ridicouloisly cheap from ZIB or D&B ,
Thanks so this little beauty in SI/420
2F. An issuing person shall revoke a firearm certificate in respect of a firearm classified in Category B of the Directive granted by the person where the holder of the certificate is found to be in possession of -

(a) a loading device which can hold more than 20 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating short firearm, or

(b) a loading device which can hold more than 10 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating long firearm.”

SI/420 efferectivly banned all Stanag mags over 10 rounds and also all glock mags, basicaly any pistol magazines over 10 rounds capable of being loaded into a PCC

Yes thats for a semi auto matic rifle or handgun or carbine PDW.NOT for a Manually Activated Release System [MARS] or lever release rifle carbine or PDW.They were specifically built in the UK to not be semi automatic to comply with the UK ban on semi autos.Basically they only fire extract,eject,and lock open.You have to either hit a lever to release the bolt,or pull a two stage trigger to release the bolt and pull the trigger again to fire it.Nor is it a drop in kit like Mellor suggested.Its a completely reworked rifle in the lower and none of the parts are interchangeable with a SA recivers trigger parts.

This type of gun doesn't even exist in Irish law as a type.So it can be best described under EU legislation and our legislation as a "Repeater".ERGO it is not subject to the EU or Irish legislation on the capacity ban.

SI/420 efferectivly banned all Stanag mags over 10 rounds and also all glock mags, basicaly any pistol magazines over 10 rounds capable of being loaded into a PCC

And do you own one thats Glock mag compatible?:):pBecause if you do,you are the only person in Ireland who has this conundrum of owning both a Glock pistol and a PCC thats Glock compatible thats causing a EU wide headache.:D
Unless you have both the PCC and the Glock pistol and legal mags under the same roof or in your possesion,AT THE SAME TIME AND LOCATION.You are in trouble
Yes you can still buy 10 round Glock compatible PCC mags.Yes you can buy 20 round Glock pistol mags for your pistol.BUT you CANNOT have both the 20 round Glock pistol mag andthe PCC in the same location or address.!!! YES it is that fukin stupid a bit of legislation.:mad: If you do,best leave one of the guns mags at your range,and shoot them seperately.

In my FUNI role,I blew the DOJ folks minds with this conundrum last Dec.They couldn't get their heads around this either.Or the concept of actually needing a 20 round mag to be able to fill 10 rounds into it if you have for some reason a 450 SOCOM or 50 Beowulf upper on a AR lower. Or the definition of a 10 round mag acceptability. Is a 20 round blocked to 10 acceptable?Keeping in mind there is HC precedent on this with the 22 pistol mags..Or must it be physically a body size of 10 rounds only??Couldn't really get a straight answer for any of that,bar a suggestion thsat they would pass this onto the AGS for inclusion in the guidelines,that blocked to ten rounds or 20 rounds as the case might be would be acceptable.
I do wish our lawmakers would consult with people who actually use these things betimes...It would save alot of hassle for everyone.:rolleyes:

BattleCorp

Kramer wrote: »

Didn't franny in effect ban semi auto centerfire rifles, without even needing an SI, just arbitrarily banned them, by saying she would, but she didn't, but they are now, in effect, banned.

They are not, in effect, banned.

I had no issues whatsoever in getting a licence for one. And neither did other target shooters I know.

Grizzly 45

Kramer wrote: »

Have you seen the news recently?
Apparently, a 15 second instagram story will soon empower Gardaí to enter any home, anywhere, at any time, count the occupants, ascertain their true addresses & arrest the fourth, poor unfortunate individual who they question (the first three from separate addresses are OK, the fourth, not so much).

It's just 6 months incarceration though, for public safety you see.

Would you like to borrow my tinfoil lined, green hat? It matches my green jersey .

"The fisrt rule of fight club?You do NOT talk about fight club!!! Rule 2,3and 4?See rule 1!" [Brad Pitt]
It would behove some instragramming,facebooking and twittering idiots to learn these three rules when you are doing something silly and possibly illegal.:p

Nah tinfoil,actually enhances the CIA/Nazi moonbase/Masonic ,Bilderberg,Bill Gates built ,Soros funded,lizard people commanded,mind control waves.If you are of a gen who remembers hanging tin foil strips on your "rabbit ears" black&white portable telly to increase reception quality.You'll know what I mean. Best to line your hat with lead sheeting instead!That actuall will block radio waves Added benefit,it wont come off in this weather either!:D:D

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

They are not, in effect, banned.

I had no issues whatsoever in getting a licence for one. And neither did other target shooters I know.

Encouraging to hear. I did apply for a licence around the time of the centrefire pistol ban, for a Norinco m14 clone. The dreadful (zero manners, down right rude and completely against any firearms ownership) chief super said basically over his dead body. He was one of the old school, and who like the priests and Bishops, thought their position in society meant the rules didn't apply to them, they were above all that.

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

Encouraging to hear. I did apply for a licence around the time of the centrefire pistol ban, for a Norinco m14 clone. The dreadful (zero manners, down right rude and completely against any firearms ownership) chief super said basically over his dead body. He was one of the old school, and who like the priests and Bishops, thought their position in society meant the rules didn't apply to them, they were above all that.

I encountered none of that to be honest.

The Gardai I dealt with were very polite and efficient. The Chief Super had the local Garda Sergeant phone me and ask me a couple of questions to clarify one or two points and I'd no problem with that. Everything else was grand.