New rules from Revenue?

Scalachi · 15-08-2020 1:23pm

Best of luck with the case, and as others have said, I am sure you will have plenty of people willing to contribute, myself included.

Personally I have imported at least 2 stocks without issue in the past, the only issue I ever had was with a barrel which was seized, I had to send a copy of my license through to prove I had a legitimate reason and the barrel was released next day.

The issue we have is the same as Garda Districts or local "policies", I have never really had any issues over the years, but others who live close by have had refusals for the same firearm... its very frustrating.

meathstevie · 15-08-2020 6:15pm

Donkeykingkong, I’m not a legal professional, only an interested punter but does one’s firearms certificate not permit the possession of component parts for that particular firearm if that’s the road Revenue wants go down ?

If a certain part is deemed to be a component part or not than surely a judgement call from the powers that be in the DOJ on the requirement for an importation licence should be the end of it.

Firearms accessories for use in connection with legally held firearms and firearms for sale to certificate holders are definitely not subject to import prohibitions into the State because if that was the case there wouldn’t be a single professional importer or trader in business anymore.

Your entitlement to possess such items for your firearm, with the exception of stuff like night vision sights or suppressors as clearly defined in law, is already established by your local Superintendent having granted a certificate.

Anyway, my thinking aloud is probably veering too close to arguing legal points so mods please delete if it is.

Grizzly 45 · 15-08-2020 8:33pm

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 · 15-08-2020 11:45pm

Good luck with the case, If you need witnesses to talk about firearms components etc.. i would be happy to help out.

donkeykingkong · 16-08-2020 3:51pm

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.

This is the issue where I have been baffled from the start and highlighted long before this should have reached the high court. If the state runs this case for its duration and a stock is deemed a component part then I revert back to Section 21 of firearms act where I already have a licence (obviously produced numerous times in this issue to revenue in both original not
ice of claim, DOJ and high court affidavit)
So the revenue commissioner still are in breach by not releasing the stock to me as the holder of a valid licence specifically for that stock.

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

donkeykingkong · 16-08-2020 3:52pm

:rolleyes:

juice1304 wrote: »

Good luck with the case, If you need witnesses to talk about firearms components etc.. i would be happy to help out.

Drop me a PM thanks

Grizzly 45 · 16-08-2020 6:54pm

juice1304 wrote: »

Good luck with the case, If you need witnesses to talk about firearms components etc.. i would be happy to help out.

Likewise...

Grizzly 45 · 16-08-2020 7:13pm

QUOTE=donkeykingkong;114324708]This is the issue where I have been baffled from the start and highlighted long before this should have reached the high court. If the state runs this case for its duration and a stock is deemed a component part then I revert back to Section 21 of firearms act where I already have a licence (obviously produced numerous times in this issue to revenue in both original not
ice of claim, DOJ and high court affidavit)
So the revenue commissioner still are in breach by not releasing the stock to me as the holder of a valid licence specifically for that stock.

AFICS thats correct. Only thing I could see is that if it is a US import,did you apply for a Non EU import permit from the DOJ???Which again makes zero sense as that is AFICS it only applies to firearms and ammo,not component parts and DOJ has always said,to me at least ,your liscense is your import cert as far as they were concerned. Even importing from the EU it is a non requirement ,under free goods movement,and the stock is a non pressure bearing,or even today under the new EU directive,a "non vital function component" if that makes sense?

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.

Yup...That would be their smartest tactical move. Unless your legal team and you want to push for your day in court regardless and force the issue to be heard? Which can be a double edged sword,as is any court case. Is it about the stock or getting legal clarification and slapping customs for over exceeding their authorithy?"Principles or possesion" as my solicitor said to me handling the liscense cases.The latter can be alot more expensive legally.

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

100% correct!:(

Mellor · 17-08-2020 7:11am

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.

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.

donkeykingkong · 17-08-2020 8:11pm

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.

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.

Also although the traditional and most comfortable way to fire a rifle is that it is shoulder mounted, there is no where in the firearms act where this is stated, again people acting as legislators and writing the laws to suit their opinion knowing that in 99% of the cases people will not challenge their decision.

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. same as a shotgun, what if due to some spinal condition I am by far safer and more accurate firing from the hip does this make me reckless with the discharge and guilty of such an offence??

So many questions and this is just on 1 sub -subsection of the whole Act yet it will take a high court challenge and a potential huge expense on my part to even look for clarification on this.

Mellor · 18-08-2020 2:11am

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 · 18-08-2020 1:42pm

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 · 18-08-2020 9:43pm

[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 · 18-08-2020 9:58pm

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 · 19-08-2020 12:48pm

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 · 19-08-2020 12:51pm

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 · 19-08-2020 12:54pm

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 · 19-08-2020 6:31pm

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 · 19-08-2020 7:40pm

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 · 19-08-2020 7:47pm

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 · 19-08-2020 9:00pm

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 · 19-08-2020 9:09pm

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 · 19-08-2020 9:36pm

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 · 19-08-2020 10:37pm

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 · 19-08-2020 10:58pm

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 · 19-08-2020 11:26pm

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 · 19-08-2020 11:33pm

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 · 19-08-2020 11:38pm

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 · 19-08-2020 11:38pm

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 · 19-08-2020 11:42pm

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 · 19-08-2020 11:49pm

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 · 19-08-2020 11:53pm

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 · 19-08-2020 11:59pm

Just don't order them off WISH.com

/sorry OP. Back on topic.

Uinseann_16 · 20-08-2020 12:08am

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 · 20-08-2020 12:16am

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 · 20-08-2020 1:36pm

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 · 20-08-2020 1:39pm

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 · 20-08-2020 1:52pm

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 · 20-08-2020 2:03pm

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 · 20-08-2020 2:10pm

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.

Grizzly 45 · 20-08-2020 2:43pm

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.

Yip.Been there,seen that,done it,bought the Tshirt stand with some of these "public servants" who had enough concrete between their ears to balance the brass on their shoulders.:mad:
Even their own men admitted to me later on when they had retired from AGS that they were considerd utter arrogant donkeys that were despised by their own rank and file in the stations,and one beauty that I had to deal with, even turned around an interview report and blatentedly LIED to the DOJ on a dealership application,which I found and still have in a Freedom of Info request.Worse he did all this in front of a witness at the interview.

He finally hung himself in court in a case in Kerry where he stated under oath that he didn't consider anyone civillian capable or fitting to own ANY type of firearm,and if he had it his way he would revoke all liscenses in his district.:eek:
That went down very well with the Kerry judge,who was also peed off with the AGS expert witness continously reading from Janes Infantry Weapons...And not having much in his head on the subject.:rolleyes:

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.

I'm very glad to hear that a lot of money,blood,sweat and tears and fustration,not to mind sleepless nights,and wracked nerves,of court cases and appearences by so many people finally did pay off that you got some proper and civilised service,as it should have been from the start.:):)

tudderone · 20-08-2020 3:29pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Even their own men admitted to me later on when they had retired from AGS that they were considerd utter arrogant donkeys that were despised by their own rank and file in the stations,and one beauty that I had to deal with, even turned around an interview report and blatentedly LIED to the DOJ on a dealership application,which I found and still have in a Freedom of Info request.Worse he did all this in front of a witness at the interview.

Yes, in fairness, the junior garda who sat in on the interview was mortified, i'd have felt sorry for him if i wasn't so pre-occupied with keeping my temper under control with the other throwback. Wouldn't shake my hand when i entered the room or left, kept referring to the rifle as "Dis yoke", asked me did i think i was Rambo, or Dirty Harry. Would not answer a question directly, but communicated in grunts. In the end i said this is over, good luck. By this stage he was barely acknowledging i was in the room. Of course i didn't get my cert.

Grizzly 45 · 20-08-2020 7:29pm

Surname didnt start with a" K" did it?:rolleyes:.Sounds exactly like the same donkey I had to deal with..

tudderone · 20-08-2020 8:21pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Surname didnt start with a" K" did it?:rolleyes:.Sounds exactly like the same donkey I had to deal with..

I cannot remember now, never want to set eyes on the fcuker again either. We all meet people in life we disagree with, it doesn't mean we have to be rude or objectionable to them. Civility costs nothing.

Lads tell me the new chief super, who is a woman, is very much fairer, pleasant to deal with, and polite.

The guards were like the church, they needed a good clean out, and to be reminded they are not a law unto themselves.

Cass · 20-08-2020 10:07pm

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.

I've mentioned before that there is no ban, but it is "coming" (their words, not mine).

This is the key point of all this. There is no ban right now, today, or even tomorrow for that matter. The "ban" is a threat of one that will be coming at an unspecified date. For a while after it was announced it was worrisome but that "fear" subsided after a few years. Then roll on the new Commissioner's updated guidelines in Sept 2018 and in it he says:

Issuing persons and applicants alike should be mindful that, on 18th September 2015, the Minister for Justice and Equality announced that any new restricted firearm certificates for centre fire semi-automatic rifles, granted between that date and the enactment of proposed legislation banning the future licensing of these types of firearms, shall stand revoked.

Now i completely agree that a defacto ban without any legislation is no ban, but you don't put this piece into your guidelines unless they intend to address it at some point in the future. It means that anyone with a license for such a firearm between Sept 2015 and present will have their license revoked.

meathstevie · 20-08-2020 11:13pm

Cass wrote: »

I've mentioned before that there is no ban, but it is "coming" (their words, not mine).

This is the key point of all this. There is no ban right now, today, or even tomorrow for that matter. The "ban" is a threat of one that will be coming at an unspecified date. For a while after it was announced it was worrisome but that "fear" subsided after a few years. Then roll on the new Commissioner's updated guidelines in Sept 2018 and in it he says:

Now i completely agree that a defacto ban without any legislation is no ban, but you don't put this piece into your guidelines unless they intend to address it at some point in the future. It means that anyone with a license for such a firearm between Sept 2015 and present will have their license revoked.

Politics Cass, for the Garda Commissioner the Minister for Justice is the hand that feeds him. He’s definitely going to lick it, not bite it. Speculation about potential future law is exactly that, speculation. It may or may not rain tomorrow, the Commissioner has his umbrella ready anyway...

tudderone · 20-08-2020 11:20pm

Why ban the centrefire semi's ? Like the pistols, they are out there, whats the issue ? How many people were shot with CF pistols ? A big fat zero afaik. Whats the problem with the rifles ? How many crimes have they been used in ? Again i'll wager zero. They might be banned if there is another case like the shooting of the innocent chap in Limerick by gangland scumbags, cynically used by hob goblin Ahern.

Cass · 20-08-2020 11:21pm

meathstevie wrote: »

Politics Cass,.

Good point, well made.

Cass · 20-08-2020 11:23pm

@ tudderone - Virtue signalling. To be seen to be addressing crime by attacking the only section of society that is armed but completely controllable and traceable.

Grizzly 45 · 21-08-2020 12:15am

I think the initial fear was like the CF pistols.It was going to go from zero to 1500 plus within 12 months or weeks. This hasn't happened, there are less than 200 in total in the entire 26 counties sofar in a 18 year period.Proably due to numerous factors,this self imposed ban being one of them,and the belif that they are ultra difficult to liscense as restricted firearms.Not to mind they aren't exactly cheap firearms in comparison to whats out there with less liscensing hassle.
I would still ASSume that it is a tipping point number before they act on this SI,if ever.
Still I wouldn't invest a fortune in one anymore,if there is a chance of these being confiscated. Be a bastard to spend 3or 4 thousand on some decent kit,to have our oppressors swipe it.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

New rules from Revenue?

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County