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

Cass

I only posted about an hour ago about people demanding or asking for someone not to post.

This is back seat moderation and not permitted.

If you see a problem with a post report it and a Moderator will deal with it, but any more posts asking for people to stop posting will result in infraction and deletion.

No more warnings.

Donald Trump

tudderone wrote: »

Talking as someone who has had to allow their house to be inspected by gardai, has to agree to have their medical records open to the gardai, have had my back ground checked etc i fully understand basic facts about gun ownership, but its patently obvious you don't know anything about it.

Hi,

I was responding to a poster who appeared to posit that the only thing stopping him from giving his guns away was his own honesty.

As you yourself are aware, there are checks that would prevent someone from doing this. They are the same ones I alluded to in my post.

I never said that there should be no guns - which is what the same poster seems to have extrapolated to.

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

Eventually 3d printers will be good enough to do this. I'd say they aren't too far off that capability at the moment. I actually reckon we will end up 3d printing our food at some point in the future.

The technology is amazing, Porsche are printing highly stressed parts already, and making things like pistons, with features that are difficult if not impossible to machine or cast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrVRSbc6Oec

tudderone

Donald Trump wrote: »

Surely you understand basic facts about gun ownership? No? Do you know of any possible powers of controls or checks that the guards might have that might cause them to find out if you, as a licensed owner, to give your gun away.

Talking as someone who has had to allow their house to be inspected by gardai, has to agree to have their medical records open to the gardai, have had my back ground checked etc i fully understand basic facts about gun ownership, but its patently obvious you don't know anything about it.

Sparks

Donald Trump wrote: »

Where is the punishment by requiring that you source those components from a registered licensed dealer/importer?

The punishment is that importation is either prohibited (as dealers have had to go to the supreme court in this country to get importation licences and not all can do so for every licence), or the cost is increased. Financial costs being imposed above what the law requires on the grounds that an illegal act *might* be committed by someone you legally have stated you do not believe will commit an illegal act is a punishment, regardless of whether some may regard fines as not being a punishment, but a service fee for breaking the law.

Also, the law does not require you to go through a dealer for importations; we have had to go to the supreme court in the past on exactly this point, that Gardai and the DoJ and the Minister may not amend legislation off their own initiative where not provided by through policies or guidance or any other measure. The law as passed by the oireachtas is the law the courts recognise; not the opinion of any of the named three parties.

Sparks

Donald Trump wrote: »

Surely you understand basic facts about gun ownership? No? Do you know of any possible powers of controls or checks that the guards might have that might cause them to find out if you, as a licensed owner, to give your gun away.

Consider this a warning from a mod - you're breaking rule one of the forums there. Knock that on the head.

Cass

To EVERYONE.

Cut out the name calling. I don't care how subtle/tame it is or you believe it to be. Make your points without resorting to insult.

I've edited some posts to remove the insult so far but anything further will result in deletion and/or infraction.

Secondly stop the back seat moderation. Everyone is free to post here and either your argument/rebuttal is strong enough to contend with that or it's not. If its not this does not make the other person a troll so please stop asking for the person to be banned or prevented from posting on this basis.

Once people stay within the rules they can post.

Donald Trump

Sparks wrote: »

That would be an illegal act, separate and subsequent to the legal act of importation.

We do not, as a rule, in this country, allow punishment to take place before the crime.

Further, any licencing officer who believes, even for a moment, that a licencee would commit an illegal act with a firearm, is required by law with no further leeway available to the licencing officer, to remove that licencee's licence. Immediately.

So if someone believes a person might sell on a firearm component illegally, they are breaking the law by allowing them to keep their licence at all. Since that has not happened here, your argument is that either your argument does not apply, or that the licencing officer is guilty of breaking the firearms act.

Where is the punishment by requiring that you source those components from a registered licensed dealer/importer?

Slightly higher cost?

Donald Trump

BattleCorp wrote: »

What other way would I look at it?

<MOD SNIP>

Going by your logic, we should have no guns whatsoever in case we give/sell them to our buddies. Or maybe we can have guns but no bullets, in case we give/sell them to our buddies. We should have no alcohol in case we give/sell them to underage people. etc. etc. etc.

Come on, gun owners are a very highly regulated section of society. Your logic is all screwed up.

But components are needed. Can you not see this? And if someone has a licence, they need those components.

Anyway, I'm not discussing this with you any more because clearly you are either lacking in logic or are a troll. I'm going with troll so to quote Dragon's Den "for that reason, I'm out."

Of course, you could do that same thing with a local registered dealer, but if you were going back to him every week then he might have an idea you are not genuine and up to something. If you order in a heap of parts by post individually over a 10 week period and 10% of them are stopped - then you can show your receipt and plausibly explain it as needing those parts for your own firearm.

Surely you understand basic facts about gun ownership? No? Do you know of any possible powers of controls or checks that the guards might have that might cause them to find out if you, as a licensed owner, to give your gun away.

Sparks

Donald Trump wrote: »

and sell them on, or give them, to your buddies.

That would be an illegal act, separate and subsequent to the legal act of importation.

We do not, as a rule, in this country, allow punishment to take place before the crime.

Further, any licencing officer who believes, even for a moment, that a licencee would commit an illegal act with a firearm, is required by law with no further leeway available to the licencing officer, to remove that licencee's licence. Immediately.

So if someone believes a person might sell on a firearm component illegally, they are breaking the law by allowing them to keep their licence at all. Since that has not happened here, your argument is that either your argument does not apply, or that the licencing officer is guilty of breaking the firearms act.

BattleCorp

Donald Trump wrote: »

You are looking at it solely from the perspective of a genuine licensed gun owner.

What other way would I look at it?

*If* you, as a genuine licensed firearm owner with no criminal convictions wanted to, then you *could* (under your suggestions) import various parts and components and sell them on, or give them, to your buddies.

<MOD SNIP>

Going by your logic, we should have no guns whatsoever in case we give/sell them to our buddies. Or maybe we can have guns but no bullets, in case we give/sell them to our buddies. We should have no alcohol in case we give/sell them to underage people. etc. etc. etc.

Come on, gun owners are a very highly regulated section of society. Your logic is all screwed up.

The authorities here would have no way to monitor that. So they want to restrict the importation of components.

But components are needed. Can you not see this? And if someone has a licence, they need those components.

Anyway, I'm not discussing this with you any more because clearly you are either lacking in logic or are a troll. I'm going with troll so to quote Dragon's Den "for that reason, I'm out."

Of course, you could do that same thing with a local registered dealer, but if you were going back to him every week then he might have an idea you are not genuine and up to something. If you order in a heap of parts by post individually over a 10 week period and 10% of them are stopped - then you can show your receipt and plausibly explain it as needing those parts for your own firearm.

:rolleyes:

That's the point. Revenue wouldn't accept the licence as a reason for getting the parts.

Donald Trump

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So by going by this logic we had better contol everything inert,as it can be mad active by human interaction...:rolleyes:

Yeahhh...The few Ks of controlled drugs and the full auto sMG and a few hundred grand in cash are going to pale into insignificance against that airsoft AR stock in the corner??? Doesn't quite work that way.:)

It is difficult to explain things to people with such a lack of logic. I will try again.

Poster said/implied that these things should be allowed to be imported unrestricted as they are "inert".
I said the "inert" argument is not an argument as lots of things that are controlled are "inert" and that in and of itself does not mean it should be allowed.

You extrapolate that somehow to thinking that I said that all inert things should be banned.

Let me replace the word "inert" with the words "coloured blue" so that you can understand the ridiculousness of your "logic"

Poster said/implied that these things should be allowed to be imported unrestricted as they are "coloured blue".
I said the "coloured blue" argument is not an argument as lots of things that are controlled are "coloured blue" and that in and of itself does not mean it should be allowed.

You extrapolate that somehow to thinking that I said that all coloured blue things should be banned.

Can you understand that me pointing out that something being "coloured blue" is not a reason to have no restrictions on it is not the same as me saying that everything that is coloured blue should be restricted.

Donald Trump

BattleCorp wrote: »

What consequences are you talking about? I very much doubt that criminals are buying target stocks from legal sources. But if they are, then by all means have customs confiscate them. But why confiscate gun parts from a licenced firearm owner even after he shows you his licence? That doesn't make sense.

There's an easy fix for customs. Keep hold of the gun parts until the recipient shows the licence. If the recipient doesn't have a licence for the gun that those gun parts go onto, then either dispose of them or do a controlled delivery and arrest the recipient upon delivery. Simples.

Apologies if I am wrong on this but you seem to want to treat licenced firearms owners the same as you would treat criminals.

There's a big difference between the two. One is legally allowed to own firearms and is licenced to do so, the other is a fcuking scumbag who isn't allowed to own firearms.

So, licenced firearms owners need to be able to replace parts on their guns, make improvements etc. How do you expect them to do that if they can't get those parts in Ireland? Here's the answer, they get them from abroad. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Why should the Garda in this case be penalised for getting a stock from abroad when he would be perfectly entitled to get the same stock from a local dealer here in Ireland if he had one in his inventory?

You are looking at it solely from the perspective of a genuine licensed gun owner.

*If* you, as a genuine licensed firearm owner with no criminal convictions wanted to, then you *could* (under your suggestions) import various parts and components and sell them on, or give them, to your buddies.

The authorities here would have no way to monitor that. So they want to restrict the importation of components.

Of course, you could do that same thing with a local registered dealer, but if you were going back to him every week then he might have an idea you are not genuine and up to something. If you order in a heap of parts by post individually over a 10 week period and 10% of them are stopped - then you can show your receipt and plausibly explain it as needing those parts for your own firearm.

Pkiernan

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well genius. It's not about them buying them - it could still come into it if they are caught in possession of them or similar components

You're just stirring up BS, in what is a very interesting and relevant topic to hundreds of members of this forum.

Grizzly 45

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's exactly my point. Arguing that something is, in and of itself, made of inert material, is not a justification for not controlling it. As I mentioned, and you also pointed out, the gun itself is "inert"

So by going by this logic we had better contol everything inert,as it can be mad active by human interaction...:rolleyes:

Well genius. It's not about them buying them - it could still come into it if they are caught in possession of them or similar components

Yeahhh...The few Ks of controlled drugs and the full auto sMG and a few hundred grand in cash are going to pale into insignificance against that airsoft AR stock in the corner??? Doesn't quite work that way.:)

BattleCorp

Donald Trump wrote: »

More like you can only see your own blinkered position and can't understand the possible consequences of things. It might be more where your own head is stuck rather than actual blinkers though.

What consequences are you talking about? I very much doubt that criminals are buying target stocks from legal sources. But if they are, then by all means have customs confiscate them. But why confiscate gun parts from a licenced firearm owner even after he shows you his licence? That doesn't make sense.

There's an easy fix for customs. Keep hold of the gun parts until the recipient shows the licence. If the recipient doesn't have a licence for the gun that those gun parts go onto, then either dispose of them or do a controlled delivery and arrest the recipient upon delivery. Simples.

Apologies if I am wrong on this but you seem to want to treat licenced firearms owners the same as you would treat criminals.

There's a big difference between the two. One is legally allowed to own firearms and is licenced to do so, the other is a fcuking scumbag who isn't allowed to own firearms.

So, licenced firearms owners need to be able to replace parts on their guns, make improvements etc. How do you expect them to do that if they can't get those parts in Ireland? Here's the answer, they get them from abroad. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Why should the Garda in this case be penalised for getting a stock from abroad when he would be perfectly entitled to get the same stock from a local dealer here in Ireland if he had one in his inventory?

Peppa Cig

Don’t feed the troll ðŸ˜‰

Donald Trump

BattleCorp wrote: »

You don't really know what you are talking about, do you?

More like you can only see your own blinkered position and can't understand the possible consequences of things. It might be more where your own head is stuck rather than actual blinkers though.

BattleCorp

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well genius. It's not about them buying them - it will be if they are caught in possession of them or similar components

You don't really know what you are talking about, do you?

Donald Trump

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Definition Inert lacking the power to move
2: very slow to move or act : SLUGGISH
3: deficient in active properties
especially : lacking a usual or anticipated chemical or biological action

So that would actually be the entire firearm itself as it is an inert object that needs human input to make it function.

Love to see the legislation for 3d printers,and the dark web that will be effective.As well as the persons face and hands once they fire the first"all plastic firearm with a normal load!":eek::D

That's exactly my point. Arguing that something is, in and of itself, made of inert material, is not a justification for not controlling it. As I mentioned, and you also pointed out, the gun itself is "inert"

Donald Trump

tudderone wrote: »

Yes i am sure the Dundons and Kinahans will be cock-a-hoop that they can now buy target stocks for their ak47's and glocks :rolleyes:

It's not about them buying them - it could still come into it if they are caught in possession of them or similar components

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

They already are!! !But they are;
About 100thousand dollars.Are container sized items and weight.
Are exclusively Uncle Sams property used to reprint armour and vechicle parts for APCs anf MBTs in the field.
Have a classified rating on the metallic sinter mixture for said parts.
Still cant print gun barrells that last....Yet.

Food without a doubt.But i think that will be our great great grandkids doing that .Or they'll be back hunting it with spears and clubs.:eek:

Yeah, but technology progresses pretty fast. And the speed of progress is accelerating. I don't think we have as long to wait as you reckon.

I actually think self-drive cars are going to be old hat very quickly. Self-fly drones is where it will be at. Why drive when you can fly.

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

Eventually 3d printers will be good enough to do this. I'd say they aren't too far off that capability at the moment. I actually reckon we will end up 3d printing our food at some point in the future.

They already are!! !But they are;
About 100thousand dollars.Are container sized items and weight.
Are exclusively Uncle Sams property used to reprint armour and vechicle parts for APCs anf MBTs in the field.
Have a classified rating on the metallic sinter mixture for said parts.
Still cant print gun barrells that last....Yet.

Food without a doubt.But i think that will be our great great grandkids doing that .Or they'll be back hunting it with spears and clubs.:eek:

Grizzly 45

jb88 wrote: »

In relation to the importing of parts for a rifle, I sent two ASE Mods to the UK back in January and had to get an RFD'S import permit in order to get them back from the UK?
I have licences for both MODS on seperate firearms but yet my RFD still recommended an import permit.

I think the recent changes to the legislation with respect to having to number all main parts of a firearm,not just the receiver as was always the case have made it more difficult for individuals to get what they want.
SOME RFD's wanted this in order to profit from it are further eroding the quality of firearms and resulting competency of individuals to get the top quality kit they need in order to shoot and compete which simply is just not available in Ireland.
Most will say, "thems the rules", abide by them.

By that inference the uncle mikes screws I want from the UK need a part number and an import permit.

Realistically 90% of what I want in relation to firearms just isnt available in the Republic of Ireland.

Two simple explanations there
1] You are dealing with the UK [God knows why!] with anything firearm related,and they are completely anal with their own and doubly so with us Paddies on that issue still.

2] Your RFD is screwing you over on not knowing the legislation! He "recommended" you to get the import permits... Really?Ask him to show you in the legislation in future where it says silencers must be import liscensed when sent abroad for repair. And also where it says in the legislation that all firearm transactions within the EU must be to a dealer? Technically said; you can get the complete gun deliverd to your door under the EU legislation once you have the liscense and import permit.

The pressure bearing parts that are listed in EU and now Irish legislation,and need to be marked by law you can order the same way,but the supplier,lets say in this case Brownells Germany will only ship them to a dealer or gunsmith,as they need to be marked in the end users country[Ireland] with your parent firearms numbers. Thasts the ONLY place a Irish gundealer/smith comes into the equation by law these days.

So go right ahead and order up any and all other parts that you need,as you are entitled to own and hold them with your firearms cert.

BattleCorp

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well fair play to the guard.

Finding a possible loophole and making sure every criminal in the country knows about it.

What loophole are you talking about?

The guard in question has a licence for his firearms, therefore he has a legitimate need for those parts.

Associates of Mr. Kinihan and Mr. Hutch most likely don't have licences for their firearms.

I've no problem with customs intercepting gun part deliveries but they should release them when the recipient shows them a copy of his licence. They didn't release the parts in this case even though he proved to them that he had a licence so I don't blame the Garda for taking his case further.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Love to see the legislation for 3d printers,and the dark web that will be effective.As well as the persons face and hands once they fire the first"all plastic firearm with a normal load!":eek::D

Eventually 3d printers will be good enough to do this. I'd say they aren't too far off that capability at the moment. I actually reckon we will end up 3d printing our food at some point in the future.

tudderone

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well fair play to the guard.

Finding a possible loophole and making sure every criminal in the country knows about it.

Yes i am sure the Dundons and Kinahans will be cock-a-hoop that they can now buy target stocks for their ak47's and glocks :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Donald Trump wrote: »

It creates a loophole a precedent which could be used to fight other similar - but not necessarily exactly the same - cases.

Do you know what "inert" actually means? Can you give me the name of any components of a gun (not the ammunition) which is not inert?
I can buy a 3D printer and print my own gun out of inert plastic and I think most reasonable people would agree that there would need to be laws against open possession of such items. Inert is irrelevant.

In reality the only likely effect might be that the law would be changed

Definition Inert lacking the power to move
2: very slow to move or act : SLUGGISH
3: deficient in active properties
especially : lacking a usual or anticipated chemical or biological action

So that would actually be the entire firearm itself as it is an inert object that needs human input to make it function.

Love to see the legislation for 3d printers,and the dark web that will be effective.As well as the persons face and hands once they fire the first"all plastic firearm with a normal load!":eek::D

jb88

In relation to the importing of parts for a rifle, I sent two ASE Mods to the UK back in January and had to get an RFD'S import permit in order to get them back from the UK?
I have licences for both MODS on seperate firearms but yet my RFD still recommended an import permit.

I think the recent changes to the legislation with respect to having to number all main parts of a firearm,not just the receiver as was always the case have made it more difficult for individuals to get what they want.
SOME RFD's wanted this in order to profit from it are further eroding the quality of firearms and resulting competency of individuals to get the top quality kit they need in order to shoot and compete which simply is just not available in Ireland.
Most will say, "thems the rules", abide by them.

By that inference the uncle mikes screws I want from the UK need a part number and an import permit.

Realistically 90% of what I want in relation to firearms just isnt available in the Republic of Ireland.

Donald Trump

Chiparus wrote: »

They can now arm themselves with expensive inert pieces of plastic?

It creates a loophole a precedent which could be used to fight other similar - but not necessarily exactly the same - cases.

Do you know what "inert" actually means? Can you give me the name of any components of a gun (not the ammunition) which is not inert?
I can buy a 3D printer and print my own gun out of inert plastic and I think most reasonable people would agree that there would need to be laws against open possession of such items. Inert is irrelevant.

In reality the only likely effect might be that the law would be changed