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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

tudderone

Donald Trump wrote: »

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.

There is nothing stopping anyone giving their firearms away, nothing, but the possibility of spending years of your life in a very unpleasant prison, the loss of your job, family and home, for the actions of some idiot.

I have heard this so much from people who know zip about firearms ownership in Ireland "Oh you can go to a gunshop and buy a gun, i'll give you the money, you buy it and give it to me". I had this line for years from an idiotic apprentice in the company i worked at.

Donald Trump

tudderone wrote: »

There is nothing stopping anyone giving their firearms away, nothing, but the possibility of spending years of your life in a very unpleasant prison, the loss of your job, family and home, for the actions of some idiot.

I have heard this so much from people who know zip about firearms ownership in Ireland "Oh you can go to a gunshop and buy a gun, i'll give you the money, you buy it and give it to me". I had this line for years from an idiotic apprentice in the company i worked at.

That was 100% my point.

The contrast is that if I could order in components unrestricted from abroad, then there would be no record and I could give them away. I am not accusing responsible owners of doing that or wanting to do it.

The people who creating rules and regulations are trying to control the dodgy people - not the genuine people.

So I can see why they might want to control the importation of such items. Me saying I understand why they want to do that is not saying that casting aspersions on any legitimate owner so there is no need for people to take offence even if they disagree.

From the perspective of the authorities, I'd imagine that it is better to err on the side of caution.

BattleCorp

Donald Trump wrote: »

The contrast is that if I could order in components unrestricted from abroad, then there would be no record and I could give them away. I am not accusing responsible owners of doing that or wanting to do it.

But yet you want to penalise responsible owners for ordering in spare parts/components? Enven though they have done nothing wrong? All because you have the view that they MIGHT do something wrong?

By the way, there is the potential to order in stocks, screws and a few other bits. But try get the critical parts for the gun such as a lower receiver sent to you unrestricted from abroad, then you'll realise that you can't order a gun bit-by-bit over the internet.

Another problem with your getting components unrestricted is that if your local dealer has them in Ireland, you can get them here and there's no record of where they went. How do you keep track of every screw and spring etc.

The people who creating rules and regulations are trying to control the dodgy people - not the genuine people.

The Garda in this case had a licence. What more proof do you want that he is a genuine person?

So I can see why they might want to control the importation of such items. Me saying I understand why they want to do that is not saying that casting aspersions on any legitimate owner so there is no need for people to take offence even if they disagree.

Like I said, no problem with control. The dude had a licence. That should have been the end of it. If he had no licence, then the customs could have seized the parts or carried out a controlled delivery and arrested the guy when he received them. That's what they do with drugs so why not do it with firearms parts?

From the perspective of the authorities, I'd imagine that it is better to err on the side of caution.

I'm with you on this. I've no problem with the customs seizing the package. But once the Garda produced his licence, they should have released the parts to him.

Cass

Donald Trump wrote: »

The contrast is that if I could order in components unrestricted from abroad, then there would be no record and I could give them away.

I think something that has gotten lost in this part of the thread/debate is the various components.

A rifle/firearm stock is a lump of plastic or wood, essentially. The Garda in question is licensed and has been vetted and deemed "worthy" of having it, hence the stock.

When you talk about unregulated import of various components which could be given away you have not been told, don't know or have not be pointed to the fact that components such as barrels, actions, bolts, etc. are not only highly regulated but also require a license to possess before you can apply for the license to import.

IOW while there may be some debate on stocks the pressure bearing components are strictly controlled even when licensed.

To elaborate if i wanted to import a stock, as the Garda in question done, i can but it and ship it in. My firearm will function perfectly well without a stock. So whether i get it or not my firearm is still functional.

Now if i want a barrel, action, bolt fo that firearm then the firearm needs these to work. Without them it does not function. When i go to buy one i must have a firearms license to apply for the import license. Without the firearms license i won't get the import license.

Now onto importation. Most places these items comes form will demand an import license before they can, on their side, apply for an export license to send it to me. Once that is gotten they send the item to me, directly or through a Registered Firearms Dealer (RFD). Once i get the parts i must, by law, have them permanently etched with a serial number which identifies the firearm to which they are attached which is linked to me via my license.

Failure to do so is a breach of the firearms act and punishable by loss/revocation of license for the firearm, fine and/or prison term of up to 5 years.

In pretty much all cases of such components the Revenue will stop the item and demand a license by presented before releasing the item. The export license from the supplier will be attached to the package as will a copy of the import license i sent to get the item.

Once all these steps have been met i can pick up my item, but the DoJ and AGS are notified/informed of the import, and in the few instances when i done it i received a call after i got my part to confirm i received it, why i ordered it, and that everything is "ship shape".

Now roll on the use of a firearm. We apply for a license and renew it every three years. Renewal is a misnomer as its legally and technically a re-application. Which means we do not automatically get a new license but must show our continued need and use of the firearm.

As a member of a range with a firearm for use on that range i also have other obligations. If i don't attend the range enough times in the three year period of my license i can lose that license for not using the firearm for its intended purpose. The range is also required, by law, to inform the Gardaí twice a year, of the attendance of each of its members so before the three year license expires i could potentially lose a firearms license, hence firearm, before the three year period expires.

To put that into context if someone without a firearms license was able to import items that we (the shooting community) deem not to be essential components they would end up with, at best, a stock, a few screws and a scope all of which are easily purposed without a license in Ireland from any dealer(s). None of which would, when or even if it could be, build a firearm and least of all a functioning one.

The people who creating rules and regulations are trying to control the dodgy people - not the genuine people.

The problem with that theory is by restricting legal gun owners, curtailing their ability to buy, sometimes, essential parts in an effort to stop criminals who do not abide by the law anyway they are not actually achieving anything against the criminal element.

In the last 4 weeks in Laois there were two finds of illegal firearms, as well as drugs and cash. Neither firearm was ever owned or licensed by anyone in the country. Even if they could have been owned the import of the type of firearms found is illegal so if i tried to import one or even the parts for it i would be refused.

From the perspective of the authorities, I'd imagine that it is better to err on the side of caution.

The authorities have said, outright by the way, they do not believe we should have firearms at all.

You might say why don't they just ban them, well the problem there is ownership of property vs the ability to possess it. IOW you can buy and own multiple firearms without a license for any of them, but never actually be able to possess. They would remain in the RFDs, indefinitely.

If the Government were to ban all firearms and immediately demand they be surrendered they would legally have to compensate us for the loss of property which could go into the tens of millions.

This is not my opinion, but fact as the "ban and buy" was floated a few years back with the Minister saying she did not have to pay us for the firearms, but soon after consulting her legal team she was told the opposite and the scheme never seen the light of day.

tudderone

Donald Trump wrote: »

That was 100% my point.

The contrast is that if I could order in components unrestricted from abroad, then there would be no record and I could give them away. I am not accusing responsible owners of doing that or wanting to do it.

The people who creating rules and regulations are trying to control the dodgy people - not the genuine people.

So I can see why they might want to control the importation of such items. Me saying I understand why they want to do that is not saying that casting aspersions on any legitimate owner so there is no need for people to take offence even if they disagree.

From the perspective of the authorities, I'd imagine that it is better to err on the side of caution.

Its not just the gardai or customs stopping importation of parts, No manufacturer will sell you pressure bearing parts without the legal paperwork. Even things like barrel blanks, which strictly speaking you do no need a licence for, they will not sell without a copy of your licence and an import cert at your end. The business is just not worth it to them, if they are going to wind up in legal trouble. Try buying a new bolt for your rifle if you lose yours, its a nightmare.

Donald Trump

BattleCorp wrote: »

But yet you want to penalise responsible owners for ordering in spare parts/components? Enven though they have done nothing wrong? All because you have the view that they MIGHT do something wrong?

By the way, there is the potential to order in stocks, screws and a few other bits. But try get the critical parts for the gun such as a lower receiver sent to you unrestricted from abroad, then you'll realise that you can't order a gun bit-by-bit over the internet.

Another problem with your getting components unrestricted is that if your local dealer has them in Ireland, you can get them here and there's no record of where they went. How do you keep track of every screw and spring etc.

The Garda in this case had a licence. What more proof do you want that he is a genuine person?

Like I said, no problem with control. The dude had a licence. That should have been the end of it. If he had no licence, then the customs could have seized the parts or carried out a controlled delivery and arrested the guy when he received them. That's what they do with drugs so why not do it with firearms parts?

I'm with you on this. I've no problem with the customs seizing the package. But once the Garda produced his licence, they should have released the parts to him.

As I said, and it is not an insult, you are looking at it from the perspective of the genuine owner. The people trying to regulate things are looking at it from the perspective of trying to stop the dodgy person from doing something.

I am not trying to make things difficult or punish people. And I am not trying to upset people so apologies if I came across a bit confrontational earlier.

If you have a licence for a gun, then there are controls around possession of that gun. The local guard does not have to request to see it every year for me to know that he might do that before signing the form. The fact that he might request that means that I cannot ignore if the gun is lost/stolen/"loaned".

If there are no records of me ordering in components then I know nobody will ask me about them if they arrive unhindered. If I have a licence I could order them in because I have an excuse in the event if they are noticed (If I am ordering some in for dodgy reasons)

Catching something in transit is only a real control if it can be seized. If something is detected and it can be legitimised "post-hoc" by production of a legitimate firearms licence then it is not really a deterrent to the dodgy person (A dodgy person could have a licence too......I'm not talking about your local hitman or dealer...it could be a person who is a bit of a chancer and never came to the attention of gardai)

The system that would need to be in place might be that a person importing would need to notify/log in advance of what is coming in. Then there is a record for all components coming in. And if a component arrives in without having been notified in advance, they are seized and that could be recorded as a little black mark against them.

The reason that you would have to do it in advance is that then you would be logging everything coming in rather than just the ones that happen to be detected. How to implement that system is another matter. It might be a pain in the hole but then everyone could be kept happy.

Mellor

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?
What are you suggesting "criminals" could do with this loophole.

Or are you just talking out of your hoophole, as you are fond of going on the wind up.

Donald Trump wrote: »

*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.

And so what? What is the issue with somebody having these parts? What you you think the potential negative effect is if a dodgy person can order one?
If somebody without a license wants to order one, they are entitled to.

We are talking about accessories, not mechanical component parts. I think that's probably you lack of understanding lets you down.

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

They can monitor the importation of accessories without seizing them. The two activities aren't related.

Donald Trump wrote: »

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 claimed it was a loophole prior to the inert response, so your claim has nothing to do with being inert.
Maybe inert wasn't the correct word, if you understand that it wasn't the correct word, then we can proceed with the understanding of what was intended.
If you don't understand what was intended, we can explain.

The parts in question are passive accessories. They are not mechanical components, they serve no purpose to the operation of a firearm.

Cass

Donald Trump wrote: »

The people trying to regulate things are looking at it from the perspective of trying to stop the dodgy person from doing something.

In this case the people that legislate and control the licensing and import of these items told the Guy to go ahead. Its revenue that has interpreted the law differently and its against revenue he is taking the case.

DoJ then back tracked in a CYA mission.

I am not trying to make things difficult or punish people. And I am not trying to upset people so apologies if I came across a bit confrontational earlier.

You could not hope to reach the levels of difficulty that currently are in place for people in the shooting community so don't worry about it.

If you have a licence for a gun, then there are controls around possession of that gun.

Yes there are, hundreds actually.

Among the most pressing are:

There are 19 Acts, 63 Statutory Instruments and 2 EU directives on firearms that currently legislate for firearms in the country?
Each firearm must be separately licensed, there is NOT a "one size fits all" type license
When we apply for a firearm, each and every individual firearm, we are subject to:
- 3 month background check/wait time
- Sign away our ability to refuse a check/search of our homes
- Sign away confidentiality of Doctors/medical history
- Have character referees
- Have no criminal convictions
- Have a good reason for the firearm (cannot just have one because you want it)
- Meet umpteen conditions on land ownership, membership of an authorised range, and only shoot the firearm there.
- These requirements are checked twice yearly.
- Meet some of the highest, and most expensive, conditions for storage of firearms at our homes
There are people in AGS called Crime PRevention Officers (CPO) who may inspect your home, storage and firearms at any time, and without fore-warning. This can occur once every two years or ten times a year as the cPO deems necessary.
There are some 240,000 (guess-timate) firearms owned by approx 160,000 people in the country. That is an ownership rate of 3%. One of the lowest in the world where firearm(s) can be owned by civilians/citizens.
We cannot have centrefire pistols, anymore. AT ALL.
Semi auto rifles number about 200 - 250 (about 0.1% of the total firearms owned in the state) and they are subject to the checks above, as well as higher checks and home security measures as they are classed as restricted firearms)
We have NO concealed carry "general" laws in Ireland (they can be gotten, but only directly by the Minister and only when there is a defined and substantial threat to your life)
We have NO right to keep and bear arms laws (IOW no 2nd amendment)
We have NO self defense reason for getting a firearm (you cannot get a gun for home defense)

The list goes on and on. In fact being a gun owner could accurately be described as a hassle and not worth it.

The local guard does not have to request to see it every year for me to know that he might do that before signing the form. The fact that he might request that means that I cannot ignore if the gun is lost/stolen/"loaned".

That is when applying, which the local Garda only deals with on an administration level. The actual licensing is a 3 month process involving all the factors i listed above as well as the local Sargeant and ultimately the Superintendent/Chief Superintendent.

If there are no records of me ordering in components then I know nobody will ask me about them if they arrive unhindered.

There are always records. From the import forms, to my name and address even if an import license is not required to customs checks to delivery by An Post.

If I have a licence I could order them in because I have an excuse in the event if they are noticed (If I am ordering some in for dodgy reasons)

If you order the for "dodgy purposes" WITH a license then that is a criminal offence and will be dealt with as such. Again do not confuse criminality with 99.99% of the shooting population (i cannot say 100% with absolute certainty but as shooting sports was, and is the safest sport in the country with the longest history its a safe bet to gamble on saying 100%).

Catching something in transit is only a real control if it can be seized.

We are talkin of importing through legal means but what about illegal means? IOW criminality again. How are these checks working out for An Gardaí in relation to drugs and illegal weapons?

My point is if you intend to do harm or act outside the law a way will be found but as we're not discussing criminality in the case of this Garda the point is moot.

If something is detected and it can be legitimised "post-hoc" by production of a legitimate firearms licence then it is not really a deterrent to the dodgy person (A dodgy person could have a licence too......I'm not talking about your local hitman or dealer...it could be a person who is a bit of a chancer and never came to the attention of gardai)

Once again, a person whether licensed or not intending to do harm will find a way to do harm.

You cannot legislate for the unpredictable.

The system that would need to be in place might be that a person importing would need to notify/log in advance of what is coming in. Then there is a record for all components coming in. And if a component arrives in without having been notified in advance, they are seized and that could be recorded as a little black mark against them.

That already occurs, even in this case as is proven by Revenue seizing the stock.

The reason that you would have to do it in advance is that then you would be logging everything coming in rather than just the ones that happen to be detected. How to implement that system is another matter. It might be a pain in the hole but then everyone could be kept happy.

This system already exists with the import license.

However in the case of something like a stock where the Garda was told no import was needed, and allowing for the fact that he wins his case and all future imports need no recording then refer to my previous post about the usefulness of a stock on its own as opposed to the pressure bearing parts required to actually build a firearm which are tightly and strictly controlled.

BattleCorp

Donald Trump wrote: »

As I said, and it is not an insult, you are looking at it from the perspective of the genuine owner. The people trying to regulate things are looking at it from the perspective of trying to stop the dodgy person from doing something.

But like I said earlier, what other way would I look at it? Your suggestion for even more regulation won't make a blind bit of difference to a Kinihan or a Hutch but will make things awkward for me getting something that I am licenced for and have a legitimate use for.

I've no problem with the Gardai/Customs/Revenue whoever regulating the importation of firearms parts. Once someone has the relevant licence, the parts should have been released. That's regulation right there. If there was no licence, then the parts shouldn't be released and the person ordering them should be arrested. That's regulation right there.

I was insulting to you earlier so I apologise but you seem to be repeatedly skipping over the fact that the Garda had a licence for the firearm that those parts were for.

If you have a licence for a gun, then there are controls around possession of that gun. The local guard does not have to request to see it every year for me to know that he might do that before signing the form. The fact that he might request that means that I cannot ignore if the gun is lost/stolen/"loaned".

It's a criminal act to not report a lost/stolen gun and it's also a criminal act to loan a gun to someone.

This has nothing to do with the case in question, where the Garda wanted to import parts for a gun that he already had a licence for.

If there are no records of me ordering in components then I know nobody will ask me about them if they arrive unhindered. If I have a licence I could order them in because I have an excuse in the event if they are noticed (If I am ordering some in for dodgy reasons)

Ah yeah, I'm going to order in a spring, screw and stock using my legitimate licence with the sole intention of doing something dodgy with that spring, screw and stock. :rolleyes:

Catching something in transit is only a real control if it can be seized. If something is detected and it can be legitimised "post-hoc" by production of a legitimate firearms licence then it is not really a deterrent to the dodgy person (A dodgy person could have a licence too......I'm not talking about your local hitman or dealer...it could be a person who is a bit of a chancer and never came to the attention of gardai)

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And given that logic, if the licence holder was intending on doing something dodgy, how will applying for an import permit in advance stop that from happening?

The system that would need to be in place might be that a person importing would need to notify/log in advance of what is coming in. Then there is a record for all components coming in.

Logically that sounds ok. But do I have to notify someone any time I want to buy a screw or a spring for a firearm? Logistically how will that be managed?

And my next point, what will it achieve. So if you have a log of me receiving a spring for my Ruger 10/22, how do you know I won't do something dodgy with it. Supposing it turns up in an illegal Ruger 10/22, how do you know the spring is from my gun?

And if a component arrives in without having been notified in advance, they are seized and that could be recorded as a little black mark against them.

Or if the person has a licence, then let them have the part. And if the person doesn't have a licence, then bring the full weight of the law down on them. That way the law abiding licenced firearms owner isn't being unreasonably penalised.

The reason that you would have to do it in advance is that then you would be logging everything coming in rather than just the ones that happen to be detected. How to implement that system is another matter. It might be a pain in the hole but then everyone could be kept happy.

I wouldn't be happy. Neither would most law abiding firearms owners.

And who decides what you need advanced permission for? Does it extend down to springs, screws, spacers, gun sights, grips, tape, optics, etc.?

Those things aren't considered firearms in most countries.

Sparks

Donald Trump wrote: »

As I said, and it is not an insult, you are looking at it from the perspective of the genuine owner. The people trying to regulate things are looking at it from the perspective of trying to stop the dodgy person from doing something.

Unfortunately, the law is written in such a way that if those trying to regulate things according to the law think for even a moment that there is the possibility of dodginess, they are required by section four of the firearms act to strip that person of their licence.

Which means that anyone looking at the law from the point of view of stopping a dodgy person from doing something is required by law to follow a set course of action which they are not following which means that either they do not believe there is a possibility of dodginess or that they are dodgy themselves.

This is a rather unique part of Irish legislation and does not operate quite in the same way as most of that body of law.

If you have a licence for a gun, then there are controls around possession of that gun. The local guard does not have to request to see it every year for me to know that he might do that before signing the form. The fact that he might request that means that I cannot ignore if the gun is lost/stolen/"loaned".

It's not merely that you might be subject to random checks; it is that you *will*, without fail, be subject to a check at the end of that three year period when the licence expires and you must reapply for a new one. You are required by law to answer for the location of that firearm and that is regularly checked on because of the limited timespan of the licences as well as irregularly checked on by inspection.
The problem you are envisoning just does not arise if the licencing officer adheres to the law. And if you cannot rely on the licencing officer, we are in an entirely different class of problem.

If there are no records of me ordering in components then I know nobody will ask me about them if they arrive unhindered. If I have a licence I could order them in because I have an excuse in the event if they are noticed (If I am ordering some in for dodgy reasons)

You are somewhat ignoring the point that if I travel abroad myself and bring back the component myself, none of this applies, my licence is the only paperwork required.
Therefore public safety is not protected by this measure; it merely has a pricetag placed on it.

Donald Trump

Mellor wrote: »

What loophole are you talking about?
What are you suggesting "criminals" could do with this loophole.

Or are you just talking out of your hoophole. :P

The loophole is where a licenced gun owner could order certain components for guns without any record of them buying those components and no mechanism whereby they would ever have to account for said components.

You are free to have whatever opinion you want. If it is fine for me to purchase one for my legally held firearm without any other formality, then it should also be fine for me to purchase one every week or to purchase a pallet of them all together. And if the guards raided my house after receiving reports that I was acting the bollix somehow, then I can "plausibly" say that I just go through a load of stocks etc. and that pallet of them is for my own person use. I'm not a registered dealer, because I don't need to be, and therefore I don't have to follow other guidelines that registered dealers would have to. Even though I have a pallet of components for my one gun.

You might think that that is stupid because no responsible owner would do that or want that. But the rules are not for the responsible ones. Responsible people don't need any rules. They are there for the dodgy fuckers who might do something that you wouldn't consider or even think of

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

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.

Just to clarify GRiz, I was being simplistic. I wasn't suggesting somebody can do a simply DIY swap at home (in which case they have the CF license anyway).
I was speaking theoretically, if you could convert a CF to a MARS cycle, it's no longer a CF.

Obviously to do that you;d need to be a handy ole gunsmith. Like the MARS/lever bullpup you posted.

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".[/QUOTE]
The MARS/Lever operation isn't described in law. But the description of repeating long rifle absolutely covers it.

BattleCorp

Donald Trump wrote: »

You are free to have whatever opinion you want. If it is fine for me to purchase one for my legally held firearm without any other formality, then it should also be fine for me to purchase one every week or to purchase a pallet of them all together.

As unrealistic as that idea is, supposing a gun owner did that, how does it make the public any more unsafe? What good to criminals is a pallet of stocks? Or a pallet of springs? Or a pallet of screws? Or a pallet of butt spacers?

They have their own channels for bringing in illegal firearms and they tend not to bother putting target stocks onto their sawn off shotguns or Ingram sub machine guns.

You might think that that is stupid because no responsible owner would do that or want that. But the rules are not for the responsible ones. Responsible people don't need any rules. They are there for the dodgy fuckers who might do something that you wouldn't consider or even think of

Rules also only apply to responsible people. Criminals tend to ignore rules so these rules will only affect law abiding citizens and criminals will carry on ignorning rules as they have always done.

Cass

Donald Trump wrote: »

The loophole is where a licenced gun owner could order certain components for guns without any record of them buying those components and no mechanism whereby they would ever have to account for said components.

That is not a loophole though, imo. Its something that is not legislated for in any of the firearm acts. The use/possession, buying and selling of essential components are legislated for, specifically.

So if the DoJ/Minister don't deem a piece of plastic or timber important enough to legislate for then why should someone be punished for getting one especially when they are "above" reproach by being a licensed firearm owner. IOW legal.

The Guy/Garda in question made all the appropriate inquiries and followed the instructions given to him by the Department that legislates for firearms.

Secondly, as said above, what possible use is there for a pallet of springs, screws or stocks that can legally, and usually without a license, be purchased here.

The issue arises from the essential components that actually make a firearm a firearm and allow it to function which are already much more strictly controlled as i outlined above.

Mellor

Donald Trump wrote: »

The loophole is where a licenced gun owner could order certain components for guns without any record of them buying those components and no mechanism whereby they would ever have to account for said components.

We aren’t talking about component parts. We are talking about accessories.

So where is the issue with not having to account for them?

Also, the court case is not about accountability. The Garda isn’t asking for no accountability. He has disclosed it, they know he has a license. There is not a legal record of it.

You are free to have whatever opinion you want. If it is fine for me to purchase one for my legally held firearm without any other formality, then it should also be fine for me to purchase one every week or to purchase a pallet of them all together.

Yes that would be fine. You could purchase 100s no problem (permitted the case result obviously)

And if the guards raided my house after receiving reports that I was acting the bollix somehow, then I can "plausibly" say that I just go through a load of stocks etc. and that pallet of them is for my own person use. I'm not a registered dealer, because I don't need to be, and therefore I don't have to follow other guidelines that registered dealers would have to. Even though I have a pallet of components for my one gun.

Yes that is fine. You don’t need to be a dealer.

You have a pallet of accessories, not components btw.

You might think that that is stupid because no responsible owner would do that or want that. But the rules are not for the responsible ones. Responsible people don't need any rules. They are there for the dodgy fuckers who might do something that you wouldn't consider or even think of

It would be stupid as it’s a waste of money, but you are entitled waste your money as you see fit.

You still having explained what the issue is with you having these extra stocks. Say Johnny criminal gets one. What do you think he can do with a stock?

You seem to be mixing up component part of a firearm with accessories.
Import of mechanical parts that could be used to make functional parts of a firearm arevrestricted, fit obvious reasons.
Accessories do no make up the function, so shouldn’t be.

tudderone

I get the feeling this thread is going around in circles pointlessly, which is a shame, as this topic is an important one to all of us who shoot and legally own firearms. Unfollowed.