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

Zxthinger

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Except its sceeded by the EU directive of 1990 on movement of firearms and munitions within the Union.:(

So items form outside the union are still covered.

Sorry for stating the obivious. Lol

Grizzly 45

Zxthinger wrote: »

Quote: for elsewhere on boards::

However, Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1964 provides that the restriction imposed by section 17 of the Firearms Act 1925 shall not apply in relation to the importation of a firearm by the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of the firearm which is in force. This means that a person other than a firearms dealer, with a firearm certificate for the firearm in question, does not require an importation licence. Accordingly, there is no legal requirement for importation licences for handguns for licensed individuals. End Quote:

Except its sceeded by the EU directive of 1990 on movement of firearms and munitions within the Union.:(

Zxthinger

Quote: for elsewhere on boards::

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent)
155. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide in tabular form the number of handguns, to include pistols and revolvers, in respect of which importation licences were granted to persons other than registered firearms dealers in the years (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23860/14]

Frances Fitzgerald (Minister, Department of Justice and Equality; Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Section 17 of the Firearms Act 1925 provides for restrictions on the importation of firearms into the State. The main restriction is the requirement for an importation licence for such importation.

However, Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1964 provides that the restriction imposed by section 17 of the Firearms Act 1925 shall not apply in relation to the importation of a firearm by the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of the firearm which is in force. This means that a person other than a firearms dealer, with a firearm certificate for the firearm in question, does not require an importation licence. Accordingly, there is no legal requirement for importation licences for handguns for licensed individuals. End Quote:

Grizzly 45

Yeah exactly. Someone above the underling has a bake on with AGS and just wants to be a dick about this for whatever reason. Interservice rivalry, personal, Dominant Revenue gorilla beating his chest to show who is boss...Who knows?:rolleyes:
What the planitif would need now is find someone else who has imported a stock or parts with no bother that has been checked by customs of any type .Be a nice point to show inconsistency in procedure or bias.

Zxthinger

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

This is a total speculation on my part here,and just throwing this out as a pot boiler.

I'm just wondering has this all originated because our plantiff is AGS and there is ,how shall I put this politely?A possible unspoken in public ,"inter service rivilary" between AGS and Revenue/Customs& excise?

So is this possibly a case of someones nose in Revenue getting out of joint and this escalating into now a high court case because someone "Didn't respect ma authorithity?" Or just wants to make the plantifs life difficult,"Because they can and because what he is?"

This whole situation makes no sense at all otherwise. I can see no logical reason to hold onto these parts and accessories if the plantif has good reason,legal authorithy to posses,and they are leagal parts and accessories to own here for his firearm type.

The only thing he should have got by now from Revenue is a bill for duty and import fees. How many more parts and stocks have been imported leaglly since then with no problems for anyone since this has been ongoing?

When you work for the PTB you just do what your told.. managers often seek calcification but no one will commit to statement on same. So staff just do what they're told.

meathstevie

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.

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.

All those controls you’re hinting at and suggesting do exist. To become a law abiding firearms user and owner you need to go through the licence application process which is quite rigorous.

The importation of firearms and everything and anything that makes a firearm safely go boom as in barrels, bolts, trigger mechanisms, receivers etc etc is subject to possession of a firearms licence and an importation permit from the DoJ prior to importation.

For RFD’s there’s a more flexible system of importing in place but the principle is the same. RFDs do not need an individual licence for every firearm in their inventory but have to keep an accurate and current inventory.

Inspections are carried out regularly and discrepancies that can not be explained by administrative error and subsequently corrected
( no one is infallible and the odd clerical error will happen ) have serious consequences.

I understand your concern about criminals and terrorists getting their hands on firearms including by means of illegal importation but you’re barking up the wrong tree. The criminal and terrorist fraternity due to it’s very nature does not abide by law and due process and do not procure their firearms, explosives and controlled substances in the legitimate trade.

If you really wanted to annihilate the criminal fraternity you should consider subjecting the possession of means of transport to the same stringent criteria as the possession of firearms. They wouldn’t be able to move about since a car, a van, a lorry or a motorbike is just that little bit harder to hide than a dodgy Makarov and ammunition illegally imported from some semi failed state.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[

Think you mean it isnt a semi auto anymore?

Yes. Sorry was replying to two posts at once and wasn’t paying attention to acronyms. SA not CF as you guessed I meant.

Grizzly 45

This is a total speculation on my part here,and just throwing this out as a pot boiler.

I'm just wondering has this all originated because our plantiff is AGS and there is ,how shall I put this politely?A possible unspoken in public ,"inter service rivilary" between AGS and Revenue/Customs& excise?

So is this possibly a case of someones nose in Revenue getting out of joint and this escalating into now a high court case because someone "Didn't respect ma authorithity?" Or just wants to make the plantifs life difficult,"Because they can and because what he is?"

This whole situation makes no sense at all otherwise. I can see no logical reason to hold onto these parts and accessories if the plantif has good reason,legal authorithy to posses,and they are leagal parts and accessories to own here for his firearm type.

The only thing he should have got by now from Revenue is a bill for duty and import fees. How many more parts and stocks have been imported leaglly since then with no problems for anyone since this has been ongoing?

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Mellor;114379408]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.

Think you mean it isnt a semi auto anymore?

Which is very true as this was designed specifically NOT to be semi auto to comply with UK law.The calibre stays the same.

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

Yeah,you'd be talking about machining a totally new AR style lower,[dont even ask me how they did it for the CZ style AK VZ design]
Esp the fire control pocket as you now have to fit a 2 stage trigger and interrupter mechanism,and modify if need be the bolt carrier group.Thn make sure the action is timed too.It's a bit of engineering in that design,not to mind ingenuity.

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

Which is the correct long term,but it is shortned to repeater in the firearms application.I suppose maybe it was too hard to put Lever action, pump action and bolt action in the boxes to be abit more detailed as to what type of gun you want to liscene..

Cass

Donald Trump wrote: »

....the people who make the rules likely don't know the ins and outs as much as the people who are into your guns/sport).

They generally don't because its not important enough to them. We MUST know them in order to abide by them.

The license is a three year one since 2009, but i get your point.

Cass

solarwinds wrote: »

For the last 3 pages of reading there it was like reading the court transcript of the case, the defence and prosecution arguments. Is the State testing their case here first I wonder ?

Eh, no.

Firstly they wouldn't value our opinion. Secondly no one here is a legal ace capable of defending such a case. Thirdly if it were such a ploy then in my humble opinion we've proven that the REvenue's case holds no water.

Interpretation is not law. The only one who gets to decide that will be the Judge of the court case.

Donald Trump

Cass wrote: »

I disagree.

The last 30 or so posts only serve to highlight the issue at the core of this case. Is a gun stock a component part or not and how Donald Trump sees the issue is a glimpse into how Revenue see it too.

So in effect Donald Trump has served as a good sounding board.

Yeah thanks for that. I don't have to be "right" and you don't have to agree with me. But I don't make any of the rules and so there is no point in getting your collective knickers in a twist (neither do the other people on here btw.......the people who make the rules likely don't know the ins and outs as much as the people who are into your guns/sport).

I don't have a gun because I never saw the use for one. I could get one if I wanted no problem. My father has a shotgun. He just goes down to the barracks and renews the licence every year or whatever it is. He never uses it anymore but he just wants to keep the licence for some reason. One guard insisted on seeing the gun one year and he had to come back to get it. The next year he went to the barracks and brought the gun with him and the guard gave out to him for bringing it to the barracks.

Occasionally he signs the forms to give people permission to say they hunt on his land in order to obtain a licence.

solarwinds

For the last 3 pages of reading there it was like reading the court transcript of the case, the defence and prosecution arguments. Is the State testing their case here first I wonder ?

Cass

I disagree.

The last 30 or so posts only serve to highlight the issue at the core of this case. Is a gun stock a component part or not and how Donald Trump sees the issue is a glimpse into how Revenue see it too.

So in effect Donald Trump has served as a good sounding board.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.