nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

New rules from Revenue?

CJhaughey

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cass

I 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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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..

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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: »

So items form outside the union are still covered.

Sorry for stating the obivious. Lol

Nope...There is a import from for importing firearms and munitions from NON EU COUNTRIES as well to cover this situation too.:) They have that base coverd as well.

freddieot

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

This directive does rope it off. However, in the past the State have been a little 'selective' about which EU regulations they choose to follow or I should say introduce as quickly as they should.

Can anyone quote exactly where is this particular regulation transposed into Irish Domestic Firearms Law. I assume it is, as it has to be, but which Irish law specifically refers to it.

tudderone

Any updates on this ?

Cass

The case is not before the courts until October iirc.

donkeykingkong

Thanks to all the members here who got in touch and offered some great advice and proper expert opinion, it was greatly appreciated.

Judicial Review –Re: (Applicant) Michael Rochford -v – (Respondent)The Revenue Commissioners & (Notice Party) The Minister for Justice & Equality

Order made before Court on 19th January 2021 in the High Courts for Judicial Review before Mr. Justice Charles Meenan.

The following order was read into court by Siobhan Phelan SC, barrister for applicant

The Respondent and Notice Party made no objection to the making of an order in the following terms:

(i) Quashing the Notice of Seizure dated the 1st April 2020 on the grounds that no importation license was required for the goods, specifically (a) 2 Empty Magazine Cartridges for TAC21, (b) 1 Buttpad Spacer Kit (c) 1 ORYX Chassis System (hereafter “the goods”) because the goods did not constitute component parts within the meaning of the Firearms Acts and the regulations made thereunder;
(ii) That the Revenue Commissioners shall pay the costs of Mr. Rochford, to include a certificate for Senior Counsel, such costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement; and
(iii) That the Revenue Commissioners shall deliver the goods to Mr. Rochford.

[As a serving Garda I will not be referring to any dealings or departments within An Garda Siochana relating to this case, as under Garda Code Regulations I cannot be seen to bring the job into disrepute.]

Details of case: After ordering the above items (rifle stock/chassis, spacer kit, 2 Magazines) at the end of March 2020 from Oryx Chassis Company (subsidiary of MDT) based in Canada I tracked items to Dublin Postal Hub. After contacting them I was then notified by Revenue that they had seized my items and issued me a seizure notice calming that the items were firearm components as defined by the Firearms Act Section 1(1)(g)(iii) as amended by Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 which states that any object (i)manufactured for the use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm and (ii)without which it could not function as originally designed, is a firearm.

I immediately lodged a Notice of Claim along with a copy of my valid firearm licence attached. After this I continued to make inquiries to the Respondent about the status of my notice of claim throughout the month of April, however I failed to obtain any update. Finally, on the 29th April 2020 I was contacted by the Revenue Officer in charge of this matter and he advised me that he would investigate the matter thoroughly, however that he had two reports regarding the Oryx chassis and that he believed that I would not be getting the items back.

I outlined to him a number of sections of the Firearms Act, the EU directives and statutory instruments relating to my claim. All of which would have drawn this matter to a close should they have been dealt with correctly by Revenue. During April I also sought clarification from the Department of Justice Firearms Section. I was advised by one of their staff that a rifle stock does not alter the function of the firearm or otherwise change the category of the firearm, therefore it is not considered to be an essential component part of a firearm and may be imported without an import license. In May 2020 this was again confirmed by the Dept of Justice staff member and the list of essential components were given as per SI 420/2019 (which I had already supplied to Revenue), none of the items I had purchased were listed on this Statutory Instrument. In mid-May I was informed by the officer from Revenue that he was 90% sure of his verdict which would not be in my favour. I was also advised that the staff from the Dept of Justice had since changed his view on the matter.

On the 9th June 2020 I received a letter of decision setting out that my goods namely two empty magazine cartridges for TAC21, 1 buttpad spacer kit and one oryx chassis system were seized on the 1stApril 2020 on the basis that they were imported into the State in contravention of Section 1, Firearms Act 1925 as amended. When I requested to see the correspondence from the Dept of Justice and other state bodies involved in the decision making process which had brought him to his conclusion I was informed that I would only be supplied them in the event I challenged their decision before a court.

My three items as sought to be imported represent features which affect the appearance of my firearm but are not necessary to its functioning. My firearm is complete and functioning without any of these new items and as such under the firearms act they cannot be classified to be component parts, only accessories.

As I had now been accused of importing firearm components without an importation license which is an indictable criminal offence, and also that Revenue were refusing to allow me access to documentation for me to make any defence of their claims under the customs act I was forced into a position where I had to take a Judicial Review to the High Court in order to not only have my goods returned, but also and more importantly, to vindicate my name of any wrong doing or criminality as I was acutely aware that breaches of the Customs Act are liable to criminal prosecution. As a long standing law enforcement officer for almost 17 years and a person who guards his reputation dearly, this was a terrible position to find myself cast into due to incorrect decision making from state departments.

Through my solicitor Mr. William Egan every attempt has been made to remedy these matters without the time and expense of such a lengthy court proceedings, however the Respondent made no attempt to help in this matter and treated all correspondence with a tone of disregard for their actions on a wronged citizen and a manner of trying to strong arm me into settling this case without being able to rectify the error in their decision making process and also without the possibility of vindicating my good character and reputation.

The purpose of a Judicial Review is a way for the High Court to supervise the lower courts, tribunals and other administrative bodies to ensure that they make their decisions properly and in accordance with the law. It is not a civil proceedings or personal injury case where financial damages are sought, or criminal case so the proceedings were solely to prove that I had been correct and lawful in my actions.

Thankfully due to the expert legal work of Siobhan Phelan SC, Miranda Egan-Langley BL I have been successful in receiving a court order resolving all matters. I thank both Siobhan and Miranda for all their effort in this case. I must also wholeheartedly thank my solicitor Mr. William Egan, who at every point of this case was available to speak to me and throughout all proceedings he was available to give his expert views and advice be it weekends, evenings or mornings and I will always be grateful for this help. At all junction s of this case he was on the same page and views as myself regarding the correct legal interpretations of the firearms act, this sentiment is also to Williams Office Manager, Breda Whelan, who worked tirelessly and was in constant communication with me and all the other members of the legal team representing me and without them I would not have been successful in this application.

Finally I wish to say that as a person who has worked for the state almost two decades I am saddened to think that this is the process that someone must go through in order to vindicate their good name, when these matters could have been resolved by simply reading the legislation and listening to the views of the other party involved. I made every attempt to keep these matters from going to a High Court case but to no avail. I have had 9 months of tremendous stress and anxiety placed upon myself and my family in fear of losing both my job and possibly my liberty if criminally prosecuted. Also the burden of the spiralling legal fees that it takes in order to take a High Court challenge to a full conclusion hanging over me have caused me untold stress. As a member of An Garda Siochana it is never a situation to want to find yourself taking legal action against other state departments and I can only hope that this will not have affected my career going forward.

Thankfully this Judicial Review matter is now concluded and I hope the legal precedent it will set regarding these items, not being components, may help others who are forced into the same situation.

Kindest Regards

BattleCorp

I know you probably can't comment but that's some pile of sh1te that agents of the State have put you through.

And some expense for the taxpayer too. I wonder how many years of my hard earned tax went into paying for these shennanigans?

Congratulations on your win. It takes balls to do what you did and I admire you for sticking to your guns........if you'll pardon the pun.

tudderone

donkeykingkong wrote: »

When I requested to see the correspondence from the Dept of Justice and other state bodies involved in the decision making process which had brought him to his conclusion I was informed that I would only be supplied them in the event I challenged their decision before a court.

What was said in court over that ? That seems like they were making it up as they went along.

Cass

First and foremost congratulations. A, by all accounts, hard fought battle and righteous win.

The case is seriously important not just to yourself but to others in the community because of the precedence it sets and it shows the ineptitude of the department(s) concerned to allow personal opinion to override legislation, even when its reiterated to them by people in authority they still failed to act properly and that can only be put down to personal bias.

With regard to your job, i would like to think this has no bearing on it as you took this case as a private citizen and not a member of the force, however i cannot and will not speculate further only to wish/hope that it does not have ramifications.

Your tenacity and conviction in your beliefs coupled with the law being on your side won this and i salute your steadfastness in, and you said as much, a situation most others would have shied away from or eventually caved under the pressure. I also must, don't know if congratulate is the right word, but congratulate your family and friends for the support you most likely needed to get through this. It cannot have been easy on any of them.

Once again well done and enjoy your shooting.

Bogwoppit

Fair play to you, I’m absolutely delighted for you. Must be an enormous relief.

You have done us all a good service here and I hope you sleep well after this unfortunate episode.

Grizzly 45

On behalf of FUNI and others.Congratulations on your win today in the high court. This is a proper vindication and another win for Irish gun owners, especially as this is precedent law.
Suggest a couple of good drinks are in order tonight in your camp to celebrate.
Grizzly 45.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

On behalf of FUNI and others.Congratulations on your win today in the high court. This is a proper vindication and another win for Irish gun owners, especially as this is precedent law.
Suggest a couple of good drinks are in order tonight in your camp to celebrate.
Grizzly 45.

Just hope the buggers don't change the law now to offset this

, its something like they'd do.

kunekunesika

Congratulations to you. Thanks for have the balls/gut/tenacity etc to stand your ground.It helps everyone as these costs do cause officials to consider legislation carefully in the future ( well for a while anyway). It would have been so much easier for you to have said keep the stuff, simple mis-understanding, and get a friend to re-order a new lot a few weeks later (which would have probably passed through).
So thanks again, and enjoy that new stock.

Sparks

donkeykingkong wrote: »

the goods did not constitute component parts within the meaning of the Firearms Acts and the regulations made thereunder;

It's been a while, but I cannot recall any case establishing limits on what constituted component parts before, which has been a major flaw in the law to date. For that alone, this case was important and useful. Congratulations on a successful conclusion!

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Just hope the buggers don't change the law now to offset this , its something like they'd do.

They tried after the first DC court cases costs were awarded...It didn't go the way they planned it for themselves.::pac:
When in a hole and all that...

Mississippi.

I'll add my thanks to you for taking the case and congratulations on your win.

Best of luck with your new setup now.

Wadi14

I know I speak for all shooters those that knew and where following your case and those who hadn't heard, a simple Thank you from all of us.