New rules from Revenue?

meathstevie · 20-01-2021 2:34am

Well done Sir, I suppose you were convinced of the fact that you were right and weren’t breaking any laws from the moment you clicked to confirm your order but it must have taken some tenacity to see this through.

One hell of a big kick in the arse of the “make it up as you go along” school of thought.

alan0387 · 20-01-2021 8:45am

Congratulations on your win, this is a big step forward for the Irish firearms owners. My own attempts to source a stock and subsequent research into the rules surrounding it led me here and I am delighted for you after reading through this thread!

CJhaughey · 20-01-2021 11:01am

A long tough road to travel but the correct outcome and vindication at the end was worth the journey, Congratulations.

jb88 · 20-01-2021 12:36pm

A bit of cop on from the Revenue commissioners might have sorted this out quickly and saved the state a lot of money.
I guess this was one of those cases where we think the shooter gained, in a situation that never should have been let go to the stage where it needs to reach the high court.
But having personally witnessed the injustices which are given out to law abiding gun owners in Ireland it comes as no suprise that it had to end up in the high court.

Taxpayer loses
Solicitors, Barristers, law clerks, Judge and revenue commissioners, jobs justified and well paid for something which could have been settled in a phone call.

Yes a shooter was vindicated and well done to him, but society is to blame along with an ever decreasing level of education at the public sector level.

The problem here is that there will be many more like this in the future. Ignorance is bliss, but a great money maker for the legal services in Ireland.

Feisar · 20-01-2021 12:46pm

jb88 wrote: »

A bit of cop on from the Revenue commissioners might have sorted this out quickly and saved the state a lot of money.
I guess this was one of those cases where we think the shooter gained, in a situation that never should have been let go to the stage where it needs to reach the high court.

Firstly congrats to the OP on coming out on the right side. Not sure "win" is the correct expression here but congrats nonetheless.

As to the quoted, who the hell in revenue decides to tootle down to the high court. Would they not of got advice on the point of law instead of the fuss caused? Is their no one held accountable for these things?

tudderone · 20-01-2021 1:19pm

Feisar wrote: »

Firstly congrats to the OP on coming out on the right side. Not sure "win" is the correct expression here but congrats nonetheless.

As to the quoted, who the hell in revenue decides to tootle down to the high court. Would they not of got advice on the point of law instead of the fuss caused? Is their no one held accountable for these things?

Nope, there is a scandal in the papers every few days about taxpayers money being squandered.

BattleCorp · 20-01-2021 1:21pm

Feisar wrote: »

Firstly congrats to the OP on coming out on the right side. Not sure "win" is the correct expression here but congrats nonetheless.

As to the quoted, who the hell in revenue decides to tootle down to the high court. Would they not of got advice on the point of law instead of the fuss caused? Is their no one held accountable for these things?

Revenue didn't decide to go to the High Court. The shooter decided to go to the High Court because he thought he wasn't getting fair play from Revenue. Turns out he was right. He wasn't getting fair play.

Feisar · 20-01-2021 1:24pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Revenue didn't decide to go to the High Court. The shooter decided to go to the High Court because he thought he wasn't getting fair play from Revenue. Turns out he was right. He wasn't getting fair play.

Sorry, point taken however should revenue not checked their position before going to court on it?

freddieot · 20-01-2021 1:33pm

Why bother to check your position or change your mind if someone else pays when you are wrong.....

Grizzly 45 · 20-01-2021 1:47pm

freddieot wrote: »

Why bother to check your position or change your mind if someone else pays when you are wrong.....

"Lessons were learned,none to blame,we must all move along"

Std Irish govt and institutional reaponse.Be it turning a blind eye to church run labour camps, to a case like this...Vomit inducing.

BattleCorp · 20-01-2021 1:49pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

"Lessons were learned,none to blame,we must all move along"

Std Irish govt and institutional reaponse.Be it turning a blind eye to church run labour camps, to a case like this...Vomit inducing.

“What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.”

― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

BattleCorp · 20-01-2021 1:51pm

Feisar wrote: »

Sorry, point taken however should revenue not checked their position before going to court on it?

Maybe Revenue absolutely believed their position? Maybe they got bad legal advice? Maybe they didn't want to lose face? Maybe they didn't care about the cost of a court case? Maybe they thought they could bully the OP into going away? I don't know why to be honest.

Feisar · 20-01-2021 1:55pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Maybe Revenue absolutely believed their position? Maybe they got bad legal advice? Maybe they didn't want to lose face? Maybe they didn't care about the cost of a court case? Maybe they thought they could bully the OP into going away? I don't know why to be honest.

Wasn't asking you specifically more of a "jaysus you'd think they'd have their ducks in a row" sort of comment.

Feisar · 20-01-2021 1:56pm

freddieot wrote: »

Why bother to check your position or change your mind if someone else pays when you are wrong.....

I don't know, professionalism?

tudderone · 20-01-2021 1:57pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Revenue didn't decide to go to the High Court. The shooter decided to go to the High Court because he thought he wasn't getting fair play from Revenue. Turns out he was right. He wasn't getting fair play.

But revenue didn't reconsider their position either, when it all went to court. Yet they must have known they were on dodgy ground.

Grizzly 45 · 20-01-2021 1:57pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Maybe Revenue absolutely believed their position? Maybe they got bad legal advice? Maybe they didn't want to lose face? Maybe they didn't care about the cost of a court case? Maybe they thought they could bully the OP into going away? I don't know why to be honest.

Answer ...ALL of the above! The arrogance of authority that is never challenged.

tudderone · 20-01-2021 2:02pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Answer ...ALL of the above! The arrogance of authority that is never challenged.

That is a lesson you would have thought we would have had engraved on our hearts in Ireland, seeing as thousands suffered at the hands of the catholic church here for many decades, aided and abetted by complicit FG/FF :mad:.

BattleCorp · 20-01-2021 2:05pm

Feisar wrote: »

Wasn't asking you specifically more of a "jaysus you'd think they'd have their ducks in a row" sort of comment.

Sorry. Misunderstood.

Yeah you are right, they should have had their ducks in a row. But maybe Revenue thought they did. Court cases are very rarely 100% certanties and maybe Revenue thought they had a good chance of winning.

I'm absolutely delighted that the OP won but I'm going to try and defend Revenue here just for the lark.

The rules around what is an essential component and what is an accessory weren't 100% clear. My guess what happened, and this is only a guess, is the Gardai decided to use this as a test case to determine what exactly the law says and used Revenue as a shield (or vice versa). Things are now clearer as a result of this case so everyone now knows where they stand. Luckily for us, it went our way.

JP22 · 20-01-2021 5:11pm

The arrogance of authority, Government's included, is that they never listen to other views and worse of all they never change until forced to do so and its always at the tax payers expense.

These Governments, departments and so called "experts in their own field " have no shame.

meathstevie · 22-01-2021 9:18pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

"Lessons were learned,none to blame,we must all move along"

Std Irish govt and institutional reaponse.Be it turning a blind eye to church run labour camps, to a case like this...Vomit inducing.

Grizzly, “responsibility” is a very dirty word in certain circles.

meathstevie · 22-01-2021 9:26pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sorry. Misunderstood.

Yeah you are right, they should have had their ducks in a row. But maybe Revenue thought they did. Court cases are very rarely 100% certanties and maybe Revenue thought they had a good chance of winning.

I'm absolutely delighted that the OP won but I'm going to try and defend Revenue here just for the lark.

The rules around what is an essential component and what is an accessory weren't 100% clear. My guess what happened, and this is only a guess, is the Gardai decided to use this as a test case to determine what exactly the law says and used Revenue as a shield (or vice versa). Things are now clearer as a result of this case so everyone now knows where they stand. Luckily for us, it went our way.

That’s quite possible but it sounds like a very elaborate and expensive way to find out if you’re right or wrong especially since nearly every arm and branch of government has a legal department or access to legal advice without running the risk of being billed for a rake of hours by barristers and solicitors, in this case from both sides of the case.

Grizzly 45 · 22-01-2021 10:16pm

Why not?
It's the taxpayer's money after all that you are wasting, not yours. You won't be held accountable for doing your job as a virtually unfireable beuracrat,and after all you might get promoted if those pesky serfs...er citizens...get cold feet and bottle their case in the face of the omnipotence and majesty of legal writs.:rolleyes:

The pigeon man · 27-01-2021 11:19pm

Great to heat that the applicant won in this case.

A victory for the shooting community.

Mellor · 28-01-2021 7:32am

meathstevie wrote: »

That’s quite possible but it sounds like a very elaborate and expensive way to find out if you’re right or wrong especially since nearly every arm and branch of government has a legal department or access to legal advice without running the risk of being billed for a rake of hours by barristers and solicitors, in this case from both sides of the case.

The issue with that is that prior to this, it wasn't defined in law. So while it was obvious to people here, with an understanding of firearms, who could apply the law practically. The legal department would know that it's not their position to advise how laws should be applied.
It's likely that they were thinking bowing out prior to court doesn't solve the issue. s the confusion remains.

If a chassis is ok. What about a new trigger. Or a new barrel. Or replacement whatever. It's likely that they were advised that a judicial review is warranted.

I also think that this was more of a grey area than people are making out. I think this was a huge and hard fought win. well done to Mr. Rochford .

Zxthinger · 06-02-2021 1:30pm

Well done to the that man..

The courts didn't explain their finding or how they arrived at the logical decision.. they seem to have just ruled on the case.

The importers defence was..
So a component part was considered as being defined by legislation with two combined lines of text. Both portions are oddly related . Lol

So. under two parts of the act.. i.e. (i) a component- any gun part 'and.... (ii) without which it couldn't function as original intended.. etc..

But the 'importer's licenced gun' was fully fictional and licensed as so, then they were not obtaining component parts.. at least not in regards to part (ii)...of law as their firearm was already functioning ? Could have been different if they were seeking items to fashion a repair and not an improvement..

Also they didn't infringe on SI 420 of 2019 and import an item deemed as, not just a component, but an essential component. Which requires at a minimum the inclusion of approved serial number or other markings.. (prior to import??)

Is that it on a nut shell..?

Looks like NV scopes are still off limits as are silencers. So in theory licenced holders are now allowed to import, without licence, parts that are not beemed as essential component parts?

Or can a licenced holder import any component parts as long as they adhear to SI 420/2019 in so much as they follow the rule of component identification..?

Thanks again to the individual that suffered all the heartache, stress and anxiety dealing with this,. all of which fell on him during the covid ordeal...

In truth- the law is fickle the outcome could have be different if a member of lower-social-standing had been accused...

Mellor · 06-02-2021 3:40pm

Zxthinger wrote: »

So. under two parts of the act.. i.e. (i) a component- any gun part 'and.... (ii) without which it couldn't function as original intended.. etc..

But the 'importer's licenced gun' was fully fictional and licensed as so, then they were not obtaining component parts.. at least not in regards to part (ii)...

I don’t think that logic holds up in general.
Just because the current licensed firearm is functional thats doesn’t mean all new parts are non-component. As they could be replacement of component parts

Eg A replacement barrel would likely be considered a component part, even though the existing gun could be functional without it.

BattleCorp · 06-02-2021 7:01pm

Zxthinger wrote: »

Looks like NV scopes are still off limits as are silencers. So in theory licenced holders are now allowed to import, without licence, parts that are not beemed as essential component parts?

You don't need a firearms licence to have a NV scope. You don't need any permission whatsoever to have it in your possession. You only need authorisation if and when it's mounted on a firearm.

Zxthinger · 06-02-2021 7:21pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

You don't need a firearms licence to have a NV scope. You don't need any permission whatsoever to have it in your possession. You only need authorisation if and when it's mounted on a firearm.

We let's say you are right. You don't need permission or authority to own one. However it's still caused as a firearm in the act and if your importing one you'll prob find your running the next test case.. unless you have authority to have one. I have applied for them on some of my licences. I never received written authority but I was granted the licences with no conditions..

Zxthinger · 06-02-2021 7:52pm

Mellor wrote: »

I don’t think that logic holds up in general.
Just because the current licensed firearm is functional thats doesn’t mean all new parts are non-component. As they could be replacement of component parts

Eg A replacement barrel would likely be considered a component part, even though the existing gun could be functional without it.

Well, that's the defence that was given. At least that's how I read it.,

If you owned a particular firear and acseller (private or otherwise) had a barrel for that same firearm in that same calibre in Ireland, then there is nothing to say that your not allowed own it or buy it.. and you'd avoid the ruling on serial numbers too.. unless you met a difficult dealer..

With that said, there is hardly a dealer out there that silll sell you a second barrel without taking your old one and charging a massive fee to have it fitted too..

You are entitled to spare parts and dare I say that you could nearly extend that logic to the receiver as well except for the fact that it would be impossible to buy a reciever with your existing number.. lol. Then you'd have a firearm that was out of sync with your paper work.. and that's a big no no

( g ) except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph ( a ), ( b ), ( c ) or ( e ),

(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph ( a ), ( b ) or ( e ), and

(iii) any object —

(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and

(II) without which it could not function as originally designed,

Regards Zxthinger.

Grizzly 45 · 06-02-2021 8:35pm

Zxthinger wrote: »

We let's say you are right. You don't need permission or authority to own one. However it's still caused as a firearm in the act and if your importing one you'll prob find your running the next test case.. unless you have authority to have one. I have applied for them on some of my licences. I never received written authority but I was granted the licences with no conditions..

Unless it has a mounting capability onto a firearm or is a dedicated weapons platform mountable unit, then it comes under the firearms legislation. You can buy crappy monoculars occasionally in LIDL, you han have a head-mounted unit or binos even and they don't come under this at all. Tape the Lidl unit to your scope eyepiece and then it becomes an issue.

Build a head mount for your LIDL monocular, and put a red dot on your gun and it is 100% legal to use as it is not mounted on the firearm

With that said, there is hardly a dealer out there that silll sell you a second barrel without taking your old one and charging a massive fee to have it fitted too.

Pump and semi-auto replacement shotgun barrels?

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

New rules from Revenue?

Comments