New rules from Revenue?

tudderone · 09-02-2021 5:30pm

The pigeon man wrote: »

(g)(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),

A thermal rifle scope does none of the above. It detects heat. Therefore it does not require authorization to be fitted to a firearm

I wouldn't build a house on those foundations.

kunekunesika · 09-02-2021 6:59pm

The pigeon man wrote: »

(g)(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),

A thermal rifle scope does none of the above. It detects heat. Therefore it does not require authorization to be fitted to a firearm

First thing a solicitor will do is Google, thermal scope how it works. The answer will leave you very exposed.

BattleCorp · 09-02-2021 7:07pm

kunekunesika wrote: »

First thing a solicitor will do is Google, thermal scope how it works. The answer will leave you very exposed.

To be fair, that only says that the scope detects infrared rays through an array of detector elements, it doesn't say anything about emitting anything.

kunekunesika · 09-02-2021 7:10pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

To be fair, that only says that the scope detects infrared rays through an array of detector elements, it doesn't say anything about emitting anything.

Neither does the legislation.

It mentions electronic amplification of light, and so does Google. That's without even discussing infra red

kunekunesika · 09-02-2021 7:12pm

kunekunesika wrote: »

Neither does the legislation.

It mentions electronic amplification of light, and so does Google. That's without even discussing infra red

Not the bit of legislation listed above

BattleCorp · 09-02-2021 7:13pm

kunekunesika wrote: »

Neither does the legislation.

It mentions electronic amplification of light, and so does Google. That's without even discussing infra red

Fair point.

Although I don't see anything that says electronic amplification of light in that link you posted. Or in Wikipedia either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

By the way, I'm tired so maybe I'm missing it.

Cass · 09-02-2021 7:46pm

The pigeon man wrote: »

A thermal rifle scope does none of the above. It detects heat. Therefore it does not require authorization to be fitted to a firearm

Can you see thermal heat with the naked eye?

Perhaps the scope "amplifies" this or makes its visible!

Then it falls into the cateogry, but again do your own thing. No skin off my nose who abides by or ignores the law.

Cass · 09-02-2021 7:46pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

, it doesn't say anything about emitting anything.

But it does amplify it because you do not see this with the naked eye and this device helps you do so via amplification, manipulation, or whatever adverb you wish to assign to it.

BattleCorp · 09-02-2021 7:51pm

Cass wrote: »

But it does amplify it.

I'll always err on the side of caution so I'm not advocating for putting one of these on a gun without permission but I love a good argument.

Is converting light the same as amplifying it?

Because the thermal scope info I've read says that it converts it into electrical impulses, it doesn't say anything about amplifying it. Splitting hairs I know, but sure I'm bored in lockdown.

kunekunesika · 09-02-2021 7:59pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Fair point.

Although I don't see anything that says electronic amplification of light in that link you posted. Or in Wikipedia either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

By the way, I'm tired so maybe I'm missing it.

I'm tired too. So much easier over a pint.
Your correct, my screen shot doesn't say the word amplification.

Cass · 09-02-2021 7:59pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is converting light the same as amplifying it?
.

To amplify is to enlarge, increase, add detail to soemthing.

Now if you want to go to court, like the OP, to fight the meaning of the word and its application to the legislation then haveatit.

The law that governs this was written in 1990. Thats 31 years ago when thermal scopes were pipe dreams due to them being military items or costing the same a house (back then).

Roll on 30 years and they're common as muck and cost less than the guns they're fitted to.

So which is easier while at the same time keeping you "right".

Go for gold and ignore the legislation?
Apply for authorisation?

tudderone · 09-02-2021 8:04pm

Cass wrote: »

To amplify is to enlarge, increase, add detail to soemthing.

Now if you want to go to court, like the OP, to fight the meaning of the word and its application to the legislation then haveatit.

The law that governs this was written in 1990. Thats 31 years ago when thermal scopes were pipe dreams due to them being military items or costing the same a house (back then).

Roll on 30 years and they're common as muck and cost less than the guns they're fitted to.

So which is easier while at the same time keeping you "right".

Go for gold and ignore the legislation?
Apply for authorisation?

It was also a time when the IRA were running amok in the north, and anything like useful to them like night vision or thermal would have been frowned upon by the ptb.

BattleCorp · 09-02-2021 8:12pm

kunekunesika wrote: »

I'm tired too. So much easier over a pint.
Your correct, my screen shot doesn't say the word amplification.

Jaysus, I'd murder a pint. Actually, at this stage of the lockdown I'd say I'd be merry after a pint.

Actually when all this lockdown sh1t is over and COVID has fcuked off (2035 or sometime around then ), we (the Forum, I'm not hitting on you

) should have a meet-up for pints. I've seen the After Hours Forum crowd do it.

tudderone · 09-02-2021 8:32pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Jaysus, I'd murder a pint. Actually, at this stage of the lockdown I'd say I'd be merry after a pint.

Actually when all this lockdown sh1t is over and COVID has fcuked off (2035 or sometime around then ), we (the Forum, I'm not hitting on you ) should have a meet-up for pints. I've seen the After Hours Forum crowd do it.

Bsatard thing keeps changing and getting more dangerous, the South African variant, the brazilian variant...................

kunekunesika · 09-02-2021 9:19pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Jaysus, I'd murder a pint. Actually, at this stage of the lockdown I'd say I'd be merry after a pint.

Actually when all this lockdown sh1t is over and COVID has fcuked off (2035 or sometime around then ), we (the Forum, I'm not hitting on you ) should have a meet-up for pints. I've seen the After Hours Forum crowd do it.

Jaysus, we'd end up getting barred, can only imagine the arguments....

Feisar · 09-02-2021 9:42pm

kunekunesika wrote: »

Jaysus, we'd end up getting barred, can only imagine the arguments....

It'd be like a scene from Unforgiven!

Cass · 09-02-2021 9:50pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Actually when all this lockdown sh1t is over and COVID has fcuked off (2035 or sometime around then ).

Things will look a lot different then.

Zxthinger · 10-02-2021 1:29am

meathstevie wrote: »

Folks, I think we’re well going around in circles by now.

I found using a simple rule of thumb for nothing that’s not strictly defined in law like nightvision scopes and suppressors etc etc very effective.

It goes like this; if it’s essential to make your gun go boom safely while expelling a projectile from the muzzle it’s an essential component. If not it isn’t.

That firmly throws the likes of barrels, hammers, bolts, firing pins, springs, receivers, slides, trigger mechs etc etc in the essential component category. The likes of stocks, sling studs, scope mounts or rails, bipod etc etc clearly are not.

Triggers are not covered in the SI 420/2019. But I see yer logic but.....

Mellor · 10-02-2021 4:08am

Zxthinger wrote: »

I fully acknowledge that its an importation issue.. I dont think I ever said that it wasn't..

I don't think that accurate.
The previous post, to which that quote referred, and other posts, you made reference to what can be done various firearms dealer in the country.
Paying for goods and services from a dealer is not importation.
Hence the comments pointing out the same.

So you concede now that those comments were wrong.

The issues is that the items were not deemed to be components under Section one of the Firearms act 1925, and the regulations made thereunder ..... thus they didn't require an importation licence...

----

Do you agree with that synopsis thus far?

I'm sorry you've lost me there.

The items were deemed to not be components required to function, therefore are not considered firearms and could be imported.

I haven't disputed the outcome or logic of the case. Neither have posters above. The dispute was on your claims subsequent to this. You've shifted the goalposts quite a bit with this latest revision.

The determination above was based entirely on the function of the items. He had nothing to do with the fact that the poster in question already possessed similar parts. Which is what you claimed.

If the OP lost his magazines. And it firearm couldn't function as a semi automatic. A magazine wouldn't suddenly become a component again.
If you've dropped the earlier claims and are now agreeing with us? Great, you conceded and we can move on.

If this was a preamble to a some other point, by all means continue, but maybe get to the point.

Mellor · 10-02-2021 4:19am

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'll always err on the side of caution so I'm not advocating for putting one of these on a gun without permission but I love a good argument.

Is converting light the same as amplifying it?

Because the thermal scope info I've read says that it converts it into electrical impulses, it doesn't say anything about amplifying it. Splitting hairs I know, but sure I'm bored in lockdown.

Amplify, from the point of physics definition, would mean to increased the energy of light (or sound). In plain terms, to make brighter (or louder)

A night vision scope takes low amounts of visible light and amplifies it. So the image is brighter.

Thermal imaging takes infrared light, converts to electrical signals, and displays on a screen (light).
There may or may not be amplification, but that's irrelevant, as the detection falls under the infrared part anyway.

The pigeon man wrote:

A thermal rifle scope does none of the above. It detects heat. Therefore it does not require authorization to be fitted to a firearm

Heat is infrared radiation.

Zxthinger · 10-02-2021 8:59pm

Mellor wrote: »

The determination above was based entirely on the function of the items. He had nothing to do with the fact that the poster in question already possessed similar parts. Which is what you claimed.

Lets keep it focused.. can you show me where this explicit determination on function exists..

Mellor · 11-02-2021 1:39am

Zxthinger wrote: »

Lets keep it focused.. can you show me where this explicit determination on function exists..

The Act defines components parts required for functioning, as firearms in themselves.

Specifically, Section 1, 'firearm', subsection (g), article (iii)

( g ) ... and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:

...

(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,

You need to read the entire subsection. Subsection (g) (in red above) defines article (iii) as a component part, and therefore a firearm under section 1.

Important to note that part (I) uses the indefinite article, "a firearm", not "the firearm". Therefore part (II) is referring to the function of any firearm, not a specific firearm.

In the case in question, the Applicant argued that the objects did not meet the requirements of part (II), therefore it was not a component under subsection (g).
The judge agreed;

"...the goods did not constitute component parts within the meaning of the Firearms Acts..."

That meaning of the firearm act is specifically subsection (g) above.
The goods in themselves are not firearms.
Now, hopefully that's clear. I'm surprised that that was still being questioned tbh. But lets move on.

Now, you claimed that (additionally or otherwise) it's not a firearm/component under the act because he had functioning versions in his possession.

Can you show me where this explicit determination on possession exists? Including the definitions referenced.

Zxthinger · 11-02-2021 2:26am

donkeykingkong wrote: »

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.

This is what the OP said as a line of his defense..

I cant tell you what the deliberations of the judges were.. We only seen their statement..

He says"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"

Do you see how I am drawing this point out..

I respectfully acknowledge your argument and thank you for time you have taken explaining your points.. Thanks..

Mellor · 11-02-2021 7:52am

Zxthinger wrote: »

This is what the OP said as a line of his defense..

I cant tell you what the deliberations of the judges were.. We only seen their statement..

He says"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"

I'm aware he made that statement in his defense. But as I said, I think you are misinterpreting that statement.
He is using simple language to drive the point relating to his accessories. He is not writing a legal act, and technically some of that may not be correct in other situation - irrelevant in his case.

Basically, his statement doesn't form the law.
The law is formed by the act, and judges determination of how to apply it.
The judge didn't reference possession. Nor does the act.

The object and it's function defines a firearm, not the person using it and what they have at home.

Excavo · 15-02-2021 2:10pm

Cass wrote: »

Well if nothing else it'll solve this matter once and for all.

We also have to be careful about what we discuss on this topic. As an ongoing case it may be sub judice. I'll ask for a review as this is an important case.

This case is now settled. Revenue lost. A precedent has now been set. You can order away directly from MDT.

BattleCorp · 15-02-2021 2:15pm

Excavo wrote: »

This case is now settled. Revenue lost. A precedent has now been set. You can order away directly from MDT.

I think the law has been clarified but I don't think a precedent has been set because (according to my understanding) the parties came to an agreement rather than the judge making a ruling.

Cass · 15-02-2021 2:20pm

It was not a "court step" settlement but a decision read out in court. Meaning if revenue reneged the OP could go to court and the judge would review the case including the reading and see they [revenue] agreed they were wrong and it'd be a quick case. IOW precedence "by default".

So if you find yourself in a similar situation you could cite this case, the reading would be reviewed and revenue would have to ask why your case differs from the one they agreed they were wrong on.

Cass · 15-02-2021 2:21pm

Excavo wrote: »

This case is now settled. Revenue lost. A precedent has now been set. You can order away directly from MDT.

Yeah i know. We've been discussing the ramifications of it since it was settled. The post you quoted was from July last year when news of the case broke, but well before it was heard.

Excavo · 15-02-2021 3:20pm

Cass wrote: »

It was not a "court step" settlement but a decision read out in court. Meaning if revenue reneged the OP could go to court and the judge would review the case including the reading and see they [revenue] agreed they were wrong and it'd be a quick case. IOW precedence "by default".

So if you find yourself in a similar situation you could cite this case, the reading would be reviewed and revenue would have to ask why your case differs from the one they agreed they were wrong on.

I was indeed in the same position and I've had mine handed back to me since this decision.
Just a point of note, I was particularly disappointed by the NARGC - I've been a member for over 20 years and when I contacted them and spoke to them they didn't wish to get involved. It will only get harder for all of us unless our associated bodies start making a bigger effort to support individuals in bringing cases like this.

Zxthinger · 15-02-2021 4:35pm

Excavo wrote: »

I was indeed in the same position and I've had mine handed back to me since this decision.
Just a point of note, I was particularly disappointed by the NARGC - I've been a member for over 20 years and when I contacted them and spoke to them they didn't wish to get involved. It will only get harder for all of us unless our associated bodies start making a bigger effort to support individuals in bringing cases like this.

I don't suppose you can divulge what types of items you acquired or the content of the correspondence issued following the items release.

Regards zx

Excavo · 15-02-2021 4:59pm

Zxthinger wrote: »

I don't suppose you can divulge what types of items you acquired or the content of the correspondence issued following the items release.

Regards zx

I have much correspondence in relation to my own dealings with this. Not exactly something you'd publish publicly but if anyone is in the same position I am happy to share my experiences from this 18 month long ordeal..pm me no problem.
I can say that the goods I acquired where identical (item for item, Howa instead of Savage, chassis, poly mag 10 round, butt spacer kit, swivel stud) and purchased directly via MDT, Cananda in the same fashion.
I found MDT to be an extremely professional and friendly company with outstanding customer service. It was a pleasure to deal with those lads and they were most helpful at all times.

Zxthinger · 15-02-2021 5:03pm

Excavo wrote: »

I have much correspondence in relation to my own dealings with this. Not exactly something you'd publish publicly but if anyone is in the same position I am happy to share my experiences from this 18 month long ordeal..pm me no problem.
I can say that the goods I acquired where identical (item for item, Howa instead of Savage, chassis, poly mag 10 round, butt spacer kit, swivel stud) and purchased directly via MDT, Cananda in the same fashion.
I found MDT to be an extremely professional and friendly company with outstanding customer service. It was a pleasure to deal with those lads and they were most helpful at all times.

That's sufficient info to be honest.. However how did they justify or explain the reasons behind the or change of direction..

Thanks,, Dont mean to be noisy..

Excavo · 15-02-2021 5:27pm

Zxthinger wrote: »

That's sufficient info to be honest.. However how did they justify or explain the reasons behind the or change of direction..

Thanks,, Dont mean to be noisy..

At no time was a detailed explanation given, just a section of the law quoted. Pointing to, and tapping the sign so to speak. These guys are not proficient in this.
A subsequent Garda ballistics inspection also stood over the Revenues initial seizure decision however their assessment report proved to be insufficient and lacked convincing detail. In short, you are dealing with multiple government departments here where, in all cases, a number of public servants interpreted the law incorrectly. So it went from "Your items will be destroyed" to "Your items may be returned to you" - no additional reasons given.

Cass · 15-02-2021 5:34pm

Guilty till proven innocent, so to speak.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

New rules from Revenue?

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County