Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Good news for centrefire pistol owners.

13

Comments

  • #62
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Cass,
    Could a gunsmith modify it to remove the compensator and re tap the foresight?

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • #63
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Don't think so.

    The barrel is 5.5 inches and the slide 4.5 inches. The compensator makes up the remaining 1 inch and the front sight is mounted via a "slide on" method. If i remove the three screws from the underside rail, and take the compensator off not only have i no front sight, but the slide is now 1 inch shorter than the barrel. The gun/slide were not meant/designed to fired without the compensator on.

    Even if all this was possible the compensator is slightly raised where the front sight is mounted and the sight (front and rear) are adjustable (back ones for wind and elevation). If the sight were mounted to the slide i think i'd have serious issues with height.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #64
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    I see at least one RFD selling C/F pistols. They were asked if its even possible to license them and were told "Yes, if you held a license for the calibre on or before the NOv 2008 cut off point".

    I'm by NO MEANS getting at the RFD because as this thread shows the NGBs saying "it's a possibility" and the DoJ saying "not a chance" with the legislation to back them up people are going to miss the details, possibly substitute and find themselves pistol-less when it comes to renewal time.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #65
    gunny123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭gunny123


    I think the centrefire pistols issue is a non starter here, the doj and gardai were out to get them from the get-go, .22's not so much. They finally got their way with ahern.

    The only ways i can see this reopened is if someone with more money than sense takes a court case, or if by some twist of fate the brits cast off the 6 counties and the gardai have to licence a massive number of personal protection pistols.


  • #66
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    gunny123 wrote: »
    ............. the gardai have to licence a massive number of personal protection pistols.
    Handguns are still perfectly legal in the North so its not just personal protection.

    I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone tries the sub, if its successful and then if they get to renew it.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Advertisement
  • #67
    gunny123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭gunny123


    If the sub thing is successful, then the legislation will just be amended to stop it in future. They don't play fair. To me centrefire pistols are a done deal here. Maybe they will relent if the right people were to lobby the ptb, but i doubt it.


  • #68
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Lads we're getting a little bit away from the topic of the thread. The reasoning for a pistol is somewhat secondary, as the point of this thread and my latest post is to show that it's gone from "what if we could sub" to "it can be done" and now "we're doing it". I'm dreading the thoughts of lads getting caught out by this and ending up with nothing. It'll diminish the low number of us left, and weaken any argument we might have in the future to try and relax the SI to allow new licensing of restricted pistols.

    I say restricted because let's not forget the law does not say no more C/F pistols. It says no more restricted licenses. So if you remove that bit then al the firearm are available again including .22lr pistols with 6 shots which means no more destroying perfectly good revolvers by filling/blocking a chamber of the cylinder.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #69
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    I've split off the personal protection stuff into it's own thread, here. Two reasons for this:
    1. The original thread topic has been left behind with the recent debate.
    2. The original thread topic is rather important to be left behind with a "side" topic.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #70
    cosieman
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭cosieman


    Is there any shooting organistions here trying to allow centre fire pistol ownership for target shooting.


  • #71
    NASRPC
    Registered Users Posts: 233 ✭✭NASRPC


    cosieman wrote: »
    Is there any shooting organistions here trying to allow centre fire pistol ownership for target shooting.

    Centrefire Pistol ownership is permitted for target shooting. In fact it is the only reason you are permitted to own one.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    cosieman wrote: »
    Is there any shooting organistions here trying to allow centre fire pistol ownership for target shooting.

    A number of clubs and associations already run C/F pistols comps, but if you mean is one of them trying to get C/F pistols "reintroduced" for this purpose then that is above their ability.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #73
    smmember20
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭smmember20


    solarwinds wrote: »
    Sorry what, Yes I believe you can sub a C.f. pistol but come your renewal it has to be subbed back to your original C.f. pistol for the renewal to be processed. As otherwise it is a new licence with a different serial number. I fail to see how this is an advantage as you have to own 2 pistols only 1 of which you can licence.
    The only thing that would have benefited shooters would be the subbing of licences without all the messing associated currently to do it.

    Yes I agree that it is a complication related to the current legislation, but it is still possible, owning the 2nd CF in storage that can't be sold in any case is no harship for me. I have the benefit of a brand new pistol that I can use in competition, if you sub just after renewal then you do not have to do anything for three years!
    You may moan about the process but it is still possible to substitute the CF pistol and it was achieved by the SC like it or not!

    Hard to see where you are coming from related to the current procedure for doing a substitution, it is very straighforward, application does not need a photo and there is minimal informtion needed to be added, also process turnaround averages 2 weeks or less unless you have a useless FO.


  • #74
    solarwinds
    Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭solarwinds


    smmember20 wrote: »
    Yes I agree that it is a complication related to the current legislation, but it is still possible, owning the 2nd CF in storage that can't be sold in any case is no harship for me. I have the benefit of a brand new pistol that I can use in competition, if you sub just after renewal then you do not have to do anything for three years!
    You may moan about the process but it is still possible to substitute the CF pistol and it was achieved by the SC like it or not!

    Hard to see where you are coming from related to the current procedure for doing a substitution, it is very straighforward, application does not need a photo and there is minimal informtion needed to be added, also process turnaround averages 2 weeks or less unless you have a useless FO.


    Hard to see how you think this is some sort of victory. I have no issue with the subbing of firearms, but in this situation it is an unnecessary messy step.
    What would have been a win would be to allow current licence holders for restricted C.f. pistols trade in for a new one. As it stands if everyone done as you suggest there will be twice the number of pistols out there, granted half of them in storage. So what if anything are the SC doing to rectify this?. If people were allowed to sub there will still be the same number of firearms licenced and no additional licences granted as to what is out there already.


  • #75
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    would have far more faith in a good practically trained barrel maker from Westley Richards, Holland and Holland, or FN in Leige, doing the work.

    So would I and I'm sure any who would apply would be considerd.

    Anyway apart from a couple of hundred to maybe a few thousand older shotguns in Ireland, is it even worth it to have a proof house here ? Most lads are shooting newish guns which are probably steel proof anyway.

    Handguns, shotguns,rifles, and deactivation to EU standards,as well as proofing some creations by "qualified gunsmiths" would be also in the market.
    Esp the last, some of what has passed as gunsmithing work here would have the potential to make the shooter look like Wiley Coyote after his ACME blunderbuss explodes!:eek:
    The laws around product liability apply these days to Irish gunsmiths as well as anyone else selling something on the general market as a manufacturer,at least with a proof house stamp on it you would have some protection in law.
    As it stands gunsmiths/dealers are wide open to a product liability lawsuit if a job or a made gun goes South on them. There are good reasons gunsmithing is a 5-year guild trade.

    Also, under EU legislation, you cant, believe it or not, sell your unproofed US import that might be up to US SAMMI standards, in the EU either as a business or private individual!! IOW I couldn't legally sell my made in the USA Glock 17 to you or anyone on the open market in the EU, as it is not in proof. I can sell it to a dealer, who has then the responsibility, to go get it proofed before he resells it.
    The other thing is this has to be a govt regulated dept, you cant go and fob this off to some semi-private partnership,as it is a govt/state seal you are putting on the gun that this is in compliance with EU directive laws.

    The idea here is to show the Irish govt that just blindly following EU directives will cost THEM for once and that they have to provide a service here whatever it costs from their own budget a well.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • #76
    smmember20
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭smmember20


    solarwinds wrote: »
    Hard to see how you think this is some sort of victory. I have no issue with the subbing of firearms, but in this situation it is an unnecessary messy step.
    What would have been a win would be to allow current licence holders for restricted C.f. pistols trade in for a new one. As it stands if everyone done as you suggest there will be twice the number of pistols out there, granted half of them in storage. So what if anything are the SC doing to rectify this?. If people were allowed to sub there will still be the same number of firearms licenced and no additional licences granted as to what is out there already.

    Are u missing the message CF pistol owners are permitted to substitute their CF pistols for new ones, not everyone will, some have traded for little used stored pistols.

    Up to 2017 Garda policy prevented such and this was changed after SC made representation to justice In Dec 2017 DOJ confirmed that the DPP agreed and since then folks have done such substitutions!!

    Am I confusing u?


  • #77
    solarwinds
    Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭solarwinds


    smmember20 wrote: »
    Are u missing the message CF pistol owners are permitted to substitute their CF pistols for new ones, not everyone will, some have traded for little used stored pistols.

    Up to 2017 Garda policy prevented such and this was changed after SC made representation to justice In Dec 2017 DOJ confirmed that the DPP agreed and since then folks have done such substitutions!!

    Am I confusing u?


    Nope


  • #78
    tudderone
    Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭tudderone


    smmember20 wrote: »
    Are u missing the message CF pistol owners are permitted to substitute their CF pistols for new ones, not everyone will, some have traded for little used stored pistols.

    Up to 2017 Garda policy prevented such and this was changed after SC made representation to justice In Dec 2017 DOJ confirmed that the DPP agreed and since then folks have done such substitutions!!

    Am I confusing u?

    Is it law or garda policy ?


  • #79
    smmember20
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭smmember20


    tudderone wrote: »
    Is it law or garda policy ?

    As I understood it, it was their interpretation of the legislation but proven wrong when Justice and DPP issued statement up to 2017 there were no substitutions of CF pistols.

    So two ways to go in such circumstances take to the high court or put forward a proposal to DOJ the latter being the less expensive worked on this occasion 🙂


  • #80
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    smmember20 wrote: »
    As I understood it, it was their interpretation of the legislation but proven wrong when Justice and DPP issued statement up to 2017 there were no substitutions of CF pistols.
    Its not their interpretation that is wrong but the how its "enacted".

    Bear with me.

    They view a substitution as a permanent move from one firearm to another. In that case a substitution of a restricted firearm cannot be done (or more accurately could be but would be lost/refused during renewal). However with the "loophole" of it being substituted back to the originally licensed firearm prior to renewal and then back once again to the "new" firearm after renewal is a scenario that was probably not thought, catered for, or thought possible from the point of view of someone doing so just to have a new firearm.

    I say firearm because from reading section 11(1) and 11(2) of the 1964 Act as amended by section 54 of the 2006 act and SI 390/2006 it states restricted firearm.
    So two ways to go in such circumstances take to the high court or put forward a proposal to DOJ the latter being the less expensive worked on this occasion ��
    Have many people done this substituting yet?

    Has anyone being refused a substitution? Either to the new or old firearm?

    What happens if such a refusal occurs?
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #81
    smmember20
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭smmember20


    Cass wrote: »
    Its not their interpretation that is wrong but the how its "enacted".

    Bear with me.

    They view a substitution as a permanent move from one firearm to another. In that case a substitution of a restricted firearm cannot be done (or more accurately could be but would be lost/refused during renewal). However with the "loophole" of it being substituted back to the originally licensed firearm prior to renewal and then back once again to the "new" firearm after renewal is a scenario that was probably not thought, catered for, or thought possible from the point of view of someone doing so just to have a new firearm.

    I say firearm because from reading section 11(1) and 11(2) of the 1964 Act as amended by section 54 of the 2006 act and SI 390/2006 it states restricted firearm.


    Have many people done this substituting yet?

    Has anyone being refused a substitution? Either to the new or old firearm?

    What happens if such a refusal occurs?

    Have many people done this substituting yet? Know of two others and myself

    Has anyone being refused a substitution? Either to the new or old firearm? Don't know!

    What happens if such a refusal occurs? If there is a refusal for a substitution there is no District Court Appeal so worst case senario is you retain your original firearm, however it seems that AGS are allowing substitutions for CF pistols.

    As I under stood it the argument was made that substitutions are handles under Section 11 of the Act and there were no amenments made to it to prevent the substitution of Restricted short firearms, I think it best you refere to the detail on the Sports Colation Ireland web site press release December 22nd 2017 for the full story.

    Only point I ever hoped to make was that I for one was pleased with the actions of the SC on this matter as it allowed me to replace a 25 year old Glock for a newer more appropriate cometition gun.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    smmember20 wrote: »
    What happens if such a refusal occurs? If there is a refusal for a substitution there is no District Court Appeal so worst case senario is you retain your original firearm, however it seems that AGS are allowing substitutions for CF pistols.
    What i was asking was more about being licensed on the "new" gun and being refused the substitution back to the "old" one. In that scenario you cannot renew on the new gun/license.
    As I under stood it the argument was made that substitutions are handles under Section 11 of the Act and there were no amenments made to it to prevent the substitution of Restricted short firearms,
    Section 11 was amended by section 54 of the 2006 act. I listed it above.
    54.— Section 11 of the Firearms Act 1964 is amended:

    (b) in subsection (2), by the insertion of—

    (i) “(other than a restricted firearm)” after “firearm”, where it first occurs, and.
    There were no further amendment in subsequent SIs or Acts that followed the 2006 act which altered this to allow for substitutions.
    I think it best you refere to the detail on the Sports Colation Ireland web site press release December 22nd 2017 for the full story.
    I read that article when it was published and this thread was started as a means of discussing it. I asked then, i think, and i still don't know the answer but what exactly was pointed out to the DoJ/AG that made substitutions legal? What i mean by that is which piece of legislation was pointed to and used to say "here is why it can be done".

    I mean i'm not a solicitor or barrister and not even by the biggest stretch of the imagination an expert on legal issues but the simple reading of section 54 of the 2006 prohibits subs for all restricted firearms, so what am i missing?
    Only point I ever hoped to make was that I for one was pleased with the actions of the SC on this matter
    You asked another poster above if they were confused or missing the point so i thought you might be something of an authority on the matter or even a representative of the SC that might be able to explain to us the bit we're, or at least i'm, obviously missing that allows what the law, and for once quite clearly, says cannot be done.

    As for what the SC done, what was that exactly? Did they take a court case, get legislation repealed or the restricted SI amended. From my point of view they pointed to a perceived loophole and were told, according to them,"yer right, oops our bad, lash away lads". Not being critical, well not trying to be, but i'm nervous for myself and any lad that tries this or does this only to have it bite them in the ass at a later date because everything done has been word of mouth with no official legislation or change both explained and published so we can all see how its done and made legal.
    as it allowed me to replace a 25 year old Glock for a newer more appropriate cometition gun.
    I'm with you on that. I'd love to be able to change mine or at the very least get some new bits that have thus far been either impossible or an utter nightmare to the extent I couldn't get them, but without someone showing me a letter, actually a letter is not even enough if the law does not allow it, so show me the legislation that specifically allows for this i'm not risking losing my current firearm on a "back & forth" licensing roulette system.


    Trust me, if someone can point me to the law that says where this can be done then i'm all over it and will be in the dealers within the week.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #83
    smmember20
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭smmember20


    I didnt realise it was that complex! I made the substitution application got it!
    The issue of hitting a difficulty when renewing, yes it is a concern as technically a substituted CF cannot be direclty renewed as a renewal is indeed a reapplication as it is in NI. For me I had just reneded my CF and then substituted it so I have no concerns for 3 years.

    So first hurdle is can your application for a substitution be refused, yes of course it can and there is no recourse to the DC for a substitution refusal, to date I have not hear of any person being refused a substitution for a CF.

    Can the CS refuse to substitute your original CF prior to renewal date yes, but be aware if such a refusal occurs there is no recourse to the DC, however becaue the CF would have been licenced prior to November 2008 you can make a reapplication and if this is refused then you can appeal to the DC.

    I think I am done on this one as there is not much more I can add.


  • #84
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    smmember20 wrote: »
    I think I am done on this one as there is not much more I can add.

    How about the other part of my question regarding the law and how the SC got it changed to allow substitutions?
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #85
    smmember20
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭smmember20


    Cass wrote: »
    How about the other part of my question regarding the law and how the SC got it changed to allow substitutions?

    It has been a long time since I seen the details which were on the SC website and also publicised by NASRPC, it was December 2017

    There was no change in the legislation required just intrepretation of the appropriate section related to substitution.

    This is from the archives on the SC web site:

    http://www.sportscoalition.org/2017/12/

    Do you have a CF pistol you wish to substitute for another, if so go ahead I can't understand why you are seeking to break something that was fixed by consultation and discussion, then published what else do you want!!!


  • #86
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    smmember20 wrote: »
    ..... I can't understand why you are seeking to break something that was fixed by consultation and discussion,......
    But not by law which remains the same.

    Again if i'm wrong point me in the direction of the LAW and i'll happily agree.
    then published what else do you want!!!
    The law.

    Not some notice with no reference to the law or change of current law but only an announcement by two groups with no power to legislate.

    I'll say it once more. If you can show me the law then i'll agree it can be done and is safe. If not then not only is there a risk when substituting, as you admitted to above, but its actually still not legally allowed.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #87
    civdef
    Registered Users Posts: 3,057 ✭✭✭civdef


    The Sports Coalition report mentioned advice was received from the Attorney General to DoJ that the process is legal. That is something fairly concrete, particularly if DoJ were willing to make it known to an outside body. It's probably the best option available without changing primary or secondary legislation.


  • #88
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    There is a reason, as you know, why giving legal advice is not permitted on Boards. In case it comes back to bite you/us in the ass. So when i hear (and i don't mean you specifically as its been said above by others) :
    civdef wrote: »
    The Sports Coalition report mentioned advice was received from the Attorney General to DoJ that the process is legal.
    It makes me nervous unless someone, be that the DoJ, SC, NASRPC, whomever, shows us which law makes it legal because as far as i can see its not.
    That is something fairly concrete, particularly if DoJ were willing to make it known to an outside body. It's probably the best option available without changing primary or secondary legislation.
    Thats my point though.

    I'm NOT arguing this for the sake of argument. I own a pistol. If i sub it and the excrement hits the fan and all this "sur it'll be grand, aye and begorrah" falls apart because someone made a mistake (which is by no means beyond the realms of possibility given past mistakes) and the legislation has not been amended or changed then i've lost my new pistol at best or lost both at worst.

    The announcement on the SC page is only an announcement. It has no more legal weight than me saying its ok to rob banks. If it included the amended Act, amended SI or even the loophole that repeals or makes null section 54 of the 2006 act then i'm all for it.

    So as said. Not arguing (at all) for the sh*ts and giggles of it, i'm pushing for a definitive and concrete answer as to how this is legal.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #89
    civdef
    Registered Users Posts: 3,057 ✭✭✭civdef


    A FOI request to to Dept of Justice for the AG advice mentioned should do the job?


  • #90
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    How about the SC just publish it?
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Advertisement
  • #91
    solarwinds
    Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭solarwinds


    Cass wrote: »
    How about the SC just publish it?

    Or better still, if you are going to the trouble of trying to improve the situation for licence holders in these meetings, then work for a change in the laws that will actually allow the substitution of C.f. pistols properly.
    Rather than the, we have found a loop hole here is it ok if we exploit it. That to me is just opening the door to further restrictions.
    To me it would have been better if they had just fought for the proper subbing of licences, now that would have been a victory worth shouting about.


Advertisement