Semi Auto Rifles contd

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I'd want to see it in writing from;
The attorney general, the DOJ,and the Cheif Commish stating that this is official,and such an action will be done without let or hindrance in the process.
As well as a clear process on how this is to be done that has to be accepted by the persona designates of Cheif Supers or DC judges.
IOW this has to be as easily done as a substitution lic of any other firearm.

I really can't understand this attitude, if you were a member of any organsiation who was a member of the FCP in December 2017 they were circulated with the communication from Justice (ask them for a copy), of course if you have no association with any member organsiation of the FCP then what can I say..................

Witcher wrote: »

The DPP had nothing to do with that.

Absolutely correct apologies I got the DPP mixed up with the AG!

Sorry

I'd want to see it in writing from;
The attorney general, the DOJ,and the Cheif Commish stating that this is official,and such an action will be done without let or hindrance in the process.
As well as a clear process on how this is to be done that has to be accepted by the persona designates of Cheif Supers or DC judges.
IOW this has to be as easily done as a substitution lic of any other firearm.

smmember20 wrote: »

Are you a member of NASRPC through one of the clubs, in December 2017, the DOJ issued a statement to all FCP members including the NASRPC, this is the definitive statement related to the advices from the DPP, I am sorry I cannot find my copy but it is there in black and white and tell me all the armchair solicitors are better thand the advice from the DOJ on foot of the advices from DPP.

I was a member of the NASRPC but not any more. Maybe I will again, some day.

With respect, and this is in no way a dig at you, the law as it stands seems to ban giving out licences for centrefire pistols that weren't licenced before November 2008 so until I see absolute proof that it's legal to substitute centrefire pistols I'll go with what the law seems to say. In other words, if the Gardai give you a licence for a centrefire pistol, that licence isn't valid so you would be in possession of an unlicenced firearm.

Again, apologies if it looks like I am attacking you; I'm not. But I wouldn't hang my coat on an unseen statement from the DOJ as they have made many errors in the past, not least the recent case they lost along with Revenue over the importation of a stock and some spare parts. If I saw the statement then maybe I'd change my attitude but given that it isn't widely distributed, I've nothing to go on.

Advice from the attorney general methinks .

Witcher

smmember20 wrote: »

Are you a member of NASRPC through one of the clubs, in December 2017, the DOJ issued a statement to all FCP members including the NASRPC, this is the definitive statement related to the advices from the DPP, I am sorry I cannot find my copy but it is there in black and white and tell me all the armchair solicitors are better thand the advice from the DOJ on foot of the advices from DPP.

The DPP had nothing to do with that.

tudderone wrote: »

I doubt i'd bother tbh, i have a .22 pistol and with the banning of practical shooting i don't see much point.

Well indeed that's your choice.

BattleCorp wrote: »

There's a bit of an arugment going on as to whether or not centrefire pistols can be substituted. I've seen no official proof that it is legally allowed. I'm not saying it's not allowed, it's just that the vast majority of us have seen nothing official.

Are you a member of NASRPC through one of the clubs, in December 2017, the DOJ issued a statement to all FCP members including the NASRPC, this is the definitive statement related to the advices from the AG, I am sorry I cannot find my copy but it is there in black and white and tell me all the armchair solicitors are better thand the advice from the DOJ on foot of the advices from AG.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sounds like you've good grounds to reapply to be honest.

I'd be feeling sick if I was in your shoes to have been blackguarded by the Gardai back then.

Might be worth an application seeing as the law seems to be on your side and the spotlight is on the behaviour of the Gardai much more so now than back in 2008.

I doubt i'd bother tbh, i have a .22 pistol and with the banning of practical shooting i don't see much point.

tudderone wrote: »

Yeah had it licenced and shot it, its part of what gets up my nose about the gardai and licencing etc. I had it and other centrefire pistols for years, then the new rules came in and all of a sudden i wasn't to be trusted anymore.

Sounds like you've good grounds to reapply to be honest.

I'd be feeling sick if I was in your shoes to have been blackguarded by the Gardai back then.

Might be worth an application seeing as the law seems to be on your side and the spotlight is on the behaviour of the Gardai much more so now than back in 2008.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Tudderone, sorry for being nosey and tell me to sod off if you like but did you have the pistol licenced before November 2008 or did you just own it before then and never held a licence for it?

Yeah had it licenced and shot it, its part of what gets up my nose about the gardai and licencing etc. I had it and other centrefire pistols for years, then the new rules came in and all of a sudden i wasn't to be trusted anymore.

smmember20 wrote: »

So the value of having held a CF licence prior to 2008 is high, personally if he knows where it is, he could ask the lad if he could make an application for the gun as you probably know a gun can be licenced by more than one person, once the licence issues he can them make application for a substitution for another 9mm which I am sure there are no shortages of in dealers!!! Where there is a will there is a way!!!!!!

There's a bit of an arugment going on as to whether or not centrefire pistols can be substituted. I've seen no official proof that it is legally allowed. I'm not saying it's not allowed, it's just that the vast majority of us have seen nothing official.

BattleCorp wrote: »

All guesswork here but I'm guessing that Tudder doesn't have it any more seeing as he said 'he knows where it is'. That probably means that he sold it but knows who has it now. The option to buy it back may not be there. And it's risky buying it back when there's no guarantee of getting the licence.

On the other hand, if it's sitting in a gun dealer's safe, I'd certainly apply as an application costs nothing.

So the value of having held a CF licence prior to 2008 is high, personally if he knows where it is, he could ask the lad if he could make an application for the gun as you probably know a gun can be licenced by more than one person, once the licence issues he can them make application for a substitution for another 9mm which I am sure there are no shortages of in dealers!!! Where there is a will there is a way!!!!!!

Tudderone, sorry for being nosey and tell me to sod off if you like but did you have the pistol licenced before November 2008 or did you just own it before then and never held a licence for it?

smmember20 wrote: »

So if you had it before 2008 you can even now make application for to have it licenced!!!

All guesswork here but I'm guessing that Tudder doesn't have it any more seeing as he said 'he knows where it is'. That probably means that he sold it but knows who has it now. The option to buy it back may not be there. And it's risky buying it back when there's no guarantee of getting the licence.

On the other hand, if it's sitting in a gun dealer's safe, I'd certainly apply as an application costs nothing.

tudderone wrote: »

Yes.

So if you had it before 2008 you can even now make application for to have it licenced!!!

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Cannot see the problem.
Not vastly different from the PRS comps as far as movement goes.

Apart from needing a bunch of 10 round mags and needing to do mag changes as well.Can't see a problem with it.

otmmyboy2

tudderone wrote: »

Legal to do here or not ? You are not actually shooting while moving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWrVU2DSJHU

Cannot see the problem.
Not vastly different from the PRS comps as far as movement goes.

BSA International wrote: »

Been there myself.

A buddy advised Super he was bringing a solicitor with him and Super refused to meet him. So he went alone. When buddy went in to the meeting there was the Super and a Sergeant on other side of table ......

Its a complete lack of professionalism on their behalf. They might not like licencing firearms, but its part of their duties. All they have to do is treat you with civility, and weigh up the merits of the application, and the applicant.

Maybe its changed now, but the supers/chief's i met were all old duffers sitting it out for their pension. Part of the generation, who, like priests and bishops here, once they got the uniform on, thought they were the law.

BSA International

JB88, have a c/f pistol? Did you ever have one? Some have lost c/f pistols on strength of same announcement hanging over s/a rifles, I know of lads.

Cass is right to advise people of possibility if losing them even if you don't think they will. When the c/f pistol ban was mooted there were many at the time saying much same as you are now. They were wrong.

BSA International

tudderone wrote: »

Don't mind tape recorders, i'd be turning up with a solicitor. The way i was treated more than once by the gits, its the tack i would take.

Been there myself.

A buddy advised Super he was bringing a solicitor with him and Super refused to meet him. So he went alone. When buddy went in to the meeting there was the Super and a Sergeant on other side of table ......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWrVU2DSJHU

Legal to do here or not ? You are not actually shooting while moving.

Just looking at my renewal form here.Just ticking a box is not sufficient anymore. Big ol space there that needs filling in with their justification of refusal. Then of course you can also FOIA it.

But if you have been treated like that, I would certainly pitch up with a legal eagle too. I'd also call their bluff on the court too,and go and file for a hearing if I was treated like that right after the interview.

otmmyboy2

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

NOTHING stopping you from requesting such...As it is a formal interview and it is commonly accepted practise in the world of law and commerce to openly record business meetings, and you are doing it for the exact same reason AGS do it themselves down in the dungeon...Er ...interview rooms.
So long as both /all parties consent, and if requested you provide a copy of the interview tape and /or transcript as well.

It also keeps things civil and professional and people in mind their P's and Q's. So they cant try and badger you into a reaction,to say you are unsuitable to be licensed.

I know exactly how that would go.
Suddenly I would not be interviewed, the application would be turned down with the nebulous "no good and sufficient reason" argument, and it'd be court.
I'd been told as much last renewal. :mad:

tudderone wrote: »

Don't mind tape recorders, i'd be turning up with a solicitor. The way i was treated more than once by the gits, its the tack i would take.

Strongly considered that after the last one...
Not informing AGS beforehand, but just turning up with one.

Don't mind tape recorders, i'd be turning up with a solicitor. The way i was treated more than once by the gits, its the tack i would take.

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

I no exceptions. :rolleyes:

Sometimes it is comic to hear them, but I really wish those interviews were recorded. :P

NOTHING stopping you from requesting such...As it is a formal interview and it is commonly accepted practise in the world of law and commerce to openly record business meetings, and you are doing it for the exact same reason AGS do it themselves down in the dungeon...Er ...interview rooms.
So long as both /all parties consent, and if requested you provide a copy of the interview tape and /or transcript as well.

It also keeps things civil and professional and people in mind their P's and Q's. So they cant try and badger you into a reaction,to say you are unsuitable to be licensed.

tudderone wrote: »

Yes, as with much else we can learn much from abroad. I believe in many European countries, Germany for instance, the police provide a background check and thats it. The application is processed by a centralised office, staffed by civilians and is all far more efficient. The trouble is here, the guards don't want to do licencing, but they don't want anyone else to do it either.

In some Federal states, they also do the movement/export certs as well.

Thing is;if we got this by some miracle being done by a centralised authority,they would have to be 100% impartial to this, and not be an operation filled with "retired" senior ranking Gardai who are discussing this business over pints in the local, as is wont to happen around here.:rolleyes:
Nor having it filled with some Jobsworth of civil servants who know nothing about guns apart from a Hollywood education is going to be helpful either.IOW we need to have input into this as well from the coalface. Chances of that of course are....