Handgun Magazines

Munsterlad102 · 01-04-2021 11:34am #1

Just a quick question about restricting magazines to 5 rounds. Am I allowed to restrict them myself with a piece of plastic or a wooden dowel, like restricting a shotgun, or do I have to have them pinned? I'm asking because it seems like something I can do at home and save a bit of money rather than having a gunsmith do it.

otmmyboy2 · 01-04-2021 11:40am

Relevant SI is here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/si/391/made/en/print?q=five+rounds&search_type=all

With this being the operative subparagraph:

(iii) firearms which are designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition and use magazines that have been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition”.

My reading of this is there is no specific standard so long as, before actually using them, they must not be able to hold more than 5 rounds.
So a wooden/metal dowel would be fine, especially since that would not impede the function or disassembly for cleaning of the magazine.

I have been told by guards it must be "permanently modified", but if the legislation doesn't say that then they can pound sand IMO

freddieot · 01-04-2021 11:45am

The gunsmiths usually just use a dowel anyway for .22 mags.

You can do it yourself. There is no requirement for some kind of certification or proofing from anyone, including the gunsmith or gun dealer. You just have to follow what is laid out in the Statutory Instrument.

In short you must restrict them to 5 rounds before you use them. Personally, I'd be doing that the day I got them.

I take mine apart to clean them, which involves obviously removing the dowels, then I reassemble them with the dowels back in place. All good.

Munsterlad102 · 01-04-2021 11:48am

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

My reading of this is there is no specific standard so long as, before actually using them, they must not be able to hold more than 5 rounds.
So a wooden/metal dowel would be fine, especially since that would not impede the function or disassembly for cleaning of the magazine.

I have been told by guards it must be "permanently modified", but if the legislation doesn't say that then they can pound sand IMO

Thanks, I remember reading the bit about them being modified prior to use and that peaked my curiosity. It just seems so much cheaper to buy mags from the US and restrict them yourself rather than getting them from a dealer.

freddieot · 01-04-2021 11:49am

Just reading the other posts now that crossed with mine. Exactly, the Guards can say what they like, go by the SI. It's the law that counts not local opinions or policy.

I was told all .22 handguns were restricted when I applied for mine, anyone can have an opinion, but again it's always the law that counts.

freddieot · 01-04-2021 11:54am

Be careful if you are getting them from the US. Customs inspections have tightened in the last few months on this side. You are far more likely to be hit with charges.

Be sure the delivery company you use does not have a T&C rule (regardless of the firearms laws) in relation to firearms components and accessories coming into their delivery systems.

otmmyboy2 · 01-04-2021 12:28pm

freddieot wrote: »

Be careful if you are getting them from the US. Customs inspections have tightened in the last few months on this side. You are far more likely to be hit with charges.

Be sure the delivery company you use does not have a T&C rule (regardless of the firearms laws) in relation to firearms components and accessories coming into their delivery systems.

THIS!!!

Also I believe(open to correction) that mags fall under ITAR, so a lot of places won't ship them out of the US.

Thankfully I could source all mine from Germany.
Triebel & egun.de are magic places

cosieman · 07-04-2021 6:56pm

Can you buy dowels online or in shops?

Zxthinger · 07-04-2021 7:08pm

They'd probably need to be restricted prior to landing in the is dump..

otmmyboy2 · 07-04-2021 7:57pm

cosieman wrote: »

Can you buy dowels online or in shops?

I usually buy them in hardwares, or just head to a scrapyard and see have they any metal rods about the right size.

Zxthinger wrote: »

They'd probably need to be restricted prior to landing in the is dump..

Had a FO insist they had to be restricted before they were imported.
Told them to show me the legislation that said it must be.

They were stumped, so I sent them the "modified prior to use" bit of the legislation and they didn't make any more fuss about it.

Was opened by customs when being imported too and still got to me unmolested so take that for what it's worth

BattleCorp · 08-04-2021 5:31pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Had a FO insist they had to be restricted before they were imported.
Told them to show me the legislation that said it must be.

They were stumped, so I sent them the "modified prior to use" bit of the legislation and they didn't make any more fuss about it.

Keep in mind that if you have a handgun magazine in your possession (either used or unused) that can hold more than 5 rounds, you are in possession of an unlicenced restricted firearm.

I'd be blocking them as soon as possible after receiving them, i.e. within 5 minutes or I'd have them sent directly to a gun dealer to block them for me.

clivej · 08-04-2021 8:14pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Keep in mind that if you have a handgun magazine in your possession (either used or unused) that can hold more than 5 rounds, you are in possession of an unlicenced restricted firearm.

I'd be blocking them as soon as possible after receiving them, i.e. within 5 minutes or I'd have them sent directly to a gun dealer to block them for me.

I have been told many times you can own large capacity mags but its only when in the handgun that they must only hold the 5 rounds. This was thrashed a couple of times at a couple of HH RO refresher courses.

otmmyboy2 · 08-04-2021 9:04pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Keep in mind that if you have a handgun magazine in your possession (either used or unused) that can hold more than 5 rounds, you are in possession of an unlicenced restricted firearm.

I'd be blocking them as soon as possible after receiving them, i.e. within 5 minutes or I'd have them sent directly to a gun dealer to block them for me.

I'd be interested to see the legislation if you have it handy, or an idea what SI or act it might be in?
I've seen the SI I posted above with the "modified before use" bit, but not that a magazine itself is restricted, apart from the centrefire magazine ban SI in 2019, but that only affected centrefire & shotguns, not rimfire handguns.
As far as I recall anyway

BattleCorp · 08-04-2021 11:25pm

clivej wrote: »

I have been told many times you can own large capacity mags but its only when in the handgun that they must only hold the 5 rounds. This was thrashed a couple of times at a couple of HH RO refresher courses.

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

I'd be interested to see the legislation if you have it handy, or an idea what SI or act it might be in?
I've seen the SI I posted above with the "modified before use" bit, but not that a magazine itself is restricted, apart from the centrefire magazine ban SI in 2019, but that only affected centrefire & shotguns, not rimfire handguns.
As far as I recall anyway

Maybe I'm wrong. I must do some research.

Edit. I'm still not 100% but it looks like I was wrong.

S.I No 21 of 2008 states in Section 4.(1)

(1) Firearms other than those to which subparagraph (2) relates are declared to be restricted firearms for the purposes of the Act:

(e) the following short firearms designed for use in connection with competitions governed by International Olympic Committee regulations:

(i) air-operated firearms of 4.5 millimetres (.177 inch) calibre,

(ii) firearms using .22 inch rim-fire percussion ammunition.

That doesn't mention magazine capacity so I'm guessing in 2008 there was no problem with the magazine capacity.

But then S.I. No. 337 of 2009 makes changes to the above S.I. by amending Article 4(2) of the 2008 S.I.

(b) by the substitution of the following subparagraph for subparagraph (e)—

“(e) the following short firearms designed for use in connection with competitions governed by International Olympic Committee regulations:

(i) air-operated firearms of 4.5 millimetres (.177 inch) calibre;

(ii) single shot firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition;

(iii) other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is greater than 10 cm.”.

So, now in 2009, if you have a magazine that exceeds 5 rounds, then this new 2009 S.I. seems to makes your pistol restricted.

But then another spanner in the works is S.I. No. 391 of 2015 where the wording changes to:

(i) air-operated firearms designed for use with 4.5 millimetres (0.177 inch) calibre ammunition;

(ii) single shot firearms designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition;

(iii) firearms which are designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition and use magazines that have been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition”.

So does that above paragraph stop it from being restricted? I'm guessing it probably does. Anyone better at understanding Legalese than I am?

otmmyboy2 · 09-04-2021 10:44am

BattleCorp wrote: »

(iii) other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is greater than 10 cm.”.

Based on this I would say that the magazine capacity of the firearm does not exceed 5 rounds you are good.
I would argue that it does not say "the capacity of any magazines in your possession", and thus the magazines, once in use with the firearm, must be <= 5 rounds.

But then another spanner in the works is S.I. No. 391 of 2015 where the wording changes to:
(iii) firearms which are designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition and use magazines that have been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition”.

So does that above paragraph stop it from being restricted? I'm guessing it probably does. Anyone better at understanding Legalese than I am?

I would say the wording is the trump card here.
use being the operative word here, so once those magazines are being "used" they must be <=5 rounds, but until they are being used, this should not apply.

And that seems to be corroborated by the final bolding above, manufactured/modified prior to use, key word there being use again.

Thus, in my mind alone and not legal advice in any way shape or form

I interpret that as being before I use the magazines they must be restricted to hold no more than 5 rounds.
Once they are not in use, ie they are being cleaned, disassembled to replace parts, etc then the capacity doesn't matter.

At least that is what I go by, and I do think, in answer to OP's original query, that the latter bolded bit would certainly allow someone to import 22 rimfire magazines and restrict them after the fact in a manner they deem would exclude the use of more than 5 rounds before using them in a firearm.

Nice one though BattleCorp finding all the relevant legislation! Trawling through that stuff is enough to put one into a coma lol

J.R. · 09-04-2021 11:12am

cosieman wrote: »

Can you buy dowels online or in shops?

B & Q sell metal rods in various lengths and thicknesses.....just cut to the required length with a hacksaw.

https://www.diy.com/search?term=metal+rod

tonysopprano · 10-04-2021 3:13pm

Just to throw another spanner into the works, read here Garda guidance notes for SI 420/2019 (As OP just stated Handgun magazines, not specifying RF or CF)

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Guidance_note_for_SI%20420_of_2019_transposing_firearms_directive.pdf/Files/Guidance_note_for_SI%20420_of_2019_transposing_firearms_directive.pdf

My reading of this guidance is that mere possession and not use of a magazine that holds over the prescribed number of rounds, whether for handgun or rifle makes YOUR FIREARM A PROHIBITED FIREARM

otmmyboy2 · 10-04-2021 3:39pm

tonysopprano wrote: »

Just to throw another spanner into the works, read here Garda guidance notes for SI 420/2019 (As OP just stated Handgun magazines, not specifying RF or CF)

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Guidance_note_for_SI%20420_of_2019_transposing_firearms_directive.pdf/Files/Guidance_note_for_SI%20420_of_2019_transposing_firearms_directive.pdf

My reading of this guidance is that mere possession and not use of a magazine that holds over the prescribed number of rounds, whether for handgun or rifle makes YOUR FIREARM A PROHIBITED FIREARM

Given the grandfathering of CF licences and that OP was asking about restricting to 5 rounds, not 10(CF rifle) or 20(CF pistol), I think it is safe to presume he was referring to rimfire, to which SI 420 doesn't refer.

Now there is a whole rabbit hole to go down about possessing a handgun magazine(legal without a licence <= 20 rounds), and a rifle to which that handgun magazine could be fitted, ie a glock mag to a PCC.

Key part in 420 which I think would absolve that is "a detachable magazine with a capacity exceeding 20 rounds is inserted into it" for pistol, and "a detachable magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds is inserted into it".

Thus possessing or acquiring a 20 round(handgun) or 10 round(rifle) magazine would be perfectly legal, provided that the higher capacity magazine was not "inserted into" the rifle.

My reading of 420 anyway.

tonysopprano · 10-04-2021 3:50pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Thus possessing or acquiring a 20 round(handgun) or 10 round(rifle) magazine would be perfectly legal, provided that the higher capacity magazine was not "inserted into" the rifle.

My reading of 420 anyway.

Except: " In points B and C above, in
most cases this would involve disposing of a magazine whose excess
capacity makes the firearm subject to prohibition."

Ergo: the possession of a magazine makes the firearm prohibited

My read.

tonysopprano · 10-04-2021 3:56pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Thus possessing or acquiring a 20 round(handgun) or 10 round(rifle) magazine would be perfectly legal, provided that the higher capacity magazine was not "inserted into" the rifle.

My reading of 420 anyway.

Except: " In points B and C above, in
most cases this would involve disposing of a magazine whose excess
capacity makes the firearm subject to prohibition."

Ergo: the possession of a magazine makes the firearm prohibited

Actual SI 420/2019
2F. An issuing person shall revoke a firearm certificate in respect of a firearm classified in Category B of the Directive granted by the person where the holder of the certificate is found to be in possession of -

(a) a loading device which can hold more than 20 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating short firearm, or

(b) a loading device which can hold more than 10 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating long firearm.”, and

(e) in section 21(6)(a), by the insertion after “appropriate” of “(other than where the firearm or ammunition concerned is a prohibited firearm or prohibited ammunition, as the case may be, or a firearm or ammunition the acquisition or possession of which is prohibited by section 2D (inserted by Regulation 10(d) of the European Communities (Acquisition and Possession of Weapons And Ammunition) (Amendment) Regulations 2019))”.

/images/ls

GIVEN under my Official Seal,

2 August, 2019.

CHARLES FLANAGAN,

otmmyboy2 · 10-04-2021 4:20pm

tonysopprano wrote: »

Except: " In points B and C above, in
most cases this would involve disposing of a magazine whose excess
capacity makes the firearm subject to prohibition."

If you had handgun mags over 20 and/or rifle mags over 10, then yes.
That last part of disposal is however guidelines alone, not mentioned is modifying them, a la RF pistol mags, to be under the limit.
The actual SI is silent on this point too.

Actual SI 420/2019
2F. An issuing person shall revoke a firearm certificate in respect of a firearm classified in Category B of the Directive granted by the person where the holder of the certificate is found to be in possession of -

(a) a loading device which can hold more than 20 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating short firearm, or

(b) a loading device which can hold more than 10 rounds and is capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating long firearm.”, and

(e) in section 21(6)(a), by the insertion after “appropriate” of “(other than where the firearm or ammunition concerned is a prohibited firearm or prohibited ammunition, as the case may be, or a firearm or ammunition the acquisition or possession of which is prohibited by section 2D (inserted by Regulation 10(d) of the European Communities (Acquisition and Possession of Weapons And Ammunition) (Amendment) Regulations 2019))”.

Now that is the problematic part.
"is capable of being fitted" is an interesting phrase, and since nearly all handgun magazines are "capable of being fitted" to a "centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating long firearm", regardless of whether they are licenced or possess such a long firearm then, by the letter of that ridiculously worded law, every CF handgun owner in Ireland is now limited to the 10 round capacity, not the 20, since only extreme oddball pistols haven't had magazines which could be used in PCCs.

"Fitted" is an interesting word too. You can get a mag holder for picatinny rails which hold pistol mags.
In that case if I have a licenced CF handgun, and a licenced long firearm of any other calibre to the CF handgun, and I put that mag holder on said long firearm, then presumable that CF handgun magazine could be said to be "capable of being fitted to a centre-fire semi-automatic or repeating long firearm", using that mag holder.
Alternatively, duct tape maybe?

If I tape a standard capacity sig p226 magazine(legal to possess with no licence) to my licenced 223 remy 700 have I just fitted that loading device to that repeating long firearm, and thus run afoul of this SI?

By the letter of the law, yes, which highlights it's ridiculousness.
I'm not saying it isn't law, but it is certainly ridiculous.

Maybe I have strayed to the realms of pedantic on 420, but once again, all the above is only relevant to CF, not rimfire.

tonysopprano · 10-04-2021 4:29pm

It demonstrates the mindset of powers that be on firearms legislation, and what is coming next. All the previous discussion on this thread has been chronological and be in no doubt that at the next firearms act upgrade this will be updated. Again it comes back to the old divide and conquer and the "they are only coming for you not for me, so mind that bus behind you.

On an aside, for anyone interested in PCC, get one in a different calibre to your pistol (or one that cannot use YOUR pistol mags) because if you have a 9mm with a 11-20rd mag for it (all legal) and it fits your PCC then your PCC is prohibited. Remember that most EU countries agreed with and enacted the Sports Shooter derogation, but not Ireland of course

otmmyboy2 · 10-04-2021 4:33pm

tonysopprano wrote: »

It demonstrates the mindset of powers that be on firearms legislation, and what is coming next. All the previous discussion on this thread has been chronological and be in no doubt that at the next firearms act upgrade this will be updated. Again it comes back to the old divide and conquer and the "they are only coming for you not for me, so mind that bus behind you.

On an aside, for anyone interested in PCC, get one in a different calibre to your pistol (or one that cannot use YOUR pistol mags) because if you have a 9mm with a 11-20rd mag for it (all legal) and it fits your PCC then your PCC is prohibited. Remember that most EU countries agreed with and enacted the Sports Shooter derogation, but not Ireland of course

Couldn't agree more.

Also problematic on the 420 & PCC front, a .40 mag can fit 9mm, and some mags even if they are not listed as compatible with each other can still be held in place and used, ie a Sig M17 mag can be held in place in a Glock and will still cycle rounds.

It's a particularly shoddy sh!t show alright, and certainly as you say a good insight into the mindset we are at odds with.

tonysopprano · 10-04-2021 4:37pm

Getting back on the OP's track, I found these to be excellent but not sure if they do RF blocks. No problem with postage, either

https://www.magazineblocks.com/magento/products/magblock-kits.html

Grizzly 45 · 11-04-2021 4:11pm

tonysopprano wrote: »

It demonstrates the mindset of powers that be on firearms legislation, and what is coming next. All the previous discussion on this thread has been chronological and be in no doubt that at the next firearms act upgrade this will be updated. Again it comes back to the old divide and conquer and the "they are only coming for you not for me, so mind that bus behind you.

It is a badly drafted law that was done so by a bureaucrat that I met in person when I went as the FUNI rep to get clarification on this issue 2years ago. He seems to have picked out what was relevant in this directive and badly transposed it into Irish national law and made a pigs ass of it too.

They could NOT get their head around this concept of the PCC and a handgun having the same compatible mags and were baffled as to how this would be sorted legally either. In fairness to them,the rest of the police and law smiths are as baffled in the EU,who rushed this thru.
Melted their brains too, when I mentioned certain calibres NEED a 20 round mag to be compatible with 10 shots due to their physical size of the rounds.IE an AR platform shooting a 450 Thumper round or a .450 SOCOM.
Or how some duct tape of 2 10 rounds end to end is just as quick as 20 rounds coming out of the same box? THIS is what happens when the unknowing in a technical field draft legislation.

On an aside, for anyone interested in PCC, get one in a different calibre to your pistol (or one that cannot use YOUR pistol mags) because if you have a 9mm with a 11-20rd mag for it (all legal)

and it fits your PCC then your PCC is prohibited.

Nope the mags are and you are in trouble if your PCC and mags are together IN THE SAME PLACE!
Remember that most EU countries agreed with and enacted the Sports Shooter derogation, but not Ireland of course

NOT necessarily either... Just get one where the mags are NOT compatible with the handgun or the rifle,or leave your handgun mags in safe storage at the range say if you are using the carbine,and then go home and leave one set of mags there either for the pistol or carbine.

OR buy a carbine overstock [IE Hera arms,or Roni conversion kit for your pistol and use that as a carbine in the competitions. It is STILL a restricted pistol licensed as such here in the records using 20 shot mags legally, The overstock carbine shell is an accessory.:)

Grizzly 45 · 11-04-2021 4:30pm

tonysopprano wrote: »

Just to throw another spanner into the works, read here Garda guidance notes for SI 420/2019 (As OP just stated Handgun magazines, not specifying RF or CF)

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Guidance_note_for_SI%20420_of_2019_transposing_firearms_directive.pdf/Files/Guidance_note_for_SI%20420_of_2019_transposing_firearms_directive.pdf

My reading of this guidance is that mere possession and not use of a magazine that holds over the prescribed number of rounds, whether for handgun or rifle makes YOUR FIREARM A PROHIBITED FIREARM

Nope! When that was written in 07 in that abortion of an act, the restricted category made no mention of mag capacity in CF handguns it was calibre based. That was the whole concept of the restricted/non restricted category.It is a whole set of differentiating prerequisites depending on the firearm type.:rolleyes:

This BS with the 5 shot mag capacity came about because of a vested interest section in shooting wanting to keep their "Olympic style pistols" that only use 5 shots, and almost had us limited in choice to their weird-looking space gun contraptions on an "approved list of models":mad: So some bright spark in the park or Kildare st decided that 10 shot pistols CAPABLE" of taking 10 shot mags are unlistenable restricted firearms.A HC case cleared that up fairly quickly.

Ergo until the EU directive, you could stick a 100 drum mag on your Glock here and work away. It was the EU directive that brought in the capacity limitations and the DOJ simply transcribed it into national law via the SI.

smmember20 · 12-04-2021 10:07am

tonysopprano wrote: »

It demonstrates the mindset of powers that be on firearms legislation, and what is coming next. All the previous discussion on this thread has been chronological and be in no doubt that at the next firearms act upgrade this will be updated. Again it comes back to the old divide and conquer and the "they are only coming for you not for me, so mind that bus behind you.

On an aside, for anyone interested in PCC, get one in a different calibre to your pistol (or one that cannot use YOUR pistol mags) because if you have a 9mm with a 11-20rd mag for it (all legal) and it fits your PCC then your PCC is prohibited. Remember that most EU countries agreed with and enacted the Sports Shooter derogation, but not Ireland of course

Interestingly Germany and many other countries did not adopt the Sports Shooter derogation, quite honestly I never saw it coming otherwise I would have alerted my shooting association for representations to be been made, (it is clear also that no one else saw it coming and made any representation to their shooting associations) in fairness DOJ are not intimately aware of our sporting needs as they are not experts in that field they are legislators and the easiest way forward it to enact the EU regulations as they are.

Then again in fairness, rifle mags restricted to 10 rounds for CF rifles, where does that restrict us for pursuing our sport?

However I do know of individuals who compete internationally and they need higher capacity rifle magazines, if there was a lobby with the reasoning behind it to make appropriate representations then legislation can be changed. Then again, limiting higher capacity mags does not need to be permanent, so for these folks travelling to international competitions they can have their mags of any capacity but restricted to ten prior to departure and prior to arrival back, 2 minute job to remove restrictors.

With respect to a PCC, not many of them around yet so little issue, but no issue getting 10 shot mags for them, as usual there can be unintended consequences of legislation and this would be one of those anomalies that would need to be sorted perhaps by an SI, but you would need a significant lobby to achieve that. Generally as I understand it PCC uses Glock mags, so you would need to have a PCC and a Glock, can't see many having that combination really.

I noted earlier in the thread the question of restricting magazines to ten shots that are in excess of that capacity, I spoke to reps of the SC and they confirmed that communications with DOJ confirmed that it is permissible to restrict higher capacity rifle magazines to 10 shots and conform with the legislative requirements.

Please don’t ask me for this in writing, it was not a written communication, my understanding is that it was a discussion point at a meeting with DOJ.
Precedent is set in that it is necessary to restrict 10 shot .22 pistol mags to 5 shot so it is the same in principal.

otmmyboy2 · 12-04-2021 10:55am

smmember20 wrote: »

Then again in fairness, rifle mags restricted to 10 rounds for CF rifles, where does that restrict us for pursuing our sport?

Exact same as restricting them to 5, 3, 2 or 1.
All those numbers are arbitrary and have zero effect on firearms used in crime, so why are the restrictions there at all?

Reasons for 10+ capacity rifle mags(off the top of my head):
Less time reloading mags,
Lesser cost of mags(if I have 3 standard capacity 30 rounders to make up that capacity I would have to have a bag of 9 10 rounders, which are obviously going to cost more than 3 30 rounders),
For any competitions unless they restrict mag capacity then more capacity is better,
Makes shooting more accessible to disabled folks if they don't have to be reloading every 10 rounds as opposed to more(same logic as SA vs manual action),
Collectors of such things not having to give up their collection of now prohibited firearms(so ridiculous),
A lot of historical firearm magazines are over 10 rounds and this SI's implementation effectively makes them uncollectable.

With respect to a PCC, not many of them around yet so little issue, but no issue getting 10 shot mags for them, as usual there can be unintended consequences of legislation and this would be one of those anomalies that would need to be sorted perhaps by an SI, but you would need a significant lobby to achieve that. Generally as I understand it PCC uses Glock mags, so you would need to have a PCC and a Glock, can't see many having that combination really.

Not yet, but I could see that changing if some more active competitions (steel challenge?) were put on here. NASRPC including PCCs in Gallery is a big step towards mainstreaming them.

Also PCC is just a pistol caliber carbine, there are hundreds of models and use mags as diverse as Mauser C96 mags to Glock, to S&W, to Uzi, and everything in between.
You'd be hard pressed to find a pistol mag that a PCC hasn't been made around, or at least a conversion kit exists for.

A PCC AR in 9mm can take the following, from a very cursory google:
Glock,
Colt,
Uzi,
S&W M&P,
5.56 PMAGs(converted to 9mm),
Beretta 92 & 96.

Then again, limiting higher capacity mags does not need to be permanent, so for these folks travelling to international competitions they can have their mags of any capacity but restricted to ten prior to departure and prior to arrival back, 2 minute job to remove restrictors.

...

I noted earlier in the thread the question of restricting magazines to ten shots that are in excess of that capacity, I spoke to reps of the SC and they confirmed that communications with DOJ confirmed that it is permissible to restrict higher capacity rifle magazines to 10 shots and conform with the legislative requirements.

Please don’t ask me for this in writing, it was not a written communication, my understanding is that it was a discussion point at a meeting with DOJ.
Precedent is set in that it is necessary to restrict 10 shot .22 pistol mags to 5 shot so it is the same in principal.

Wanted to take this as a single chunk, since there are a few points.
On the restrictors front there are no gunshops I've located in the EU which will restrict mags before shipping them out, they will ship out a restrictor and a mag in the same package, but if they are not restricted by the time they arrive here then you are screwed by the possession clause in SI 420.

Of the mags that would be legally shippable here they are incapable of being modified to hold more than 10, because that is the new EU requirement and most countries interpret that as permanent, not temporary restriction.

With that in mind removing restrictors overseas is only doable for those already in possession of standard capacity mags before the ban happened, so useless to any newcomers.

I think that it would be utterly stupid to not allow people to restrict their existing mags and that be legally allowable under the SI, but as you mention it not being a written communication from the DOJ complicates matters a bit.

Either way unless you want to a country with a free-er set of magazine laws, bought and restricted the mags and then sent/brought them home I cannot see a way around having mags without permanent restrictors in them unless you owned them and restricted them here prior to the ending of the exemption period of the SI.

Unless I'm missing something here.

But hey if you are talking to your org in future ask them about possibilities of defining in concrete terms "dynamic/practical shooting", ie moving with a loaded firearm, etc.

That is something that if it was defined as such would allow a much larger breadth of competitions to take place which would certainly reinvigorate the .22 pistol, mini rifle & PCC categories of shooters.

I think anyway

tonysopprano · 12-04-2021 12:37pm

[QUOTE=smmember20;116864047
Please don’t ask me for this in writing, it was not a written communication, my understanding is that it was a discussion point at a meeting with DOJ.
Precedent is set in that it is necessary to restrict 10 shot .22 pistol mags to 5 shot so it is the same in principal.[/QUOTE]

2D. (1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4), a person who acquires or possesses a firearm or ammunition classified in Category A of the Directive shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable -

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both.

Good luck to anyone arguing that in court, and have a bag packed for your stay in the big hotel for up to 7 years

Grizzly 45 · 12-04-2021 1:41pm

smmember20 wrote: »

I

nterestingly Germany and many other countries did not adopt the Sports Shooter derogation, quite honestly I never saw it coming otherwise I would have alerted my shooting association for representations to be been made, (it is clear also that no one else saw it coming and made any representation to their shooting associations) i

Every German shooting organisation saw this coming,and thiose concerned
spent months lobbying in the Bundestag and Brussels,and it is a complete and utter cluster fk over there now.With three types of mag classifications and 3 different security storage levels. I dunno do you follow boards much,but there was a continious thread here for over 3 years worth of reporting by FUNI on this and the consequences and effects of this on Irish gunowners...BTW its not ya members job to be alerting their organisations. Organisations,if they take membership are duty bound to keep THEIR members informed of events that might affect them. But if they don't concern themselves as this is somthing happening far away in Brussels....

n fairness DOJ are not intimately aware of our sporting needs as they are not experts in that field they are legislators and the easiest way forward it to enact the EU regulations as they are.

In fairness, the DOJ made ZERO representations or queries to those affected by this, and the "recognised" orgs in Ireland got little to no warning about this either. It just appeared mid Summer 2018 and that was that. Nor would we expect the NARGC to comment on stuff affecting the majority of their members,as much as they would expect target shooters to comment on pheasant rearing in an official capacity.

Then again in fairness, rifle mags restricted to 10 rounds for CF rifles, where does that restrict us for pursuing our sport

?

Since the default issued mags for any such rifle is recognised as 20? and that this is simply "feel good, something must be done"legislation that does nothing to prevent future mass shootings and is based on erroneous and flawed legislation ideals from the US crime control bill

However I do know of individuals who com[pete internationally and they need higher capacity rifle magazines, if there was a lobby with the reasoning behind it to make appropriate representations then legislation can be changed

.

THAT ship is looong sailed !!!. It is now an EU directive and national law. They are not going to change that. And yes there is a lobby that has been making representations and is a registered lobby group in Brussels and worked non stop on this Europe wide.Its called Firearms United Network. If you want to make representations in Brussels this legislation is up for review next year I think.

Then again, limiting higher capacity mags does not need to be permanent, so for these folks travelling to international competitions, they can have their mags of any capacity but restricted to ten prior to departure and prior to arrival back, 2-minute job to remove restrictors.

Actually, they are breaking EU LAW doing such! This is another unforeseen consequence of this legislation. Any pistol mag over 20 or rifle mag over 10 CANNOT be imported or exported thru another EU country. IRRESPECTIVE if being blocked or not, or converted to full capacity in a tolerant EU country.As the insertion of said full capacity mag into the gun in ANY EU country turns it into a CAT A prohibited firearm under the directive and national law in mst EU countries! So because the 10/20 rounders are now CAT A prohibited items.you cant get as a civilian a permit to possess or transport or move such legally within the Union.
The mags must be PHYSICALLY incapable of holding more than 10 rounds.IOW modifying such would require you physically cut them in half as well as the spring and reform the mag base lips for this to be legal both here or in the EU. IOW if your friends run into a clued cop or customs officer in Germany or anywhere else...They can say auf Wiedersehen to their gun, mags and possible freedom for possession of a CAT A firearm. Simply put, you want to travel in the EU,get a bunch of 10/20 rounders and some duct tape and practise a speed reload alot

With respect to a PCC, not many of them around yet so little issue

,
True, since there are not going to be many new registered Glock pistols here,so having a PCC with a 10 rounder is no problem.

but no issue getting 10 shot mags for them, as usual, there can be unintended consequences of legislation and this would be one of those anomalies that would need to be sorted perhaps by an SI, but you would need a significant lobby to achieve that.

Did you read my previous post about this in discussion in the DOJ?

They could NOT get their head around this concept of the PCC and a handgun having the same compatible mags and were baffled as to how this would be sorted legally either. In fairness to them, the rest of the police and law smiths are as baffled in the EU, who rushed this thru.

Melted their brains too, when I mentioned certain calibres NEED a 20 round mag to be compatible with 10 shots due to their physical size of the rounds.IE an AR platform shooting a 450 Thumper round or a .450 SOCOM.

Or how some duct tape of 2 10 rounds end to end is just as quick as 20 rounds coming out of the same box? THIS is what happens when the unknowing in a technical field draft legislation.

[Generally as I understand it PCC uses Glock mags, so you would need to have a PCC and a Glock, can't see many having that combination really

.

[I Some of us might fancy one!]You can have that combo no problem, just you cannot have the higher capacity mags of the pistol with the carbine IN THE SAME PLACE. So simply put you would have to leave your 20 round pistol mags up in the club armoury and keep the 10 rounders at home with both the pistol and carbine if they were compatible,and check in the 20 rounders when you are using the carbine. Or buy an overstock conversion kit for your pistol, which is an accessory here,and legally use the 20 rounders then here in IRL.
[/I]

I noted earlier in the thread the question of restricting magazines to ten shots that are in excess of that capacity, I spoke to reps of the SC and they confirmed that communications with DOJ confirmed that it is permissible to restrict higher capacity rifle magazines to 10 shots and conform with the legislative requirements.

They dont know what they are talking about there in the SC!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
FUNI spoke to the DOJ in person in Dec2nd 2018 in the dept building, and that was the first time this was ever mooted or mentioned. The DOJ reps including the person who drafted this legislation was present, and they were unsure themselves of such a proposition or opt-out could be done!. They agreed,verbally to forward such to AGS in an inclusion as an add in to the Garda guidelines on this matter when they are reviewed at a later stage.

Now, unless they have changed this and are now quasi accepting the fact that contray to their own SI on high cap mags,that those that are out there are grandfatherd and those who own such will not be prosecuted for possesing such under the EU directive and national law...I'd get that off the SC in WRITING such advice and also confirmation from the DOJ C4 section that such is the case!

Please don’t ask me for this in writing, it was not a written communication, my understanding is that it was a discussion point at a meeting with DOJ.

OBVIOUSLY and now confirmed,and the fact that SC is stealing others work,and passing it out as THEIR achivement.Without konwing what was said or done at the meeting...So THEY can carry the can for when it blows up in their face:D

Grizzly 45 · 12-04-2021 2:16pm

Collectors of such things not having to give up their collection of now prohibited firearms(so ridiculous),
A lot of historical firearm magazines are over 10 rounds and this SI's implementation effectively makes them uncollectable.

They dont, they still are and moot for Ireland.
You can still keep your gun as it is a modern sporting rifle, not a converted former assault rifle,and so long as you do not possess a high cap mag that is compatible with the gun.IE M16 mags and you have an Ar15 platform

You can collect mags aplenty in Europe as it is easier for some to do rather than the firearms,but seeing as mags are classified as a firearm component part itself here, it's a rather tricky hobby. in Ireland, hence moot

Not yet, but I could see that changing if some more active competitions (steel challenge?) were put on here. NASRPC including PCCs in Gallery is a big step towards mainstreaming them.

Also PCC is just a pistol calibre carbine, there are hundreds of models and use mags as diverse as Mauser C96 mags to Glock, to S&W, to Uzi, and everything in between.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a pistol mag that a PCC hasn't been made around, or at least a conversion kit exists for.

And all fine so long as they are 10 round mags, and you don't have any pistol compatible 20 round mags in your possession with the carbine.

Wanted to take this as a single chunk, since there are a few points.
On the restrictors front, there are no gunshops I've located in the EU which will restrict mags before shipping them out, they will ship out a restrictor and a mag in the same package, but if they are not restricted by the time they arrive here then you are screwed by the possession clause in SI 420.

If they are .22 mags, any gunshop I've ever asked will gladly notch and block the mag to 5shots for you.They do it all the time for the Olympic pistol crowd. Maybe if you are buying off the big crowds like Frankonia or the like?But they sure as Hell won't do anything for the CF mags.

Of the mags that would be legally shippable here they are incapable of being modified to hold more than 10, because that is the new EU requirement and most countries interpret that as permanent, not temporary restriction.

FACT! They are now made only physically capable of holding 10 rounds

With that in mind removing restrictors overseas is only doable for those already in possession of standard capacity mags before the ban happened, so useless to any newcomers.

And illegal anyway, with or without restrictors, as they are now CAT A prohibited items. You cant get a permit to move them as a civvie within the Union countries.

I think that it would be utterly stupid to not allow people to restrict their existing mags and that be legally allowable under the SI, but as you mention it not being a written communication from the DOJ complicates matters a bit.

They cant, and it is incorrect advice being handed out now by SCOVI because they stole someone else's work and don't know the full story of what went on,and handing it out as a workaround and acceptable practice.

Either way unless you want to a country with a free-er set of magazine laws, bought and restricted the mags and then sent/brought them home I cannot see a way around having mags without permanent restrictors in them unless you owned them and restricted them here prior to the ending of the exemption period of the SI.

Moot anyway now,as there is an accepted definition of the fact that any new mags must be physically incapable of holding more than the 10/20 round limit.

But hey if you are talking to your org in future ask them about possibilities of defining in concrete terms "dynamic/practical shooting", ie moving with a loaded firearm, etc.

Or better still, to lobby to get the dept to accept "German ISPC" rules on "dynamic shooting" IE no "tactical scenarios" or off ground shooting on unstable platforms, loading on station, etc. And to work with the orgs and DOJ/AGS as to what would be acceptable to them. Germany has had a ban on tactical training and combat shooting since 1945 but has the largest growing IPSC contingent in the EU....How's that?

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Handgun Magazines

Comments