AFAIK if the magazine is rimfire any capacity and centrefire rifle under 10 and centrefire pistol under 20 then they are not classed as component parts and should be legal.

List of essential components can be found here:
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/eu_individuals_importing
"Essential components are defined as the barrel; the frame; the receiver (including both upper and lower receiver); the slide; the cylinder; and the bolt or breech block."

Over that centrefire capacity and they are classed as prohibited firearms and thus without a prohibited licence would be illegal in the same class as if you had an illegal machine gun.

Under Section 1(f) & (g)(iii) of the firearms act it is classed as a firearm and requires the necessary license. Once you have the license, as Battlecorp said, you can have as many as you like in terms of parts (for that firearm), but with no license you're in breach of the firearms act.

Different issue.

The items he imported were not seized because he didn't have a gun license it was because Customs (not PTB) declared them component parts and seized them saying he did not apply for an import license which you must for component parts.

Iow the issue of that case was importing item, when you hold a firearms licenses, and what is deemed essential component or not. The OP of that thread had a gun license and the court ruled that customs were wrong to seize them as the OP had a license.

The OP of this thread is asking to have such items WITHOUT a firearms license. Different kettle of fish altogether.

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

I understand the differences in the two scenarios, but my thinking was if the precedent set by that case results in the items, including magazines, being declared to be accessories and thus not component parts, then owning firearm accessories(slings, scopes, etc) would be fine sans licence(which as you say allows you to possess firearm components)?

The precedence set by that case means anyone with a firearms license can import "accessories" and non component parts without an import license. Not that you don't need a gun license to do it.

As in if they were firearms components which required a licence to possess then they would require an import permit to import them.

Not the point of that case. It was that the importer had a license and did NOT need an import license for them.

Thus if they were deemed to be accessories and not components then they would not need an import permit, and thus nor would the possessor have to have a gun licence.

The case did not cover the gun license aspect in so far as the importer HAD a gun license so the point is/was moot.

The only issue here being are mags classed as essential firearm components or not

The firearms act deems them to be firearms, not essential components, according the above linked sections.

(which I think the case result above states they are not, or they would need an import permit, which can only be obtained with a firearms licence).

We're circling back to discussing the court case and moving away from the topic. The OP, of this thread, made no mention of importing merely /buying/owing/possessing. Under Irish law they are firearms and all firearms require a license. The issue of importing components, be they essential or not, was addressed by the court case and is somewhat unimportant to this topic.

We add little bits of our own when discussing such matters. The OP called them "registered parts" when the law makes so such reference. We're discussing essential component parts when the law doesn't mention essential.

Section (f)

any article which would be a firearm under any of the foregoing paragraphs F3 but for the fact that, owing to the lack of a necessary component part or parts, or to any other defect or condition, it is incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile or projectile or of causing a shock or other disablement, as the case may be,

Section ( g )

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

(iii) any object —

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

Had the OP in the court case thread NOT had a gun license i could have imagined that case going somewhat differently for him.

There was a case some years back, and we've discussed this before, where a chap was brought before the court for possessing a bullet clock. A clock with ammo as the hours markers. The Judge dismissed the case even though under the firearms act any component part of a bullet, as well as the whole article, is classed as ammunition and hence requires a license. IOW that guy should have had a license for each caliber on the clock.

The Judge remarked that while the law states a license must he had for each round, it must also take into account the common sense approach of realising that such articles could not and were never intended for use as ammunition, merely as decorative (i'm paraphrasing here).

My point with the above is that while the law states, very clearly in this case, that it requires a license for any article that is deemed a firearm the real world consequences of possessing such without a firearms license may not be what is laid out in legislation. Of course that would have to be tempered with intent.

If you were caught with one magazine, and no firearms license, you bought or found and claimed it was a once off with no further mags were found on your person or home then its possible you'd get a warning to be more careful.

If you were caught with crates of mags then any attempt to pass this off as a harmless hobby, especially when not in possession of a firearms, license would soon die a death.

I'm not actually arguing whether the OP can or cannot possess one. I'm stating what the law says and it says such parts are firearms and as the law says all firearms must be licensed, the logical "leap" is they require a license.

Look at NV scopes. Not attachments, but the actual scopes. Whether you own a gun or not to possess such a scope requires a gun license because its deemed a firearm in its' own right.

Just my take too so like you said its not legal advice, but my opinion is, yes you need a license to own/possess one.

Understood.

My read of that result is that if it is not a component part then it doesn't require a licence but I get your point Cass.

OP if you want a definitive answer I'd suggest emailing the DoJ or the AGS Firearms Policy Unit and ask can an unlicenced person possess firearms magazines.
Reference the case above if you wish as they may not be aware of it and the precedent it set, whether that precedent be relevant to your scenario or not.

And if you do so and get a reply please let us know, I'm quite curious.

Sham20 wrote: »

So it's basically a grey zone to either own and buy mags and occasional parts. It's weird even on ebay you can't buy everything besides the bolt and receiver of a lee enfield no3 mk1. People are selling tank shells and random tank/gun parts bullets and whatnot. By law most would be deemed illegal? But its left as a grey zone for the court to bite some person who thought they were in the clear more less picking and choosing when to do anything with no clear innocent or guilty verdict until the very end.

Unfortunately the law doesn't have to always make logical sense, and firearms law in particular does not in a lot of areas.

And then there is a lot which is just turned a blind eye to.

As an example knife laws here prohibit purchasing machetes, but they are relatively easily sourced in many hardwares country wide.

Law as written and practical implementation of the same are sometimes drastically differing sides

Vegeta wrote: »

Is this not a critical part of the legislation?

It is indeed, but like the rest only one part.

A barrel, action and trigger will still function as a firearm i.e. cock and fire. It could be argued that action screws are not necessary for a firearm to function.

Correct, but part (f) makes, if i'm reading it right, no such allowances. In essence saying any article, whether it works or not or is capable of discharging a shot or not is a firearm.

The originally designed bit does throw a curve ball in there though.

It surely does, but again taking the whole section, then including things like the 1990 offensive weapons act, and subsequent SIs including the 2019 EU one they seem to have most bases covered.

I still believe all this is clearly stated, if the person has a firearms license, and the only grey area comes from whether you need to be licensed at all to have possession of certain parts as with the OP.