Rows Grower wrote: »

Incorrect, a NV scope needs a Supers authorisation not a separate license.

Wrong again.

Section 4(g)(i) of the 1990 offensive weapons act:

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e), and

Any light emitting, including NV, scope is classed as a firearm and requires a license. Any NV add-on, which can be mounted to a firearm, needs authorisation. If its never mounted to a firearm and is only handheld it requires no authorisation.

The legislation again, in case it was missed above this time with a link to the 1990 act.

Section 4(g)(i) of the 1990 offensive weapons act

Cass wrote: »

4.—(1) In the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, “firearm” means—

(g)(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e), and

Rows Grower wrote: »

You've been trying to convince people they need a separate licence for a NV scope

I'm telling people the law.

and now you are actually disagreeing with yourself now in this post.

Nope. You're not understanding what is being said.

Richard308 wrote: »

Just for the craic im going to apply on an fca1 for a pard or Yukon. No rifle attached. I’ll let you know what they say. I’ll tell them cass assured me I had to have it.

Even better tell them the Commissioner said so too:

Page 41 of the Commissioner's Guidelines updated as of Sept. 2018:

TELESCOPIC SIGHTS
In the Firearms Act 1925 to 2009, the definition of a firearm additionally includes: 'telescopic sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to befitted to afirearm .... ' Such devices would fall into three broad categories as follows and again an applicant must satisfy the issuing person that he/she has demonstrated 'good reason' to acquire the sight:

• (i) An Active Night Sight - this device emits an invisible light beam which illuminates objects and would assist with identification of objects.
• (ii) A Passive Night Sight - this device does not emit any beam but amplifies any ambient light (from stars or moon) which enables objects to be distinguished and identified.
• (iii) Thermal Image Sight - this device resolves the heat signature given offby warm objects and enables identification of objects.

When an applicant is applying for a firearm certificate or its renewal, the application should include whether or not a silencer or telescopic sights are sought for that particular firearm. A subsequent application for a silencer or telescopic sight will require the applicant to re-apply on a new application form FCA 1 and will require the full €80 fee if the application is successful. So it is vitally important, that where applicable, new applicants or applicants applying to renew their firearm certificates ensure that their application/renewal form includes reference to a silencer/telescopic sight. All firearm certificates which include authorisation to hold a silencer, must include details of the authorisation for the silencer in respect of the firearm by inclusion of the letter'S' on the firearms card.

Look forward to finding out how you get on with your application.

Richard308 wrote: »

I’d say they get they’re info from more reliable sources than you

I'm not the source, the legislation is. Or the Commissioner if they need more than that.

, taking parts of an act out of context.

You think the legislation and Commissioner are wrong? Fair enough.

gearoidol wrote: »

A lot of firearms licencing in ROI is down to interpretation by the local station and one SI view compared to that of his/her neighbour.

Very true.

It shouldn't be up to joe public to try and interpret what was meant by particular phraseology in a law......................The fact that both of you believe you are correct demonstrates there is ambiguity there and the correct meaning is not universally understood.

Thing is on this particular issue its not my interpretation, its what it written both in legislation and the Commissioner's guidelines. I'm not interpreting it merely laying out the exact wording of both the legislation and Commissioner's Guidelines and both are, for once, very clear on the matter even addressing the issue of a second €80 fee if its not applied for when applying for the firearm.

Its actually rare enough to get it so clear and straight forward.

I stand to be corrected but i doubt a rfd goes through the same import procedure for a nv scope as they would for a rifle.

Honestly have on idea of the processes for importing them but as Richard308 showed above camera shops are bringing them in and stocking them so the answer would seem to be no. Of course it could be another case of the absurdity of the law. You touched on it, how an RFD can import some things without the same requirements as for "real" firearms.

I mentioned it, briefly, above. Deer callers. RFDs can bring them in, sell them, and all is good. However the moment someone uses one they're breaking the law Section 35 of the 1976 Wildlife Act.

(d) a person shall not use an electrical or other instrument or appliance (including recording apparatus) emitting or imitating birdcalls or the calls of wild mammals for the purpose of hunting a protected wild bird or a protected wild animal which is a mammal.

Which they should if it is regarded as a firearm. Because the rfd does not then treat it as a firearm this passes on the perception (rightly or wrongly ) to the customer that it is no big deal owning them without the appropriate paperwork.

Correct on that. The other issue being do the AGS know about it? Are they as in the dark when it comes to certain matters on firearms, licensing, etc.?

Ive been reading this forum with 15 or 20 years ,its always been the same.

Some lads get silencers no bother ,some cant get them at all
Some lads get 243 for foxing only some lads dont.
Some lads are asked to release guns before they are allowed get another one ,more lads have 10.
some lads cant have guns of similar calibres ,some lads have 2 or more guns of the same calibre.

The postcode lottery.

Lads getting subs from a 22lr to a 308 but another cannot change from one 12g shotgun to another 12g shotgun. I've also seen my fair share of stupid things too such as lads with restricted firearms on unrestricted licenses and the RFDs handing them out without blinking an eyelid. This means the guy applying didn't know what license he needed, the RFD didn't know or tell them or check the license, and the Super issued a license they cannot issue.

Its not so much whats in the statute books its what you can get over the counter from the rfd dictates what your gun cabinet looks like whether you are meant to have them or not.

True.

Richard308 wrote: »

I can’t be clearer people use them for all sorts of things, lifestock, ber ratings, fire service, search and rescue. It is not an issue until they are mounted on a rifle without the required paperwork from the superintendent.

Here is one for you.

I'm looking at the one you linked to just above this post and the ones in the link a few posts up. One thing they have in common, they are designed for handheld use or to be mounted to a firearm (says so in their description). However they are not scopes. I know the ones you linked to in post #15 call them scopes, but actually only one calls itself that, the Yukon and Bushnell call them a Monocular which is actually more apt. The SiOynx ones are the only ones that claim to be firearm mountable, but even if you used duct tape on the others and stuck them to your gun they are still not a scope, just a light amplification device with no means to aim or adjust like a scope.

Now the law, Commissioner's guidelines, etc. make no mention of crosshairs, but for the purpose of this point i'll use it. Those units would not be a scope because they have no way to be used as an aiming device like a scope.

The law, as i've said throughout this thread and the years on similar threads, says only scopes (telescopic sight is the actual term) are classed as firearms in themselves.

The one you linked to above, the Pard, is marked as binoculars. So its designed as a hand held unit but has the option of being firearm mounted. This means that as a handheld unit it requires no authorisation and when its mounted to a firearm only then does it require the authorisation, but neither are scopes which means the point I initially made about scopes (and only scopes) being firearms and hence requiring a license does not apply.

To summarize there are three categories:

1. Hand held, not mounted to firearm - No license, no authorisation needed.
2. Hand held, mounted - Authorisation required
3. Dedicated scope - Requires license regardless of whether its mounted to a firearm or not as the legislation says its a firearm subject to the same application process and fee as a firearm.

You seem to be arguing that those in cateogories 1 and 2 above require either no authorisation or just authorisation and i'm not disagreeing with you on that, and haven't since the thread started.

The ones in category 3 are the ones you're getting tripped up on. These are licensable and require a license regardless of their use (hand held/firearm mounted). That is the one I have only ever referred to as per my post #7.

Foot mounted, waist mounted, rearview, stick, etc. Once its not mounted to a gun the list is, possibly, endless. Think i'll stick to handheld as a generic term for all those.

Richard308 wrote: »

I thought you said they all need a license.

Not once, hence why i said read what i'm writing carefully. You're not paying attention to what is being written, or not understanding it, but in either case its leading you the wrong conclusion and make statements like the above one. I've never, not once, said all of them need licenses.

That pard is a scope. It has a crosshair and illuminated reticle.

Ah, thought it was only handheld. In that case its a dedicated scope and requires a license.

Do I see a bit of back peddling

No.

Getting the fca1 here. Could you help ? Type of firearm? Calibre? Action type

Never done one, but i'll try.

Fill in:

• Section 1 - All parts, ticking "firearm".
• Section 2 - All parts except perhaps section 2.5
• Section 3 - Section 3.1 fill in make, model, serial number only.
  • Section 3.2 - Ticks sights
  • Section 3.3 - Where you bought it
  • Section 3.4 - leave blank
  • Section 3.5 - Fill it in
• Section 4 - Fill in all relevant sections
• Section 5 - Tick appropriate box in 5.1 and fill in details of land on 5.2
• Sign & date it.

Separate piece of paper include the extra details for the relevant section including the description of the item as a dedicated nightvision scope that under Section 4(g)(i) of the 1990 offensive weapons act requires licensing due to its status as a firearm.

Send it off and wait.

Richard308 wrote: »

Getting the fca1 here.

Out of curiosity, have you already got one [NV scope], or are you buying for one for this exercise?