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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Revoking of SACF rifles & New Legislation (thread banned users in first post)

  • 17-09-2021 11:57am
    #1
    System
    Administrators Posts: 392 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭


    This discussion was created from comments split from: Semi Auto Rifles contd.

    Thread banned users:

    jb88
    Post edited by Cass on


«134567

Comments

  • #2
    mud dog
    Registered Users Posts: 12 ✭mud dog


    Has anyone heard of the plan to revoking of any semi auto rifle issue after 15th September 2015 ?? And a temporary cap on issuing new licences? And if true how could this be fought??
    MOD NOTE
    Thread moved out of Target Shooting Forum
    Forum Charter
    Absolutely no politics. All discussion relating to legislation, associations, infighting, reform, etc, etc, belongs in the main Shooting forum and will be moved there without warning or appeal if it shows up in here and an infraction will be marked against the relevant users.


  • #3
    Tiercel Dave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 797 ✭✭✭Tiercel Dave


    2015?.....


  • #4
    mud dog
    Registered Users Posts: 12 ✭mud dog


    Tiercel Dave wrote: »
    2015?.....


    The Minister intends to legislate to introduce restrictions on
    the licensing of centre-fire semi-automatic rifles, which will
    include the revocatiOQ of any licenses i sued
    September 2015.
    This legislation is currently being drafted by the Department
    of Justice. While it is currently legal for these weapons to be
    imported and licensed in the State, any weapons brought
    into the State that do not have a firearms license associated
    with them dated prior to 18th September 2015, will be un-
    licensable.


  • #5
    Uinseann_16
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Uinseann_16


    Has something new happened? Because this is old news
    Because it was 2017 and it was only talked about no actual legislation backing it afaik but it'll be a 2008 style ban again if it happens


  • #6
    tudderone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭tudderone


    It was intended to stop a free for all like what happened with the cf pistols, and was left like that, hanging like the sword of Damocles over shooters heads.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Munsterlad102
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing stopping them from banning CF SA outright and revoking all the licenses issued to date, the 15th of September date is just arbitrary.


  • #8
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Munsterlad102 wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing stopping them from banning CF SA outright
    Nothing, but to ban the firearm/type would require compensation to those that own one. Ban the licensing of them and you owe nothing. Same as what happened with the pistol.
    and revoking all the licenses issued to date, the 15th of September date is just arbitrary.
    The 15th September is not arbitrary. It was the date the Minister made her statement back in 2015, and like with the pistol ban and the then Minister's statement on November 18th 2008, any license after that date and NOT the inaction of the legislation stand revoked.

    So its actually an important date and given the time this "ghost ban" has been going on very important because almost 6 years have passed to date so if something were done about it now it would mean anyone over the last 6 years may lose their firearm.
    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



  • #9
    Munsterlad102
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    Cass wrote: »
    Nothing, but to ban the firearm/type would require compensation to those that own one. Ban the licensing of them and you owe nothing. Same as what happened with the pistol.

    I should have said ban the licenses outright, but why is it that they would have had to pay compensation? Are there any rulings on ownership vs possession?
    The 15th September is not arbitrary. It was the date the Minister made her statement back in 2015, and like with the pistol ban and the then Minister's statement on November 18th 2008, any license after that date and NOT the inaction of the legislation stand revoked.

    So its actually an important date and given the time this "ghost ban" has been going on very important because almost 6 years have passed to date so if something were done about it now it would mean anyone over the last 6 years may lose their firearm.

    Is that in any legislation? If not, then there isn't anything to stop the minister for making CF SA licenses issued after any day void.


  • #10
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Munsterlad102 wrote: »
    I should have said ban the licenses outright, but why is it that they would have had to pay compensation? Are there any rulings on ownership vs possession?

    Is that in any legislation? If not, then there isn't anything to stop the minister for making CF SA licenses issued after any day void

    EUCHR Article 17.1
    1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.


    ARTICLE 43 Irish constitution

    1 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

    2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

    2 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

    2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

    The former being the main reason it did not become a EU wide directive in 2018,and also why they have gone the grandfathering route.

    "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 "



  • #11
    mud dog
    Registered Users Posts: 12 ✭mud dog


    Son can they revoke license issued after 2015 ??? QUOTE=Grizzly 45;117404733]

    EUCHR Article 17.1
    1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.


    ARTICLE 43 Irish constitution

    1 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

    2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

    2 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

    2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

    The former being the main reason it did not become a EU wide directive in 2018,and also why they have gone the grandfathering route.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Munsterlad102 wrote: »
    I should have said ban the licenses outright,
    Yeah I get you, but the answer is still nothing. There is nothing stopping them.
    but why is it that they would have had to pay compensation? Are there any rulings on ownership vs possession?
    Yes.

    There is a difference between licensing something to owning it (possession vs ownership). Its why back in 2015 she stopped dead after the statement because she said that she could just ban them, but after legal advice was told she would have to compensate anyone from whom she took their property off.

    A poor analogy is your car. Its your property, but you need a license to drive it. The Government can ban you from driving, but cannot take your car off you.

    The poor analogy comes from your car being your property and can sit in your driveway although you cannot drive/use it, whereas a firearm must be licensed simply to possess it. IOW you cannot keep it at home and simply not use it, but you can store it in an RFDs as its still your property.
    Is that in any legislation? .
    Is what in any legislation?

    The "ghost ban" I was referring to is this "limbo" people are left in since September 2015 where they run the risk of losing their license, hence the firearm, if they chose to license a firearm outlined in the Minister's statement AFTER that date.

    There is currently no legislation in place.
    If not, then there isn't anything to stop the minister for making CF SA licenses issued after any day void
    That is the exact intent of her statement.
    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



  • #13
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    mud dog wrote: »
    Son can they revoke license issued after 2015 ???
    Yes.

    Anyone before that date, if any legislation were to be enacted, would be Grandfathered as they're outside the purview of any proposed legislation. Anyone after that would not be as they were "warned" by means of the Minister's statement and the reminder in the updated Garda Commissioner's Guidelines of Sept 2018.

    If any such legislation were to come in I'd suspect, and its only guess work, that anyone with a license after 2015 would have a decent shot at keeping their firearm due to the severe length of time between the Dáil statement and the creation/enactment of any legislation. When this happened with pistols there was about 7 months between statement and legislation, but with these we're at year number 6 and counting.
    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



  • #14
    jb88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭jb88


    Panic averted time for some clarification. Was a bit worried for about 15 min

    Granfathering and all this other rubbish is just what it is. There are no plans before the Oireachtas to abolish Centrefire Semi Auto rifles. END OF

    Minister for Justice on Maternity leave and no plans after that with a coalition to find trouble where none yet exists.

    Despite what some new honcho into the new role who wants to know from RFD's where all the intra CF Semi auto guns not sold to private individuals but held with dealers around the country are. Best of luck with that if your reading this ;-)

    They dont have records of these and want them from RFD's to keep track of where everything else is, so they write a scary letter which is in fact bull**** and wont even need to get to court .

    Im not worried and ive half a dozen CF semi autos. SO NOR SHOULD YOU.

    Some RFDs have seen this before, its nothing but a rubbish scare tactic. All RFD's got it this time around to make sure that they can try and locate all the locations of various CF Restricted semi's and the lad who wrote this is two wet days in the job.

    Once again this came from the Gardai, and yes the Gardai dont make the rules, they just enforce them, all bei it firearms policy unit.

    No block, no restrictions, no grandfathering, you want a CF Semi auto rifle then apply like the rest of us...


  • #15
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Cass wrote: »
    Yes.

    Under what legislation would they ban them? And by that I mean what legislation gives them the power to go back 6 or 7 years and backdate legislation to make anything issued since September 15 unlicencable?
    Anyone before that date, if any legislation were to be enacted, would be Grandfathered as they're outside the purview of any proposed legislation. Anyone after that would not be as they were "warned" by means of the Minister's statement and the reminder in the updated Garda Commissioner's Guidelines of Sept 2018.

    Again, a warning means jack sh1t as it's legislation that counts, not warnings. I'm one of those semi-auto centrefire owners who got their gun after September 2015 so I've skin in the game here.
    If any such legislation were to come in I'd suspect, and its only guess work, that anyone with a license after 2015 would have a decent shot at keeping their firearm due to the severe length of time between the Dáil statement and the creation/enactment of any legislation. When this happened with pistols there was about 7 months between statement and legislation, but with these we're at year number 6 and counting.

    Hopefully that's the worst case scenario.


  • #16
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Under what legislation would they ban them?
    If new legislation were enacted with the purpose of banning/prohibiting the licensing of semi-auto centrefire rifles the legislation (the new one/act) could be backdated to the date of the statement of intent the Minister made. This is what happened with pistols (C/F). The statement was made on November 18th 2008 and the legislation signed in June 2009, but anyone with a new license between November 2008 and June 2009 lost theirs (or at least would if any were issued).
    And by that I mean what legislation gives them the power to go back 6 or 7 years and backdate legislation to make anything issued since September 15 unlicencable?
    I'll start by saying if you want a 100% correct legal response, I'm not your man. I'm not a legal scholar, expert or even that well up on such legal matters.

    Here is my take. There is nothing stopping the Government introducing retrospective legislation. The government cannot retrospectively create criminal offences but there is nothing wrong with retrospective legislation. It was done with the pistols, and it seems once a statement of intent is made/registered in the Dáil then any future legislation can retrospective apply to the date of the statement.

    If you're looking for a "here it is" that I can point to, then I don't have it, because afaik it doesn't exist. IOW there is no legislation for something that can be done.
    Again, a warning means jack sh1t as it's legislation that counts, not warnings.
    I used the term warning, no actual warning is given. The warning is my way of explaining the Minister's statement and Commissioner's guidline update. IOW its akin to them saying "we told you so". So in that sense its apt, but you're right in that a warning (if one were issued) wouldn't count for spit.

    However just to be clear:

    I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS A CURRENT BAN. THERE IS NO CURRENT LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE LICENSING OF THESE FIREARMS. (check my post history on the subject and you'll see I've said the same thing many times)

    All I have ever said is exactly what is written by the Minister and Garda Commissioner (and before anyone goes off on one about the Gardaí not legislating he doesn't try to, he parrots the Minister's statement). She announced on the 18th September 2015 her intent to introduce legislation to prohibit the licensing of these firearms, and that any firearm after this date would stand revoked. The Garda Commissioner, having only took the position a few weeks before, updated the Commissioner's guidelines and repeated this warning.
    I'm one of those semi-auto centrefire owners who got their gun after September 2015 so I've skin in the game here.
    I understand that, and I'll repeat my previous comments:
    • There is no ban
    • There is no cap on licensing
    • There is no legislation to support either of the above
    Hopefully that's the worst case scenario.
    I don't see how it could be otherwise.

    6 years and not a hint of actual legislation means it could run for at least another year (if they started working on it now) or even more, meaning they expected people to adhere to a non existent "ban" for over 7 years!

    That would be very hard case to argue for in court (on the Government's side/end). The Dáil statement would be trotted out but there must be some sort of time issue that could be argued for those who licensed one during that time period.

    While the onus is on the licensee to know the type of gun and license they require how are they expected to find an obscure, and very short, statement by the Minister from 6+ years ago (who is not even Minister now, nor part of the same Government).

    My thoughts on the situation are this:
    • Buy a C/F SA rifle if you want one.
    • If you have one after the 18th September 2015 just be aware of the "issue" surrounding them.
    • Work to make sure that before legislation is discussed or possibly introduced that any grandfathering is applied to all currently licensed people, and not just those from before the date.
    • Learn the lessons the pistol ban thought us.
    • Be proactive in defending your license and sport, don't wait to be invited (remember the RFD SI that came out of the blue?)
    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



  • #17
    meathstevie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    Given the success of the center fire pistol ban and the absolute non existence of gangsters with pistols since I think everything except catapults and spudguns should be banned.


  • #18
    tudderone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭tudderone


    jb88 wrote: »
    Panic averted time for some clarification. Was a bit worried for about 15 min

    Granfathering and all this other rubbish is just what it is. There are no plans before the Oireachtas to abolish Centrefire Semi Auto rifles. END OF

    Minister for Justice on Maternity leave and no plans after that with a coalition to find trouble where none yet exists.

    Despite what some new honcho into the new role who wants to know from RFD's where all the intra CF Semi auto guns not sold to private individuals but held with dealers around the country are. Best of luck with that if your reading this ;-)

    They dont have records of these and want them from RFD's to keep track of where everything else is, so they write a scary letter which is in fact bull**** and wont even need to get to court .

    Im not worried and ive half a dozen CF semi autos. SO NOR SHOULD YOU.

    Some RFDs have seen this before, its nothing but a rubbish scare tactic. All RFD's got it this time around to make sure that they can try and locate all the locations of various CF Restricted semi's and the lad who wrote this is two wet days in the job.

    Once again this came from the Gardai, and yes the Gardai dont make the rules, they just enforce them, all bei it firearms policy unit.

    No block, no restrictions, no grandfathering, you want a CF Semi auto rifle then apply like the rest of us...

    If its like the pistols the oireachtas doesn't have anything to do with it. The minister signs a S.I. and thats the cf semi's gone, and no one in the dail is going to be hopping mad over it, quite the reverse


  • #19
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    meathstevie wrote: »
    Given the success of the center fire pistol ban and the absolute non existence of gangsters with pistols since I think everything except catapults and spudguns should be banned.
    tenor.gif
    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



  • #20
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Except when they get a bill for this property they are confiscating. That's why they had to grandfather the CF pistols that were pre Nov 2008 licensed.
    I think they go this grandfathering route in cases like this, because if they pay compensation for these items,it might open a floodgate of other claims on different cases here in the ROI, and it becomes a precedent.:confused:

    Also,they might want to look at the MARS/lever release story in the UK... It was estimated at 100k tops in compensation.The bill is now over 1.5 million apparently... Just something to keep in mind here.

    "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 "



  • #21
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    meathstevie wrote: »
    Given the success of the center fire pistol ban and the absolute non existence of gangsters with pistols since I think everything except catapults and spudguns should be banned.

    ah now...Have you seen those deadly Chinese "assault catapults" easily obtained on WISH.com.Or we just ask Herr Georg Sprave of the Slingshot channel to construct something that goes around Irish catapult legislation. We can then show them its features..:D

    "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 "



  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Uinseann_16
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 773 ✭✭✭Uinseann_16


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    ah now...Have you seen those deadly Chinese "assault catapults" easily obtained on WISH.com.Or we just ask Herr Georg Sprave of the Slingshot channel to construct something that goes around Irish catapult legislation. We can then show them its features..:D

    I read that last line his his voice chuckle and all :D


  • #23
    jb88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭jb88


    Cass wrote: »
    If new legislation were enacted with the purpose of banning/prohibiting the licensing of semi-auto centrefire rifles the legislation (the new one/act) could be backdated to the date of the statement of intent the Minister made. This is what happened with pistols (C/F). The statement was made on November 18th 2008 and the legislation signed in June 2009, but anyone with a new license between November 2008 and June 2009 lost theirs (or at least would if any were issued).


    Comparing 7 months to almost 7 years? Come on now. ???

    Its not happening any time soon. If it was Id be living in every TD in the districts ear.?

    When there is a distinct lack of traceability outside of private ownership, its going to be even more difficult.

    Even the best RFDs are not amazing with records, thats part of the problem.
    Great for selling and you purchasing firearms and ammo and thats the only side we joe public see and care about really.


  • #24
    jb88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭jb88


    tudderone wrote: »
    If its like the pistols the oireachtas doesn't have anything to do with it. The minister signs a S.I. and thats the cf semi's gone, and no one in the dail is going to be hopping mad over it, quite the reverse

    Its like this, eithier they have traceability over the firearms like they do now or we have something like the pistols fiasco where so many were lost in fishing accidents it became a joke.

    If you were the Gardai which would you prefer, knowing where they are and who has them or that they were "lost". I think behind closed doors they learned from that.


  • #25
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    jb88 wrote: »
    Comparing 7 months to almost 7 years? Come on now. ???
    You haven't read my posts. My comparison was to highlight the difficulty, and to a degree the absurdity, of such a long delay between statement and enactment of any possible legislation. Key points I made in relation to the delay were:
    Cass wrote:
    6 years and not a hint of actual legislation means it could run for at least another year (if they started working on it now) or even more, meaning they expected people to adhere to a non existent "ban" for over 7 years!
    Cass wrote:
    That would be very hard case to argue for in court (on the Government's side/end).
    Cass wrote:
    While the onus is on the licensee to know the type of gun and license they require how are they expected to find an obscure, and very short, statement by the Minister from 6+ years ago (who is not even Minister now, nor part of the same Government).
    Cass wrote: »
    If any such legislation were to come in I'd suspect, and its only guess work, that anyone with a license after 2015 would have a decent shot at keeping their firearm due to the severe length of time between the Dáil statement and the creation/enactment of any legislation. When this happened with pistols there was about 7 months between statement and legislation, but with these we're at year number 6 and counting.
    jb88 wrote:
    Its not happening any time soon.
    Never said it was. Not once. Only discussing the possibilities or probabilities if it were to come in.
    jb88 wrote:
    When there is a distinct lack of traceability outside of private ownership, its going to be even more difficult.
    Not sure of your point here.

    Are you saying they won't know how many guns are in the country and who has them?
    jb88 wrote:
    Even the best RFDs are not amazing with records, thats part of the problem.
    What problem? RFD and their stock is only a small part of this, its these type of firearms being owned and license by people is what they intend to address.
    jb88 wrote:
    Great for selling and you purchasing firearms and ammo and thats the only side we joe public see and care about really.
    Record keeping is separate to the issue of these firearms being licensed, imo.
    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



  • #26
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    jb88 wrote: »
    Its like this, either they have traceability over the firearms like they do now or we have something like the pistols fiasco where so many were lost in fishing accidents it became a joke.

    If you were the Gardai which would you prefer, knowing where they are and who has them or that they were "lost". I think behind closed doors they learned from that.

    In your opinion JB, could this be a precursor to pending or drawing up legislation?
    Would make sense to know how much there is of anything before you try and legislate on it?

    "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 "



  • #27
    tudderone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭tudderone


    Cass wrote: »
    My comparison was to highlight the difficulty, and to a degree the absurdity, of such a long delay between statement and enactment of any possible legislation. Key points I made in relation to the delay were:


    This is the Irish political class, absurdity is not that absurd here, in fact its normality.


  • #28
    Munsterlad102
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    Cass wrote: »
    There is a difference between licensing something to owning it (possession vs ownership). Its why back in 2015 she stopped dead after the statement because she said that she could just ban them, but after legal advice was told she would have to compensate anyone from whom she took their property off.

    Just another thought, if the minister could have effectively banned CF SA by banning licenses and revoking all the ones issued, then why didn't she?


  • #29
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Munsterlad102 wrote: »
    ..... by banning licenses and revoking all the ones issued......
    Banning them and revoking them is the same thing, but i get your point.
    ....... then why didn't she?
    She would have to pay compensation to anyone before 2015. Its a small enough amount, at a rough guess about €400,000 (max), but to be seen to pay gun owners money would not go down well, or she just doesn't want to knowing it'll die by attrition like C/F pistols over time.

    Who knows?

    I mean why do this at all? Simple. The then Minister wanted the headlines for "taking guns off the streets" and this was in the same time as some high profile mass casualty events, so like the pistol ban they reacted for the virtue signaling effect. I mean not one mass shooting like those in America, Norway, New Zealand, etc. in the history of the state, and with about 200 firearm owners of these types of guns what exactly are they trying to prevent?
    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



  • #30
    Munsterlad102
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    Cass wrote: »
    Banning them and revoking them is the same thing, but i get your point.

    She would have to pay compensation to anyone before 2015. Its a small enough amount, at a rough guess about €400,000 (max), but to be seen to pay gun owners money would not go down well, or she just doesn't want to knowing it'll die by attrition like C/F pistols over time.

    Who knows?

    I mean why do this at all? Simple. The then Minister wanted the headlines for "taking guns off the streets" and this was in the same time as some high profile mass casualty events, so like the pistol ban they reacted for the virtue signaling effect. I mean not one mass shooting like those in America, Norway, New Zealand, etc. in the history of the state, and with about 200 firearm owners of these types of guns what exactly are they trying to prevent?

    I’m a little bit confused about that, you said that they wouldn’t have to pay compensation if they revoked CF SA issued after 15th September 2015 but she would if there was an outright ban on licenses (not possession as you said). Surely then if she revoked licenses issued after 2015 she would have to pay compensation?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Munsterlad102 wrote: »
    I’m a little bit confused about that, you said that they wouldn’t have to pay compensation if they revoked CF SA issued after 15th September 2015....
    Correct.
    ........ but she would if there was an outright ban on licenses (not possession as you said).
    Outright ban meaning all SA licenses, both pre and post 2015, but only compensate those pre 2015. Anyone after 2015, not so much (iow not at all).
    Surely then if she revoked licenses issued after 2015 she would have to pay compensation?
    Nope.

    The statement announced her intention to cap (illegal) and study the number of these firearms, but went on to say any person who licenses one of these guns after Sept 2015, that their license will stand revoked.

    This goes back to what I said above about a "warning" (my words, not her). The statement made clear that if/when legislation comes in any firearm (of the type mentioned) licensed after the date would automatically be revoked. So anyone that licensed one after that date "took the risk" that it wouldn't happen, that they might be able to keep it, or whichever way you wish to label it. IOW you were "warned" not to get one, you did because the law allows it and there is no ban, but now (pretend new legislation was introduced today) there is legislation and its retrospective to the date of the Dáil statement so the license stands revoked.

    It should be pointed out that the gun is still your property and while you won't be able to possess/use it you can store it to fight the matter in court or sell it on.

    The key point, exactly like with centrefire pistols, is the "cut off date". Anyone licensed after the date of the statement was given notice of the intent to revoke all such licenses so anyone that acquired one after the date "ignored" the notice and hence are not entitled to compensation.

    This will be, if it ever happens, the 2008/2009 pistol ban, version 2.0
    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



  • #32
    tonysopprano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 819 ✭✭✭tonysopprano


    Same as they tried in EU, but that failed so they went after magazines, and when that failed they went after lead ammo. Never ending battle (excuse the pun)

    If you can do the job, do it. If you can't do the job, just teach it. If you really suck at it, just become a union executive or politician.



  • #33
    yubabill
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭yubabill


    Cass wrote: »
    Banning them and revoking them is the same thing, but i get your point.

    She would have to pay compensation to anyone before 2015. Its a small enough amount, at a rough guess about €400,000 (max), but to be seen to pay gun owners money would not go down well, or she just doesn't want to knowing it'll die by attrition like C/F pistols over time.

    Who knows?

    I mean why do this at all? Simple. The then Minister wanted the headlines for "taking guns off the streets" and this was in the same time as some high profile mass casualty events, so like the pistol ban they reacted for the virtue signaling effect. I mean not one mass shooting like those in America, Norway, New Zealand, etc. in the history of the state, and with about 200 firearm owners of these types of guns what exactly are they trying to prevent?

    My impression at the time was that the Garda Commissioner made an argument around the possible future proliferation of CF SA rifles.

    It came out that there were 150 or 160 such rifles in the state and the Mnister had to do something to placate AGS while facing the arguments put forward by an unusually united shooting community.


  • #34
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Completely possible and believable. However they account for approx. 0.07% of the total firearm licensed so not even close to being near proliferation. It was simply a case of they were not wanted (SA/CF rifles) in the state, and having "got rid" of CF pistols this was they're next target.

    The last number I got was 167. That was a few years back so it may have grown, but at the time and if she really wanted to it would have cost the exchequer about €250,000 to compensate and ban all SA licensed and the matter would be moot now.
    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



  • #35
    tudderone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭tudderone


    yubabill wrote: »
    My impression at the time was that the Garda Commissioner made an argument around the possible future proliferation of CF SA rifles.

    It came out that there were 150 or 160 such rifles in the state and the Mnister had to do something to placate AGS while facing the arguments put forward by an unusually united shooting community.

    Sorry but why ? The AGS are public servants who follow the laws as drafted by the dail. They should stick to enforcing the laws of the land, not be making up laws and reg's they would like to enforce.

    As said before, the German firearms licencing system is the way to go. The police only do background checks, the rest of the application is done by a civilian office.


  • #36
    otmmyboy2
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    Out of curiosity, is there any precedent for this sort of "pre-prohibition" exempting the state from paying compensation for the property they are potentially revoking permission to use?

    Seems a tad shaky to me.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    tudderone wrote: »
    Sorry but why ? The AGS are public servants who follow the laws as drafted by the dail. They should stick to enforcing the laws of the land, not be making up laws and reg's they would like to enforce.
    AGS have to and should have input into laws. How many criminal justice acts, road traffic acts, etc. were drafted because AGS saw loopholes, problems with enforcement or simply non existent laws for acts that were, by every standard, *criminal?

    In this instance we don't like it, and rightly so, but we cannot argue they should have no input in one instance then complain when their hands are tied in another (non shooting/firearm) related issue.
    As said before, the German firearms licencing system is the way to go. The police only do background checks, the rest of the application is done by a civilian office.
    I have no idea about the German system, but that still seems like civilians do the admin, but require the police to do the actual legal stuff. Does anyone believe that the head of the German police (or various heads of the different States/counties) don't have input into what happens in their area?


    * I use the term criminal to cover all aspects of anti social, criminality, and other violations of common good.
    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



  • #38
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    otmmyboy2 wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, is there any precedent for this sort of "pre-prohibition" exempting the state from paying compensation for the property they are potentially revoking permission to use?.

    They done it, on a much shorter time frame/scale, with pistols. Anyone that licensed a CF pistol between November 2008 and June 2009 would have faced the same problem (license revoked).

    If you mean in other aspects of law (outside of firearms), I've no idea.
    Seems a tad shaky to me
    Shaky, not so much, but unfair, absolutely. Why have laws when you can ban something via non existent/ghost bans? The reason this will be much worse than the pistols is the time frame. 6years this September since the original statement and so much has changed since then.

    As I said above anyone with a license after the statement date, and assuming any actual legislation is drafted, will have a strong case for keeping their firearm regardless due to the unfair and possibly illegal length of time between the statement and legislation. IOW unlike the pistol ban this is a strong case for anyone wanting to go to court to fight it. I can perhaps see, if legislation is brought in, an exemption being made with a new date rather than the original one.
    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



  • #39
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Cass wrote: »
    I have no idea about the German system, but that still seems like civilians do the admin, but require the police to do the actual legal stuff. Does anyone believe that the head of the German police (or various heads of the different States/counties) don't have input into what happens in their area?

    They can point out possible problems[like maybe a rise in neo nazis or ANTIFA types acquiring possession to carry in public blank firing pistols]. But they certainly cannot do solo runs,or deciding for themselves what the law is on anything.Its up to the legislators to legislate on the info given, not for every Komisar to decide how he wants to interpret it.
    Their job is a background check for any criminality and to collate info with the German secret services to see if the applicant is a good citizen and not supporting subversive groups,or a "Reich burger" and that they have done the relevant tests and whatnot,and to issue export permits and do basically our DOJ C4 sections job on a regional level. Thats where the German police involvement ends with civilian firearms.

    "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 "



  • #40
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    yubabill wrote: »
    My impression at the time was that the Garda Commissioner made an argument around the possible future proliferation of CF SA rifles.

    It came out that there were 150 or 160 such rifles in the state and the Minister had to do something to placate AGS while facing the arguments put forward by an unusually united shooting community.

    While pulling the hot Garda chestnuts out of the fire of 1million faked drunk driver tests.,A dodgy chief and assistant chief commissioner being possibly on the take., Arresting a sitting TD on her way home from the Dail for possible DUI. The Templemore brotherhood closing ranks and going into OMERTA mode.
    The entire forces morale being in their boots. with the Garda Authority starting to sniff around as well.
    It going public from the High Court that Garda chief Supers had "retired" for mucking about with peoples firearms applications would have destroyed the public trust in the force completely.

    So this was along with the promise of the Firearms Arbitration Authority being set up a political noisemaker, that she knew she wouldn't have to deal with There was obviously a fear of a "surge" of applications for CFSA that so far hasn't emerged since this has been suggested, and quite frankly I can't see happening either,as they aren't everyone's cuppa tea.

    The telling information will be to see exactly how many new licenses for these types of rifles have been issued post 2015/17 until the present day. Which would give us a good idea of whether this is a problem or not, and to also point out that how are these a problem that needs dealing with as they are what....0.00000001% of licensed firearms in the ROI and have ASFIK been NEVER used in a crime here either?

    There is a lot of the UK MARS/Lever release controversy similarity here too.
    Small amounts of a particular firearm,that is never used in a crime,but displeases those in power,so the best way is to legislate it out of existence and pay the owners a trifling sum...Except for the UK Home office grossly underestimating the buyback figure, that a 100k would sort it all out...It is now running in compensation cases at over 2 million Sterling I belive!!!

    Just something the DOJ might have to keep in mind too.

    "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 "



  • #41
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    tonysopprano wrote: »
    Same as they tried in EU, but that failed so they went after magazines, S]S]and when that failed[S[/S Succeeded they went after lead ammo.

    Never ending battle (excuse the pun)

    They left it open to member states on how to interpret the mag ban.We LOST that one here,as did pretty much most of Europe.:mad:

    "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 "



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    But they certainly cannot do solo runs
    Nor can AGS.
    ,or deciding for themselves what the law is on anything.
    Nor can AGS.
    Its up to the legislators to legislate on the info given
    As it is here, and more importantly where do you think the information comes from? As I asked above do you really think any police force is NOT consulted before legislation is drafted?
    , not for every Komisar to decide how he wants to interpret it.
    Lets not paint Germany, or any country, as the land of Unicorn farts and fairy dust. Every police force will enforce the law as they see fit, and the courts will decide if their actions are legal or not. Same as here.

    We deal with AGS in a singular issue (firearms) and our viewpoints are always going to be at odds with AGS'. There will be conflict and every victory in court, on the shooter's behalf, show that the system of checks and balances works.
    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



  • #43
    otmmyboy2
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    Cass wrote: »
    There will be conflict and every victory in court, on the shooter's behalf, show that the system of checks and balances works.

    Even if the potential for cost incurred is significantly higher than it should be, to appeal a potentially unlawful or excessive decision.

    I do think that AGS can make up the law in some cases.
    IE they have been given excessive leeway in licencing decisions, which as you noted have often lead to court.
    Both in granting licences and the conditions attached to same.

    However said court, in it's current format, is rather unfairly biased towards those with the means to fight such cases.

    I think to significantly make the system fairer all discretion should be removed from AGS in regards to firearms licencing(no more fiefdoms), and/or the recourse to court should be freely available(and covered by grants/or even free) to everyone who wishes to appeal a decision by AGS regarding licencing.


    So while we do have a system of checks and balances, it is far from foolproof, or even adequate in a lot of cases.

    How many people here would have taken their S/CS to court over applications if there was no question of means?
    I certainly would have, several of them :P

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • #44
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Cass wrote: »
    Nor can AGS.
    " I firmly belive no civilian should have access to such weapons,as they are much too dangerous and should be only possessed by trained Garda and military personnel,therefore I would not license Mr .... firearms in my district"
    Paraphrasing CS J Kerin [ Retired]in the witness box Tralee DC 2009 [?]

    Would say that is a pretty good example and attitude of a solo run and interperting the law as he saw fit.
    Nor can AGS.

    The attempted blanket ban on CF handguns in 2010?
    As it is here, and more importantly where do you think the information comes from? As I asked above do you really think any police force is NOT consulted before legislation is drafted?

    Certainly, they are...But theirs is NOT the final word on everything to do with a proposed legislation change. Here them and the DOJ it seemingly is...They might give us a pretence of consultation as required by law in Ireland on any topic affecting a group in the public arena,but the decisions are already made,I believe,behind closed doors...Have you ever seen any major changes to proposed core legislation after a public consultation?
    Lets not paint Germany, or any country, as the land of Unicorn farts and fairy dust. Every police force will enforce the law as they see fit, and the courts will decide if their actions are legal or not. Same as here.

    They might do that in some 3rd world dictatorship shthole. Here its enforcing by the letter of the law,as it is written and agreed on in the Dail and Senad. Not AGS fault if it is badly and vaguely worded,but bad for us ,as it can be left open to interpretation by a police force,and be decided on by a learned judge.

    We deal with AGS in a singular issue (firearms) and our viewpoints are always going to be at odds with AGS'. There will be conflict and every victory in court, on the shooter's behalf, show that the system of checks and balances works.

    Not to the point where we have utterly childish and "We'll get ya no matter what!" type retaliation as we saw in 2016 when we had the desperate and total gun grab.That blew up spectacularly in their faces, because the architect of the failed handgun cases was on short notice for his incompetence and lashed out in desperation after being wiped out in Limerick DC,and seeing the court coast clause being used. It was "strange" that the chief Garda ballistics officer"retired" after that Dail public inquiry...
    Any other force would have said with those decisions "Ok fair cop! The courts say otherwise.We'll get ya next time!"

    And get on with life,but even here we see again a possibility that this is coming from, yet again,possibly the AGS? If it ain't broke...Why are they trying to fix it?

    "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 "



  • #45
    yubabill
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭yubabill


    tudderone wrote: »
    Sorry but why ? The AGS are public servants who follow the laws as drafted by the dail. They should stick to enforcing the laws of the land, not be making up laws and reg's they would like to enforce.

    As said before, the German firearms licencing system is the way to go. The police only do background checks, the rest of the application is done by a civilian office.

    Actually, that's the law - AGS cannot advocate for legislation. I pointed this out in some detail in my submission to Dept Justice, who swept it under the carpet.


  • #46
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    otmmyboy2 wrote: »
    So while we do have a system of checks and balances, it is far from foolproof, or even adequate in a lot of cases.

    I'm not arguing its perfect, but as you said it exists.
    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



  • #47
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Would say that is a pretty good example and attitude of a solo run and interperting the law as he saw fit.
    Interpreting, but not implementing.
    The attempted blanket ban on CF handguns in 2010?
    Attempted, next.
    Certainly, they are...
    There ya go, then.
    But theirs is NOT the final word on everything to do with a proposed legislation change.
    Only supporting my point.
    Have you ever seen any major changes to proposed core legislation after a public consultation?
    I wasn't discussing public consultation.
    Not AGS fault if it is badly and vaguely worded,but bad for us ,as it can be left open to interpretation by a police force,and be decided on by a learned judge
    .
    This is exactly what I've been saying, checks and balances.
    Not to the point where we have utterly childish and "We'll get ya no matter what!" type retaliation as we saw in 2016 when we had the desperate and total gun grab.That blew up spectacularly in their faces,
    Again, a failed attempt because they cannot legislate and the courts/law will prevent them doing otherwise (doing, not trying).
    ..Why are they trying to fix it?
    Because its their job to. Even in America, where they have a constitutional right to firearms, they still get crap and its up tot he courts to decide.
    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



  • #48
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Just got to look at the many cases of them abusing their powers under COVID regulations to see that in action.:mad:
    Read that again, slowly. :D

    They have the powers granted to them. I'm not arguing that you're wrong, nor am I saying there is rampant abuse, but you even said it, they are working within the powers granted to them.
    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



  • #49
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    All covid/mask talk moved to Off Topic thread.
    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



  • #50
    Munsterlad102
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    Just another thought about compensation that's related to CF SA. If the government banned all CF SA "loading devices" over 10 rounds, shouldn't they have had to pay compensation? If so, could this be an argument that CF SA magazines aren't restricted because there's no definition of loading device and since the government didn't offer compensation, then they mustn't have banned such magazines? Maybe I'm overlooking something, but this seems like a situation of ownership vs possession.


  • #51
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Munsterlad102 wrote: »
    If the government banned all CF SA "loading devices" over 10 rounds, shouldn't they have had to pay compensation?
    No, because the EU court of justice ruled that such devices were not a right or entitlement (or something along those lines).
    If so, could this be an argument that CF SA magazines aren't restricted because there's no definition of loading device and since the government didn't offer compensation, then they mustn't have banned such magazines?
    The device itself is not restricted or unrestricted, its either allowed or not. So 10 round capacity is fine, over ten, illegal. In other EU countries, and in keeping with the EU directive, they allowed for the use of up to 20 round devices if used in a sporting context, however Ireland made no such allowances when drafting SI 420/2019. Also it only applies to SA CF rifles. BA CF can have as many as you like.
    Maybe I'm overlooking something, but this seems like a situation of ownership vs possession.
    As said above the Czech Government took a challenge case against the directive but they failed in the EU courts. So its already been ruled on.

    Couple to that the fact that a "warning" was given months before that such legislation was coming and people had until March of 2019 (iirc) to sell, destroy or surrender their magazines that were in violation of this ruling (over 10 rounds). When the SI was released in August 2019 it stipulated that anyone with one would have their license revoked as well as the devices seized.
    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
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement