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?
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.
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.
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?.
Seems a tad shaky to me
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?
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.
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)
Grizzly 45 wrote: » 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.
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.
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?
Nor can AGS.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The attempted blanket ban on CF handguns in 2010?
Certainly, they are...
But theirs is NOT the final word on everything to do with a proposed legislation change.
Have you ever seen any major changes to proposed core legislation after a 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
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,
..Why are they trying to fix it?
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:
Munsterlad102 wrote: » 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.
Munsterlad102 wrote: » 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.
This thread is about to get a lot busier in the very near future.
The PTB are 100% intent on going after semi-auto centrefires granted after September 2015.
There were two questions asked in the Dail on 27th July 2021 regarding semi-auto centrefires. They were Questions 1385 and 1388.
Seeing as I've often been questioned regarding my sources in the past, here's the link to show I'm not making stuff up.
Proposed Legislation – Tuesday, 27 Jul 2021 – Parliamentary Questions (33rd Dáil) – Houses of the Oireachtas
Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Justice when the proposed legislation on restriction of licencing of centre fire semi-automatic rifles will be introduced and he also asked if existing licence holders will be allowed to retain their licence for centrefire semi-automatic rifles under the proposed new legislation. Below is the answer.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1385 and 1388 together.
As you may be aware, in 2015, the then Minister for Justice, Frances Fitzgerald, T.D., announced plans to implement a number of changes to Firearms Licensing, including restrictions on the licensing of any new centre-fire semi-automatic rifles. I am sure the Deputy will agree that these are potentially very dangerous weapons in the wrong hands.
This remains settled policy and it is my intention to legislate to introduce restrictions on the licensing of centre-fire semi-automatic rifles, including the revocation of licenses issued after 18 September 2015, as flagged at the time.
People who have obtained licences since the 2015 announcement have been advised the licences will be revoked when the legislative ban is introduced. Any licence issued after the announcement to introduce a curtailment on the licencing of these firearms will be revoked following the enactment of the legislation.
My Department has also engaged with Registered Firearms Dealers to monitor the number of these firearms imported and to advise the dealers that any firearms brought into the State that do not have a firearms license associated with them dated prior to 18 September 2015 will become unlicensable when the new legislation is introduced. As the Deputy may also be aware, a similar process applied when restrictions were introduced for the licensing of centre-fire handguns.
The proposed legislation referred to by the Deputy forms part of the General Scheme of a Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020. The General Scheme for this Bill was approved by Government in September 2020. It was referred to the Justice Committee for Pre–Legislative Scrutiny in January and I await the views of the Committee in due course. It is my intention to progress this General Scheme and to publish the required Bill at an early date, as other priorities in my Department’s legislative programme may allow.
Judging from that reply, it doesn't look like they are intending on grandfathering any licences issued since 18th September 2015. I reckon we have a serious fight on our hands.
Its been coming. The Government may be slow to act at times, but they usually never forget.
The grandfathering thing is a problem and one I hope lads after 2015 will fight and win. The pistol bn was similar but also very different in that it was in reaction to a criminal using an illegal weapon to kill an innocent (Shane Geoghahan) and the legislation followed within 7 months of the declaration. This debacle has been ongoing for going on 6 years so there is a strong case to fight for grandfathering.
They will use the "we told you it was coming" excuse and frankly they may win that (actually they don't have to win as the law is on their side so it'll necessary for the shooting bodies to win). They seem to have the bit between their teeth now and if not for Covid it might already be a thing so expect ructions next year.
Going to be an intresting Autumn...Again...
And can see another great clanger with this straight off...What happens if you want to substitute on a pre 15 license?Are we going to do this dodgy "legal loophole" like with the CF handguns???
Yeah, this bill will not be a single issue bill. Expect crap from all sides.
Here we go again .......... another nail in the coffin for our sport.
So are they likely to just be collected after licenses have been revoked or can they be left with RFD's and sold to new owners outside the state?
You only lose what you dont fight for via the courts if necessary.
At best, I'd hope that they will be grandfathered, but it doesn't look like that is going to be the case. If the authorities grandfathered all the ones that are currently licensed, that would be the best option for those who have those firearms and would also give the authorities the least amount of headaches as they'd have no court cases to fight etc.
At worst, I would expect the State to adequately compensate me for the cost of my firearm, which was by no means a cheap gun. And will they compensate me for the accessories that probably add up to over a thousand euro too?
I wouldn't expect things to go smoothly for the authorities. I expect there will be court cases and maybe more court cases because it's a bit ridiculous to allow someone to have a firearm for six or seven years and then swipe it back off them.
But to answer your question, I would assume (a dangerous thing to do) that you can sell it overseas. But that won't be easy either, and financially doing that probably wouldn't make sense given that these guns are far more expensive here than they are in the likes of the US or Europe for example. A gun that is €5k here is often well less than half that in the States.
I can't believe this is happening, mine has only just been renewed, 3 months late but better late than never. I know selling your rifle to an over seas owner is not the best solution and your unlikely to get back what you put in but still better than the big fat 0 the state will offer plus it will go to a new owner who will care about it.
