@Traumadoc... On average, what is the most common type of knife injury you see inflicted by what type of blade would you see in an ER in Ireland? IE bottle job,stanley blades,steak knife,kitchen/butcher knife?Or is there any sort of stats kept that could be used to show common knife injuries in Ireland?

Just a thought about the proposed legislation, it states that "For the purposes of this section, “semi-automatic centre-fire rifle” means rifled long firearms which use a round which is greater than .22 inch calibre and can reload automatically from a magazine or cylinder each time a round is discharged but can fire not more than one round with a single pull on the trigger". So, how are they defining calibre? Is it a case of if the round is named less than 0.22 inch is it allowed, or are they going by the diameter of the bullet? If the former, then 5.56 NATO would be allowed but not .223 Remington and if the latter, 22lr wouldn't be allowed but something much more powerful like a .204 Ruger would be allowed. Also, we should try and avoid putting the word "rimfire" anywhere in the act.

I think they do need to, because 22lr barrels are slightly bigger than 0.22 inches and that difference either have 22lr semi autos being banned or having .223 semi autos being legal.

I bring it up because it was mentioned that .303 British has a bigger diameter to the .308 cut off for restricted/non-restricted rifles but rifles in that calibre are non restricted. So like I said, if they take it at face value, ie if the round has a name greater than 0.22 inches it's allowed, then people could have their .223 ARs "rebarreled" into 5.56 and having that under the cut off.

Yeah, it's in our best interests to make sure rimfire isn't mentioned anywhere in the amendment.

Agreed, but if there is, which let's be honest, there is almost certainly going to be so the best we can do is ask for clarity and minimize what's banned.

.22lr are not centrefire, that aspect needs to be clear. I agree that the "clause" above doesn't distinguish. But CF/RM is independent of the word caliber not being defined. Without a definition, the technical meaning would most likely apply.

A .223 is .223 caliber. It's a US calibre, so its measure via groove diameter. Based on the above wording it would be out.

I mentioned it above. .303 British has a .312 bullet, but it is .303 calibre. The restriction is based on calibre not bullet diameter.

The name doesn't always reflect the calibre, so that might be tricky. But yeah, the 5.56 is smaller than .22", and as it's measure under the european convention. It's in.

There are means to get around that bypass. They certainly could define calibre differently to be more restrictive. But but let's not give anyone ideas ;)

Correct, it's fairly common knowledge that 22lr is rimfire, but nowhere in the proposed legislation does it mention the word rimfire so 22lr and all other rimfire rounds will be subjected to the legislation, in it's current state. I'm not versed enough to say what would apply if there is no definition, but that is a very good point to bring up.

Yes, but that brings up a very interesting problem, where .223 isn't allowed but 5.56 is allowed despite being the same round (ignoring pressure differences). So then could rounds be "modified" to be less than the 0.22 inch cut off, by modify I mean renamed and nothing else. But that being said, they do take calibres at face value at the moment, so I'd imagine they'll continue that practice.

I'm going to emphasise how much important the words "rimfire" or "centrefire" do not appear in the legislation. If it isn't specified, then there are plenty of substitute rounds under 22 calibre, but not that many of those are rimfire.

it's allowed, then people could have their .223 ARs "rebarreled" into 5.56 and having that under the cut off.

You already have that if you have a ."223 Wylde" calibre.😉 It's a half/half between 5.56 and .223 and allows both to be shot from it.

What this will mean if anyone evers develops a 17 Remington centrefire I'm not sure,

Already exists in both an AR upper and a dedicated .17 SA rifle design

True, and let's be honest, AGS is 100% going to try and implement another blanket ban off all SA CF rifles, just like they did with the Temporary custody order and with the pistol ban. Whether or not it's vague, AGS isn't going to license a 22 SA CF rifle. So if anyone is feeling safe because you've licensed a rifle prior to September 2015, just remember, they've done this before and they'll do it again.

Be another round of DC and HC court cases and more egg on AGS faces if they went the same reason/route as the CF handguns as no "good reason" to own. They tried that because there was an assumption that all CF pistols were being used in IPSC, and they forgot that there were other competition styles out there. In the case of the rifles, there is plenty of comps and disciplines out there for this, and Ireland would be also breaking with its goody two shoes EU class teacher's pet image, by going against something the EU grownups said they weren't doing 6 years ago because of the compensation factor. Better to leave it as grandfathered with pre-2015 licenses.But even there we need clarification on legislation regarding substitutions of firearms, like the CF handguns.

How about a proper procedure in law,if you want to sub one rifle for another, rather than having to rely on a dubious "legal loophole " procedure as with CF handguns?

No,if this minister wants to play with the firearms legislation, well he can't leave a massive pile of warm &brown matter for us and AGS to sort out while he runs off to a press conference to say how tough he is on gun laws, but he can sit down and work out with all parties how this should and will be implemented and function in real life. In fact, we have enough gripes and legit complaints to keep him busy on this legislation on things that need sorting that he might never get near doing anything about this in the 1st place.

Ah, I see. I was looking at some ARs and I saw that was an option but I hadn't heard about it before. I was a bit redundant though, since the next option was 5.56/223.

Yeah, I saw the 17 Remington upper too. I'd there would be an AR upper for most calibres at this point.

Yep, agreed, but still that's a lot of legal costs which I'm sure you're all too familiar.

At the end of the day, we need a larger and coordinated campaign of petitioning the minister and local politicians rather than our current strategy of taking this lying down.

I agree completely re:Rimfire. We all know what RM/CF means and what the title refers to. But you are completely correct, the the paragraph you quoted doesn't distinguish. I wouldn't be concerned about that not being corrected though, as long as its raised.

A handy calibre in a practical sense. But it this instance it would be tossed out with the .223, only the metric sneaks through.

5.56 Wylde 🤣