Few things have changed and some mistakes were made.

Here are the mistakes, illegal bits, and bits i don't like.

Additionally, any rim fire rifle with a magazine holding in excess of 10 rounds is defined as a restricted firearm

See the mistake, because the law says capable of holding, not actually holding.

....... with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds

This mistake would mean if you have a 25 round mag for your 10/22 but only load 10 you're fine, well you're not.

This bit has me concerned and confused:

It shall not be lawful for any person to sell a firearm to a person under 18 years of age. Additionally, an application for a firearm certificate, where the applicant is under 18 years of age, shall be accompanied by the written consent of the applicant's parent or guardian. Statutory Instrument No: 493 of 2010 refers

SI 493/2010 refers to someone under 18 being registered as a business in firearms/firearms dealer and for someone to sell them firearms for the purpose of their business without the person (under 18) having written consent from their parents/guardians.

The sale of firearms to anyone under 18 is not illegal, hence not a crime if it's done a one to one or private basis. IOW outside of a business. Putting the above in where it is is wrong, violates the actual firearms act, and makes a completely legal transaction seem illegal.

The bit about the semi auto defacto ban is annoying and worrying. Three years since the former Minister made that statement and not a budge or hint of legislation coming. This could go on indefinitely and after 30 years a ban would still be in place without any legislation to make it legal. Time to get writing me thinks.

The issue of the firearm dealer SI. No real discussion with actual RFDs just the three on the so called coalition of vested interests group, one of whom is only an ammo dealer. Leaving the other 99.6% out in the dark.

Under the Fox heading they once again mention this bullsh*t about notifying AGS before going out. Other than being impractical i wonder how i would dot his as three local stations around me were closed, one closes at 8pm, and the main station would think it's a terrorist calling in a threat. Also the last time i had to call AGS it took them 3 hours to get back to me as no one local was available so i had to wait for someone from a station 50 miles away to contact me back.

In the "Hunting" paragraph there is a worrying sign of "don't give this type of rifle for this type of hunting". They even hint, under the fox hunting bit, that centrefire rifles like the 223 need a large degree of skill to use and are really only suitable to highland areas. You all might find it harder to get a certain caliber because they don't think it's safe.




A few points i like.

They clarified the competence part of getting a firearms license. No more "only a cert will do". In the same paragraph they also state what we've been saying on this forum for years. Proficiency is NOT to be confused with competence and is NOT required to be proven when applying for a firearms license.

They ahve clarified that refusals MUST be in writing and must clearly outline why they person was refused making it clear that citing a paragraph of one of the acts does NOT count as an explanation.

Garda Supts MUST now meet gun clubs twice a year to discuss any problems or issues.

The zeroing aspect is addressed and it's good to see common sense being used, but i'd be happier if, like the illegal semi auto ban, they addressed the legislation and rubber stamped it to make it completely legal.

The ammo allowances have all been raised. Farmer from 100 to 200, Deer from 200 to 500, Shotgun from 500/750 to 750 only figure and target shooter goes from 750/1000 to 1,000 only figure.

When talking about suitable firearms as they pertain to the land the person shoots on a brief mention is made of how sometimes an applicant may find they need a different caliber/type than is usual for the type of shooting. This may, and i stress may, allow for 22-250/243, etc. for lads with no deer licenses. Long shot, but it seems like it.




In the end its not of any great concern because they are simply GUIDELINES. While the Super or Chief Super may adhere to them they will need legislation to support any decision made based on the guidelines and if it's not there then they have acted outside the law and the remit of their authority.

I don't want to come across as confrontational or looking for problems, but while there are some good points others have been made murkier or harder when the law, in some cases, doesn't make it so.

Vegeta wrote: »

Paragraph on semi auto rifles is.....weird. Any license between announcement in 2015 and possible future legislation are revoked. That doesn't seem even remotely legal does it. You cant license this because of potential future laws

Last year i brought up this topic (semi autos facing possible ban) in another thread outside of the main thread discussing this and other stuff and was told i was scaremongering. I said then that a cap was illegal and no legislation is in place to uphold any sort of cap let alone a ban.

It all started with a proposal by the so called coalition of vested interests for, among other things, a temporary cap on semi autos AFTER 1950 (to preserve their interests so vintage, classic, and the likes wouldn't be affected) in 2015. The Minister made her statement on Sept 18th of 2015 in which she said categorically:

Legislation will provide for the revocation of any licenses issued between today (18 September 2015) and the enactment of the legislation and it is intended that anyone applying for licenses of this nature will be informed of that fact.

No cap was ever put in place because its ILLEGAL. However with the statement comes the possibility of a "back dated" ban most likely with Grandfathering like the restricted short firearm ban.

As for the legalities of such a retrospective ban, it is more than likely illegal as the constitution says you cannot introduce and apply legislation retrospectively to make something that was not criminal, criminal, but it'll take a Supreme court case i'd imagine to resolve it which requires a serious amount of money and an invitation (if my understanding of the court is correct).

The worrying part of this is the fact the Commissioner has brought this topic back to the fore with his updating of the guidelines. It reinforces that they intend to revisit this matter (ban/legislation) at some point and serves as a reminder to anyone licensing such a firearm that they WILL (not may) loose it.

IOW an illegal and stealth ban.

yubabill wrote: »

On the semi auto centre fire rifles, I don't read the guidelines as meaning a current ban ( the bit I found is on page 23?).

It's not as there is no current ban. As i said back then, and above, a temporary ban/cap is illegal and so no such thing exists.

I read it as saying that the applicant and the issuer should remember that future proposed legislation will mean the licence will be revoked.

Yup.

So this is where my "stealth ban" comes into it. As a perspective new semi auto owner/licensee would you now buy one knowing that future legislation will make them illegal and it'll be back dated to Sept 18th 2015?

Most people knowing, and the Minister's statement with the updated guidelines make it clear, this would not dare buy one to have the license revoked and end up with a few grand sitting in some dealers waiting to sell.

Its the pistol ban all over again only much longer between the statement date and any legislation.

Now I know that some FO's will use this as an excuse to refuse an application and it does sound very like the 1972 TCO, but it can be reasonably argued that an application is not inadmissible until any new SI/legislation is in effect.

Not only can it be argued, but it is currently the law. IOW if they refuse an application, and given the Commissioner's update on what is required in a refusal, you will absolutely win and be granted the license (assuming you meet all the other criteria).

The issue is for how long? This is the dangerous part of this proposed legislation. There is no "end date". It could be done in the next 6 days, weeks, months or years. Perhaps longer. However for as long as this "limbo" is in place there is a self imposed stealth ban.