grassroot1 wrote: »

I would consider myself reasonably well informed and I was unaware of the implications of the directive and the SI until yesterday.

I consider myself very well informed (not being big headed) and i did not know the SI would drop when it did. However that is different to not knowing it would be coming, ever.

Those at the top of our associations are volunteers not paid professionals.I am not defending them just pointing this out. I have seen the Facebook posts and yes there is an element of rabbit in the spotlights about the response.

Exactly, and to reiterate i'm NOT blaming the NARGC for ANYTHING. I'm just surprised they seemed so totally unaware this was coming.

I'm tired of saying it, and people are tired of hearing it, but whenever the EU draft a directive each member state must draft new legislation to incorporate that directive into their laws. We discussed this ban, and others, ad nauseam, on two main threads here for the past 3+ years and yes there were times even my eyes glazed over when trying to shift through the quagmire of proposals and "what ifs". So i don't blame anyone for not understanding it completely (including myself)

What needs to be done now is to formulate a workable interpretation of the SI.

On a lighter and somewhat snarky side we cannot get consensus on our current laws in a workable manner and they've been on the book for 10 years.

Clearly all gun parts cannot be marked its not workable

Its important to note that it's not all guns.

As you said its so new [the SI] that no one is 100% sure on the interpretation of it, but for me the markings issue as i said above is down to guns or parts imported from outside the EU or those that are made in the state, as in gunsmiths creating custom firearms.

If the parts or guns are bought within the EU then there will be no need as it's already done by the manufacturer/importer of them into the EU.

neither should someone going hunting with a belt of 25 shells have to have a lockable box with them.

Seeing as how it's a law the debate on what someone should have to do it kinda moot. An ammo box with a padlock on it is a locked receptacle so for €15 to €20 a person can suffice this part of the SI.Stick your ammo in it, either in the belt or in the boxes and the belt loose in the car, and prepare yourself when you get to the range/field.

Commonsense is required but there is not a great history of that in relation to firearms law in this country.

Amen.

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

Because if your stopped while driving and get the wrong guy stopping you..

Correct, but how often does that happen. I'm shooting nearly thirty years and never been stopped in that manner. Also as i said above:

Cass wrote:

I won't pretend to understand stop and search laws, but if you're in your car can any Garda stop you, search your vehicle and if they find a violation of this new SI will they notice it?

This leads onto to just cause for stopping you and wanting to search your car/vehicle. I don't believe, although i'm not batting a 1,000 lately, that random stop and searches can be carried out without due cause.

Few are talking about the magazine restriction, why, because it doesnt affect them, typical small minded Irish stupidity. The next step will be no 10round mags, then no 5 round mags only 3 rounders, now the hunters are upset and involved but too late, next it will be no detachable mags only inbuilt 3 round top fed box style.

Myself and Grizz were back a couple of pages. Both of us own semi auto rifles and both of us are affected. Grizz is annoyed at this, and i am to a degree, but not to the extent i'm upset. Two reasons for this:

1. I found out about this restriction when the EU final directive was published so i knew it was coming.
2. I'm not a big user of higher capacity mags. I own a few, that i'll now have to dispose of, but the majority of my mags are ten round.

My annoyance only comes from the harsher implementation of the directive by the SI than is in the original Directive. The EU directive says if you are involved in sports shooting of certain types and a member of a range you can possess high capacity mags, but the SI removed this bit of the directive (which the Government can legally do) so Irish shooters won't have this option.

Shooters need to get their heads out of the sand and let go of egos and see what is happening

Agree 100%.

solarwinds wrote: »

I can see why they wanted to bring in marking of firearm components, to probably combat back yard shops manufacturing illegal firearms. ......... Also i don't think the manufacture of illegal firearms is a serious issue,.........

Its not. All stats we have access to would support this and the "stats" you find on gunpolicy or Wikipedia are averages based on more averages from other countries. Absolutely no basis in reality.

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

I have had this happen more times than I have been stopped and breathalyzed

Never been stopped, never been breathalyzed, etc. Lucky or what?

..would you chance losing your guns..

Nope. However i already use lock boxes when i travel. Not being a "goody two shoes", just something i've always done. possibly why i'm not taking this new laws as badly as others.

we already had a person post thinking it would help prevent thugs driving around with intent to harm people(such stupidity).

I agree, without sounding like a sensitive sod, that the word thug is a poor choice of words but it shows the prevailing attitudes. Same as those that think all semi auto rifles are ARs, that they're assault weapons, that they are full auto, that they are used on combat, that they can fire 1,200 rounds a minute.

This misinformation, which we mock, is not an accident. It's a purposeful act of misinformation to scare the 90% of the population that has no interest or knowledge of firearms into believing that such laws are making them safer.

Point being it only takes the wrong person stopping you, with the wrong view of firearms.

You're right.

What can honestly be done now though?

Nothing. Without being a pessimist, not a bloody thing. Even if you could have the SI reviewed there are minimum standards it must "comply" with so as to be relevant to the EU directive. The SI can be harsher, but not more lenient if i have the way it works right.

So this would need to be challenged on an EU level, then on an Irish level. The problem with that is it took three years to draft the EU directive because of the involvement of the EU shooting groups so i'd imagine this final draft is the "best" that they [shooting groups] could manage.