cookimonster wrote: »

You can own any form of night vision - IR, Thermal etc weather it be hand held, headsets or firearms mountable and you may hunt with them as stand alone resources with out any hassle or restrictions .............

Slight correction there.

The handheld stuff you're 100% on, but if its a dedicated firearm mountable unit like a NV scope then it needs authorisation regardless of whether you have a firearm or not.

Section 4(g)(i) of the 1990 offensive weapons act:

4.—(1) In the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, “firearm” means—

g) (i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e), and

Another gem from our firearms laws.

Tikka391 wrote: »

See that's what I was wondering, they are so freely sold. .

For the same reason you can buy deer calls, decoys, reloading equipment. It's perfectly legal to to sell, just some requires licensing/authorisaton and the rest is outright illegal to use, but not sell.

slipperyox wrote: »

according to that act, a lamp attached to the scope is also prohibited.

g) (i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic

No.

That part refers to a scope with a light emitting function. IOW range finding, NV, etc. It does not mean a scope mounted torch/lamp.

This was clarified some time ago by the DoJ.

slipperyox wrote: »

To throw another spanner in the works.
A silencer is only authorised for 1 year. NOT the life of the permit.[/I]

That is the 1990 act when we had one year license. Since the introduction of the three (3) year licenses it now lasts for the length of time the license runs for as per section 3(7) of the firearms act.

(7) A firearm certificate which is in force, other than a relevant firearm certificate continued in force under section 3(3) of this Act, as amended by section 28 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, shall continue in force for a period of 3 years from the date on which it was granted, unless revoked, and for any further such period for which it may be renewed.

Section 3(3) refers to hunting licenses for deer and other wild game.

Zxthinger wrote: »

No! Cass. I wrote it already that you apply for it when filling in the FCA1.

You said:

Zxthinger wrote:

No one applys for a permit to buy a Nv scope. No requests permission to obtain one

Which is wrong. You DO need to apply for it and DO need permission for one.

You also made absolutely NO mention of FCA1 in any of previous posts.

Your cherry picking sentences and taking them out of context.

Which bits did i "cherry pick"? I merely disregarded the useless parts. By the by the written word has no context, so if you mean something it's best to explain it fully so there is no doubt as to your inference.

And no again, silencers are not treated exactly the same in the statute book.

Both are firearms, both require authorisation, both are recorded on PULSE, both are an offense to have without authorisation.

The only difference is the suppressor (because they're not silencers) is shown as a "S" on your license, but the NV has no mark on your license to denote authorisation to use one.

So tell me again how they're different in "statute book".

I had this argument here before and I seem to remember that you and other insisted that a NV scope needed written permission. I alway insisted that you apply for it via section 3.2 accessories.

You've had many arguments here before questioning many things that are law that you don't see as such so you'll forgive me for not remembering them all.

Did i say written permission? Don't recall, but i'll look.

Perhaps you misread it and i said written reasons as to why you want when applying.

Silencers are different because you require written permission.

Erm, no you don't. You get the "S" on your license which i've said from the start, and just above in this post, but that is a far cry from a letter of authorisation which i still maintain i never said is needed, but again i'll check it out in case i did say so.

You don't require written permission for a NV scope.

Why has the issue of written permission become an issue.

You need authorisation which Ziggieire above explained very well comes in the form of authorisation recorded on PULSE, with no letter, but a letter of explanation with the FCA1.

If you have moved your argument from "you don't need permission at all" to "you don't need written permission but DO need authorisation from the Super" then you're just agreeing with what i orginally posted in post #3 and won't waste time arguing with you over semantics.

slipperyox wrote: »

Silencer is the term used in the act. Not suppressor.

And it's the Firearms Act yet every Garda i've ever spoken to at any rank call them a weapon.

It's our job to educate them whenever and wherever possible but that can only happen when we [the shooting community] stop using the same wrong terminology ourselves. I know, i've been guilty of it myself, but i try not to help spread the false narrative.

Say that's not a silencer and see how you get on with no authorisation..:p

I did and do.

One such time nearly got me in trouble, to a degree. A meeting with a new Super and i was asked why i wanted a silencer to which i said i didn't, i wanted a suppressor. He gave that "over the glasses" look as if i were dirt, but i held his gaze forcing him to engage. We went back and forth for a few moments and i explained there is no such thing as a silencer, only a suppressor as the shot is suppressed not silenced. He gave the same line you did about it being called that in the act, and i came back with my line about it being called the firearms act so why does he kept referring to my application as one for weapon?

It ended in stalemate but i went off the happier as i got my suppressor and whether he uses the right terminology i know i held my ground.

I get a letter for 1 year because that's whats in the act (and an S on permit), and it hasn't been amended since 1990.

The reason for the "S" on the license is when the license is printed and the authorisation for it entered onto PULSE the "S" is automatically printed on the license. If you receive a license with no "S" then it's not recorded on PULSE.

The other reason for this "S" is when you are out and about if stopped the "S" shows immediately that you have authorisation for the suppressor. A letter is only a bit of paper and if you are out without it, and have no "S" on your license, you have no proof you have the authorisation as a check on PULSE will come back with nothing.

As for it not being amended since 1990. The 1990 act is only an amendment act and not the primary legislation as in the 1925 act. The 2009 act changed the time limit of a license from 1 to 3 years and the authorisation for a suppressor, when applied for via the FCA1, is to run concurrently with the firearms license.

If you are getting yearly letters and no "S" then you have no authorisation recorded on PULSE which poses the problems above as well as no PULSE history of being granted the suppressor should you someday be refused. Also if you are only being granted them yearly i'd be onto my local station and asking for it to be granted via the "S" on the license as mandated by the 2009 act and FCA1.

I can certainly agree, there is much confusion regards interpretation of the act, as it was written by legal teams not fully versed in both terminology and function. And subsequent amendments have fortified this, and led to even more confusion, but more importantly, left it open to interpretation.

Some bits fo the law are outright stupid, some contradict themselves, and some are grey. However a lot of it is black and white and the only confusion, as you said, comes from the wrong interpretation of it.

I've spoken to, heard, and helped lads over the years who have been "victims" of this. Those who fought their corner won, but more than i'd like to admit don't bother and just move on.

It's this apathy towards your "rights" (we don't actually have rights, but you get the idea) that allows for the slow erosion of what AGS are doing even though some of it is wrong and some even against the firearms act.

The thing is just because the fella that invented them called them that, they don't do it. So inventor or not he is still wrong or as i like to say he has just been wrong for longer.

I mean i can stick teats on a bull and call it a cow, but it's just not.

Sorry, it's my incessant need to have the last word. :D

You're not having a blonde moment, it's me just prolonging an absolutely pointless and frankly boring point of debate.

What i meant by it's called the wrong thing is it doesn't do what the name suggests. It doesn't silence sh*t, it suppresses the heard report. Now i'll get someone that'll say with the right firearm, ammo, and a large enough can you'll get next to silence, but that is the exception.

It just bothers me how AGS call them silencers, weapons, etc. and we go along with it for fear of annoying them. They're wrong and should be told as much no matter how much they don't like haring it.