Acquiring Rifle not on IE Market

20-05-2019 7:07am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It might still stand,but it is not implied or used as it is simply very bad law,with a multiple precidents to shoot it down.

District courts do not set precedent.

BattleCorp · 20-05-2019 7:20am

Cass wrote: »

There is nothing wrong, illegal or anything like that from converting the Ruger into something that looks like the S&W (as long as the mags are always 10 rounds or fewer) by buying the accessories and it's a lot easier to buy a Ruger, and adapt it to "tacti-cool" than try and fight to bring in a S&W MP15.

Because of the dumbass way that our laws work, there might be something illegal about doing that.

As long as that stupid 'idontlikedalookadat' law is on the books, you risk turning an unrestricted firearm into a restricted firearm based on the Super's opinion.

In essence, you are turning it into something that 'resembles' a restricted firearm which, dumb and all as it is, needs a restricted license.

Yes, there is the chance that it won't be enforced, and there is the chance that you could go to court and win, but it's better to be forewarned and be armed (pardon the pun) with all the facts and then decide your tactics.

Cass · 20-05-2019 10:44am

My point is if you buy, apply for, and license the standard Ruger 10/22 and someone were to Google it they get the pics i posted above. What you add to that afterwards is your own business. You're already licensed for it, and each three year period is a renewal.

There is nothing illegal about adding a pistol grip stock to a rifle as it only applies to shotguns, and as for the "idontlikethelookofit" well you're already licensed. If someone called to your house to inspect the firearm(s) and you show them the new "tacti-cool" version as long as the serial number matches your license and you don't have 20/25/30 round mags (the only thing that makes it restricted) i don't see how it would be a problem.

Believe me, i'm overly cautious when it comes to things like this. I didn't buy the 16" CZ years back because of the grey area with barrel length and instead bought the 20" version which i didn't want. So i wouldn't suggest anything illegal. Sneaky? Perhaps. Illegal, no.

BattleCorp · 20-05-2019 12:51pm

Cass wrote: »

There is nothing illegal about adding a pistol grip stock to a rifle as it only applies to shotguns, and as for the "idontlikethelookofit" well you're already licensed.

I normally don't argue with you but being already licenced doesn't cut it if you are in possession of the wrong type of licence. A pistol grip mightn't be a problem but a full AR or AK clone stock might be.

If the Super decides to enforce the 'idontlikedalookodat' clause, then it's restricted based on his/her opinion of what an assault rifle looks like and a court case is needed to prove otherwise. You may well win, but nothing is 100% when it comes to court.

It may not have been restricted when you bought it (and got the license for it), but according to the law it's restricted now. The 'idon'tlikedalookodat' is just as much a law as the one that says anything over 10 rounds makes it restricted. I know, it's stupid, but that's what's written.

If someone called to your house to inspect the firearm(s) and you show them the new "tacti-cool" version as long as the serial number matches your license and you don't have 20/25/30 round mags (the only thing that makes it restricted) i don't see how it would be a problem.

I'll agree with you here unless the Garda knew what they were doing or were sent out with instructions from the Super to see if it looks restricted (very very unlikely).

Cass · 20-05-2019 1:13pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I normally don't argue with you but being already licenced doesn't cut it if you are in possession of the wrong type of licence. A pistol grip mightn't be a problem but a full AR or AK clone stock might be.

Agree with 100% and i'm normally the one taking your stance. However, and without pushing the boundaries of the law, how can i put this

=====================
Read here
=====================

:D

It's subjective. The SI says an assault rifle is anything that is one or looks like one, not verbatim. However as it does not describe the details of what accessories/parts make an assault rifle, an assault rifle, it leaves the designation of a rifle being an assault rifle to the interpretation/opinion of the issuing person (Super)

If the Super decides to enforce the 'idontlikedalookodat' clause, then it's restricted based on his/her opinion of what an assault rifle looks like and a court case is needed to prove otherwise. You may well win, but nothing is 100% when it comes to court.

Exactly.

If you stick on a scope to the standard model Ruger and the Super believes this makes it look like an assault rifle then it is. So you essentially take a chance with everything you do. SEcondly the M&P 15 leaves no room for doubt.

Look at the Anschutz MSR RX22. The two i've seen are both on unrestricted licenses.

33954b7b8bedf9f1134a3d334b716295680499c7.jpg?v=1556793148

33954b7b8bedf9f1134a3d334b716295680499c7.jpg?v=1556793148

It may not have been restricted when you bought it (and got the license for it), but according to the law it's restricted now.

But it's not or mroe accurately not automatically. If you stick a 25 round mag in the gun it's automatically a restricted firearm but the "looks clause" is subjective and down to the Super.

The 'idon'tlikedalookodat' is just as much a law as the one that says anything over 10 rounds makes it restricted. I know, it's stupid, but that's what's written.

It is a law, but again its subjective.

I'll agree with you here unless the Garda knew what they were doing or were sent out with instructions from the Super to see if it looks restricted (very very unlikely).

Exactly.

Think of this. How many lads shooting Gallery rifle with pictures all over social media and their own websites are shooting rifles with barrels shorter than 20"? Must be in the hundreds. How many have been brought to court? None. It's illegal, and the law says so in black and white. Yet the Super(s) issue licenses for them every year and some of them have the same accessories stuck to them we are talking about now and still no revocation of licenses.

For the first time i can remember i'm the one saying there is a difference in what the law says and how it's implemented. So when it's something as innocuous as these issues AGS seem happy enough to let it pass once it's not abused.

Grizzly 45 · 20-05-2019 5:39pm

1349 wrote: »

District courts do not set precedent.

BUT they DO confer amongst themselves and accept their own decisions as precedent amongst themselves for cases where the law isnt clear.;) Always remember they are now " ultima persona designate" under the firearms act as it now stands.So which Super or Cheif is going to be brave enough to say to a dist justice in his own court "You are wrong your honour on that!" I and witnessed such an event in a dist court in Ennis where an inspector was foolish enough to do so on a point of firearm law,and was so tounge lashed by the lady judge,he literally must have felt all of 3ins tall with his hat on by the time she finished.
There is "the law" and there is "THE LAW" in Irish courts.Gotta know which one you are dealing with.;)

Grizzly 45 · 20-05-2019 5:59pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I

If the Super decides to enforce the 'idontlikedalookodat' clause, then it's restricted based on his/her opinion of what an assault rifle looks like and a court case is needed to prove otherwise. You may well win, but nothing is 100% when it comes to court.

Opinion is NOT law!!! He has to go and take the matter to a court,where he /she will lose and end up paying your costs simply because of the precedent set in appx 155 other cases on the exact same subject in the DC's the length and breath of Ireland up to 2016...Dealing with modern sporting rifles that were claimed to be "assault rifles".That even included a fricken Benelli Argo IIRC,which is ,was and never was an "assault rifle",or even "looks like" one. So if this is the case of this part of the act being used.WHY have there been no further refusals of CF SA rifles?How come M1 carbine is growing in Gallery rifle?

This is not an issue anymore...It is I belive an actual test of your mettle to see do you really want this gun and are willing to go the whole way on this by AGS,and it is cutting out the "I just want one for the craic like" type of applications.

I

t may not have been restricted when you bought it (and got the license for it), but according to the law it's restricted now. The 'idon'tlikedalookodat' is just as much a law as the one that says anything over 10 rounds makes it restricted. I know, it's stupid, but that's what's written.

The only thing that is of a definition that is of any sound legal footing is the mag capacity of over 10 rounds.[Another ridicilous thing,but another days work] The "idontlikedelookodatnow!" clause is Very.Bad.Law,because of wording and lack of clear definitions and recognised as such by judicary and AGS,and has been thrown out in both rifles and shotguns by dist courts.

The pigeon man · 20-05-2019 6:18pm

On the topic of rifle barrels less than 50cm it's not illegal to be in possession of one provided you have lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Peppa Cig · 20-05-2019 7:17pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

I

If the Super decides to enforce the 'idontlikedalookodat' clause, then it's restricted based on his/her opinion of what an assault rifle looks like and a court case is needed to prove otherwise. You may well win, but nothing is 100% when it comes to court.

Opinion is NOT law!!! He has to go and take the matter to a court,where he /she will lose and end up paying your costs simply because of the precedent set in appx 155 other cases on the exact same subject in the DC's the length and breath of Ireland up to 2016...Dealing with modern sporting rifles that were claimed to be "assault rifles".That even included a fricken Benelli Argo IIRC,which is ,was and never was an "assault rifle",or even "looks like" one. So if this is the case of this part of the act being used.WHY have there been no further refusals of CF SA rifles?How come M1 carbine is growing in Gallery rifle?

This is not an issue anymore...It is I belive an actual test of your mettle to see do you really want this gun and are willing to go the whole way on this by AGS,and it is cutting out the "I just want one for the craic like" type of applications.

I

t may not have been restricted when you bought it (and got the license for it), but according to the law it's restricted now. The 'idon'tlikedalookodat' is just as much a law as the one that says anything over 10 rounds makes it restricted. I know, it's stupid, but that's what's written.

The only thing that is of a definition that is of any sound legal footing is the mag capacity of over 10 rounds.[Another ridicilous thing,but another days work] The "idontlikedelookodatnow!" clause is Very.Bad.Law,because of wording and lack of clear definitions and recognised as such by judicary and AGS,and has been thrown out in both rifles and shotguns by dist courts.

Is intended use a factor in licensing decision in your opinion? i.e target vs hunting vs vermin.

Considering all of the failed cases at DC referenced above that should almost eliminate prospect of refusal when applicant meets normal conditions? i.e supers should be aware of expected DC ruling.

If super sees you are appealing does he have option to reverse decision before DC hearing?

Peppa Cig · 20-05-2019 7:17pm

Thanks for all input. Really interesting info and thread (for me).

Grizzly 45 · 20-05-2019 7:56pm

Peppa Cig wrote: »

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Is intended use a factor in licensing decision in your opinion? i.e target vs hunting vs vermin.

Considering all of the failed cases at DC referenced above that should almost eliminate prospect of refusal when applicant meets normal conditions? i.e supers should be aware of expected DC ruling.

If super sees you are appealing does he have option to reverse decision before DC hearing?

My own opinion and experiance...Dont think it really matters.I had both target shooting and hunting down for my DPMS 308.

It shall I say,give you a qualified "should" make no difference anymore.Since 2015 there has been a slow increase of semi auto CF rifles around the place.Mostly M1 carbines for gallery rifle.

This is why I say this "idontlikedelookodatnow!" clause is showing up again is to weed out the genuine people who want one,and will put in the effort to get one,and some idiot who just "wants one for the craic like",and to generally be an idiot with it. Could be 100% wrong too,but it has the flavour of this if it is .22 related.I haven't heard of any CF SA's being refused since 15. Scrutinised more than a normal rifle yes,refused no.

You might just get some hotshot who wants to make a name for him/herself and try to take it to court,but they might be "reminded" of the fact that if they lose the court costs,which are now triple what they will be in 2015 due to costs being awarded if they lose will be coming out of the Justice depts /Garda budget...

Yes ,they can withdraw right up to the moment in court that the case is beginning to be heard.So it becomes the judges responsibility to either,refuse,grant,or tell both parties to work out the problem.
They did that to a couple of people I know,as back then it was no skin off their nose,as it was a paid day out of the office,and you the applicant were carrying the costs of it all.Now I dont think they would be all that happy doing it again,as some judges wee also getting annoyed at having to shoulder thier responsibility of granting liscenses.

Cass · 20-05-2019 8:34pm

The pigeon man wrote: »

On the topic of rifle barrels less than 50cm it's not illegal to be in possession of one provided you have lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

You need to read the whole section as you missed a critical piece:

Section 12(a) as Amended by Section 65 of 2006 Firearms Act.

(6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—

(a) a shot-gun the barrel of which is less than 61 centimetres in length,

(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,

So only RFDs are covered, not regular applicants.

The law says, quite clearly, the barrel must be built back to 50 cm (or above) if it was cut to repair damage. The "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse" are legal terms and not something you can think up. Lawful authority is infact your license. That gives you the legal authority to possess the gun. The grey area arises from the fact that the legislation says you cannot have a rifle with such a short barrel, yet because the FCA1 does not ask barrel length the issue does not come up in the application process, meaning when you are granted the license you have lawful authority.

Then we are back to the fact that a Super, by issuing the license, cannot supercede the law and so the license might even be void (not even going to touch that can of worms) when issued. Also it's up the person, and the legal onus is on you, to know what is legal and what license is appropriate and obtainable. Much like the "do i need a restricted/unrestricted license" issue. It's up to you.

The pigeon man · 20-05-2019 9:00pm

Cass wrote: »

You need to read the whole section as you missed a critical piece:

Section 12(a) as Amended by Section 65 of 2006 Firearms Act.

So only RFDs are covered, not regular applicants.

The law says, quite clearly, the barrel must be built back to 50 cm (or above) if it was cut to repair damage. The "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse" are legal terms and not something you can think up. Lawful authority is infact your license. That gives you the legal authority to possess the gun. The grey area arises from the fact that the legislation says you cannot have a rifle with such a short barrel, yet because the FCA1 does not ask barrel length the issue does not come up in the application process, meaning when you are granted the license you have lawful authority.

Then we are back to the fact that a Super, by issuing the license, cannot supercede the law and so the license might even be void (not even going to touch that can of worms) when issued. Also it's up the person, and the legal onus is on you, to know what is legal and what license is appropriate and obtainable. Much like the "do i need a restricted/unrestricted license" issue. It's up to you.

A registered firearms dealer does not need lawful authority or reasonable excuse to have a short barrel. If it was the case that they needed this it would not be in brackets.

Everyone else must have lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

All this said, this debate is largely academic because it is unlikely to have an affect on anyone licensing or being prosecuted for having such a firearm.

Cass · 20-05-2019 9:32pm

Its not academic. It's in black and white. I've also explained the problem with "lawful authority".

The firearms act says it's illegal to have a rifle with a barrel shorter than 50cm. As no one has been taken to court about this it's gone unverified for years however to say it's not illegal is dangerous because you don't know that, don't legislate and won't be the one in court if someone decides to push it.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Acquiring Rifle not on IE Market

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County