Thanks for beating me to it you guys, but it's not a fair match if I'm sitting here in the middle of an ESB powercut


Hmmm.

“assault rifles” means—
a)rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
b)firearms that resemble such rifles;
So a firearm that resembles an automatic firearm is restricted. Thing is, I don't know what specific cosmetic feature makes a firearm resemble an automatic firearm which a hunting rifle does not have. I mean, sure, AR-15s are an easy fit to this, but the M-16 is not the only automatic firearm out there and it certainly isn't the only pattern for one. The M-14 is as well, and the M-1 Garand had fully automatic firing modes added towards the end of the second world war. And both of those look a lot like most hunting rifles. Lovely.

shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges,
That's a pretty major change, taking a range of shotguns that were legal for use on clay pigeons and other non-game things and making them restricted.

the following short firearms designed for use in connection with competitions governed by International Olympic Committee regulations:
The designed for is, I understand, already recognised for that daftness that it is (a lot of firearms now winning ISSF matches in Ireland are not designed for ISSF matches, they're just suitable for them - things like the Ruger and Browning .22 pistols and that new plastic Hamerreli for example).
But more annoying is the fact that there are no International Olympic Committee regulations for firearms or target shooting competitions. There are ISSF rules, but the IOC don't get involved. That's already been shown when the IPSC applied to the IOC to be in the Athens Olympics and were told "not up to us, check with the ISSF, we don't do that sort of thing". So basicly, that paragraph is a nonsense.

And of course, 5(a):
ammunition with penetrating, explosive or incendiary projectiles
Amazing what damage one comma can do, isn't it?
(Anyone here got projectiles that won't penetrate? Other than airsofters and paintballers?)

I'm pretty sure you could argue that shotgun cartridges, of all types, now qualify as sabot rounds under that SI as well.

There is something bothering me though - there's a nice definition in there of "silencer", but that's a definition in an SI - and an SI cannot overrule an Act (if it could, you could just redefine law as a Minister without ever needing to go near the Dail, which would make a coup d'etat a lot easier on the paperwork, but a lot more frequent an occurance as well). So now we have conflicting definitions for things like silencers and long firearms and so forth; how's that to be reconciled?

And that bullpup rifle bit is a bit daft as well. I'm sure G22 owners won't like it much.

In Section 1:

“prohibited weapon” means and includes any weapon of whatever description designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, noxious gas or other noxious thing, and also any ammunition (whether for any such weapon or any other weapon) which contains or is designed or adapted to contain any noxious liquid, noxious gas or other noxious thing;

I assume if your shotgun came with a magazine restrictor limiting the capacity to three rounds then it is in compliance with the restricted list? This is currently the case for hunting anyway.

(a) shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns

rrpc wrote: »

Yes, Sparks brought it up with them as well as others.

Actually, no I didn't, I was there when it was raised and didn't contradict the chap who suggested it, but I don't agree with the idea for similar reasons to the ones you raised. I didn't contradict it at the time because you don't get into an internal dispute with your team while sitting at a negotiating table!

Seamus357 wrote: »

So shotguns with more than three round magazines will have to keep the limiters in the magazine tubes all the time and not just while hunting protected species?
Is that the general understanding of the new restricted list in relation to shotgun capacity? Is there not a danger that the Guards may interpret this differently and try and restrict all shotguns with a capacity above three rounds even when magazine limiters are in place in the tube?

Seamus

It says "manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more then 3 cartridges." So limiter should do.

sidneyreilly wrote: »

It says "manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more then 3 cartridges." So limiter should do.

It might have to be permanant, such is the wording in the EU categories
At least perm enough that it can't be quickly removed and inserted at will. It must be fixed and to remove it requires a bit of work

Right so an assault rifle means rifles capable of functioning as semi-auto firearms AND as auto firearms. Does this mean it must have a selector switch? semi now then "click" full auto

An M1 Garand is not an assault rifle and is just a 7.62 semi auto rifle.

No meaning givin of what a full auto is defined as.

Are semi auto rifles up to and inc 7.62 un-restricted? As long as they are not assault rifles?

Are .303 rifles un-restricted?

Is this the way it will appear in law or is this only a rough gide as to the changes?

Cheers, Chem

Bond-007 wrote: »

Correct and you will most likely have to take the gun to the Garda Station to show the FAO that the magazine has been permanently restricted.

Only thing is a lot of repeaters are registered as single barrel firearms, no mention of pump action :rolleyes:

(d) silencers capable of being used only with long rifled rim-fire firearms;

I notice it specifies .22lr so a silencer for a .22wmr is still restricted, they should have just allowed them for rimfires across the board (even though it's the centre-fire that needs them) !!

chem wrote: »

What I was getting at is the Garand style semi auto rifles. They are not black evil looking things, but look more like hunting rifles.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47 and the M16 rifle. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.

Just a point to the shotgun debate. Dont go welding up your mags yet. Wait until you find out for sure what the meaning of the law is regarding mag capacity;):D

No, I think section 4 subparagraph 2(c) and (d) makes a clear distinction. It says single shot or repeating firearms up to an including 7.62 are unrestricted. (d) then refers to single shot, repeating or semi-automatic rimfire rifles, so the distinction is plain to see. NO non-rimfire semis (excluding shotguns of course). Or am I wrong...?

chem wrote: »

Right so an assault rifle means rifles capable of functioning as semi-auto firearms AND as auto firearms. Does this mean it must have a selector switch? semi now then "click" full auto

Yes, basicly. And that's a pretty good tally with the "real" definition - which is that it should be an intermediate (between pistol and rifle) round in terms of how much powder is behind the bullet, select-fire, medium-range (to 400m) rifle.

An M1 Garand is not an assault rifle and is just a 7.62 semi auto rifle.

The classic one certainly is - but as I said, towards the end of WW2, the US army was experimenting with things like a fully automatic mode for the M1, which eventually lead to the M14

Are semi auto rifles up to and inc 7.62 un-restricted? As long as they are not assault rifles?

And so long as they don't look like assault rifles - as defined by the SI.

Are .303 rifles un-restricted?

If they aren't fully auto and they don't look like what the SI defines as assault rifles.

Is this the way it will appear in law or is this only a rough gide as to the changes?

As of May 1, that is the law.

the hunter doesnt konw what he is talkin about. he should be band from this site.

Come August 1st, do we know how will holders of then restricted firearms be treated? Will they have to surrender their guns pending approval from the commisioner?

They'll have to get their renewal from the commissioner. If that's not forthcoming, they'll have to surrender their firearm same way as if they'd had their renewal refused by their local super, except for the inability to take the commissioner to the district court to appeal a refusal (which you could do with the local lad).

However, noone knows as yet what the commissioner's disposal towards restricted stuff will be. Personally, I'm a pessimist on this one and rrpc's an optimist.

But what it boils down to is that if the commissioner wants to, he can make renewals and applications for restricted certs either very straightforward, or practically impossible, on either an individual or a blanket level. He has more power with restricted certs than the local superintendent has with normal certs, by a very wide margin as a result of the CJA2006. Which ought to be a scary sentence for anyone, to my mind.