.308 Refusal

maglite

Checked with ballistics section and
1)Unsuitable military calibre
2)Sniper and machine gun calibre
3)undesirable crossover mil and civ
4)other cal just as good

2) so is a .22lr the isrealies used it
3) the military use almost ever other calliber
4)not sure how you would explain


and how exactly did you plant youself in the station;)

Sparks

cantona wrote:

FOOTNOTE: Letter in name of Super but UNSIGNED and parting comment reads
"If this does not meet your requirements,I will attend Court on the date of your choosing subject to you appealing this decision"
Comments please.

Sounds like the superintendent doesn't like the idea of anyone in his district having a fullbore rifle and he's read the CJB and decided that with it coming in, there'll be no need to have to issue licences because by the time it gets to court the law will have changed. Highly bloody cynical abuse if you ask me. When you stated long-range target shooting did you specify a specific discipline like Palma or the UK NRA's match rifle discipline?

bernard93

Cantona,

Defo make the point that all fullbore postion target rifle shooting goverened by the British Nra is shot with 7.62 or 0.308 calibre rifles, ifs its TR or MATCH rifle its still the same cabilre only a different bullet weight and modifications to the rifle, Also as sparks said if you want to shoot Palma rifle you have to use a .308.

Its always worth a try...

What rifle are you going after?

Or what you could do is apply for a .243 and get it rebarrled to .308 in a couple of months time. Most of the firearms garda in the stations will change your cert for you there and then...;)

Sparks

Or what you could do is apply for a .243 and get it rebarrled to .308 in a couple of months time. Most of the firearms garda in the stations will change your cert for you there and then...

Hmmm. It is a bit of an abuse, but the concept - showing that a .243 is safe so a .308 wouldn't be abused - well, I guess that might be more acceptable to the Superintendent. Doesn't sound like it from the tone of his note though. Cantona, any objection to telling us which district this is for? Maybe some other posters have been licenced through there and might have something to add?

Sparks

And if worst came to the worst, do the UK NRA still allow you to shoot match rifle with .303s?

cantona

Included details of all relevant disciplines including palma,f-class, match, target etc.Gave him printouts covering everthing.

Fitzgibbon St.

Dvs

cantona wrote:

Reasons:as of 04/06 appreciate concern over delay but
only got application on 28/09/05

Checked with ballistics section and
1)Unsuitable military calibre
2)Sniper and machine gun calibre
3)undesirable crossover mil and civ
4)other cal just as good

Look for something smaller(will consider)


In refusing Application, my reasons


a)Not in public interest

b)Not in public interest(Ballistics Section)

c)Consider smaller calibre

d)Just because available, should not be for public

e)Not satisified to your reasons


All this after submitting documentation the size of a phone book relating how .308/7.62 is the internationally recognised calibre for Long range target shooting


FOOTNOTE: Letter in name of Super but UNSIGNED and parting comment reads

"If this does not meet your requirements,I will attend Court on the date of your choosing subject to you appealing this decision"



Comments please.

1)Unsuitable military calibre
As previously stated by others could be said of just about any calibre.

2)Sniper and machine gun calibre
Does this mean, your Superintendent is of the belief that you might become a Sniper if you were in possession of a .308 !
Or that you have an illegal machine gun, that you wish to source ammo for ?

3)undesirable crossover mil and civ
Undesirable how exactly? for whom?
Does this mean, your Superintendent thinks you are a criminal,
who will steal ammo from the military, or are members of the military giving away ammo on street corners?

4)other cal just as good
Not for you, you are a law abiding person and you want to buy a .308 rifle to take part in your chosen shooting sport.

If your Superintendent or the officers in the Ballistics Section,
decide to take up rifle shooting,then their opinion on whats good will have some bearing,then they can decide what good for them,
for their chosen disipline!


a)Not in public interest= made up reason not supported in law,
This is not a reason of disentitlement, as contained in the firearms act and it's ammendments.

b)Not in public interest(Ballistics Section)=same as above.

c)Consider smaller calibre=barter
Why should you, you want a .308 your not disentitled.

d)Just because available, should not be for public=Opinion
Not supported by law

e)Not satisified to your reasons=I am the law

"If this does not meet your requirements,I will attend Court on the date of your choosing subject to you appealing this decision"= F**k you, if you think you can threaten me with the High court!



If your a Member contact Des Crofton at the NARGC.

Contact Flag directly by PM thru the boards.

Dvs.

cantona

Decided to test the waters with application for 22.
Applied Sat AM.Got phone call today 3PM asking me would it be ok to drop
CERTIFICATE up to the house on wed. evening.
Awaiting in hope.

babybundy

chance your arm and ask for a fn fal with a 22 adapter or just for the fun an m60 for alot of rabbits or sheep if you are military

Rew

Cantona:

What rifle had you before your .308 application?

17HMR

maglite wrote:

Checked with ballistics section and
1)Unsuitable military calibre
2)Sniper and machine gun calibre
3)undesirable crossover mil and civ

Military calibre ?
.50BMG is a military calibre.
.308 ?
Hardly.

Why don't they issue certs based on muzzle energy ?
Why not a simply catagorisation like (off the top of my head):

Cat 1 <1 ft/lb Unrestricted (Airsoft)
Cat 2 1-20 ft/lb Restricted to 16yrs of age, 14 supervised (Airguns)
Cat 3 20-300 ft/lb FAC, basic conditions (Airguns, rimfire)
Cat 4 300-1000 ft/lb FAC + (Most handguns, .22 hornet)
Cat 5 1000-2000 ft/lb FAC ++ (.223 etc)
Cat 6 2000-3000 ft/lb FAC +++ (6mm etc)
Cat 7 3000-4000 ft/lb FAC ++++ (.308 etc)
Cat 8 >4000 ft/lb FAC +++++ (.458 etc)

The further up the list you go, the better storage you need, the better reasons you need to have it etc.

Something clear and simple. No local interpretation required.
Meet the requirements and you can have it. End of story.

Sparks

17HMR wrote:

Militaty calibre ?
.50BMG is a military calibre.
.308 ?
Hardly.

.308 being mixed up here in the super's mind with the 7.62mm NATO round I'd imagine.

Why don't they issue certs based on muzzle energy ?

Beats most of us. Lack of technical knowlege at the policy-making level I'd imagine.

Cat 2 1-20 ft/lb Restricted to 16yrs of age, 14 supervised (Airguns)

20 foot-pounds would be a bit hefty for an air rifle. You'd want an FAC in the UK for such an airgun. Seven Joules is the limit in Germany, that seems to work quite well. And the age ought to be 12 for supervised training, not 14.

17HMR

No doubt it would need fine tuning.....

As I said, 'twas off the top of my head (and .308 should have been in Cat 6 I think).

It the principal I'm suggesting.

The principal of a clear catagorisation where everyone, shooter and Garda, knows where they stand.

Vegeta

17HMR wrote:

Militaty calibre ?
.50BMG is a military calibre.
.308 ?
Hardly.

Why don't they issue certs based on muzzle energy ?
Why not a simply catagorisation like (off the top of my head):

Cat 1 <1 ft/lb Unrestricted (Airsoft)
Cat 2 1-20 ft/lb Restricted to 16yrs of age, 14 supervised (Airguns)
Cat 3 20-300 ft/lb FAC, basic conditions (Airguns, rimfire)
Cat 4 300-1000 ft/lb FAC + (Most handguns, .22 hornet)
Cat 5 1000-2000 ft/lb FAC ++ (.223 etc)
Cat 6 2000-3000 ft/lb FAC +++ (6mm etc)
Cat 7 3000-4000 ft/lb FAC ++++ (.308 etc)
Cat 8 >4000 ft/lb FAC +++++ (.458 etc)

The further up the list you go, the better storage you need, the better reasons you need to have it etc.

Something clear and simple. No local interpretation required.
Meet the requirements and you can have it. End of story.

Cos your proposal makes too much sense and is logical why would anybody ever try to implement such a well though out scheme.

Seriously this government is a joke, I have yet to say "well that's a good idea" most things that run smoothly in Ireland are just copied from other nations who did it first. Ireland is very bad at solving its own problems.

Vegeta

17HMR wrote:

No doubt it would need fine tuning.....

As I said, 'twas off the top of my head (and .308 should have been in Cat 6 I think).

It the principal I'm suggesting.

The principal of a clear catagorisation where everyone, shooter and Garda, knows where they stand.

I really like this idea, as you say it'd need fine tuning and some consultation with people who know about all aspects of shooting.

17HMR

And shotguns.....
How is it that shotguns appear to be the easiest firearm to get licenced ?

Muzzle energy of a 12 gauge shotgun firing 00 shot is up there with a .223.
Certainly doesn't have the range (which is an important consideration)....but, close up, it'll make a bigger mess.

Perhaps shotguns require categories of thier own based on gauge/action ?


The bit below from : http://www.chuckhawks.com/shotguns_protection_field.htm

If you figure out the total muzzle energy (ME) of a standard 12 gauge, 2 3/4", 00 buckshot load, which launches 9 pellets at a muzzle velocity (MV) of 1325 fps, it is roughly similar to that of the old .45-70 405 grain rifle load (MV 1330 fps, ME 1590 ft. lbs.);

cantona

Never had rifle before, but proved my capability with proof of participation in All-Army 7 times with rifle and 6 times with LMG.Also same Super licenced me last Sept for .40 pistol in less than 3 weeks(with much pressure and update phone calls).Also provided details of all courses taken(many overseas with military and police).He dosen't dispute my qualifications only my reasons.

Dvs

cantona wrote:

Never had rifle before, but proved my capability with proof of participation in All-Army 7 times with rifle and 6 times with LMG.Also same Super licenced me last Sept for .40 pistol in less than 3 weeks(with much pressure and update phone calls).Also provided details of all courses taken(many overseas with military and police).He dosen't dispute my qualifications only my reasons.

I hate to say it cantona,
But I see his point, if you could change your calibre of rifle required by you from a .308 to a .22lr and think this is acceptable!

If you felt the need to haggle with your Superintendent,and had said to him, well if you won't issue a license for a .308,
will you issue a .223,.243 or a 6.5x55 then, you might have shown that you did, as you stated to him in your application,
need a rifle for long range target shooting disiplines,
if a .22lr will suffice then it seems this was not the case.

Not only that, but it gives creedence to the idea that,
the powers that be can fob you off with makey up law, and it will work.

If your thinking, that you can put in another application in a month or two and get a centerfire, failing a change of Superintendent,
you may be told, ahh sure see how you get on with that .22lr for a while.....

Just my 2cents €uro.

Dvs.

cantona

.22 is not instead of .308 but for gallery and mini-practical.Have been in contact with FLAG and discussions are ongoing.No where does it sat that just because I have a .22 (that i use for different disciplines) that I cannot have a .308.This has not ended yet.

Dvs

cantona wrote:

.22 is not instead of .308 but for gallery and mini-practical.

Your Superintendent may not see it that way, unless you made it very clear!

cantona wrote:

.Have been in contact with FLAG and discussions are ongoing.No where does it sat that just because I have a .22 (that i use for different disciplines) that I cannot have a .308.

It's in the same place that, it does not say any of the other stuff,
your Superintendent told you !

cantona wrote:

This has not ended yet.

I'm glad to hear it!

Dvs.

cantona

Yes it was well explained and if he had any questions, if he had answered any of my 38 attempts to arrange an interview with him, he would have had anything else that he required.The only way that i got the refusal letter was to mention Guarda complaints and High Court.Remember that his initial refusal thru my FAO was dated 15/11/05 and took me till 10/04/06 to get it from him albeit not signed.

Sparks

Unfortunately Cantona, it sounds like you're being left with very little in the way of options here. If you do decide to take it to court, I understand that the NARGC has a very good track record in this arena.