Restricted Firearms List Drafted

triskell

has anyone heard or can confirm that a draft of the restricred firearms list was released internaly on 1 november. this bascially says anything over .280 is restricted as there's no requirement for it here (other than target shooting).
that you will need very specific reasons to aqquire a license for a caliber over .280 e.g .308 .300 .303 7mm
on pistols, anthing over .22 is being capped. unless you have very specific reasons.
also the old chestnut. military related firearms are all on the list, even some of the benelli shotguns are on it m4 being listed
this has not become law YET

Sparks

Posted a week or so ago:

2. This Department will not be issuing you with a copy of the draft
Restricted Firearms & Ammunition S.I but your organisation is invited to
meet officials in the Department to outline any views you may have on this
proposed statutory instrument.

There are a few drafts floating about that I've heard of, but none of them in any way official.

sidneyreilly

There have indeed been some drafts, please remember they are "draft" so no point discussing it until something concrete is shown

Vegeta

i would be thinking differently, surely when a draft becomes a concrete list then it is too late to change it

we should be engaging now and voicing our opinions early

Clare gunner

Thats the reason govts never issue drafts,so you can do feck all about it when they do issue them as guidelines or proposals.All predecided.:rolleyes:

Sparks

Various bodies have already met with the DoJ on this one and are still meeting with them Veg; but that doesn't mean that individuals can't send in their own opinions on them either, and as the debates on the CJA2006 showed, those individual points do get listened to.

Send your letters to:
Firearms & Explosives Section
Dept. of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
94, St. Stephen's Green
Dublin 2

Fax: 01 6028374

Emails to :
Firearms_INBOX@justice.ie

Flying

Does this mean my benelli M4 and Glock 17L 9MM could be taken from me if this becomes law ???

Sparks

Your firearms could be taken from you already through a few perfecly legal mechanisms Flying. The Temporary Custody Order legislation is still on the books, don't forget.

What the restricted list means is more subtle - namely that you would have to apply directly to the Commissioner for your licence if your firearms are on the restricted list or if the ammunition you use is on the list. And if he was so inclined, he could require you to fulfill whatever preconditions he wished before your licence was issued, up to and well past the point where you could afford to meet those preconditions. It's a mechanism that I've been saying was wide open to abuse from day one, and I still think it's not a good one. It's not a "take away your firearms" mechanism like the temporary custody order, but it could very easily be abused as a "prevent you from getting them in the first place" mechanism.

Flying

Sparks wrote:

Your firearms could be taken from you already through a few perfecly legal mechanisms Flying. The Temporary Custody Order legislation is still on the books, don't forget.

What the restricted list means is more subtle - namely that you would have to apply directly to the Commissioner for your licence if your firearms are on the restricted list or if the ammunition you use is on the list. And if he was so inclined, he could require you to fulfill whatever preconditions he wished before your licence was issued, up to and well past the point where you could afford to meet those preconditions. It's a mechanism that I've been saying was wide open to abuse from day one, and I still think it's not a good one. It's not a "take away your firearms" mechanism like the temporary custody order, but it could very easily be abused as a "prevent you from getting them in the first place" mechanism.

mmmmmmm methinks I will have a word with the Local Firearms officer as I have put quite a few bob into both firearms and also I a was considering purchasing an old .303" Lee Enfield Rifle although I current have a moderate Ruger 10/22 .22" also....

I would be out close to €2200 if I had to part with my pride and joy mmm :eek:

Sparks

Nothing to do with the local Firearms Officer Flying, this is a long way over his pay grade, if you'll pardon the expression. You want to have a word with the DoJ at the addresses/phone numbers above...

Flying

Will do if things look bleak I might consider trading them in for lesser obvious firearms such as a Remington 870 and Some form of a .22" Pistol.

Thanks for the Info mate

triskell

Sparks wrote:

Your firearms could be taken from you already through a few perfecly legal mechanisms Flying. The Temporary Custody Order legislation is still on the books, don't forget.

on what grounds can this implemneted........ medical or criminal type reasons.
or can it be, I dont think you should have that
on the list itself i think the more people who know about this now the more that can be done about it, there is an election commin up:D

Clare gunner

Wouldnt panic too much,if you have a 9mm /45 pistol.Just get an application in for a .22 conversion kit,and if the worst happens ,all you do is hand in the 9mm barrel,mag,and slide.But remember iyt isnt happend yet,nor is it a ban.So let's wait and see,but moan and groan to the DOJ in the meantime.:)

flight93

Thats all very well if shooting .22 pistols interests you. I know lots of people who enjoy shooting .22 and just have no interest in larger calibers. But for me and others like me it has to be at least 9mm for pactical shooting, .22 does nothing for me.

triskell

flight93 wrote:

Thats all very well if shooting .22 pistols interests you. I know lots of people who enjoy shooting .22 and just have no interest in larger calibers. But for me and others like me it has to be at least 9mm for pactical shooting, .22 does nothing for me.

so in theory you have a legitimate reason to have it, practical shooting requires a centrefire caliber of a certain power level. i think this going to be geared towards stopping the fella who wants a .375 for bunnies or a fifty for deer.
people are gonna have justify why a they want a restricted caliber or firearm, and then meet the DOJ criteria (security arrangements and suitable range facilites). what groups are meeting the DOJ?

flight93

I know dfaf, I was just trying to point out to clare gunner that to only be able to shoot .22 would be a really big deal to some of us. I enjoy lots of forms of target shooting, but when you get in to practical..... well if you havent done it you just wouldnt understand! Im not even much good at it, but its just so much fun, it would kill me to give it up.

Clare gunner

And what do we do if some Gauleiter...er superintendant or minister states that practical pistol can be just as easily shot with 22lr???????????
IF they dont ban it somtime,because it "might be useful for paramilitaries or criminals to train with."Dont laugh they used that nonsense to ban paintball in the 80s here.
Or HOW will we get around the ,when it comes practical rifle centrefire semi autos
??THEY could be stopped on any of the citeria in the current legislation.
This same sort of daft logic has been supplied to folks who have applied for "silencers" on noise limitation orhearing protection grounds.Use ear muffs,or dont shoot at all.How do you deal with that kind of logic???

Dont get me wrong I prefer myself big calibre shooting,and practical as well.
But INMHO of seeing the way Irish laws work and Irish politicians,I would be inclined to think that no matter what happens they will screw us the electorate anyway somway.Soo,personally,i would rather still be shooting my Glock [or hopefully next purchase a Grizzly 45Win mag] with a 22 kit,rather than nothing at all,in a worst case situation.

Oh..
My..
God..

CG just accepted shooting a .22lr instead of a Centrefire... and advised others to do the same!! :eek:

Need to get out the shotgun to take down those flying pigs!!!

Clare gunner

Where did Im say that??? I said if big cal is "restricted"and you want to keep shooting your restricted big caliber pistol a 22 conversion kit might be the only way to hold onto it.
Didnt see any flying pigs[apart from the Garda Helicopter,does that count?]:D

Sparks

dfaf wrote:

on what grounds can this implemneted........ medical or criminal type reasons. or can it be, I dont think you should have that

From the 1964 Firearms Act, Section 4:

4.—(1) The Minister may, if satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of the public safety, make an order requiring every person residing in an area specified in the order and having possession of any firearm or ammunition or of a firearm or ammunition of such class or classes as may be specified in the order to surrender it on or before a date specified in the order to the Garda Síochána.

Thing is, "in the interests of public safety" is a very broad phrase...

Also remember that that section is open to very cynical abuse, as happened in '72 because while it says the TCO can only last for a month at the most:

(2) An order under subsection (1) of this section shall remain in force for such period not exceeding one month as may be specified in the order.

There is this lovely little caveat at the end:

(5) As soon as may be after the time at which an order under subsection (1) of this section ceases to be in force, the Garda Síochána shall, subject to the provisions of the Principal Act, return any firearms or ammunition surrendered to or seized by them pursuant to the order to the owners thereof.

What happened in '72 was that all firearms (bar .22s, air rifles and shotguns) were taken into custody just after the licence renewals were due (August 2nd was when the TCO was issued and you had until August 5 to comply). But when the month was up and people went to get them back, no licences were issued because of an internal Garda/DoJ policy. And since the Gardai can't give you a firearm if you don't have a licence...

on the list itself i think the more people who know about this now the more that can be done about it, there is an election commin up:D

Doesn't help us really. Do the math and you find we're too small and too spread out to be able to influence an election. And doing the math is a matter of self-preservation for the politicians you'd look to influence.

macnas

Got a quick look at a copy of the draft restricted list, alot of stuff in there, military calibres, semi auto rifles, police/military pistols, straight pulls and lots more. The powers that be seem to be a lot more clued in than they used to be.

I know the NARGC are in discussions with the Dept. on this, is there any input from FLAG?

Sparks

Almost everyone (though one or two major groups are still in the queue) has met the DoJ at this stage macnas - NRPAI, NARGC, NTSA, NASRC, the whole soup bowl. It doesn't immediately appear to be having any huge effect, but then again, the reason there was that great big "DRAFT" stamped across the SI in two-inch-tall letters and the "for discussion only" bit on the top is that they have to listen to all parties before they can make changes. That's the process we've been committed to by the CJA2006.

civdef

Don't supposed the plebs who aren't on committees of these bodies will get a look?

dbar

Anyone have a look at the Xmas Shooters digest yet?
Some info in there about the way the restricted firearms issue is developing.

Sparks

Don't supposed the plebs who aren't on committees of these bodies will get a look?

The committees were all asked not to disclose the details Civ. I can't post them without the okay of the NTSA board. Drawbacks of working with the system.

Some info in there about the way the restricted firearms issue is developing.

Not really to be honest. Des Crofton's pages which were sent to the TDs make for interesting reading especially for the details of case studies, but I don't really think there was anything in the Digest which was new for anyone reading here (mainly because the Digest has such a longer publishing cycle than here).

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

The committees were all asked not to disclose the details Civ. I can't post them without the okay of the NTSA board. Drawbacks of working with the system.

How about generalisations?we could draw our own conclusions right or wrong from them.

kowloon

.280?

I was under the impression that things were becoming more enlightened, muzzle energy and the likes having their say.
so i can still amend a .22LR to a .220 swift but someone looking to hang an old snider on their wall is screwed over for having a ye olde style fat bp caliber?
One cant fight off hordes of natives wielding sharp pieces of fruit with a girls caliber.

astraboy

No doubt there will be a knee jerk reaction to all the criminal style slayings involving firearms recently. To be honest, all guns are dangerous in the worng hands, it dosent matter if its a 9mm or a .22. The people that legally hold firearms, especially those that go through all the hoops to get seriously restricted weapons like the member above with the Glock, are not going to go out and point it in the face of the local publican or shopkeeper and demand money. A bit of common sense would go a long way, let those that wish to participate in target shooting in a controlled environment with larger calibers do so, its not like we are asking to be allowed hold 1000 rounds of depleated urniaum. It is the guns bought into this country illegally, propably with large consignements of drugs, that are the problem.

kowloon

On a more serious not though, if the .280 restriction comes into effect, along with "military calibers", wont that just mean things are back to the way they were? barring the pistols...

macnas

Sparks wrote:

The committees were all asked not to disclose the details Civ.

An old DOJ 'negotiation' strategy, next thing it will be a done deal that is rubber stamped by the various organisations involved.

Clare gunner

FACT!!!,and usually around this time of year is dangerous,when everyone wants to get Dail biz done and dusted before the Xmas/Feb break to look like the TD an ministers are hard working and need an eight week break.:rolleyes: So rush it through and to Hell with consequences or procedure.