Restricted Firearms List Drafted

Clare gunner

Do you really think they depend solely on us for their education? Or that our asking for stuff one week before the debate (by which time the bill was drafted) tightened the bill any? That thing was in the works for years. Read it. Every court case ever taken against the DoJ or Gardai is addressed directly by it, the thing is designed for that.

Meant more in the knowledge of guns.All of a sudden all sorts of technical stuff on restricting weapons in the CJB and DRAFT document.

Never. The entire DoJ switchboard permanently engaged? Have you any idea how much press coverage that would get?

Not much,if no one is intrested in reporting it.

But as you said Sparks,how many votes will he lose by not listening???
But on another point I think the draft letter sticky is great.anyone in a diplomatic mind to start it off?

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Meant more in the knowledge of guns.All of a sudden all sorts of technical stuff on restricting weapons in the CJB and DRAFT document.

I seriously doubt they got that information from here either. Frankly, boards hasn't been around long enough. If you have to point fingers (and again, I don't think you do because I think the DoJ went to other police and military forces for technical knowlege), you'd start elsewhere in our community.

Not much,if no one is intrested in reporting it.

Are you kidding me? Crime at the levels it's at and someone can report that the DoJ can't even take phone calls? It'd make the front page of half the national press, and be reported by all of them.

But as you said Sparks,how many votes will he lose by not listening???

And there's what I've been saying for a few years now, in a nutshell. Especially after last night's shooting, noone thinks of firearms in a positive light. Until we change that PR status, we're doing well just holding ground on the legal side of things.

But on another point I think the draft letter sticky is great.anyone in a diplomatic mind to start it off?

Let's get a draft done up in here first. Also, this needs to be done quite rapidly.

Maybe something like:

Dear Sir,
I am writing to protest in the strongest terms the process by which the current guidelines for superintendents and the current draft restricted firearms & ammunition list are being prepared.

As a legitimate, licenced (firearm/firearms) owner, which I use for (hunting/target shooting/hunting and target shooting), I find that the regulations I must adhere to are being changed without any notice given to me or any time in which to submit protests or views. This runs counter to the basic principles of transparent governance.

I would ask that the draft guidelines and the draft restricted list both be made public, not merely shown to representatives who are then asked not to pass the details on to those whom they represent; and that a period of time be announced for the legitimate shooting communities to make submissions on those drafts prior to the final draft being prepared.

Yours (Sincerely/in Sport),

(delete as appropriate, and for the signoff, it's Sincerely for hunters and in Sport for target shooters)

sidneyreilly

Dear Sir,
I am writing to protest in the strongest terms the process by which the current guidelines for superintendents and the current draft restricted firearms & ammunition list are being prepared.

As a legitimate, licenced (firearm/firearms) owner, which I use for (hunting/target shooting/hunting and target shooting), I find that the regulations I must adhere to are being changed without any notice given to me or any time in which to submit protests or views. This runs counter to the basic principles of transparent governance.

I would ask:
1. that the draft guidelines and the draft restricted list both be made public, not merely shown to representatives who are then asked not to pass the details on to those whom they represent; and that a period of time be announced for the legitimate shooting communities to make submissions on those drafts prior to the final draft being prepared.

2. Valid reasons why any listed firearms are to be restricted over any other.

Yours (Sincerely/in Sport),

macnas

Great idea, I know we're only on the second draft but I've posted and emailed it...... I wonder do they have an answering machine after hours:D

sidneyreilly

For people intested in taking up the sport:

Dear Sir,
I am writing to protest in the strongest terms the process by which the current guidelines for superintendents and the current draft restricted firearms & ammunition list are being prepared.

As a law abiding citizen intested in taking up one or more of the shooting/hunting disciplines as a serious sport (but not sure as yet which one). I am concerned that the proposed list may effectively deny me access to many of the disciplines I am interested in. This seems to me very unfair and un-democratic in the highest.

I would ask:

1. that the draft guidelines and the draft restricted list both be made public, not merely shown to representatives who are then asked not to pass the details on to those whom they represent; and that a period of time be announced for the legitimate shooting communities to make submissions on those drafts prior to the final draft being prepared.

2. Valid reasons why any listed firearms are to be restricted over any other.

Yours (Sincerely/in Sport),

Sparks

A minor change:

sidneyreilly wrote:

I would ask:
...
2. that valid reasons by given as to why any listed firearms are to be restricted over any other,
3. that the specific restrictions envisaged be listed.

Clare gunner

[

And there's what I've been saying for a few years now, in a nutshell. Especially after last night's shooting, noone thinks of firearms in a positive light. Until we change that PR status, we're doing well just holding ground on the legal side of things.

Yet credit where credit is due,all press have reported that they are illegal firearms,and no one has trotted out the all guns are bad lets ban em all!type arguements.

Sparks

Dear Sir,
I am writing to protest in the strongest terms the process by which the current Firearms Act guidelines for superintendents and the current draft restricted firearms & ammunition list are being prepared.

As a legitimate, licenced owner of (a firearm/firearms), which I use for (hunting/target shooting/hunting and target shooting), I find that the regulations I must adhere to are being changed without any notice given to me or any time in which to submit protests or views on specific technical details. This runs counter to the basic principles of transparent governance.

I would ask:
1. that the draft guidelines and the draft restricted list both be made public, not merely shown to representatives who are then asked not to pass the details on to those whom they represent; and that a period of time be announced for the legitimate shooting communities to make submissions on those drafts prior to the final draft being prepared.
2. that valid reasons by given as to why any listed firearms are to be restricted over any other.
3. that the specific restrictions envisaged be listed.

Yours (Sincerely/in Sport),

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Yet credit where credit is due,all press have reported that they are illegal firearms,and no one has trotted out the all guns are bad lets ban em all!type arguements.

Yet. And the Minister has lost no opportunity to remind everyone that there's a crackdown in firearms law in process right now.

Not that there was anything legal about the firearms being abused or the crimes being committed before the CJA2006, mind you, but still...

Markhor

Macnas,

Have u seen a copy of the restricted firearms draft? if yes, then what's on it.

How have u been doing with the 30-06, a lot better than the .243 eh !

macnas

I got a quick look at it, it listed military calibres from .223 to 7.62mm, I don't think 9mm was one of them. It restricts police/military combat pistols, it mentions semi autos and rimfire semi auto of capacity over 5 rounds. Also bullpup rifles and bolt action rifles that resemble semi autos, I presume they mean straight pulls. They're the ones that stand out in my memory but the whole document is three pages long, I will try to get a copy of it in the next couple of days.

As for the .30-06, it's mental. I shot four Fallow prickets with it during the rut, all head shots, not really a great test but last week, two Reds, the huge ones that make driving around Co. Meath at night a terrifying ordeal. A stag and a hind, heart/lung shots, instantaneous, very impressive.

I still think the .243 is good enough for anything we've got here but when we can have .30-06s, we might as well use them, I don't think they're on the list.;)

jaycee

I am opposed to the very idea of a restricted list.
I think it is a deeply flawed concept.

As many have suggested , and as is the case in other countries, the danger isn't from the size , shape , type or colour of the firearm. It's the shooter that should be licensed , not the firearm.

By all means make note of the serial number of a firearm ...etc and record the details on someones license.
But the whole idea that an otherwise sane and reasonable , law abiding person is suddenly going to become evil and a menace to society if their firearm has a couple of more rounds at their disposal or it's a different shape or a little bigger in caliber is just stupid.

A nasty man / woman with a "Harmless" single barrel shotgun will do damage. A normal person with a machine gun ...won't.

The difference is the person ....not the gun, and the attitude to firearms policy should reflect that instead of petty differences between one type and another.

Rew

macnas wrote:

I got a quick look at it, it listed military calibres from .223 to 7.62mm, I don't think 9mm was one of them. It restricts police/military combat pistols, it mentions semi autos and rimfire semi auto of capacity over 5 rounds. Also bullpup rifles and bolt action rifles that resemble semi autos, I presume they mean straight pulls. They're the ones that stand out in my memory but the whole document is three pages long, I will try to get a copy of it in the next couple of days.

Does this mean I have to paint my .223 tactical pink to get it licenced agin?? Really annoys me this whole mil caliber thing, I hope they have .22lr on the mil caliber list if there going to to do that....

macnas

I’m sure most folk have seen the list by now but here’s a summary for those that haven’t,

Restricted Firearms,

Firearms classified in categories A, B1, B2, B3, and B7 of Annex1 of European Council Directive 91/477/EEC

Firearms with a barrel less than 30 centimetres or less than 90cm in overall length.

Straight pulls.

Shotguns with barrels less than 61cm in length.

Firearms with detachable, folding or telescopic stocks.

Centrefire rifles that are not single shot or bolt action, i.e semi autos.

Rifles greater than .280/7.1mm.

Firearms of Military Calibres,
5.56x45 (.223)
5.45x39
5.7x28
.224
5.8x42
4.6x30
7.62x39

Bullpup military rifles.

Semi auto rimfires with capacity greater than 6 rnds.

Sound moderators and silencers.

Shotguns with capacity greater than 2+1.

Semi Auto blank firing pistols of police/military design.

Ammunition greater .280, the above military calibres.

Missiles and launchers.

Grenades and bombs used in conjunction with firearms.

Slug ammunition for shotguns.

Accelerator/sabot ammunition.

Rew

The T3 Tac has a 20" barel option which makes it a 51cm barrel. Arnt all psitols less the 60/90cm?

Sparks

Arnt all psitols less the 60/90cm?

No. First pistol licenced in Ireland was a Toz-35, barrel length over 30cm. ISSF 50m free pistol.

BTW, most of the ISSF pistols are covered by category B1 mentioned in there.

civdef

The rimfire semi auto one would make pretty much every much semi auto 22 rifle out there restricted.

Rovi

macnas wrote:

Firearms classified in categories A, B1, B2, B3, and B7 of Annex1 of European Council Directive 91/477/EEC

European Council Directive 91/477/EEC

ANNEX I (excerpts)
Category A - Prohibited firearms
1. Explosive military missiles and launchers.
2. Automatic firearms.
3. Firearms disguised as other objects.
4. Ammunition with penetrating, explosive or incendiary projectiles, and the projectiles for such ammunition.
5. Pistol and revolver ammunition with expanding projectiles and the projectiles for such ammunition, except in the case of weapons for hunting or for target shooting, for persons entitled to use them.

Category B - Firearms subject to authorization
1. Semi-automatic or repeating short firearms.
2. Single-shot short firearms with centre-fire percussion.
3. Single-shot short firearms with rimfire percussion whose overall length is less than 28 cm.
7. Semi-automatic firearms for civilian use which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms.

civdef wrote:

The rimfire semi auto one would make pretty much every much semi auto 22 rifle out there restricted.

Offhand, I'm struggling to think of any 'semi auto rimfire' that doesn't have a 10 round magazine.

civdef

5.8x42

That'll really hit QBZ-95 sales...

kowloon

They really got the trained monkeys out on this one,
Is there any "technical consultant" behind these lists or is it really just a randomer with Anne and Barrys big book of firearms?

flight93

Ok stupid question time! I have a center fire pistol, barrel lenght 5" aprox. Can I keep it? If so what do I have to do? My reason for having it is that I enjoy practical shooting, I am a member of the IPSA, have my competition licence etc. Can prove I compete etc. Very good security

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

Dear Sir,
I am writing to protest in the strongest terms the process by which the current Firearms Act guidelines for superintendents and the current draft restricted firearms & ammunition list are being prepared.

As a legitimate, licenced owner of (a firearm/firearms), which I use for (hunting/target shooting/hunting and target shooting), I find that the regulations I must adhere to are being changed without any notice given to me or any time in which to submit protests or views on specific technical details. This runs counter to the basic principles of transparent governance.

I would ask:
1. that the draft guidelines and the draft restricted list both be made public, not merely shown to representatives who are then asked not to pass the details on to those whom they represent; and that a period of time be announced for the legitimate shooting communities to make submissions on those drafts prior to the final draft being prepared.
2. that valid reasons by given as to why any listed firearms are to be restricted over any other.
3. that the specific restrictions envisaged be listed.

Yours (Sincerely/in Sport),

Right, letter printed, signed, and in the post.

I also added the following line-

Finally, what are the Department's intentions with regard to currently licensed firearms which appear in the final restricted list?

jaycee

kowloon wrote:

They really got the trained monkeys out on this one,
Is there any "technical consultant" behind these lists or is it really just a randomer with Anne and Barrys big book of firearms?

More likely "Janes"

As in...... http://www.janes.com/

Dvs

jaycee wrote:

I am opposed to the very idea of a restricted list.
I think it is a deeply flawed concept.

As many have suggested , and as is the case in other countries, the danger isn't from the size , shape , type or colour of the firearm. It's the shooter that should be licensed , not the firearm.

By all means make note of the serial number of a firearm ...etc and record the details on someones license.
But the whole idea that an otherwise sane and reasonable , law abiding person is suddenly going to become evil and a menace to society if their firearm has a couple of more rounds at their disposal or it's a different shape or a little bigger in caliber is just stupid.

A nasty man / woman with a "Harmless" single barrel shotgun will do damage. A normal person with a machine gun ...won't.

The difference is the person ....not the gun, and the attitude to firearms policy should reflect that instead of petty differences between one type and another.

C'mon Now jaycee,
Don't be talkin sense!

You know as well as me,
that normal law abiding firearms owners are not to be trusted! :rolleyes:

I doubt if there will ever be a politican in this country,
that will have the good sense to admit that,
by and large, criminals never have,
or do not now need to source firearms and ammunition,
from legal firearms owners, and that the have more firearms and ammunition, than they will ever need.

And that this argument,
is not a legitimate reason to prohibit/restrict legal firearms ownership,
of any firearm regardless of type.

Politicians in Todays Ireland,
believe that law abiding people must be controlled at all times,
every aspect of their lives must be legislated for by the State,
controls must be put in place, rules must be created and applied,
Order must be maintained regardless of the cost,
to personnel freedom.




This is not Modern thinking by any means.....







This is the same kind of thinking as two Great politicians from the past........





Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler !



Dvs.

kowloon

I dont know, the writing in those janes identification guides is very small with big words like Description "Deh-Scrip-Shun what?".
But they do have pictures so you can pick out anything thats black or has a pistol grip :rolleyes:

Dvs

kowloon wrote:

I dont know, the writing in those janes identification guides is very small with big words like Description "Deh-Scrip-Shun what?".
But they do have pictures so you can pick out anything thats black or has a pistol grip :rolleyes:

It has been proven beyond doubt that black coloured firearms,
and or rifles with pistol grips or so called military calibers are much more dangerous than all others !

How you might ask, did they come to that conclusion ?



Did they conduct tests?

Did they consult firearms related statistics from around the world ?

Did they get expert opinons ?

Did they base this opinion on facts?


???????????????????????










No, they did not!

They are the ones they see on movies and television.

The ones that Arnie or Neo shoots fifty people,
without reloading!


Dvs.

Kramer

Those "restrictions" are shocking :eek: .

I can understand though. Look at how many murders have been commited with suppressed .22lrs :rolleyes: .

Look at all the carnage .22lr semi-auto Rugers have caused.

As for .223s, the dreaded "military calibre", how have we survived thus far with this lethal weapon on the loose :eek: .

They may as well ban firearm ownership outright as they're 90% there with that proposed list :mad: .

Sparks

Rovi wrote:

Offhand, I'm struggling to think of any 'semi auto rimfire' that doesn't have a 10 round magazine.

ISSF semi-auto rimfire pistols have a 5-round magazine.

Kramer

It doesn't look good for reloading either...........

civdef

Oh yeah, and the 2+1 shotgun thing - are they aware just how many shotguns out there will fit into this category?