Restricted Firearms List Drafted

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Would be very interesting to hear if there's any feeling that the Dept are listening to suggestions from the various organisations on this.

Too early to tell yet, at least from my point of view Civ.

Personally I think individual submissions will have little or no effect compared to whatever the representative orgs can achieve.

Speaking again from my point of view, I would have to disagree.

FLAG

civdef wrote:

Would be very interesting to hear if there's any feeling that the Dept are listening to suggestions from the various organisations on this. Personally I think individual submissions will have little or no effect compared to whatever the representative orgs can achieve.

civdef: I have to agree, a campaign of letter writing will have an effect if the volume is sufficient to warrant a response, the restricted firearms listing was issued in draft form to the SSAI and the NARGC for discussion, we representing the SSAI had a frank and very detailed discussion with DOJ on the listings, we made very valuable comment on the content and I can assure everyone that our opinion was taken on board.

It is not helpful to have individual letters written such as published on the boards with statements that is critical of the DOJ for not widely circulating the draft list, I think it unprecedented in any case that we were afforded the opportunity to discuss the listings with the DOJ, in previous times the listings would have been published and to hell with our opinion.

The intimation on the boards also is that the listings were somewhat held confidentially by the SSAI, while it was the case that we were asked not to physically circulate the document we fully briefed the SSAI and all clubs who made an effort to turn up at the meeting in Laois in October, there were at least 22 clubs and as far as I can recollect all Associations affiliated to the SSAI bar the Pony club had representation there.

We are presently waiting for a further meeting to be arranged by the DOJ to further discuss the issues related to the upcoming statutes.

I hope this helps put the record straight.

PS Hmmm restricting semi autos to five shot mags, I wonder where that came from!

jaycee

I’m swiftly coming to the conclusion that it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference what we say.
These people seem to forget just who is paying their wages, and like any under performing employee a better person to do the job can always be found .
I think it's all pre-decided and the so called "Consultation process” is a joke and an insult to the spirit of democracy. It's nothing more than paying lip-service to our desires, needs and wishes and a monumental waste of our time.

Has every citizen of this state not got the right to have their views considered when it comes to policy and the law....?
Are some of us more equal than others..? Too bloody right..!

A section of the proposed "draft” arrived by snail mail (regular postal service) to my home. I thank whoever sent it, but can't name them as it was two sheets of paper, unsigned and the postmark was smudged, one outlined the draft list of restricted items, and the other was largely an advisory note that the content not be made public.
I have made no such agreement with anyone nor did I ask to see the list, therefore I consider myself not bound to secrecy.

What did strike me on first reading was the following,
1: The childish notion of defining firearms by their appearance.
The most subjective and potentially troublesome aspect of the act.
i.e.. What item looks dangerous to all or to none? ,
Can an objective agreement be made …? I say not. A set of garden shears or hedge clippers is only a common tool to many, but some may see in it a potentially lethal set of sharpened and keen edged blades.

2: Reading the draft in conjunction with the new Firearms section of the CJB throws up several strange legal oddballs …and to mention but one.

Section 30 … deals with applications for firearms licence and a subsection reads as follows :

(9) A decision on an application for a firearm
certificate or its renewal shall be given within 3
months from the date on which the applicant submitted
a completed application form.

(10) Where the application is refused, the
applicant shall be informed in writing of the
refusal and the reason for it.


BUT… under the section dealing with the much lauded “right of appeal”
We have the following two qualifiers

15A.—(1) An appeal may be made to the District
Court by a person aggrieved by any of the
following decisions made by an issuing person:

(a) to refuse to grant a firearms training 30
certificate under section 2A of this
Act;
(b) to refuse to grant or renew a firearm
certificate under section 3 of this Act;

It get’s worse :


(4) Where the appeal is allowed, the issuing
person shall give effect to the Court’s decision. For the purposes of this section

(a) an issuing person—
who is required under section 3(9),
4A(7) or 10(4F) to decide on an
application within a specified
period, and

(ii) who does not so decide,
is deemed to have decided to refuse to
grant the application,

(b) the applicant is deemed to have
received notice of the decision on the
expiration of that period,
and
(c) as the case may be, section 3(10) does
not apply in relation to the application.
(6) The jurisdiction conferred on the District
Court by this section shall be exercised by the
judge of that Court assigned to the district in
57

So, we have a situation where if the licensing power decides to “Bin” the applications
We will therefore have had no response, and therefore can consider ourselves refused.
I like to think of this as the “Slackers” clause, do nothing and they will all go away.

There are other anomalies … but I don’t want to bore the readers.




Now for the real meat in this stew….. The restricted list:



• All Category A firearms
• Semi auto blank pistols of military or police design
• All Category B1, B2, B3 firearms bar air pistols.
• Any firearm which has a barrel less than 30cm or is less than 90 cm long overall and which is not a category B1/B2/B3 firearm.
• Category B7 firearms.
• Long centerfire firearms with action types other than bolt action or single shot
• Firearms for civilian use with a bolt action or single shot mechanism which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms.
• Long firearms with smoothbore barrels less than 61cm in length
• Prohibited firearms (as per the current firearms act)
• Any rifle of caliber of .280 or higher
• Any rifle of caliber 5.56x45NATO, .223 Remington, 5.45x39 Soviet, 5.7x28 (P90 and FN 5-7), .224 BOZ, 5.8x42 Chinese type 87, 4.6x30, 7.62x39
• Rifles of a military bull pup design
• Long firearms with detachable/folding/telescoping stocks
• Semi auto rimfire rifles with magazines greater than six rounds
• Silencers classified in categories B1,B2,B3
• Firearms in section 1(1)(d) of the Firearms Acts
• Long firearms with smoothbore barrels and magazines /chamber capacity greater than three rounds

• Ammo for all of the above
• Ammo for explosive military missiles and launchers
• Ammo in Category A
• Grenades, bombs, similar, whether or not they can be used with a firearm
• Slug ammo for shotguns
• Sabot ammo

Now friends and readers I want you to remember that all this is supposedly still in draft status, meaning …open to discussion and subject to negotiation and agreement. So like good little girls and boys members of some (Not all) of the shooting bodies have been having meetings with the Dept of Justice...Etc to “discuss” these “Proposals”
Ah …but there’s the rub, from the time these “draft” items were issued (around the end of September)...Some of it is being implemented as policy ahead of schedule. Prior to agreement … So while pretending to take on board the earnest proposals and well presented arguments to amend some of these conditions …Our government is busy putting into effect the very policies it pretends to be still open to hearing input on.
What an insult..! What arrogance..! …What a betrayal of good faith and the very principals of open and transparent government. What an impact it will have on me come election time.

What are my reasons for thinking this….?
Well in a break from all the farce lets have some facts.
Fact: Try to buy or have imported a Benelli M3 super 90, this for those who are unfamiliar, is a shotgun. Black, plastic stock, not cheap, It will work as either a semi auto or as a pump action. No firearms dealer in Ireland can import one at present.
A great pity because the very design of this firearm lends itself very well to rough shooting, its plastic stock isn’t worried by rain. In semi auto mode it allows a quick follow up shot ,while the pump mode , rather than having some evil purpose simply provides a method to shoot lower power ammunition that wouldn’t cycle the action properly in semi auto mode.

Why, well you may ask….
Is it because it’s a semi-auto …? Nope, lots of them about.
Is it because it’s a pump action …? Nope, lots of them around too.
So then we get down to it. It’s the way it looks.
It apparently looks scary to the wrong people and that’s enough
The DOJ, are not allowing imports of this firearm, and this is still long before the Draft proposals are accepted by all. So apparently, while pretending to listen to some of us they are going ahead and making their policies
Never mind the fact that this is only one item and it maybe only the tip of the iceberg, it still upsets the principal of consultation because bad as the principal of judging thing by their appearance is, it forms part of the draft proposals . An important word “Draft” or it should be, according to the Oxford dictionary its definition is as follows …
Draft: n. 1 “Plan” “sketch”,” drawing”, “outline” rough (sketch) blueprint ,diagram ..a prospectus …
Or in other words, something that is not yet decided and may change depending on the input and information one receives. Not in this case, It seems to mean...This is what we’re doing, say what you like, we are ignoring you so please feel free to waffle on.
Oh…by the way, you can’t tell the public what we plan to do.
Well….get stuffed..!
Some of the restrictions seem to have been implemented around the same time as the draft was issued, meetings with the DOJ took place after that date and well meaning and earnest people acted in good faith and engaged in a process that they hoped would have some impact on their future sport. … A total sham.
If only the same degree of organization and effort could be devoted to cleaning up real criminal activity instead of shafting honest people, the crime stats would be well down.

macnas

Fluffers don't make great negotiators!!!

thelurcher

Any ideas of making a compact 10/22 are out the window now (wanted something easy to carry on the bike).
• Long firearms with detachable/folding/telescoping stocks
• Semi auto rimfire rifles with magazines greater than six rounds
• Any firearm which has a barrel less than 30cm or is less than 90 cm long overall and which is not a category B1/B2/B3 firearm.

How many rimfire semi autos have a mag <7
Every stock is detachable :rolleyes: I can fire my 6.5 without the stock - but why would anyone bother

Anyone with a G22 is knackered too:
• Rifles of a military bull pup design

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

civdef: I have to agree, a campaign of letter writing will have an effect if the volume is sufficient to warrant a response

FLAG, two sentences later wrote:

It is not helpful to have individual letters written such as published on the boards

It's bad enough that there are contradictions in the legislation, y'know.

I can assure everyone that our opinion was taken on board.

I'd love to hear, in detail, how you can give that assurance.

The intimation on the boards also is that the listings were somewhat held confidentially by the SSAI

The word you're thinking of is actually "report" not "intimation".

, while it was the case that we were asked not to physically circulate the document

That's not the case. You were asked, as were we, not to circulate the contents of the document. That's what the big "For Discussion Only" bit at the top of the cover page referred to, that's what you were explicitly told by the DoJ people, same as us.

I hope this helps put the record straight.

Regrettably not.

PS Hmmm restricting semi autos to five shot mags, I wonder where that came from!

You, actually.






Look folks, I know a lot of you are now probably thinking "Not now, dammit" after reading the above. But the sad fact here is that we're in serious trouble. The actual dodging of this bullet had to be done four or five years ago. And the kind of "we're fighting your corner, don't you lift a finger or you'll damage something" crap I'm seeing above from Declan has got to end now.

We're treated as being small and insignificant because we think and act small and insignificant. What we need to be doing is getting off our rear ends and sending off letters, whether you write your own or use the one in this thread, and actually sending it off with the christmas cards. We need to be making phone calls and talking to TDs to lobby on our behalf. Not just you, sitting there reading this, but your two mates in the club who go shooting once every few weeks and who wouldn't go near a competition if you paid them and who want nothing to do with politics or the gardai because only dodgy people have to spend time talking to the cops. Believe me, if we all (the silent ones and the loud ones) sent in a letter and called the DoJ two days later to confirm it arrived - we would see our sport treated far better than it is. Being negative is not required. Shouting is not necessary. Threatening to vote against someone won't help at all (especially as the math won't back us up).

Being seen to have the large active base that we do have however, will help. Enormously.

Otherwise, look forward to the DoJ allowing most of the .22 and airgun stuff that was allowed and a little less of the deer-hunting stuff that was allowed before the CJA, and our "representatives" claiming that this enormous devastating loss is some kind of victory.

Rew

thelurcher wrote:

How many rimfire semi autos have a mag <7
Every stock is detachable :rolleyes: I can fire my 6.5 without the stock - but why would anyone bother

My Krico semi-auto 22lr has a mag of 10, I cannt find a spare mag for it let alone a 5/6 round mag!! I suppose a good gun smith could insert a stopper or something in to the mag.

Vegeta

The fact there is a draft in the first place is insulting enough

Then there is the content. I'd love to see the powers that be convince me that my .223 isn't suitable for shooting fox with. They'll probably tell me to get a swift or a rimfire .22 :rolleyes:

Personally I want an explanation of why everything is on the list.

Lads ClareGunner has said it before but is there any sort of gathering (I don't want to use the word protest) we could stage and put some positive PR on it. I for one would turn up. If I didn't do something I'd always end up going "That .223 I once had was a lovely rifle, wish I could use one of them now"

Its all fine to sit back and trust our governing bodies but the CJB didn't exactly turn out well for us now did it

restricting shotguns with more than 3 shot capacity, ffs, suddenly when a person holds a shotgun with 4 or more round capacity they may turn into a murdering nutter so it has to be restricted. It seems they lack basic logic functions.

I am going to be frank here so please excuse this mods. Obviously they are trying to prevent people going on a rampage with their firearms ala Columbine and Dunblane. They are also probably trying to prevent people buying large amounts of ammo and giving it to groups with ill intent.The huge whole in this is that there are plenty of firearms not on that draft that will be just as effective at ending human life. Take a shotgun with 3 round capacity, a 50 round gun belt and another 25 rounds in each pocket,the owner is nuts and goes on a killing spree. Would having 4 round capacity really make that much difference.

Why are law abiding enthusiasts seeing the destruction of their sport. These laws have no effect on and are not even aimed at the criminals using firearms.

Why are laws, for people who are not breaking the law, making it harder to own the correct firearm for their needs.

I don't want to shoot a .223(or my other firearms) for sh1ts and giggles. It has the perfect blend of affordability, accuracy and power to shoot vermin at distances I am comfortable with. I'm sure everyone here has chosen a specific caliber or firearm because it suits their needs

Rew

jaycee wrote:

• All Category A firearms
• All Category B1, B2, B3 firearms bar air pistols.

Can anyone give me a list of reference that expands out what these categories are?

I assume Category A is fully automatic weapons?

civdef

Rovi posted it earlier on on this thread.

Sparks

Rew wrote:

Can anyone give me a list of reference that expands out what these categories are?
I assume Category A is fully automatic weapons?

There was one posted earlier by rovi:

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.

Rew

civdef wrote:

Rovi posted it earlier on on this thread.

Cheers must have missed it

thelurcher

Protest marches don't work for this kind of thing - look at the pro hunting demos in the UK.
If you ask me they have the opposite effect than expected and actually make us look like the bunch of fanatics some people would like to portray us as.
Also chances are only a few hundred will turn up and again the other side wins.

Best plan of action:
1 - start releasing stats etc to journos showing the amount of legally held guns used in crime v's illegally sourced ones. Put a spin on how ineffective and tokenistic the new proposals will be - me having a .22 semi with a restricted 6 shot mag isn't going to stop the scumbags in Limerick shooting each other.
The papers won't care how accurate your 'data' is once it's newsworthy - i.e. takes the piss out of bertie and co.
The shooting organisations should be doing this.
2 - there must be plenty of people in shooting with a bit of clout in political/social circles - the aul nod and a wink with a slap on the back and please drop the ...... restriction works wonder in other cases.
3 - if the full restrictions do go through then a full change in leadership for all the shooting organisation must be DEMANDED.

macnas

I’m guessin that there will be minor, insignificant changes to the final draft of this list, like 8rnd mags instead 5, just so they say that they took onboard the comments of the representative bodies.

I’m not comfortable with FLAG or the NARGC speaking for me at meetings of this type, as they do not represent me. This thing is done and dusted bar the minister’s signature. When this order comes into force, I will own four restricted firearms, can FLAG or the NARGC guarantee that these will not be taken off me when up for renewal? Can they guarantee that if I have a valid reason for owning a restricted firearm, I will be granted a licence? These are the questions that should have been brought to the table not valuable comment.

If FLAG or the NARGC had not been invited to make submissions on this draft list, they should have demanded it, not cowering with cap in hand, ‘oh we’re all so glad to be here’. The representative bodies are allowing the DOJ an open shot at goal, a restricted list will be implemented without them having explain why these firearms are on it.

I think it’s time we started getting on to our TDs, I think they may be in listening mode!!!

FLAG

macnas wrote:

I’m guessin that there will be minor, insignificant changes to the final draft of this list, like 8rnd mags instead 5, just so they say that they took onboard the comments of the representative bodies.

I’m not comfortable with FLAG or the NARGC speaking for me at meetings of this type, as they do not represent me. This thing is done and dusted bar the minister’s signature. When this order comes into force, I will own four restricted firearms, can FLAG or the NARGC guarantee that these will not be taken off me when up for renewal? Can they guarantee that if I have a valid reason for owning a restricted firearm, I will be granted a licence? These are the questions that should have been brought to the table not valuable comment.

If FLAG or the NARGC had not been invited to make submissions on this draft list, they should have demanded it, not cowering with cap in hand, ‘oh we’re all so glad to be here’. The representative bodies are allowing the DOJ an open shot at goal, a restricted list will be implemented without them having explain why these firearms are on it.

I think it’s time we started getting on to our TDs, I think they may be in listening mode!!!

Why is everyone who posts on this thread losing it, I cannot understand how people cannot understand that an item on the restricted list will be dealt with in a different manner than it is now, noting will be taken from anyone, how many times does it need to be said, restricted firearm requires an application to be made to the commissioner, essentially centrally organising applications for firearms that the DOJ/Gardai deem restricted for what ever reason.

The draft resticted list had a lot of nonsense on it that is why they discussed it with us and we had sound technical reasons why the majority of items should not be listed. Like it or not one cannot have a meeting with officials with DOJ or the Gardai with a committe of 2000 individuals that is why representation is required. Why FLAG noone else stepped forward many years go to gain the respect of the DOJ and Gardai, people can rant and rave about what is on the list what colour a gun is etc, but look around, lisenced is everything from an air pistol to a .45 auto and probably a few .50's, rifles, everything including 375 and 475, semi autos .223 and semi autos .308 and everything in the middle, what in gods name are we complaining about, when I started shooting all we could get was a ,22 rifle and a shotgun, I was convincend even then that it was wrong, it was wrong and we made our contribution to changing it, despite what anyone says, negotiation since 1995 payed off.........................

Stop whinging and get on with enjoying what you have, when it is in danger of being taken off you then lets talk, but that is not the way it is!!!!!!!!

civdef

Is there any feedback yet on how restricted firearm certs will differ in practice from what we have currently? - Other than coming from the commissioner, that is.

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

Why is everyone who posts on this thread losing it

There is an old saying on this matter, which you would do well to review. It goes "If you can keep your head while all around you lose theirs, you obviously haven't understood the situation".

And frankly, I have to express my utter disbelief that the man who stood up in front of the NRPAI AGM in 2001 and gave us a long speech on how the DoJ and Gardai could not be trusted to act in our best interests, who has spent the last several years raging against them in the press and in private, and whose position in the NRPAI is specifically to take legal action against them, would be the same man now looking at the most obvious clampdown on the legitimate shooting community since the foundation of the state and saying "erra, it'll be fine, the Gardai and DoJ wouldn't do wrong by us".

Unless, of course Declan, you have some other motive?

noting will be taken from anyone, how many times does it need to be said

Just the once. By someone who not only has the weight to enforce the promise, but whom we would trust to use that weight or who could be bound legally to use it.
And that pretty much means the Minister Declan. Neither you nor I nor anyone else in the shooting community have the authority to issue the proper level of reassurance that is being sought.

The draft resticted list had a lot of nonsense on it

Had? Past tense? Have you seen one that was dated later than November 21?

look around, lisenced is everything from an air pistol to a .45 auto and probably a few .50's, rifles, everything including 375 and 475, semi autos .223 and semi autos .308 and everything in the middle, what in gods name are we complaining about

Prior to August 1972, all those and more were licenced, and in far greater numbers. I believe we all know how that went.

we made our contribution to changing it, despite what anyone says, negotiation since 1995 payed off

It was you who said in 2001 that negotiation wasn't working and FLAG had to be set up, wasn't it?

Stop whinging and get on with enjoying what you have, when it is in danger of being taken off you then lets talk, but that is not the way it is!!!!!!!!

If I didn't know better Declan, I'd ask you how much the DoJ's salary was. :mad:

jaycee

FLAG wrote:

Why is everyone who posts on this thread losing it, I cannot understand how people cannot understand that an item on the restricted list will be dealt with in a different manner than it is now, noting will be taken from anyone, how many times does it need to be said, restricted firearm requires an application to be made to the commissioner, essentially centrally organising applications for firearms that the DOJ/Gardai deem restricted for what ever reason.

Not everyone is "Losing it" in the sense that it refers to their mental state.. people are worried and rightly so that they may have "Lost it" ..with regard to some of their firearms and therefore their sport.

The draft resticted list had a lot of nonsense on it

It still has ...lot's , and that's obvious to us all or should be.

that is why they discussed it with us and we had sound technical reasons why the majority of items should not be listed.

And what may I ask, are the sound technical reasons for the items that ARE on the list... point by point , I'd love to hear it.

Like it or not one cannot have a meeting with officials with DOJ or the Gardai with a committe of 2000 individuals that is why representation is required.

Why FLAG noone else stepped forward many years go to gain the respect of the DOJ and Gardai,

I really think Mr Crofton and the NARGC might disagree a little on that point.

people can rant and rave about what is on the list what colour a gun is etc,

Is that one of the sound technical reasons ?.. the colour or to broaden it , the appearance of it. That is a really unsound and dangerous method of defining anything..utter nonsense and I am stunned that you don't seem to agree on that.

but look around, lisenced is everything from an air pistol to a .45 auto and probably a few .50's, rifles, everything including 375 and 475, semi autos .223 and semi autos .308 and everything in the middle,

At the moment ... ! But I suspect not for much longer.

what in gods name are we complaining about,

I'm sorry I don't understand the question , I thought it was obvious.

when I started shooting all we could get was a ,22 rifle and a shotgun,

Me too , and I don't want to get back to that .

I was convincend even then that it was wrong, it was wrong and we made our contribution to changing it, despite what anyone says, negotiation since 1995 payed off.........................

Stop whinging and get on with enjoying what you have, when it is in danger of being taken off you then lets talk, but that is not the way it is!!!!!!!!

So explain the situation , that firearms based on the "Draft " list above are impossible to import into Ireland now since the "Draft" was drawn up , and were previously available prior to then . That is a fact anyone can check by phoning around a few firearms dealers.
1: Benelli M3 shotguns ... ( 12Bore , Combi Semi and Pump )
2: Walther G22 (.22Lr bullpup , semiauto with a 10 round magazine )

All this while the list is still supposed to be open to discussion , How open is that ..? Isn't that a breach of faith in the process ...?
Do you not feel betrayed and outraged at people who you spent time talking to.. openly displaying complete disregard for the notion of negotiation.
You should ... If it was me I'd be gutted ..!

That single piece of information on their actions..says a lot about their intentions and attitude.

They are just going ahead and doing it anyway . That's not a rant and not what -if ... it's a fact !

So what evidence have we for supposing that they will play fair with the rest of the stuff ..? None..!
What makes you think that a lowly G22 ( A plinker with all the menace of an action man set) can be barred from import , but will still be licensed come next July, and by that logic , what bloody hope for .308 rifles , and the evil .223 . That's before you even get to centerfire handguns .
And the answer to it all is that we should just trust it will be fine.

You find it strange we're worried ..?, and now were whinging !
Too right we're worried , and I'm equally worried that you aren't .
if your in there discussing this and being ignored . and don't see anything wrong with that .. then the 2000 people had better watch out.

FLAG

jaycee wrote:

Not everyone is "Losing it" in the sense that it refers to their mental state.. people are worried and rightly so that they may have "Lost it" ..with regard to some of their firearms and therefore their sport.



It still has ...lot's , and that's obvious to us all or should be.




And what may I ask, are the sound technical reasons for the items that ARE on the list... point by point , I'd love to hear it.





I really think Mr Crofton and the NARGC might disagree a little on that point.



Is that one of the sound technical reasons ?.. the colour or to broaden it , the appearance of it. That is a really unsound and dangerous method of defining anything..utter nonsense and I am stunned that you don't seem to agree on that.




At the moment ... ! But I suspect not for much longer.



I'm sorry I don't understand the question , I thought it was obvious.



Me too , and I don't want to get back to that .







So explain the situation , that firearms based on the "Draft " list above are impossible to import into Ireland now since the "Draft" was drawn up , and were previously available prior to then . That is a fact anyone can check by phoning around a few firearms dealers.
1: Benelli M3 shotguns ... ( 12Bore , Combi Semi and Pump )
2: Walther G22 (.22Lr bullpup , semiauto with a 10 round magazine )

All this while the list is still supposed to be open to discussion , How open is that ..? Isn't that a breach of faith in the process ...?
Do you not feel betrayed and outraged at people who you spent time talking to.. openly displaying complete disregard for the notion of negotiation.
You should ... If it was me I'd be gutted ..!

That single piece of information on their actions..says a lot about their intentions and attitude.

They are just going ahead and doing it anyway . That's not a rant and not what -if ... it's a fact !

So what evidence have we for supposing that they will play fair with the rest of the stuff ..? None..!
What makes you think that a lowly G22 ( A plinker with all the menace of an action man set) can be barred from import , but will still be licensed come next July, and by that logic , what bloody hope for .308 rifles , and the evil .223 . That's before you even get to centerfire handguns .
And the answer to it all is that we should just trust it will be fine.

You find it strange we're worried ..?, and now were whinging !
Too right we're worried , and I'm equally worried that you aren't .
if your in there discussing this and being ignored . and don't see anything wrong with that .. then the 2000 people had better watch out.

1? You are a member of a club:

2? You are a member of one of the shooting associations:

3? You have made your feelings know to your club/association:

4? You have made representations to your local TD:

The unlawful actions of the DOJ need to be challenged, but just because they take the position if they have not to allow the importation of the Benelli M3 ??? does not mean that it is lawful or indeed the way things will be, I will check with the importers of the Benelli M3 to see if your contention on the m3 is correct, I am aware that they are no longer issuing importation certs for the G22 however I also understand that this is being challenged in the high court.................continued rants...

FLAG

civdef wrote:

Is there any feedback yet on how restricted firearm certs will differ in practice from what we have currently? - Other than coming from the commissioner, that is.

Would suggest reading the appropriat aspects of the new legislation, pretty clear in the manner of the implementation.

Clare gunner

In principle I have to agree with what FLAG is saying.All this is doing is actually bringing this all in line with EU laws as well.Fine and good. BUT I am worried about the "Irish factor".IE take what they[DOJ,etc] want from it and ignore all the unpleasent bits.
Also on this thing with bullpups and some of this legislation.People please READ it!We are talking MiILITARY bullpups,not civvie 22 rifles encased in a stupid clam shell stock. Sit down read and absorb this stuff.Remember guns are subject to evolution as well.They can change and warp to the requirements.Up to 2000 Germany was prohibited from selling semi auto military lookalikes in any shape or form to the civillian .But they were there for sale,in civillianised versions with the letter of the law obeyed.Now,you can own it in whatever version you want,bar full auto.So what I am saying is;do you want a civillianised semi auto [that you can customise to a black gun within ten nims?] or none at all?Also some of this "draft" is full of legal holes,that you could drive a truck thru.I'm not saying which,but it contravenes Irish law procedure and EU law as well if it goes ahead.

What I think is pissing all and sundry off is the secrecy going on around here and the jostling of special intrest sectors,and personalities for the best position at the DOJ table.As well as the worry that everyones personal sector will be offered up in an appeasement for somones else to gain.Also the attiude of the organisations of ;do nothing by yourself,as we are doing this all behind closed doors for you,but we are not saying what we are doing.
Any other country the shooting organisations would be saying,go ahead,but keep it civil and keep it to the following points.... Why is there this assumption we irish shooters are not competant in doing this?????

Worst thing that can be done in times like this is keep people ignorant and uninformed.

civdef

Would suggest reading the appropriat aspects of the new legislation, pretty clear in the manner of the implementation.

Hmm, kindof assumes I haven't read it so far, tad patronising there perhaps?

Maybe I should be a little clearer. For those of us who have read the relevant legislation but haven't had all this personal access to the DoJ, has any feeling been garnered by those who have on how the restricted firearms swections of the legislation will work. Will new pre-conditions to being granted a licence appear, will new conditions appear on the certificates, have they given any indication as what they will consider sufficient reason to possess a restricted firearm?

You know, the stuff not spelled out in the legislation....

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

There is an old saying on this matter, which you would do well to review. It goes "If you can keep your head while all around you lose theirs, you obviously haven't understood the situation".

And frankly, I have to express my utter disbelief that the man who stood up in front of the NRPAI AGM in 2001 and gave us a long speech on how the DoJ and Gardai could not be trusted to act in our best interests, who has spent the last several years raging against them in the press and in private, and whose position in the NRPAI is specifically to take legal action against them, would be the same man now looking at the most obvious clampdown on the legitimate shooting community since the foundation of the state and saying "erra, it'll be fine, the Gardai and DoJ wouldn't do wrong by us".

Unless, of course Declan, you have some other motive?


Just the once. By someone who not only has the weight to enforce the promise, but whom we would trust to use that weight or who could be bound legally to use it.
And that pretty much means the Minister Declan. Neither you nor I nor anyone else in the shooting community have the authority to issue the proper level of reassurance that is being sought.


Had? Past tense? Have you seen one that was dated later than November 21?


Prior to August 1972, all those and more were licenced, and in far greater numbers. I believe we all know how that went.


It was you who said in 2001 that negotiation wasn't working and FLAG had to be set up, wasn't it?


If I didn't know better Declan, I'd ask you how much the DoJ's salary was. :mad:

Simply deteriorating into a slagging match again, by your last comment do I take it that you are making an accusation that I am on a DOJ salary? As a moderator of the boards I think it a very serious allegation!

I think yet again it is time for me to stepout and stop providing information as it is clearly not interesting to the people who believe there is doom on the horizan.

How do you consider that I was responsible for the 5 shot mag limitation in the draft list of resticted firearms, it was you who referred to the ISSF pistol with the 5 shot mag and it was you who went into the DOJ under the guise of the Olympic Coaches Association to push for only .22s to be permitted.

My position is on the record in the DOJ with respect to the clear objections that we had to restricting .22 semi autos with 10 round mag capacity and I am sure when the list is published that the .22 semi will not be on it.

For the record and from the report published in the Shooters Digest the NARGC agreed substantially with the draft as it stood with little comment save for semi auto shotguns, look up the report in the Shooters Digest. We ahd significant objections to most of the content of the draft list on sound techincal reasoning believe it or not?

I tire of the bs on this site yet again and I will no longer post as it is clearly not worth it!

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

How do you consider that I was responsible for the 5 shot mag limitation in the draft list of resticted firearms

Because the NRPAI was seeking to keep all the ISSF stuff off the list as that covered everyone else's calibres as well.

I am sure when the list is published that the .22 semi will not be on it.

On what grounds? And what will you do if you are wrong to compensate those .22 semi owners who will be affected?

For the record and from the report published in the Shooters Digest the NARGC agreed substantially with the draft as it stood with little comment save for semi auto shotguns, look up the report in the Shooters Digest. We ahd significant objections to most of the content of the draft list on sound techincal reasoning believe it or not?

Not. I would be very surprised if the NARGC agreed to the draft you and I saw. And I've read nothing in the Digest that says otherwise, which does not surprise me, because the deadline for the most recent version of the Digest was before you or I saw the draft, and I believe that it was before the NARGC saw it as well.

jaycee

1? You are a member of a club:

2? You are a member of one of the shooting associations:

3? You have made your feelings know to your club/association:

4? You have made representations to your local TD:

Yes to all of the above ....
Your point being...?

The unlawful actions of the DOJ need to be challenged, but just because they take the position if they have not to allow the importation of the Benelli M3 ??? does not mean that it is lawful or indeed the way things will be,

It's probably lawful because the CJB as it's written pretty much allows them to do as they please. My point was that in the ordinary course of things , agreements aren't implemented ...until they are agreed . Otherwise what's the point of negotiating..? As a measure of their apparent lack of respect for those discussions and submissions ..it's indicative of a cynical , arrogant and entrenched mindset, not a co-operative and collaborative one .

I will check with the importers of the Benelli M3 to see if your contention on the m3 is correct,

I checked this with a number of different firearms dealers.
I await your findings and response to them with interest.

I am aware that they are no longer issuing importation certs for the G22 however I also understand that this is being challenged in the high court.

So.. you are aware of the maneuvers in the background by the DOJ.
I have just pointed out another one. Doesn't that attitude by them strike you as reason enough to doubt their good intentions..? Yet you trust them to do right by us , and ask us to do the same, forgive me if I find it a little difficult.
I hope you have raised this matter with them, and if you did , I also presume that since a high court challenge had to be made it didn't go very well.
Who is taking the court action by the way .. Flag ..or someone else..?

................continued rants...

I don't understand this comment , it has no place in an adult and frank discussion of the very real problems facing us all. It would be unworthy of a candidate in a school debating team , let alone a person who meets with representatives of the DOJ. I truly hope the standard of engagement in those circumstances is better than this.

I am not setting out to score points either for or against anyone.Or ranting.
I simply raised some questions about grave concerns I and others have with the whole process and how it appears to be going. You have answered none of these but have confirmed others.

I really would prefer if you continued to post on here and provide some answers and engage in discussion instead of retreating to silence.

sidneyreilly

Just a point or two on DOJ importation restrictions, as I recall this is nothing new. One item sticks out, anyone remember the Armi Jager .22lr that looked like an AK many moons back? That import was halted, indeed I think a lot them were in fact taken from licence holders

If memory serves the G22 thing was clamped a good year or more back (could be wrong on this).

Also import of a pistol has to be done personally by the licence holder(article 7,11), I think the same method can be employed in the purchase of Bennelli M3 or G22.

jaycee

sidneyreilly wrote:

Just a point or two on DOJ importation restrictions, as I recall this is nothing new. One item sticks out, anyone remember the Armi Jager .22lr that looked like an AK many moons back? That import was halted, indeed I think a lot them were in fact taken from licence holders.

Hi Sidney.

Here we're back to the "Looked scarey" thing and on what grounds would they have been taken back ..? The same I presume.
They have now decided a bunch of other stuff "Looks Scarey" , whats to stop them being gathered up too.

Also import of a pistol has to be done personally by the licence holder(article 7,11), I think the same method can be employed in the purchase of Bennelli M3 or G22.

In the case of the M3 , it was allowed through normal means earlier in the year.I spoke to a man who bought one.

Any why , having provided sufficient proof of character , the reasons you wanted it and getting a license , shouldn't it be treated the same as any other firearm.

One word ... Policy.
That word is enshrined in the new CJB , and allows the DOJ to implement any policy (as it sees fit ) without consultation with anyone. It's one of the major dangers in the CJB. Under those terms theres nothing to prevent them from deciding in the morning to block the importation of everything. When you combine it with banning stuff because of how it looks, it's a blank cheque.

Lets see...Handguns ... wow thats frightening ,
they look just like .. Em..Handguns.!

People are busy telling us theres nothing to worry about ..
Do you believe that...?

Sparks

jaycee wrote:

People are busy telling us theres nothing to worry about ..
Do you believe that...?

No. And if my stuff is about as benign as it gets, and I'm worried...

Clare gunner

sidneyreilly wrote:

Just a point or two on DOJ importation restrictions, as I recall this is nothing new. One item sticks out, anyone remember the Armi Jager .22lr that looked like an AK many moons back? That import was halted, indeed I think a lot them were in fact taken from licence holders

Yup, along with the AR15 lookalike,the FMAS,Fn FAL,AK andSpas12 shotguns.
And proably a few others.One point along with this was they were all DEALERS ASFIK that were stopped.Along with the import freeze with dealers on handguns.I have seen a couple for sale over the years in various dealers around the country.Quite frankly,the rifles,they were junk guns anyway that were plauged with problems.They just looked scary.Reason they were pulled was the old chestnut."the IRA might use them" As if!! So the reason they were uncommon was there was only one importer,they brought in only a few of them,they were liscensed,and were/ are still out there.
Proably some owners were harrassed into surrendering them by the Gardai as well.I know this happened to one fellow down here.Though some of it was self inflicted as well.
I do know one dealer who is personally challenging this somtime in the High court about the 22 lookalikes.


If memory serves the G22 thing was clamped a good year or more back (could be wrong on this).

Also import of a pistol has to be done personally by the licence holder(article 7,11), I think the same method can be employed in the purchase of Bennelli M3 or G22.

Yes it can,as even the G22 does not come under the restricted list.It is not a military bullpup design. They are aiming there at the AUG,FMAS,some Isreali /south African yoke,the AK varients in BP,and the Brit SA80[as if anyone would want THAT!:D ] Military means it is an operational,deployed used by some army somwhere in the world.
Now if anyone can say they were refused a personal importation liscense for a benelli M3 or G22 and says it was because of the new policy THEN I would be worried..abit.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Yes it can,as even the G22 does not come under the restricted list.It is not a military bullpup design.

The G22 looks military. That's all that's necessary from what I read of JC's post.
And it's magazine is much larger than 6 rounds.

Military means it is an operational,deployed used by some army somwhere in the world.

Says you, not the DoJ.