Restricted List enacted ?

Tribunius

Just as a matter of interest does anyone know what is on this restricted list. Does restricted mean that it can't be owned or does it mean it is controlled because the new act seems to imply that there is a restricted licence.

I'm currently in canada where they have 3 classes of firearms un-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Prohibited being the ones you can't really own except in certain circumstances. Here is a link to the canadain firearms laws ye might find it interesting.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/default_e.asp

rrpc

Have a look at this thread, it's pretty well explained and discussed there. In a nutshell 'restricted' means you have to apply to the Garda Commissioner for a licence.

bunny shooter

Tribunius wrote:

Just as a matter of interest does anyone know what is on this restricted list. Does restricted mean that it can't be owned or does it mean it is controlled because the new act seems to imply that there is a restricted licence.

I'm currently in canada where they have 3 classes of firearms un-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Prohibited being the ones you can't really own except in certain circumstances. Here is a link to the canadain firearms laws ye might find it interesting.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/default_e.asp

Very interesting, I wonder if this is thesort of system DOJ are looking at here ?

Tribunius

From what I have read it sure seem that way.

The pros of the canadian system as I see it and I hope the DOJ has had a look at it are:

The mandatory safety course that must be taken for both long guns (rifles/shotguns) and short (pistols). Covers everything from actions and ammo to safe handling and the law.They are one day in length each. At the end of both there is both a practical and written test.

A through background check of all applicants.

Full auto weapons are banned.

Ap, incendiary and explosive ammo are banned. Tracer isn't but it should be.

Trigger locks are mandatory on all pistols when in transit/storage. Well any restricted weapon actually. And its sort of an unwritten rule that everything gets them.

Cons things that I hope were ignored.

The banning of firearms based only on their name eg the Steyr Aug. Though that should be banned in Ireland.

The authorisation to transport. It is intended to control the movement of weapons. But all it actually does is make life difficult for law abiding people.

Apart from that its not too bad.

Sparks

Tribunius wrote:

From what I have read it sure seem that way.

I don't think so from what I've seen so far.

The mandatory safety course that must be taken for both long guns (rifles/shotguns) and short (pistols). Covers everything from actions and ammo to safe handling and the law.They are one day in length each. At the end of both there is both a practical and written test.

Wouldn't be a bad idea, this. But who's qualified to run it or accredit it? We've seen some debate on here already about the merit of firearm safety courses, and frankly, I don't believe we have any body in the country today, state or NGO, that could validly claim to be able to accredit such a course.

A through background check of all applicants.

Gardai typically refuse point blank to do this sort of thing. Too much work for a false sense of security. Hell, they won't even vet candidates for supervising children.

Most of the rest of the things you mention are already in place over here, either directly or indirectly.

CJhaughey

Indeed Sparks who could the state rely on to train shooters?
I know in NZ the Mountain Safety council run the firearms handling side of the license for the police.
But as you state there is no equivalent body here to do the same task.

Our man in Havana

Gardai typically refuse point blank to do this sort of thing. Too much work for a false sense of security. Hell, they won't even vet candidates for supervising children.

So what checks are they doing when you apply for a FAC?

Sparks

Whether or not you have been in prison in the past five years. Which is data that's available in the public domain, has no libel risk and doesn't require them to divulge what sources they got their information from; unlike a background check, which is a different animal alltogether.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Gardai typically refuse point blank to do this sort of thing. Too much work for a false sense of security. Hell, they won't even vet candidates for supervising children.

I don't think that's correct. I believe there is a division set up for just that purpose. Heavily overworked at the moment and hence a backlog which may have given rise to your comment.

Sparks

That'd be a welcome development rrpc, when the children's officer legislation was brought out there wasn't any such facility available.

As to background checks, what I recall of the old rule (this would be mid-80s to mid-90s, and through C3), was that only state bodies could request it and all they got was a "yes" or "no" as to whether someone could be covered by the offical secrets act and posted to the UK. It wasn't challangeable (I'd hate to try to enforce that now, given how litigious we've become since then).

IRLConor

I'd be inclined to agree with rrpc on that one Sparks. I know at least one person who has been vetted for working with children.

From what I've heard, vetting for working with children is the ONLY background check that Gardai will do for non-state bodies.

Sparks

Like I said, that's a welcome improvement. There's something unsettling about knowing that your children's officer is by law personally liable (as in, he or she is going to jail) if he or she prevents a paedophile or other miscreant from being appointed as a supervisor of children in your sports club, only to then learn that the Gardai are refusing to do background checks for the children's officer (which did happen initially - it's very good news that that's changed).

IRLConor

More information available here:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/monitoring-and-surveillance-at-work/garda_clearance_for_employees

EDIT: Sticking "Garda Central Vetting Unit" into Google seems to do the trick. Easy once you know the name of the unit.

bunny shooter

Heard 2 x rumours re Kilkenny super refusal to licence 223's. first, someone from army barracks was selling 5.56 ammo to people and second, some farmer found 5 x deer shot and left on his land and 223 bullets were taken from the bodies, anyone confirm ?

SMERSH

some farmer found 5 x deer shot and left on his land and 223 bullets were taken from the bodies.

I heard that too from a gun dealer. Seems that may be the real reason. But it is unfair to punish all .223 owners for the sins of others.

If bullets were retreived could the Gardaí not compare them to licensed firearms and find the scumbags that way?

Sparks

First off, it sounds like just another rumour to me. Natter over a pint is not a reason to refuse someone unrelated to the natter a firearms licence, especially when such a refusal can be interpreted as a mark against someone's good name given the criteria for refusal.

Secondly, to compare rounds, the gardai would have to confiscate every licenced firearm within driving distance of kilkenny. Personally, I drive there every fortnight or so. How do all the lads in wicklow feel about having their .223's surrendered for an indefinite period for ballistic fingerprinting?

sidneyreilly

bunny shooter wrote:

some farmer found 5 x deer shot and left on his land and 223 bullets were taken from the bodies, anyone confirm ?

Heard almost identical story regarding .22 swift a decade ago.

les45

Kerry is spot on,

If we were to start a thread with the Title " A fella told me " it would take up endless pages and sadly 99.99999% would be all BS. For our own mental well being and that of the sport we all love maybe in 2008 we will all forgoe passing on " A fella told me " stories .

John

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote:

How do all the lads in wicklow feel about having their .223's surrendered for an indefinite period for ballistic fingerprinting?

What's happened here ?

N.O.I.P.

bunny shooter wrote:

What's happened here ?

I think he was being hypothetical. If deer were found with .223s in them how would the .223 owners in Wicklow feel about the gardai rounding up their rifles to conduct a ballistics comparison.

Sparks

Yup, spot on NOIP.

bunny shooter

dooh !

atals77

Can't see the Gardai rounding up all the .223's in the land for few dead deer and doing ballistics on them.

However I do know they did call in a bunch of pistols a couple of years back to do a ballistics check on them because of some murder in Dublin. Typical over-reaction though. Apparently the guy was shot with a 9mm but they rounded up anything they could (My mate who lives in Co. Wexford had his .40 cal taken in). He duly supplied it with 3 rounds got a receipt for it and I believe had his gun back within 2 weeks.

It was in the early days of pistol ownership and I think a bit hit and miss. They scooped up pistols down the east course but nowhere else as far as I could tell.

sidneyreilly

atals77 wrote:

Can't see the Gardai rounding up all the .223's in the land for few dead deer and doing ballistics on them.

However I do know they did call in a bunch of pistols a couple of years back to do a ballistics check on them because of some murder in Dublin. Typical over-reaction though. Apparently the guy was shot with a 9mm but they rounded up anything they could (My mate who lives in Co. Wexford had his .40 cal taken in). He duly supplied it with 3 rounds got a receipt for it and I believe had his gun back within 2 weeks.

It was in the early days of pistol ownership and I think a bit hit and miss. They scooped up pistols down the east course but nowhere else as far as I could tell.

Aye. Twas a shooting in Knocklyon, Gardai didnt believe it was gangland originally so were suspecting crime of passion, turned out gangland in the end.