A bit confused about nightvision

meathstevie

I was having a quick diagonal read through "The Irish Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2000 A summary and evaluation", it seemd that for hunting purposes nightvision more or less falls in the same category as lamps : fine for vermin and illegal for game. Is this assumption of the wall or is there specific firearms legislation prohibiting NV devices. I thought there was.

Sparks

It's not that it's prohibited per se, it's that it's treated like moderators - if it's a night vision scope, you need (according to the 1990 Act) to have the super's permission to have it. Night vision goggles or the like however, are exempt from this - it's only when it's a sight that mounts on the rifle that you need to have the permission. Mind you, I've never heard of permission for one being granted.

johngalway

Yep, you need permission to have a night vision device mounted on a firearm. Doubt it'd be approved personally. Same nonsense as with moderators except worse :rolleyes:

meathstevie

Thanks gents... I don't think I'll ring him just yet...

revan23

oops... i had one years ago, didnt realise i needed permission for it :eek: (didnt have it mounted on the rifle tho so i suppose thats ok)

Sparks

Revan, if it's night vision binoculars or a monocular or whatever, you're fine. If the thing is designed to fit on a firearm - even if you don't own a firearm - you're breaking the law. Which leads to an interesting situation with deacts and airsofts, where the actual pseudo-firearm itself is perfectly fine and legal, but the replica NV or laser sight or whatever is technically illegal because it's designed for a pitacinny rail (it doesn't matter that it'd be as much use as a sight as a chocolate covered frying pan).

meathstevie

Is the actual rail mounting dodgy territory as well ? Or is it the stuff you fit on it ?

Sparks

Something that rail mounts isn't dodgy ms, it's just that you need permission from the local Superintendent if you have something listed in Section One of the firearms act as a "component part":

the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:
(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),
(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e), and
(iii) any object—
(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and
(II) without which it could not function as originally designed,

To say it's a bit general would be overstating the obvious :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, if you have a laser sight or an NV scope with a rail mounting, it's "obviously" designed for use with a firearm (where else do you find pitacinny rails?) and thus you need permission.

Sandy22

Sparks wrote: »

where else do you find pitacinny rails?

You won't find one anywhere. I suspect you mean a Picatinny rail.

Sparks

*sigh*
Gotta love spelling mistakes.
Anyway Sandy, you'd know - where else do you find a Picatinny rail?

revan23

i had one about 4 years ago, it was a short range scope designed for a .22lr (for rabbits etc..) but at that stage i just had the shotgun and the remmy swift, so it never got mounted on anything, sold it after about 5 months cause i decided against getting a .22, got it on ebay simply cause it was dead cheap and just assumed it was legal.. o well

what about illuminated reticle scopes?

chem

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),


A laser is not a telescope sight! my reading of that law is more like the tourch mounted onto the scope? May well be wrong.

my two cents on NV. I had a 2nd gen sight for my hornet about 2-3 years ago. Had built in IR for complete darkness. Didnt think much of it to be honest. Not all it was cracked up to be.

Sandy22

Sparks wrote: »

*sigh*
Gotta love spelling mistakes.
Anyway Sandy, you'd know - where else do you find a Picatinny rail?

Well, they are actually available as tripod heads, belt attachments, etc., so they don't always have to be a on a weapon.

Not, I think, that it makes much difference; the law seems to hinge on what the device (the sight) was designed for (i.e. putting on a gun), not what you intend to use it for (putting on a tripod to spy on your neighbours).

That said, it seems to me that if you already have a FAC for the firearm the sight is going on you'd be covered . You don't appear to require extra "permission", unlike for a "silencer". The people who would have a problem would be airsofters and others who wouldn't otherwise have a FAC.

Mellor

chem wrote: »

A laser is not a telescope sight! my reading of that law is more like the tourch mounted onto the scope? May well be wrong.

That is true a laser is not a telescopic sight. But you should through to the end. Lasers are still covered

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

The above refers to "scopes with built in lasers or lights", "night vision" and "infra-red scopes"

(iii) any object—
(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm,

A laser design for mounting on a gun would be covered by this part.



As for illiminated reticles, in my opinion, they should be ok as they are neither electronic light amplification or a light beam. They dont change the image through the scope, they just make the reticle easier to see and the reticle as an aiming aid isn't part of the external image. This is just my opinion, I don't know the definition of an allowable scope so it may be ruled out else where.

meathstevie

All a bit open for interpretation... I suppose common sense again is the best way of operating. Don't do nothing illegal with your guns and whatever accesories you have on them and don't attract the wrong sort of attention from our blue uniformed friends. I have the impression that a lot of cops feel the fact that you were deemded suitable to have a firearm(s) in the first place sufficient reason not to be too bothered afterwards as long as you don't do anything stupid to make them go and regret their decision to grant you a licence.