Restricted List out

Sparks

Thing is RRPC, it's not what they mean, it's what they say...

For example, if they say IOC, do they mean ISSF events in the Olympics only; or all ISSF events? (For the non-ISSF shooters, there are events - such as fullbore pistol shooting - which are not in the Olympics (since the early 70s) but which are ISSF events. The implications there should be obvious)

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Thing is RRPC, it's not what they mean, it's what they say...

I think you've missed my point. As very few manufacturers (if indeed any) say their pistols were designed for Olympic competition, does that not mean that there are none?

Sparks

That sort of is my point rrpc

If I've understood the SI properly, the drafters ought to have said "suitable for ISSF competition", not "designed for IOC competition". And if the SI has mistakes like that in it (and like the conflicting definitions), then it's going to add to the problem we see now where noone's sure what the story is.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

That sort of is my point rrpc

Well now that we're agreed on that, the only other place you went wrong was with the ISSF fullbore pistol which is restricted anyway.

If you take the derogation at face value, it means .22 semi and single shot pistols only.

There could be arguments with regard to the semis, but I can't see any with the single shot free pistol.

As for the semis, the only rule is the ISSF one, and that just about covers everything in a .22 semi-auto.

Except Walther P22's of course

bigred

to Sparks and RRPC's discussion of Olympic vs ISSF;

Won't the lack of a list of specific, named list of allowed & restricted firearms just mean the local super will look at a picture of a pistol and if it's got a match grip and looks 'targety' it's ok, as opposed to someone buying, say, a sig mosquito and wanting to do some informal target shooting.

What about all those guys from Hilltop and places like that with revolvers etc. - they're hardly 'Olympic Grade', but are good enough to hold some of the best scores in the country at the moment.

They're hardly going to have a list of all the pistols used in previous Olympics and base their decisions on this? How would they even know?
Is it all back again to the 'idontlikethelookothat' school of law-making for this area at least.

Did those of you involved in this process ever discuss the generation of a database of allowed/restricted/prohibited, such as that which exists in Canada? Given we've gone one step, is this something possible in the coming years?

Seamus357

I assume if your shotgun came with a magazine restrictor limiting the capacity to three rounds then it is in compliance with the restricted list? This is currently the case for hunting anyway.

(a) shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns

rrpc

bigred wrote: »

to Sparks and RRPC's discussion of Olympic vs ISSF;

Won't the lack of a list of specific, named list of allowed & restricted firearms just mean the local super will look at a picture of a pistol and if it's got a match grip and looks 'targety' it's ok, as opposed to someone buying, say, a sig mosquito and wanting to do some informal target shooting.

Presumably that's what the DoJ had in mind to be honest, otherwise the distinction wouldn't have been made.

What about all those guys from Hilltop and places like that with revolvers etc. - they're hardly 'Olympic Grade', but are good enough to hold some of the best scores in the country at the moment.

That's a whole different area bigred. Although a revolver will work for the competitions, it can be a major disadvantage at rapid disciplines, only mitigated by the fact that trigger weights are reduced way below the minimum.

Did those of you involved in this process ever discuss the generation of a database of allowed/restricted/prohibited, such as that which exists in Canada? Given we've gone one step, is this something possible in the coming years?

Yes, Sparks brought it up with them as well as others. The problem with a list is that it can never be definitive and needs to be kept up to date as well as making the whole thing extremely unwieldy. I'm assuming a commonsense approach will be adopted, I can't see why it won't. In cases of dispute, it wouldn't take much to prove whether a pistol was suitable or not.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Yes, Sparks brought it up with them as well as others.

Actually, no I didn't, I was there when it was raised and didn't contradict the chap who suggested it, but I don't agree with the idea for similar reasons to the ones you raised. I didn't contradict it at the time because you don't get into an internal dispute with your team while sitting at a negotiating table!

cavan shooter

Seamus357 wrote: »

I assume if your shotgun came with a magazine restrictor limiting the capacity to three rounds then it is in compliance with the restricted list? This is currently the case for hunting anyway.

(a) shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns

Hunting yes, protected species hunted under season, but for vermin you could have as many cartridges as your gun could hold and then more. Now it doesn't matter any repeater (shotgun) no more than 3 cartridges

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, no I didn't, I was there when it was raised and didn't contradict the chap who suggested it, but I don't agree with the idea for similar reasons to the ones you raised. I didn't contradict it at the time because you don't get into an internal dispute with your team while sitting at a negotiating table!

Sorry

Seamus357

So shotguns with more than three round magazines will have to keep the limiters in the magazine tubes all the time and not just while hunting protected species?
Is that the general understanding of the new restricted list in relation to shotgun capacity? Is there not a danger that the Guards may interpret this differently and try and restrict all shotguns with a capacity above three rounds even when magazine limiters are in place in the tube?

Seamus

sidneyreilly

Seamus357 wrote: »

So shotguns with more than three round magazines will have to keep the limiters in the magazine tubes all the time and not just while hunting protected species?
Is that the general understanding of the new restricted list in relation to shotgun capacity? Is there not a danger that the Guards may interpret this differently and try and restrict all shotguns with a capacity above three rounds even when magazine limiters are in place in the tube?

Seamus

It says "manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more then 3 cartridges." So limiter should do.

José Alaninho

sidneyreilly wrote: »

It says "manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more then 3 cartridges." So limiter should do.

Good- that's my remy 870 safe.:D

Mellor

sidneyreilly wrote: »

It says "manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them incapable of containing more then 3 cartridges." So limiter should do.

It might have to be permanant, such is the wording in the EU categories
At least perm enough that it can't be quickly removed and inserted at will. It must be fixed and to remove it requires a bit of work

johngalway

I'm thinking I'll have a problem with my Baikal MP-153, it can take up to five carts. I had planned on a DIY solution, if it'd work, of a piece of wood of suitable size in the magazine tube so as to render it capable of only taking 2 + 1.

But, obviously that modification wouldn't be permenant if that's what's to be needed.

I presume to make permenant a magazine limit would entail a trip to a gunsmith?

Our man in Havana

johngalway wrote: »

I presume to make permenant a magazine limit would entail a trip to a gunsmith?

Correct and you will most likely have to take the gun to the Garda Station to show the FAO that the magazine has been permanently restricted.

johngalway

With all the *insert flattering term...* floating about for the last, what, year or more about .223's being the devils spawn I'm that relieved that tinkering with the shottie won't bother me a bit

chem

Right so an assault rifle means rifles capable of functioning as semi-auto firearms AND as auto firearms. Does this mean it must have a selector switch? semi now then "click" full auto

An M1 Garand is not an assault rifle and is just a 7.62 semi auto rifle.

No meaning givin of what a full auto is defined as.

Are semi auto rifles up to and inc 7.62 un-restricted? As long as they are not assault rifles?

Are .303 rifles un-restricted?

Is this the way it will appear in law or is this only a rough gide as to the changes?

Cheers, Chem

meathstevie

Don't know how it's done exactly John but I've seen A5's with some sort of a rivet in the magazine tube in Belgium where the 3 round rule for semi's has been enforced a lot stricter years ago and it didn't look like too complicated a job. Anyway, I suppose your local gunsmith will be able to come up with a permanent fix fairly easily.

On a general note : I think the word "penetrating" has to be read to the intention of the law and not to the letter of the law. In my opinion you'll have to interpret it in the sence of anything that isn't specific hunting or target shooting ammunition. Stuff like armor piercing, tungsten core, tracer ammunition etc etc that's for sale in other jurisdictions ( the US springs to mind ) for the likes of .303 and .223 would fall under this rule.

2347

FIREARMS (RESTRICTED FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION) ORDER 2008 wrote:

The following ammunition is declared to be restricted ammunition for the purposes of the Act:

grenades, bombs and other similar missiles, whether capable or not capable of being used with a firearm, including explosive military missiles and launchers

Ok so let me get this straight "grenades, bombs and other similar missiles" are only restricted :eek: I know they are illegal by EU law but my god why aren't they outright illegal


EDIT: I don't want any and I know that no Chief Superintendant would let anyone have any. I'm just saying that it's crazy grenades are legally only restricted and in the same category as slugs

José Alaninho

chem wrote: »

Are semi auto rifles up to and inc 7.62 un-restricted? As long as they are not assault rifles?

It also says:

"...(b) firearms that resemble such rifles..."

So no, it doesn't look like it I'm afraid. I'll have to put that Bushmaster on hold...;)

spideog7

Bond-007 wrote: »

Correct and you will most likely have to take the gun to the Garda Station to show the FAO that the magazine has been permanently restricted.

Only thing is a lot of repeaters are registered as single barrel firearms, no mention of pump action :rolleyes:

(d) silencers capable of being used only with long rifled rim-fire firearms;

I notice it specifies .22lr so a silencer for a .22wmr is still restricted, they should have just allowed them for rimfires across the board (even though it's the centre-fire that needs them) !!

chem

José Alaninho wrote: »

It also says:

"...(b) firearms that resemble such rifles..."

So no, it doesn't look like it I'm afraid. I'll have to put that Bushmaster on hold...;)

What I was getting at is the Garand style semi auto rifles. They are not black evil looking things, but look more like hunting rifles.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47 and the M16 rifle. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.

Just a point to the shotgun debate. Dont go welding up your mags yet. Wait until you find out for sure what the meaning of the law is regarding mag capacity;):D

José Alaninho

chem wrote: »

What I was getting at is the Garand style semi auto rifles. They are not black evil looking things, but look more like hunting rifles.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47 and the M16 rifle. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.

Just a point to the shotgun debate. Dont go welding up your mags yet. Wait until you find out for sure what the meaning of the law is regarding mag capacity;):D

No, I think section 4 subparagraph 2(c) and (d) makes a clear distinction. It says single shot or repeating firearms up to an including 7.62 are unrestricted. (d) then refers to single shot, repeating or semi-automatic rimfire rifles, so the distinction is plain to see. NO non-rimfire semis (excluding shotguns of course). Or am I wrong...?

José Alaninho

spideog7 wrote: »

Only thing is a lot of repeaters are registered as single barrel firearms, no mention of pump action :rolleyes:

:eek: Very good point! Am I the only one beginning to think that in the bureaucratic mess that is the administration of Irish law, this list will become very difficult to enforce? As Spideog has said a lot of pumps and semis are registered as 'single-barrel', etc. I find myself wondering if the vagueness of past systems will put paid to this one somewhat...?

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Right so an assault rifle means rifles capable of functioning as semi-auto firearms AND as auto firearms. Does this mean it must have a selector switch? semi now then "click" full auto

Yes, basicly. And that's a pretty good tally with the "real" definition - which is that it should be an intermediate (between pistol and rifle) round in terms of how much powder is behind the bullet, select-fire, medium-range (to 400m) rifle.

An M1 Garand is not an assault rifle and is just a 7.62 semi auto rifle.

The classic one certainly is - but as I said, towards the end of WW2, the US army was experimenting with things like a fully automatic mode for the M1, which eventually lead to the M14

Are semi auto rifles up to and inc 7.62 un-restricted? As long as they are not assault rifles?

And so long as they don't look like assault rifles - as defined by the SI.

Are .303 rifles un-restricted?

If they aren't fully auto and they don't look like what the SI defines as assault rifles.

Is this the way it will appear in law or is this only a rough gide as to the changes?

As of May 1, that is the law.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Right so an assault rifle means rifles capable of functioning as semi-auto firearms AND as auto firearms. Does this mean it must have a selector switch? semi now then "click" full auto

Yes

An M1 Garand is not an assault rifle and is just a 7.62 semi auto rifle.

So it's restricted.

No meaning givin of what a full auto is defined as.

Do you need a definition?

Are semi auto rifles up to and inc 7.62 un-restricted? As long as they are not assault rifles?

Are .303 rifles un-restricted?

Did you read the document?

Only semi-auto rim-fire with a capacity of up to 10 rounds are not restricted. All other semi-autos are restricted. .303<.308, so I'd hazard a wild guess that it's not restricted.

rrpc

spideog7 wrote: »

Only thing is a lot of repeaters are registered as single barrel firearms, no mention of pump action :rolleyes:

“repeating firearms” means firearms that are loaded and reloaded from a magazine or cylinder by a manually-operated mechanism;

Sounds like a pump-action to me.

I notice it specifies .22lr so a silencer for a .22wmr is still restricted, they should have just allowed them for rimfires across the board (even though it's the centre-fire that needs them) !!

It doesn't specify .22lr, just rim-fire. Unless you're reading something else.

Our man in Havana

Come August 1st, do we know how will holders of then restricted firearms be treated? Will they have to surrender their guns pending approval from the commisioner?

rrpc

johngalway wrote: »

I'm thinking I'll have a problem with my Baikal MP-153, it can take up to five carts. I had planned on a DIY solution, if it'd work, of a piece of wood of suitable size in the magazine tube so as to render it capable of only taking 2 + 1.

But, obviously that modification wouldn't be permenant if that's what's to be needed.

I presume to make permenant a magazine limit would entail a trip to a gunsmith?

I don't think you have to make it permanent. After all you could sell it to someone with a restricted licence and they wouldn't want a permanent modification. In fact you could apply for a restricted cert yourself if that's what you wanted.