Restricted List out

Mellor

spideog7 wrote: »

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

Well it doesn't distinguish between any of the shotgun types. A pump action is just repeating shotgun.

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) !!

I don't think this is right. It says "silencers capable of being used only with long rifled rim-fire firearms". the way I saw it was that rim-fire is included to distinguish it from centre fire, and long rifled is included to excluded rim-fire pistols. It is was refering to .22lr only then it would of have to included the caliber. The caliber was included in every other section were applicable

spot2008

the hunter doesnt konw what he is talkin about. he should be band from this site.

rrpc

Bond-007 wrote: »

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?

I imagine we'll know by May 1st, which will give plenty of time to sort things out before August 1st.

ivanthehunter

Thought the debate about the bow thing was bad but this is mental.. If a gun is blackish and looks nasty its not for use by johnny punch clock.. If the minister for madness and all things wacko was in power he would save more lives and stop the suffering of lots of people by restricting the sale of slash hooks,,:D:D WARNING THIS IS A JOKE(CRAP ONE)
:D:p
Notwithstanding any of the previous and pertaining to the subsequent it shall be illegal to look at any slash hook with a feeling of bitter resentment. This shall encompass all or similar slash hooks in the size range from a no 9 to a no 3 a no. 9 Peirce slash hook the aforementioned slash hook further refereed to in part 2 (G) subsection shall now be namely known as the slasher. Any slasher over a colour rating of 7 shall be exempted, notwithstanding the above all slashers are deemed as offensive weapons by the state and their customary use in the sacrifice of dead elephants is deemed an offence and is punishable by death.. Certain styles of attack are still permitted on those who claim to hold sporting rights.. They can only be dispatched on the first sun following the full moon which proceeds the Autumnal equinox between the hours of 5 and 20.
me thinks me xbow is restricted now as its not on the res. list....

rrpc

Ivan please keep on topic.

Sparks

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?

They'll have to get their renewal from the commissioner. If that's not forthcoming, they'll have to surrender their firearm same way as if they'd had their renewal refused by their local super, except for the inability to take the commissioner to the district court to appeal a refusal (which you could do with the local lad).

However, noone knows as yet what the commissioner's disposal towards restricted stuff will be. Personally, I'm a pessimist on this one and rrpc's an optimist.

But what it boils down to is that if the commissioner wants to, he can make renewals and applications for restricted certs either very straightforward, or practically impossible, on either an individual or a blanket level. He has more power with restricted certs than the local superintendent has with normal certs, by a very wide margin as a result of the CJA2006. Which ought to be a scary sentence for anyone, to my mind.

meathstevie

That bombs and missiles stuff would would cover a lot of commercial fireworks I suppose.

rrpc

meathstevie wrote: »

That bombs and missiles stuff would would cover a lot of commercial fireworks I suppose.

There's a whole great big explosives act for all that Stevie. No room in our little Firearms Act.

Manic Moran

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

That is an extremely dodgy legal definition. The US Ban of 1994-2004 was much maligned for banning firearms purely on aesthetic grounds, but at least they gave a list of requirements such as combinations of pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug and so on so you knew where you stood.

Can an RFI be submitted to find out just how that is going to be determined? Modern assault rifles come in all sorts of shapes and sizes these days.

Out of interest, does anyone make a target (ISSF standard) rifle with a pistol grip? If not, why not?

As I read this, the G-22 has been placed on the Restricted list? That's a bit of collaterol damage, there.

NTM

rrpc

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, does anyone make a target (ISSF standard) rifle with a pistol grip? If not, why not?

Pretty much all of them do.

Trojan911

My M2000 is a five shot, might have to drop the pencil back in to make it a three shot. It isn't as bad as I thought it would be. Apart from the shotgun I think I am otherwise unaffected.

However I can see a lot of confusion at the front desk when this is passed....

jaycee

Ohhh look , a shotgun with a pistol grip ... :eek:
How unusual ..? :mad:



This type of sillyness should have been edited out ..and besides , what about physically impared shooters that may need a better grip , ???
Mag capacity is one thing , but the type of grip ...stupid !!

Ohh Ohh Ohh .... and heres one with an adjustable , collapsing stock ...
how evil is that ? :eek::eek::eek:




Before someone lectures me on what is meant ..
This is in essence what was said ....

Like i said , silly, ill-informed ...and a dangerous misuse of language.:mad:

Mellor

This not the grip it was refering to. I believe it was full pistol grips such as;


As for guns with both a full grip and a stock i'm not sure, the one on the right below is restricted, is the one on the left?

what about physically impared shooters that may need a better grip

Em, they would apply for a restricted firearm and if they need one they will get one.

Ohh Ohh Ohh .... and heres one with an adjustable , collapsing stock ...
how evil is that

What are you talking about, thats an adjustable stock. It is not mention in the restrictions.
Whats mention is a detached, folding, telescopic stock.

ranger4

Have seen a few certs for 308 that have ASSUALT RIFLE in place of bolt action would these certs be renewed automaticly without having to make appointment to see chief super etc.

Ned Muldhoon

Sparks, you mentioned the application for renewal (it will actually be a new application after 31st July), must go through the Garda commissioner. This function has been delegated to the district super. for most shooters the local and district are the same person - so not much of a change there.

Our man in Havana

But he will have more power now and you won't be able to drag him into the district court to appeal a refusual.

rrpc

ranger4 wrote: »

Have seen a few certs for 308 that have ASSUALT RIFLE in place of bolt action would these certs be renewed automaticly without having to make appointment to see chief super etc.

I'm surprised that an applicant would have put that in the description when filling out the form. Unless of course it was an assault rifle.

If it's there on the cert and it isn't correct, then it should be changed.

Ned Muldhoon

AFAIK, all district supers have been issued with a flowchart to which all applications for firearms are passed through to determine class of application. The approval process is still with your local FO (they are required to approve your application as before), Once this application hits the district office it will go through a classification process. If the firearm is on the restricted list, the super can refuse or grant based on your reason for having it. The appeals route is the same as before.

The process is still a little vague but will possibly result in a more uniform approach to licensing whan we currently have.

Our man in Havana

The appeals route is the same as before.

There seems to be a difference of opinion here.

rrpc

Bond-007 wrote: »

But he will have more power now and you won't be able to drag him into the district court to appeal a refusual.

I don't think this is correct Bond. According to Section 15A (2006 43):

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

And the relevant part of Section 3:

3.—(1) Application for a firearm certificate (other than a restricted firearm certificate) shall be made to the superintendent of the Garda Síochána of the district in which the applicant resides.
(2) Application for a restricted firearm certificate shall be made to the Commissioner.

There are no exceptions to the right to appeal a refusal under section 3 which means that any certificate that comes under section 3 has the right of appeal attached and since restricted firearms are dealt with under 3(2) then you have the right of appeal in those cases as well.

rrpc

jaycee wrote: »

Ohhh look , a shotgun with a pistol grip ... :eek:
How unusual ..? :mad:

This type of sillyness should have been edited out ..and besides , what about physically impared shooters that may need a better grip , ???
Mag capacity is one thing , but the type of grip ...stupid !!

Ohh Ohh Ohh .... and heres one with an adjustable , collapsing stock ...
how evil is that ? :eek::eek::eek:

Before someone lectures me on what is meant ..
This is in essence what was said ....

Like i said , silly, ill-informed ...and a dangerous misuse of language.:mad:

Who p***ed on your strawberries this morning jaycee?

I'm going back to bed, I'm soooo depressed

fat-tony

+1 jaycee - looks like there are a few drafting errors in the S.I., but not a reason for throwing the toys out of the pram
Perhaps the members of the FCP could be asked to bring some comments back to the legal draftsperson(s) in the DoJ, pointing out that all bullets are designed for penetration :rolleyes: and that, perhaps, the intention was to restrict shotguns with separate pistol grips and folding stocks designed for concealment - not all shotguns in common use

Our man in Havana

rrpc wrote: »

I don't think this is correct Bond. According to Section 15A (2006 43):



And the relevant part of Section 3:

There are no exceptions to the right to appeal a refusal under section 3 which means that any certificate that comes under section 3 has the right of appeal attached and since restricted firearms are dealt with under 3(2) then you have the right of appeal in those cases as well.

Fair enough so. So the Commisioner will be very busy attending district courts all over the country from May 1st.

bunny shooter

Go on jaycee, I've a massive wooden spoon here, I'll lend it to you so you can stir it up better

Mellor

fat-tony wrote: »

pointing out that all bullets are designed for penetration

I think areas like that should be cleared up, obviously penetrating rounds refers to armour piercing or FMJ rounds, that penetrate in to the target. Not hollow point or tipped rounds that are designed to fragment on impact.
But what it obviously means to a shooter and what a FO or super reads into it might not be the same

Sparks

There are no exceptions to the right to appeal a refusal under section 3

There are, however, no requirements on the Commissioner to tell you what all the preconditions on your restricted firearm certificate are. Something that Minister McDowell stood up and defended vigorously in the Dail at the time. Which wouldn't be something I'd expect anyone to do unless they meant to use that little get-out, myself, being a cynical pessimist.

Also Ned, those are lovely bits of gossip, but they're not written in any SI or Act I've ever seen. And there's a significant difference in law and in practise between a super doing a job as delegated by the Commissioner, and a super doing a job that the Supreme Court says only he can do (and that noone, not even the courts or commissioner or minister or Taoiseacht for that matter, can tell him what to do).
Personally, I'd hesitate before being dismissive of that difference. But then, I'm a pessimist, aren't I?

Sparks

Bond-007 wrote: »

Fair enough so. So the Commisioner will be very busy attending district courts all over the country from May 1st.

Not to mention circuit courts and the like, since you can appeal upwards from the DCs...

Ned Muldhoon

Sparks,

Not, as you put it gossip, but readily available information from Crime 4. If anyone wants further clarification on this - a simple call to the powers that be can clear it up. However, since the SI is now published and circulated, we should be hearing something soon (though whatever media) from the FCP on the implications of this document. Firearms holders will have until the 31st of July to get a determination from their District super as to what arms (and ammunition) he will deem restricted. I would recommend, to anyone interested, that they take this course of action ASAP.

Sparks

Thing is Ned, that the guidelines to be issued by the Commissioner to the Superintendents on how the Act is to be applied in practise have not yet been issued. There may well be a flowchart by the time renewals come round. There may be something else entirely. No-one yet knows what the story will be come August 1 (even those who've got a fairly solid idea in their heads as to what it will be).

Personally, though, being a cynic, I'm looking at the point where it says that the super doesn't have to reply to your application for a cert or a cert renewal and not feeling like embracing all these new changes just yet. Yes, it's entirely possible that it all may go well.

Thing is, it's also possible that all the molecules in your body could simultaenously jump three metres to the left.

Bananaman

Lads, Lads, Lads.

I realise I may not be tainted with the same brush that has crushed the spirit of many that post on these esteemed boards and led them to believe the world is out to get them.

Not too many of those that post here are old enough to remember a time when their firearms were taken in for a checkup 30 odd years ago - neither am I - but I get the distinct impression they wish they were so they could have a proper old whinge about it.

Let's face it - the list is out, the implementation will be what it will be and no amount of whinging will make an iota of difference to that.

If you have a concern about the status of your firearms - or as some would lead us to believe - your arsenal - then I would recommend that you send a letter to your super asking for clarification of the process for later this year with a view to ensuring a smooth transition to the new process.

If you have a firearm, which is not on the restricted list. Who cares.

If you have a firearm, for which you have a demonstrable use, which is on the restricted list. Who cares.

If you have a firearm, for which you have no demonstrable use, which is on the restricted list - then I recommend you start polishing it.

I have a firearm, which is on the restricted list, for which I have a demonstrable use. I have no concerns.

B'Man