Restricted List out

Sparks

Mellor,
My point was that in an original draft, the DoJ had stated that detachable or telescopic stocks would be restricted, irregardless of firearm type. The NTSA pointed out examples like the LG100 above, as well as examples like the aluminium buttplates on anschutz smallbore rifles, which are less extreme (just the buttplate and cheekpiece detach). The DoJ agreed that they would be included and that they thought that was a bit silly, so the wording was changed.

So the DoJ agree with what Jaycee is saying and changed the draft SI to what we have now because they agreed with it. That's my point.

Mellor

IRLConor wrote: »

If the intent of the prohibitions on pistol grips and detached/folding/telescopic stocks on shotguns was to restrict overly short shotguns then why not simply specify a minimum length? Centre-fire rifles under 90cm are restricted, why not do a similar thing for shotguns?

I mention that already, and I think it should be the way. Would remove any chance of a grey area.

cavan shooter

[QUOTE=IIf the intent of the prohibitions on pistol grips and detached/folding/telescopic stocks on shotguns was to restrict overly short shotguns then why not simply specify a minimum length? Centre-fire rifles under 90cm are restricted, why not do a similar thing for shotguns?[/QUOTE]

Re Irl Connors comments above and with regards to the legislation in print
they can restrict all of the above and more if they want. We the legit' shooters suffer, The terrible truth remains that if I want to make a 26" rifle concealable or a 32" shotgun concealable for the purpose of illeagle activities, I will cut them down to whatever size I want.

Sparks

IRLConor wrote: »

Anyone who has needed to read laws before (or indeed anyone who can program a computer) would be well used to differentiating between definition and use. I would expect most people not to confuse the two after careful reading of the SI.

To put it in IT parlance, that's like saying that the user will be able to use the product easily because they'll carefully read the manual first.

The whole issue here is that because a handful of people in the DoJ and Gardai interpreted the law their own way, court cases were required to correct that - a bloody waste of time and money and effort, which leads to a rather confrontational mindset that does noone any good in the long term, and is in general a Bad Thing(tm).

And while the court case route is the lesser of two evils here, it's still a faecal sandwich. So any and all opportunities to draft clear and utterly unambigious legislation where absolutely everything is defined right down to idiot level (again, in IT parlance, think C not Ruby) should be taken and pursued. After all, what's the point of clear guidelines to clarify bad law?

Mellor

Sparks wrote: »

Mellor,
My point was that in an original draft, the DoJ had stated that detachable or telescopic stocks would be restricted, irregardless of firearm type. The NTSA pointed out examples like the LG100 above, as well as examples like the aluminium buttplates on anschutz smallbore rifles, which are less extreme (just the buttplate and cheekpiece detach). The DoJ agreed that they would be included and that they thought that was a bit silly, so the wording was changed.

So the DoJ agree with what Jaycee is saying and changed the draft SI to what we have now because they agreed with it. That's my point.

So do you think that it is the DoJs intention that adjustable buttpieces on shotguns are restricted. In the current draft.
By adjustable I refer to the ones previous posted that slide in and out but don't have to detatch

dimebag249

cavan shooter wrote: »

Re Irl Connors comments above and with regards to the legislation in print
they can restrict all of the above and more if they want. We the legit' shooters suffer, The terrible truth remains that if I want to make a 26" rifle concealable or a 32" shotgun concealable for the purpose of illeagle activities, I will cut them down to whatever size I want.

What are you talking about cavan shooter? By your logic we'd have criminals shooting each other without even bothering to get licences! As if a drug dealer would ignore the restricted firearms list's mention of folding stocks or barrel lengths.

Sparks

Mellor, I think it's the DoJ's intention to ban "combat shotguns" and that they have an image in mind when using that term of something like these:


(and for those who'd point out the M97 types of shotgun, I'd point out that if they had an easy way to be distinguished like, say, the number of shells they hold in the magazine, then you might see them restricted as well).

However, I know that it's the DoJ's law that shotguns with a detached, folding or telescopic stock, or with a pistol grip are restricted. And that's not an independent pistol grip, it's just a pistol grip.

Sparks

By the way, there is a point to all this picking at the SI - in that because it's just an SI, a new one can be issued overnight if the Minister so chose. It's entirely possible that the FCP could bring these issues to the DoJ's attention and that the DoJ might then chose to fix the problem before it becomes a problem.

Yes, I know, that's technically optimism. Blame it on insufficient caffine in my bloodstream. Normal service will be resumed shortly.

cavan shooter

dimebag249 wrote: »

What are you talking about cavan shooter? By your logic we'd have criminals shooting each other without even bothering to get licences! As if a drug dealer would ignore the restricted firearms list's mention of folding stocks or barrel lengths.

Is that sarcasm dime bag:D;)

I am making the point that we again as legitimate shooters are being legislated and for for what reason???
The type of firearm that we can use is being restricted, length etc, again for what reason???
yet criminals that want to use shortened firearms will just cut whatever firearm they get to whatever length they want...

dimebag249

cavan shooter wrote: »

Is that sarcasm dime bag:D;)

I am making the point that we again as legitimate shooters are being legislated and for for what reason???
The type of firearm that we can use is being restricted, length etc, again for what reason???
yet criminals that want to use shortened firearms will just cut whatever firearm they get to whatever length they want...

Hear hear. That's exactly my problem with the restricted list. Who's it supposed to affect? What is the actual point of restricting access of these firearms and munitions to law abiding citizens? There's plenty of scumbags strolling down the street with Mac11's and they want to prevent me from having a pistol grip on my 870. What's the point? If I ever do decide to rob the post office, I'll be breaking the law anyway, I'm not going to stop for the restricted firearms list 2008.

Traumadoc

Steyr SSG - restricted? yes or no

jaycee

Traumadoc wrote: »

Steyr SSG - restricted? yes or no

If this is what you are referrring to ....with a calibre range of .243 Win., .22-250 Rem.308 Win.

Link Here




Then the answer is ... No it is not !
It is a bolt action rifle , Of .308 or less .

Traumadoc

phew!

DeVore

Biggun, I deleted your posts because you are getting into recriminations and politics. This is the shooting forum, and right now we're not going there. Also, you were less then civil about how you decided to word your "response". If you want to repost the core questions, politely, thats fine but I don't want hearsay from what your "friend in the department" thinks might be the motive behind the wording.

DeV.

biggun

DeVore wrote: »

Biggun, I deleted your posts because you are getting into recriminations and politics. This is the shooting forum, and right now we're not going there. Also, you were less then civil about how you decided to word your "response". If you want to repost the core questions, politely, thats fine but I don't want hearsay from what your "friend in the department" thinks might be the motive behind the wording.

DeV.

OK Dev, with sugar coated candy on top;

1) The FCP say that the restricted list was not part of their remit.

q) If it was nothing to do with them, why were they there in the first place if not to represent the interestes of shooters. Is the issue of what firerarms are to be restricted one of the core issues which affect every shooter in this country. Except of course if you are one of the people who dont have a pistol /3+ mag shotgun.

Grenades are restricted but whats the chances of me going to the Chief and asking for a permit for one ?

2) The list has been out for some weeks now. That is admitted.

Q) Why did the FCP panel not distribute it to the shooting community to let them see it and get their comments.

Maybe im mistaken but I thought this was a demoracy.

3) Rifle shooters and db/l shotgunners done pretty well out of the list.

Q) Is it not the case that the interestes of several members of the FCP have had the interests of their members well secured by this list, ie Mr Crofton, air pistols/rifles/olympic target shooters (.22lr). while pistol shooters (center fire) have been generally SCREWED !

Q) Why the level of secrecy of the FCP to the general shooting community.

Comment: They are supposed to be OUR representatives to the DOJ/Cops etc. They should be reporting to us after each and every module of the meetings. I havent heard anything of what is going on, whats been said, whats been agreed etc. The interestes of pistol shooters of which I am one seem to be in this case very much ignored by the FCP.

<personal comments deleted>
I dont like this list and many people I know dont like it. Its going to end up in court and cost a lot of people a lot of money.

I hope I have now submitted the core questions in a framework that doesnt offend the sensibilities of the moderators.

Tackleberrywho

2008
(Prn. A8/0205)
2 [21]
S.I. No. 21 of 2008
FIREARMS (RESTRICTED FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION) ORDER
2008
I, BRIAN LENIHAN, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in
exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 2B (inserted by section 29 of
the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (No. 26 of 2006)) of the Firearms Act 1925 (No.
17 of 1925), hereby make the following order:
1. This Order may be cited as the Firearms (Restricted Firearms and
Ammunition) Order 2008.
2. This Order comes into operation on 1 May 2008.
3. (1) In this Order—
“Act” means the Firearms Act 1925 (No. 17 of 1925);
“accelerator or sabot ammunition” means ammunition containing a projectile
enclosed in a sleeve that is discarded after discharge;
“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic
firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;
“bullpup rifles” means rifles with a magazine located behind the trigger;
“centre-fire firearms” means firearms using centre-fire percussion ammunition;
“centre-fire percussion ammunition” means ammunition containing a percussion
cap;
“long firearms” means firearms other than short firearms;
“repeating firearms” means firearms that are loaded and reloaded from a magazine
or cylinder by a manually-operated mechanism;
“rim-fire firearms” means firearms using rim-fire percussion ammunition;
“rim-fire percussion ammunition” means ammunition with a cartridge case not
containing a percussion cap;
Notice of the making of this Statutory Instrument was published in
“Iris Oifigiu´ il” of 15th February, 2008.
[21] 3
“semi-automatic firearms” means firearms that reload automatically from a
magazine or cylinder each time a round is discharged but can fire not more than
one round with a single pull on the trigger;
“short firearms” means firearms either with a barrel not longer than 30 centimetres
or whose overall length (including the length of any detachable
component) does not exceed 60 centimetres;
“silencers”, in relation to firearms, means any devices fitted or capable of being
fitted to the firearms for the purpose of moderating or reducing the sound made
on their discharge;
“single-shot firearms” means firearms that are loaded before each shot either
manually or by a manually-operated mechanism;
“slug ammunition” means ammunition containing a single projectile.
4. (1) Firearms other than those to which subparagraph (2) relates are
declared to be restricted firearms for the purposes of the Act:
(2) This subparagraph relates to the following firearms:
(a) single-shot or repeating short firearms capable of discharging only
blank ammunition;
(b) shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them
incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns—
(i) with a detached, folding or telescopic stock, or
(ii) with a pistol grip, or
(iii) whose barrel is less than 60.9 centimetres (24 inches) in length;
(c) the following long firearms (not being assault rifles or bullpup rifles):
(i) single-shot or repeating rifled centre-fire firearms of a calibre not
exceeding 7.62 millimetres (.308 inch) and whose overall length
is greater than 90 centimetres,
(ii) single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms
designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine
having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds,
(iii) air-operated rifled or smoothbore firearms;
(d) silencers capable of being used only with long rifled rim-fire firearms;
(e) the following short firearms designed for use in connection with competitions
governed by International Olympic Committee regulations:
(i) air-operated firearms of 4.5 millimetres (.177 inch) calibre,
4 [21]
(ii) firearms using .22 inch rim-fire percussion ammunition.
5. The following ammunition is declared to be restricted ammunition for the
purposes of the Act:
(a) ammunition with penetrating, explosive or incendiary projectiles and
projectiles for such ammunition;
(b) slug ammunition for shotguns;
(c) accelerator or sabot ammunition;
(d) grenades, bombs and other similar missiles, whether capable or not
capable of being used with a firearm, including explosive military
missiles and launchers;
(e) ammunition for short firearms, except ammunition for any of those
mentioned in subparagraph (2)(a) or (2)(e) of paragraph 4;
(f) any other ammunition designed or manufactured for use exclusively in
a restricted firearm;
(g) ammunition for a prohibited weapon.
GIVEN under my Official Seal,
12 February 2008
BRIAN LENIHAN.
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Sparks

biggun wrote: »

1) The FCP say that the restricted list was not part of their remit.
q) If it was nothing to do with them, why were they there in the first place if not to represent the interestes of shooters.

You may have missed the post regarding what the DoJ has said the mandate of the FCP includes. The FCP members do not get to set that mandate.
And as to complaints that they should, the problem is that the FCP is, as we said two years ago, not a body with a veto over firearms legislation. The best they can do is offer solid advice and lobby for sensible changes.
If more than that is what you want done, you're about four years too late - and yes, we did have threads that far back pointing out that the CJB2004 was going to do us over rather badly.
Not much we can do about it now, unless you know of a reliable way to have more liberal firearms legislation drafted. (And if you do, the NRA-ILA would like a word).

Is the issue of what firerarms are to be restricted one of the core issues which affect every shooter in this country.

Not really. How restricted firearm certificates are dealt with, however, is. And that's not something we're going to see for a while.

2) The list has been out for some weeks now. That is admitted.

No, it's not and anyone who says they saw that SI list before it got signed hasn't read the SI fully yet. They saw drafts, which were not signed in.

Q) Why did the FCP panel not distribute it to the shooting community to let them see it and get their comments.
Maybe im mistaken but I thought this was a demoracy.

No, it's an advisory panel to a civil service department. You don't elect the civil servants in the DoJ, nor do you get to chose who the Minister will be (you only get to chose whether someone is or is not a TD, is what I mean - rather than voting for a certain TD to take up a certain ministerial post).
As to the selection of FCP members, that was not done by the shooting community but by the DoJ - all members of the FCP are there at the invitation of the Minister.

3) Rifle shooters and db/l shotgunners done pretty well out of the list.

Really? 'cos I'm looking at continuing to have to get certs for two of my "firearms" which in fact aren't firearms anywhere else in the EU. Which makes for lots of fun when going to international matches...
Also, it's still one gun, one cert, so I don't think we did so well myself.

Q) Is it not the case that the interestes of several members of the FCP have had the interests of their members well secured by this list, ie Mr Crofton, air pistols/rifles/olympic target shooters (.22lr). while pistol shooters (center fire) have been generally SCREWED !

Pistol shooters (center fire) also includes olympic target shooters. Just 'cos we use .32 more often than .45 does not mean we don't use fullbore, thanks. And frankly, you ought to be happy that the olympic stuff gets special mention in the SI - or haven't you checked your pistol's size against the ISSF regs recently?

Q) Why the level of secrecy of the FCP to the general shooting community.
Comment: They are supposed to be OUR representatives to the DOJ/Cops etc.

Technically, they're our representatives to the DoJ. The Gardai are also members of the FCP, on the same status level as our lot in there. The FCP is not just target shooters - it's also hunters, farmers, gardai, and so forth.

They should be reporting to us after each and every module of the meetings. I havent heard anything of what is going on, whats been said, whats been agreed etc.

I fully agree, there should be more open reports. There have been some, but nowhere near enough.
However, the nature of the FCP highlighted above may hint as to why.

I personally didnt like...

Not even with a barge pole. And here's why:

I have to question the complete lack of accountability of the FCP to the shooting community. I dont like this list and many people I know dont like it. Its going to end up in court and cost a lot of people a lot of money.

Yup. On the other hand, from what little I've heard, it's been the single best exercise in inter-NGB and general inter-body work in shooting administration in a decade.

DeVore

I don't expect the FCB to come here and explain themselves on this forum and I dont think you should either. I'm not saying this is a good state of affairs, but I am not having Boards dragged into one of those courtcases you spoke about.

DeV.

biggun

Sparks wrote: »

You may have missed the post regarding what the DoJ has said the mandate of the FCP includes. The FCP members do not get to set that mandate.
And as to complaints that they should, the problem is that the FCP is, as we said two years ago, not a body with a veto over firearms legislation. The best they can do is offer solid advice and lobby for sensible changes.
If more than that is what you want done, you're about four years too late - and yes, we did have threads that far back pointing out that the CJB2004 was going to do us over rather badly.
Not much we can do about it now, unless you know of a reliable way to have more liberal firearms legislation drafted. (And if you do, the NRA-ILA would like a word).


Not really. How restricted firearm certificates are dealt with, however, is. And that's not something we're going to see for a while.


No, it's not and anyone who says they saw that SI list before it got signed hasn't read the SI fully yet. They saw drafts, which were not signed in.


No, it's an advisory panel to a civil service department. You don't elect the civil servants in the DoJ, nor do you get to chose who the Minister will be (you only get to chose whether someone is or is not a TD, is what I mean - rather than voting for a certain TD to take up a certain ministerial post).
As to the selection of FCP members, that was not done by the shooting community but by the DoJ - all members of the FCP are there at the invitation of the Minister.


Really? 'cos I'm looking at continuing to have to get certs for two of my "firearms" which in fact aren't firearms anywhere else in the EU. Which makes for lots of fun when going to international matches...
Also, it's still one gun, one cert, so I don't think we did so well myself.


Pistol shooters (center fire) also includes olympic target shooters. Just 'cos we use .32 more often than .45 does not mean we don't use fullbore, thanks. And frankly, you ought to be happy that the olympic stuff gets special mention in the SI - or haven't you checked your pistol's size against the ISSF regs recently?


Technically, they're our representatives to the DoJ. The Gardai are also members of the FCP, on the same status level as our lot in there. The FCP is not just target shooters - it's also hunters, farmers, gardai, and so forth.


I fully agree, there should be more open reports. There have been some, but nowhere near enough.
However, the nature of the FCP highlighted above may hint as to why.


Not even with a barge pole. And here's why:



Yup. On the other hand, from what little I've heard, it's been the single best exercise in inter-NGB and general inter-body work in shooting administration in a decade.

Sparks, how in gods green earth can you maintain that the FCP is not answerable to shooters in ireland. The restricted list has been out and was agreed from Late January/ early Febuary. How do I knmow this ? Because I am particularly friendly with a PARTICULAR TD ansd was distributed to members of the FCP some time ago.

One of us has obviously suffered some form of brain trauma because if you are trying to tell me that the Declan Keogh saga doesnt stink to high heaven then there is definitely something really wrong with whats happened wiht the restricted list.

I never said anything about the fcp having any power of veto, what I wanted was a degree of accountability to the shooters of this country. From what I have seen, read and heard they appear to be keeping results of meeting, deliberations very secret. The question has to be asked, and that is why ?. Can you provide me with any logical explanation of why they have been so damm secretive so far ? Im not an unreasonable person so please go ahead.

Those discussions affect every one of us here, you and me included. What will you be saying of your CS suddenly decides to not allow you one of your firearms ?. If a restricted list doesnt affect every shooter in this country, then please tell me what does. if they were sidelined by the DOJ/Cops on the issue they should have got someone who knew how to handle them, ie Declan Keogh . Guaranteed the smirk will be on the other side of your face if your super or CS tells you to go feck off at renewal.

I figure the main poiint of difference we have is that you appear to agree with restrictive firearms legislation and I dont.

Tell me one thing Sparks ? Do you Fish ? because a fishing rod is probably aqll your going to end up with if the FCP continues to do what they are doing.

biggun

DeVore wrote: »

I don't expect the FCB to come here and explain themselves on this forum and I dont think you should either. I'm not saying this is a good state of affairs, but I am not having Boards dragged into one of those courtcases you spoke about.

DeV.

DeV,

With respect and this is where you and me will disagree strongly but I want each and every member of the FCP that supposedly represents the interestes of shooters to explain each and every word, action they have made in this whole sorry saga. Because I believe we have been very much screwed and I want answers.

This will not end here because the next step is in my humble opinion to not ban/prohibit firearms but to make it so difficult for shooters to enjoy their sport that they will simply pack it in and go fishing.

Honestly, answer me this. Are you happy with that list ?

Sparks

biggun wrote: »

Sparks, how in gods green earth can you maintain that the FCP is not answerable to shooters in ireland.

Because shooters in ireland did not draft the mandate for the FCP; nor did they issue the invitations to the representatives on the FCP; and not only that, but the FCP does not just represent the interests of shooters, but also those of farmers and the Gardai and dealers and insurance people and so forth. Last I checked, the Gardai and the IFA don't answer to us...

Perhaps you mean that the shooting bodies who are sitting on the FCP should be accountable to shooters - and there I wholly agree with you, and technically, they're meant to be already.

The restricted list has been out and was agreed from Late January/ early Febuary. How do I knmow this ? Because I am particularly friendly with a PARTICULAR TD ansd was distributed to members of the FCP some time ago.

Did you check the wording of that list and the wording of the SI yet?
Also, if you're friendly with a particular TD, where the bloody hell were you four years ago?

One of us...

I told you. Not with a barge pole. Read DeVore's posts in this forum regarding this entire topic of discussion. Seriously. Then have a bit of a giggle at what you just wrote there and let's move on.

I never said anything about the fcp having any power of veto, what I wanted was a degree of accountability to the shooters of this country.

Forgive me, I wasn't clear. My point was that the FCP has no power as such. It is an advisory panel of invited people. Meaning that not only do they not have the power to draft legislation, they don't have any power in that sense.
About the best they can do is to mitigate the worst of the potential damage in the CJA2006. And even there, they're limited. (That's not to say that we shouldn't do that - I'd rather have the airbag than not even if I'd have preferred not to crash the car in the first place, if you follow me).

Can you provide me with any logical explanation of why they have been so damm secretive so far ? Im not an unreasonable person so please go ahead.

Personally, I've been asking by email and by phone and so forth for more disclosure. For the last six months. You?

Those discussions affect every one of us here, you and me included.

You're preaching to the choir. And about four years late at that (seriously, read through the past threads on the CJB2004, the CJA2006, the FCP itself and the related stuff - all this is covered material already).

if they were sidelined by the DOJ/Cops on the issue they should have got someone who knew how to handle them

Again, not with a barge pole, read the past material. Also, I'm not smirking. I've been pessimistic about this entire area since the first draft of the CJB2004.

I figure the main poiint of difference we have is that you appear to agree with restrictive firearms legislation and I dont.

Nope, the difference here is that you weren't here four years ago when the damage was done - all you're seeing these days is damage limitation, and with damn few resources at that.
We did have a chance to avoid all this. Four years ago. That's when the damage was done. And it was discussed on this forum back then. Read the threads.

biggun

Sparks wrote: »

Because shooters in ireland did not draft the mandate for the FCP; nor did they issue the invitations to the representatives on the FCP; and not only that, but the FCP does not just represent the interests of shooters, but also those of farmers and the Gardai and dealers and insurance people and so forth. Last I checked, the Gardai and the IFA don't answer to us...

Perhaps you mean that the shooting bodies who are sitting on the FCP should be accountable to shooters - and there I wholly agree with you, and technically, they're meant to be already. Did you check the wording of that list and the wording of the SI yet?
Also, if you're friendly with a particular TD, where the bloody hell were you four years ago?I told you. Not with a barge pole. Read DeVore's posts in this forum regarding this entire topic of discussion. Seriously. Then have a bit of a giggle at what you just wrote there and let's move on.Forgive me, I wasn't clear. My point was that the FCP has no power as such. It is an advisory panel of invited people. Meaning that not only do they not have the power to draft legislation, they don't have any power in that sense.
About the best they can do is to mitigate the worst of the potential damage in the CJA2006. And even there, they're limited. (That's not to say that we shouldn't do that - I'd rather have the airbag than not even if I'd have preferred not to crash the car in the first place, if you follow me).Personally, I've been asking by email and by phone and so forth for more disclosure. For the last six months. You?You're preaching to the choir. And about four years late at that (seriously, read through the past threads on the CJB2004, the CJA2006, the FCP itself and the related stuff - all this is covered material already).Again, not with a barge pole, read the past material. Also, I'm not smirking. I've been pessimistic about this entire area since the first draft of the CJB2004.Nope, the difference here is that you weren't here four years ago when the damage was done - all you're seeing these days is damage limitation, and with damn few resources at that.
We did have a chance to avoid all this. Four years ago. That's when the damage was done. And it was discussed on this forum back then. Read the threads.

Actually I was very much here 4 years ago.I offered my experience and contacts and it was rebuffed by members of the FCP. I have a great deal of experience dealing with them ( DOJ/Cops) through work and I offered that. I was told in no uncertain terms that i was not required. I did however offer a word of advice . The DOJ simply cant be trusted to do the right thing. I told them to not trust them under any circumstances. I havent been wrong about them yet !.

You want to know what they will do ?They wont ban firearms but they will make it so damm difficullt to operate that the sport is now in great danger of dying completly.

At least we can agree on one thing. There has been little or no accountability from the members of the shooting organisations on the FCB to date. I and every person with an ounce of sense would have to question why this has been. Why the secrecy ? Why the complete silence ?. I have been asking for answers for at least 3 years and been told NOTHING except what intel I can pick up off the grapevine. Thats wrong. I spent over 20 years in a role where information coming through the chain was vital to the success of the op, THEY TELL US NOTHING ! WHY ? They are supposed to be respresenting our interests. I fear the only way I can enjoy my sport and ensure my access to my firearms is to leave this country.

As I already said I personally didnt like Declan Keogh and I told him that to his face on numerous occasions but at least he wouldnt have ****ed it up to this extent.

Honestly, are you happy with this list ?

Sparks

Sod. Lost my original reply thanks to network hassles here.

Anyway, to reiterate:
4 years ago the FCP did not exist. 3 years ago it did not exist either. And the people on the FCP now were mostly either not shooting or were not in the admin side of things back then. So if you were asking then and got short shrift, it was from someone else, not them - someone else, whom you're now saying would have done a better job, which is really illogical.

As to the DoJ issuing a de facto ban instead of a de jure ban, you're about four years behind me and several others here with that prediction.

As to the accountability of the members of the FCP, I agree that our people should have been pushing the information out there more, I've said it to them several times over the past few months, but even I know that they're in an impossible position because of what happened over the past four years or more and that they can't really get a whole lot done. They were basicly given a faecal sandwich to start with.

And am I happy with this list? Don't be daft, nobody is. But we're all eating the sandwich made for us in the CJA2006 now. If you want to blame someone for that, the FCP are the wrong people to blame - it's the people who were talking to the DoJ prior to the CJB2004 being drafted that you need to speak with.

DeVore

biggun wrote: »

DeV,

With respect and this is where you and me will disagree strongly but I want each and every member of the FCP that supposedly represents the interestes of shooters to explain each and every word, action they have made in this whole sorry saga. Because I believe we have been very much screwed and I want answers.

Well good for you. Get your own website. I'm not here for you to vent your spleen.

This thread has turned to crap since you arrived with your agenda so you can take a week out of the shooting forum to calm down and stop "demanding" anything.

DeV.

jaycee

biggun wrote: »

Actually I was very much here 4 years ago.I offered my experience and contacts and it was rebuffed by members of the FCP.

4 years ago ... the FCP wasn't in existance then. You must be talking about some other group of people .

I have a great deal of experience dealing with them ( DOJ/Cops) through work and I offered that. I was told in no uncertain terms that i was not required. I did however offer a word of advice . The DOJ simply cant be trusted to do the right thing. I told them to not trust them under any circumstances. I havent been wrong about them yet !.

Once again... you were talking to a different group of people ..NOT the FCP.

As I already said I personally didnt like Declan Keogh and I told him that to his face on numerous occasions but at least he wouldnt have ****ed it up to this extent.

Hmmm ..???
If you werent talking to the FCP back then , and you werent, cause they didnt exist.. Considering the comment above , I wonder who it was that rebuffed your offers of help and said you were not required ??

Think about it !!!

Honestly, are you happy with this list ?

Honestly , I believe there are some very good things in it , it's a pity the wording and the language is so sloppy in places.

chem

Oh dear:o

Expected that to get alot more messy:D

But as much as I hate to say it, what we have is prob the best we could of expected. You just picture what might of happened if the DOJ had to of made its own unguided restricted laws. Alot more folk would of been put out over the DOJ`s complete lack of knowlage of anything firearms related.

Im afraid it wont be till the day a public vote on the CONSTITUTION is taken to insert the US 2nd Amendment into our constitution until we have any freedom to own guns in this country:D

VOTE PAPER

Please tick the box to vote for:

(A) For Ireland to stay as the home for saints and scholars with free flowing waters and rolling hills and green valleys

OR

(B) For Ireland to become a blood filled pit of crime and murder by voting in the US 2nd Amendment and by so doing you will give our green pastures over to the devil himself. By so doing the blood is on your hands.

We will just have to wait and see on this one folks. We might get shafted again or it might work out. Either way I feel the planning was already in place before we ever got a look in:rolleyes;):D

cavan shooter

I was a way for less than a day and look what happened to my thread:D:D

DeVore

cavan shooter wrote: »

I was a way for less than a day and look what happened to my thread:D:D

Yes, a perfectly good thread was ruined by people simply wanting to have a go and assign blame. :rolleyes:

DeV.

fat-tony

cavan shooter wrote: »

I was a way for less than a day and look what happened to my thread:D:D

Indeed! I looked away for what seemed a moment and there it was - hijacked:D
What we have ended up with is a badly drafted S.I. loaded with definitions of firearms and ammunition extracted from various sources. What seems to be missing is an overall "firearms savvy" editor for the document. The drafter of the S.I. seems to have taken some good comments on board (e.g. adjustable/removable stocks on certain rifle types as referenced in Sparks replies) and then unfortunately caused confusion by loosely using the term "pistol grip" in relation to shotguns. Again, as Sparks mentioned in one of his replies, an S.I. can be amended - thankfully:). This one certainly needs to be clarified, and the FCP could and should bring it to the attention of the DoJ before the statute is enacted on May 1 and the Gardai draft the guidelines for Superintendents and Firearms Officers etc.

If the intention is to restrict the licensing of potentially concealable firearms and certain pseudo/para military firearms, then the wording of the statute needs to be much tighter. The "elephant in the room" is the fact that such restricted licensed firearms may fall into the hands of the criminal fraternity, through theft from property etc. The way to deal with this is to provide for secure storage of such firearms and this is mentioned in the various Firearms Acts (but is not detailed as to definition of "secure storage").

This S.I. was to provide a definition of a category of restricted firearms so that sections of the CJA 2006 (which refer to such restricted firearms) could be put into law. I would suggest that the level of ambiguity in the current version needs to be removed.

kowloon

Am I correct in the assumption that the calibre restriction covers ALL rifled firearms?
Would a collection of percussion and flintlock rifled muskets now be classed as restricted weapons (.577 or more).
Would "historical collecting" even be recognised as a valid reason to own them?

rrpc

kowloon wrote: »

Am I correct in the assumption that the calibre restriction covers ALL rifled firearms?
Would a collection of percussion and flintlock rifled muskets now be classed as restricted weapons (.577 or more).
Would "historical collecting" even be recognised as a valid reason to own them?

Not to seem pedantic or anything, but a rifled musket is actually a rifle and not a musket which is a smoothbore.

kowloon

rrpc wrote: »

Not to seem pedantic or anything, but a rifled musket is actually a rifle and not a musket which is a smoothbore.

Hence my reference to rifle muskets which are licensed as rifles.
Not muskets, which are licensed as shotguns and therefore not under threat (unless they have pistol grips ).

rrpc

kowloon wrote: »

Hence my reference to rifle muskets which are licensed as rifles.
Not muskets, which are licensed as shotguns and therefore not under threat (unless they have pistol grips ).

Still being pedantic

They were never referred to as muskets, even when they were first produced. The first rifle in general military use: the baker rifle (made famous by the Sharpe series of books) was referred to as a rifle as early as the late 18th century when they first made their appearance. The designation of rifle was referring to the configuration of the barrel which was rifled and not to the charge which propelled the bullet or ball. As a result, there were then distinctions between the method of propulsion from black powder flintlock, to percussion cap to cartridge, but all were referred to as rifles.

Referring to them generally as black powder firearms would be more helpful because then you have a clear distinction between the types of charge and percussion.

Realistically, all black powder firearms should be dealt with separately under the law because of the major differences between them and the more modern cartridge rifle.

kowloon

Used since the adoption of the US Model 1855 Rifle Musket, a weapon that replaced infantry muskets as opposed to Halls, Bakers etc. that weren't used by the regular line infantry.
Term also applied to muskets which were rifled later and other musket sized rifles like the M1861.
The P53 was also referred to as a rifle musket.
I was shown someones French 1892 Mousqueton d'Artillerie (from ww1) only the other day.
The term was used all over, correctly and incorrectly
(much like "assault rifle" :rolleyes:)

And, yes, we do need frontstuffers and obsolete BP rifles to be given a separate category.