Restricted List out

cavan shooter

Bananaman wrote: »

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

Well said:D,

ranger4

rrpc wrote: »

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.

Reason i ask the rifle in question is a bolt action with a mag that holds 5 rounds and is not semi or auto fed, Allthough it does have the appearance of a Tacticle rifle,I have seen same rifle and cal with bolt action on cert and on another cert assualt rifle, would there be any benifit by keeping assualt rifle on cert as there would be record of being approved for assualt rifle thus any new applications for restricted firearm could be ammended to exsisting assualt rifle cert.

rrpc

ranger4 wrote: »

Reason i ask the rifle in question is a bolt action with a mag that holds 5 rounds and is not semi or auto fed, Allthough it does have the appearance of a Tacticle rifle,I have seen same rifle and cal with bolt action on cert and on another cert assualt rifle, would there be any benifit by keeping assualt rifle on cert as there would be record of being approved for assualt rifle thus any new applications for restricted firearm could be ammended to exsisting assualt rifle cert.

I would see no benefit other than the dubious one of having to gothrough the restricted procedure at renewal time.

If it's not an assault rifle, than it shouldn't be described as one. If it is, then fine.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

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.

I've no problem with you being a pessimist Sparks, each to his own, but there's one thing being pessimistic and another giving people the wrong information....

Sparks wrote: »

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).

You are also wrong in the first paragraph quoted above. The setting of blanket preconditions is not confined to restricted firearms. Section 3A states:

3A.—(1) The Commissioner may, with the consent of the Minister, from time to time issue guidelines in relation to the practical application and operation of any provision of the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006.

(2) In particular, the Commissioner may issue such guidelines in relation to applications for firearm certificates and authorisations under this Act and to the conditions which may be attached to those certificates and authorisations.

jaycee

Mellor wrote: »

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

Well then my point is proven , because what they MEANT ...is now a matter of opinion , it's the words that are used that will be the sticking point ..
By it's present form , it could bean either ...or both .

Don't you have a problem with that ?

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.

And why should they ?... thats pretty dismissive of physically impared shooters I think , and where is the clarity with regard to the decription of those stocks in the form of words used .

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

Ahhh .. nice word Adjustable
Adjustable by what means ?...by telescoping into the butt , thereby shortening the overall length ? Is a telescoping stock not an adjustable one then ?


What am i talking about ? ..

I am bringing potential problems to the attention of people .

I'm talking about the amount of terms in that document that can be construed as meaning different things to different people , the ambiguety of the pervious legislation was a complete pain to many and was seized upon at times to create bottle necks and problems.

I am fully aware of what that document contains , and it's implications . I am also bitterly dissapointed that after such long stewing a better , clearer form of words could not be found.

"Quote!"
“slug ammunition” means ammunition containing a single projectile.

awww c'mon :rolleyes:

By this definition all .22lr bullets are "Slug ammunition " ? really ?
So you can have a non- restricted .22lr firearm ,
but your box of 50 bullets.. (More properly referred to as cartridges) are now slugs ... and therfore restricted ??? Daft !

Yes , i know what they mean , but its what is written i have a problem with. Shouldn't we all be upset at the lack of logic here and a little surprised at the way its all strung together ?

jaycee

fat-tony wrote: »

+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

Not to throw more toys , but after 2 or more years you might expect a better
result . It's only about 2 pages after all .

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:

Has been done !

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

Yes ... but it shouldn't be nessesary to have to guess at the Intention in a document like this .It should be clearly defined .

It's in everyones interest .

IRLConor

jaycee wrote: »

By this definition all .22lr bullets are "Slug ammunition " ? really ?
So you can have a non- restricted .22lr firearm ,
but your box of 50 bullets.. (More properly referred to as cartridges) are now slugs ... and therfore restricted ??? Daft !

Only "slug ammunition for shotguns" is restricted (5 (b)). Even if they define .22lr rounds as "slug ammunition" they're still not restricted.

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

Only "slug ammunition for shotguns" is restricted (5 (b)). Even if they define .22lr rounds as "slug ammunition" they're still not restricted.

+1

Beat me to it Conor . Somebody else brought this up in an email, and I just couldn't be bothered answering, I mean it's one thing to read a document, quite another to understand what it means.

What's the opposite of 'rose-tinted spectacles'?

Sparks

What's the opposite of 'rose-tinted spectacles'?

Experience.

spideog7

Mellor wrote: »

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


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

My point about shotgun's was not that they wouldn't be restricted just that the Gardai wouldn't be able to identify them cause they are registered as single barrels and someone said the Gardai may request to check them for compliance.

I misunderstood the long rifled part as a specific reference to the .22long rifle calibre, my bad

chem

rrpc wrote: »

+1

Beat me to it Conor . Somebody else brought this up in an email, and I just couldn't be bothered answering, I mean it's one thing to read a document, quite another to understand what it means.

What's the opposite of 'rose-tinted spectacles'?

You have just proved what jaycee is trying to get across to you! Not every (if any) super or commish has a law degree. And it is the same vague wording of laws that has forced people to take supers to high courts for licences. As there own "view" of the law was put down as standard procedure.

Have you a law degree rrpc? If you do, thank you for clearing up this document for those asking questions of it. If not try not to be so smug in your replies as you may well be giving false advise.

As to this statement "Somebody else brought this up in an email, and I just couldn't be bothered answering" try show some respect to your fellow shooters who are just asking questions and hope to get a correct answer :rolleyes:

jaycee

Thank you CHEM for having the insight and the wit to see what i was getting at , I may have been too ironic and subtle for some.

The difference between reading and comprehension is apparently lost on some people , and im not especially worried about what may happen anyones strawberries , only their shooting . :rolleyes:

Actually ...Guys ..Gals ,

With respect ...I'm not looking for any answers !!
I am just demonstrating the scope for misunderstandings there are in the document and i think my point is well proven .

A lot of the text of the restricted list was lifted directly from this document ..
Link.. to Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons.

I quote from Annex 1 Subsection IV

IV. For the purposes of this Annex:

(a) 'short firearm' means a firearm with a barrel not exceeding 30 centimetres or whose overall length does not exceed 60 centimetres;

(b) 'long firearm' means any firearm other than a short firearm;

(c) 'automatic firearm' means a firearm which reloads automatically each time a round is fired and can fire more than one round with one pull on the trigger;

(d) 'semi-automatic firearm' means a firearm which reloads automatically each time a round is fired and can fire only one round with one pull on the trigger;

(e) 'repeating firearm' means a firearm which after a round has been fired is designed to be reloaded from a magazine or cylinder by means of a manually-operated action;

(f) 'single-shot firearm' means a firearm with no magazine which is loaded before each shot by the manual insertion of a round into the chamber or a loading recess at the breech of the barrel;

(g) 'ammunition with penetrating projectiles' means ammunition for military use where the projectile is jacketed and has a penetrating hard core;

(h) 'ammunition with explosive projectiles' means ammunition for military use where the projectile contains a charge which explodes on impact;

(i) 'ammunition with incendiary projectiles' means ammunition for military use where the projectile contains a chemical mixture which bursts into flame on contact with the air or on impact.

In subsection (g) you will notice a neater description of 'ammunition with penetrating projectiles' it is quite clear what it refers to , and it's not lumped in with something else for the sake of brevity but at the expense of clarity.

Some of the other parts will look like a straight copy of the above.

I have been over this stuff many many times over the last couple of years on an almost daily basis and glib remarks such as

I mean it's one thing to read a document, quite another to understand what it means

.
do neither the person making them, or the subject matter justice.

There have been more potentially damaging things for the consultative process published on websites than the current pondering on boards of the flaws in the layout of the restricted list .

The restricted list will be there for a long time , and we need to do what we can to point out these flaws and hopefully they will be put right , discussions of this type of material , the firearms act and the future of our sport are not the place to have disagreements between ourselves.

ranger4

jaycee wrote: »

Thank you CHEM for having the insight and the wit to see what i was getting at , I may have been too ironic and subtle for some.

The difference between reading and comprehension is apparently lost on some people , and im not especially worried about what may happen anyones strawberries , only their shooting . :rolleyes:

Actually ...Guys ..Gals ,

With respect ...I'm not looking for any answers !!
I am just demonstrating the scope for misunderstandings there are in the document and i think my point is well proven .

A lot of the text of the restricted list was lifted directly from this document ..
Link.. to Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons.

I quote from Annex 1 Subsection IV



In subsection (g) you will notice a neater description of 'ammunition with penetrating projectiles' it is quite clear what it refers to , and it's not lumped in with something else for the sake of brevity but at the expense of clarity.

Some of the other parts will look like a straight copy of the above.

I have been over this stuff many many times over the last couple of years on an almost daily basis and glib remarks such as .
do neither the person making them, or the subject matter justice.

There have been more potentially damaging things for the consultative process published on websites than the current pondering on boards of the flaws in the layout of the restricted list .

The restricted list will be there for a long time , and we need to do what we can to point out these flaws and hopefully they will be put right , discussions of this type of material , the firearms act and the future of our sport are not the place to have disagreements between ourselves.

So this will not be passed and made law in the very new future?

.243

in the very simple words of fr dougal maguire "ted im highly confused"

jaycee

ranger4 wrote: »

So this will not be passed and made law in the very new future?

The Restricted list is already signed and sealed ranger ,

We can hope that clarifications can be issued and perhaps guidelines
in the implementation of the list as a result of these flaws being highlighted.
Remember that the FCP still sits , and will continue to work to tease out these and other problems, and arrive at an agreed solution .

We should tirelessly keep going while anything can still be done.

The rotund lady has not uttered a melodic note as of yet .

rrpc

Jaycee

I admit to being glib and even dare I say sarcastic? The description of a slug had no bearing on the restriction of same for anything other than shotguns and therefore of no consequence other than to those of a more pedantic bent. [insert appropriate pedantic response here]

A number of people have answered questions incorrectly based on (a) what they thought the SI or the Acts say, or (b) what they feared the SI or the Acts say or (c) what they heard the SI and the Acts say.

As far as I'm concerned, every hysterical and incorrect response breeds more hysteria and more errors and quite frankly I believe that's the last thing we should be fostering. If that's the agenda, then apologies for the interruption and let normal service be resumed.

Feel free to disagree.

Mellor

Jaycee

I can see what you are doing my pointing out potential problems, and I agree, this is required so that we can sort them out now in the infant stages.
BUT the way you are going about doesn't come accross well.

For example, Do you honestly believe that the adjustable stock is restricted. In my opinion it clearly refers to telescopic or folding stocks that allow concealement. There will be guidlines produced on these restrictions as the person involved will need to read up on them.

Another example is the .22lr being a slug. What was the point in that? The restriction clearly mentioned slugs for shotguns, so there is no way a .22lr was included.
And just so you know, most .22lr rounds are slug,s. Nothing to do with the restricted list, a slug is a solid projectile, it has become common to used the word solely for shotgun slugs, but the true meaning of the word refers to alot of rounds


As I said we need to iron out some issues, but we should stick to issues that do exist instead of fabricating them

chem

Mellor wrote: »

Jaycee

I can see what you are doing my pointing out potential problems, and I agree, this is required so that we can sort them out now in the infant stages.
BUT the way you are going about doesn't come accross well.

For example, Do you honestly believe that the adjustable stock is restricted. In my opinion it clearly refers to telescopic or folding stocks that allow concealement. There will be guidlines produced on these restrictions as the person involved will need to read up on them.

Another example is the .22lr being a slug. What was the point in that? The restriction clearly mentioned slugs for shotguns, so there is no way a .22lr was included.
And just so you know, most .22lr rounds are slug,s. Nothing to do with the restricted list, a slug is a solid projectile, it has become common to used the word solely for shotgun slugs, but the true meaning of the word refers to alot of rounds


As I said we need to iron out some issues, but we should stick to issues that do exist instead of fabricating them

Mellor, the point been made is that if you were in court, because of some super getting it into his head that your adjustable stock, falls into his idea of what a
telescopic stock is eg: changes the length of the stock, collapses into the stock. When the court then looks for the deffination IN LAW as to what a telescopic stock is, guess what? there is none:eek: now it is up to the court to try hammer out what is or isnt a telescopic sight.

You may say "but everyone knows what it is" but we have all seen what some supers have put people through eg: court cases for inert ammo, pistols not been relicenced because no range is deemed registered yet etc....

It might seem all abit far fetched, but its only when it comes to your door that it becomes a nightmare that could cost you alot of money and the taughts of a long stretch in jail for having a restricted firearm.

Not trying to be the minister of doom here, but events like this could all be avoided if only the time and care was taken to provide well worded laws in the 1st place. A well payed barister will find holes in any law and can twist the meaning of acts if they are not clear as to the full meaning of the law.

Just listen to any news stories lately about high court challenges brought because of poorly written laws and see the amount of loop holes that are been found and exploited to get criminals freed from prison.

chem

Mellor wrote: »

Jaycee

As I said we need to iron out some issues, but we should stick to issues that do exist instead of fabricating them

Do you know for sure that any guidelines will be produced? We all hope they will be but even if they are will it be left up to the super to make his final call? who knows? If not its back to the same problems we had before with gardi making there own laws up and putting them into force:(

meathstevie

Let me have a crack at defining the concept of an adjustable stock.

An adjustable stock, meaning the stock of a rifle or a shotgun, is a stock which is permanently fixed to the firearm( not removable without the use of tools ), is not able to be folded, collapsed or pushed into a cavity in the main body of the firearm but has the potential of being adjusted to improve the comfort of the shooter by means of adjustable components on the body of the permanently fixed stock.

Here you go lads, my contribution to gobbledygook speak

cavan shooter

chem wrote: »

Do you know for sure that any guidelines will be produced? We all hope they will be but even if they are will it be left up to the super to make his final call? who knows? If not its back to the same problems we had before with gardi making there own laws up and putting them into force:(

The interpretation of the law is a totally different matter. Will there be guidelines?? I do not think so, guidelines require a consensus on the matter from both sides of the debate who have an interest. When no guidelines exist it is one persons interpretation, and opinion rule and forever the row. The problem with opinion is that everyone has one and not everyones opinion is correct:D

This is a real bone of contention with me, inconsistency and lack of meaningful guidance. At this stage all shooters should actively canvas for proper guidance and interpretation on this matter

Mellor

chem wrote: »

Mellor, the point been made is that if you were in court, because of some super getting it into his head that your adjustable stock, falls into his idea of what a
telescopic stock is eg: changes the length of the stock, collapses into the stock. When the court then looks for the deffination IN LAW as to what a telescopic stock is, guess what? there is none:eek: now it is up to the court to try hammer out what is or isnt a telescopic sight.

Well, thats quite common for a start, common law, law of tort etc

My point is that no laws define everything to exact wording, they keep it general and vague. The reason for this is that if they did not there would be more loopholes. Areas that weren't covered specificly.
Sticking with the stock example,
The pic shown was an adjustable stock set up. the butt pad is adjustable, not the stock, which is stationary. The reason for the law is to restrict shotguns easilt concealed. An adjustable stock does not do this. I imagine the limit for this section will be any modified stock or modifyable stock that reduced tho overall lenght of the firearm to below a benchmark.

It might seem all abit far fetched, but its only when it comes to your door that it becomes a nightmare that could cost you alot of money and the taughts of a long stretch in jail for having a restricted firearm.

Why would you go to jail???
Its not illegal for have a restricted firearm. If you currently have one you will need approval, if you plan on getting one you will need approval. Unless you fail to get approval and get one anyway.

Not trying to be the minister of doom here, but events like this could all be avoided if only the time and care was taken to provide well worded laws in the 1st place. A well payed barister will find holes in any law and can twist the meaning of acts if they are not clear as to the full meaning of the law.

You will find more loopholes in specificly define laws than vague ones. for example, say "detatchable, folding and telescopic" were each clearly defined. I could then design a stock that was easily concealable that was outside these parameters, which would not be restricted. Having clear cut yes and no limits creates to option to avoid them. This is right of the top of my head, so its just a quick example. so "detatchable, folding and telescopic", have each be defined in law, and limits set (to allow for stocks with minor adjustable elements). So I design a stock that can reduce fully into its self ot the body of the gun, by means of a threaded bar. Now, this stocks dont currently exist because they are awkward and impractical, but if limits were set on "detatchable, folding and telescopic", they would not fit.

this is just an example, of why blanket terms are used. Hopefully guidelines will be published to give FOs an idea of what is ok or not.

ronnie#1

"Any shotgun which fires more than 3 or has a folding stock, pistol grip or generally falls into assault category restricted"


Most shotguns o/u anyway have a pistol grip, cant see them all being restricted?

Mellor

I think it refers to a full pistol grip, separate to the stock, not a pistol grip on a stock

Sparks

Mellor wrote: »

For example, Do you honestly believe that the adjustable stock is restricted. In my opinion it clearly refers to telescopic or folding stocks that allow concealement.

Sorry Mellor, but Jaycee is right. The NTSA pointed out to the DoJ last year that their proposed draft (which had the whole detachable stock thing going on as well) meant that a lot of the modern aluminium stocked ISSF rifles were going to be restricted because their buttplates detached - look at the Steyr LG100 air rifle for example:

It breaks down for easier transport and storage through quick-release catches:

Many of the smallbore rifles can also detach buttplates and cheekpieces as well, and that's almost standard practise for international level 3P shooters (who'd have one of each for each position to save on both time and wear&tear on the rifles when changing position).

And the DoJ agreed with the NTSA assessment that referring to detachable or telescopic stocks was a problem. That's why you're not seeing rifles with detachable or telescopic stocks on the SI.

jaycee

rrpc wrote: »

Jaycee

I admit to being glib and even dare I say sarcastic? The description of a slug had no bearing on the restriction of same for anything other than shotguns and therefore of no consequence other than to those of a more pedantic bent. [insert appropriate pedantic response here]

I would really prefer if smugness and sarcasm was kept from the discussion i don't see it's place here .

Following on from that invitation ,
Exact wording and definitions are pedantic ..that is if a definition of pedantic ..is "an insistence on precision" .... arent we entitled to precise descriptions and rules ?

There are two references to a slug one describes it as a single solid projectile , the other makes reference to slugs for shotguns ....
So to an uninformed observer reading that , are there two different types of slugs ?. Arent slugs restricted ?..Which is which ? Bear in mind that any member of the Gardai I mentioned the restricted list to had never even heard of it , and had no idea that we have a new firearms act or that there is a FCP in discussion with the DOJ .

I have seen reports where Gardai thought that it is illegal to have a handgun in Ireland.

On the subject of stocks ..
Thanks everyone .. I do know the difference and im not trying to stir anything up . I think it is an unfortunate choice of wording and could have been better. Where there is room for an misunderstanding it will creep in and cause problems for someone . The very fact that there is such a protracted discussion on what is or isn't ..again proves my point.

I have heard of people who couldnt licence a 9mm pistol , but could licence a
.40 on the flawed logic that .4 is a hell of a lot smaller than 9 .. Daft as that is ..its a true story !!

Against that backdrop , do you really think that the restricted list is fine in the way it is presented and worded ? , Do you really think so much of its content and meaning should be left open to opinion ?. don't the people wishing to take part in shooting sports deserve better ?

A number of people have answered questions incorrectly based on (a) what they thought the SI or the Acts say, or (b) what they feared the SI or the Acts say or (c) what they heard the SI and the Acts say.

Yes I am aware of that , and why do you think they are confused ? , even after they have read that document ?.

As far as I'm concerned, every hysterical and incorrect response breeds more hysteria and more errors and quite frankly I believe that's the last thing we should be fostering. If that's the agenda, then apologies for the interruption and let normal service be resumed.

Feel free to disagree.

Agenda ???
I'm sorry , I assumed the agenda was that legislation be produced which is clearly stated , not subject to personal opinions , did not include subjective terms or room for abuse and therefore could provide a level playing field for firearms licencing across the length and breadth of the country.

Do we have it in this document ...NO!
Have vague descriptions caused problems for people in the past ...YES!

I have, and have always had the best interests of all branches of the shooting sports at heart. If I follow that agenda , insist that it should be clearer and am branded as being hysterical and incorrect in my actions ...so be it.

For most of my adult life , myself and many like me were deprived of many aspects of our shooting sports. Firearms were gathered up for what was supposed to be about a 30 day period , and it took around 30 years to get back to where we are .
Now finally, we get a chance to establish some proper legislation which will decide how things are done here for a long time to come . I think it is very important that it be teased out and made as good as it can be , so I do take it all very seriously. Every word , every comma , every ambiguous description . in brief ...anything that can hurt us !

.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

Sorry Mellor, but Jaycee is right. The NTSA pointed out to the DoJ last year that their proposed draft (which had the whole detachable stock thing going on as well) meant that a lot of the modern aluminium stocked ISSF rifles were going to be restricted because their buttplates detached - look at the Steyr LG100 air rifle for example:

It breaks down for easier transport and storage through quick-release catches:

Many of the smallbore rifles can also detach buttplates and cheekpieces as well, and that's almost standard practise for international level 3P shooters (who'd have one of each for each position to save on both time and wear&tear on the rifles when changing position).

And the DoJ agreed with the NTSA assessment that referring to detachable or telescopic stocks was a problem. That's why you're not seeing rifles with detachable or telescopic stocks on the SI.

I'm glad I didn't get that Steyr then!

Sparks

No, the steyr's fine now zara, the DoJ removed the bit about detachable/telescopic stocks for rifles. It only applies to shotguns at the moment.

Mellor

Sparks wrote: »

Sorry Mellor, but Jaycee is right. The NTSA pointed out to the DoJ last year that their proposed draft (which had the whole detachable stock thing going on as well) meant that a lot of the modern aluminium stocked ISSF rifles were going to be restricted because their buttplates detached - look at the Steyr LG100 air rifle for example:

It breaks down for easier transport and storage through quick-release catches:

Many of the smallbore rifles can also detach buttplates and cheekpieces as well, and that's almost standard practise for international level 3P shooters (who'd have one of each for each position to save on both time and wear&tear on the rifles when changing position).

And the DoJ agreed with the NTSA assessment that referring to detachable or telescopic stocks was a problem. That's why you're not seeing rifles with detachable or telescopic stocks on the SI.

Sparks,
I'm not sure what your point was in that post was.
The example you used shows an removable stock. They are restricted if on a shotgun, as a detachable stock like that on a shotgun allow for concealment. Where did anyone say different.
I was refering to the adjustable stock posted in this post. Not detachable.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55175229&postcount=103

In the post above a rifle similar to the one you posted was shown, this may have been the cause of confusion.

There are two references to a slug one describes it as a single solid projectile , the other makes reference to slugs for shotguns ....
So to an uninformed observer reading that , are there two different types of slugs ?. Arent slugs restricted ?..Which is which ? Bear in mind that any member of the Gardai I mentioned the restricted list to had never even heard of it , and had no idea that we have a new firearms act or that there is a FCP in discussion with the DOJ .

The first mention of slugs is the in definitions, this the a common section at the start of such acts or SIs. The second mention is in the restriction, slugs for shotguns restricted.
Even to a complete lay person, it would be obvious what was restricted.

IRLConor

jaycee wrote: »

There are two references to a slug one describes it as a single solid projectile , the other makes reference to slugs for shotguns ....
So to an uninformed observer reading that , are there two different types of slugs ?. Arent slugs restricted ?..Which is which ?

One reference is a definition and one is a use. 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.

I guess the lesson here (not aimed at you jaycee) is that one has to really pay attention when reading laws. You can argue that the Gardai mightn't pay attention themselves when reading this SI but that problem is hardly restricted to firearms laws and you have no way of protecting yourself against it. Hence, there's no point worrying about it.

jaycee wrote: »

Against that backdrop , do you really think that the restricted list is fine in the way it is presented and worded ? , Do you really think so much of its content and meaning should be left open to opinion ?. don't the people wishing to take part in shooting sports deserve better ?

No, No, Yes.

The SI could certainly be improved. Removing references to cosmetic features of guns would be a good start. Which is more dangerous, a (restricted) Walther G22 or an (unrestricted) Ruger 10/22?

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?