Official dialogue from the DoJ regarding the Restricted List.

fishdog

Because if you saw off the butt, you still have a usable firearm which in addition is shorter and easier to conceal.

Then saw off a good chunk of the barrel and you have a particularly nasty piece of kit.

This makes no sense at all to me. I assume that only a criminal would do this.

In general criminals tend to have access to "nasty pieces of kit" without the need for any modifications. This law will have no make no difference to criminals at all.

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

Yeah, but if you're already doing all that work how hard is it to attach a pistol grip?

Hardly impossible, but it's a lot easier if the item is already there. It doesn't rquire any serious thinking (or machinery) to lop off a butt and a chunk of barrel, adding things on is probably beyond the wit of your average knuckle-dragging destructoboy.

rrpc

fishdog wrote: »

This makes no sense at all to me. I assume that only a criminal would do this.

Criminals tend to have access to "nasty pieces of kit" without the need for any modifications.

I imagine that theft and subsequent misuse is what's excercising the minds of the DoJ. Otherwise why apply this distinction to licensed firearms?

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

I imagine that theft and subsequent misuse is what's excercising the minds of the DoJ. Otherwise why apply this distinction to licensed firearms?

So punish the person found with the sawn off weapon and stop penalising and criminalising honest shooters

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

So punish the person found with the sawn off weapon and stop penalising and criminalising honest shooters

And what about the eejit who left his gun in the car?

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

And what about the eejit who left his gun in the car?

Well punish him and not everyone else who didn't ?

foxshooter243

Manic Moran wrote: »

At what point in the import process does it change from one to the other?

Exactly what do you get with your import license? Can you take it to the dealer and say "I'd like to import a Bushmaster lower receiver, a Cav Arms heavy barrel and upper receiver, Stag Arms stock, and a CA-style pistol grip-to-stock changeover, please?" Because the manufacturers will certainly sell to you like that.
In which case, do you really have the Bushmaster AR-15 serial number 12345 which is on the US export record? It won't look like the AR15 which would come up when the Super Googles it to find out what it looks like, but such modularity and customisation is an integral part of the modern civilian firearms market. This isn't 1960 when all you could do was go to the shop and buy a pre-made, single-configuration wooden-stocked rifle which required the use of a hacksaw to change anything. For example, changing a Ruger Mini-14 from "traditional-looking varmint-hunting rifle" to "bullpup assault rifle look-alike" takes about five minutes with a screwdriver changing the stock. But which is really the Mini-14 on your cert?
This?
http://www.jayedwardsauction.com/auctions2007/september/29/new-web/Ruger-Mini-14-Rifle.jpg
Or this?
http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/graphics/00000001/MZ-14-PLUS.jpg

Now, that's an example of going from 'obviously unrestricted' to 'obviously restricted', but it seems to me there's no reason one cannot go to the other way.



Done as a courtesy (And since you said 'please', unlike a certain other individual), but it's a very heads-in-the-sand attitude if you ask me. It's in a thread about the DOJ list precisely because it directly addresses a concept in that list. If the DOJ wants to put a very dodgy criterion such as "that resemble", then people are going to start looking at ways to change their firearms to 'that no longer resemble', particularly if they currently own a rifle which is going to be declared 'restricted' the next time their license comes up for renewal. Since a pistol grip is a commonly made association with the physical appearance of an assault rifle, the demonstrated options may well fit the bill. There is already a sizeable industry in this field, and it's naive to think that it's not going to come up at some point when someone decides to do a little research on the web.

NTM

interesting post ..

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

At what point in the import process does it change from one to the other?

Exactly what do you get with your import license? Can you take it to the dealer and say "I'd like to import a Bushmaster lower receiver, a Cav Arms heavy barrel and upper receiver, Stag Arms stock, and a CA-style pistol grip-to-stock changeover, please?" Because the manufacturers will certainly sell to you like that.
In which case, do you really have the Bushmaster AR-15 serial number 12345 which is on the US export record? It won't look like the AR15 which would come up when the Super Googles it to find out what it looks like,

Well thats a big problem there.
If you had a decent FO, you could arrange a meeting and explain how you are important a modified gun that is not restricted (even though the standard model is). He would have to accept this, and you would have to do this before applying. However, an unreasonable FO would pass it along as a restricted application.


The mod on the other gun is interesting. Very big difference

fishdog

imagine that theft and subsequent misuse is what's excercising the minds of the DoJ. Otherwise why apply this distinction to licensed firearms?

So it is an issue with firearms falling into the wrong hands, not the shape of the stock. I think a oppertunist criminal stealing a firearm from a car will not be too fussy about the shape of the stock.
Of all the modifications a criminal might make, a pistol grip is the easiest.

Mellor

Yeah, wouldn't be hard to do. But they would have get the pieces and work on it, not just lob it off with a saw. Its not going to stop it happening, just make it harder. As has been pointed out, no firearm is banned, but limited. The idea is that by limiting the number of people and dealers with these guns to only those that need them. The DOJ ensure that there is less of a chance/availablity for theft.
Great in theory, but my concern is not the prinicipal behind it but the fact the alot of FOs might take it restricted to mean "not premitted".
I said before they will likely be issuing guidlines, and this has now been confirmed. When they are made public we will fully know where we stand.

cavan shooter

I wonder how many people would buy or have a shotgun with "full pistol" stock as illustrated. It wouldn't be my thing personally, Just a thought

Manic Moran

cavan shooter wrote: »

I wonder how many people would buy or have a shotgun with "full pistol" stock as illustrated. It wouldn't be my thing personally, Just a thought

I would.

Its purpose is simple: It provides a more ergonomic way of holding the rifle/shotgun. Instead of rotating the wrist forward to get around a conventional grip-less stock, the hand retains a natural angle. It's more comfortable to hold, and it's easier to pull back into the shoulder for a good weld. Unless you're into hip-shooting your shotgun, I guess, in which case you're better off with the traditional style stock.

It's such a simple design change, it's amazing it's taken so long to come into common usage.

NTM

Sparks

Since the Gardai don't even keep figures on how many firearms stolen from their legal owners are subsequently used in crimes (we've asked), and since they themselves are saying that the biggest source of criminally held firearms is drug shipments, I'm not sure that the whole "we can't have it because a criminal might steal it from us" line of reasoning is sound.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Since the Gardai don't even keep figures on how many firearms stolen from their legal owners are subsequently used in crimes (we've asked), and since they themselves are saying that the biggest source of criminally held firearms is drug shipments, I'm not sure that the whole "we can't have it because a criminal might steal it from us" line of reasoning is sound.

Except that it's not "we can't have it", but "we can have it if we have a good reason to".

Without getting into the whole "What's a good reason?" thing again.

Dr_Teeth

Manic Moran wrote: »

Done as a courtesy (And since you said 'please', unlike a certain other individual), but it's a very heads-in-the-sand attitude if you ask me. It's in a thread about the DOJ list precisely because it directly addresses a concept in that list. If the DOJ wants to put a very dodgy criterion such as "that resemble", then people are going to start looking at ways to change their firearms to 'that no longer resemble', particularly if they currently own a rifle which is going to be declared 'restricted' the next time their license comes up for renewal. Since a pistol grip is a commonly made association with the physical appearance of an assault rifle, the demonstrated options may well fit the bill. There is already a sizeable industry in this field, and it's naive to think that it's not going to come up at some point when someone decides to do a little research on the web.

NTM

I see where you're coming from, but for now whether or not a center-fire semi auto rifle looks "nice/traditional/wooden" or "evil/black/tactical/plastic" they are both restricted firearms due to their calibre and action. They are both treated the same way, which makes sense to me. I didn't see the need to post pictures of AR15s that have been modified to get around Californian gun laws in this thread.

Best regards,
Teeth

Sparks

I know what you mean rrpc, but you're still talking about us being required to jump through a hoop (which, as of yet, noone knows the size or location of, or whether or not it's on fire) purely because of the possible future illegal acts of a third party. That's one or two steps further than "preemptive self-defence", and until we see precedent in other areas (eg. fast cars being restricted lest they be stolen as getaway cars for robberies), it does not seem just to have that approach applied to us.

IRLConor

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but for now whether or not a center-fire semi auto rifle looks "nice/traditional/wooden" or "evil/black/tactical/plastic" they are both restricted firearms due to their calibre and action. They are both treated the same way, which makes sense to me. I didn't see the need to post pictures of AR15s that have been modified to get around Californian gun laws in this thread.

I believe Manic Moran's point was roughly:

Restriction based on cosmetic features is in general a bad idea because it will usually be possible to work around it if there's public demand to do so. The "California Legal" AR-15s are an example of this phenomenon even though they aren't really relevant to our laws by themselves.

Rovi

<deep breath :rolleyes:>
As a law abiding citizen with a loooong track record of unremarkable firearms ownership and use, with a fistful of certifications and 'safety' qualifications, membership of several clubs and ranges covering everything from game/vermin to clay pigeon shooting to fullbore rifle/pistol and everything else that can be licensed here, a security system that a small bank would be proud of (inspected twice by the Crime Prevention Officer), and having successfully passed whatever official scrutiny is deemed necessary to possess a pistol here (the highest 'security clearance' it's possible for an ordinary citizen to have in this state, we're led to believe), I resent being told that I'm not to be trusted with a 'restricted' firearm and that I need to go with my cap in my hand and tugging my forelock (long since gone, incidentally) if I take a notion to own something other than "nice/traditional/wooden", as Dr_Teeth so eloquently put it.

It's no secret here that I have a Walther G-22.
It's eeeevil in so many ways: it's black, it's short, it's a bullpup; I'd argue that it has a thumbhole stock, though.
Am I now supposed to come up with some 'good reason' why this is the only firearm suitable for my purpose?
My 'purpose' is putting holes in paper targets and tin cans and busting clay pigeons on the backstop. It very rarely gets an outing after rabbits, I have a nice bolt action .22 for that.

So, why did I pick this one over any other ("nice/traditional/wooden") semi-automatic .22?
Because it's different, and because 'idolikedalookodat'.
Are these 'good reasons' in the eyes of the finger waggers?
Somehow, I doubt it.

I have other firearms that fall into the 'restricted' category, but they're easier to justify for 'serious' (:rolleyes:) target shooting disciplines.

I like Sparks' 'fast cars' analogy (a bit of searching over on the Motors forum will reveal that I also possess a car well capable of going more than double the motorway speed limit, and more again if I remove the speed limiter ) (allegedly! ). If everything that 'might be used for criminal purposes' was to be restricted somehow, we'd all be left with very little.

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Its purpose is simple: It provides a more ergonomic way of holding the rifle/shotgun. Instead of rotating the wrist forward to get around a conventional grip-less stock, the hand retains a natural angle. It's more comfortable to hold, and it's easier to pull back into the shoulder for a good weld.

I think the combined grip and stock is more comfortable. I keep my elbow high so that position is more natural for me. I suppose it s preference. Anybody prefer an english stock?

rovi wrote:

If everything that 'might be used for criminal purposes' was to be restricted somehow, we'd all be left with very

not all of us, you you certainly would by the sounds of it

Rovi

Mellor wrote: »

If everything that 'might be used for criminal purposes' was to be restricted somehow, we'd all be left with very

not all of us, you you certainly would by the sounds of it

Yeah, yeah. :rolleyes:

I was thinking more along the lines of things like cars capable of going faster than the speed limit, electrical cable, screwdrivers, etc (to mention a few items that have been used/involved in the deaths of humans recently); not to mention things like kitchen knives, hurley sticks, tall buildings, rope, and the whole vast array of things we all use and interact with every day, all of which 'might be used for criminal purposes'.

This all rankles of the 'Mammy knows best' sort of thing parents say to toddlers: "It's for your own good, and you wouldn't understand the reasons."

DeVore

To be fair, those items mentioned have more innocent uses while guns are pretty much dangerous from the start.

Secondly the DoJ really DOES seem to be making an effort to explain itself, or at keast to answer questions. That document represents the answers to the questions the dealers sent back to them (to a specially provided email address). If no one asks the questions then you cannot expect answers....


Hmmm... gives me an idea....


DeV.

Sparks

To be fair, those items mentioned have more innocent uses while guns are pretty much dangerous from the start.

I do hate it when people use that line of argument. Especially when the radio this morning was so adamant that so far this year, cars have killed one person per day.

fishdog

while guns are pretty much dangerous from the start.

Im not trying to be smart here, but I have a powerful 9" angle grinder (Hilti) and I could argue that it is dangerous from the start. In fact I have never seen anyone injured in any way by a firearm. I could not say the same about grinders, I saw a guy get one in the face once and another loose a finger.

What if my grinder fell into the wrong hands??? Perhaps it could be used by a criminal to cut open a safe???

rrpc

fishdog wrote: »

Im not trying to be smart here, but I have a powerful 9" angle grinder (Hilti) and I could argue that it is dangerous from the start. In fact I have never seen anyone injured in any way by a firearm. I could not say the same about grinders, I saw a guy get one in the face once and another loose a finger.

What if my grinder fell into the wrong hands??? Perhaps it could be used by a criminal to cut open a safe???

+1

And don't get me started on chainsaws

Bananaman

Folks,

I don't think that's a valid argument - Firearms, by their very nature - allow the user to project force over a distance - that is not something afforded by the other "dangerous" implements mentioned. In the wrong hands and with the wrong intent a chainsaw or a grinder is indeed a VERY dangerous implement, however, you can see them coming and you can run away. That is not the case with a firearm.

Hence the reason that there is licensing of these things in the first place.

<From the Encyclopedia of common sense>

B'Man

fishdog

In the wrong hands and with the wrong intent a chainsaw or a grinder is indeed a VERY dangerous implement, however, you can see them coming and you can run away. That is not the case with a firearm.

Very true, however my remark should be taken in context, it was a response to De Vore's remark:

To be fair, those items mentioned have more innocent uses while guns are pretty much dangerous from the start.

All I was trying to illustrate is that like firearms like angle grinders can have innocent uses as well. For many of this innocent use is target shooting.

It is only when sporting firearms are misused that they become dangerous weapons.

Hence the reason that there is licensing of these things in the first place.

BTW you need the equivelent to a licence on many sites in the UK to use an angle grinder!!!

Mellor

fishdog wrote: »

In fact I have never seen anyone injured in any way by a firearm. I could not say the same about grinders, I saw a guy get one in the face once and another loose a finger

Just because you haven't seen it, i'm sure you are aware it happens. I haven't seen anyone get hurt with an angle grinder, but i imagine it happens.

What if my grinder fell into the wrong hands??? Perhaps it could be used by a criminal to cut open a safe???

I don't think it does much for our sport to be suggesting a comparisment there. I do see what you mean. I wouldn't like to see it become a suggestion that shooters regard firearms in the same respect as power tools. I know that I personally, and almost every other shooter has alot more respect for the dangers of firearms. Again, I see what you were trying to suggest, but I think it would be easily "turned around" on you (or us as a group) if we were to use that as an argument.

fishdog

Just because you haven't seen it, i'm sure you are aware it happens

Very rarley with licenced firearms in Ireland, that is my point.

If you want to look at potentially dangerous things that cause death and injury to lots of people in Ireland you should look elsewhere.

Sparks

On the whole "dangerous at a distance" argument, has anyone ever seen the kind of damage a longbow with steel-tipped arrows (let alone the hunting ones which are basicly razor blades for tips) can do? And they're sold readily over the counter all over the place. And have an effective range that's on a par with shotguns.

On top of all of which is the fact that we're talking about comparing the potential criminal theft and subsequent abuse of an item to (with cars, angle grinders, slashhooks, knives, chainsaws and so forth) actual criminal abuses of those items. Potential criminal acts by a third party should not see more effort put into prevention than actual criminal acts by a first party, especially when the latter happens on a nearly daily basis and the former happens so infrequently that the Gardai deem it to not even be worth tracking.

fishdog

+1 Sparks