RESTRICTED LIST QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE DoJ.... post 'em here...

DeVore

Right, I have contacts (its amazing what a Boards announcement can do).

Those people are happy to answer a set of questions from us. I will act as intermediary and collate the questions into a document in which (hopefully) they will fill in the answers.

I'm going to restrict this to questions that need clarification rather then "why is XXX restricted" or "why did you make this decision that way" because those sorts of questions are not easily answered in a document but rather over a pint.

The one exception to this is the pistol stock grip question. If someone can formulate a well written succinct question (NOT loaded with accusation or bias) then I'll include that.

So if you have further questions about the restricted list and the process behind it, post them here and I'll see what I can do to get someone official to answer them.


DeV.

IRLConor

Stuff I'd like answered which falls under your criteria:

• Are there any plans to provide official, legally binding clarifications of the definitions of "pistol grip" and "penetrating projectile"?
• What is the purpose of the restriction of any shotgun "with a pistol grip"? If it is to restrict more easily concealed shotguns, why was an overall length-based restriction not used?

Stuff I'd like answered which does not fall under your criteria. Delete this portion at will if you see fit.

• What is the purpose of the restriction of "bullpup rifles"? If it is to restrict more easily concealed rifles then why was an overall length-based restriction not used?
• What is the purpose of the restriction of rifles that resemble assault rifles yet are not? (Part (b) of the definition of "assault rifles") If it is because of a fear that such rifles could be mistaken by others to be assault rifles if used in a crime, then why do similar restrictions not apply to toys, airsoft devices, etc?
• What is the purpose of the restriction of any shotgun with a "detached, folding or telescopic stock"? If it is to restrict more easily concealed shotguns, why was an overall length-based restriction not used?

Mellor

Nice one Dev. I might be a good idea not to re-post the same question over and over, as it may result in a valid question in a middle of a load of repeat getting skipped.


Question: Can the terms "detached, folding or telescopic stock" (in relation to restricted shotguns) be explained fully? Obviously this applies to stocks that are modified to render more easily concealable. But could the issue surrounding adjustable stocks be made clear. Many stocks have minor adjustable elements for comfort. such as adjustable combs and butt plates.

DeVore

Thats a reasonable way to split the questions IRLConor.

I am perfectly happy to ask for "clarification", I'm just a little wary of asking for "justification".

Apropos of nothing you wrote...
From working on Boards, my experience has been that people who ask for the justification are never going to be happy until they get their way regardless, and it feels like all effort to explain or justify is a wasted effort.

DeV.

Sparks

I'd start with "Does the department intend to issue a second S.I. to correct any issues with the first S.I.?" (Because if they don't, well, what's the point?) And continue with ...

• "Given that the previous Minister went to great lengths in the Dail debate to defend the right of the Commissioner to not reveal preconditions for granting a firearms certificate to the applicant, can we expect that this right will be exercised?",
• "How does a licencing officer decide if a firearm sufficiently resembles an automatic rifle as specified in the definition of 'assault rifle' in section 3(1)",
• "Does a rifle have to fuction as both semiautomatic and as fully automatic to qualify under part (a) of the definition of 'assault rifle' in section 3(1) or does this apply to semiautomatic rifles and to fully automatic rifles?",
• "Where a definition in the SI conflicts with a definition in the Firearms Acts, as amended, which definition is taken to be the correct one?",
• "How does the department suggest that superintendents determine if a silencer is only capable of being screwed onto the barrel of a long rimfire rifle, as opposed for example, to a short rimfire firearm?",
• "In the event that an applicant mistakenly believes his or her already-licenced firearm is not on the restricted list and fails to notify the Gardai on August 1 this year that the firearm is on said list, what penalty do they face?",
• "Given that the International Olympic Committee does not have regulations for firearms for use in the Olympic Games (said regulations are maintained independently by the International Shooting Sports Federation), will the Department amend the SI to indicate the correct body?",
• "Will the Department amend the SI to change section 4(2)(e) from 'short firearms designed for use in' to 'short firearms suitable for use in'?"

I think that's enough to be starting with

Vegeta

Hey DeVore are these questions just in relation to the recent restricted list or is it an open forum for questions

We could ask about much more, license, re-loading, security

IRLConor

DeVore wrote: »

Thats a reasonable way to split the questions IRLConor.

I am perfectly happy to ask for "clarification", I'm just a little wary of asking for "justification".

Thanks. I guess I am looking for justification of the method of defining the restriction rather than the purpose of it.

(If I owned or was likely to own a restricted firearm I might have a different viewpoint and might be throwing my toys out of the pram right now. )

DeVore wrote: »

Apropos of nothing you wrote...
From working on Boards, my experience has been that people who ask for the justification are never going to be happy until they get their way regardless, and it feels like all effort to explain or justify is a wasted effort.

I've seen plenty of that.

Umiq88

+1 for reloading

and if someone could phrase it right what are the requirments for obtaining a rifle on the retricted list and what calibres or if it can be answered by someone on the forum

V Bull

+1 for reloading in F-Class & other types of fullbore target shooting, absolutely a requirement for competitive shooting. :cool:

ivanthehunter

Was the omission of "silencers for air-rifles" from the list of non-restricted items a gross error by the DOJ???? Seems crazy that mods for .22rim fire are allowed and Mods for air-rifles are restricted..

And as Crossbows were added to the firearms list only since 1990 i find it hard to believe that they are deemed as restricted items now!! Were as the 7.62mm is not restricted!! (I think it only proper that the 7.62mm is unrestricted) Surely this is only because the S.I was a rush job

How often does the doj intend to modify the law?? it seems that laws and S.I and Acts are changing all the time. Surly this should be reduced to a minim.. Every year somebody is chipping bits of the old block!!!

When does the doj intend to write a user friendly guide to firearms, the law and hunting as a guide for normal people; surely a move away from the old English which makes up the cut and thrust of the legal jargon would be a move in the right direction as people who cant understand tend to ignore the legal points as they are unsure KISS

It wasn't me!

Will the guidelines issued to Superintendents, Chief Superintendents and Commissioners regarding the licensing of restricted and non-restricted firearms be released to the general public and open to scrutiny?

johngalway

Will a wooden dowel cut to the appropriate length suffice to make a restricted 5 shot semi auto shotgun into a 3 shot non restricted semi auto shotgun?

+1 for reloading for all shooters, not just one sect.

bunny shooter

reloading ?

is there a maximum number of forearms that I can licence. If I shoot various disciplines and each require a certain type of firearm can I licence them eg for rifle = f-class, benchrest, gallery, silloutte etc for shotgun = trap, sporting & hunting ?

my super has informed me that he will only licence 4 firearms of any description to me

bullets

bunny shooter wrote: »

reloading ?

my super has informed me that he will only licence 4 firearms of any description to me

I am worried about the same thing! a super capping the amount of firearms I
am allowed.

I want my .17 for 50-200m
I eventually want to buy a 6.5 or .308 for F-Class
I have a shotgun on the way for clays.
I eventually may want a centrefire pistol if Clare gunner opens a range in Limerick.
(I even have an interest in that fancy olympic style .22 stuff)

I'm not some looney but even that many firearms may spook a super.
even though it may be the min required to participate in each disciplines

What I dont want is a super telling me just how Many firearms I am allowed.

My question would be can a Super in charge of issuing licenses
understand that for someone with an interest in shooting of several
disciplines that there may be several different firearms required.

~B

Mellor

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Will the guidelines issued to Superintendents, Chief Superintendents and Commissioners regarding the licensing of restricted and non-restricted firearms be released to the general public and open to scrutiny?

did you see the letter dev posted from the DoJ.
The guidlines will be made public once finished

Bananaman

On August 1st, currently unrestricted firearms become restricted firearms and the license renewals for them will be treated as such.

Will the renewal process start any earlier this year to facilitate the move from standard FAC to RFAC (Restricted Firearms Certificate?), for those of us to whom that will apply.

Is there anything, we the licensees can do, above and beyond the normal procedure, to help expedite the transition of our current FACs to RFACs?

My main concern is that I will be attending a shoot abroad in July. When I return I will apply for my renewal. Once my license has been renewed, I then need to apply for my PSNI renewal in order to attend a shoot in the North in early August. It might be tight.

B'Man

It wasn't me!

Mellor wrote: »

did you see the letter dev posted from the DoJ.
The guidlines will be made public once finished

I meant more will their processes be open to scrutiny. ie, are we going to get detailed reports of refusals, with potential suggestions of alternatives or are we just going to be told where we can go with that application? I mean will there be a proper tick the boxes job for applications procedure to make it more uniform across the country.

Gerri

Bananaman wrote: »

On August 1st, currently unrestricted firearms become restricted firearms and the license renewals for them will be treated as such.

Will the renewal process start any earlier this year to facilitate the move from standard FAC to RFAC (Restricted Firearms Certificate?), for those of us to whom that will apply.

Is there anything, we the licensees can do, above and beyond the normal procedure, to help expedite the transition of our current FACs to RFACs?

My main concern is that I will be attending a shoot abroad in July. When I return I will apply for my renewal. Once my license has been renewed, I then need to apply for my PSNI renewal in order to attend a shoot in the North in early August. It might be tight.

B'Man

Not a problem as there is a condition on the PSNI Cert which states that the holder must have a current licence in their own country, if they do not have their current domestic licence then the PSNI Visitor's Permit will be issued but without the current domestic licence at time of competition it is not valid. Applications will be accepted by the PSNI if you send a copy of your old licence. I did this last year, no problem. Just be sure to allow enough time before the comp to apply, probably no later than 1st July to ensure you have it back in time and make sure to get the Irish licence before travelling.

DeVore

I preempted one question because it had stuck in my mind from here:

The supers and chiefs are going to be briefed and trained about the various quirks of the list and licensing in general so that there is more uniformity accross the country. This improves the fairness of the law and its application and presumably also cuts down on the number of silly, futile lawsuits that can arise from misinterpretation by local Gardai.

Keep am coming, I'll sort through what I can during the week, the deadline is Saturday night.

DeV.

It wasn't me!

Cheers DeV, but I'm wondering are we going to see what their brief in that regard consists of? What boxes will be ticked and such? Also, I think if a refusal were accomanied by a report detailing why the cert were refused, it would be a good idea.

Grizzly 45

I have a couple.
1] Why is it considerd necessary to divide the dealers up in unrestricted and restricted??What extra security can be added WITHIN REASON to commonsense to a firearms dealer to make it securer to deal with restricted firearms,without overly excessive and vexatious requirements on the dealer??
Will these requirements be hard and fast parameters which a Superintendant must operate or decide on or open to interpertation by each individual Superintendant??

2] That the DOJ/FCC have added or considering adding a pre requirement that a dealer must trade for three years as an unrestricted dealer[a misnomer in terminology inmho] before allowing to trade as a restricted dealer is opent to challenge under EU laws as a restriction on an individual to free trade,supply and movement of goods and services???

3] What hard PROOF can the DOJ/FCC offer that "pistol stocked" in any shape or form or configuration shotguns are inherently more dangerous to the general public than normal wooden butt stocked shotguns WITH a normal length barrel between 24 and 30 plus ins?? IOW please quote revelant crime figures that show such weapons are used more in crime than criminally modified shotguns.

4] Ditto for shotguns over three shot mag capacity.

5] Why is a semi auto military lookalike rifle, unlike an "assault rifle"
[def ; Sturm Geweher German for "storm rifle"a rifle with over 5 shot detachable mag with SELECT FIRE capability between safe,semi ,burst(if applicable) and full auto]Classified as restricted in the first place??
If the DOJ /FCC are going by the "looks" or "black gun looks"of the weapon.
By rights then bolt action rifles of any calibre should be classified as restricted as well,as it is quite possible to turn a normal large calibre bolt action hunting rifle into a "tactical sniper rifle" by changing the stock,mag capacity,scope and sling.Into a weapon much more dangerous in capable hands than any semi auto military lookalike?
If this is totally on looks,why then are airsoft weapons of the current most modern weapons not restricted as well.?After all to a layman an AK47 wether in airsoft or a real AK looks the same.

6] How do the DOJ/FCC propose to control the import,purchase,etc of aftermarket accessories of folding stocks ,mag tube extenders,hi cap mags in 22lr and other "undesireable" features from the USA or EU countries??When the control of illegal weapons,contraband etc is already near enough beyond LEO/customs control? And without contravening EU laws on the free movement of goods?

7] How does the DOJ/FCC propose to deal with "pistol carbines" IE stocked pistols like Mauser 1896,Luger carbine, Browning Hi power Long Branch model,Thompson 45 ACP pistol and modern varients of pistols that can be equipped with shoulder stocks and longer barrels to effectively turn them into pistol calibre carbines,or pistols?Will these pistols/carbines require a liscense as a pistol/carbine or both???

8] Why has the one man one liscense [OMOL] system been not considerd further??As this has been proven to be a labour and personel saving suggestion.Considering that there was a considerable backlash on the liscense fee increase pre election 2007 from Irish gunowners regarding this matter.IOW we dont mind paying a outrageous fee for our liscenses,but we want somthing in return,that makes our and the Gardai FAO lives easier.

9]When can we expect reasonable legislation regarding the reloading issue?And what does the DOJ consider "appropriate training " for reloading??Considering that there is no formal training on this in the UK/IRLarea???

10]Can we see "openness and transperency" in the Superintendant/Comissioner decisions on giving the prospective applicant wether for gunownership/dealership/range application,a "good reason" for refusal?

11] Is it possible for Irish law to define what a"silencer " is without just lumping it as a "seperate firearm" IE what a silencer does physically,chacteristics, purpose etc as Irish law fell foul of this in a simmilar case in the 80s of Revenue vs a farmer[forgot who] as to what the defination of Irish law on what compromises a "tractor".Otherwise this wil become a pendantic issue between definations of silencer,suppressor,modifer,muffler.
Also can we expect hard guidelines for Supers/Comissioners on granting liscenses for such??Taking into consideration that in the UK/EU it is becoming MANDATORY under health & saftey law for shooters to use said devices in certain areas and circumstances,as well as under noise pollution laws,threat to livestock,etc. If there is a worry of common criminal useage it should be possible of the DOJ to provide adequate statistics of such devices use in criminal cases in Ireland to justify further law on these.

fat-tony

Grizzly - you're a quick learner :rolleyes:
From someone who represented him/herself as a newbie on computers http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55287910&postcount=28
you have certainly learned the lingo in double-quick time;)

IRLConor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Is it possible for Irish law to define what a"silencer " is without just lumping it as a "seperate firearm" IE what a silencer does physically,chacteristics, purpose.

Interestingly the SI defining restricted firearms actually has a reasonably decent definition of "silencer":

S.I. No. 21 of 2008 wrote:

“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;

It's certainly much better than the Firearms Act where it doesn't appear to be defined at all. I'd prefer a "designed for the purpose"-style clause though, otherwise a lot of innocuous stuff falls under that definition. Like a bottle of Fanta.

Personally, I don't understand why they regulate moderators. After all, under what circumstances would you trust a person with an unmoderated gun yet not trust them with a moderated one? How much is the threat increased when a moderator falls into criminal hands? "Silencers don't kill people, guns do!"

kowloon

1) As firearms that utilise cased ammunition or were manufactured post 1845 are not recognised as antiques, will many of these these now be classed as restricted?
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of firearms from the 19th Century are a good deal over the calibre restriction.

2) If this is the case how does the DoJ plan to prevent people obtaining obsolete calibre rifles from, for example, Northern Ireland, where any person over 18 can purchase them from a number of antiques dealers and private collectors?

Kryten

IRLConor wrote: »

"Silencers don't kill people, guns do!"

No Guns dont kill people, People Kill People

Vegeta

IRLConor wrote: »

Personally, I don't understand why they regulate moderators. After all, under what circumstances would you trust a person with an unmoderated gun yet not trust them with a moderated one? How much is the threat increased when a moderator falls into criminal hands? "Silencers don't kill people, guns do!"

So here is a question for the DoJ: As DeVore says asking for justification will probably get us no where so I think we should ask the question a different way, like they'd never answer "Why are fullbore moderators restricted?"

So this will be my first question

"Can the DoJ give examples of valid reasons for being granted permission to use a fullbore moderator? Prevention of hearing damage, avoid frightening farm animals or rural residents, decrease noise pollution, reduce reoil"

Mellor

IRLConor wrote: »

Interestingly the SI defining restricted firearms actually has a reasonably decent definition of "silencer":



It's certainly much better than the Firearms Act where it doesn't appear to be defined at all. I'd prefer a "designed for the purpose"-style clause though, otherwise a lot of innocuous stuff falls under that definition. Like a bottle of Fanta.

Personally, I don't understand why they regulate moderators. After all, under what circumstances would you trust a person with an unmoderated gun yet not trust them with a moderated one? How much is the threat increased when a moderator falls into criminal hands? "Silencers don't kill people, guns do!"

It think its down to the fact that a silencer would be more sought after by criminals, more likely to be stolen etc. (thats the thinking). So mods are restricted to prevent anyone from jsut buying one. The flaw with this is that overkill method in which it was applied.

Manic Moran

IRLConor wrote: »

Personally, I don't understand why they regulate moderators. After all, under what circumstances would you trust a person with an unmoderated gun yet not trust them with a moderated one? How much is the threat increased when a moderator falls into criminal hands? "Silencers don't kill people, guns do!"

Going a little off-topic here, but I really think some people have been keeping an eye on US legislation when drafting the S.I, and one of the 'restrictions' in the US is moderator/silencers. Although it's considered 'good manners' on the Continent to use a silencer, it's an evil device in the US. The history of the ban actually goes back to the Depression, and was intended to address the issue of poaching: It was much easier to get away with 'bagging' an animal when you had a silencer than without, where the shot would let every gameskeeper within miles around let you know you were there. The restriction just stayed on the books to the extent that it is now considered 'something so dangerous it needs to be restricted' without most people knowing the real reasoning.

reduce reoil

A different problem around here: Muzzle brakes are not restricted, but many people can't tell a silencer from a flash suppressor from a muzzle brake, depending on the style.

NTM

Traumadoc

Noise induced hearing loss (NIHL)is a serious problem with serious consequences for the victim, many centerfire rifles are fitted with these already.

Are these centerfire rifles with moderators now restricted?

Will these shooters be compensated for the loss of these firearms?

If a shooter sustains NIHL because not all steps to reduce noise are allowed will the shooter be compensated?

What is the reason to make moderators restricted?

F-ClassWillie

Devore, Grizzly has the right Idea. Stick to the points you want to make in
an organized way to best get your Ideas across. This is a one off opportunity so use it well.


Military ranges.

Has the use by Civilian Target Clubs of a small number of Abandoned / infrequently used Military ranges been Discussed with the panel.

Has the Minister for Defense been involved in any way in regards to this
possibility. In the spirit of this new found working corporation one day, might we all say! Thank you willie, thank you very much.

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Going a little off-topic here, but I really think some people have been keeping an eye on US legislation when drafting the S.I, and one of the 'restrictions' in the US is moderator/silencers.
NTM

They were restricted here before the list was drafted. Now there are two levels of restriction. Yoy can't buy a "unrestricted" (bad term) .22 rimfire modifier over the counter