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

Sikamick

[QUOTE=F-ClassWillie


Military ranges.

_________________________________________________________________

This would make a lot of sense, it would give MOD revenue, it would save clubs a lot of money in setting up ranges, it would put in place a control mechanism to stop the wrong people setting ranges and using them for all the wrong reasons.

Very good idea F ClassWillie.

So the question to the DOJ is will it be possible for Authorized clubs to lease the use of Military Ranges in the future.

Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club

Ned Muldhoon

The use of military ranges for civilian use is a non runner. This has been knocked around in GCHQ (or the Irish equivalent) for a long time now. I've spoken to the military about this before and they cited issues such as security, insurance, liability etc etc.
Unlike the situation in the UK (Where the military lease private ranges which are open to the public / clubs by agreement), the ranges over here are owned by the DOD and managed by the army. There is very strong opposition by both army and civil servants to opening up these facilities to private clubs.

F-ClassWillie

Ned, That was Then, This is now. Lets see what we get back have a little
Faith. This Thread is for Questions and not debate. If wou want to re post
in some other area.


Ranges.

Disused Military ranges can be Leased or Bought out.

Lightly Used military Ranges could be extended to have a Civilian Area Only If needs Be.

Ned Muldhoon

F-Classwillie - apologies for the tangent on this one. Discussion for another thread / day. There is something I would like clarified by the DOJ.

what is the process for taking in restricted firearms from dealers who are not registered as restricted? Who will take these firearms in for storage?

DeVore

I really seriously think that the whole idea of using Military locations is far far beyond the scope of this Q&A... It has little or nothing to do with restricted lists etc.

DeV.

dimebag249

Questions:

What if a firearm is restricted under more that one heading? Letsay I get a licence for a high capacity shotgun, can I then put a pistol grip on it and shoot away as I already have a licence for the restricted firearm, or would I have to get the pistol grip added as some kind of variation? Will the restricted licences have that kind of detail on them?

Will owning high cap-magazines, pistol-grips etc. be restricted if they are not fitted to a firearm?



Thanks for this opportunity, sorry if my questions are sh1te or have beeen asked already.

Sikamick

DeVore wrote: »

I really seriously think that the whole idea of using Military locations is far far beyond the scope of this Q&A... It has little or nothing to do with restricted lists etc.

DeV.

Sorry DeVore, but I was going by the head line

(QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE DoJ.... post 'em here...)


Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club

cavan shooter

Will their be a lead in time to have this work carried out or is it a case that as and from now, shotgun magazines with the capacity to take more than two cartridges are to be plugged and repeater rifles eg lever action which tend to take 12 in 22lr are to be restricted to 10.

The reason I ask, is in relation to sourcing proprietary plugs from manufacturers instead of a home made job made out of dowls etc

DeVore

Sikamick wrote: »

Sorry DeVore, but I was going by the head line

(QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE DoJ.... post 'em here...)


Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club

Ah, yes thats a point. I have rectified that now. Sorry for the confusion.

DeV.

Traumadoc

If someone has a moderator on a rifle say a 308, is this rifle restricted or if the moderator is removed is it now unrestricted?

If someone has a rifle with moderator that was licenced and it is now restricted, If the super refuses to licence, can the owner remove the moderator and apply for the licence as an unrestricted firearm, would have legal implications in the form of legal chalanges?

It wasn't me!

AFAIK the rifle and the moderator are treated separately. If the moderator is restricted, but the rifle isn't, declare the moderator, not the rifle. If you're refused, hand in the moderator, not the rifle.

2112

Please explain the following
"The S.I. does not prohibit any firearm. Every firearm is licensable provided that the applicant can demonstrate ‘good reason’".
in relation to part 5 (g) ammunition for a prohibited weapon, of the S.I.
I know one says firearm the other says weapon.

Part 4 (2) (b) shotguns .......... incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges.
Does this mean permanently incapable or will a manufacturers removable plug do.

Vegeta

Ok so my 3 questions are on One Man One License, reloading and moderators.

One Man One License:
"Does the DoJ have any plans to move to a more paperwork friendly one man one license system. This system is currently in place in the UK and seems to make more sense for both parties, Gardai and firearms owners."

Reloading:
"Do the DoJ plan on releasing guidelines on home loading (reloading) ammunition. How a person would qualify, who do they apply to etc?"

Moderators (as I have posted already):
"Can the DoJ give guidelines or 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"

Sparks

Devore, if we're able to submit questions outside the restricted list topic, let me know would you? I might possibly have one or maybe two to put in a list

Slug chucker

Hi DeVore,
A couple of questions from me:
• +1 for reloading, could you ask the DOJ when they intend to enact this part?
• The pistol grip bit doesn’t make any sense, I can understand restricting a stock that only contains a pistol grip as it dramatically shortens a firearm but why one with a full fixed stock as well?
• How much liability is on the firearms holder to inform the Gardaí that they have a restricted firearm, what happen if they don’t correctly identify that the firearm they own is on the restricted list and get snared for possessing it?
• Why were Olympic class centre fire pistols not on the unrestricted side of things?
Cheers,
Slug Chucker

rrpc

Slug chucker wrote: »

• Why were Olympic class centre fire pistols not on the unrestricted side of things?

This was answered by the DoJ here Slug Chucker. Not very satisfactorily to my mind, but I doubt you're going to get anything better.

Slug chucker

rrpc wrote: »

This was answered by the DoJ here Slug Chucker. Not very satisfactorily to my mind, but I doubt you're going to get anything better.

The DOJ's answer is pretty much what I get from one of my kids "cos it is" without any further explanation. :rolleyes:
The “why” they were intentionally restricted the bit I’m interested in.

rrpc

Slug chucker wrote: »

The DOJ's answer is pretty much what I get from one of my kids "cos it is" without any further explanation. :rolleyes:
The “why” they were intentionally restricted the bit I’m interested in.

Oh I think the 'why' is fullbore pistol full stop.

I always thought the 'cos it is' answer was what you gave your kids when you didn't want to answer.

bunny shooter

would a cz kadet or a ruger mk3 22lr pistol be restricted then ?

It wasn't me!

Rimfire pistols don't seem to be. Heard of some people chambering pistols in .17hmr somewhere. Just sayin'...

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

would a cz kadet or a ruger mk3 22lr pistol be restricted then ?

If you can argue that they're "designed for use in connection with competitions governed by International Olympic Committee regulations" then they're not restricted. If you can't argue that, then they're restricted.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Rimfire pistols don't seem to be. Heard of some people chambering pistols in .17hmr somewhere. Just sayin'...

It's not all rimfire, it's only .22 rimfire and .177 airgun and then only for Olympic disciplines.

Here's the relevant excerpt from the SI:

S.I. No. 21 of 2008 wrote:

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:
   1. ...
   2. ...
   3. ...
   4. ...
   5. the following short firearms designed for use in connection with competitions governed by International Olympic Committee regulations:
      1. air-operated firearms of 4.5 millimetres (.177 inch) calibre,
      2. firearms using .22 inch rim-fire percussion ammunition.

It wasn't me!

Ah, woops. My mistake.

rrpc

In the interests of removing a glaring anomaly in the S.I., will the DoJ add this to the definitions at the top?:

(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.

Which is taken directly from the same EC directive as the offending orphaned restriction:

(a) ammunition with penetrating, explosive or incendiary projectiles and projectiles for such ammunition

Which without the definitions may make all ammunition restricted.

chem

So thats shotgun tracer and ball ammo tracer restricted?

ivanthehunter

Why are any moderators restricted at all..

Surely the moderators to restrict are the .22 rimfires as a .22-rimfire firearm can be discharged in near total silence when used with a moderator. One of these moderators used on a .22lr make the weapon as quite a a cat walking on snow!! surely a weapon which is this quite is dangerous as it can be fired without attracting any attention in certain conditions..

On the other hand moderators for center fire rifles are deemed as an absolutely essential bit of equipment for the safety of ones hearing, and it is still advisable to were both ear plugs and ear defenders even though the shooter might have a moderator fitted, surely a weapon which is deemed as un-silence-able even with a moderator is a weapon which cant be fired in a public place with an attached moderator without attracted significant attention and therefore make the use of a moderator on such center fire rifles a safe option in modern society as it realistically does not increase the stealth capabilities of such a weapon.. ith

Does the DOJ not think that public groups will not be able to find legal representatives to fight a case for all the deaf hunters in the future,, we seen what happened to Irish men who were deafened in the army. does the DOJ really think that it is best practice to restrict and form of PPE(personal protection equipment). i would think that this action is ill advised!!!!
I see a European case looming on the horizon, a large wave of litigation and on this wave , riding high and dry is ith:D

Sparks

On the very remote off-chance that you're not trolling...

Ivan wrote:

surely a weapon which is this quite is dangerous as it can be fired without attracting any attention in certain conditions..

It's not a weapon, it's a firearm. Unless you use it on someone. At which point, how quiet it was will be a distant concern indeed, because gunshot wounds are more serious than hearing impairment.

... a safe option in modern society as it realistically does not increase the stealth capabilities of such a weapon

I hate to break it to you, but a moderator will not reduce the radar signature of a centrefire rifle.

does the DOJ really think that it is best practice to restrict and form of PPE(personal protection equipment)

The DoJ has a rather different interpretation of the words "personal protection equipment" when it comes to firearms. I would suggest using the words "Health and Safety" instead, given the negative connotations associated with the alternative.

I see a European case looming on the horizon, a large wave of litigation and

...and an enormous amount of money required to pay for it. I don't know about you Ivan, but I can think of a few things I'd rather spend ten million euro on in this sport - new ranges, club rifles, coaching courses, equipment, consumables, training club and national teams, running national competitions and postal matches and the like, paying for prizes for matches, training camps, training for and attending international matches, hosting international matches and so forth.

So, tell you what, the first ten million I spend, I'll spend on the sport and the next ten million, I'll spend on one case dragged through the district, circuit, high, supreme and european courts over a five to ten year period to debate whether or not people should ask their local superintendent or the garda commissioner for a permit for a moderator for their rifle. Okay? :rolleyes:

ivanthehunter

ATT Sparks
????I hate to break it to you, but a moderator will not reduce the radar signature of a centrifuge rifle.?????????????? what


ANS:Read the original post again.. i have stated that a mod on a center fire provides only a small reduction in dB's and hence is no real aid to stealth or concealment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

??????The DoJ has a rather different interpretation of the words "personal protection equipment?????????what
PPE
ANS:Well if you could read between the lines here i think that they will be able also!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also i think you could mixing up a PPW (personal protection weapon)

Sparks

????I hate to break it to you, but a moderator will not reduce the radar signature of a centrifuge rifle.?????????????? what

Well, to put it in less obtuse terms, don't be so daft as to suggest that people looking for moderators for rifles are doing so for "stealth" reasons. A moderator does not make a rifle "stealthy". It reduces hearing damage for the user only. And what you're saying, between the lines, is that those applying for moderators are in some way dodgy characters. Which, in case you haven't guessed already, is defamatory, as well as being uninformed, unfounded and ignorant.

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote: »

Well, to put it in less obtuse terms, don't be so daft as to suggest that people looking for moderators for rifles are doing so for "stealth" reasons. A moderator does not make a rifle "stealthy". It reduces hearing damage for the user only. And what you're saying, between the lines, is that those applying for moderators are in some way dodgy characters. Which, in case you haven't guessed already, is defamatory, as well as being uninformed, unfounded and ignorant.

Sparks, he's agreeing with you. He's saying that a restriction on moderators seems daft to him because he thinks that the 'fear' is of James Bond style assasinations being carried out with the aid of a moderator, but that a real moderator can't do that.

NTM

tonysopprano

With regard to the explaination below supplied by Justice

(11) With regards to pump action & semiautomatic shotguns and their limitation to a three round capacity, does this mean three rounds in the magazine tube or two rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber?
It refers to three cartridges in total.


If I chamber a rd in my S/A rimfire and then load a full 10rd mag, am I in breach of the law?