Some clearence on the reloading issue???

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Off the top of my head

Noting over a ten round mag?
Not allowed to shoot targets unless its an authorised range?

The 10 round magazine is only a restriction on mag capacity. It's not a restriction on the firearm. You'd have a hard time finding a .22 that couldn't have 10 or less in the mag.

The minister is on record as saying that zeroing a rifle is not considered target shooting under the act. In fact if you read the section of the act it appears to only apply to clubs or ranges. There is some clarification required on this, but a simple definition of target shooting would do the trick.

Neither of these justify the vitriolic outburst from dimebag in his post. If I was bored enough to search through his posts, I'm sure I'd find equal degrees of ignorance with regard to shooting issues or the law.

Grizzly 45

[

quote=It wasn't me!;55636935]Whatever about treasonous, it's distinctly unhelpful, and somewhat unfounded

Obviously missed the last 35 years of shooting here in Ireland then.


. It's comparable to useless scummy teenagers with their "All cops are bastards" bullshít. Our revolving door political system means policy is morphing all the time.

The latest minister for Justice has held the brief rather a short time overall, but you're writing him off already, which is just silly, along with his whole department, who have no agenda against shooters.

Nine months is a short time??? A week my dear man, is a long time in politics... And the poor minister has no second in command in his busy dept to look after the day to day running,while he concerns himself with keeping his job???So it is impossible to get a pre consideration ministerial statement is it???No agenda against shooters...Well if you belive that...I have a big pointy monument for sale in Dublins O Connell st:rolleyes:

Aha, so there was no reason to anyone to go to court to fight the Gardai /DOJ to get reissuances of handgun firearm certs,or large cal liscenses.This would have all just come back to us anyway...etc ,etc.
No agenda..Righhtttt!!

Really, it's unhelpful. You're watching people do a huge amount of work on your behalf, achieving rather impressive goals, and sitting in your castle sniping the "ACAB" "You're wasting your time" type comments QUOTE]]

Written your letter yet???????:)Seeing that you want to be helpful..
Maybe you should try reading my post again I said "dont trust them" Not you are wasting your time.Do at least try and read the post...
Indeed they are,but I am saying their advice can be just as easily ignored as well if push comes to shove.So dont be too disapointed that in May we get somthing compleatly different that what we expected was a done deal.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yup did all that,never got a confirmation that anything arrived there by phone,fax,email or carrier piegon.

Now that is odd. I've never written a single letter or email that wasn't acknowleged. I'd definitely follow up and ask to see the mail logs or ask if the letters were received.

Not the DOJ,anotherGovt dept on a totally different matter.But since I was quoted there 150 E I am ASSuming that that seemed to be the standard fee for any info under this act from any Govt dept.

No, standard fee is €20, plus costs for time if the information is not readily available and someone has to collate it for you, plus costs for duplication if they're not negligible. All those costs have to be itemized to you and they're usually quoted first.[/quote]From reading your previous post you seem to be implying that because of some troublemakers this panel would have some more power than it currently has?[/quote]No, not more power. No non-governmental organisation (which is what we're talking about) has a veto power over any part of the government. Or at least they're not meant to (by law the constitution forbids it) and when we find that they have tried for this unofficially (through bribes or whatever), people get very annoyed and there's lots of yelling.
However, I believe (and we've discussed it at length here in the past) that the way relations with the department were handled in the past decade or so have caused massive problems for us - the CJA itself is probably the biggest kicking our sport has ever taken, it expanded explicitly powers the DoJ and Gardai up to now had only tried to use unofficially (and the courts didn't agree with them using them and overturned their decisions on many cases). And precedent suggests that the CJA is a direct result of this confrontational attitude taken by our people.

When would have been a good time to start shifting it???I never could get a straight answer on that one,even back in the 80s,or the 90s,pre and post good Friday agreement.Ten years later you old friend FLAG started it off with a few others. So IYO when should we have started asking for our stuff back???

I'm afraid you have your facts wrong. The first attempt to "get our stuff back" was in 1972. Attempts never really stopped, but the conflict in the North never did us any favours there. And you're wrong about who started it off as well, but I'm not discussing that in here anymore thanks, it's a closed book at this point.

And BTW I am not Yelling at anyone!!!Here or at the DOJ.I am just pointing out that maybe we are putting too much trust in a Govt body,that does not have our best intrests at heart

Who said we're trusting anyone? The point of the FCP is that it is an advisory group - but it's an official advisory group[/quote]. We're no longer asking to come see the DoJ, now we're being invited. They know our faces, they know us, they know our sport, and we've been officially brought inside the camp. That's a massive step forward and represents an enormous opportunity to prevent snafus before they happen, which is the point where it's easiest to do so. As to having the power to just walk into the DoJ and tell the Minister not to do something, no other group in the country has that power. And frankly, I wouldn't want it given to us. A country where a group of unelected private individuals can alter the law at a whim, behind closed doors and without any form of representation for the bulk of the electorate? We have very bad names for places like that.

Simple thing;Dont trust them!!leopards dont change their spots.

Again with the trust thing. Do you trust your boss at work? Your colleagues? The HR department? You'd be a fool to do so, your interests and theirs have only a narrow band of overlap, but nevertheless it's sufficient overlap that you get work done, stuff gets produced and your morgage gets paid off. Trust is not required. Being able to work together is. Both parties having something to gain from doing a job is the key thing.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I am saying their advice can be just as easily ignored as well if push comes to shove.

Name me one non-government body in the country, in any walk of life, who can walk into a Ministers office and instruct him to make a decision in a specified way. Any walk of life at all.

dimebag249

rrpc wrote: »

The 10 round magazine is only a restriction on mag capacity. It's not a restriction on the firearm. You'd have a hard time finding a .22 that couldn't have 10 or less in the mag.

The minister is on record as saying that zeroing a rifle is not considered target shooting under the act. In fact if you read the section of the act it appears to only apply to clubs or ranges. There is some clarification required on this, but a simple definition of target shooting would do the trick.

Neither of these justify the vitriolic outburst from dimebag in his post. If I was bored enough to search through his posts, I'm sure I'd find equal degrees of ignorance with regard to shooting issues or the law.

Any lever action or pump action .22 has a cap of 10+, as well as many automatics, as they have tubular magazines which cannot be easily plugged. I wouldn't have a hard time finding one. Maybe I'm ignorant about firearms law (not a lawyer), but I'm not as ignorant about firearms as you are mate!

Also I didn't mention zeroing, I mentioned plinking, which I thought meant informal target shooting, the kind soon to be prohibited. :rolleyes:

P.S. You can divine my level of knowledge of firearms, as well as the content of my pervious posts by reading one post? That's a remarkable talent, you're wasted on boards.ie!

It wasn't me!

Of course the magazine can be plugged, either a home DIY job or a job a gunsmith will do in five minutes.

Also, chortle...

Maybe I'm ignorant about firearms law (not a lawyer), but I'm not as ignorant about firearms as you are mate!

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

The 10 round magazine is only a restriction on mag capacity. It's not a restriction on the firearm. You'd have a hard time finding a .22 that couldn't have 10 or less in the mag.

It is a mag restriction on a type of firearm, and what's the most popular rim fire round?

It appears there's no mag capacity for non rim fire rifles as long as they conform with the rest of the SI

(ii) single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds

The minister is on record as saying that zeroing a rifle is not considered target shooting under the act.In fact if you read the section of the act it appears to only apply to clubs or ranges. There is some clarification required on this, but a simple definition of target shooting would do the trick.

Well what the minister is on record as saying is not law. Also the minister mentioned nothing about plinking as far as I am aware, his comments were specifically to zeroing for hunting were they not? I for one don't want to end up in court having to say "But the minister said it was ok" Very risky business

Neither of these justify the vitriolic outburst from dimebag in his post.

Some people don't trust the DoJ.

dimebag249

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Of course the magazine can be plugged, either a home DIY job or a job a gunsmith will do in five minutes.

We don't really know for sure of that will suffice, also some designs of magazine tube are not easily plugged. (double :rolleyes::rolleyes:) The fact is they are restricted as they are, it's like saying someones fullbore pistol isn't restricted, all they have to do is convert it to a .22 olympic pistol.

Maybe someone could/should modify their firearm. Fact is these firearms are restricted.

It wasn't me!

dimebag249 wrote: »

We don't really know for sure of that will suffice, also some designs of magazine tube are not easily plugged. (double :rolleyes::rolleyes:) The fact is they are restricted as they are, it's like saying someones fullbore pistol isn't restricted, all they have to do is convert it to a .22 olympic pistol.

Maybe someone could/should modify their firearm. Fact is these firearms are restricted.

Then apply for the restricted licence. Really, it's that simple. It doesn't cost any more either. And the statement about the fullbore pistol is a complete non-sequitur.

Magazine restrictions are not restrictions on firearms. Assuming it's a detachable magazine clip, buy 5 or 10 round ones, rather than 25 round banana clips you don't need. If it's a fixed tubular magazine, modify it to hold ten rounds. If you don't want to do that, apply for a restricted licence.

Bananaman

Ladies,

I don't understand why you would not simply apply for a restricted license.

If you already have a .22 Lever action or Pump action with a tube magazine that holds 15 rounds, when it comes to renewals you simply tell the Garda that it is now regarded as a restricted firearm - he will fill in one form instead of another and send it to the Chief Super for sign off.

IF the Chief Super comes back and says crimp the magazine before he will sign off on it - then either do that or flog it.

Unless he feels it is to be a danger to you or others I seriously doubt he will revoke your license. You already have a legitimate use or else you wouldn't have it in the first place.

B'Man

Grizzly 45

[

quote=Sparks;55639888]Now that is odd. I've never written a single letter or email that wasn't acknowleged. I'd definitely follow up and ask to see the mail logs or ask if the letters were received.

Well now you see how on somthing like that folks can get different opinions on how different a dept is run...



]

No, not more power. No non-governmental organisation (which is what we're talking about) has a veto power over any part of the government. Or at least they're not meant to (by law the constitution forbids it) and when we find that they have tried for this unofficially (through bribes or whatever), people get very annoyed and there's lots of yelling.

Well, Sparks it seems that in some cases the Govt is quite content to let some NGOs run things here so long as they get a financial cut from it.

However, I believe (and we've discussed it at length here in the past) that the way relations with the department were handled in the past decade or so have caused massive problems for us - the CJA itself is probably the biggest kicking our sport has ever taken, it expanded explicitly powers the DoJ and Gardai up to now had only tried to use unofficially (and the courts didn't agree with them using them and overturned their decisions on many cases). And precedent suggests that the CJA is a direct result of this confrontational attitude taken by our people.

My take on it is that this is legislation cobbled together by a politican who thought he would still be in power due to his connections with the current regining party.It was thrown together in the usual Irish fashion[pre FCP] days without any consultation of parties who might be involved.
Now we are in asituation where the Govt realise ,hey..these people arent stupid they are smarter than us..So lets ashut up ,learn everything from them possible and use it to kick them later. Costs nothing to be nice.Okwe cant ignore them anymore,but we can brain drain them instead..they seem willing to give usall the info we want.
seen it happen on my own profession here re it's legislation.

I'm afraid you have your facts wrong. The first attempt to "get our stuff back" was in 1972. Attempts never really stopped, but the conflict in the North never did us any favours there. And you're wrong about who started it off as well, but I'm not discussing that in here anymore thanks, it's a closed book at this point.

But the attempts were ignored,and are you surprised then that there was much table banging and yelling???Happens if you are ignored alot.

Who said we're trusting anyone?

No one but it seems to be that way from current prevailing attitudes here.



[

i]Again with the trust thing. Do you trust your boss at work? Your colleagues? The HR department? You'd be a fool to do so, your interests and theirs have only a narrow band of overlap, but nevertheless it's sufficient overlap that you get work done, stuff gets produced and your morgage gets paid off. Trust is not required. Being able to work together is. Both parties having something to gain from doing a job is the key thing

.

Ever hear the saying .There is no I in team???.Yes I have to trust my boss[am self employed:)].But because of the job I do I have to Implicity trust my people to do their part,and they have to implicity trust my judgement,and I encourage them to point out if they think somthing is going to go pear shaped quickly.Because in the end we all have only 1*[ one ass to risk].However this is a unique situation built up over years.BUT if we did have a person like the DOJ who was saying one thing and planning to do another or gain the upper hand and insist on being a total absolute leader[like most Irish bosses,all claim ,no responsibility for bad decisions].they would be quickly gone.
What I am saying is the most dangerous competitors in a busisness sense are those who invite your opinion,ask all the questions and then use it against you.It costs nothing to be nice,and gets you alot more info. If this makes sense.
Again.I'll wait and see.Hopefully I am going to be proven wrong...but I wont be too disappointed if I am right.

It wasn't me!

Bananaman wrote: »

Ladies,

I don't understand why you would not simply apply for a restricted license.

If you already have a .22 Lever action or Pump action with a tube magazine that holds 15 rounds, when it comes to renewals you simply tell the Garda that it is now regarded as a restricted firearm - he will fill in one form instead of another and send it to the Chief Super for sign off.

IF the Chief Super comes back and says crimp the magazine before he will sign off on it - then either do that or flog it.

Unless he feels it is to be a danger to you or others I seriously doubt he will revoke your license. You already have a legitimate use or else you wouldn't have it in the first place.

B'Man

That's my thinking as well. Especially this year when people are renewing certs, for what will hereafter be restricted firearms, as long as security provisions are adequate, it will be pretty difficult to refuse to renew them because they're now restricted. They've been licensed until now, after all.

Grizzly 45

,

buy 5 or 10 round ones, rather than 25 round banana clips you don't need. I

Indeed there is a whole industry in the USA making these type of mags for CA that can be clipped together in ten rounds that you have 40 to hand instantly.And are availabe in the EU.

It wasn't me!

What reasonable shooting situation, legal in this country (we're really not talking combat here), could possibly demand a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds? It's sheer novelty to have more, and unnecessary. Frankly, don't see huge harm in them myself, but I think getting bent out of shape over not being allowed them without the restricted licence is irrational and does nobody any favours. If nothing else, stuff like that is just going to make the DoJ tighten up and be reluctant to give us any ground at all.

dimebag249

I fully aggree Bananaman, and have said so on other threads. The more people do that the better all our chances are of holding onto what we have will be.

My fear is that there'll be some arbitrary security requirements attached to all restricted licences that a lot of people won't be able to meet. I'll apply for a restricted licence for my one restricted firearm, but if I'm told 'sure, just get yourself a monitored alarm' I won't be able to afford it.

It's still rediculous that a bunch of .22lr rifles are going to be 'restricted'. For this, and about a hundred other reasons, people whose sport/hobby involves guns are right to be distrustful of the DoJ.

Vegeta

Bananaman wrote: »

Ladies,

I don't understand why you would not simply apply for a restricted license.

If you already have a .22 Lever action or Pump action with a tube magazine that holds 15 rounds, when it comes to renewals you simply tell the Garda that it is now regarded as a restricted firearm - he will fill in one form instead of another and send it to the Chief Super for sign off.

IF the Chief Super comes back and says crimp the magazine before he will sign off on it - then either do that or flog it.

Unless he feels it is to be a danger to you or others I seriously doubt he will revoke your license. You already have a legitimate use or else you wouldn't have it in the first place.

B'Man

It wasn't me! wrote: »

That's my thinking as well. Especially this year when people are renewing certs, for what will hereafter be restricted firearms, as long as security provisions are adequate, it will be pretty difficult to refuse to renew them because they're now restricted. They've been licensed until now, after all.

If restricted firearms were going to be treated the exact same as non-restricted there would not be a restricted list would there

I suspect you will have to justify why you want a restricted firearm, what exactly about that restricted firearm will fulfil a task no other type of firearm will. Someone may well be asked why their 15 round tube magazine .22lr is needed and a good reason given for its ownership/license.

What does one say to that, "I like it my dad gave it to me?" After all there are plenty of other .22lr rifles out there that will shoot rabbits and paper, so why should a license be granted for this restricted one?

It is not "that simple" life could be made very awkward for people if certain people so wish.

It wasn't me!

dimebag249 wrote: »

I fully aggree Bananaman, and have said so on other threads. The more people do that the better all our chances are of holding onto what we have will be.

My fear is that there'll be some arbitrary security requirements attached to all restricted licences that a lot of people won't be able to meet. I'll apply for a restricted licence for my one restricted firearm, but if I'm told 'sure, just get yourself a monitored alarm' I won't be able to afford it.

It's still rediculous that a bunch of .22lr rifles are going to be 'restricted'. For this, and about a hundred other reasons, people whose sport/hobby involves guns are right to be distrustful of the DoJ.

As regarding monitored alarms, alarms were stipulated in the recent FCP document with regard to restricted firearms, but not monitored ones. To demand a monitored alarm, seems your commissioner would need to demonstrate a security risk not catered for by a normal alarm, which is a pretty trying task for him tbh.

Restriction means nothing if you have remotely adequate security, and, as a firearms owner, that's your duty to the State and your fellow citizens. I would be loath not to have an alarm, as well as a well-concealed safe. It's only right. No need for people to get crazy over the term, as in the real world, where it's applied, it will almost certainly mean nothing.

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

If restricted firearms were going to be treated the exact same as non-restricted there would not be a restricted list would there

It's dealt with by a Garda of a higher rank, which is largely posturing, to be honest; the security requirements are slightly higher, though certainly not extravagant or unreasonable; you need to demonstrate that a non-restricted firearm won't do the job as well, which seems fair to me, should someone get a .308 licence on the grounds of shooting rabbits?

I suspect you will have to justify why you want a restricted firearm, what exactly about that restricted firearm will fulfil a task no other type of firearm will. Someone may well be asked why their 15 round tube magazine .22lr is needed and a good reason given for its ownership/license.

Of course you will. You'll be expected to give a good reason to own a non-restricted firearm too, so not sure what you're getting at there. If you have a demonstrable reason, you'll get the licence, otherwise, why would you want it in the first place?

What does one say to that, "I like it my dad gave it to me?" After all there are plenty of other .22lr rifles out there that will shoot rabbits and paper, so why should a license be granted for this restricted one?

The thing is, plenty of firearms licensing guards are perfectly reasonable, and might even accept that as fair enough as long as you can prove secure storage and get permission to shoot it somewhere. They won't demand that you shoot it, just that you have somewhere to do so. They might even suggest that you get the tube modified to hold only ten rounds, to minimise your own hassle, reduce your security arrangements demands, which seems fair enough to me.

It is not "that simple" life could be made very awkward for people if certain people so wish.

But it's in nobody's interest to do so. It's a lot easier for all concerned to keep the public happy, so they don't have to deal with letter and e-mail barrages. We can give them a paperwork nightmare and be quite influential as well, as demonstrated not too long ago with the licence fees, so it's not as though they're out to get a sly dig in. It would be pointless, and ineffective.

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

What reasonable shooting situation, legal in this country (we're really not talking combat here), could possibly demand a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds? It's sheer novelty to have more, and unnecessary. Frankly, don't see huge harm in them myself, but I think getting bent out of shape over not being allowed them without the restricted licence is irrational and does nobody any favours. If nothing else, stuff like that is just going to make the DoJ tighten up and be reluctant to give us any ground at all.

IWM I like you as a poster and you are very level headed but that is a very dangerous way of thinking.

Where does it end? Why 10 shots, why not 5. Who needs more than 5 shots right?

Who are we to judge other peoples uses of firearms (as long as they are legal)? Some people may like putting 30 rounds in a mag and shooting some reactive targets like bean tins or balloons or whatever. No harm to anyone.

Personally I don't see the point in dressing up in a restrictive suit with things on your head and over your eyes and shooting at paper but more power to anyone with the skill, determination and effort to persue it.

That channel of thinking is poison to the sport of shooting

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

As regarding monitored alarms, alarms were stipulated in the recent FCP document with regard to restricted firearms, but not monitored ones. To demand a monitored alarm, seems your commissioner would need to demonstrate a security risk not catered for by a normal alarm, which is a pretty trying task for him tbh.

Thanks to the CJA2006 they can ask for whatever the hell they want. Guidelines were published recently but that's all they are, guidelines. They are not legally binding and they can ask for anything they want on top of this, 24hr armed security guards if they wanted

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well now you see how on somthing like that folks can get different opinions on how different a dept is run...

Actually, I'm wondering why you never called to check on receipt and why you were treated completely differently from both standard procedure and from everyone else I've ever heard from.

Well, Sparks it seems that in some cases the Govt is quite content to let some NGOs run things here so long as they get a financial cut from it.

Name one NGO that can walk into the Ministers office and tell him what to do. Just one. As to letting us run things, I don't see too many DoJ employees in the stats office most of the time....

Now we are in asituation where the Govt realise ,hey..these people arent stupid they are smarter than us

No. We're in a situation where the entire community say up and yelled at the licence fee hikes, where lots of noise got made, and where the FCP route became the least difficult one.

Okwe cant ignore them anymore,but we can brain drain them instead

Have you even read the CJA? If the Department had a mind to, they could shut us down tomorrow morning, with one or two pieces of paper and a signature or two. Fully legally. Backed by the courts. You are not dealing with a level playing field here, you're talking about dealing with a soverign nation state. We happen to live in it - but that does not mean that we (the shooting community) own it, except in the sense that we make up about 5% of those who do.

But the attempts were ignored,and are you surprised then that there was much table banging and yelling???Happens if you are ignored alot.

The impulse to bang the table and yell might be understandable - but the thing to remember is that we're 5% of the electorate. They hold a referendum asking if we should ban private ownership of firearms today and we'd lose. On the spot.

Ever hear the saying .There is no I in team?

Yeah, but there's a me in there...

Yes I have to trust my boss[am self employed:)]

That might explain why it's not so obvious to you I suppose.

BUT if we did have a person like the DOJ who was saying one thing and planning to do another or gain the upper hand and insist on being a total absolute leader[like most Irish bosses,all claim ,no responsibility for bad decisions].they would be quickly gone.

Been a long time since you worked like the rest of us, I'm thinking

It costs nothing to be nice,and gets you alot more info. If this makes sense.

Nope, makes no sense at all. That's why we've gone to the DoJ for the past decade and banged on tables and yelled... :rolleyes:

Again.I'll wait and see.Hopefully I am going to be proven wrong...but I wont be too disappointed if I am right.

I'll be. It'll mean I could lose my firearms and thus my sport. But if it really doesn't matter to you, if you'll get a kick out of being able to say "I told you so" during the times you used to be on the range, well, enjoy.

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

IWM I like you as a poster and you are very level headed but that is a very dangerous way of thinking.

Where does it end? Why 10 shots, why not 5. Who needs more than 5 shots right?

Who are we to judge other peoples uses of firearms (as long as they are legal)? Some people may like putting 30 rounds in a mag and shooting some reactive targets like bean tins or balloons or whatever. No harm to anyone.

Personally I don't see the point in dressing up in a restrictive suit with things on your head and over your eyes and shooting at paper but more power to anyone with the skill, determination and effort to persue it.

That channel of thinking is poison to the sport of shooting

Who does need more than 5? I think 10 is pretty reasonable, personally. It's more than most need and facilitates those who do use large magazines. Is it so inconceivable to have two extra filled ten-round mags in your pocket? The extra three seconds to drop one mag, insert another and rack the bolt again, is that not reasonable time away from shooting? The same as some people will attack a poster based on things they've said previously, without reading what they're saying now, and will dismiss them out of hand, I think people are very quick to hop on the DoJ and attack them. They're not some Draconian body sitting in plush velvet rooms sipping brandy, smoking cigars and using the poor shooters as footrests after all. They're the ones who called the FCP together, are seeking their advice and opinion, from a wide body representing those associated with many branches of shooting sports. They're working for the best interests of the public, for the law and for us as well, on this issue.

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

Thanks to the CJA2006 they can ask for whatever the hell they want. Guidelines were published recently but that's all they are, guidelines. They are not legally binding and they can ask for anything they want on top of this, 24hr armed security guards if they wanted

But they're not going to. Beforehand, Superintendents have been making it up, trying not to make cock-ups which end in stolen firearms and look bad. Now they've got a document from a higher power to guide them, which is good. Now they don't have to be so heavy-handed out of fear of not demanding enough.

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Of course you will. You'll be expected to give a good reason to own a non-restricted firearm too, so not sure what you're getting at there. If you have a demonstrable reason, you'll get the licence, otherwise, why would you want it in the first place?

The point is you may have to prove why a 15 round tubed mag .22lr is better at (insert license reason here, rabbits, plinking, targets etc) than a fixed mag rifle. I cant think of a reason, can you?

So they may reject your application.

But it's in nobody's interest to do so. It's a lot easier for all concerned to keep the public happy, so they don't have to deal with letter and e-mail barrages.

Its also in nobodies interest to stop granting .223 licenses in kilkenny yet that happened. Its also in no ones interest to deny me a license at the age of 16 even though I was legally old enough to hold a license, yet, again that happened.

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

The point is you may have to prove why a 15 round tubed mag .22lr is better at (insert license reason here, rabbits, plinking, targets etc) than a fixed mag rifle. I cant think of a reason, can you?

So they may reject your application.

Well, first, if it's a case of having been given it by your father, as stated as a hypothetical example, then I can imagine a deal of sympathy for your reasons for owning it, being that you already have it, rather than a rifle of another variety, and that you otherwise have to get rid of it. Second, if you're buying one new and applying for the cert, and it's refused, you have the option of getting a different one, and a quick visit to your FO would give you an indication of the better tack before putting money on the counter, which everyone should do anyway. And all of that is leaving aside the option of modifying the magazine tube, and I can't understand why people are so hung up on this.

Its also in nobodies interest to stop granting .223 licenses in kilkenny yet that happened. Its also in no ones interest to deny me a license at the age of 16 even though I was legally old enough to hold a license, yet, again that happened.

The .223 issue is rather silly, I think we all agree, and an irrational prejudice. However, the FCP guidelines and the details regarding the restricted list make it clear that a 5-round bolt action .223 is a non-restricted firearm, and will make it difficult for the superintendent to give, in writing (which you're entitled to) a good reason for refusal, as long as you have a reason to have it.

As regards being refused at 16, it's down to the discretion of the Gardai in that case whether you're mature enough, and they had to decide whether in fact it *was* in the best interests of all concerned that you got or didn't get a cert.

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Who does need more than 5? I think 10 is pretty reasonable, personally. It's more than most need and facilitates those who do use large magazines. Is it so inconceivable to have two extra filled ten-round mags in your pocket? The extra three seconds to drop one mag, insert another and rack the bolt again, is that not reasonable time away from shooting?

Then why limit the magazines at all. I can carry fifty, ten round mags if I want but cant have even one eleven round mag (on a normal license). That doesn't make sense. Why have yet another nonsense rule?

Yet there is no limit on full bore mags (I think from my reading of the SI) so I could put a drum mag on my .223 if i wanted.

What sort of logic is that following?

It wasn't me!

But what's the point of getting so upset over it when it's clearly not a problematic law? I refer again to the symptom where everything is taken as a personal affront. Really, it's a bit silly, but it's hardly a big offensive problem that's going to affect shooters, is it? Not much reason to have the law, as far as I can see, but then again, not really any reason to give out about it either, is there?

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

But they're not going to.

I'm sorry IWM but you simply cannot know that. It is pure specualtion and hope.

I'd rather prepare for every eventuality than hope the Super will play ball.

Beforehand, Superintendents have been making it up, trying not to make cock-ups which end in stolen firearms and look bad. Now they've got a document from a higher power to guide them, which is good. Now they don't have to be so heavy-handed out of fear of not demanding enough.

I genuinely hope you are right but I am a cynical control freak bastard by nature so I will always think the worst and prepare for it.

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

I'm sorry IWM but you simply cannot know that. It is pure specualtion and hope.

I'd rather prepare for every eventuality than hope the Super will play ball.



I genuinely hope you are right but I am a cynical control freak bastard by nature so I will always think the worst and prepare for it.

It's speculation based on logic, to be honest. The Gardai are not irrational robot types. They're just people, with a sense of proportion, and they'll almost certainly be happier to have these guidelines now to help them in their decisions. They're not out to make big executive calls and take a quiet campaign against shooters.

What exactly are you preparing for, and what are you doing to prepare for it? I don't see how you can do anything beyond wait and see, but really, this is not going to be some mad end of the world scenario. It's incredibly overhyped and tempers are up as is, over what is in essence a storm in a teacup.

Grizzly 45

[

quote=Sparks;55640868]Actually, I'm wondering why you never called to check on receipt and why you were treated completely differently from both standard procedure and from everyone else I've ever heard from.

well Sparks maybe you have loads of time to be ringing the DOJ about every last letter you sent in.I dont.I send them in about things that are revelant to shooting,and one accepts that they are read or not,and thats it.

Name one NGO that can walk into the Ministers office and tell him what to do. Just one.

Nope ,but there are plenty that says lads make us money ,and we wont bother you.Have a good cut yourselves and we are all fine NCT and NRA being two fine examples.


.

We're in a situation where the entire community say up and yelled at the licence fee hikes, where lots of noise got made, and where the FCP route became the least difficult one.

So it was good to make noise now ,but not then pre 1990s???

Have you even read the CJA? If the Department had a mind to, they could shut us down tomorrow morning, with one or two pieces of paper and a signature or two. Fully legally. Backed by the courts. You are not dealing with a level playing field here,

OH DUH!!! Yes I have read it! Now it finally dawns on you why I have said dont trust them??:rolleyes:

.

The impulse to bang the table and yell might be understandable - but the thing to remember is that we're 5% of the electorate. They hold a referendum asking if we should ban private ownership of firearms today and we'd lose. On the spot.

Who is getting doomsdayish now....?? WHY would they want to hold such a thing in the first place as you said they could wipe us out in a day legally??Not to mind the cost to the Govt that would bring in .Plus the minor matter of Europe having a say in that.CONTRAY to all assertations about to be presented that the EU has nothing to do with internal firearms policy.

Yeah, but there's a me in there...That might explain why it's not so obvious to you I suppose.Been a long time since you worked like the rest of us, I'm thinking

Yeah fortuneatly it makes me a load of money and more sucessful than most in my field here in Ireland,by thinking outside the box.:D:D:D

I'll be. It'll mean I could lose my firearms and thus my sport. But if it really doesn't matter to you, if you'll get a kick out of being able to say "I told you so" during the times you used to be on the range, well, enjoy

]
Wont be much I you or anyone else could do about it then anyway is there??? Except I'll by not being an Irish work horse or drone will just move up and move to a more friendly ,cheaper place to shoot. Ye can all sit here and bang on the DOJ door again and fight another 30 years,because you were duped down the garden path by a very coniving yet again Irish Govt dept.