Restricted list scrapped by attorney general????

triskell

Has anyone heard rumblings about the restricted list being binned by attorney general on the grounds that its illegal and without reasonable foundation.
please excuse if this is found untrue because it came from a very unreliable source. and not my usual one.
if its true where dose that leave us? back to square 1? with the gardai making it up as they go

It wasn't me!

On what grounds would it be illegal? Sounds questionable until I see documents and explanations to be honest.

IRLConor

Does anyone know if Section 29 of the CJA 2006 has been commenced?

That's the part of the CJA 2006 which adds Section 2B to the Firearms Act which gives the Minister power to make an order declaring specific firearms and ammunition restricted.

BryanL

what does "restricted " mean? surely all gun are restricted? we need a license to own and use one
should people apply now for centerfire moderators or after they become restricted???
Bryan

IRLConor

BryanL wrote: »

what does "restricted " mean? surely all gun are restricted? we need a license to own and use one
should people apply now for centerfire moderators or after they become restricted???
Bryan

"Restricted" has a particular meaning within the Firearms Act(s) as amended.

johngalway

I'd also like to know that about centrefire mods. Getting one eventually but should I take the plunge now or do it later in the summer?

IRLConor

As I understand it, your decision on buying a centrefire moderator breaks down like this:

Time You Buy|Restricted List is legit|Who you need to get permission from
Now|Yes|The local Super
After 1st May|Yes|The Commissioner (or whoever he designates)
Now|No|The local Super
After 1st May|No|The local Super

It wasn't me!

It's only a couple of weeks until May 1st anyway, so we'll know very shortly what the score is I imagine. Personally I'd hold off if I were you johngalway, just so I can get a little perspective on what's happening then.

Sparks

triskell wrote: »

Has anyone heard rumblings about the restricted list being binned by attorney general on the grounds that its illegal and without reasonable foundation.

I'd love to hear the legal argument on that one. The restricted list is expressly provided for in the CJA2006 in Section 29, and that was commenced on August 1 2006 (SI 390 of 2006).
Mind you, I misread that SI the first time I rechecked it, someone might have done the same:

3. The 1st day of August 2006 is appointed as the day on which -
(a) Parts 1 to 8 (other than paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 9 of Part 2 and sections 28, 30, 32, 33, 38, 40, 42, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 65 of Part 5),
(b) Part 15, and
(c) Schedules 1 and 2,
of the Act of 2006 shall come into operation.

(If you read fast, you miss the "other than" bit)

johngalway

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's only a couple of weeks until May 1st anyway, so we'll know very shortly what the score is I imagine. Personally I'd hold off if I were you johngalway, just so I can get a little perspective on what's happening then.

That was my initial feeling on it too IWM, let the new regime settle in and see how it pans out later on in the summer when a few trailblazers have been through the process.

It wasn't me!

johngalway wrote: »

That was my initial feeling on it too IWM, let the new regime settle in and see how it pans out later on in the summer when a few trailblazers have been through the process.

Yeah, just start shopping around now I guess. It'll only be a few weeks before they start coming out anyway I imagine.

Vegeta

Thanks Sparks

JG will be doing the same myself, my super point blank refuses them so I hope if I am applying to someone else they will grant me permission

Mellor

even if ou applied and got it now, you'd have tore-apply to keep it (most likely)

johngalway

Mellor wrote: »

even if ou applied and got it now, you'd have tore-apply to keep it (most likely)

Very true, it'd be letter writing and hassle which could end up being for nothing. I'll bother ye all about it later on in the year

rrpc

I had a look at section 2B again yesterday and also looked at the restricted SI and one possibility struck me with regard to the OP. You need to look at 2B and how it's worded:

2B.—The Minister may, in the interests of public safety and security, by order—
(a) declare specified firearms to be restricted firearms for the purposes of this Act by reference to one or more than one of the following criteria:
(i) category;
(ii) calibre;
(iii) working mechanism;
(iv) muzzle energy;
(v) description; and (the 'and' is for restricted ammunition which is not relevant here as you will see)

Although it seemed sensible and certainly was generally applauded for it's clarity (some of it wasn't great), the general consensus was that describing what was not restricted was the sensible way to do this. However, the act refers to specified firearms being restricted under certain specified criteria.

The SI doesn't specify the firearms at all, it specifies the ammunition alright, but it takes a blanket approach to restricted firearms, with some exceptions such as shotguns with pistol grip stocks etc.

So the question is; can the SI restrict firearms on a blanket basis when the act says they have to be specified?

If the ammo is restricted, then is that not just cause to refuse to issue a license?

(a) declare specified firearms to be restricted firearms for the purposes of this Act by reference to one or more than one of the following criteria:

Is the firearm not restricted by reference to the calibre and hence ammo?

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

If the ammo is restricted, then is that not just cause to refuse to issue a license?

The restricted ammunition is generally not specified by calibre, but by type. e.g. sabot or explosive ammo which can be of any calibre.

Is the firearm not restricted by reference to the calibre and hence ammo?

No. The SI only refers directly to unrestricted firearms by calibre. it's assumed what the calibre of restricted firearms are, but that can lead to anomalies like the .303.

So the firearms are not restricted by calibre per se.

dimebag249

Well the minister is only allowed to restrict something in the interests of public health and safety. Most of the restrictions are not in the interests of public safety, so presumeably could be challanged in court? Could someone clarify this for me?

rrpc

dimebag249 wrote: »

Well the minister is only allowed to restrict something in the interests of public health and safety. Most of the restrictions are not in the interests of public safety, so presumeably could be challanged in court? Could someone clarify this for me?

It's "public safety and security" dimebag. That 'security' word can have many different meanings and interpretations and is a catch-all for 'whatever I feel like' :mad:

dimebag249

Sorry, yeah, security, not health. It it was health he wouldn't be restricting centre-fire supressors. :mad:

True rrpc, basically I'm kinda counting on the kind of enterprising Citizen (the rest of us are subjects) that stood up for his rights by challenging the handgun ban, to go to court and say "silencers and pistol grips are not a threat to public safety and security, so the minister can't restrict them".

Sparks

I'd rather see it handled through the FCP to be honest. Courts are... well, put it this way. If you go to court, that's your time and money and energy (and that of anyone who helps out) put towards paying a barrister's morgage. I'd rather see it put towards putting Irish shooters on podiums in international matches myself, or training new juniors, or building new ranges, or running international matches here, or... well, you get the idea.


RRPC, the argument against the restricted list is interesting, and might actually fly, but I can't see the AG taking it against the Minister, especially not during a succession period in government, not unless it was more straightforward - because he'd have to argue that specification through category didn't cover "all shotguns with a pistol grip". I mean, it's not a great category, but technically, it is one nevertheless.

Sparks

Looks like there's legs to this after all. From the NTSA website:

FCP Notice re: Firearms Act roll out
Following advice from the Attorney General that Statutory Instruments giving effect to the firearms act amendments must apply to full sections of the Act and not to part sections, it is now the case that some of the planned roll out of the new firearms code will be delayed at least until the enactment of the Firearms Miscellaneous Bill which is due for publication on July 3rd under the Programme for Government. As a result, the intended classification of restricted firearms will not now be applied on May 1st 2008 as planned.

It wasn't me!

Huh, interesting. So the restricted list isn't rearing its head just yet. What scope exists now for other provisions to come in when this lot is enacted? Reloading and the like?

Traumadoc

whats the "firearms miscellaneous bill" about?

Sparks

If I understood this right and it ties in with other murmurings I've heard, the DoJ is well aware that the CJB stuffed up a fair few things and the misc.bill is basicly a tidy-up job. I've not heard of any specifics though.

BryanL

the Firearms Miscellaneous Bill

is going to re-classify guns as good ones and bad ones, then it'll be much easier for everyone.
Bryan

chem

BryanL wrote: »

the Firearms Miscellaneous Bill

is going to re-classify guns as good ones and bad ones, then it'll be much easier for everyone.
Bryan

So will this then place some guns, in the prohibited section?(Can`t be licenced)

Or are gonig to have another, guessing game as to, what it might mean?

Just when we had it at our finger-tips its gone again for another two months.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

So will this then place some guns, in the prohibited section?(Can`t be licenced)

Or are gonig to have another, guessing game as to, what it might mean?

Just when we had it at our finger-tips its gone again for another two months.

BryanL is just pulling your leg chem. The miscellaneous bill is just a tidy up job to clean up the mess McDowell left

chem

rrpc wrote: »

BryanL is just pulling your leg chem. The miscellaneous bill is just a tidy up job to clean up the mess McDowell left

Thank God for that:o

Sparks

So this did have legs after all but from a different direction:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055282277

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

So this did have legs after all but from a different direction:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055282277

I hardly think so Sparks. The judgement was today and that rumour was a while ago. I doubt anyone had an idea as to how the judgement would transpire (bar the Judge of course).