Restricted?? Pistol Grip and adjustable Butts!! Why???

ivanthehunter

Can any one tell be why these devices are restricted, when in reality they make shooting safer.

I know that restricted does not mean banned, but it will have an effect on the availability of firearms offered to punters. In essence it will mean a smaller range of firearm types to choose from, which in turn will only add to the suffocation of the sport through restriction after restriction. Its an insult to the Irish shooting community that re loading is still denied but it is pure madness that legitimate shooters are being corralled into choosing one firearm type over another.
Why dont the doj buzz off and fight some real criminals and leave normal folk alone....
I bet that these restriction are thought up by people that have never shot much in their lives. in fact i would bet the house on it..:mad::mad::mad:

IRLConor

Moved from Hunting.

I have no idea why they'd restrict shotguns with those features. Smells like an attempt to restrict "assault" shotguns à la the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban though.

Sparks

The original restriction was on all firearms with pistol grips and collapsable/detachable butts. I know the NTSA went in to the DoJ (this was before the FCP was ever floated) and pointed out that this would mean that olympic air and smallbore rifles would be restricted. The restriction was changed as a result. You'd have to ask the shotgun groups (the IFA, the NARGC, the ICPSA) as to why shotguns are still on the restriction though - they would have met with the DoJ as well on the matter.

BornToKill

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Can any one tell be why these devices are restricted, when in reality they make shooting safer.

Adjustable butts are not restricted. This is an extract from the SI:

'shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them
incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns—
(i) with a detached, folding or telescopic stock, or
(ii) with a pistol grip, or
(iii) whose barrel is less than 60.9 centimetres (24 inches) in length'

If you want to read the whole thing here is the link:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB08000290

patbundy

BornToKill wrote: »

Adjustable butts are not restricted. This is an extract from the SI:

'shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them
incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns—
(i) with a detached, folding or telescopic stock, or
(ii) with a pistol grip, or
(iii) whose barrel is less than 60.9 centimetres (24 inches) in length'

If you want to read the whole thing here is the link:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB08000290

btk i think ivan wants to why they are restricted

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Probably more of the domain of the practical boys ?

They might be in there as well (along with the NASRPC) but they'd be bit players in comparison to the above three.
Actually, we're all bit players compared to the IFA, but we tend to brush over that a lot...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Yes.
They might be in there as well (along with the NASRPC) but they'd be bit players in comparison to the above three.
Actually, we're all bit players compared to the IFA, but we tend to brush over that a lot...

What I'm getting at is I can't see IFA, NARGC, ICPSA being too bothered about pistol gripped shotguns being restricted as they aren't that popular in their respective areas.

patbundy

this is getting off thread. ivan wants to know why they are restricted:p

IRLConor

patbundy wrote: »

this is getting off thread. ivan wants to know why they are restricted:p

• Nobody knows for sure since the DoJ haven't published reasons why.
• The restriction on pistol grips and adjustable butts was originally to cover rifles too, but the NTSA pointed out to the DoJ how that would cover almost all ISSF rifles.
• Nobody complained about the restriction in relation to shotguns or if they did, that complaint was ignored.

thehair

mmm i see we are back in la la land:rolleyes:

patbundy

IRLConor wrote: »

• Nobody knows for sure since the DoJ haven't published reasons why.
• The restriction on pistol grips and adjustable butts was originally to cover rifles too, but the NTSA pointed out to the DoJ how that would cover almost all ISSF rifles.
• Nobody complained about the restriction in relation to shotguns or if they did, that complaint was ignored.

maybe their experts are watching too many hollywood films:rolleyes:

IRLConor

patbundy wrote: »

maybe their experts are watching too many hollywood films:rolleyes:

That's one of several potential reasons.

Maybe they were trying to make a distinction between "guns that are primarily designed for sporting use" and "guns that are primarily designed for police/military use" out of a mistaken belief that a) they can be distinguished clearly from each other and b) the latter is more dangerous than the former.

Maybe they were trying to restrict guns that, if shortened, were still properly usable.

Whatever they were trying to do, basing the restriction on components that don't make the firearm any more dangerous is silly at the very least.

patbundy

IRLConor wrote: »

That's one of several potential reasons.

Maybe they were trying to make a distinction between "guns that are primarily designed for sporting use" and "guns that are primarily designed for police/military use" out of a mistaken belief that a) they can be distinguished clearly from each other and b) the latter is more dangerous than the former.

Maybe they were trying to restrict guns that, if shortened, were still properly usable.

Whatever they were trying to do, basing the restriction on components that don't make the firearm any more dangerous is silly at the very least.

conor you know and i know and millions of firearms owners know all shotguns can be shorten and a few good rifles. when will the doj stop putting us in with crimanals

IRLConor

patbundy wrote: »

conor you know and i know and millions of firearms owners know all shotguns can be shorten and a few good rifles. when will the doj stop putting us in with crimanals

Well, their concern would be firearms stolen from their rightful owners.

And yes, we all know that a huge proportion of guns can be shortened, but they may have been trying to make it harder. After all, sawing a chunk off a shotgun is harder than just folding that bit away.

Of course, if they really wanted to improve the situation with regard to stolen firearms they'd do two things:

1. Make it mandatory to have a safe and require it to be up to a certain standard.
2. Provide more funding for the Gardai to investigate thefts of firearms.

kowloon

The pistol grip makes it easier for people to shoot one handed meaning the terrorists could shoot two guns at once. Lets just hope they get in the restriction on bayonet lugs and aggressively styled bandanas before the carnage kicks off.

patbundy

yes conor they are trying to make it for us(honest shooters). why dont they make harder for the illeagle shooter.why are we always the fallguy for their short comings

IRLConor

patbundy wrote: »

yes conor they are trying to make it for us(honest shooters). why dont they make harder for the illeagle shooter.why are we always the fallguy for their short comings

Because legislation is cheaper than enforcement.

patbundy

true conor (good point) but that doesnt excuse them.in orther words they havent a clue

bunny shooter

patbundy wrote: »

yes conor they are trying to make it for us(honest shooters). why dont they make harder for the illeagle shooter.why are we always the fallguy for their short comings

They know where our guns are

patbundy

bunny shooter wrote: »

They know where our guns are

that bug the shxte out of me.:D:D

patbundy

why dont we go over to the emergency servicies post and have it it out with them.lets see what they know about firearms law

bunny shooter

patbundy wrote: »

why dont we go over to the emergency servicies post and have it it out with them.lets see what they know about firearms law

Yaaaaaa (in real southern accent :pac:), banjo music in background, let's go a fueding

It wasn't me!

Because that would be a really stupid idea?

patbundy

ha ha ha bunny

patbundy

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Because that would be a really stupid idea?

is it iwm?.you are talking about people who have look down the barrel

Sparks

Speaking of being off-topic....

...and we weren't earlier - ivan asked why they were restricted, we gave him a list of people to ask (because those bodies surely asked the DoJ themselves).

It wasn't me!

patbundy wrote: »

is it iwm?

Yes. Absolutely.

Let's say you get a Guard in that forum. And let's say you come blustering in demanding all of his knowledge on firearms licensing and firearms in general. You just come across as some high-horsed <expletive deleted> on some ridiculous mission which has *absolutely nothing* to do with the guard in question, who's anonymous here, doesn't know you from Adam, probably lives at the other end of the country and will never have anything to do with you. So what is the grand point of such a ridiculous maneouvre?

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Speaking of being off-topic....

Where is Ivan ? Over on Emergency Service forum without us ? He's gone a fueding without us :pac:

patbundy

true bunny so are the mods with us shooters or are they still stuck in peashooter land

bunny shooter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

So what is the grand point of such a ridiculous maneouvre?

Fueding don't need to be for a reason, fueding is for fueding sake :P

Sparks

"feuding" will be a quick trip to being banned. And don't think that just because E.S. is modded by a shooter that you'll be excused making a mess in there, you weren't in here.

Posts deleted and edited and infractions issued because of the name-calling by the way.