Submissions on reloading?

ivanthehunter

Sorry lads i have been flat out the last few weeks as i just got married!! Is it too-late to enter a submission on reloading and who do i send it to!

Also with over 250,000 firearms in the country, does the panel on firearms not think it strange that they only ever received one submission. It seems to me that no effort was made to ask the shooting community whether they'd like to voice their opinions..

Also why hasn't countryside alliance contacted its members to to inform them as to these proceedings?????? They seem to contact me about every other issue!

PS Dont tell her i was on the boards tonight;)

It wasn't me!

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Sorry lads i have been flat out the last few weeks as i just got married!! Is it too-late to enter a submission on reloading and who do i send it to!

Also with over 250,000 firearms in the country, does the panel on firearms not think it strange that they only ever received one submission. It seems to me that no effort was made to ask the shooting community whether they'd like to voice their opinions..

Also why hasn't countryside alliance contacted its members to to inform them as to these proceedings?????? They seem to contact me about every other issue!

PS Dont tell her i was on the boards tonight;)

Congratulations ivan. I wouldn't be sure who to contact with regard to reloading. I've been drafting a letter with regard to it myself for some time. I was going to ask Sparks when I'm done with it, but was thinking perhaps Garreth Byrne. Sparks will no doubt inform me as to whether that would be the best choice now.

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Sorry lads i have been flat out the last few weeks as i just got married!!

Congratulations! Scary, innit?

Is it too-late to enter a submission on reloading and who do i send it to!

Not too late, and you can send it to:
Crime 4,
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
92-94 St Stephen's Green
Dublin 2
Ireland

Also with over 250,000 firearms in the country, does the panel on firearms not think it strange that they only ever received one submission. It seems to me that no effort was made to ask the shooting community whether they'd like to voice their opinions..

They got submissions along the lines of "you should let us do it" and a fair few pointing out how it's handled elsewhere, but nothing they could use in rewriting the Explosives Act, which is the framework they have to work inside.

Also why hasn't countryside alliance contacted its members to to inform them as to these proceedings?????? They seem to contact me about every other issue!

Not sure. CAI tend to issue more statements on progress by the FCP than any other FCP member though. Email them and ask.

PS Dont tell her i was on the boards tonight;)

The non-shooting other halves get used to being shooting widows rather quickly

It wasn't me!

Sparks wrote: »

you can send it to:
Crime 4,
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
92-94 St Stephen's Green
Dublin 2
Ireland

Cheers Sparks.

They got submissions along the lines of "you should let us do it" and a fair few pointing out how it's handled elsewhere, but nothing they could use in rewriting the Explosives Act, which is the framework they have to work inside.

Hmm, my draft doesn't include this stuff. Time to revisit the drawing board.

ivanthehunter

What sort of structure should this submission take in order to hold up in their eyes??


Does anyone have one completed that they might like to share:D pm me i wont copy it as this would only weaken your original submission and undermine any efforts from the original author.

Also is there a cut off date??

Grizzly 45

Gettin hitched is gonna to put a dent in your shootin time!You obviously aint got any friends to tell you any better as well:D:D!Congrats!

Vegeta

Well the problem as I see it is this is a perfectly legal activity as it is.

There were people doing it above board too. So we know it is a legal activity (a privilege which could be banned outright I'm sure at any time if the will in Office was there)

So why do we need to enter submissions on an activity which is already provided for in legislation (albeit very very convoluted)?

So if it isn't being allowed lately, why will that change?

Clearly someone doesn't like the way it is operating in its current form so I suppose if we make sensible suggestions which include self regulation this would go a long way. I think IRLConor made a decent attempt with his suggestions in the last thread.

So maybe as a boards.ie effort we could make a decent submission. What say ye?

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

Well the problem as I see it is this is a perfectly legal activity as it is.

There were people doing it above board too. So we know it is a legal activity (a privilege which could be banned outright I'm sure at any time if the will in Office was there)

So why do we need to enter submissions on an activity which is already provided for in legislation (albeit very very convoluted)?

So if it isn't being allowed lately, why will that change?

Clearly someone doesn't like the way it is operating in its current form so I suppose if we make sensible suggestions which include self regulation this would go a long way. I think IRLConor made a decent attempt with his suggestions in the last thread.

So maybe as a boards.ie effort we could make a decent submission. What say ye?

The problem as I see it is that reloading of cartridges currently takes place as a process assembled from various pieces of legislation all long due a re-examination. As such, the DoJ have ceased their practice of granting the importation permits necessary to acquire the powder and primers until the legislation is re-examined and clarified and a definite mechanism is composed. To be honest, this works in our favour long term, as there's then a simple set of steps to fill out, with recognised forms and authorities to go to, and defined standards for storage and best practice.

For what it's worth, I agree that Conor's effort was good, and as far as I know the legislation concerned, comprehensive. I'll hopefully get a chance at some point today to examine the legislation and redraft a submission of some kind. I've been meaning to finish the one I had for some time. I'm not sure what they're looking for though, I'd rather not have to re-draft the entire explosives act for them... not for free anyway.

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The problem as I see it is that reloading of cartridges currently takes place as a process assembled from various pieces of legislation all long due a re-examination. As such, the DoJ have ceased their practice of granting the importation permits necessary to acquire the powder and primers until the legislation is re-examined and clarified and a definite mechanism is composed. To be honest, this works in our favour long term, as there's then a simple set of steps to fill out, with recognised forms and authorities to go to, and defined standards for storage and best practice.

Yeah the DoJ don't like how it is being worked at the minute that's one thing for certain, but unless we address their concerns in our submission it may be a bit of a pointless exercise and we may be facing a de facto ban similar to 1972, where its legal just not achievable. Anyone remember their publication in the ISD (posted here too) I wonder is that a comprehensive list of their worries we need to address in our submission?

It wasn't me!

Okay, trawling briefly finds this. This amendment in 2006 prescribes a specific licence to reload ammunition. (Says nothing about production of ammunition from *non-spent* ammunition, i.e. assembly from fresh brass, not sure whether that will make a difference, but I suspect the wording should really be changed to accommodate such eventualities anyway unless "cognate expressions" covers it; I think an SI would be sufficient)

From what I'm reading there (and I haven't cross-referenced with the explosives act, as I can't actually find a text for it yet) you apply to your local superintendent for a licence to reload ammunition, and he satisfies himself as to your suitability for such a licence in accordance with the conditions in section 3.

As far as I'm aware, once you have your licence to reload the ammunition from your local Superintendent, you have to apply to the DoJ for a permit to import the explosive components, being powders and primers, and the minister may, at his discretion, impose limits on the amounts of components you may possess. This seems to be the current stumbling block, as there's a desire for a clearer process (Though the more I'm reading, the more section 10a of the 2006 amendment looks very usable) until they're happy to grant licences to import.

When you have your appropriate documentation, you can reload ammunition to the amounts specified by the minister (Seems only logical that the amount would match that on your firearms certificate).

So, currently, if I'm not mistaken (and having no legal training, I may well be, and am open to correction) the process is thus:

1. Apply to your local Superintendent making your case to reload and ensuring you fulfill the conditions set out in subsection 3 of section 10a of the 2006 amendment to the firearms act.
2. The local superintendent must satisfy himself as to the suitability of the applicant, the application, and the location in which the process is to take place. This may be where the local authority or fire service intervenes as a liaison with the superintendent and an advisory figure in the suitability of the storage.
3. Apply to the department of justice for a permit to import powders and primers. The amounts which you will be allowed to import are capped at the minister's discretion.
4. Reload to your heart's content.

So... as I read it, it's no more complicated than, and in fact resembles somewhat, the process to import a firearm, with the added discretion of the minister in the importation of the explosive components. Nobody complains about the hassle of importing a gun, so is this so unworkable? Personally, I think that's a very facilitating system. The only thing more convenient would be if Irish gun dealers could import the components themselves and we could buy them locally, but even without that facility, it's entirely reasonable. What say ye?

Of course, I have no knowledge of whether this conflicts with the explosives act as it stands or the proposed rewrite, so if it does, then other proposals will have to be included. Perhaps a clause could be inserted dealing with the storage of propellant powders and primers for the purposes of metallic cartridge reloading and referencing section 10a of the firearms act for the application process, with section 10a then referencing such a proposed section of the explosives act for the storage requirements concerned? Does that seem comprehensive?

Vegeta

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1875/pdf/ukpga_18750017_en.pdf

Thanks to IRLConor for that one.

Also in the Firearms Act 1925 Section 1 definitions and interpretations it is worth noting that all of the component parts of a bullet are considered ammunition.

the word "ammunition" (except where used in relation to a prohibited weapon) means ammunition for a firearm but also includes grenades, bombs, and other similar missiles whether the same are or are not capable of being used with a firearm, and also includes any ingredient or component part of any such ammunition or missile;

I think the suggestion you put forward is very workable IWM especially section 10a of the 2006 ammendment.

What's the problem with that bit of legislation, has it not been enacted yet or what?

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1875/pdf/ukpga_18750017_en.pdf

Thanks to IRLConor for that one.

Also in the Firearms Act 1925 Section 1 definitions and interpretations it is worth noting that all of the component parts of a bullet are considered ammunition.



I think the suggestion you put forward is very workable IWM especially section 10a of the 2006 ammendment.

What's the problem with that bit of legislation, has it not been enacted yet or what?

Cheers. I'm not sure actually, and I don't know how to check, so I'll have to leave that to someone else.

Section 10a seems to cover everything from the shooting point of view. If necessary, a paragraph could be inserted in the new explosives act detailing the storage requirements for propellant powders and primers as distinct from blasting caps and dynamite for shooting purposes, referencing section 10a of the firearms act for the mechanism by which a licence can be acquired, with section 10a then referencing the proposed paragraph within the explosives act which details the storage requirement and passes the buck back to the firearms act. Seems to wrap it all up nicely, but then, I have no idea what sort of things they want to do with the new explosives act.

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Cheers. I'm not sure actually, and I don't know how to check, so I'll have to leave that to someone else.

Section 10a seems to cover everything from the shooting point of view. If necessary, a paragraph could be inserted in the new explosives act detailing the storage requirements for propellant powders and primers as distinct from blasting caps and dynamite for shooting purposes, referencing section 10a of the firearms act for the mechanism by which a licence can be acquired, with section 10a then referencing the proposed paragraph within the explosives act which details the storage requirement and passes the buck back to the firearms act. Seems to wrap it all up nicely, but then, I have no idea what sort of things they want to do with the new explosives act.

Yeah that seems like a good way to go in terms of the firearms act. It seems pretty comprehensive.

SO suggestions to the explosives act??

Are we missing out obvious stuff. I personally believe every home at which a firearms license is applied for should be inspected for security purpose. In some areas a CPO does this, will someone have to inspect the storage of the powder in terms of security and safety. Could the CPO do this? Will this have to be the local fire brigade, it isn't in other countries so I cant see why it would be here, would a CPO inspection similar to the UK be enough?

I will e-mail the BASC and ask them to outline the storage requirements they operate from in terms of security and safety. Maybe we could suggest them in our submission

Thoughts?

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

SO suggestions to the explosives act??

Are we missing out obvious stuff. I personally believe every home at which a firearms license is applied for should be inspected for security purpose. In some areas a CPO does this, will someone have to inspect the storage of the powder in terms of security and safety. Could the CPO do this? Will this have to be the local fire brigade, it isn't in other countries so I cant see why it would be here, would a CPO inspection similar to the UK be enough?

I will e-mail the BASC and ask them to outline the storage requirements they operate from in terms of security and safety. Maybe we could suggest them in our submission

Thoughts?

What I haven't yet ascertained, and if someone could let me know that would be great, is what exactly the problem is in the explosives act with regard to reloading and how it imposes upon it. So what exactly is the fly in the ointment?

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

What I haven't yet ascertained, and if someone could let me know that would be great, is what exactly the problem is in the explosives act with regard to reloading and how it imposes upon it. So what exactly is the fly in the ointment?

powder is classed as an explosive in the explosives act 1875

Therefore according to Consumer Stores for Gunpowder, Licensing and Regulation of Stores Clause 15 a person must have a license for a gunpowder store, granted by the local authority.

Look at the link I posted. Problem is that the document is what 134 years old and WAY out of date.

So we already have a mechanism in the Firearms act to allow reloading (Sparks, rrpc and IRLCOnor will no doubt know if its enacted or not), we need to look at the Explosives act and maybe the Dangerous Substances Act 1972 and the commencement of that in 1979 and suggest alterations to allow reloading to work safely and responsibly. That's not an easy thing to do

Need to identify the bits referring to gunpowder. Job 1
Are these meant to stay in the Explosives act or is it best remove them as they are covered in existing acts, Firearms and Dangerous Substances Job 2
If they are staying then make workable suggestions to them Job 3
If they're not then show where it is covered in existing legislation Job 4

It wasn't me!

Okay, propellant powder being classed as an explosive may not pose such a problem if there's a workable method within the explosives act for the licensing of a store for it. I do note upon reconsideration that section 10a of the firearms act doesn't provide for the superintendent having the authority to grant a licence to store powder and primers, only to reload the actual ammunition. The revised explosives act then, to allow reloading, will have to provide a clear framework for the licensing of such a powder store, and I think there should be a differentiation made clear in the explosives act between the storage of kinds of explosive (i.e. A tub of propellant and a quantity of primers for the reloading of metallic cartridges is not the equivalent of blasting caps and dynamite for quarrying purposes, and the distinction should be made). Perhaps a subsection of the section of the explosives act dealing with storage could detail the storage requirements for propellant and primers for sporting purposes, or perhaps allow that a local authority should be satisfied, be it county council or fire service or any other local inspectorate, in order that a licence to store this particular class of explosive can be granted. It does seem clear however that the rewritten explosives act will have to identify the classes of explosives it concerns, and perhaps identify specifically propellant powders and primers as having a different class of requirements and justifications.


So perhaps it should go as such:


1. Application to Superintendent for licence to reload ammunition under section 10a of the firearms act.
2. Superintendent satisifies himself as to the suitability of applicant and application under subsection 3 of section 10a.
3. Superintendent requests inspection of premises by both local authority (fire brigade or county council) and CPO, in order to assess security and safety from both a crime and danger prevention point of view.
3. Having assured himself of the fulfillment of all conditions, the Superintendent grants the licence to reload ammunition. This then acts as the justification in the application for an explosives licence in much the same way that a deer-hunting licence from NPWS acts as justification in the licensing of a large calibre rifle.
4. The applicant then applies to the designated authority under the new explosives act for permission to store powder and primers, citing the granting of a licence to reload ammunition as the reason for wanting one. The authority for the licensing of explosives stores sees that you're secure both from a crime prevention point of view and from a safety point of view by virtue of your inspections.
5. Your licence to store explosives is granted in addition to your licence to reload ammunition. You then apply to the department of justice for a permit to import the powder and primers, citing the above information. Your application is granted at the discretion of the minister and you then import the powder and primers and reload away.

So, for such a mechanism (only slightly more unwieldy than the one already outlined) to exist, there exists a requirement for there to be an identification of different classes of explosives within the explosives act, specifically within the definition of their purposes, with the particular identification of propellant powder and primers with sporting purposes. That's one point to consider.

Vegeta

Going to lunch will continue discussion afterwards

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

Going to lunch will continue discussion afterwards

Good stuff. I'm supposed to be working, hence the long posts with lots of thought gone into them.

Sandy22

Vegeta wrote: »

I think the suggestion you put forward is very workable IWM especially section 10a of the 2006 ammendment.

What's the problem with that bit of legislation, has it not been enacted yet or what?

My understanding is it hasn't (been commenced) and "they" have determined it isn't going to be.

It might have been hoped they would go back to S14 of Part II (likewise uncommenced as I understand it) of the Dangerous Substances Act 1972, but my impression is they want to impose much stricter controls in this area.

It wasn't me!

Sandy22 wrote: »

My understanding is it hasn't (been commenced) and "they" have determined it isn't going too be.

It might have been hoped they would go back to S14 of Part II (likewise uncommenced as I understand it) of the Dangerous Substances Act 1972, but my impression is they want to impose much stricter controls in this area.

That would be extremely unfortunate, as section 10a, with appropriate rewriting of the explosives legislation, is a very workable solution. After all, the Superintendent is still the designated issuing body and must satisfy that the applicant has good reason to reload ammunition, so it's not as though it would be beyond control. I don't know how much stricter controls can be without being utterly crazy to be honest, and this is an issue where cooperation between shooters and the legislature, not strife and bad feeling, can and should be prevalent.

Vegeta

Sandy22 wrote: »

but my impression is they want to impose much stricter controls in this area.

If this is true and i have no reason to doubt you Sandy, its brings me back to my original point. Why are they asking for submissions when they hold all the cards and will probably do what they want anyway.

Section 10a is worded in a way that makes the Super top dog, he can apply any conditions he wants I cant think of anything tougher really.

I hate to say it but this is a court case waiting to happen which is not a good thing, as if the Department lose a case they can simply change the legislation in their favour so that doesn't happen again.

It wasn't me!

Here's the application form to register a store of powder

I'm not sure whether the other form on the DoJ website here is of necessity for non-commercial interests or scales. Someone more qualified can help perhaps. It's interesting to note the various things they're looking for in those forms, including a section to provide evidence of competence in the procedure.

chem

I do some work for a fireworks company here. Meetings have taken place with the DoJ in relation to the new explosives laws with interested parties. The DoJ has said there will not be any changes made to the manufacture laws in this country involving explosives or propellents. Id take that to include reloading

ivanthehunter

Off the top of your head- can anybody tell me how many other EU countries allow reloading?

It really disheartening to walk into sporting shooting shops in the north and see all the gear for sale- so close yet so far away!!