Extension letters

graememk

Got mine today exteneded to the 31/6/10, been away from boards for ages whoops so i dont know whats going on! :O Someone point me to the right post?

Edit:
My dads is extended till march next yr

fiacha

mine arrived today. 2 shotguns (1 semi) extended to 30/04/10.

ironsight

Mine was delivered in Dublin this morning August 5th, and extended until October 31st.

Now I will have fun, I have authorization from the U.S.B.A.T.F.E to import my pistol from Ireland to the USA, but I will now be refused a new Irish certificate as I am a non resident, and so will not be able to personally transport it to here as I wont be back in Dublin before the deadline runs out.

Oh Well..........

jimmyzx

Got my 3 yesterday. All for the 31/10/09.

Can anyone tell me this, if I look for a silencer/ moderator for my .223 in section 3.2 does that now make my firearm restricted??

IDon'tKnow!

Got my 2 letters today. One for .22 rifle and one for under over shotgun.

Have to renew end of june 2010. So I get almost a year for free.

My farther got his letters on Friday 31/07/2009 he has to renew his 2 shotguns and 1 rifle by end November.

Rew

5 letters in day before yesterday all for 31/10/09, iv'e a bit of everything.

Sparks

jimmyzx wrote: »

Can anyone tell me this, if I look for a silencer/ moderator for my .223 in section 3.2 does that now make my firearm restricted??

That's an odd one actually.
Technically, yes, a moderator for any firearm other than a rimfire rifle is restricted; but at the same time, a moderator is itself a firearm under the act. So you could have an unrestricted rifle and a restricted moderator, both with seperate licences.

Or, you could do what's been done since who-know's-when, and get a licence for the .223 and an authorisation letter for the moderator. Nothing illegal about that, if the Super will grant the letter.

Actually, I think this might be the first time someone will be testing this (in fact, I think a fair few of us are breaking trail here as regards what's restricted and what's not...)

It wasn't me!

Sparks wrote: »

That's an odd one actually.
Technically, yes, a moderator for any firearm other than a rimfire rifle is restricted; but at the same time, a moderator is itself a firearm under the act. So you could have an unrestricted rifle and a restricted moderator, both with seperate licences.

Or, you could do what's been done since who-know's-when, and get a licence for the .223 and an authorisation letter for the moderator. Nothing illegal about that, if the Super will grant the letter.

Actually, I think this might be the first time someone will be testing this (in fact, I think a fair few of us are breaking trail here as regards what's restricted and what's not...)

I've the paperwork more or less done for the new Sako and have checked the box for a "silencer". Will be interesting to see how that's dealt with. Perhaps chief super is consulted with regard to that while the super deals with the rest?

Callow Man

Got mine today for u/o shotgun and .17hmr both extended untill 30/06/10(happy days)

The father got his Tuesday 2 shotguns extended untill 31/03/10

pajero2005

Got mine today. 31/05/10

elius

Sparks wrote: »

That's an odd one actually.
Technically, yes, a moderator for any firearm other than a rimfire rifle is restricted; but at the same time, a moderator is itself a firearm under the act.

So you dont need permission for a moderater on a rimfire rifle??

It wasn't me!

elius wrote: »

So you dont need permission for a moderater on a rimfire rifle??

Yes, you do. The difference is a fullbore moderator is a restricted firearm.

elius

ooooo right...

fat-tony

Looks like the moderator (silencer) might not be a "restricted" item, according to the new FCA1 form. It never made sense that a "mod" for a .22 rifle was unrestricted, but a "mod" for a centrefire rifle was restricted. A moderator (silencer) still needs to be authorised, though - but it looks like sense is prevailing and that it will be noted on your application and therefore, on your credit-card licence.

endasmail

i ticked the box for the "silencer" on my .223
i then wrote a cover note to explain why i needed it ,stated for noise reasons '
scaring horses and neighbours in the middle of the night
be interesting to see wot comes of it

johngalway

I can see a truck load of little credit card sized objects being returned to Dublin after November to get silencers added, various things amended

Sparks

fat-tony wrote: »

Looks like the moderator (silencer) might not be a "restricted" item, according to the new FCA1 form.

Doesn't matter what the form says, the form cannot override the SI.
(That's related to that whole "the form says carry, so I can carry my pistol in a holster into the shop with me" meme a year or three back...)

tiny-nioclas

Got mine today..

fat-tony

Sparks wrote: »

Doesn't matter what the form says, the form cannot override the SI.
(That's related to that whole "the form says carry, so I can carry my pistol in a holster into the shop with me" meme a year or three back...)

The form has a "tickbox" to indicate that you want a moderator/silencer authorised. This is a giant leap forward surely on the current situation, where you have to go into pages of explanation as to why you need one?
The "carry my pistol in a holster into a shop" crapola is surely just the ravings of a cowboy mentality

Sparks

fat-tony wrote: »

The form has a "tickbox" to indicate that you want a moderator/silencer authorised. This is a giant leap forward surely on the current situation, where you have to go into pages of explanation as to why you need one?

It's a leap forward, definitely; but what it does with regard to moderators for centerfire firearms is currently a bit gray. (For rimfire rifles, it's pretty much sorted at this point).

The "carry my pistol in a holster into a shop" crapola is surely just the ravings of a cowboy mentality

You'd think, but it's been asked about before. The point though, was that a misprint or ambiguous wording on a form does not mean the SIs or Acts get overturned.

fat-tony

elius wrote: »

So you dont need permission for a moderater on a rimfire rifle??

You need permission for any moderator. The current regulations require a Superintendent's authorisation. It looks like (IMHO) the new application form requires you to tick a box for a moderator, which will result in your new credit-card licence (which none of us has seen!) having a corresponding indication that you are allowed use a moderator/silencer with the said rifle.

techguy

Not yet..

Called the local station yesterday and they told me to sit tight for another week or two.

Hairy Hunter

Got my two letters in the post yesterday both 30/4/10:D
Air rifle and 12ga u/o.

Need to chase up my FO regarding an application for .223 submitted 1 1\2 months ago:(, I am gussing that rit has been gathering dust somewhere:mad:

HH

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Doesn't matter what the form says, the form cannot override the SI.
(That's related to that whole "the form says carry, so I can carry my pistol in a holster into the shop with me" meme a year or three back...)

I was told this issue was brought up at FCP level last year. Namely that if you have an unrestricted rifle you could end up with it being restricted just by the addition of a mod. It was accepted I believe, that this was an anomaly and that the mod should always be in the same class as the firearm.

Certainly the form bears this out, as if your rifle is restricted then by extension your mod will be as well and the same if not restricted.

Hezz700

rrpc wrote: »

I was told this issue was brought up at FCP level last year. Namely that if you have an unrestricted rifle you could end up with it being restricted just by the addition of a mod. It was accepted I believe, that this was an anomaly and that the mod should always be in the same class as the firearm.

Certainly the form bears this out, as if your rifle is restricted then by extension your mod will be as well and the same if not restricted.

That's a very reasonable argument, lets hope it bears true.

johngalway

rrpc wrote: »

I was told this issue was brought up at FCP level last year. Namely that if you have an unrestricted rifle you could end up with it being restricted just by the addition of a mod. It was accepted I believe, that this was an anomaly and that the mod should always be in the same class as the firearm.

Certainly the form bears this out, as if your rifle is restricted then by extension your mod will be as well and the same if not restricted.

It's quite an enlightened view on the subject. Along with Hezz I hope it bears true.

Sparks

It's a very reasonable argument indeed, and I'm told informally that the relevant changes will be brought in by SI soon; but two things arise from this:

1. Right now, the situation is that adding a mod to a normal bolt-action .223 rifle takes it from unrestricted to restricted. It's stupid and probably an oversight and will hopefully be changed in the future, but right now it's the way it is.
2. When the SI gets changed, it will highlight another issue (namely that the handgun ban part of the act is dependant specifically on SI 21 of 2008; and if you bring in a new SI to supersede that, you get the interesting situation where a new SI (call it SI X of 2009) describing the restricted list, but the CJ(MP)A2009 refering to a now-superseded SI.

I hope that (2) there won't cause too many problems but it does point out that the whole edifice of the Firearms Acts have become somewhat like a long-running game of Jenga at this point. Roll on the restatement...

Sparks

Oh, and one other thing - check Section One of the form. You have to select whether this is a Restricted Firearm Certificate or a normal Firearm Certificate you're applying for. This stems from the 2006 changes to the firearms act - the onus is on the applicant, not the local Super, to decide which is the appropriate one, and you're meant to apply to different people for each according to the law (its Section 30 of the 2006 Criminal Justice Act for those interested, which amends Section 3 of the Firearms Act).

In practise, hopefully, the Super seeing a tick on "Restricted Firearm Certificate" in Section One will forward it on to the Commissioner, or the Commissioner will designate the local Supers as being his agents for licencing work (though that rather completely obliterates the point of the changes Section 30 of the 2006 Act brought in). Because otherwise, there's the messy possibility (especially with the centerfire moderator issue) that someone will accidentally apply for the wrong kind of certificate, the local Super won't catch it, and that person will then be carrying an unlicenced firearm and have provided false information on their application form, both of which are rather serious offences.

Like RRPC was saying about the firearms range form, this form has the potential to ruin your whole day.

G17

Sparks wrote: »

or the Commissioner will designate the local Supers as being his agents for licencing work

From what I hear, the Chief Supers will be delegated this task.

Sparks

But then you'd have to apply to them instead of the local super G17, which is the same problem.