New Restricted List sneak peek

Sparks · 12-08-2009 2:32pm #1

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List from an anonymous source in the DoJ. It's not yet finalised, but this is the content so far:

Air pistols and smallbore single-shot pistols (like the Toz-35) aren't being specified by make and model like this, just by description.

Any other make or model of smallbore semi-auto or revolver has to be applied for as a restricted firearm.

G17 · 12-08-2009 2:39pm

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List

Restricted?

ivanthehunter · 12-08-2009 2:40pm

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List from an anonymous source in the DoJ. It's not yet finalised, but this is the content so far:
Schedule One
Make|Model|Magazine capacity permissible
Baikal | IZH 35 | 5
Baikal | IZH 35M | 5
Benelli | MP90S | 5
Benelli | MP95E | 5
FAS Domino | SP602 | 5
FAS Domino | SP607 | 5
FAS Domino | SP 607 Light | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 Light | 5
Frankonia | Favorit | 5
Hammerli | 208/S | 5
Hammerli | 280 | 5
Hammerli | SP 20/SP 20 RRS | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E-RF | 5
Morini | CM102E/CM22E/M | 5
Pardini | SPE | 5
Pardini | SP or SP Rapid Fire | 5
Pardini | SP1 or SP 1 Rapid Fire | 5
Sako | Tri-Ace | 5
Tesro | TS 22-2 | 5
Unique | DES 69/U | 5
Walther | GSP or GSP expert | 5
Walther | SP22/SSP/M4 | 5
Walther | KSP\SSP | 5

Air pistols and smallbore single-shot pistols (like the Toz-35) aren't being specified by make and model like this, just by description.

Any other make or model of smallbore semi-auto or revolver has to be applied for as a restricted firearm.

Oh No, it dont look good if this is only Schedule One:(

IRLConor · 12-08-2009 2:42pm

As I understand it, those are the non-restricted semi-autos.

That would make it:

Not restricted: Single shot, or on the list in schedule 1
Restricted: Everything else.

Bloody stupid way of doing it, but I guess it's a logical progression from the equally stupid "designed for use in..." clause in the new bits of the Firearms Act.

Bananaman · 12-08-2009 2:47pm

Was that list issued by the ISSF or IOC?

i.e. where did the DOJ get it?

And does it mean that if you have (3 or less) of these (semi auto pistols) that you do not need a safe as they are not restricted.

B'Man

Sparks · 12-08-2009 2:50pm

I'm guessing that as well IRLConor - if they were amending the current Restricted List (which is an inverted list in that it lists the unrestricted stuff) it'd make sense to do it this way.

Well. From a legal drafting point of view anyway.

This does look like anyone with a browning buckmark or Ruger MkII is now going to have to apply for a restricted licence, by the way. Which is an important thing to note as there's a lot of folks in that boat.

Bananaman · 12-08-2009 2:52pm

Also

S&W 22a
Hammelis xesse

(Most common .22 target pistols around I think)

B'Man

Sparks · 12-08-2009 2:53pm

Bananaman wrote: »

And does it mean that if you have (only) one of these (semi auto pistols) that you do not need a safe as they are not restricted.

Nope - the "no safe required" category is for one shotgun only.

Sparks · 12-08-2009 2:54pm

Bananaman wrote: »

Also
S&W 22a
Hammelis xesse
(Most common .22 target pistols around I think)
B'Man

Yup. I'm hoping the list isn't locked down yet - I was told the SI's not finalised yet, so hopefully omissions that serious can be modified.

rrpc · 12-08-2009 2:55pm

Bananaman wrote: »

Was that list issued by the ISSF or IOC?

Neither of those organisations have ever made a list to the best of my knowledge.

There are a number of lists around the world used by various jurisdictions to define 'olympic pistols'. There's the California list, there's one in New Zealand i think and there's a couple more. If you google one of the models on that list you'll probably find a list or two with it on it.

And does it mean that if you have (3 or less) of these (semi auto pistols) that you do not need a safe as they are not restricted.
B'Man

You need a safe if you've anything more than one shotgun.

IRLConor · 12-08-2009 2:55pm

Bananaman wrote: »

Was that list issued by the ISSF or IOC?

Neither of them keep lists of pistols AFAIK. Certainly the IOC wouldn't since they delegate the technical stuff to the ISSF.

Bananaman wrote: »

i.e. where did the DOJ get it?

If they got it from the NTSA I'll be very annoyed. Not that I could do anything about it mind...

Bananaman · 12-08-2009 2:56pm

Is the intention of this list that applications for anything else will be refused as they will fall under the 'prohibition of short firearms'?

B'Man

IRLConor · 12-08-2009 3:01pm

Bananaman wrote: »

Is the intention of this list that applications for anything else will be refused as they will fall under the 'prohibition of short firearms'?

We won't know until we see the exact text of the SI.

We won't know for sure until we see the text of the SI and how it's implemented.

Vegeta · 12-08-2009 3:05pm

Just throwing this out there

Whoever is responsible for the list is a moron?

Its a terrible way to do things, listing what is unrestricted.

People have already pointed out obvious omissions
What if a new firearm comes out which is very similar to the ones on the list?
Who updates the list?

Bad way of dealing with things, very bad idea

Sparks · 12-08-2009 3:07pm

Bananaman wrote: »

Is the intention of this list that applications for anything else will be refused as they will fall under the 'prohibition of short firearms'?

What I was told by the source was that applications for any other smallbore pistol (other than single-shot types) would be treated as applications for a restricted firearm; not that the application would be dismissed out of hand.

I'm not sure of how viable that is, because:

The Misc. Provisions Act bans handguns on the basis of the current restricted list (SI 21 of 2008); if the list is changed, it's in a different SI (it'll be SI something of 2009).
As a result, you could argue that the ban applies only to stuff specified in SI21/2008 and not to stuff in the 2009 SI so you could still apply for a restricted licence for a buckmark or whatever; but
You could equally argue that the Interpretation Act means that the new SI replaces the old SI retroactively; in which case yes, anything not on the list is banned

And you'd have to go to court for a definitive ruling.
Anyone want to spend twenty grand to licence a Browning Buckmark?

(I've been told since by the source that the 2008 SI is envisaged as playing a narrow role in that it'll be used for the ban and the 2009 SI will be used for the restricted/nonrestricted decision when applying for the licence. I'm still not sure if that's viable though, but if noone pushes...)

4gun · 12-08-2009 3:36pm

Vegeta wrote: »

Just throwing this out there

Whoever is responsible for the list is a moron?

Its a terrible way to do things, listing what is unrestricted.

People have already pointed out obvious omissions
What if a new firearm comes out which is very similar to the ones on the list?
Who updates the list?

Bad way of dealing with things, very bad idea

your deal with bereaucrats, what do you expect:D

12-08-2009 3:52pm

Vegeta wrote: »

Just throwing this out there

Whoever is responsible for the list is a moron?

Its a terrible way to do things, listing what is unrestricted.

People have already pointed out obvious omissions
What if a new firearm comes out which is very similar to the ones on the list?
Who updates the list?

Bad way of dealing with things, very bad idea

I think thats the point. Then if a new gun arrives, its restricted unless proven otherwise. Just incase some form of Olympic compatible .22 automatic rambo grendade firing glock with rpg sights came along..

the mantra 'better out then in' springs to mind.

Bananaman · 12-08-2009 3:54pm

I think an application for a license for a Browning Buckmark is about to go in to my local station and see how hot/cold the water is.

B'Man

Sparks · 12-08-2009 4:11pm

If so B'man, it'll be odd. If it goes in now, it's an unrestricted licence. If it's processed today and issued tomorrow, it's a valid licence.
But if that list goes through unaltered, then this time next month, that licence will be invalid (because the buckmark will then be restricted) and you'll be in possession of an unlicenced, restricted firearm.

Me, I'd hold off. But I don't much like the notion of courts and legal hassles. Either way, let us know how it goes...

12-08-2009 4:22pm

Not so Sparks,

You can't be held account for your actions if they were legal at the time. Retrospective legislation has been shown to be unconstitional in this country.

fat-tony · 12-08-2009 4:28pm

Would it not be more likely that a decision on the application would be delayed until the publication of the new SI? Many applicants in the past have had the experience of the "if in doubt - do nothing" procedure as happened in some districts. Licence apps would go missing for months in some intray or "pending" folder.

12-08-2009 4:31pm

max of three months, but yeah. I can see that being the case if there is doubt.

Sparks · 12-08-2009 4:37pm

You misunderstand me zara - B'man's in absolutely no trouble until the new list comes in. Once it comes in, his licence would cease to be valid. That's the point where the fun starts. There's no retrospective element involved, you see?

Sparks · 12-08-2009 4:39pm

fat-tony wrote: »

Would it not be more likely that a decision on the application would be delayed until the publication of the new SI?

That'd be logical, but there's no legal grounds to do that on that I can see.
Of course, you could say that the Super doesn't need a legal basis and can just feck the application in the drawer, but I'd rather not encourage that kind of thing.
And there's the point that the incorrect applications then get sent back to the applicants, who have to correct and resubmit them... and now the three month window hassle arises yet again...

Bananaman · 12-08-2009 4:46pm

I think we'll just make the application and see how that goes.

Local station are on a course tomorrow on how to deal with new applications. Gonna drop in Friday with application.

I get a license or I don't get a license - either way I'm no worse off and it'll end all the prattling. If they tell me outright that I cannot apply for a license bcause it is not on some list then we will know - no more guessing.

B'Man

Vegeta · 12-08-2009 5:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I think thats the point. Then if a new gun arrives, its restricted unless proven otherwise. Just incase some form of Olympic compatible .22 automatic rambo grendade firing glock with rpg sights came along..

the mantra 'better out then in' springs to mind.

Its not very good for any sport that uses this type of firearm?

Who do you prove anything to, you talk about stuff being restricted unless proved otherwise? How does one prove that a firearm is suitable? So do you have to go to court to do it, do you apply to the commissioner? If it is deemed suitable is the list them updated to include the firearm, who updates it? DoJ?

I may be a bit harsh in my original post as I fully suspect that the DoJ demanded a list but god its a horrible thing

12-08-2009 5:15pm

Sparks wrote: »

You misunderstand me zara - B'man's in absolutely no trouble until the new list comes in. Once it comes in, his licence would cease to be valid. That's the point where the fun starts. There's no retrospective element involved, you see?

Are you sure? I notice that I need to take a driving test in order to get a licence, but my father didn't need to surrender his licence and take a test when that law came in.

Would it not be the case where the licence is granted, but won't be renewed.

tonysopprano · 12-08-2009 5:16pm

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List from an anonymous source in the DoJ. It's not yet finalised, but this is the content so far:
Schedule One

Make|Model|Magazine capacity permissible

Baikal | IZH 35 | 5

Baikal | IZH 35M | 5
Benelli | MP90S | 5
Benelli | MP95E | 5
FAS Domino | SP602 | 5
FAS Domino | SP607 | 5
FAS Domino | SP 607 Light | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 | 5
Feinwerbkau | AW 93 Light | 5
Frankonia | Favorit | 5
Hammerli | 208/S | 5
Hammerli | 280 | 5
Hammerli | SP 20/SP 20 RRS | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E | 5
Matchguns | MG2/E-RF | 5
Morini | CM102E/CM22E/M | 5
Pardini | SPE | 5
Pardini | SP or SP Rapid Fire | 5
Pardini | SP1 or SP 1 Rapid Fire | 5
Sako | Tri-Ace | 5
Tesro | TS 22-2 | 5
Unique | DES 69/U | 5
Walther | GSP or GSP expert | 5
Walther | SP22/SSP/M4 | 5
Walther | KSP\SSP | 5

Air pistols and smallbore single-shot pistols (like the Toz-35) aren't being specified by make and model like this, just by description.

Any other make or model of smallbore semi-auto or revolver has to be applied for as a restricted firearm.

I wonder if this is a revised update of a previous list,"not submitted and out of date, by persons unknown". Very curious.

Sparks · 12-08-2009 5:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you sure? I notice that I need to take a driving test in order to get a licence, but my father didn't need to surrender his licence and take a test when that law came in.
Would it not be the case where the licence is granted, but won't be renewed.

It might be overlooked until renewal; but that comes under the heading of "operational discretion". It wouldn't be legal. You'd have a licence issued by the local Super; who has no legal authority to issue the licence as the firearm is classed as restricted.
The driving licence legislation... isn't really similar enough to be relevant. Or even analogous, most of the time.

12-08-2009 5:24pm

Thats retrospective though, it was legal when he issued it and within his right to issue it.
He can't renew it though.

Sparks · 12-08-2009 5:33pm

It's legal right up to when the status of the firearm licenced changes.
At that point, it gets... interesting.
Put it this way, if someone asked to see my paperwork, I'd not be happy if I knew that the guy who signed my licence was not legally empowered to grant such a licence. Especially since the DoJ has, in writing, put the onus on us to know the difference rather than the Gardai.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

New Restricted List sneak peek

Comments