THE GUIDELINES!!!

Sparks

Sam I Am wrote: »

But if I specify only target and aim only at targets in the garage or whatever is that legal.

Nope, quite illegal unless your garage is authorised as a range under section 4A. And the Range Inspector has the authority to enter your house if he thinks you're target shooting there.
Got a spare thousand euro for the application form and who-knows-how-much for the building works to get the garage up to code?

(nb. I know there's a gap here regarding enforcement of the law, but I'm not going to advise you to break the law - what if you're the one person who does get caught?!)

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Nope, quite illegal unless your garage is authorised as a range under section 4A. And the Range Inspector has the authority to enter your house if he thinks you're target shooting there.
Got a spare thousand euro for the application form and who-knows-how-much for the building works to get the garage up to code?

(nb. I know there's a gap here regarding enforcement of the law, but I'm not going to advise you to break the law - what if you're the one person who does get caught?!)

so people who shoot air pistols in the shed / garage or long hallway in the house are breaking the law ?

Sam I Am

Sparks wrote: »

Nope, quite illegal unless your garage is authorised as a range under section 4A. And the Range Inspector has the authority to enter your house if he thinks you're target shooting there.
Got a spare thousand euro for the application form and who-knows-how-much for the building works to get the garage up to code?

(nb. I know there's a gap here regarding enforcement of the law, but I'm not going to advise you to break the law - what if you're the one person who does get caught?!)

Totally, I'm not gonna go there if it's illegal. Shotguns are the norm around here, I'm already looked at with suspicion for having an air rifle... sure what'd you be wanting a thing like that for! And what is it you do with it? Shoot at bits of paper!!!!
I'd nearly consider the €1000, compare it to the travelling costs and time away from home for very little in training time. But I'm not going to have members for a "private range" and security requirements when I still only have my 1 air rifle that I only need a standard safe for, it's already legally stored and wouldn't be stored on the range and very little noise pollution from an air rifle and on and on...
If only it was just the €1000!

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

Fundamental disagreement on this one then.

No worries there.

The section directs that

'an applicant for a firearm certificate shall supply to the issuing person

the information requested in the application form

and

such further information as the issuing person may require in the performance of the person’s functions under this Act, including, in particular—

Thing is, that's how I parse that sentence. You see my point?

Also, the application form has changed so much from the drafting of 4(3) and today that it's perfectly arguable that 4(3)'s drafters did not anticipate the scale of the change and that as such what 4(3) refers to cannot be construed as the FCA1 form.

I understand your argument but I do not agree that providing the information specified in a-d is not made mandatory by statute. I think it is. As such, it is not a pre-condition impinging on persona designata status.

A valid argument, even if I think you're incorrect. To the High Court!

Speaking of which, is a Chief Superintendent a persona designata. Is that conferred on him by the Commissioner delegating the function?

Yeah, that one rang sideways for me as well - a delegated persona designata?

Ahh, so you admit that on occasion ...

Yes, but not in this forum
(Which isn't to say that a little constructive awkwardness is never a bad thing - it's just a matter of degree and timing)

BornToKill

Sparks wrote: »

To the High Court!

Let the games begin!

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

so people who shoot air pistols in the shed / garage or long hallway in the house are breaking the law ?

Yes, under Section 4A. The intent of this was confirmed in the Dail by the previous Minister in 2006.

Sam I Am

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, under Section 4A. The intent of this was confirmed in the Dail by the previous Minister in 2006.

I love the idea that they think it completely implausible that someone would be target shooting inside their dwelling. They could only ever be shooting on the land

rrpc

Sam I Am wrote: »

I love the idea that they think it completely implausible that someone would be target shooting inside their dwelling. They could only ever be shooting on the land

It's still not definite that airgun ranges come under the scope of the act. Remember we're talking about ranges here and not clubs (which all have to be authorised). Under the current draft ranges SI, airgun ranges are not specified as yet, though this may change in future drafts.

On an engineering level, there is very little needed to make a safe airgun range. A good pellet catcher behind the target; no reflective surfaces like steel, unless angled at 45 degrees and unlike cartridge ranges you can't use a backsplash curtain as the pellet may rebound from it.

Good lightiing (minimum 1500 lux) and ventilation and you have your range*.

*Remembering that you adopt such common sense details as nobody having access to the target area while you're shooting and no way that a pellet can leave the range.

So if you wanted to build one, it wouldn't break the bank and the €1000 fee is for five years.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

So if you wanted to build one, it wouldn't break the bank

Irony facepalm, right there...

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Irony facepalm, right there...

Are you sure you know just how ironic that is? As in who now owns the site that our new range was to be built on?

:eek:

Sparks

Well, that would explain a lot!

Grizzly 45

Traumadoc wrote: »

A doctor cannot provide confidential information to the Gardai unless specific permission has been provided. The bit naming your GP is a bit of a waste of space as they cannot ask your GP for information without written permission.

Trauma,
Answer this possibly,you being a practioner of the healing arts?
Does this also fall foul of the Hippocratic oath,and doctor/patient confidentality.[Which ASFIK is almost as good as the seal of the Confessional]In the sense that as a doctor,if you feel it is not in the "best intrest" of the patient to release this information,you are not required to do so.EVEN with the patients explicit permission??

rrpc

I think Grizzly (not being a practitioner myself ) that if you felt that a patient was likely to 'go postal' or harm themselves with a firearm, the 'first do no harm' principle would be uppermost.

Grizzly 45

Abbylara...and head shrinkers.....not doctors...who have about as much medical or professional quals or rights to diagnose mental illness....... advocating????.....The rest is history as they say.:rolleyes:

BornToKill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Abbylara...and head shrinkers.....not doctors...who have about as much medical or professional quals or rights to diagnose mental illness....... advocating????.....The rest is history as they say.:rolleyes:

Sorry ... what? I don't understand.

Traumadoc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Trauma,
Answer this possibly,you being a practioner of the healing arts?
Does this also fall foul of the Hippocratic oath,and doctor/patient confidentality.[Which ASFIK is almost as good as the seal of the Confessional]In the sense that as a doctor,if you feel it is not in the "best intrest" of the patient to release this information,you are not required to do so.EVEN with the patients explicit permission??

Not sure what you mean.

The medical thing is a bit difficult as most of the people that go postal have no mental illness, I know this sounds strange, but most of them have personality disorders , anger management issues etc.

However if you as a doctor are privy to information that someone has intemperate tendencies you may be obliged as in duty of public care to inform the authorities.

Say Grizzly comes to me and tells me that he is fed up with everything and wants to "Shoot it all down" ( Geldof 1979) I would be duty bound to inform the authorities.

Traumadoc

Sorry re reading your post....... I remember I had a guy brought into me (not in Ireland) once whose life had fallen apart, his wife had left him etc. Anyway he was brought in following a nervous breakdown.
Got talking to him as he was brought in by friends form his local gun club and I had something in common... any way all he had left was his shooting and he loved it, and he was saying that he would kill himself if he was not able to shoot.

So I have aguy who is suicidal who has access to guns who says he will kill himself if his guns are taken off him.

Sam I Am

rrpc wrote: »

It's still not definite that airgun ranges come under the scope of the act. Remember we're talking about ranges here and not clubs (which all have to be authorised). Under the current draft ranges SI, airgun ranges are not specified as yet, though this may change in future drafts.

On an engineering level, there is very little needed to make a safe airgun range. A good pellet catcher behind the target; no reflective surfaces like steel, unless angled at 45 degrees and unlike cartridge ranges you can't use a backsplash curtain as the pellet may rebound from it.

Good lightiing (minimum 1500 lux) and ventilation and you have your range*.

*Remembering that you adopt such common sense details as nobody having access to the target area while you're shooting and no way that a pellet can leave the range.

So if you wanted to build one, it wouldn't break the bank and the €1000 fee is for five years.

So are airgun ranges just in complete limbo?
By definition in the Draft, "shooting range" means a place at which the discharge of firearms takes place for the purpose of target practice or target shooting, but excludes a location where clay pigeon shooting or paintball games take place.
So an airgun range is a "shooting range".
Excuse my ignorance, but an airgun is neither centre or rimfire, correct? They seem to be the only things considered in the "Indoor Range" section of the Draft. And:
4 (b) the use of ammunition other than those listed below is forbidden on shooting ranges:

i. for centre-fire cartridges – lead alloy core with copper jacket (Full Metal Jacket, Jacketed Hollow Point or Jacketed Soft Point)

ii rim-fire cartridges – lead alloy projectiles.

If any other ammunition is intended to be used this must be approved by the Firearms Range Inspector.

Does that mean you have to get specific permission for .177 pellets?

Ack! I'm just so out of my depth here.

BTW does anyone have a link to the Range Construction document in pdf or some other not Word format. Please.

rrpc

Sam I Am wrote: »

So are airgun ranges just in complete limbo?
By definition in the Draft, "shooting range" means a place at which the discharge of firearms takes place for the purpose of target practice or target shooting, but excludes a location where clay pigeon shooting or paintball games take place.
So an airgun range is a "shooting range".

It is because airguns are firearms.

Excuse my ignorance, but an airgun is neither centre or rimfire, correct? They seem to be the only things considered in the "Indoor Range" section of the Draft. And:

Yet

4 (b) the use of ammunition other than those listed below is forbidden on shooting ranges:

i. for centre-fire cartridges – lead alloy core with copper jacket (Full Metal Jacket, Jacketed Hollow Point or Jacketed Soft Point)

ii rim-fire cartridges – lead alloy projectiles.

That should be amended to include airguns, but it's still in draft form, so it's early days yet.

BTW does anyone have a link to the Range Construction document in pdf or some other not Word format. Please.

Yup, here you go, manufactured especially for you

Fazer6

Is my .22 CZ122 now classed as a restricted firearm because it's not on the list in Annex F?

Sparks

Fazer6 wrote: »

Is my .22 CZ122 now classed as a restricted firearm because it's not on the list in Annex F?

No. The list is a list of examples only (see post 22). The actual criteria are in the SI and it's that the barrel length is over 10cm and the magazine capacity is no more than 5 rounds.

The FPU are saying dowels and crimped magazines aren't acceptable for pistols the way they are for shotguns...
/mutters about how the FPU are wrong on that point but we need to go to court to prove it...

Jonty

Sparks wrote: »

For the lazy:



Deer

The shooting of deer is governed by the Wildlife Act, 1976-2000. Red Deer are protected mammals under section 23 of the Wildlife Acts. An applicant who wishes to shoot deer must name land which has the likelihood of the appropriate deer species being present, and an invitation, booking or authority to shoot on that land from the owner/occupier.

Fox

The shooting of foxes at night time with the aid of a lamp is not unlawful provided it can be done with the permission of the landowner and it does not occur within 60 feet of the public road. However it does pose a greater risk to the public and other farm animals. A condition which might be considered appropriate to the licensing of a centrefire high powered rifle for fox shooting could be that Gardai are notified of any shooting taking place after dark.

Poor Fallow and Sika must feel left out. Lamping foxes poses a greater risk to the public? How? That condition about notification is a load of sh1te

riflehunter77

"When an applicant is applying for a firearm certificate, the application should include whether or not a silencer is being sought for that particular firearm. A subsequent application for a silencer will require the applicant to re apply on a new application form FCA1 and will require the full €80 fee. As already stated, all firearm certificates must now include details of any authorisation for a silencer in respect of that particular firearm "


So if anyone is looking for a supressor they will have to pay a fee of 80 euro for their rifle ok fair enough and 80 euro for there supressor whats that all about. Money making scheme me thinks ......

rrpc

riflehunter77 wrote: »

"When an applicant is applying for a firearm certificate, the application should include whether or not a silencer is being sought for that particular firearm. A subsequent application for a silencer will require the applicant to re apply on a new application form FCA1 and will require the full €80 fee. As already stated, all firearm certificates must now include details of any authorisation for a silencer in respect of that particular firearm "


So if anyone is looking for a supressor they will have to pay a fee of 80 euro for their rifle ok fair enough and 80 euro for there supressor whats that all about. Money making scheme me thinks ......

Only if it's between renewals. Otherwise it comes free with your rifle licence.

Grizzly 45

BornToKill wrote: »

Sorry ... what? I don't understand.

Ok I'll elaborate.. The Abbylara situation is one of the closest situation we have had to a amuck shooter[Personally,I think it was a farsical and tragic situation ] here that is well publised and it's recomendations have had a direct effect on us here.
It was Carthys head shrinker that wrote the letter to the Super recommending or advocating Carthy get his gun back for his mental well being..

SO The person who should be well qualified to spot mental trouble symptoms and deal with this kind of a problem person was asleep on the job???
IOW what hope has a GP of saying you have a few screws loose,and a professional is fooled,or not intrested enough to research exactly why Carthy was in such a mental situation????The rest is history...lwe all know what happened,the Barr tribunal,etc..
Make sense now??:)

Traumadoc

Not really.
How do you predict who or who will not go postal, there is very little evidence historically that these people suffer from thought disorder or even acute psychosis.

Being intemperate, a loner or having a fascination for guns is not a mental illness.

Grizzly 45

Traumadoc wrote: »

Not sure what you mean.

The medical thing is a bit difficult as most of the people that go postal have no mental illness, I know this sounds strange, but most of them have personality disorders , anger management issues etc.

A field in itself,that even keeps psychologists churning out books and papers on it by a monthly basis.So unless you exhibit somthing like that in your GP..What GP is going to say,"well Traumadoc is a potential Hamilton.Dont let him near a feather duster,not to mind a firearm."
Hellooo medical malpractise lawsuit...:eek:

However if you as a doctor are privy to information that someone has intemperate tendencies you may be obliged as in duty of public care to inform the authorities.

Say Grizzly comes to me and tells me that he is fed up with everything and wants to "Shoot it all down" ( Geldof 1979) I would be duty bound to inform the authorities.

Tell me why.I dont like Mondays!! Tell me why??:D
Boomtown Rats[Tonic for the Troops album];)

TD ,we all say a lot of things everyday in life...BUT do we go out and do them???How many times do the Irish say about their kids"That little Feker...I'll kill him/her!!! "Does that now mean every Irish parent should be treated as potential child killers if they say it to the wrong person??

Now,if I am sitting in your surgery,cleaning my UZI,wearing my Napoleon Bonaparte outfit, and looking forward to a Big Mac in the local Macky Dees..:eek: Without a doubt!!
But if I am sitting there with a dose of the "Irish life in general blues" Saying I'm fed up with this all..FEKthem all..etc etc.Does that make me a potential nutter??? If everyone was to act on impulses we would be in arnachry in society..

What I am trying to find out is.... Are you OBLIGED to report somthing that disturbs you as a doctor???
After all you are a MD not a psychologist,and even that requires what a month of therapy to find out is there a few nuts missing in the bar... Because if so..Doesnt that leave you open then to a malpractise suit of violating patient confidentiality??After all,how do I know now as a patient,that you havent being my other medical info,[not head related]to other parties?

Grizzly 45

Traumadoc wrote: »

Not really.
How do you predict who or who will not go postal, there is very little evidence historically that these people suffer from thought disorder or even acute psychosis.

Being intemperate, a loner or having a fascination for guns is not a mental illness.

EXACTLY!!!
However your last sentence is the one the press,media and police forces focus in on if somone loses it.
So in reality this "requirement" is really a CYA exercise that is being asked off a person really not qualified to answer this,.

Traumadoc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

EXACTLY!!!

So in reality this "requirement" is really a CYA exercise that is being asked off a person really not qualified to answer this,.

Absolutely CYA, plus I would love to know who is going to pay the not insubstantial cost of a medical report.

4gun

in big cities where your not known to the Guards then all the want is some one that can vouch for your character some one that can say you can be trusted with a gun, might be totally different in a small town where you sometimes meet you FO in the local and he knows you to see you
I mean you might not have a criminal record and might not be "known to the Guardi" but you could still be a nutter:D