is this rifle a restricted firearm???

xesse

i have a lever action .357 marlin rifle
is this a restricted firearm
and while i,m on is a .22 browning buckmark RIFLE restricted

DMZ

xesse wrote: »

i have a lever action .357 marlin rifle
is this a restricted firearm
and while i,m on is a .22 browning buckmark RIFLE restricted

Is the calibre of the rifle >.308. .357 in any ones books is larger than .308, argue all you want about power etc but yes as a rifle it is restricted.

If it was a lever action .308 it would not be restricted.

Does your buckmark look like a assault rifle, it looks strange but in no way looks like an assault rifle so it is not restricted!

Does that help?

xesse

yes but the buckmark has the 10 round mag and the mag is loaded behind the trigger
does that make it a bullpub rifle??

rowa

xesse wrote: »

yes but the buckmark has the 10 round mag and the mag is loaded behind the trigger
does that make it a bullpub rifle??

doesn't the buckmark have a pistol grip similar to the buckmark pistol ?

xesse

rowa wrote: »

doesn't the buckmark have a pistol grip similar to the buckmark pistol ?

emmmm, yes?

rowa

then i think its restricted because of that , no firearms with pistol grip or folding stocks , even shotguns , there much more dangerous according to the gardai :rolleyes:

xesse

rowa wrote: »

then i think its restricted because of that , no firearms with pistol grip or folding stocks , even shotguns , there much more dangerous according to the gardai :rolleyes:

welllll i could say that it,s a thumbhole stock cos'
the pistol grip is closed on the top and bottom with the frame for the stock
sorry for the confusion but i,m filling out these forms at the mo' and i am between 2 and three restricted firearms and the gsm alarm stuff for 3 or more restricted firearms aint cheap!!!!

DMZ

xesse wrote: »

welllll i could say that it,s a thumbhole stock cos'
the pistol grip is closed on the top and bottom with the frame for the stock
sorry for the confusion but i,m filling out these forms at the mo' and i am between 2 and three restricted firearms and the gsm alarm stuff for 3 or more restricted firearms aint cheap!!!!

For gods sake put the thing down as non restricted and let that be an end to it, it is not a bull pup in the sense that the list is aiming at, the 10 shot mag in the position is not important.

Its a bloody .22 semi auto rifle, get a grip and just put it down, you will be identifying it as a Browning .22 Semi Auto Rifle.

If you want to say it is a browning BuckMark Assault Bullpup rifle then do so and get yourself a bundle of grief.

xesse

you know
i think your right

xesse

DMZ wrote: »

For gods sake put the thing down as non restricted and let that be an end to it, it is not a bull pup in the sense that the list is aiming at, the 10 shot mag in the position is not important.

Its a bloody .22 semi auto rifle, get a grip and just put it down, you will be identifying it as a Browning .22 Semi Auto Rifle.

If you want to say it is a browning BuckMark Assault Bullpup rifle then do so and get yourself a bundle of grief.

soooo what are you saying??lol

DMZ

xesse wrote: »

soooo what are you saying??lol

If you declare it restricted, you will be required to provide a unique reason for having it, in other words and very specifically, that no other non restricted firearm can do what you want it for.

Now you come up with a unique and specific reason for having a buckmark rifle over a PC Ruger 10/22 or a CZ 462 bolt action and I'll buy you a pint.

If your Chief Super decides that it is not a unique reason and that your reason for posession is not unique then he is within the legislation to refuse you...............simple really.... well no silly bull really but that is what you will need to do when you declare any firearm resticted.

Look the restricted non restricted was not designed to pull out guns like the buckmark, but to get the evil dangerous looking guns like the G22 and the AR15 look alikes, despite the fact that they are no different in capacity or function than the more cosmetically PC Rugers and the like.

It is a joke, it is pay back for the legal cases where it was shown that the Walther G22 should not have been stopped by DOJ and who remembers that evil little Jager in AK47 and AR15 configuration, now they are very dangerous looking according to the guidelines. Stop me quick before I really go off on one!

Will it make one single difference to criminal use of firearms, no just tie the Gardai up in paperwork for years! Great job Mr Ahern and Co.

BornToKill

xesse wrote: »

yes but the buckmark has the 10 round mag and the mag is loaded behind the trigger
does that make it a bullpub rifle??

Yes. The definition from the SI (21 of 2008) is:
“bullpup rifles” means rifles with a magazine located behind the trigger".

DMZ wrote: »

For gods sake put the thing down as non restricted and let that be an end to it

It is an offence to put down false info on the form and that would include the declaration of the type of firearm.

DMZ

BornToKill wrote: »

Yes. The definition from the SI (21 of 2008) is:
“bullpup rifles” means rifles with a magazine located behind the trigger".



It is an offence to put down false infor on the form and that would include the declaration of the type of firearm.

Nobody is saying that one should make a false declaration, it is my intreptation with may extensive experience that the buckmark is not a bullpup rifle, I am therefore advising the chap to put down the fact that it is a non restricted firearm. The definition in the SI is flawed and open to interpretation, one may seek clarification from the policy unit to be on the safe side, but when they have received 5,000 calls about the same thing what's the point.

I have two shotguns a Urika 391 and a Beretta 602E each have a pistol grip according to the manual, am I going to declare them restricted no.... because they are not.

There will be a lot to be ironed out with the implementation of the new legislation and the devil is in the detail.

Like I said common sense will be the best thing to use and declaring a Buckmark rifle as restricted makes no sense for anyone.

I presume that you have all PC firearms with no questions about them. Why not list what you own and what your intrepetation of their status is??

BornToKill

DMZ wrote: »

Why not list what you own and what your intrepetation of their status is??

What are you on about? Why would I do that?

It's all the one to me what anyone puts on their form but you shouldn't advise anyone to deliberately fill it out wrong and break the law. Your 'interpretation and extensive experience' won't be a lot of good to them if they're charged.

DMZ

BornToKill wrote: »

What are you on about? Why would I do that?

It's all the one to me what anyone puts on their form but you shouldn't advise anyone to deliberately fill it out wrong and break the law. Your 'interpretation and extensive experience' won't be a lot of good to them if they're charged.

Ah get a grip!

What should be done to avoid confusion or where someone can be charged is contact the policy unit, only risk is if it is intrepreted as restricted by the policy unit then it is too late.

BornToKill

DMZ wrote: »

For gods sake put the thing down as non restricted

DMZ wrote: »

What should be done to avoid confusion or where someone can be charged is contact the policy unit

Which?

DMZ wrote: »

Ah get a grip!

A pistol grip, is it?

Sparks

DMZ wrote: »

If you declare it restricted, you will be required to provide a unique reason for having it, in other words and very specifically, that no other non restricted firearm can do what you want it for.

I think you're over-egging the pudding here.
You put down why you need a 10-shot semi-auto .22lr rifle. Since you already have the buckmark, you keep it rather than buying a new rifle you're less proficient with.
End of story, really.

Now if you were coming at it not owning that rifle, you'd have a reason you wanted to use it instead of the others (otherwise you wouldn't care and you'd just get the cheapest one) - so put that reason down.

But it's not a case of needing to write six pages on why you need the red paint job on the rifle, if you follow me.

If your Chief Super decides that it is not a unique reason and that your reason for posession is not unique then he is within the legislation to refuse you

And you can go to the DC and if the Super's playing silly buggers, it'll come out.
Now if you're the one playing silly buggers, it'll go the other way, of course...

Will it make one single difference to criminal use of firearms, no just tie the Gardai up in paperwork for years! Great job Mr Ahern and Co.

+1 to that.

Sparks

DMZ wrote: »

Nobody is saying that one should make a false declaration

You just did.
And it's illegal to do that. To the tune of jailtime and fines and no firearms for a minimum of five years (and probably permanently).

In other words, bad advice, please don't anyone follow it.
If it's restricted, mark it as such. It's not worth the hassle there'd be if you're caught with the wrong licence. And yes, that's messed up, but what isn't about all this?

I have two shotguns a Urika 391 and a Beretta 602E each have a pistol grip according to the manual, am I going to declare them restricted no.... because they are not.

Because there's a gray area over pistol grips as they're undefined in the SI. But about a bullpup configuration rifle? Nope, you're done there - 4(2)(c) in the original SI. No gray area.

There will be a lot to be ironed out with the implementation of the new legislation

Agrees - and when that's going on, you probably don't want to be a wrinkle.

Mellor

DMZ wrote: »

Nobody is saying that one should make a false declaration, it is my intreptation with may extensive experience that the buckmark is not a bullpup rifle, I am therefore advising the chap to put down the fact that it is a non restricted firearm. The definition in the SI is flawed and open to interpretation,

This is completely wrong. Extensive experience??? With guns maybe, but your knowledge of the law is poor.
The simple fact is that the legal definition is all that matters, even if it is not technically accurate. This applies to all areas of law in order to cover all situations, and isn't in any way linked to shooting. I also don't see how it is open to interpretation, either the mag is in front or behind the trigger. Legally, a bullpup, or not depend on either.

rrpc

So that everyone knows what we're talking about here, this is the Buckmark rifle; one of the most accurate semi-autos, I've ever tried.



Unfortunately, it falls foul of the bullpup description of having the magazine behind the trigger without actually being a bullpup. Not something that was anticipated, but for the moment we'll have to live with it until a better description of what a bullpup is gets inserted.

Even stating that it's a rifle with the action and magazine behind the trigger would leave it open to interpretation as to what is the action and where it starts and stops. Perhaps stating that a bullpup has its action and magazine incorporated in the buttstock would be the most accurate.

Be that as it may, according to the description in the SI which is very clear and not open to interpretation, the Buckmark rifle would have to be considered a restricted firearm.

But hey, look on the bright side, you can have mags with a greater capacity than ten rounds

For the record, this would be a true bullpup design:



The magazine is inserted in the buttstock, not the pistol grip.

Mellor

rrpc wrote: »

Even stating that it's a rifle with the action and magazine behind the trigger would leave it open to interpretation as to what is the action and where it starts and stops. Perhaps stating that a bullpup has its action and magazine incorporated in the buttstock would be the most accurate.

The first is what I would consider a proper bullpup definition, action and mag behind the trigger. And I agree, action is open to much more interpretation than magazine.
I think magazine/action located behind the grip would be better. As technically, a bullpup could be designed without a traditional buttstock (pretty sure i've seen this in bullpup sniper rifles, with a telescopic style stock)

rrpc

Mellor wrote: »

The first is what I would consider a proper bullpup definition, action and mag behind the trigger. And I agree, action is open to much more interpretation than magazine.
I think magazine/action located behind the grip would be better. As technically, a bullpup could be designed without a traditional buttstock (pretty sure i've seen this in bullpup sniper rifles, with a telescopic style stock)

You see, I don't think that would fall into the general purpose of a bullpup which is to shorten the rifle without over shortening the barrel. Having the action just behind the trigger is only going to shorten the system by a few centimetres whereas putting it all in the stock can reduce overall length by up to 20 or 30cm.

If you're going to add a telescopic stock, then you'll have to sacrifice most of the length savings that the bullpup design gives you.

If we're agreed that the Buckmarrk rifle is not a bullpup design, then stating that it's the action and mag behind the trigger still keeps it in the bullpup box because the action is behind the trigger even if only just behind it.

Bananaman

Loads of lads have buckmarks for target shooting and for bunny bashing

They are NOT a bullpup (shorter overall length as the action is so far back) so they are not restricted.

If you need to know what is and is not restricted - talk to you local firearms dealer - don't be asking the denizens of the night on here - for a firearms dealer to seel a a restficted firearm they would need a restricted firearms dealers license - quite expensive - so you cna eb sure they know the actual definition.

Remember, if the Gardai want to know who do you think they will call?? Their local Firearms dealer.

My tuppence.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Loads of lads have buckmarks for target shooting and for bunny bashing

They are NOT a bullpup (shorter overall length as the action is so far back) so they are not restricted.

Bananaman, the restricted/unrestricted system is a dclaration based system; you are solely responsible for what goes on the form. In the majority of cases, your local Garda will not know the fine detail of the firearms acts and if they do, they're the exception rather than the rule. Most if asked would tell you that it's only pistols are restricted. As for dealers, will they do your time or pay your fine for you if they're wrong?

If you need to know what is and is not restricted - talk to you local firearms dealer - don't be asking the denizens of the night on here - for a firearms dealer to seel a a restficted firearm they would need a restricted firearms dealers license - quite expensive - so you cna eb sure they know the actual definition.

If you want to know what the actual definition is, read the restricted SI; this is what it says:

“bullpup rifles” means rifles with a magazine located behind the trigger;

There is nothing 'grey' about that description (however we may disagree with it) and filling out your FCA1 with false information is bound to land you in a world of trouble.

And the Gardai have the FPU and the ballistics section to phone if they need to know something about firearms.

rrpc

As a final postscript to this, It's worth bearing in mind that the Browning Buckmark pistol is unrestricted while the rifle is restricted.


RESTRICTED



UNRESTRICTED

Surreal

Sandy22

Not strictly relevant, but it's just occurred to me that the traditional Browning semi-auto rifle also falls foul of this wording. (I know - it's already restricted on account of the magazine capacity - 11 IIRC). Likewise the Winchester 63 etc.

Very silly.

Half-cocked

Its the Gardai who will decide if it fits their interpretation of restricted or not. If you have interpreted differently, then you could well have a long and expensive legal wrangle with them if you are charged with making a false statement. And while thats going on, you'll probably end up having all your guns confiscated. If I was in your shoes, I'd photograph the gun and send the pic along with the manufacturers specifications to the FPU and let them make the decision. If they designate it unrestricted, get that in writing from them and your a*se should be covered. If they designate it restricted I'm afraid you'll have to do some major convincing at Chief Super level:(

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

I think magazine/action located behind the grip would be better. As technically, a bullpup could be designed without a traditional buttstock (pretty sure i've seen this in bullpup sniper rifles, with a telescopic style stock)

Been a few,and are mostly crud.Due to the problem of trigger linkage,one of it's design faults..Not to big a problem on an assult rifle or somthing of that nature,but orrible on a sniper rifle.It would be a pointless exercise to put a telescoping stock on a bull pup rifle as the whole concept is a short action enclosed in a stock,without doing away with barrel length..Maybe you saw spacers on the stock to increase the pull length for the user???

Maybe a solution for the Browning folks?Not up on it's design,and never used one,but maybe?Buy it as a UK long barreled pistol,and buy a detachable stock?? That way it is regd as a pistol, ligit and you can hang on take off whatever you want to then.
As there is no restriction on how long or short a pistol must be or what it can or cant have on it??
Simpler just reg it restricted,so you can have plenty of bits for it and high cap mags and whatever.

Half-cocked

rrpc wrote: »

As a final postscript to this, It's worth bearing in mind that the Browning Buckmark pistol is unrestricted while the rifle is restricted.


RESTRICTED



UNRESTRICTED

Surreal

So if I had the rifle and I hacksawed off the stock, I'd be go from restricted to unrestricted;) (Yes, I know, I'd be changing a rifle into a pistol with all of the ensuing licensing issues, I'm just trying to highlight the illogicality of the whole thing)

Grizzly 45

And if you stuck bits on it you turn it into a restricted rifle.....Only in Ireland.:rolleyes:

rrpc

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Firearms Act.