Pistol Licensing Questions

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

It comes with 6 round magazines in Norway at least.

It comes that way in Italy also; from the owners manual:

Munizioni:

calibro 22 long rifle / 32 wad cutter

Alimentazione:

caricamento successivo con caricatore

Caricatore: 22 L.R. 6 colpi / 32 W.C. 5 colpi

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

Sparks, just curious on the advise issue, can some one really be sued for giving another advise? If go to a stock broker and he advises me to invest in shares of such n' such plc next day stock market crashes and I loose all my money, I cant sue the broker in the end the decision to take the advise was mine ( this is a hypotetical situation no real money was used in this senario)

Depends on the specifics of the advice, but if all he said was "invest in this" then you certainly can (Hedley-v-Heller) .
Now that's english tort law, but a similar principle holds over here. And there are limits to the tort (you can't sue a bloke down the pub for example).

people give their opionion based on their own experience nothing more, if someone takes opionion as legal writ and acts on it nobody but them selves can be held accountable

There's a difference between "I did X and it worked for me" and "I'm an expert, go do X" though. The former you can't call advice, the latter you can.

Slug chucker

I don’t want to get caught in a handbag crossfire here but is it ok to restrict your own magazines to five rounds or a shotgun tube magazine for that matter?
Cheers,
Slug

Sparks

The law suggest yes Slug Chucker; the gardai (specifically the FPU) say no (but only when it's a pistol magazine, shotguns are fine).

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

only when it's a pistol magazine, shotguns are fine

Coz pistols are more dangerouser

B'Man

Slug chucker

Sparks wrote: »

The law suggest yes Slug Chucker; the gardai (specifically the FPU) say no (but only when it's a pistol magazine, shotguns are fine).

I kind of looked at it as if it requires tools to remove the restrictor it would be classed as permanent. So who do you worry about, the law or the firearms policy unit.
It’s about limiting capacity, if it’s limited and not too easy un-limit in the spur of a moment I feel that will suffice for a visual inspection but I’m open to correction!

Is the FPU "no" bit anywhere I can get a look at it?
Cheers,
Slug

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

(someone in the NASRPC for example, would probably get results faster by talking to the SSAI directly).

:eek:
That's a first...Sparks suggesting that a member of a federated member of the SSAI talk to the SSAI rather than the body they're a member of!

I think 'getting results faster' was one of the excuses a certain nemesis of Sparks' used to wield as a justification.

Not saying you're wrong Sparks, but encouraging people to bypass their NGB, really? Should I start digging up all the old threads that had you and DJKH bashing heads repeatedly in?

rrpc

Slug chucker wrote: »

I kind of looked at it as if it requires tools to remove the restrictor it would be classed as permanent. So who do you worry about, the law or the firearms policy unit.
It’s about limiting capacity, if it’s limited and not too easy un-limit in the spur of a moment I feel that will suffice for a visual inspection but I’m open to correction!

Is the FPU "no" bit anywhere I can get a look at it?
Cheers,
Slug

What's happening on the ground SC is many and varied. Some Supers are suggesting that you don't load more than five rounds as a condition of the licence, some are saying physically restrict the magazine yourself, and others are saying to have it done by a gunsmith and a letter to confirm the job is done.

They can do that you know

Slug chucker

rrpc,
I've hear a FO asked for a cylinder of a revolver on the list to be blocked, pure pants. He in the end didn't insist on it and let it through.
It is getting weird out there again!
Just out of curiosity, the FPU has issued the paperwork that the Chief Supers/Supers & FO are starting to treat as gospel not guidelines, what qualifies them to be experts in all aspects of shooting sports?
Cheers,
Slug

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Coz pistols are more dangerouser

It was put down to a mild difference in the wording used in the two sections of the restricted SIs.

rrpc

Slug chucker wrote: »

rrpc,
I've hear a FO asked for a cylinder of a revolver on the list to be blocked, pure pants. He in the end didn't insist on it and let it through.
It is getting weird out there again!
Just out of curiosity, the FPU has issued the paperwork that the Chief Supers/Supers & FO are starting to treat as gospel not guidelines, what qualifies them to be experts in all aspects of shooting sports?
Cheers,
Slug

The Guidelines are the Commissioner's guidelines, the FPU probably have a good deal of input into them, but the Commissioner and the Minister sign them off.

Originally in the far off mists of 2007/2008, the FCP actually worked on them for a period. Some vestige of that input may actually remain :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

There's a difference between "I did X and it worked for me" and "I'm an expert, go do X" though. The former you can't call advice, the latter you can.

To a certain degree.If say you have cancer and a cancer specialist recommends an operation and tells you it is a 50/50 chance of you surviving or dying on the table,and you sign off on that and die on the table.Your next of kin cant sue the specialist for malpractise.
Unless there was proof and evidence that your specialist was a total charlatan or reckless in his diagnostics and promises of cures.Even then it is very hard to prove total negligence.

Slug chucker

rrpc wrote: »

The Guidelines are the Commissioner's guidelines, the FPU probably have a good deal of input into them, but the Commissioner and the Minister sign them off.

Originally in the far off mists of 2007/2008, the FCP actually worked on them for a period. Some vestige of that input may actually remain :rolleyes:

Yes, you can see the vestige in the form of the non restricted pistol list, not being sarcastic. It's a pity that communication has apparently ceased when it's needed most.

Cheers,
Slug

rrpc

Slug chucker wrote: »

Yes, you can see the vestige in the form of the non restricted pistol list, not being sarcastic. It's a pity that communication has apparently ceased when it's needed most.

Cheers,
Slug

Well it's already had one update since its release so there may well be more as time and experience leads to greater clarity.

Slug chucker

RRPC,
I like to think the list would be an open book that could be amended as of when something new and sexy comes out in the world of .22 target pistols and they would make the change as soon as its existence is pointed out to them by our governing bodies.
Could you imaging your frustration though if your favourite pistol maker brought out a crackin all new bells and whistles Olympic .22LR five shot pistol and they wouldn't licence it for you until a policy unit decided it was ok, or maybe an old pistol they haven't heard of :rolleyes:

rrpc

Slug chucker wrote: »

RRPC,
I like to think the list would be an open book that could be amended as of when something new and sexy comes out in the world of .22 target pistols and they would make the change as soon as its existence is pointed out to them by our governing bodies.
Could you imaging your frustration though if your favourite pistol maker brought out a crackin all new bells and whistles Olympic .22LR five shot pistol and they wouldn't licence it for you until a policy unit decided it was ok, or maybe an old pistol they haven't heard of :rolleyes:

I imagine that's why the list is in the guidelines rather than in the SI. The description in the SI is the law, the list in the guidelines is only an interpretation.

So if the new 'bells and whistles' yoke fulfils the criteria in the SI that's all it needs to do.

Sparks

Slug chucker wrote: »

Could you imaging your frustration though if your favourite pistol maker brought out a crackin all new bells and whistles Olympic .22LR five shot pistol and they wouldn't licence it for you until a policy unit decided it was ok, or maybe an old pistol they haven't heard of :rolleyes:

Don't have to - you just described the experiences of the californian ISSF shooters in the US (as well as one or two other places).

Slug chucker

Now I haven't gone all soft on Olympic pistols but I always liked the new SP20and the Feinwerkbau AW93 (more so for the AW93), this is before I purchased my centre fire (I was told that all the comps would be centre fire and you wouldn't get much use for a .22)
Funny how the worm turns

kildarejoe

I wonder what the chances of licencing a walther p22 target are now?
You probably woundent win anything with it, but it would be a cheap start.

rrpc

kildarejoe wrote: »

I wonder what the chances of licencing a walther p22 target are now?
You probably woundent win anything with it, but it would be a cheap start.

I'm not sure how to put this, so I'll just be straight.

The Walther P22 is completely useless as a target pistol. The target barrel just makes its uselessness more obvious.

It's only role is to use up ammunition in the most wasteful way possible. I don't know anyone who's had one who still harbours illusions of using it in competition or even for training.

If your Chief Super offers you a selection of target pistols from a list, bite his arm off to get one. Ask him does he do trade-ins and then run

xesse

buy a pardini SP
jasus i,m sick saying that
i shot a 551 last week with it and a 548 last monday
you wont do that with a 22a or walther
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

kildarejoe wrote: »

I wonder what the chances of licencing a walther p22 target are now?
You probably woundent win anything with it, but it would be a cheap start.

Kryten

xesse wrote: »

buy a pardini SP
jasus i,m sick saying that
i shot a 551 last week with it and a 548 last monday
you wont do that with a 22a or walther
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously!!!!!!!!

Damn, I'm screwed. Provided I get the new licence in time for the nationals.

To everyone else. seriously this is a great piece of target shooting equipment,
575 -580 is world cup winning stuff so well within reach.
Not cheap, but you get what you pay for.

Bananaman

He'll be sickened if he gets beat by a 22a now :-)

xesse

if i had a euro for every time i heard that ......
i could afford some ammo to shoot my revolver lolol:D:D:D

Bananaman wrote: »

He'll be sickened if he gets beat by a 22a now :-)

xesse

just for u alan

Kryten wrote: »

Seriously!!!!!!!!

Damn, I'm screwed. Provided I get the new licence in time for the nationals.

To everyone else. seriously this is a great piece of target shooting equipment,
575 -580 is world cup winning stuff so well within reach.
Not cheap, but you get what you pay for.

rrpc

xesse wrote: »

just for u alan

You need to lose those 7's and 8's xesse

Nice score though, almost 100 above my best

TMC121

Up date to the Olympic Target Pistol saga.
I learned today that another club member who owns a Benelli MP95E has received his license from the same superintendent who has now sent a letter to the original person mentioned in this thread stating "a Superintendent must be satisfied that a person has good reason etc, Section 4 as amended".

Here's the thing, when these applications where being filled in the club held a meeting where every member printed out an additional information sheet and I know for a fact that the 2 applications review by the Superintendent had the same additional information attached, giving the same reasons for the .22lr target pistols.

One was granted with absolutely no issue, the other one now requires the super to be satisfied.
The only difference between these two men is one of them has 3 firearms (a rifle, shotgun & 22 Benelli pistol) all granted and the second has 4 firearms (a rifle, 2 shotguns, licenses granted and a Benelli pistol not granted).

They travel to the range together, practice for and compete in competitions. Attendance records would be nearly identical.

For an organisation with such a uniform approach to policing, there doesn't seam to be any uniformity to firearms licensing.

rrpc

TMC121 wrote: »

Here's the thing, when these applications where being filled in the club held a meeting where every member printed out an additional information sheet and I know for a fact that the 2 applications review by the Superintendent had the same additional information attached, giving the same reasons for the .22lr target pistols.

I'm not sure that that was the best idea. It looks a bit like students 'cogging' off each other for an exam. If two applicants put in the exact same reasons and background for an application, the conclusion could be drawn that one of them is lying (or even both of them).

I'm not saying that's the case, but if you were looking at all these applications all day, the one thing that would stand out is two people with identical background info.

What's wrong with writing your own stuff? If it's true, you can stand over it, if it's been a bit 'massaged' that's a bit harder.

Just my opinin on what you've posted, you might not agree or you may have left out something. I don't know any club who did what you're talking about other than giving a bit of verbal advice.

TMC121

rrpc, the members came together, Just the ones who's licenses where expiring in October. 3 members had .22lr pistols. They practice and compete in the same competitions both in our own club and in others.
Anyway, there was nothing put down on paper that the members could not fully stand over in a court of law (if needed).

I take your point but this was more to do with filling out the new application forms correctly, the additional information was complied from attendance records, competition records and other details regarding security, personal information etc.

The reasons for owning / using the firearms would be very similar if not the same, wouldn't you agree?

rrpc

Sorry TMC, the way you put it in your original post made it seem as if the guys used identical information.

Yes, you'd assume that a good reason for one should be the same for another.

Except it's a mistake to assume from a distance. Read my posts on 'good reason' on the Solicitor's thread.