Amended Commissioner's Guidelines

rrpc

The Commissioner's Guidelines have been amended to take into account the change in substitutions and there are also a couple of small changes to the introduction to Annex F.

You can download them from the NTSA website here or the Garda website. The NTSA link has the changes highlighted in red, so they're more useful . There are some excisions which aren't noted, but they all relate to the change in substitutions.

Bananaman

Someone obviously went crying to them about magazine capacities that they felt the need to specify it in the guidelines.

No big deal to comply with anyway - same as the shotgun with a 3-shot capacity limit for fowling - just don't put more in it.

I am concerned that the National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs has not had it's case heard for 6-shot capacity to facilitate revolvers and 6-shot matches, seeing as these are the most common form of rimfire competition in the country.

Guess I'll just have to attend the ISSF Nationals and take their medals this year :-)

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Someone obviously went crying to them about magazine capacities that they felt the need to specify it in the guidelines.

It was already in the guidelines on page 9. I think you should change your handle to Marvin

I am concerned that the National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs has not had it's case heard for 6-shot capacity to facilitate revolvers and 6-shot matches, seeing as these are the most common form of rimfire competition in the country.

For existing licence holders, it's just a case of licensing as restricted instead of non-restricted and I know a few people who have done this. The real isssue is for new licences.

Guess I'll just have to attend the ISSF Nationals and take their medals this year :-)

B'Man

In your dreams

cavan shooter

I didnt read it fully and maybe Im wrong but is there not a view additional clarifications in there.

Bananaman

I didnt read it fully

Your first mistake

B'Man

rrpc

cavan shooter wrote: »

I didnt read it fully and maybe Im wrong but is there not a view additional clarifications in there.

I read through both of them side by side and as far as I can tell only the red highlighted bits are changed.

Bananaman

rrpc wrote: »

It was already in the guidelines on page 9.

Exactly - then why feel the need to say it again??

The Licenses do not have a field in which to specify the maximum number to be loaded at any one time.

So what is the point in repeating it in the guidlines to issuing officers as it can have no bearing on their decision or on the format of the license and just complicates the matter when they see that every firearm on the list can exceed the limit?

Marvin it may be but I am always suspicious of un-necessary alterations like these whose only effect is to make the process more difficult for all involved, not least of whom are the issuing officers

My suspicious nature leads me to believe that there must be people whispering in policy makers ears when this is the sort of thing they spend their time on - especially when they can issue a license for a Pardini Revolver which means there is no way they came up with these names or capacities themslves - but then that's just me.

B'Man

(Roll the X-Files music)

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Exactly - then why feel the need to say it again??

The Licenses do not have a field in which to specify the maximum number to be loaded at any one time.

So what is the point in repeating it in the guidlines to issuing officers as it can have no bearing on their decision or on the format of the license and just complicates the matter when they see that every firearm on the list can exceed the limit?

Because it's the difference between restricted and non-restricted and therefore a quantum leap in the licensing procedure. As with all such things, Annex F would be likely to be read in isolation and if all the information wasn't there, you could have people being restricted when they shouldn't be or vice versa.

Marvin it may be but I am always suspicious of un-necessary alterations like these whose only effect is to make the process more difficult for all involved, not least of whom are the issuing officers.
B'Man

My suspicious nature leads me to believe that there must be people whispering in policy makers ears when this is the sort of thing they spend their time on - especially when they can issue a license for a Pardini Revolver which means there is no way they came up with these names or capacities themslves - but then that's just me.

You see it as being unnecessary and therefore suspicious first, when an open mind would see the reason clearly.

And I fail to see the significance of the change to my application that turned a pistol into a revolver as being in any way indicative of string pulling. I now have to phone my station and possibly the district office to get it changed back, but I'm not really annoyed about it because I understand that stuff happens with data input.

cavan shooter

Bananaman wrote: »

Your first mistake

B'Man

Okay wrong choice of words,

foxhunter

rrpc wrote: »

The Commissioner's Guidelines have been amended to take into account the change in substitutions and there are also a couple of small changes to the introduction to Annex F.

You can download them from the NTSA website here or the Garda website. The NTSA link has the changes highlighted in red, so they're more useful . There are some excisions which aren't noted, but they all relate to the change in substitutions.

I think they have made another boo boo here .In the amended guidelines it says form FCA2 should be filled out with substitution details.
But in Annex E it specificly states FCA2 should not be used for firearms substitution.

It wasn't me!

Just got off the phone with my local firearms officer. Seems a huge number of forms were sent back, probably all of them by the sounds of it, to be changed in the local stations. It seems unlikely that *all* of them were filled out wrong, so the Gardai may be amending forms at a local level, possibly to dovetail with PULSE. This may be where the problems with fields are arising.

foxshooter243

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Just got off the phone with my local firearms officer. Seems a huge number of forms were sent back, probably all of them by the sounds of it, to be changed in the local stations. It seems unlikely that *all* of them were filled out wrong, so the Gardai may be amending forms at a local level, possibly to dovetail with PULSE. This may be where the problems with fields are arising.

There are lots of forms being returned up my way, simply due to folks leaving out required or mandatory info ie: no referees names , no photographs that type of stuff, the boys at the desk were accepting them and the FO had to chase lads up for the information, theres even cases of the FO having to chase up lads who havent bothered to fill out their forms at all and their extensions have just about run out- so lots of bother being created here on the side of the shooting fraternity as well, I have my four licences in my wallet and one of those was for a newly applied for licence, I also left in a gun for sale-our garda system is working no probs the problems that are prevalent now, lie with the shooters not the gardai:)

It wasn't me!

foxshooter243 wrote: »

There are lots of forms being returned up my way, simply due to folks leaving out required or mandatory info ie: no referees names , no photographs that type of stuff, the boys at the desk were accepting them and the FO had to chase lads up for the information, theres even cases of the FO having to chase up lads who havent bothered to fill out their forms at all and their extensions have just about run out- so lots of bother being created here on the side of the shooting fraternity as well, I have my four licences in my wallet and one of those was for a newly applied for licence, I also left in a gun for sale-our garda system is working no probs the problems that are prevalent now, lie with the shooters not the gardai:)

These were four or five hundred forms the FO had checked off and sent to the district office and they all came back for uniform changes across the board.

foxshooter243

It wasn't me! wrote: »

These were four or five hundred forms the FO had checked off and sent to the district office and they all came back for uniform changes across the board.

Thats a different kettle of fish IWM;)

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

(Roll the X-Files music)

While you're in your tinfoil helmet, can you cast a disparaging eye on this short sentence and give us the sinister explanation:

The following .22 calibre firearms, although not exhaustive,

I seem to remember you looking for some such assurance that the list wasn't cast in stone.

So?

rrpc

foxhunter wrote: »

I think they have made another boo boo here .In the amended guidelines it says form FCA2 should be filled out with substitution details.
But in Annex E it specificly states FCA2 should not be used for firearms substitution.

I don't think that's a boo boo. The correct procedure is to fill out an FCA1 form, but seeing as there's already an FCA1 form in the system (or shortly going to be) there's no need to fill out another one and the FCA2 (amendment form) is more suitable in these specific circumstances.

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

These were four or five hundred forms the FO had checked off and sent to the district office and they all came back for uniform changes across the board.

I forgot to put down referees or ticked the box to say I was not mental:(. I wanted Local GS to fill out with me but they were no help, just gave me forms and sent me on my way.
I filled them out as best i coul (7 hours writing up cover letters etc, Getting Doctors phone number and range Pulse No's,Deer licence,Range membership card photocopy, and of course €6 for pics).
I suppose they will wait for me to call back again to reject them? I was in local station and main station at least 7 times to no avail!

And I could lose my 40cal over this! Do I start to cry now or later??