Laser Rangefinding scope

Cass

telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device,

Seems to cover laser, night vision or infa red devices only when mounted to the firearm, not when used in conjunction with a firearm.

Are you telling me I can never own that CD player/microwave combo gun from Beverly Hills Cop III

It Serge not Surge, it sounds like a detergent

Sparks

Agreed ezri - there's never really been any issue made of laser rangefinders or NV goggles, it's always been stuff that clamps to a rifle that came under the act.

Sparks

kowloon wrote: »

Are you telling me I can never own that CD player/microwave combo gun from Beverly Hills Cop III? :eek:

Nope Which is sad, because it makes it harder to reheat soup at a distance while listening to music

kowloon

Sparks wrote: »

Nope Which is sad, because it makes it harder to reheat soup at a distance while listening to music

I can deal with waiting a year for a shotgun, I can do without a semiauto, I understand why the rifle can't be black or have a threatening shape, but it gets cold in the winter mornings; how can I be expected to take to the field without my oxtail? The extension lead isn't long enough on my George Foreman grill and that beercan-holder stock from the picture thread isn't large enough to accommodate a pot noodle. :mad:

Sparks

I know. It's a trial.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

The DoJ advised the IAA (the airsoft NGB) that it wasn't an issue if strapped to an airsoft as they're not firearms. If you had laser grips for your CF pistol though, I reckon you'd hear a different take on things.

As far as I know, the sights that are used on airsofts are 'red dot' rather than laser sights and they are not a 'light beam' sight whatever about the yoke they're fixed to.

rrpc, if you strapped a cd player to your firearm, it wouldn't be designed to work with the firearm so it wouldn't be a component part - you'd really have to have p'd someone off to get that kind of case taken against you. But a laser rangefinding scope is pretty much the solid incarnation of what the legislation says in part (g) of the definition. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole without something in writing from my local Super, it's just not worth the hassle.

It says 'designed to be fitted' not designed to work, so if your CD player has mountings that fit to a picatinny rail then it's designed to be fitted and is a firearm by your strict definition.

Not mine mind

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

The DoJ advised the IAA (the airsoft NGB) that it wasn't an issue if strapped to an airsoft as they're not firearms. If you had laser grips for your CF pistol though, I reckon you'd hear a different take on things.

rrpc, if you strapped a cd player to your firearm, it wouldn't be designed to work with the firearm so it wouldn't be a component part - you'd really have to have p'd someone off to get that kind of case taken against you. But a laser rangefinding scope is pretty much the solid incarnation of what the legislation says in part (g) of the definition. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole without something in writing from my local Super, it's just not worth the hassle.

Could you elaborate on strapped, and who made this contradictory statement? A statement like this flies in the face of the law.

What we need is some clarity on this issue! This law was IMO original targeted at criminals who were stashing guns by breaking them down in to parts ETC ETC.

IMO the this law was never designed to target legitimate law abiding shooter (that my opinion) but there was never any distinction made between them and criminals in the statute:mad:, .
Even if the government's original intention was to control the use these items (covered under section (g)) by legitimate shooters i believe that the inclusion of Distance measuring devices is only caused by a lack of proper definition.
If one was to take the law at face value then one would also require similar licencing to that that of a NV scope to be applied to a simple torch:P
This could be extended to a single 1" scope mount ffs its bloody ridiculous.

Others here have spoke about the issue of seeking written permission by the local Super for the use of such items as NV and Light beams:rolleyes: because the are covered in the same section as silencers! But are you then also then going to seek the same written permission for a 1" scope mount!!! Don't make me laugh!

A statement on www.justice.ie ,similar to the one which was recently removed, would help to put a lot of this over kill issue to bed.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

As far as I know, the sights that are used on airsofts are 'red dot' rather than laser sights and they are not a 'light beam' sight whatever about the yoke they're fixed to.

It wasn't the red dot sights they were asking the DoJ about, but actual laser sights, built to fit a picatinny rail (though not rated for an actual firearm, whose recoil would make a mess of them very quickly). DoJ said they weren't strapping them to a firearm, so they didn't mind.

It says 'designed to be fitted' not designed to work, so if your CD player has mountings that fit to a picatinny rail then it's designed to be fitted and is a firearm by your strict definition.
Not mine mind

Yup, true enough (never said this stuff was particularly well-written!).
I've not actually seen a CD player with a picatinny rail mounting though - and that mount for the iPhone that clamps to a stoner rifle doesn't count as it's a third party aftermarket adapter, not a part of the original design!

rrpc

It doesn't say who it's designed by either. It might be enough if you designed it to do that.

After all what's the purpose of designing something for a particular task if not to use it for that task?

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Could you elaborate on strapped

Strapped in this case being shorthand for "attached via a dedicated mount to a picatinny rail"

and who made this contradictory statement? A statement like this flies in the face of the law.

You'd have to ask the IAA for the specific person's name; I was only told the response came from the DoJ. Try asking in the airsoft forum.

What we need is some clarity on this issue! This law was IMO original targeted at criminals who were stashing guns by breaking them down in to parts ETC ETC.

And to control the importation of firearms piece by piece.

IMO the this law was never designed to target legitimate law abiding shooter (that my opinion) but there was never any distinction made between them and criminals in the statute:mad:

Legislation doesn't work like that - you can't define a law for a group of citizens who are identified by their non-adherance to that law! (you can define punishments for that group that way, yes, but not the actual law itself - how would you word it, "you're not allowed to do X if you do X"???)

Even if the government's original intention was to control the use these items (covered under section (g)) by legitimate shooters i believe that the inclusion of Distance measuring devices is only caused by a lack of proper definition.

Nobody said that the law was well written... and most of us have said the opposite, many of us to people in the DoJ and Gardai.

If one was to take the law at face value then one would also require similar licencing to that that of a NV scope to be applied to a simple torch:P

Under the letter of the law, yes, you would. Or to an M4 hex bolt, which is a component part of a firearm, only missing the action, barrel, bolt, sights and trigger (and that's been pointed out to the DoJ before now).
Fact is, the Act is really badly written in parts. We all know that. But we're not going to get it fixed in the next few years, there's no political will to do that. So we have to figure out the best way to work within it, and if some parts can't be worked with, what parts they are and what way is the easiest to fix them, and push for that.
Simply ignoring the law where it's daft is how we got here - so poking fun at it is amusing, but not really productive.

Others here have spoke about the issue of seeking written permission by the local Super for the use of such items as NV and Light beams:rolleyes: because the are covered in the same section as silencers! But are you then also then going to seek the same written permission for a 1" scope mount!!! Don't make me laugh!

Hey, if you think "don't make me laugh" counts as a legal argument, go right ahead and test that theory. Just give the rest of us a few minutes to step back a few yards, would you? :rolleyes:

A statement on www.justice.ie ,similar to the one which was recently removed, would help to put a lot of this over kill issue to bed.

A statement similar to the one you and others rightly criticised for being incorrect and not in keeping with the legislation even before that legislation was changed (and which was doubly wrong after the legislation was changed)? I can't see that helping matters. Look at the fuss the Commissioner's Guidelines are causing for anyone going for a pistol licence for pete's sake.

And yes, it would be nice to get this cleared up. But bluntly, there are bigger problems than clarifying whether or not you need an authorisation to use an NV scope (especially when the legislation seems pretty clear on that point). Frankly, I'd happily let that stand for the next few decades if it got us solutions to more difficult problems like pistol licencing, or the OMOL system, or any one of a number of other major issues. You're making Everest from a somewhat underimpressive molehill there Ivan.

chem

Ah sure who needs NV or laser sights, when my new thermal imaging scope will do the trick:D

No beam, no electronic light amplification device or an infra-red. All only at the cost of a small home in south Dublin:D;)

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

It doesn't say who it's designed by either. It might be enough if you designed it to do that.
After all what's the purpose of designing something for a particular task if not to use it for that task?

Tell that to the guys who wrote the Microsoft EULA so that you couldn't control a nuclear power plant with Microsoft Windows (and thank them from me while you're at it ).
Either way, I think you'd have to have the fine detail of the specific case aired in front of a judge to get a definitive answer about the iPhone. The transcripts would be entertaining reading, methinks

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Ah sure who needs NV or laser sights, when my new thermal imaging scope will do the trick:D
No beam, no electronic light amplification device or an infra-red. All only at the cost of a small home in south Dublin:D;)

Erm, chem... how exactly do you do thermal imaging without infrared? That'd be sortof like having a rifle without rifling...

kowloon

Do iPhones have a vibrate setting? :eek:

Sparks

kowloon wrote: »

Do iPhones have a vibrate setting? :eek:

Hmmm. You thinking about an auto-aim app?

if (!onTarget) {
    vibrateBarrelLeft();
}

chem

Sparks wrote: »

Erm, chem... how exactly do you do thermal imaging without infrared? .

Bloody engineers!! Alway coming up with reasons why physics wont allow it:mad:

Yiz will all be eating your word, when I build my perpetual motion machine:D

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Fact is, the Act is really badly written in parts. We all know that. But we're not going to get it fixed in the next few years, there's no political will to do that. So we have to figure out the best way to work within it, and if some parts can't be worked with, what parts they are and what way is the easiest to fix them, and push for that.

It's always instructive to actually have a go at rewriting the bit of law that annoys you because it's 'badly written' and try and keep the original intention intact.

It's a lot more difficult than it seems. It's easy to see the problem, fixing it without bringing the structure down is a lot more difficult.

In fact we should always try and do it within our criticism so that we get a feeling for the problem and a better understanding of what the solution should be.

Sparks

The thing is rrpc, my rewriting of g(i) and g(ii) would be to drop them completely and leave (g) looking like this:

“firearm” means—
...
(g) except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs without which said article would not be capable of discharging its projectile

In other words, I'd drop the requirement to licence any form of sight or silencer. There's little point to it in the firearms act at all. As Ivan pointed out, you still need a licence under the wildlife act to use them when hunting game, and frankly if you want to show up to the range with an NV scope during the day and shoot, well, that's grand, I could use a good laugh

And I take the view that silencers are just being polite when shooting fullbore, not to mention a health-and-safety measure.

And I don't think it should be any component part - personally I say use the US system where the receiver is the actual firearm and everything else is a spare part. Control the receiver and the rest will follow (obviously it's not the receiver in the case of pistols and shotguns, but the general theory seems sound enough to me).

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

The thing is rrpc, my rewriting of g(i) and g(ii) would be to drop them completely and leave (g) looking like this:

In other words, I'd drop the requirement to licence any form of sight or silencer. There's little point to it in the firearms act at all. As Ivan pointed out, you still need a licence under the wildlife act to use them when hunting game, and frankly if you want to show up to the range with an NV scope during the day and shoot, well, that's grand, I could use a good laugh

And I take the view that silencers are just being polite when shooting fullbore, not to mention a health-and-safety measure.

Except you see the firearms acts as purely there to regulate us when in fact it's there to regulate all firearms and their use.

So if your average crim can walk into a shop and buy NV and moderators, we should say: "good luck with that, nice to see the criminal classes are concerned with health & safety issues"

Except of course it would only be their health and safety

Sparks

Actually, I've no problem with that because right now we have that in quite a few parts of the country where some dealers have "not lost sleep over paperwork details" and sold moderators that they shouldn't have. And you can buy NV gear over the counter legally anyway. And frankly, I'm more worried about a criminal having a firearm than I am about the silencer or the laser sights or the night vision kit.

ivanthehunter

Sparks- I never said that the Wildlife laws require a licence to use NV scopes for hunting.
The wildlife act prohibits the use of NV gear on Protected animals and birds, basically they mean 'no shooting of deer or hares or fowl with NV scopes lads!'.
The wildlife act offers no protection to foxes or rats or rabbits or any unprotected birds!! So as such they are fair game when using NV scopes or lasers or IR devices AFAIK .


mean while in a different Galaxy!

The law could have easily been wrote to provide exclusion to g(iii) for the holders of current licences as long as such parts where considered suitable for their particular firearm. And TBH g(ii) should as so be excluded to the same as above.

G(i) has it own licencing system thats set out in the statute, under sale and possession of silencers so as such it could not be included in any such exclusion.

How difficult would it have been to provide such an exclusion clause within the main sub paragraph heading?????? ffs stand back while i start to laugh.
Whats this about it possibly taking 3 years before this issue receives the attention it requires.
You know none of us are getting any younger!!! Whats their plan? fob us off until we die!!! ffs these are only small issues. If they can pull magic SI restricted lists out of their hats at the drop of a hat then why can't this issue be sorted sooner?

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Sparks- I never said that the Wildlife laws require a licence to use NV scopes for hunting.
The wildlife act prohibits the use of NV gear on Protected animals and birds, basically they mean 'no shooting of deer or hares or fowl with NV scopes lads!'.

Keep reading. There's a clause at the end that says "without a licence"...

So as such they are fair game when using NV scopes or lasers or IR devices AFAIK

But you still need a licence for them; and as you pointed out, unless you're hunting on a shooting range, you can't get an authorisation, it has to be an actual licence...

The law could have easily been

...but it wasn't.

Whats this about it possibly taking 3 years before this issue receives the attention it requires.

Not 3, just 'several'. Until a change of government, basicly.

You know none of us are getting any younger!!! Whats their plan? fob us off until we die!!! ffs these are only small issues. If they can pull magic SI restricted lists out of their hats at the drop of a hat then why can't this issue be sorted sooner?

Because the Minister can issue an SI in a heartbeat, but the Dail must ratify a change to the Act. That's rather a basic principle Ivan.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, I've no problem with that because right now we have that in quite a few parts of the country where some dealers have "not lost sleep over paperwork details" and sold moderators that they shouldn't have. And you can buy NV gear over the counter legally anyway. And frankly, I'm more worried about a criminal having a firearm than I am about the silencer or the laser sights or the night vision kit.

You've no problem because other people who should know better have been breaking the law and what's another breach?

I think you'd be more worried if you were a member of the Gardai to be honest. Your capacity for worry is directly proportional to your likelihood of being in any danger :rolleyes:

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

You've no problem because other people who should know better have been breaking the law and what's another breach?

No, I would have no problem in dropping a measure which provides only a false sense of security.

Besides, it's the firearm that's the concern. The silencer is just a small, ineffective club without it, and with it, the silencer is just superfluous if it's pointed in your direction and irrelevant if pointed somewhere else.

Your capacity for worry is directly proportional to your likelihood of being in any danger :rolleyes:

Yeah, you've seen my new address rrpc, you ought to know I've worries enough!

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

No, I would have no problem in dropping a measure which provides only a false sense of security.

Well if you don't have a firearm (legally) and you do have a moderator, there is a conclusion that can be drawn about why you may have it. It's not the unit itself per se, but the implication of possessing it.

Besides, it's the firearm that's the concern. The silencer is just a small, ineffective club without it, and with it, the silencer is just superfluous if it's pointed in your direction and irrelevant if pointed somewhere else.

Would you take the same view with regard to the possession of ammunition? After all, it's just a handful of ineffective missiles without a firearm to put it in.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Well if you don't have a firearm (legally) and you do have a moderator, there is a conclusion that can be drawn about why you may have it. It's not the unit itself per se, but the implication of possessing it.

Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 gave more than sufficient power to the Gardai to deal with that, or for that matter, any object found on a person the Gardai felt was going to be used in a crime. g(i) and g(ii) are basicly superflous to begin with as a result.

Would you take the same view with regard to the possession of ammunition? After all, it's just a handful of ineffective missiles without a firearm to put it in.

I think we both know the current law's not so hot in this area
(Folks getting arrested for possession of ammunition without a licence because they had empty brass for stuff they weren't licenced for).

More specificly though; (1) I didn't say anything about ammunition, you brought it in as a fairly unrelated point; (2) I don't mind it being controlled, though I wish they'd stop classifying the inert lead in my air pellets as "ammunition" while the guy beside me with the fishing weights gets to do whatever he wants with them...

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 gave more than sufficient power to the Gardai to deal with that, or for that matter, any object found on a person the Gardai felt was going to be used in a crime. g(i) and g(ii) are basicly superflous to begin with as a result.

Well it is the F&OWA 1990. So effectively you now have a problem with two pieces of legislation.

Edit: and without the definition of a moderator as a firearm, the F&OWA does not allow any object be sufficient, it has to be any object capable of causing injury, incapacitating or intimidating a person.

I think we both know the current law's not so hot in this area
(Folks getting arrested for possession of ammunition without a licence because they had empty brass for stuff they weren't licenced for).

One case does not make bad law especially as that case was thrown out of court.

More specificly though; (1) I didn't say anything about ammunition, you brought it in as a fairly unrelated point;

Not unrelated at all. We're talking about items that are designed to be used with firearms and nothing else; the possession of which is considered a criminal offence if you don't have the correct paperwork. Ammunition falls under that heading, regardless of what the law considers to be ammunition (and that's really another argument).

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Well it is the F&OWA 1990. So effectively you now have a problem with two pieces of legislation.

Except that you don't. The F&OWA gave the Gardai powers of arrest when they suspect an item is going to be used in a crime; the Firearms Acts prohibit possession of specific items in order to try to prevent them being used in a crime regardless of whether or not there's been a crime or whether or not there is a suspicion a crime is about to be committed. Those are two very different forms of legislation; the former has a control element (namely the judgement of the Garda on the scene) that the latter does not have.

And the F&OWA doesn't ban anything (at least, not the part we're talking about). It just says that if the Garda thinks you're about to use an item for a crime, he can arrest you. It doesn't make the item illegal to possess without a licence the way the firearms act does.

There's also the minor point that the penalties for possession of an unlicenced firearm (or component part) are much smaller than those for using those firearms or parts, and given how most criminals would use them, one of them being charged with possession is really a best case scenario (and again, one the F&OWA gives the necessary powers of arrest for). I've not reviewed every case, but I don't recall the DPP ever pursuing possession charges when someone shot someone else in a drug gang feud - they focussed on murder/manslaughter charges and the tools used seem generally forgotten. Which is ironic for us as sportspeople in a way.

One case does not make bad law especially as that case was thrown out of court.

Out of a district court, meaning no legal precedent was set against it. I agree, the judge would probably consider it timewasting if it came up again; but could you pay the fees to get in front of a judge?

Not unrelated at all.

I disagree - it's completely unrelated - we're not talking about items designed to be used with firearms, we're talking about part (g) of the definition of a firearm in Section One of the Firearms Act. If you let the focus go whereever it wanted to rrpc, we could find arguments for and against anything on the planet from firearms to hippos.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Except that you don't. The F&OWA gave the Gardai powers of arrest when they suspect an item is going to be used in a crime; the Firearms Acts prohibit possession of specific items in order to try to prevent them being used in a crime regardless of whether or not there's been a crime or whether or not there is a suspicion a crime is about to be committed. Those are two very different forms of legislation; the former has a control element (namely the judgement of the Garda on the scene) that the latter does not have.

You misunderstand. The F&OWA introduced the sections to the Firearms Act we're talking about including the stuff on silencers and how they are authorised. And it's not as broad as 'crime' it's more specific to offences against the person. And it's not a judgment call by the Garda, the very possession of the article without reasonable excuse is enough for a conviction.

And the F&OWA doesn't ban anything (at least, not the part we're talking about). It just says that if the Garda thinks you're about to use an item for a crime, he can arrest you. It doesn't make the item illegal to possess without a licence the way the firearms act does.

I beg to differ:

it [the court or jury] may regard possession of the article as sufficient evidence of intent in the absence of any adequate explanation by the accused.

they focussed on murder/manslaughter charges and the tools used seem generally forgotten. Which is ironic for us as sportspeople in a way.

But in the absence of evidence of other crimes the DPP does pursue possession charges.

I disagree - it's completely unrelated - we're not talking about items designed to be used with firearms, we're talking about part (g) of the definition of a firearm in Section One of the Firearms Act. If you let the focus go whereever it wanted to rrpc, we could find arguments for and against anything on the planet from firearms to hippos.

The focus hasn't gone wherever, it's stayed strictly within the firearms code, in fact we're still within section 1 of the firearms acts and there are no hippos there.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

You misunderstand.

No, I don't. I'm just not talking about the parts of the Act you're talking about. I'm saying that the sections of the F&OWA that gave the powers of arrest to the Gardai are a better solution than the classifying of NV scopes and moderators as firearms as done in section one of the Firearms Acts.

And it's not as broad as 'crime' it's more specific to offences against the person. And it's not a judgment call by the Garda, the very possession of the article without reasonable excuse is enough for a conviction.

Firstly, I'm not really worried about offences against things other than the person when it comes to firearms. It's people shooting people that worry me there. Fix that, and the rest we can handle later on.
Secondly, it manifestly is a judgement call by the Garda, because the Garda has to judge whether or not to charge the person under the F&OWA and arrest them.

I beg to differ:

That isn't saying the item is illegal to possess. It's saying that the defendant must prove to the court that the Garda was wrong about the defendant's intent (rather than the usual innocent-until-proven-guilty onus on the DPP). In fact the F&OWA can be used on completely legal items. For example, if a Garda sees you walking along with a broken bottle in your hand, he can arrest you under the act because he thinks you're about to attack someone with it - but there's no law that makes a broken bottle illegal to possess.

But in the absence of evidence of other crimes the DPP does pursue possession charges.

In the absence of evidence, yes; but possession of an item with intent to commit a crime is what you have when you catch some kid running round east wall with a few loaded mags and a silencer. And that's the F&OWA.

The focus hasn't gone wherever, it's stayed strictly within the firearms code, in fact we're still within section 1 of the firearms acts and there are no hippos there.

Nope, you're looking at areas outside of part (g) of the definition of the word "firearm" in section one of the act which is the bit you said we shouldn't criticise without rewriting.

If you're going to criticise the rewrites, you shouldn't be doing it destructively y'know. The specific question was; can you rewrite the firearms act definition of "firearm" so it doesn't include moderators and sights without doing more harm than good. So far I've seen no argument against just dropping them out of the definition that stands up to the real world very well.