Laser Rangefinding scope

ivanthehunter

Hay less of the East wall bashing!!

And yes drop'em where they stand!;)

Also in relation to hunting with NV, yes you are correct to say that deer and such can be hunted with NV but again its under a licence granted my the minister! but this type of exception to the law via a special licence exists for any from of hunting although this section has the exemption contained within! No big deal there.

But just the emphasize that fact that no licence is required to hunt unprotected animals with NV scopes etc etc, such as rabbit, rats, fox, mink or any unprotected birds!

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

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.

I took ammunition as an example of something that is relatively harmless in its own right until it's used with a firearm. Lead pellets for airguns being a prime example of this. Anyway, I digress.

I don't see how the F&OWA replaces the need to make a silencer a firearm. Most of the act is concerned with items such as knives that can injure or incapacitate. The Act states this:

Where a person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the onus of proving which shall lie on him), has with him in any public place any
(a) flick-knife, or
(b) any other article whatsoever made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, shall be guilty of an offence

Now I can't see how you can use a silencer as an offensive weapon in its own right to satisfy the act or any of the sections of it. My parker hale weighs about 150gr or so and really wouldn't be something I'd rely on in an attempt to injure, incapacitate or intimidate anyone. To intimate that it's an offensive weapon because it will be as soon as it's attached to a gun is effectively saying that the handle of a knife is also an offensive weapon because it could later have a blade attached.

If you can legally buy a silencer over the counter (as you could before 1990), then there would be no offence committed or likely to be committed by a person carrying one, even though they did not own a licensed firearm nor had any good reason for it, because it's not an offensive weapon in its own right.

In addition, the penalties under the F&OWA do not exceed those under the Firearms Act and are lower where they differ.

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

But just the emphasize that fact that no licence is required to hunt unprotected animals with NV scopes etc etc, such as rabbit, rats, fox, mink or any unprotected birds!

You don't need a licence to hunt them; but you do need a licence to possess the NV scope. If you have that, there's no issue at all... well. Except for the laughter from the other bunny-whackers when they see you with a .22lr bunny rifle with ten grand of NV scope on top. I mean, do bunnies even come out at night?

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

I don't see how the F&OWA replaces the need to make a silencer a firearm. Most of the act is concerned with items such as knives that can injure or incapacitate. The Act states this:

But the Act states this in the very next paragraph:

(5) Where a person has with him in any public place any article intended by him unlawfully to cause injury to, incapacitate or intimidate any person either in a particular eventuality or otherwise, he shall be guilty of an offence.

And that's the subsection where the onus is on the defendant to prove his innocence in court (as outlined in subsection 6):

(6) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (5), it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to allege or prove that the intent to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate was intent to cause injury to, incapacitate or intimidate a particular person; and if, having regard to all the circumstances (including the type of the article alleged to have been intended to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate, the time of the day or night, and the place), the court (or the jury as the case may be) thinks it reasonable to do so, it may regard possession of the article as sufficient evidence of intent in the absence of any adequate explanation by the accused.

Now I can't see how you can use a silencer as an offensive weapon in its own right to satisfy the act or any of the sections of it.

I walk up to you in the street and show you a silencer and tell you in a threatening tone "you'll never hear it coming".
That's an offence under subsection 5 and now we're off to the races.

My parker hale weighs about 150gr or so and really wouldn't be something I'd rely on in an attempt to injure, incapacitate or intimidate anyone.

Well, leaving intimidate aside, you could have someone's eye out with that

If you can legally buy a silencer over the counter (as you could before 1990), then there would be no offence committed or likely to be committed by a person carrying one, even though they did not own a licensed firearm nor had any good reason for it, because it's not an offensive weapon in its own right.

And I've zero problem with that, because if they ever try to use it as a weapon or to intimidate someone with it, they're breaking several other laws that have rather pointy teeth.
The firearms act is a poor third behind assault and other offences against the person charges really. It's past redundant.

In addition, the penalties under the F&OWA do not exceed those under the Firearms Act and are lower where they differ

I'm not so sure, especially in the specific case we're discussing - namely unlicenced possession of a sound moderator. If you're caught with a silencer without a licence/authorisation and you're charged, and you don't plead guilty and are found guilty (which is where both have the higher penalties), you get "a fine not exceeding €10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both".

If you are charged under the F&OWA and the same circumstances apply, you get "a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both". Same prison sentence, no upper limit specified on the fine (you could argue it should be €1,000 but since the act is now 19 years old, I think the judge might disagree).

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I walk up to you in the street and show you a silencer and tell you in a threatening tone "you'll never hear it coming".
That's an offence under subsection 5 and now we're off to the races.

I can see how that would go alright

Sparks: "You'll never hear it coming"
Me: [looking around wildly] "what do you mean?"
Sparks: [gesticulates with cylindrical object] "This" (menacingly)
Me: "What's that?, some sort of instrument?"
Sparks: "No you fool it's a silencer" (the intimidatory tone is slipping a bit here).
Me: "What do you do, stick it in your mouth or something?"
Sparks: "No, no it's for a gun you fool, it's a silencer"
Me: "Well I'd be more impressed if you showed me the gun, that looks more like something that fell off your car, p1ss off and stop annoying me"

Well, leaving intimidate aside, you could have someone's eye out with that

A biro would be more useful, or a pencil. Producing a metal cylinder in the hope that it would intimidate someone, well...

The point of all this, is that you actually have to be using it to injure or intimidate someone which if you have it in your pocket and are searched and it's found, you plainly are not. Having a knife or a gun in your pocket is a different matter, because they are weapons in their own right.

The firearms act is a poor third behind assault and other offences against the person charges really. It's past redundant.

Not really as the F&OWA defines what are considered weapons in the knives and pointy stuff department, the firearms act relates to firearms stuff which is where it rightfully belongs.

The firearms act isn't designed or drafted specifically to regulate us you know.

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

You don't need a licence to hunt them; but you do need a licence to possess the NV scope. If you have that, there's no issue at all... well. Except for the laughter from the other bunny-whackers when they see you with a .22lr bunny rifle with ten grand of NV scope on top. I mean, do bunnies even come out at night?

Well for 700 euro you can buy a gen1 add-on! they are only as good as the illumination device that you use! 350 euro will buy a top of the range IR laser.
But it all boils down to the scope you use! Too much glass and your at nothing.
So for around 1000euro you have a reasonable set up but TBH you be better of to buy a NV add-on for around 1700-2800 and you have a gen3 for that! With the right scope and illumination you'd see eye shine out to 300m from foxes and body shape at 200m.
Now i fail to see you point of view that might allow other to laugh at such equipment especially when some here have spent large amounts of cash on guns and modification to them! Sure a new remmy 700 is around 1400euro here and some top of the range day scopes are around 1500-2500!



Oh and rabbits come out at night!!! more than they do during the day!!:rolleyes:

Sparks

Seriously Ivan, if you need a grand's worth of NV scope to whack a bunny at 50 yards, maybe you should spend the grand on ammunition and training time?

johngalway

Sparks wrote: »

I mean, do bunnies even come out at night?

Tell me you're kidding

Had the opportunity to look through some rather good NV add on gear once upon a time. If you're in the business of keeping bunny numbers down, or eliminating problem foxes from game areas then they may be worth the investment. If it's for recreational use, then probably not. It's certainly different though, the animals don't realise you're there, but, they can get laser shy, just like lamp shy.

Sparks

johngalway wrote: »

Tell me you're kidding

Yes I'm kidding, I've tripped over one or two at night (just because I don't shoot them doesn't mean I don't know what they are )

I still can't see NV scopes being worth it for bunny shooting over here to be honest.

IRLConor

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.

There's absolutely no good reason to restrict the sale of moderators to people who already have a firearm. The implication of your statement above is that the current state of affairs is designed to catch criminals who a) have an unlicensed firearm and b) would go to an RFD to buy a mod for their unlicensed firearm. A criminal that dumb could be caught by a Garda saying "show us yer gun".

If the DoJ/Gardai really just wanted to catch out that mythical criminal then they just need to restrict the possession/use of a moderator to those who have a firearms certificate for a firearm capable of using it. Turn up, wave your cert, walk out of the shop with a mod. No need to make it more complicated than that.

The legislation and the commentary in the Commissioner's Guidelines imply that the Gardai/DoJ believe that "silencers" :rolleyes: pose a quantifiable risk to the public. I believe that it's that lack of understanding which caused them to regulate moderators so tightly and not some contrived idea that they would catch people with unlicensed firearms when they turned up to buy a mod.

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

There's absolutely no good reason to restrict the sale of moderators to people who already have a firearm. The implication of your statement above is that the current state of affairs is designed to catch criminals who a) have an unlicensed firearm and b) would go to an RFD to buy a mod for their unlicensed firearm. A criminal that dumb could be caught by a Garda saying "show us yer gun".

It's actually funny how law abiding people think in such law abiding straight lines. .

Nobody's suggesting that criminals would walk into a gun shop and buy a moderator, the point is as long as their sale was unrestricted, they could have one in their possession without falling foul of the law. Once you've decided that you're going to restrict the sale of these things, then yes, there were a number of options open; one being as you suggest: the waving of a piece of paper at an RFD and walking away happily.

However, that wouldn't stop a 'black market' developing where a licensed individual could buy these up and sell them on without any controls. Even were dealers to record all sales (and that's not a given) there wasn't (and probably still isn't) any way to correlate the data to the point that someone shows up as having dozens of the yokes.

I don't know if your scenario included considering them firearms as they are now, but unless they were, there'd be no offence for being in possession of one without some piece of paper or other, "you'll never hear it coming" notwithstanding.

Finally, give the Gardai the option of having information or not having information and you'll always get the same response.

I know we call them moderators and the law calls them silencers, but before the law was passed in 1990, we called them silencers too. The use of the word 'moderator' was a vain attempt to circumvent the law by using a different name and arguing that they didn't eliminate all the noise and therefore weren't 'silencers' :rolleyes:

Sparks

Pffft. I can't accept that argument rrpc. It's arguing that the Gardai should be lazy. If you catch some drug dealer with a silencer, and you know he's got no firearms cert, then it's the F&OWA and off to court and a Garda has to put his name out there and say "I think he's up to no good". Not this current "I don't want to make a fuss you honour, but he's not really allowed to have that you see" malarky we have now.

And if the Garda can't make the case? Well, tough. No-one said their job was easy, in fact it's pretty much defined as being difficult because otherwise, we might as well issue them with jackboots and forget about what we write down as law anyway.

The simple fact is, the law as written isn't practical. It's ignored by many firearms dealers (we've seen incidents recounted on here time and again). And criminals don't even tend to use NV scopes or silencers in the first place.

ps. you can't rubbish the idea of threatening someone with a silencer (thereby breaching the F&OWA) and argue that it's a threat for someone to have a silencer. It makes no sense. Either it's a threat or it's not.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Pffft. I can't accept that argument rrpc. It's arguing that the Gardai should be lazy. If you catch some drug dealer with a silencer, and you know he's got no firearms cert, then it's the F&OWA and off to court and a Garda has to put his name out there and say "I think he's up to no good". Not this current "I don't want to make a fuss you honour, but he's not really allowed to have that you see" malarky we have now.

I've heard that argument from you many times and it's not a very good one either. You suggest that it's laziness when it could equally be argued that it makes a grey area more black & white. There's absolutely no guarantee that a judge is going to see the possession of a metal tube with a threaded bit at one end as being in any way a breach of the F&OWA, and since we're both agreed that they shouldn't have them, it's only a matter of degree as to which way you control that.

And if the Garda can't make the case? Well, tough. No-one said their job was easy, in fact it's pretty much defined as being difficult because otherwise, we might as well issue them with jackboots and forget about what we write down as law anyway.

You're straying into Godwin's law here. I cannot see any causal link between defining silencers as firearms and fascist tyranny.

The simple fact is, the law as written isn't practical. It's ignored by many firearms dealers (we've seen incidents recounted on here time and again). And criminals don't even tend to use NV scopes or silencers in the first place.

If we scrapped every law because people aren't observing them, I doubt we'd have very many left. But it would certainly be a very popular move. Smokers and drink drivers would be the first to congratulate you on your legislative innovation :rolleyes:

As for whether criminals use them or not, how do you know? Do you even know what prompted the introduction of the 1990 act? The addition of NV and silencers to the definition of a firearm was introduced as an enabling measure to allow Ireland adopt the Council of Europe Convention on the Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Firearms by Individuals.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

I've heard that argument from you many times and it's not a very good one either. You suggest that it's laziness when it could equally be argued that it makes a grey area more black & white. There's absolutely no guarantee that a judge is going to see the possession of a metal tube with a threaded bit at one end as being in any way a breach of the F&OWA

Only if the fact of possession is presented without context; which legally cannot happen in a case where the accused is charged under the F&OWA (section 9(5)) since it's the very context that forms the offence in the first place.

In other words, the judge is never going to be asked to see possession of a metal tube with a threaded bit at one end as being an offence; he's going to be asked to judge whether or not the defendant has a good reason to have a silencer for a pistol given his past criminal record and the opinion of the arresting officer. That's just how the F&OWA works.

The only advantage the Firearms Act prohibition on the unlicenced ownership of silencers gives is that the arresting Garda doesn't have to make his case; and without that context, it's easier to plead that it was just a paperwork issue and the intent to licence was there, but the offender was just a wee bit foolish, just like several posters in here who've confessed online to owning unlicenced moderators and who've told the same story to their local gardai.

You're straying into Godwin's law here. I cannot see any causal link between defining silencers as firearms and fascist tyranny.

That's a mighty strawman you have there rrpc, because (a) I went nowhere near Godwin and (b) the link was between writing the law so it's easier on the police force (as opposed to being written to protect the public) and any form of tyrrany (and frankly, there are several people in Ireland, from Donegal to the Corrib, who'd take issue with the notion that the Gardai don't enjoy an enormous amount of latitude already and who'd argue that they need less, not more).

If we scrapped every law because people aren't observing them, I doubt we'd have very many left.

And we don't. Compared to the body of law we've written since the early 1300s, the body of law we have today is tiny.

But it would certainly be a very popular move. Smokers and drink drivers would be the first to congratulate you on your legislative innovation :rolleyes:

Smokers and drunk drivers use silencers and NV scopes? :eek: :rolleyes:

As for whether criminals use them or not, how do you know?

Because they're not very concealable, don't provide intimidation during the shooting, and you never hear of them being used in Garda reports. If you've seen reports that say that most shootings by drug gangs use silencers, sing out...

Do you even know what prompted the introduction of the 1990 act? The addition of NV and silencers to the definition of a firearm was introduced as an enabling measure to allow Ireland adopt the Council of Europe Convention on the Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Firearms by Individuals.

That's a cop-out. From Appendix two of that convention:

Appendix II

Any State may declare that it reserves the right:

1. not to apply Chapter II of this Convention in respect of any one or more of the objects comprised in sub-paragraphs i to n inclusive of paragraph 1 or in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 of Appendix I to this Convention;
2. not to apply Chapter III of this Convention;
3. not to apply Chapter III of this Convention in respect of any one or more of the objects comprised in sub-paragraphs i to n inclusive of paragraph 1 or in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 of Appendix I to this Convention;
4. not to apply Chapter III of this Convention to transactions between dealers resident in the territories of two Contracting Parties.

Paragraph 5 being where the silencer definition as a firearm is located.

In other words, we didn't have to do this, it's just an excuse.
Besides, as VRT will demonstrate, we don't do everything the EU directs, let alone suggests.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

In other words, the judge is never going to be asked to see possession of a metal tube with a threaded bit at one end as being an offence; he's going to be asked to judge whether or not the defendant has a good reason to have a silencer for a pistol given his past criminal record and the opinion of the arresting officer. That's just how the F&OWA works.

It says 'without reasonable excuse'. You have something in your possession that isn't a firearm , isn't on restricted sale and you say you picked it up somewhere, you bought it as a present for a friend or any number of 'reasonable' excuses and you're off the hook.

That's a mighty strawman you have there rrpc, because (a) I went nowhere near Godwin and (b) the link was between writing the law so it's easier on the police force (as opposed to being written to protect the public) and any form of tyrrany (and frankly, there are several people in Ireland, from Donegal to the Corrib, who'd take issue with the notion that the Gardai don't enjoy an enormous amount of latitude already and who'd argue that they need less, not more).

Mention of jackboots is one step removed from the most famous wearers of said jackboots. It's still an emotional argument to intimate a causal link between the two.

That's a cop-out. From Appendix two of that convention:

Paragraph 5 being where the silencer definition as a firearm is located.

In other words, we didn't have to do this, it's just an excuse.
Besides, as VRT will demonstrate, we don't do everything the EU directs, let alone suggests.

VRT is always brought up as some sort of example of us thumbing our noses to the EU. In actual fact, it is quite legal, is used by many other EU states and the thing that we were made stop was imposing excise duty on imported vehicles, which we did.

And no we don't tend to cherry pick from EU legislation unless we already have our own version here.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

It says 'without reasonable excuse'.

Yes, it says that, and I said that:

he's going to be asked to judge whether or not the defendant has a good reason to have a silencer for a pistol given his past criminal record and the opinion of the arresting officer.

The onus is on the defendant, not the DPP (section 9(6) of the F&OWA).

You have something in your possession that isn't a firearm , isn't on restricted sale and you say you picked it up somewhere, you bought it as a present for a friend or any number of 'reasonable' excuses and you're off the hook.

That's down to the judge and the gardai. If some known drug dealer can walk into court and say he'd bought it for a present for someone, and the judge accepts that, then what's the point of any of this? You cannot legislate around the judge. That's why they resist mandatory sentencing so strongly.

Mention of jackboots is one step removed from the most famous wearers of said jackboots.

Barberella? Frankie Dettori? Not all of us were around for the Spanish Civil War y'know...

It's still an emotional argument to intimate a causal link between the two.

And it's still a strawman to duck the argument and try to say that my point is invalid because it doesn't hold up when applied outside it's context. A fish isn't able to survive exposure to vacuum either, but that doesn't make it a "bad" fish...

And no we don't tend to cherry pick from EU legislation unless we already have our own version here.

Really?
Where's our class A, B, C and D firearms then, along with their standards of licencing (like not needing any licences or only needing to inform the DoJ that we've bought something after we've done so)? Why do we have a 1 joule limit for firearms instead of a 7 joule limit like most of the EU, or a higher limit like the remainder of the EU? Why don't we accept the europass as the sole document needed by an EU citizen coming here with his or her firearm?

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

That's down to the judge and the gardai. If some known drug dealer can walk into court and say he'd bought it for a present for someone, and the judge accepts that, then what's the point of any of this? You cannot legislate around the judge. That's why they resist mandatory sentencing so strongly.

And yet we have them getting taxi licences and having Judges uphold those licences when appealed in court.

Barberella? Frankie Dettori? Not all of us were around for the Spanish Civil War y'know...

Context Sparks, context

And it's still a strawman to duck the argument and try to say that my point is invalid because it doesn't hold up when applied outside it's context.

It was far more than 'just' outside its context, it was a huge leap in reasoning that if accepted could be applied to any legal mechanism.

Really?
Where's our class A, B, C and D firearms then, along with their standards of licencing (like not needing any licences or only needing to inform the DoJ that we've bought something after we've done so)? Why do we have a 1 joule limit for firearms instead of a 7 joule limit like most of the EU, or a higher limit like the remainder of the EU? Why don't we accept the europass as the sole document needed by an EU citizen coming here with his or her firearm?

Which is it Sparks, EU law or law in other EU states? And we did accept the europass until the NARGC took a case against it.

Now who's producing strawmen?

IRLConor

rrpc wrote: »

It's actually funny how law abiding people think in such law abiding straight lines. .

Nobody's suggesting that criminals would walk into a gun shop and buy a moderator, the point is as long as their sale was unrestricted, they could have one in their possession without falling foul of the law.

So what? If every gun-toting criminal in the country had a mod on the end of their gun would we be less safe?

Let me explain in a more rigid way.

|Gun|Gun+Cert
No Moderator|Bad|Good
Moderator|Bad|X
Moderator + authorisation|Bad|Good


For me, the laws on moderators are about defining what X is. If moderators were unregulated, X = Good and if they're regulated, X = Bad. Since there's no major advantage to either option the logical step is to make X = Good and turn the whole Moderator issue into a Don't-care.

Now the implication of your earlier statement is that the laws on moderators are to help catch and punish the people in the red highlighted section. That would be a stupid way of catching/punishing them since they're already breaking the law by having an unlicensed firearm. You don't need any more evidence since they're already in breach of the Firearms Act.

Unless of course you're suggesting that it's morally acceptable to consider a moderator as conclusive proof that someone possesses a firearm. If you think that, then why not add spent brass to that list? It's also an inert, harmless, shooting-related object that strongly implies firearm ownership.

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

So what? If every gun-toting criminal in the country had a mod on the end of their gun would we be less safe?

I know the bunnies feel safe right up to the moment I shoot them. Even though I've shot one a few dozen feet off, they still feel safe, up until they get the lead shampoo that is.

On the basis that having a mod might give the criminal a second chance of a shot at me because I didn't hear the first one to the degree that I knew it was a shot and that I should take some sort of evasive action, well yes I would feel less safe.

And I have been at times in the minority of people who may be in danger of such things happening due to the nature of the work of people close to me.

Now the implication of your earlier statement is that the laws on moderators are to help catch and punish the people in the red highlighted section. That would be a stupid way of catching/punishing them since they're already breaking the law by having an unlicensed firearm. You don't need any more evidence since they're already in breach of the Firearms Act.

If you can find the firearm. Things aren't always that convenient.

Unless of course you're suggesting that it's morally acceptable to consider a moderator as conclusive proof that someone possesses a firearm. If you think that, then why not add spent brass to that list? It's also an inert, harmless, shooting-related object that strongly implies firearm ownership.

It already is considered ammunition under the firearms act. I don't have to add it.

Edit: just to remind you that this is an academic exercise as the purpose of that part of the 1990 act was to bring in the Council of Europe Convention on the Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Firearms by Individuals.

And nowhere in the debates on the act did I see anyone protest its introduction.

IRLConor

rrpc wrote: »

I know the bunnies feel safe right up to the moment I shoot them. Even though I've shot one a few dozen feet off, they still feel safe, up until they get the lead shampoo that is.

On the basis that having a mod might give the criminal a second chance of a shot at me because I didn't hear the first one to the degree that I knew it was a shot and that I should take some sort of evasive action, well yes I would feel less safe.

How many criminal uses of firearms would fit that description? You'd have to be shot at from a distance by a criminal who was using a moderator. You're talking about an edge case of an edge case of an edge case. Do an annualized loss expectancy analysis of that and you'll probably find that the government shouldn't even have wasted time thinking about regulating moderators never mind implementing laws about them.

rrpc wrote: »

If you can find the firearm. Things aren't always that convenient.

Boo-hoo. The burden of proof is on the prosecution for a reason. Lessening that burden of proof is a very slippery slope.

If they can't find the firearm, and the firearm is the crucial piece of evidence then they shouldn't have a case against anyone.

rrpc wrote: »

It already is considered ammunition under the firearms act. I don't have to add it.

So you'd fully support prosecuting people for possession of an unlicensed firearm if you found some brass in their pocket?

Remember, we're talking here about what the firearms laws should be, not what they are.

IRLConor

rrpc wrote: »

Edit: just to remind you that this is an academic exercise as the purpose of that part of the 1990 act was to bring in the Council of Europe Convention on the Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Firearms by Individuals.

And as Sparks pointed out, there was no need to include moderators in the legislation so that point is moot.

rrpc wrote: »

And nowhere in the debates on the act did I see anyone protest its introduction.

I might have, if I wasn't 9 at the time!

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

And as Sparks pointed out, there was no need to include moderators in the legislation so that point is moot.

The point being that (a) it was included in the EU legislation and (b) no-one objected to it being included in ours.

Sparks' argument that you could have excluded it, omits the fact that we didn't, no other EU country (except AFAIK France) did either although Austria and Italy banned their sale completely.

At a time when we were one of the few EU countries struggling with terrorism and looking to our neighbours in Europe for help. We of all the countries take a derogation from a piece of law designed to help track the movement of firearms around Europe?

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

How many criminal uses of firearms would fit that description? You'd have to be shot at from a distance by a criminal who was using a moderator. You're talking about an edge case of an edge case of an edge case. Do an annualized loss expectancy analysis of that and you'll probably find that the government shouldn't even have wasted time thinking about regulating moderators never mind implementing laws about them.

You're forgetting the era that this was introduced. Criminals were the least of the Gardai's problems.

Boo-hoo. The burden of proof is on the prosecution for a reason. Lessening that burden of proof is a very slippery slope.

You can't say "use the F&OWA" then as that has an even lower burden of proof. Which Sparks believed should be used instead of the firearms act.

If they can't find the firearm, and the firearm is the crucial piece of evidence then they shouldn't have a case against anyone.

I never said they had to find the firearm, you did. I said the silencer should be enough.

So you'd fully support prosecuting people for possession of an unlicensed firearm if you found some brass in their pocket?

Remember, we're talking here about what the firearms laws should be, not what they are.

No, I just pointed out that brass is considered ammunition under the act. They'd be prosecuted for having ammunition without a licence.

ivanthehunter

I'd just like to add-on here by say that if people are going to consider a distance measuring scope as a light beam under part i section g(i) then they may as well take it to the max and also consider that a reflex sight also emits a light beam!

Be Safe- stay legal!:D

Don't forget that any light beam is a firearm:D and even though some one issued a memo to someone else stating that torches were not considered as such, this memo would not be worth the paper it was wrote on!!

So full disclosure on any tactical lights for bunny bashing too!!

regards Ivan

ivanthehunter

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.

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).

+1

ivanthehunter

If'n your all going talk about stupid laws well what about the laws definition of slug ammunition?

= ammo containing a single projectile STOP right there ffs lads no more shooting rifles and pistols till this one sorted!!:D
yep your all shooting restricted ammo there boss!;)

Personal i like it just they way it is.
What the killer is is the constant changing and amendments here and amendments there it like a feckin patchwork quilt held together with a load of soggy S.I.
You know i never thought i be interested in law but after becoming a gun owner i found it opened up a whole new world..

Don't know if i fancy turning the pages of the EU laws just yet;)


And sparks -- leave it out on the constant bunny bashing remarks about being OTT with NV,:mad: you know I'm after Charlie as well;):D:D

rrpc

ivanthehunter wrote: »

I'd just like to add-on here by say that if people are going to consider a distance measuring scope as a light beam under part i section g(i) then they may as well take it to the max and also consider that a reflex sight also emits a light beam!

Perhaps you would, I wouldn't.

Don't forget that any light beam is a firearm:D and even though some one issued a memo to someone else stating that torches were not considered as such, this memo would not be worth the paper it was wrote on!!

Where do you get this stuff? :eek:

That is not the definition in the act.

Ivan, things are tough enough without you trying to confuse people by making stuff up. Why would you do that?

rrpc

ivanthehunter wrote: »

If'n your all going talk about stupid laws well what about the laws definition of slug ammunition?

= ammo containing a single projectile STOP right there ffs lads no more shooting rifles and pistols till this one sorted!!:D
yep your all shooting restricted ammo there boss!;)

Again making stuff up. :mad:

The only restricted ammunition is slug ammunition for shotguns. Instead of STOPping right there you needed to read on through the document past the definitions and into the actual descriptions of what's restricted and not restricted.

You know i never thought i be interested in law but after becoming a gun owner i found it opened up a whole new world..

Don't know if i fancy turning the pages of the EU laws just yet;)

I agree. :rolleyes: If you can't even read a two page SI, you're in real trouble with the firearms act never mind the EU weapons directive.

ivanthehunter

rrpc wrote: »

Again making stuff up. :mad:

The only restricted ammunition is slug ammunition for shotguns. Instead of STOPping right there you needed to read on through the document past the definitions and into the actual descriptions of what's restricted and not restricted.

I agree. :rolleyes: If you can't even read a two page SI, you're in real trouble with the firearms act never mind the EU weapons directive.

OK sorry about that error- made a late night blunder in stating facts.

Conclusion -Go to bed earlier!!

ivanthehunter

rrpc wrote: »

Perhaps you would, I wouldn't.

Where do you get this stuff? :eek:

That is not the definition in the act.

Ivan, things are tough enough without you trying to confuse people by making stuff up. Why would you do that?

Well seeing as you were so kind as to provide links to my bow threads perhaps you might be so kind as to provide a link that can put this issue to bed.

rrpc wrote: »

Perhaps you would, I wouldn't.

And for the record neither would I but then this is just a technicality:rolleyes: