Reasons for having a Rifle Scope ??????

Rovi

Photocopies folks, photocopies.

Make photocopies of EVERYTHING!

The faceless bureaucrats who appear to be implementing a policy of micro-managing us to the point of despair have long since surrendered any 'right' to expect that the norms of ordinary polite discourse apply to them, so don't worry about causing offence by insisting on making copies and asking for names, ranks, and serial numbers.

dCorbus

Any chance anyone can post a scan of one of these letters / forms?
I can't believe this s***e and want see this unbelievable horses**t with my own two eyes!:mad:
(I'm not doubting anyone - but it would be good to see what these yokes look like).

Have any of the lads who've recieved these requests been on to the FPU, the SSAI, the NARGC, the NASRPC, etc etc etc about this - and if so, any response one way or the other?

spoke with the firearms dealer again today and he said that this is coming from the DOJ

A lot of hearsay on this - Really would like to see one of these letters/forms and get an answer from someone in "authority" (:rolleyes:).

Does this mean that I'll have to get authorisation from my Chief Super for the LIDL Spotting Scope I bought, because I could gaffer tape it to my rifle?

Does this mean that the Iron Sights on a LE303 will need to authorised as a separate sighting device?

****, I better have my eyes licenced - twice....One licence per sighting device!

And as for my contacts - bloody hell, I've 90 of them for each eye - That's 180 authorisations for sighting devices!

F***in' Nonsense!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

(But let's have some evidence up here please:) Thanks)

bunny shooter

What worries me is I gave my Super all the, in my and many lads here opinions, appropiate reasons for a moderator for my .22lr and he refused it on "public safety" type grounds so he can easily refuse a telescopic sight on the same grounds for my .22lr & .220 Swift :eek:

What if he refuses to authorise the peep sights on my Lee Enfield :eek:

I fear there are bad times coming where no matter what sighting system you use it will be a danger "to public safety" and therefore by default a rifle will be technically useless :mad:

riflehunter77

dCorbus I will give him a ring on Tuesday and ask him to send me out a copy there should be no problem. But just lets be clear on two things I was present when the garda drooped them off and a local chap also received one in the post as well recently . Id suggest that if people get a chance during the coming week to ring there firearms dealers and find out have they have heard anything. Mine only works Friday and half day Saturday.

dCorbus

hey bunnyshooter
AFAIK There's a massive difference here:
A. Moderators, under them rules, require authorisation.
B. Riflescope Sights, under them rules, don't require authorisation.

First of all, they'd have to bring out new regulations or amend the existing ones to provide a mechanism to authorise these riflescopes etc.

The Guards are now looking for information to allow them to authorise something which they can neither authorise nor "un-authorise" - They cannot authorise you to have or not have a scope, because the "authorisation" would have to flow / be derived / be enforceable in accordance with the provisions of some non-existant Regulation, SI 4329 of 2143, Section X subsection 97 paragraph Z.

So unless there has been some regulation brought out recently in this regard, the Guards in this case are acting ultra-vires, illegally, and possibly unconstitutionally IMHO.

Just ask them under which section of which regulation they intend to "authorise" the scope? They won't be able to tell you, because there is no such section of any such regulation. It's f***in' nonsense. And we shouldn't be taking this crap from some paper-pushing jobsworthy super-annuated so-called "civil servant".

It's like the Planners in this country - If you don't know what you're doing, they'll spin you a whole pile of crap and get you to jump through hoops that they have no power or authority to do so - Trust me, I've seen this often enough. People being made getting planning for things that are exempt, etc. etc. I could go on all night about this.

But it's exactly the same with the Boys-in-Blue - If they don't have the authority, they cannot do it! Fullstop! They may want to....but that's a different story.

But then again, they seem to think they're the Government now and apparently the Guards have a role to play in commenting on who the Citizens of this state do or do not elect. The sheer f***in' arrogance of them! How dare they!

But doesn't that just sum up the mindset of who you're trying to deal with?

I fear there are bad times coming where no matter what sighting system you use it will be a danger "to public safety" and therefore by default a rifle will be technically useless

.....From my cold dead hands.....:D:rolleyes:

It may never come to pass though.

And I still want to see one of these letters / forms.

bunny shooter

It is a sinister development with serious ramifications for all shooters except possibly shotgun owners :eek:

We will have to wait and see what develops :mad:

I have been refused a .22lr moderator to shoot bunnies with and we all thought that would not happen too

Slick50

This is seriously first class horse sh1te, I think the best thing to do with this is to ignore it, especially if you already have your license. There is no where on the application form requireing or requesting this sort of info. It sounds like something the local yocal made up anyway.

jwshooter

not to worry ,the garda will shortly be standing on the door of your local if they get there way ,the only chance for a country man to get in contact with them .
how ya tom im going for a pint to nite will you bring your stamp for this new rifle i bought .

Tackleberrywho

jwshooter wrote: »

not to worry ,the garda will shortly be standing on the door of your local if they get there way ,the only chance for a country man to get in contact with them .
how ya tom im going for a pint to nite will you bring your stamp for this new rifle i bought .

Tut Tut, very bold JW
Time now folks there, Please did I hear you say :D:D

riflehunter77

Lads if ye have licenses already I cant see their been any problems as the dealer said to me its something they are putting into the amended license along with the Hunting License.
Id love to know who is pushing this down the line and what bright spark came up with the idea. Are the greens putting pressure on Ahern to stop us from heading out into the countryside to enjoy our sport?To be honest the Garda that was there yesterday said the new system is a joke and has been nothing but hassle to all involved.

pedroeibar1

jwshooter wrote: »

not to worry ,the garda will shortly be standing on the door of your local if they get there way ,the only chance for a country man to get in contact with them .
how ya tom im going for a pint to nite will you bring your stamp for this new rifle i bought .

Not far off the mark where I am... a few years ago when I was living overseas I was back on hols and the local (rural) garda shouts across the street at me "You owe me £28 quid." I go over, and he tells me that he paid my renewals as he knew I was away and he did not want to do all the paperwork and re-do it when I returned! Dem were de days:D
P.

Slick50

Has anyone gone through the firearms act, I haven't, but from the commisioners recommendations I don't see anything that prevents you from having either a scope or moderater. You are required to notify the garda of having one or other, but I didn't think it was a licencing issue, neither are firearms??

Grizzly 45

.

Id love to know who is pushing this down the line and what bright spark came up with the idea. Are the greens putting pressure on Ahern to stop us from heading out into the countryside to enjoy our sport?To be honest the Garda that was there yesterday said the new system is a joke and has been nothing but hassle to all involved.

[/QUOTE]

Nope! We are!It was pointed out by the NARGC in the consultation stages of this shambles that there was no game liscense in the document.Or provision for it either in the new liscense.This of course was like many other things totally ignored in the rush to legislate.And a year later it dawns on the rocket scientists in the DOJ and Dail.That there is no game liscense.Not that it really mattered much this year.Since we lost appx four weeks shooting with that stupid cold weather ban.
This is the sort of rubbish that happens when a egotistical minister goes off on a power trip and decides him and his jobworthies and yes men know best.:rolleyes:

ranger4

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.

Nope! We are!It was pointed out by the NARGC in the consultation stages of this shambles that there was no game liscense in the document.Or provision for it either in the new liscense.This of course was like many other things totally ignored in the rush to legislate.And a year later it dawns on the rocket scientists in the DOJ and Dail.That there is no game liscense.Not that it really mattered much this year.Since we lost appx four weeks shooting with that stupid cold weather ban.
This is the sort of rubbish that happens when a egotistical minister goes off on a power trip and decides him and his jobworthies and yes men know best.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

At Least we can look forward to the not too distant future when the present minister and his side kicks are removed from power, Lets hope Flanigan will be fair without ramming unjust and draconian measures down Licenced shooters throats.

Grizzly 45

At Least we can look forward to the not too distant future when the present minister and his side kicks are removed from power, Lets hope Flanigan will be fair without ramming unjust and draconian measures down Licenced shooters throats.

Indeed.
However,I am a great beliver in the old Russian revoultonary saying which applies to Irish poitical life;
Promises are like pie crusts.Made to be broken.
The Irish version is
"Never make a promise you cant break.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Ok ol Charlie has been doing us a good turn what with being a good sized boil on Ahernes backside[and may he get many more of them on his scaly hide:cool:].
But remember he is a politican.He is an Irish politican.He is an Irish politican in opposition.
Which my friends INMHO makes him as trust worthy as a cocked and loaded gun with a very dodgy saftey catch.Treat with extreme cation.:eek:

It wasn't me!

And never forget the danger of having Deasy with his finger on the button either. He started some of this bloody mess, after all.

rrpc

Rovi wrote: »

In SECTION 3 - FIREARM DETAILS, there's subsection 3.2, which states:
Accessories Tick √ appropriate box(es) if relevant: Silencer Sights/Other (specify)

Nowhere in the legislation or the Commissioner's Guidelines does it state exactly what's meant by "Sights/Other", but FPU and Justice have clarified that it's meant for light-intensifying scopes, laser sights, and the like.

It looks like some genius in this particular District missed that memo.

Actually there is and AFAIR there was a thread on here discussing this very subject early in the process.

1(g)(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

The problem is that the form doesn't elaborate to the kind of level that the firearms act requires, so as a result both Gardai and applicants alike are taking the meaning to be any type of sights.

Which it is not.

Both parties are equally at fault here: applicants because they are ticking boxes before checking what they mean and Gardai for not checking what it means (along with the form for not specifying the meaning).

Now, because the situation has become an almost de facto fact, no-one is actually questioning what is (if you even spent two minutes thinking about it) a ludicrous proposition.

What makes this even more depressing, is that we've had dozens of posts on this thread from people who one would have thought should be best placed to be able to distinguish fact from fairy tale, have oodles of resources to check those facts and are helping perpetuate what is one of the most ludicrous side effects of the new application form.

It seems you can post the most outrageous bullcrap here and have everyone lap it up as if it were gospel. :rolleyes:

Traumadoc

I like many people ticked the "sights" box thinking it referred to telescopic sights, anyhow I got my license - so can I now legally have a nightvision scope?
FUBAR

rrpc

Traumadoc wrote: »

I like many people ticked the "sights" box thinking it referred to telescopic sights, anyhow I got my license - so can I now legally have a nightvision scope?
FUBAR

You can, so long as you have some evidence that the application for them was approved.

Not readily apparent on the new license, (or at least on some of them).

Mr.Flibble

rrpc wrote: »

Both parties are equally at fault here:

I don't think that's fair. I think the people who thought up the law and the form, and who hold themselves out as our moral and intellectual superiors in the matter, are substantially more culpable.

rrpc wrote: »

It seems you can post the most outrageous bullcrap here and have everyone lap it up as if it were gospel. :rolleyes:

I thought that was what "here" was for?

Mr.Flibble

rrpc wrote: »

You can, so long as you have some evidence that the application for them was approved.

- Item included clearly, accurately and in good faith on application.

- Licence granted with no further documentation / reference to the item

= Consent.



Just don't forget to keep a copy of the paper trail in case it goes pear-shaped further down the line, but anyone who claims you should have been able to read their mind based on a secret code on a grubby little card should be easy meat for your brief.

rrpc

Mr.Flibble wrote: »

I don't think that's fair. I think the people who thought up the law and the form, and who hold themselves out as our moral and intellectual superiors in the matter, are substantially more culpable.

'Equally' might have been over-egging the pudding, but when filling in a form you should always be sure what you are answering and why.

Even the most infinitesimally short thought process should ask "why am I applying for sights on my firearm?" It's not as though the box even specifies a scope, so on the surface it should apply to all sights which is six degrees of seperation south of ridiculous.

The second clue should have been the fact that it was smack bang beside the tick box for a 'silencer' which as everybody who's owned one since 1990 knows must be licensed, should have rung warning bells about sights.

But the main reason is the ancient tenet that says ignorancia juris reminem excusat: ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If you had a night vision scope and no licence, you'd be guilty whether you were aware of the law or not. An application form for a firearms licence is a legal document that carries penalties for anyone giving false information. That alone should concentrate the minds of people filling it out to ensure that they understand exactly what it is asking for.

And I've already said that the form is wrong, unclear and the main problem.

I thought that was what "here" was for?

What? to be the written equivalent of Chinese whispers? :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

[

But the main reason is the ancient tenet that says ignorancia juris reminem excusat: ignorance of the law is no excuse.

However the remainder is;The law must be clear so that there can be no ignorance thereof.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[

However the remainder is;The law must be clear so that there can be no ignorance thereof.

Never heard that one. If it was always that clear, I suspect many lawyers would be out of a job

As law goes, section 1(g)(i) is pretty clear. Some of the preceding subsections wouldn't be in the same league clarity wise, but that one isn't bad.

spideog7

rrpc wrote: »

'Equally' might have been over-egging the pudding, but when filling in a form you should always be sure what you are answering and why.

Even the most infinitesimally short thought process should ask "why am I applying for sights on my firearm?"

I done the same and I believe I elaborated on the type of scope I had, I think there was a line to fill in the make and model. Sure back when I was doing exams I used to have to write down what type of calculator I was using even though I knew that mine was not one of the "illegal" ones, does that mean I would have gotten away with not writing it down?

As far as I'm concerned if you're comfortable that everything you have is within the confines of the law then why do you feel the need to hide it from anyone? I've a leatherman for cutting tails off foxes and I'd write that down too if they asked me cause I'm fully within my rights to have it!

thelurcher

I ticked the 'sights' box too but just wrote 'standard telescopic sights' along side it.
Hope this doesn't hold things up - had a shotgun license held up in the old system for months because I didn't say if the semi-auto was a single or double barrel :rolleyes:

Tackleberrywho

thelurcher wrote: »

I ticked the 'sights' box too but just wrote 'standard telescopic sights' along side it.
Hope this doesn't hold things up - had a shotgun license held up in the old system for months because I didn't say if the semi-auto was a single or double barrel :rolleyes:

(as part of an Interview with the CS)
The CS asked me how did I differentiate Male from female deer from 150 metres or so. I said i used my Nightforce Telescopic sight.5.5-20x56mm objective lens.

He said what , I told him its a manufacturers name of telescopic sights.
I explained that any responsible shooter would want one to ensure he/she was not making a mistake on a young doe or a young stag.
Some stags have only stubby antlers.
I told him if the deer has a todger it's a boy and if it does not it's a girl.
I said I tell calves apart the same way and he smiled.

So although i never ticked sights I openly told him I used scopes.
At that point the CS could have informed me I was wrong if i was, but he said I was ok to have my .40cal along with the silencer and the amounts of ammo I required.

I (believe) that the form is a generic form. It would be interesting to see if anybody wanted to apply for NV etc, if they had a specific job for it.

I don't know who or what reason would be required though.
I'm open to suggestions why NV would be needed as a necessity, other than military of LE.

bunny shooter

Would it not be better to use a good pair of binoculars to check for a todger?

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Would it not be better to use a good pair of binoculars to check for a todger?

No.

bunny shooter

Why?

I do all my "scanning" with binos only use scope when actually taking the shot.

Safer method IMHO?