How short

greenpeter

How short can a .22 barrel be got legally?
Need a handy gun for greys ,mags ,squirrels

eireshot

14 inches.

Sparks

50cm for the barrel; 60cm overall. If the barrel is under 50cm, you're falling afoul of section 12A of the firearms act; if the entire rifle is under 60cm long, you're wandering into the restricted list's definition of a pistol, and that could introduce issues over restricted/nonrestricted status. Eireshot, not sure where you got 14 inches from, but a rifle with a 14 inch barrel is completely illegal to own in Ireland.

Cass

Section 12(A)(1) & (2) (65/2006 amended) refers to shortening a barrel to less than 50cm as being an offense unless done by a registered firearms dealer to replace a fault with the existing barrel.

Here is what confuses me. All the above says you cannot have a rifle with a barrel less than 50cm, but Section 12(A)(6) says only a registered firearms dealer may have one OR someone that with "lawful authority/reasonable excuses".

Now maybe i'm reading it wrong or not understanding it correctly, but if someone has a rifle they bought from a dealer with a barrel of less than 50cm and has a license to carry it would this not be "lawful authority" or is it a case of not getting a license for it in the first place.

The FCA1 asks for make, model, caliber, etc not barrel length. As with my previous comment (above) if they get the license and the rifle is manufactured (not modified) with a barrel of less than 50cm is this not legal?

The reason i ask is i see rifles with "short" barrels for sale and wonder as to the legalities if you cannot possess a rifle with a barrel less than 50cm.

Someone please clarify this before my head explodes. :eek:

Sparks

As far as I'm aware Ezri, anything under 50cm is verboten and you're not supposed to have a licence for it, and if you had a licence for something like that and it was mentioned to the PTB, the licence might be rescinded fairly fast unless you could replace the barrel with a longer one. You shouldn't be seeing them for sale, since the RFD is only supposed to have possession of a <50cm barrel while fixing it in such a way that it ends up over 50cm long again afterwards.

You're 100% right about it being a badly drafted law, mind.

ormondprop

50cm is 19.68 inchs, i thought i saw a cz with a factory 16" barrel in a dealers before and dont anchutz make a .22 with 14" barrell, so these are all illegal so?

Hibrion

Ruger 10 22s come with an 18 inch barrel.

eireshot

http://garda.ie/Documents/User/SI%20337%202009%20Firearms%20%28Restricted%20Firearms%20and%20Ammuntion%29%20%28Amendment%29%20Order%202009.pdf

my anschutz has 14" barrel, above was quoted when i applied for, and got my licence for said rifle.

Sparks

Problem is, just because you get a licence for it doesn't mean the law's not been broken. We've seen a Glock 18 get licenced here in the past despite the fact that that's illegal under EU law as it's a Class A firearm (and therefore it's also illegal under Irish law, which transcribes the relevant EU law into our legal books).

deerhunter1

ormondprop wrote: »

50cm is 19.68 inchs, i thought i saw a cz with a factory 16" barrel in a dealers before and dont anchutz make a .22 with 14" barrell, so these are all illegal so?

Mate of mine bought a new pump action 12g with a 17" barrrell and has it licensed

Sparks

That's even worse since the barrel length limit for shotguns is 61cm (24")

Goosie

Sparks wrote: »

Problem is, just because you get a licence for it doesn't mean the law's not been broken. We've seen a Glock 18 get licenced here in the past despite the fact that that's illegal under EU law as it's a Class A firearm (and therefore it's also illegal under Irish law, which transcribes the relevant EU law into our legal books).

I guess the question arises:
How come said illegal firearm is imported into the country in the first instance.

I'm very interested in this as my CZ Scout has a 16" barrell.

My understanding is that so long as its factory spec its ok.

Cass

ezridax wrote: »

The FCA1 asks for make, model, caliber, etc not barrel length...................

I think the above explains the difference between licensing and legalities.

Don't really want to draw too much attention to the issue, but if some lads are in a position where they may get "caught out" it may be beneficial to know certains aspects of the law. Its not clear at all and in some aspects the SIs seem to contradict themselves.

Cass

Goosie wrote: »

How come said illegal firearm is imported into the country in the first instance..

According to the SI :

12(A)
(6) - It is an offense for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse -

a) A shotgun the barrel of which is not less than 61cm in length,

b) A rifle the barrel of which is not less than 50cm in length, ...............

So the dealer can have it and i suppose sell it. Here is my point on being self contradicting. It says a person may not have a rifle with a barrel less than 50cm, then it says unless the person has "lawful authority". Your firearms license IS lawful authority.

I really don't get this at all.

Sparks

Goosie wrote: »

I guess the question arises:
How come said illegal firearm is imported into the country in the first instance.

Technically, it's possible some were imported before the change in the law; but for any imported post-2006, that's an awkward question allright.

dCorbus

without lawful authority

Your FAC is your Lawful Authority IMvHO - You've been granted a licence to possess and use a firearm with Serial Number XYZ, which has presumably been lawfully and legally imported for sale into the State, with the permission of the DoJ, and then has been lawfully licenced to be owned, possessed, and used by you by the Garda Siochana (the designated licencing authority), whilst presumably tracked all the way along its journey into the State and into your possession in all the relevant systems using the same serial number, calibre, make, and manufacturer.

If that isn't your "lawful authority" then what the hell is?

For example, here's a Ruger 10/22 with an 18.5'' (469.9mm) Barrel: Ruger 10/22 with 18.5'' Barrel for Sale

The rifle is clearly advertised as having an 18.5'' (469.9mm) Barrel. It had that barrel when it was legally imported into the country and it will have that barrel when it is licenced by the authorities and it will have that barrel when it is legally possessed by the shooter authorised and permitted by the authorities to do so.

At which point, has the law been broken here? Was it the DoJ for knowingly authorising the importation of an illegal firearm, was it the Carrier / Courier Service for carrying such an illegal firearm into the state, was it the Distributor for knowingly importing such an illegal firearm, was it the RFD for knowingly offering such an illegal firearm for sale, was it the Garda Siochana for knowingly licencing an individual to possess and use such an illegal firearm? And that's all occurred before the shooter even get's his mitts on the dreaded object.:rolleyes:

Perhaps an RFD, the DoJ, the GS, and all the others involved in the conspiracy to facilitate the apparently illegal importation of such an "illegal" firearm might want to clarify the situation?;):D:rolleyes:

Cass

dCorbus wrote: »

Your FAC is your Lawful Authority .............

This is my point exactly dC. The thing to note is you are legal and lawful by having an FAC, but seem to be "illegal" by having the firearm itself.

At which point, has the law been broken here?

Whether this is down to the law being poorly written or the inexperience of the authorities that grant the licenses and their apparent misunderstandings of firearms, etc................. I don't know.

As per Sparks its a poorly drafted piece of legislation.

dCorbus

Just to clarify - and this is my reading of the section only

As far as I'm aware Ezri, anything under 50cm is verboten

It is streng verboten to shorten any barrel of a rifle to below 50cm and the barrel of a shotgun to less than 61cm - unless the work is carried out by "a registered firearms dealer to shorten the barrel of a shot-gun or rifle to a length of less than 61 or 50 centimetres respectively if the sole purpose of doing so is to replace a defective part of the barrel with a barrel of not less than 61 or 50 centimetres".

It then states that, as ezridax mentioned: "It is an offense for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse -
a) A shotgun the barrel of which is not less than 61cm in length,
b) A rifle the barrel of which is not less than 50cm in length"

To argue the toss with sparks, I can find nowhere where it says that you may under no circumstances own a rifle with a barrel under 50cm in length - I can however (as above) find the legislation which says you may not own one unless you have lawful authority (i.e. IMO a Firearms Cert for that rifle) nor may you shorten the barrel to less than 50cm unless you are both a RFD and the work is needed to repair a defective barrel.

When repairing a defective barrel, the barrel may end up shorter than 50cm and this is allowed for - that's both your lawful authority and your reasonable excuse.

If its a factory barrel and is imported etc with that <50cm barrel and has been licenced as such, thats your lawful authority right there.

Unless I'm missing something and sparks can point out the exact bit which bans outright barrels less than 50cm (for rifles) - the above is my reasoned thinking on the topic. But as ever, I'm open and will stand gladly corrected!;)

(There are other issues relating to the overall lengths of rifles, barrels, etc. and these are some of the considerations which would make a rifle restricted or non-restricted - and thus would decide how you'd go about licencing said firearm - but that's kinda my point, you'd be licencing the firearm as restricted or unrestricted, and thus obtaining your lawful authority to possess and use the firearm......if that makes any sense!)

Sparks

Yup, it boils down to whether or not your licence is considered lawful authority. At least, from what I can see.

One reason why that question might not be considered completely cut and dried is the 1990 Act, which states

9(4) 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—
( a ) any flick-knife, or
( b ) any other article whatsoever made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person,
he shall be guilty of an offence.

That's the part of the law that for us says you can't carry a firearm with you while just walking about the town. But if lawful authority is your licence in one part of the Firearms Act, it's very arguable that it's lawful authority here as well. And that's a beehive that nobody wants to hit with a stick.

dCorbus

any other article whatsoever made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person

That's the important bit. But we won't debate that here! Can of worms and all that. Lets just say that a CZ452 and an Anschutz Match 54 were not made or adapted for causing injury etc to a person - One was made solely for putting holes in small bits of paper and the other was made solely for put holes in small bits of rabbit. OK, other equipment I have may be more open to debate as to its design intentions....so let's not go there.

lawful authority or reasonable excuse

Don't forget the reasonable excuse bit. However, I don't think any of us here would ever walk around a built-up area with a firearm unless it was safely stowed and made entirely safe.

The argument could also be made that a firearm with the bolt removed is in fact the exact opposite of "any other article whatsoever made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person" - in that it is now an article which, through the removal of the bolt, has become adapted so as to be useless for causing injury etc. (other than as a club).

Also, and this IMO is an extremely important bit, what my FAC's allow me to do (subject to the law) is have in my possession, use, and carry my firearms. So there's my lawful authority under the 1990 Act. If it's not my lawful authority, why does my FAC permit me to carry my firearm, what other purpose could that particular mention serve?

"Have with him in any public place"

If my FAC was not my lawful authoristation to carry my firearms, they'd have to sit (for eternity) in my gun safe and not go anywhere. Actually, no, that's wrong, as I would have been breaking the law just to have the rifles with me in all the public places between tipp and dublin! Which patently, is nonsense. That's why we have Firearms Licencing - To allow us to own, possess, use and carry our licenced firearms! Why else?!

Grizzly 45

We've seen a Glock 18 get licenced here in the past despite the fact that that's illegal under EU law as it's a Class A firearm

The more I think/research and look back on that thread ..I wonder was it a prank or urban myth pulled on us?

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

That's the important bit. But we won't debate that here! Can of worms and all that.

Indeed - but I've been told in the past by some in the PTB that that's the part that would be used. Not that there aren't other parts that couldn't be, but in each case, the "legal authority" part pops up at some stage of the proceedings.

Don't forget the reasonable excuse bit.

Covers going to/from a range/hunting grounds, basicly. The "legal authority" bit is the more worrying part.

Also, and this IMO is an extremely important bit, what my FAC's allow me to do (subject to the law) is have in my possession, use, and carry my firearms. So there's my lawful authority under the 1990 Act. If it's not my lawful authority, why does my FAC permit me to carry my firearm, what other purpose could that particular mention serve?

"Carry" does not mean here what it means in the US

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The more I think/research and look back on that thread ..I wonder was it a prank or urban myth pulled on us?

There were a fair few people in on it if so...
...and frankly, it wouldn't be the most outlandish thing that's happened in our little community over the years, not by a very wide margin!

dCorbus

"Carry" does not mean here what it means in the US

Define "carry" then? Is it, in this context, not taken to mean: "To take from one place to another; transport".

Yes, it does mean what it means in the US - It's just how, why, where we carry, and what we intend by our said abovementioned carrying, are different!;)

I'm not talking about "concealed carry" here - I'm talking about taking from one place to another, transporting - yep, carrying!

Sparks

Well, not quite - here it's carry as in carriage, meaning being taken from one specific place (usually home) to another specific place (the range, an RFD, hunting grounds, etc). In the US, it means to carry around with you without an explicit destination in mind, and where the carrying of the firearm is not the reason for the trip.

Two countries divided by a common language and all that.

Sparks

I'm thinking this is one of those questions where the FCP would be useful in finding an answer...

dCorbus

You gotta just love all this legislation without definitions!
The bane of my life (much of the time) and a joy for the wigs!

As far as I see it, I may legimately and, as far as I'm concerned, am authorised to carry (i.e. as meaning transport and/or move) my rifles around in transit to and from any authorised range, my home, an RFD, a gunsmith, the Dublin ferry port, my cousins house, Bisley, Castlemaine, Diggle, etc. etc. wherever, so long as they are securely and safely transported (with all relevant paperwork to hand) and when not in transit are locked securely in my gun safe.

That's about it.:p

I'm thinking this is one of those questions where the FCP would be useful in finding an answer...

Christ no! We'd just end up with more bullsh1t badly written legislation and regulations - would be no more informed - and would probably end up getting the short end of the stick.

Commonsense! And looking at the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

Grizzly 45

Did anyone of credulity in the shooting world actually SEE this gun in all it's glory over here??
I just cant see this physically happening what with the amount of paperwork and security procedures in Austria/Germany for such a clanger to happen.And I've checked this from a contact of mine who was an offical shooter/rep for Glock for over ten years.He said it is impossible,as to get the Glock 18 even out of the plant was a feat of work.
Generally people intrested in the 18 have to come to the plant to see it,and then it is accredited LEO,Govt or military only.
How a German gun dealer,who wouldnt have the clearence to even hold ,or posses a FA in stock,is beyond everyone I've asked on this,not to mind the paperwork and serial nos.It means at least five or six people in both the dealership and the officaldom must have been collectivly fast asleep not to notice this..
Nor would this have been somthing easily hushed up back in Germany.Heads would have rolled on this.The dealer for possesion of a FA,and selling it onto unauthorised personel without the correct paperwork outside the BRD.The people in the local govt depts who signed this off,and the last authorised person who had this gun in their possesion would have been having a hot time of it too.As to how it ended up in a civillian dealer.not to mind aSFIK not one German police dept or paramilitary unit uses the 18.
It's about as likely as winning the lotto three times in a row,then been struck by a meteorite.

The only plausible explanation I can come up with is this was a Glock 17 with a "drop in selector"kit.Which you can own legally in Germany.PROVIDED you DO NOT install it on the Glock,and somone flogged the gun legally and forgot to take out the illegal bit!:eek:.Still the same big trouble for everyone concerned.

Sparks

Yup dCorbus

Not sure Grizzly. I understand there was mention of it from the PTB at some stage, so if it was a prank, it backfired badly on people. But to be honest, when firearms handed into the Gardai can get used to rob a post office later on, when the British Army can accidentally lose an assault rifle while searching a shooting team's car, when armed Gardai can get into a shouting match in front of the US embassy over one of them having a liquid lunch while armed and on duty, and when the Supreme Court can find that the Minister for Justice acted illegally but that it's not worth doing much about it... well, someone screwing the pooch while packing a box in a factory in Austria doesn't seem like such an impossible thing to me.

Grizzly 45

Then a very simple question will sort out my theory .Was the fire selector on the left hand side of the slide[Glock 18 ] or on the back of the slide??[illegal Glock 17 conversion]

Oi! DC you about???:D
Later
Well after sSparks added the last paragraph.I'm now confused.Di d Dcorbus see this yoke or not??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Then a very simple question will sort out my theory .Was the fire selector on the left hand side of the slide[Glock 18 ] or on the back of the slide??[illegal Glock 17 conversion]

Oi! DC you about???:D

No Grizzly, I meant yes to dCorbus's post; not "yes, dCorbus saw it"