13 1/2" barrel on a 22lr rifle legal???

bazza888

have you a decent fo?could you ask him to find out for you?

johngalway

bazza888 wrote: »

thats why i didnt get one john,went for the standard length barrel on my cz,its a pain for the likes of clive when you go in a gunshop and see a 14in barrel and they tell you its ok but you try read and understand the laws and it seems it may not be,a heavy 20inch barrel would be a pain to shoot standing in gallery id say

My experience, from some shops, is they'll tell you what they think you want to hear to sell you what's on the shelf. I was told not to "raise the hare" when I asked about the process for getting a moderator under the old system. All grand, but they won't be prosecuted if I have something I'm not legally entitled to hold. Mind you, on the flip side of that I've had some in uniform tell me rather funny things I wouldn't like to recount to a judge either

bunny shooter

Or a call to the Firearms Policy Unit?

clivej

bunny shooter wrote: »

Or a call to the Firearms Policy Unit?

Good call BS

bazza888

same here john was told i didnt need apply for the mod when putting in my 2nd license but under the new system,that i could just buy it!and that i couldnt get a rifle or a shotty witout being in a club even with permissions!:mad:

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Or a call to the Firearms Policy Unit?

'Fraid even they can't rule on this one Bunny, it really does need a judicial ruling, and probably at HC level. And the thing is, right now it's whatever your super will grant, meaning some get them and some don't; after a judicial review, either everyone can get a licence for one, or nobody can - including those that have one now. So risk-free it ain't, and anyone taking such a case would (a) be taking on a large financial risk for a point of law, and (b) would be risking a lot for more than just themselves.

stick shooter

Sparks wrote: »

'Fraid even they can't rule on this one Bunny, it really does need a judicial ruling, and probably at HC level. And the thing is, right now it's whatever your super will grant, meaning some get them and some don't; after a judicial review, either everyone can get a licence for one, or nobody can - including those that have one now. So risk-free it ain't, and anyone taking such a case would (a) be taking on a large financial risk for a point of law, and (b) would be risking a lot for more than just themselves.

True but not quiet true . Not this side of a court case there is areas that grant licences for moderators and others that dont

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

True but not quiet true . Not this side of a court case there is areas that grant licences for moderators and others that dont

It's quite true I'm afraid. The question is what the phrase "lawful authority" pertains to, and because that's in the statute but not specified, it needs interpretation by a judge. The AGS can't do it, or they'd be in effect drafting legislation without Oireachtas oversight, and the Supreme Court was rather explicit in slapping them on the wrist for that in Dunne -v- Donohue.

Until that's done, well, people just get on with it as best they can. Which means that some supers grant and some don't; but if there's ever a judicial ruling, then all the granted and refused licences are affected by that ruling.

stick shooter

Sparks wrote: »

It's quite true I'm afraid. The question is what the phrase "lawful authority" pertains to, and because that's in the statute but not specified, it needs interpretation by a judge. The AGS can't do it, or they'd be in effect drafting legislation without Oireachtas oversight, and the Supreme Court was rather explicit in slapping them on the wrist for that in Dunne -v- Donohue.

Until that's done, well, people just get on with it as best they can. Which means that some supers grant and some don't; but if there's ever a judicial ruling, then all the granted and refused licences are affected by that ruling.

Too true ,But a few of us have done is get a letter outlining why we need a moderator and got it passed by the super and once it was passed , We copied it and signed it and handed in and they had to pass it . For about five years no moderators were passed in our area till now and i still know a few friends that have being turned down for insufficient reason and public safety reasons

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

Too true ,But a few of us have done is get a letter outlining why we need a moderator and got it passed by the super and once it was passed , We copied it and signed it and handed in and they had to pass it

They never have to pass it. Ever. The Act does not even conceive of any circumstances where a Super would be required to pass anything. The language is always "may" or "can not grant unless...", never "shall grant".

For about five years no moderators were passed in our area till now and i still know a few friends that have being turned down for insufficient reason and public safety reasons

As I said above, prior granting or refusing to grant won't matter if there's a ruling in this area - all past events wouldn't be a precedent of the same level as a judicial ruling and wouldn't be citable in any applications after that ruling.

stick shooter

Sparks wrote: »

They never have to pass it. Ever. The Act does not even conceive of any circumstances where a Super would be required to pass anything. The language is always "may" or "can not grant unless...", never "shall grant". As I said above, prior granting or refusing to grant won't matter if there's a ruling in this area - all past events wouldn't be a precedent of the same level as a judicial ruling and wouldn't be citable in any applications after that ruling.

But once they pass one for a said reason how can they deny one for the same reason

Sparks

stick shooter wrote: »

But once they pass one for a said reason how can they deny one for the same reason

Basicly? Because the firearms act says they can.

Bananaman

I would recommend that you drop a line to the relevant NGB (the one administering the sport you intend to use it in)
They will speak to the FPU et al. and get the official party line on the matter - in writing.

As Sparks said the law is not clear but at the end of the day the Gardai will be the ones whose interpretation will decide whether or not you get into trouble.
Therefore whatever they "rule" will stand for the moment. As they have issued licenses for rifles such as the one you mentioned then they will most likely "rule" in favour.
The FPU are supposed to be where licensing officers go for advise when they are unclear so that is the best route to seek information.

The reason I would suggest doing it though your an NGB is that then there is an official line and a common source of information.
Getting anonymous advice from the denizens of the night on boards, or other anonymous sources, on matters legal is, imho, not the best route to take.

Should someone get refused and lodge an appeal - then the courts will decide - that case - a judicial review is a step up again
For now, this is the best option.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Should someone get refused and lodge an appeal

Then everyone else should hold their breaths, and not in a good way.

Taking a test case on a point like this is something that should be done with a carefully selected case; not just the first one that runs into the problem (remember the damage done by poorly chosen cases taken to the courts in the last few months - we lost two Supreme Court cases at who knows how much of an expense and setting precedents in the process, on cases that should never have see the steps of the District Court, let alone any higher - and the Charleton judgement, despite being a minority verdict, played a major role in the downfall of c/f pistols). I keep saying it, but people don't listen - court cases are not sure things and they carry significant risk, both for those taking them and for large numbers of other people who have nothing to do with the case.

And because we can't have class action suits in Ireland (court rules don't allow them), we're not going to get round that problem easily. This is one of the drawbacks of not having a centralised structure within our community for this sort of thing.

And again, to repeat the point above, the FPU's take on this isn't going to be binding on anyone, not even your local Superintendent (which is a problem with the FPU at present). This should get brought up the chain to the FCP allright for discussion at that level though (even though it can't solve it immediately as definitively as a judicial ruling, it could introduce a workable fudge pending any new statute law changes - though I've not heard of any in the works apart from the Explosives Act), and it would seem that the NARGC would be the logical choice for that as most of the short barrel users seem to be hunters looking for a more managable size of rifle in the field.

Bananaman

Well - for now - lets assume the that sky is not falling.

Let the man contact the relevant NGB, seek clarity for his current requirements and get out and do a bit of shooting.

If he does not like the answer, then he can still apply, and may get his license. If not he can make yet more decisions.

But let's assume the glass if half full - there is nothing wrong with what he is asking - it is a perfectl;y reasonable non-restricted rifle - it does not require any sort of court intervention - he can simply seek the clarity he requires or apply for the license and see which way the wind blows.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Well - for now - lets assume the that sky is not falling.

Firstly, drop that tone if you please. You've been using it in almost all of your posts on here of late, and I for one am definitely sick of it at this point. Either engage properly or don't bother, but this coming on here to make derisive comments and twist what's been posted the way you've been doing is worse than not being here at all. This is a real issue, it's one of the problems with the firearms legislation as it currently stands, and frankly a court case is not the best way to fix it unless that court case is very carefully chosen - and we just don't have the structure in place to do that. The fallout if it went badly would affect far more people than just those in the case itself (though they'd bear the brunt of the financial losses personally since nobody's underwriting the costs of these cases in the event of losses anymore).

In fact, if half of the warnings given to folk both on here and off-site by various people had been listened to over the last decade, instead of people not liking the warnings' contents and so deriding them rather than actually discussing them, we'd have far fewer restrictions on our sports today than we do -- for a start, c/f pistol sports wouldn't be in the situation they find themselves today.

Let the man contact the relevant NGB, seek clarity for his current requirements and get out and do a bit of shooting.

The point of the entire cluster of responses above and several threads before this one, is that his NGB cannot give him the clarity he seeks -- no matter how much it would want to -- and that nobody apart from a judge can do so at present (or the Minister, if he decides to write new law at some point). He can apply, and get the answer his Super wants to give, but if that answer is not the one he was hoping for, there isn't anyone in the entire country, at any level, in any organisation, that can tell him what his odds are of winning a DC case on the matter or a JR which would probably be required.

Anyone who tells him otherwise either does not understand the situation; or is just -- at best -- bull****ting him to sound important (at worst, you wouldn't want to speculate in order to avoid defaming someone and meeting that sort of lawsuit head-on).