southern gun company 223

customrifle

Hi lads just wondering if any of ye know any dealer with a straight pull SGC in 223 in stock? And what is yer opinion on them. I shot one years ago, recall it being quite accurate even with cheap ammo. And should it be an unrestricted licence as its a straight pull? Thanks

Grizzly 45

Thers a Remmy R15 FS in the sales section here.Not SGC,but a builder block if you want.straight pull in these IMHO is a compromise,and a poor one at that.Better than nothing,and hoping for better days.:rolleyes:

bazza888

with a 5round mag and being straight pull is it restricted or non retricted the r15?

gunhappy_ie

bazza888 wrote: »

with a 5round mag and being straight pull is it restricted or non retricted the r15?

If it were me, id apply as non restricted. Others here would apply as restricted as they think it looks like an assault rifle but realisticly its like comparing a beetle to a porsche.

Being a straight pull, magazine size does not affect its status as restricted or not.

GH

bunny shooter

It all comes down to will your Super/Chief Super licence it without you taking them to court no matter what you're trying to licence

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Being a straight pull, magazine size does not affect its status as restricted or not.

GH

Unless it's a rimfire the magazine capacity is not one of the factors used to determine if it's restricted or unrestricted

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

It all comes down to will your Super/Chief Super licence it without you taking them to court no matter what you're trying to licence

No, it really doesn't.
If you licence it successfully as an unrestricted firearm, and a Chief Super later charges you with having an unlicenced restricted firearm under the "looks like an assault rifle" clause, then it's down to the decision of a judge as to whether or not it's restricted - and if he or she decides that it is restricted under that clause, then the fault lies with you as the applicant for applying for the wrong kind of licence. Not with any member of the AGS for not catching the problem earlier. And the licence you did get will have been implicitly declared null and void with the judge's decision as well, so things would just get so much more fun...

And yes, before you say it, it is a monumentally stupid piece of legislation. But then, so's quite a lot of the rest of it as well, and it still gets enforced.

To be honest, to be safe, I'd licence it as a restricted firearm right off the bat.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

No, it really doesn't.
If you licence it successfully as an unrestricted firearm, and a Chief Super later charges you with having an unlicenced restricted firearm under the "looks like an assault rifle" clause, then it's down to the decision of a judge as to whether or not it's restricted - and if he or she decides that it is restricted under that clause, then the fault lies with you as the applicant for applying for the wrong kind of licence. Not with any member of the AGS for not catching the problem earlier. And the licence you did get will have been implicitly declared null and void with the judge's decision as well, so things would just get so much more fun...

And yes, before you say it, it is a monumentally stupid piece of legislation. But then, so's quite a lot of the rest of it as well, and it still gets enforced.

To be honest, to be safe, I'd licence it as a restricted firearm right off the bat.

Highlighted the important word for you there

gunhappy_ie

My dad always says that IF my aunt had balls shed be my uncle...... I never got it till i hit my teens....

But If it were to go to court...... As it would have implications to all firearms I would gladly, as an expert opinion explain why to the judge that the CS is wrong.

GH

Sparks

It's definitely the important bit bunny - basicly, if you licence it as an unrestricted firearm, your arse is hung right out and it's purely the whim of the Chief Super as to whether you're in a world of hurt or not.

Whereas if you licence it as a restricted firearm, it doesn't cost extra, the security requirements are about the same (they're exactly the same if it's your first firearm), and you don't have that worry hanging over you. Plus, you could get it in semi-auto.

It's the OP's call...
...but I know which way I'd lean...

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

I would gladly, as an expert opinion explain why to the judge that the CS is wrong.

And then you just need the judge to go with your expert opinion over that of the Garda from Ballistics that'll be giving expert opinion that says the CS is right.

Now if Judges knew firearms, you'd probably be grand....

...thing is, they don't. And we've already seen fairly daft judgements from Justices like Charleton, which then were used to ban all manner of things.

gunhappy_ie

Sparks wrote: »

It's definitely the important bit bunny - basicly, if you licence it as an unrestricted firearm, your arse is hung right out and it's purely the whim of the Chief Super as to whether you're in a world of hurt or not.

Whereas if you licence it as a restricted firearm, it doesn't cost extra, the security requirements are about the same (they're exactly the same if it's your first firearm), and you don't have that worry hanging over you. Plus, you could get it in semi-auto.

It's the OP's call...
...but I know which way I'd lean...

There is a plus side to licencing it as restricted because of its looks, that you can TRY have it ammended to semiauto at a later stage ..... but thats really a long drawn out way.

Again your CS may not sign off on that and your left with a rifle that you may have planned on converting to S/A but you cant.

GH

It wasn't me!

Yeah, personally I'd go semi-auto, lose the ambiguity and license it as restricted.

gunhappy_ie

Sparks wrote: »

And then you just need the judge to go with your expert opinion over that of the Garda from Ballistics that'll be giving expert opinion that says the CS is right.

Now if Judges knew firearms, you'd probably be grand....

...thing is, they don't. And we've already seen fairly daft judgements from Justices like Charleton, which then were used to ban all manner of things.

Unless hes an armourer hes not qualified to talk about it.....

That i have seen come up in court :)

bunny shooter

Personally, and not having a dig at anyone, I detest the word "expert" used in these circumstances.

You'll be an "expert" if the judge decides you are ................ realistically?

gunhappy_ie

bunny shooter wrote: »

Personally, and not having a dig at anyone, I detest the word "expert" used in these circumstances.

You'll be an "expert" if the judge decides you are ................ realistically?

Very true !

Experienced/qualified would better suit.

bunny shooter

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Very true !

Experienced/qualified would better suit.

I accept that an armourer is experienced/qualified with regard to the repair & maintenance of firearms but what experience/qualification do these Garda balistic lads/ladies have when it comes to firearm?

Tackleberrywho

Apply as restricted Semi Auto and use a 30 round mag, Simples

The CS will say Yeah or Nay....

If he says yeah happy days if he says no, buy a Bolt action

I'd feel like a right wally if I had a Glock that had a 5 shot straight pull mag classed as an Evil Black Restricted Firearm

If you are up front about it they "might" see sense and see your case on it's merits.

If you already have a GSM Alarm and have met grade 5 security standards, and have a history of responsible ownership all you can do is apply and see what happens.,

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Unless hes an armourer hes not qualified to talk about it...

Yeah, good luck with that argument. Especially as there is no actual definition of what constitutes or qualifies an "expert" witness apart from them knowing more than the judge. Which means you could have a heart surgeon in there giving expert testimony on athlete's foot...

And you'd wonder - if they did introduce rules on what qualifies an expert witness in firearms, what would be the odds that any of the civilian expert witnesses currently appearing in courts on firearms cases would be deemed acceptable?

gunhappy_ie

Bunny.... forgot to quote you.... AFAIK there either forensic/ballistic specalists who through there jobs have seen the darker/illegal side of firearms use and have tainted opinions (if even it is there own opinion or the opinion that they are told to give)

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Apply as restricted Semi Auto and use a 30 round mag, Simples

The CS will say Yeah or Nay....

If he says yeah happy days if he says no, buy a Bolt action

I'd feel like a right wally if I had a Glock that had a 5 shot straight pull mag classed as an Evil Black Restricted Firearm

If you are up front about it they "might" see sense and see your case on it's merits.

If you already have a GSM Alarm and have met grade 5 security standards, and have a history of responsible ownership all you can do is apply and see what happens.,

You dont need to apply with a mag capacity included and as standard R15 they dont come with a 30 round mag. It would also be up to your CS as to what he/she limits you to as they are allowed to put conditions on your licence ie, 10 round mags if they see fit.

Also, it would be along the lines of re-inventing the wheel to convert a S/A pistol to a dedicated straight pull :P

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, good luck with that argument. Especially as there is no actual definition of what constitutes or qualifies an "expert" witness apart from them knowing more than the judge. Which means you could have a heart surgeon in there giving expert testimony on athlete's foot...

And you'd wonder - if they did introduce rules on what qualifies an expert witness in firearms, what would be the odds that any of the civilian expert witnesses currently appearing in courts on firearms cases would be deemed acceptable?

Yes there are no definitions and/or definations that are in law are in many cases either vague or wrong. However I would like to think that a judge would use "commom sense" in the matter of deciding who is experienced enough.

There have currently been many civilian experts in court cases that so far have stood in stone against the gardai arguement, from shooters to firearms dealers. It would be impossible to dismiss any experienced civilian and there have been high court cases to prove that.

GH

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, good luck with that argument. Especially as there is no actual definition of what constitutes or qualifies an "expert" witness apart from them knowing more than the judge. Which means you could have a heart surgeon in there giving expert testimony on athlete's foot...

And you'd wonder - if they did introduce rules on what qualifies an expert witness in firearms, what would be the odds that any of the civilian expert witnesses currently appearing in courts on firearms cases would be deemed acceptable?

There is ..Definitions of what constitutes an expert witness these days.
You would want to be registerd with the directory of expert witnesses UK,and you would want to be able to PROVE that you have a recognised qualification of degree level or more in your specific field,or that you have presented at least one paper on the subject in the last three years.

"Ballistics" wont cut it,in this case. That is like saying you are qualified in computors..
It would want to be somthing like a firearms recognition ,ballistics and tool marking.Ballistics cover everything,not just specifically firearms.Experiance and just experiance wont cut it either,anywhere else,bar here.As you said yourself,a heart surgeon giving evidence on foot rot.
Now the next problem is, it has been established in the UK and wont be long here,that expert witnesses can be sued now as well for giving incorrect information in the evidence..

Be it as it may,it is a judges decision as to wether he will or wont aceept either or both parties experts testimony still in Ireland.But in fairness they will generally let both have their say or not at all..
The expert witness field is still very open in Ireland and quite frankly I am amazed at the lack of written qualifications on both sides of the court to claim the title of expert witness.In the EU or US your qualifications are the first thing to be challanged.So in fairness the surgeon giving evidence on foot rot,is as good as the podontorists evidence.:pac:

As for the OP.Go and get the thing in semi auto restricted.All or nothing...It's 50/50 as wether you get it or not and it is better to aim high than too low.So you mightnt get it in semi but maybe you will in BA.

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Yes there are no definitions and/or definations that are in law are in many cases either vague or wrong. However I would like to think that a judge would use "commom sense" in the matter of deciding who is experienced enough.

You'd imagine they would -- but don't forget that what's common sense to us after a decade or two of shooting is not going to be common sense to a judge who's never picked up a firearm in his life unless it was evidence in a case. Most Joe Publics, if you asked them was an armourer an expert in firearms, would say yes.

There have currently been many civilian experts in court cases that so far have stood in stone against the gardai arguement, from shooters to firearms dealers. It would be impossible to dismiss any experienced civilian and there have been high court cases to prove that.

Er, not exactly. There have been high court cases where the civilian expert witness testimony and the garda expert testimony were both heard and the decision went to the applicant; but there have also been cases where the decision went the other way. But so far we've never seen a court rule on the whole civilan-expert-v-garda-expert point, they've just allowed both and then ruled on the case. Yeah, I know, it's a nuance, but that's courts for you.

Tackleberrywho

@ GH

You have proved my point, why buy a straight pull for some "Ballistic's expert" to say it's restricted based on it's looks.

Buy a Semi Auto and see what happens application wise

(I'm Technically a Firearms Instructor too for what it's worth, Had I completed ARP's was one of my Interview questions for my restricted Application)

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

There is ..Definitions of what constitutes an expert witness these days.

But not in an Irish court. There are commercial directories you can register with, yes, but just because I advertise myself as an expert doesn't make me one, nor would failing to do so disqualify me. Those directories aren't there to serve the courts or the public; they're there to make a profit by selling copies of their directory.

And you'll find, for example, that there are no Irish civilians on that directory, or Garda experts (it lists only two firearms experts, both from england and one is a self-defence expert, rather than an expert in firearms per se).

"Ballistics" wont cut it,in this case.

It does here though. Repeatedly. It's doing so at the moment in at least one DC case I know of (and that's all we'll say on that for the moment because of the current legal worries). I know it wouldn't in other jurisdictions, but that's only relevant if you're in court in those other jurisdictions; we have to live under the Irish system.

Now the next problem is, it has been established in the UK and wont be long here,that expert witnesses can be sued now as well for giving incorrect information in the evidence.

Now that would put the cat amongst the pigeons if it came in over here, and not just in our cases, not by a long shot.

customrifle

Thanks for the replies lads. Going taking a look at a h&k mr223 and a s/a oberland at w end. Ive held the h&k already and it just feels like quality, and having owned a usp expert before id be drawn toward that. the trigger pull on it is up round 6 or 7 pounds though, but i think you can get it tuned or a drop in one.
They are both round same money, which is about twice what i had originally wanted to spend. And seeing as how im paying for wedding at mo thats a big difference:p, thats why i was considering the straight pull, it seems like good quality and accurate at good price. There are a couple of 2nd hand ones on guntrader at mo for decent money but if i got one in good nick already in country it would suit me better.
Regarding licencing it I know the FO well, so id just tell him exactly what it is and see what course he recommends. Im going to speak to him before i lay out deposit on anything to see have I clearance to get it first.

Sparks

customrifle wrote: »

thats why i was considering the straight pull, it seems like good quality and accurate at good price.

Hell, if you're doing that, take a look at a Tubbs as well :pac:

Regarding licencing it I know the FO well, so id just tell him exactly what it is and see what course he recommends. Im going to speak to him before i lay out deposit on anything to see have I clearance to get it first.

Thing is, the FO doesn't have the last say on it, and even the super might not either. But no harm in sounding him out on what the Super or CS are like. Just don't think his word is gospel. Even the Garda Firearms Policy Unit have said this publicly -- if the FO says no, you ignore him and send in the application to the Super/CS anyway, because it's not the FO's call.

customrifle

The FO would sound out super hes very decent that way, and to be honest the super seems very straight anything ive applied for shes granted without any problems. When i got the little 22 pistol last year she just asked for an inspection of security at house again and that was no prob as the security had been the same since i had the 9mm.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

But not in an Irish court. There are commercial directories you can register with, yes, but just because I advertise myself as an expert doesn't make me one, nor would failing to do so disqualify me. Those directories aren't there to serve the courts or the public; they're there to make a profit by selling copies of their directory.

As I said on your 1st point already.Uhmmm ,not quite on your 3rd point Re the directories.They generally end up in solicitors offices or PI companies.Which use them to find a revelant "qualified" expert.

And you'll find, for example, that there are no Irish civilians on that directory,

Not YET!!!!;)

or Garda experts (it lists only two firearms experts, both from england and one is a self-defence expert, rather than an expert in firearms per se

).
BUT there actually plenty of firearms experts in the UK,and it isnt a major feat to locate one..Just paying them is..

It does here though. Repeatedly. It's doing so at the moment in at least one DC case I know of (and that's all we'll say on that for the moment because of the current legal worries). I know it wouldn't in other jurisdictions, but that's only relevant if you're in court in those other jurisdictions; we have to live under the Irish system.

Hmmm,thats open to debate...Their track record has been how many losses to wins,and bleating the same old mantra about 1500 and race guns in 9mm tricked out for target shooting being used by "elite " ERU type units is getting to be laughable..

Now that would put the cat amongst the pigeons if it came in over here, and not just in our cases, not by a long shot.

IT WILL belive you me...So if I were going to be claiming in future to be an expert Witness be I Garda or Civvie.I'd want to be sure that I had the scrolls to back it up!And the qualifications and that they were up to date!!And possibly belong to a body or two to prove I'm current.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Uhmmm ,not quite on your 3rd point Re the directories.They generally end up in solicitors offices or PI companies.Which use them to find a revelant "qualified" expert.

Yes, but they don't get copies for free

Not YET!!!!;)

You're missing the point Grizz - they're not in there, but they've already appeared in dozens of cases from District to Supreme Court levels. So the directories aren't the definition of 'expert' here.

Hmmm,thats open to debate...Their track record has been how many losses to wins,and bleating the same old mantra about 1500 and race guns in 9mm tricked out for target shooting being used by "elite " ERU type units is getting to be laughable..

Their track record has been, so as we're clear on the stakes, many many losses and one win - and that one win got the sport banned. Their entire track record is like that - they go to the High Court over Dunne and lose, go to the Supreme court on appeal and lose, and then stick a single paragraph in the back of the next upcoming Criminal Justice Bill and rewrite the law so that what Dunne stopped the PTB (or if we're being honest, the Minister) doing, was now perfectly legal.

I've lost track of how many times I've said it, but it remains true - you cannot use the courts as a stick to beat the government with. It just doesn't work that way. And it will bite you in the ass in the end if you try it.

IT WILL belive you me...So if I were going to be claiming in future to be an expert Witness be I Garda or Civvie.I'd want to be sure that I had the scrolls to back it up!

And you think that the Gardai couldn't produce them?
The problem wouldn't be for them, but for us - if the garda experts were found underqualified, our taxes would pay for the additional necessary qualifications!