Questions re Licensing Guns/Restricted.Non Restricted

BoatMad

Can we get back to the point, because there are two " experts" arguring the opposite for example , is an Umarex HK416 22lr semi a restricted or unrestricted firearm, in other words how does one approach the "resembles" word in the SI,

One side like Sparks says resembles equates to "looks like", the other side, gunhappy_ie, seems to equate resembles with " functions like"

I ask this again as I have had all sorts of people comment one way or another or various intepretations on lots of firearms.

In some cases newbies are sitting down with RFDs, who they naively accept as experts and those RFDs are helping them fill in the form and are sometime providing incorrect or misleading advice

It gets even worse, lets say you approach your FO, he says naw that firearm XXXXX is unrestricted, Ive issued X licenses, you say oh OK, put in for unrestricted, get it, yet if in the future that's challenged, you got get mega penalties.!!

really whats a girl supposed to do.

Witcher

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles


IMO (A) Restricts any gun that operates like an assault rifle and (B) restricts any that bears an aesthetic similarity to an assault rifle. A gun which falls into category B doesn't have to operate like an assault rifle to be restricted. It's written in such a way as to cover both bases. If you're in either (A) or (B) it's restricted. Again it's only my opinion.

Sparks

BoatMad wrote: »

really whats a girl supposed to do.

Well, put it this way. If you get it wrong and it all goes sideways, will the RFD put up their hands and say "well, fair enough, my fault, I'll accept the fine and/or jail sentence"? (We already know the Garda is exempted from that...)

Basically, until we see a test case in the high court, it's a gray area. Some folks love to push at those and if you know the risks and it sounds like fun and you've got a spare six figures sitting round burning a hole in a bank account, well, have fun. Personally though, I'd steer clear if at all possible.

BoatMad

Blay wrote: »

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles


IMO (A) Restricts any gun that operates like an assault rifle and (B) restricts any that bears an aesthetic similarity to an assault rifle. A gun which falls into category B doesn't have to operate like an assault rifle to be restricted. It's written in such a way as to cover both bases. If you're in either (A) or (B) it's restricted. Again it's only my opinion.

But isnt that the point your interpretation of "resembles " is " aesthetic similarity " but is it really the case?

ooh I don't know, what really bugs me is that in reality once you get a license and haven't lied, it should be valid. It shouldn't be up to the uninformed punter was is regarded as restricted or not, in reality that should be the role of the FPU,but thats another argument.

Witcher

BoatMad wrote: »

But isnt that the point your interpretation of "resembles " is " aesthetic similarity " but is it really the case?

Part (B) has to be referring to the visual similarity of a gun to an assault rifle. Saying that (B) refers to the operational components of the gun resembling an assault rifle is just twisting it.

My thoughts on it are this:

(A)- If the gun operates like an assault rifle; it is restricted.
(B)- If the gun visually resembles a firearm which meets the above definiton of an assault rifle; it is restricted.

As Sparks said people like to think they can straddle both sides of a legal grey area content that such grey area laws don't apply to them, but when it comes down to it the lay person's opinion on this matter isn't worth a dime, the PTB call the shots.

BoatMad wrote: »

ooh I don't know, what really bugs me is that in reality once you get a license and haven't lied, it should be valid. It shouldn't be up to the uninformed punter was is regarded as restricted or not, in reality that should be the role of the FPU,but thats another argument.

I get where you're coming from but when someone steps foot into the world of firearms in this country they know it's going to be heavily governed by legislation and they should examine this to stay in line with it, claiming ignorance is no excuse. One can't be expected to know every Act or SI but a good knowledge of the main points is essential.

I've not been shooting long but one of the first things I did was read the major pieces of legislation on firearms, restricted v unrestricted etc. Even though I wasn't going to get a restricted firearm I felt it was good to know what constituted one so I didn't cross the line accidentally. I'd nearly say that knowing the law atleast in basic terms should be step 1 going into shooting because it will affect pretty much everything you do in the sport in some way.

Bananaman

Again I have to ask ....... Whats wrong with applying for a restricted license? (unless your ch super is operating a blanket ban on all restricted firearms)

If you apply for it as reztricted and provide documentation as to why you (and a letter from the RFD to same effect) believe it to be non restricted and you get issued your license then out you go and shoot.

If it ever comes to the Gardai arguing that you got.an unrestricted license for what should have been restricted - when you, in good faith, disclosed everything and did not.try to play the system ..... Then your ass is already in a sling for something else and they are just gilding the lily.

B'Man

gunhappy_ie

Sparks wrote: »

Not to be personal, but I'd dispute that particular assertion regardless of who was making it. I've spent the guts of a decade on the Firearms Act - hell, I'm one of the few people who can point to a part of it and rightfully claim to have written it - and I still wouldn't call myself an expert on it because I don't think there actually are any. There are maybe two dozen people in the country who know enough about the Firearms Act to have a working knowledge of it, let alone an expert knowledge, and damn few of them have legal qualifications. The Act is just too badly fragmented and amended and has too many other bits of legislation impinging on it and is too badly written in the first place for anyone to really call themselves an expert on it with any really useful measure of confidence. That's why the Law Reform Commission and Justice Charleton both called for it to be restated or re-codified.

edit: Rereading that, it still seems overly personal, so let me try to clairfy - I've no doubts at all that we have lots of firearms experts around. Hell, under the 10,000 hour rule, quite a few posters on here would qualify as experts. But I don't believe that anyone in Ireland - and I include Ministers, civil servants, NGB staff, barristers and judges in this - can rightfully claim to be an expert on Irish firearms legislation. A working knowledge, yes, we have two dozen or so people who'd have that; but I don't honestly believe anyone can justifiably claim to be an expert in the normal use of the word, not in this area.

Not personal at all but I didnt make myself clear. I by no means am an expert on Irish firearms law as your right "The Act is just too badly fragmented ....and is too badly written....".

BoatMad wrote: »

Can we get back to the point, because there are two " experts" arguring the opposite for example , is an Umarex HK416 22lr semi a restricted or unrestricted firearm, in other words how does one approach the "resembles" word in the SI,

One side like Sparks says resembles equates to "looks like", the other side, gunhappy_ie, seems to equate resembles with " functions like"

I ask this again as I have had all sorts of people comment one way or another or various intepretations on lots of firearms.

In some cases newbies are sitting down with RFDs, who they naively accept as experts and those RFDs are helping them fill in the form and are sometime providing incorrect or misleading advice

It gets even worse, lets say you approach your FO, he says naw that firearm XXXXX is unrestricted, Ive issued X licenses, you say oh OK, put in for unrestricted, get it, yet if in the future that's challenged, you got get mega penalties.!!

really whats a girl supposed to do.

Sorry, this is turning into a legal barrel length debate. In short bananaman is offering the best advice.....

Bananaman wrote: »

If you apply for it as reztricted and provide documentation as to why you (and a letter from the RFD to same effect) believe it to be non restricted and you get issued your license then out you go and shoot.
B'Man

GH

Grizzly 45

Bananaman wrote: »

Again I have to ask ....... Whats wrong with applying for a restricted license? (unless your ch super is operating a blanket ban on all restricted firearms)

Think we know the answer to that one! 99% of them,unless directed by a DC to do otherwise.:(

)- If the gun visually resembles a firearm which meets the above definiton of an assault rifle; it is restricted.

That is a VERY GREY area as my DC case proved..What does an "assault Rifle " look like??Same as saying a kit car Ferrari lookalike is a genuine Ferrari.Its wayy to open to debate as to what an assault riflelooks like .
There are plenty of "assault rifles" out there that dont look anything like what you imagine an assault rifle to be,and are actually classified as classic and target rifles.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse...PROVIDED the law is understandable to everyone.[Which is why it is made so complex by law mongers:p] in Irish firearms laws which is some of the greyest,badly defined,obtuse legislationon the statue books.As said you would want to be a professor in law to know our firearms laws inside out.

Bananaman

It's intended and designed to be, a grey area - no point thinking otherwise.

Only one person is allowed to process your application - so it is very subjective, as that individual must decide if they think "it resembles".

If that individual decides that a CZ 452 or an Anschutz 2011, "resembles" an assault rifle - then it does - Unless you get the decision overturned by a higher authority.

People are discussing this in terms of it being an objective decision, based on defined criteria - when the legislation was obviously designed to be the opposite - i.e. to cover any decision made - the eponymous "idontlikethelookofthat" - sure they even built in the "isthatusedintheolympics" clause that has been used for years too.

What is obvious is that the only alternative, under the current civil servants, are lists - which highlight what is or is not allowed (you can call them "guidelines" if you like, but that is like calling a telephone pole an "ex tree") and, as we all know, there be monsters down that path too.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Again I have to ask ....... Whats wrong with applying for a restricted license? (unless your ch super is operating a blanket ban on all restricted firearms)

Absolutely nothing, which is why I don't really understand why so many people want to dive head-first into the gray area here.

There is a concern at applying for the wrong kind of licence though - because the law is written in such a way that if you do that, even innocently, then you'll be the only one left without a chair when the music stops.

If it ever comes to the Gardai arguing that you got.an unrestricted license for what should have been restricted - when you, in good faith, disclosed everything and did not.try to play the system ..... Then your ass is already in a sling for something else and they are just gilding the lily.

It's not really gilding the lily - in such a situation you'd be looking at the prospect of being charged with possession of an unlicenced firearm, and your only defence is citing your due diligence, and given the way the law's written, that's far from a solid defence.

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Not personal at all

Glad to hear it!

Sorry, this is turning into a legal barrel length debate.

Don't mention the war...

In short bananaman is offering the best advice.....

Actually, I wouldn't think that was good advice at all, if I'm honest - as I've already said, if you get an unrestricted licence for a restricted firearm -- whether by chancing your arm or by deliberately ignoring any hint you had the wrong kind of licence or because of bad advice from the local firearms officer or bad practice by the local Super -- and you're caught, then you really don't have any effective defence. The law says it's on you to have the right kind of licence, not anyone else. If there's any doubt one way or the other, I'd apply for the restricted licence just to be safe.

BoatMad

Bananaman wrote: »

It's intended and designed to be, a grey area - no point thinking otherwise.

Only one person is allowed to process your application - so it is very subjective, as that individual must decide if they think "it resembles".

If that individual decides that a CZ 452 or an Anschutz 2011, "resembles" an assault rifle - then it does - Unless you get the decision overturned by a higher authority.



B'Man

But that's one of my points the fact is a single individual doesn't decide. They can effectively do an incompent job, not check what firearm is what, give you the wrong license and it's you the holder that gets screwed.

gunhappy_ie

Sparks wrote: »

Glad to hear it!Don't mention the war...Actually, I wouldn't think that was good advice at all, if I'm honest - as I've already said, if you get an unrestricted licence for a restricted firearm -- whether by chancing your arm or by deliberately ignoring any hint you had the wrong kind of licence or because of bad advice from the local firearms officer or bad practice by the local Super -- and you're caught, then you really don't have any effective defence. The law says it's on you to have the right kind of licence, not anyone else. If there's any doubt one way or the other, I'd apply for the restricted licence just to be safe.

I think your getting confused..... I ment:

Bananaman wrote: »

Again I have to ask ....... Whats wrong with applying for a restricted license? (unless your ch super is operating a blanket ban on all restricted firearms)

If you apply for it as reztricted and provide documentation as to why you (and a letter from the RFD to same effect) believe it to be non restricted and you get issued your license then out you go and shoot.

If it ever comes to the Gardai arguing that you got.an unrestricted license for what should have been restricted - when you, in good faith, disclosed everything and did not.try to play the system ..... Then your ass is already in a sling for something else and they are just gilding the lily.

B'Man

In the above mentioned scenario if after you providing your CS with all the information of a firearm and reasons why you are applying for it as restricted along with reasons why you deem it to be non restricted. If that CS agrees with you and its signed off on as non restricted then does that not cover you ?

Again as B'man has pointed out, theres nothing wrong with applying for a firearm as restricted. It doesnt immediatly put you on a suspected terrorist list that your every movement is tracked on.

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

I think your getting confused..... I ment:

Ah, grand.

In the above mentioned scenario if after you providing your CS with all the information of a firearm and reasons why you are applying for it as restricted along with reasons why you deem it to be non restricted. If that CS agrees with you and its signed off on as non restricted then does that not cover you ?

No, because you're letting the Chief Super decide on what kind of licence to issue and that has two problems: 1) the law doesn't allow the Chief Super to grant an unrestricted licence so it might well be ruled to be null and void; and 2) the law definitely doesn't allow the Chief Super to rule on what is and isn't restricted, which one is which is laid out in the SI and he's not allowed overrule that. So if he made the call incorrectly, your licence would be null and void again.

And that's a very stark illustration of how much a mess the law is -- the licencing authority isn't allowed to decide which licence to issue (either it's unrestricted and issued by the super or it's restricted and issued by the CS, and the two can't swap over); but the SI has subjective judgements built into it (with the "resembles" clause) and lots of gray areas.

In other words, some parts of the law implicitly require something that other parts specifically prohibit!

BoatMad

Thinking about it , there is a simple way to solve this and that's to increase the questions the FCA1 asks you essentially it should require you to answer all the relevant SI questions. For example, does this firearm resemble an assault rifle ( yes/ no). Then the decision as to restricted or unrestricted should fall to the FO. The Resulting license as long as you don't lie or mod the firearm should then not be contestable.

It would also make people who were tempted to under inform on the basis that all they want is any license to think twice. For example if the form said, is the magazine e behind the trigger ( a bullpup as defined in SI) then you remove all the silly arguments over buckmarks etc which clearly under Irish definitions are restricted yet many many are licensed as unrestricted because either the applicant or the FO didint realise the issue.

Sparks

BoatMad wrote: »

Thinking about it , there is a simple way to solve this and that's to increase the questions the FCA1 asks you essentially it should require you to answer all the relevant SI questions. For example, does this firearm resemble an assault rifle ( yes/ no). Then the decision as to restricted or unrestricted should fall to the FO. The Resulting license as long as you don't lie or mod the firearm should then not be contestable.

What if the FO decides incorrectly? You still run the risk of having a null and void licence.

The problem here is that the restricted and unrestricted licences aren't legally constructed in such a way that one is a subset of the other (ie. you can't have a restricted licence for an unrestricted firearm). It's one or the other, and it's on the applicant to have the right one.

Like I said, a complete mess.