.22 pistols restricted/unrestricted.

2011

MOD NOTE

Split off from this thread.

=======================================================================================================

Due to the look of the GSG some may argue that it should require a restricted license, where as the Hammerli Xesse definitely falls into the unrestricted license category.

Witcher

2011 wrote: »

Due to the look of the GSG some may argue that it should require a restricted license, where as the Hammerli Xesse definitely falls into the unrestricted license category.

Why would the look of the GSG require a restricted licence?

You can licence any 5 shot .22lr pistol unrestricted, some supers will only licence ones off the authorised list but it doesn't mean you need a restricted licence for anything outside that....you couldnt get one anyway.

Mike87

Blay wrote: »

Why would the look of the GSG require a restricted licence?

You can licence any 5 shot .22lr pistol unrestricted, some supers will only licence ones off the authorised list but it doesn't mean you need a restricted licence for anything outside that....you couldnt get one anyway.

If I remember correctly, doesnt it say in the guidelines that a pistol must not look like a 'military/police' pistol and that it must be easily recognised as an olympic one. Well you cant get much more military then 1911.

Witcher

Mike87 wrote: »

If I remember correctly, doesnt it say in the guidelines that a pistol must not look like a 'military/police' pistol and that it must be easily recognised as an olympic one. Well you cant get much more military then 1911.

That's a guideline, it has no basis in law...what is in law is that a 5 shot .22lr pistol is unrestricted and can be licenced be it a 1911 or a buckmark.

Grizzly 45

Mike87 wrote: »

If I remember correctly, doesnt it say in the guidelines that a pistol must not look like a 'military/police' pistol and that it must be easily recognised as an olympic one. Well you cant get much more military then 1911.

No it does NOT..Need to go read them again. ,.22There is a recommended list in the guidelines[that just happen to be Olympic pistol orientated apart from things like the Ruger Mark 1to3] But as said it is a guideline,not engraved in stone.

Also, abit of a misnomer to argue now that the Browning design of the 1911 is a "militaty pistol" seeing that it is over 101 years old and has been used more by civillian shooters than its entire military career in the last century.. Which military forces issue a .45 now as a standard sidearm??

Mike87

Blay wrote: »

That's a guideline, it has no basis in law...what is in law is that a 5 shot .22lr pistol is unrestricted and can be licenced be it a 1911 or a buckmark.

Thats fair enough. But we all know some supers use the guidelines as if they were law. And some Supers (my own included) wont licence pistols full stop.

rowa

Mike87 wrote: »

Thats fair enough. But we all know some supers use the guidelines as if they were law. And some Supers (my own included) wont licence pistols full stop.

Your super has no right to do that , each application is to be considered on its own merits and stating they will not licence pistols is in effect a blanket ban. To the best of my knowledge only the minister for justice has the power to ban catagories of firearms, not some local super.

2011

My understanding is that if a pistol has a military/police look or styling it requires a restricted license. To many the GSG falls into this category.

I accept that the famous list of unrestricted pistols is only meant to be representative of the type of .22 pistol that can be licensed with an unrestricted license. Unfortunately in some areas the PTB treat this list as though only the firearms on it can be licensed.

Witcher

2011 wrote: »

My understanding is that if a pistol has a military/police look or styling it requires a restricted license. To many the GSG falls into this category.

There's no definition of what a 'military' pistol is in firearms legislation. The only firearms restricted based on looks are rifles resembling 'assault rifles'.

Mike87

rowa wrote: »

Your super has no right to do that , each application is to be considered on its own merits and stating they will not licence pistols is in effect a blanket ban. To the best of my knowledge only the minister for justice has the power to ban catagories of firearms, not some local super.

Yeh but unfortunately thats all theory. In theory, I should be able to get an AR-15 without needing a court case so long as my security/good reason/good character is all in order.

2011

Blay wrote: »

There's no definition of what a 'military' pistol is in firearms legislation.

That may be part of the problem.

I have met plenty of people who are from areas that can only license pistols from the famous representative list and even then it can be quite difficult for them.

The OP Stated that he felt the "need to upgrade to a more target orentated pistol."

The Hammerli Xesse is an .22 excellent target pistol and has the benefit it may be more palatable to certain superintendents.

Witcher

2011 wrote: »

That may be part of the problem.

I have met plenty of people who are from areas that can only license pistols from the famous representative list and even then it can be quite difficult for them.

The OP Stated that he felt the "need to upgrade to a more target orentated pistol."

The Hammerli Xesse is an .22 excellent target pistol and has the benefit it may be more palatable to certain superintendents.

I'm not arguing any of that, all I said was that a GSG 1911 does not need a restricted licence.

2011

Blay wrote: »

I'm not arguing any of that, all I said was that a GSG 1911 does not need a restricted licence.

Perhaps, but this may depend on where you live. With firearms and pistols in particular different laws are often imposed in different districts.

Witcher

2011 wrote: »

Perhaps, but this may depend on where you live. With firearms and pistols in particular different laws are often imposed in different districts.

No, across the board..a super can't decide what is restricted and what isn't. If you apply for a 5 shot .22lr 1911 it is classed as unrestricted, he can refuse you for the same reasons he can refuse any application for any unrestricted firearm be it rifle/pistol/shotgun but he can't hand it back and say apply for a restricted licence for it because;

1. It's not restricted
2. Even if it was you couldn't get a restricted licence for it due to an SI preventing that.

Grizzly 45

2011 wrote: »

That may be part of the problem.

I have met plenty of people who are from areas that can only license pistols from the famous representative list and even then it can be quite difficult for them.

The OP Stated that he felt the "need to upgrade to a more target orentated pistol."

The Hammerli Xesse is an .22 excellent target pistol and has the benefit it may be more palatable to certain superintendents.

You do have the option of taking it up with the FPU,to explain to your Supers about this list being a guideline only.There have been plenty of GSG or 1911 style pistols liscensed here,as well as other designs and older designed Olympic style target pistols,which are just as good,[if not better than some plastic offerings today]. As well as that,what happens when newer models apper on the market??Are we going to be stuck in a time warp with only that list forever more?? Dont think so!

2011

Blay wrote: »

No, across the board..a super can't decide what is restricted and what isn't. If you apply for a 5 shot .22lr 1911 it is classed as unrestricted, he can refuse you on the same reasons he can refuse any application for any unrestricted firearm be it rifle/pistol/shotgun but he can't hand it back and say apply for a restricted licence for it because;

1. It's not restricted
2. Even if it was you couldn't get a restricted licence for it due to an SI preventing that.

In theory you may be correct.
Unfortunately in practice sometimes things work differently. I have heard of areas where silencers have been effectively banned and other areas where only pistols appearing on the list have been licensed.

rowa

Mike87 wrote: »

Yeh but unfortunately thats all theory. In theory, I should be able to get an AR-15 without needing a court case so long as my security/good reason/good character is all in order.

Actually its not all theory , its in the commissioners guidelines afaik and its certainly in the firearms act. If you reasonably apply for a pistol for target shooting , are a member of an approved club and are told "sorry i don't licence pistols" you have a right to have the reason for the refusal in writing from the super. You then have a very good case in the district court. Wheres the theory there ? nearly all pistol shooters have been in the district courts in the past few years

2011

I actually know quite a few a few people that have been going through the legal process for years. They meet all of the criteria but some of them still do not have the licenses that they deserve. Others have won their cases in the district court, but it has cost them financially. The fact that so many people have been forced to choose the legal route illustrates the fact that things do not always work exactly as they should.

Mike87

rowa wrote: »

Actually its not all theory , its in the commissioners guidelines afaik and its certainly in the firearms act. If you reasonably apply for a pistol for target shooting , are a member of an approved club and are told "sorry i don't licence pistols" you have a right to have the reason for the refusal in writing from the super. You then have a very good case in the district court. Wheres the theory there ? nearly all pistol shooters have been in the district courts in the past few years

Does that bold bit not say something.

My own super doesnt refuse the licence based on "I have banned them in my district" but rather he insists its a danger to the public if I get robbed of it.

Just to be clear on this. Im not disputing whether a 1911 is restricted or non-restricted. Its very obviously non-restricted.

All Im saying is that a lot of Supers stick to those guidelines very rigidly. THat been the case you may be in for a hard ride to get a 'military-looking-pistol-which-isnt-on-the-list'. Thats all Im saying.

You can tell me how it works in theory all night if you want, but the amount of real world court cases and refusals would suggest that theory and real-world are at odds with each other. Like I said before, in theory, I should be able to get an AR-15 without any real hassle- but in the real world you can be almost guaranteed that it will end up going through the courts.

EDIT: Sorry to get so off-topic. Going to stop posting now.

Sparks

Blay wrote: »

No, across the board..a super can't decide what is restricted and what isn't.

In the case of the .22lr pistol, correct; but in the case of a rifle there's an argument that he *can* based on this utterly imprecise dreg of a law:

“assault rifles” means—

(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,

(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

It's very specifically only rifles that the "resembles" argument can be made for though. There's no statutory grounds for denying an application for a pistol licence on the grounds of the appearance of the pistol.

Grizzly 45

Mike87 wrote: »

Does that bold bit not say something.

My own super doesnt refuse the licence based on "I have banned them in my district" but rather he insists its a danger to the public if I get robbed of it.

Well, why should that be a concern if you have met the security requirements of secure storage and good reason??? If you fulfil those requirements and they are stolen which has happened in one or more cases since 2008,the Gaurds dont assign blame on that point.
Nor is his reasoning sound... IF is a very big word in law,he could just as easily refuse you a unrestricted firearm as it might be just as easily stolen..

.

All Im saying is that a lot of Supers stick to those guidelines very rigidly. THat been the case you may be in for a hard ride to get a 'military-looking-pistol-which-isnt-on-the-list'. Thats all Im saying.

You can tell me how it works in theory all night if you want, but the amount of real world court cases and refusals would suggest that theory and real-world are at odds with each other. Like I said before, in theory, I should be able to get an AR-15 without any real hassle- but in the real world you can be almost guaranteed that it will end up going through the courts.

Well heres a test then..Ask him would he liscense it in .22lr??Same design,same looks [and possinly with even more evill features] and I would bet it will be liscensed alot quicker...Irrespective of it's evil assault rifle mass baby killing features.:rolleyes:

So then your arguement is if it isnt the features it is the calibres,and obviously then the guidelines as interpertated into law by some,is not being administrated fairly either.

The "idoanlikedelookodat" clause has to apply then fairly to both types wether rim or centrefire.If they will liscense it in .22 and not in .223,then they are making it plain that the .22 isnt considerd that much of a problem.

But the fact is in the end,you have to put mouth where money is and go and fight for it after all else fails.It is one thing the PTB are relying on that most wont fight for a restricted firearm and therefore we ourselves start making it out to be some dark art to aquire one.Just do your research well and have good reason as to why you want one and you can get one.:)

rowa

Mike87 wrote: »

Does that bold bit not say something.

My own super doesnt refuse the licence based on "I have banned them in my district" but rather he insists its a danger to the public if I get robbed of it.

Just to be clear on this. Im not disputing whether a 1911 is restricted or non-restricted. Its very obviously non-restricted.

All Im saying is that a lot of Supers stick to those guidelines very rigidly. THat been the case you may be in for a hard ride to get a 'military-looking-pistol-which-isnt-on-the-list'. Thats all Im saying.

You can tell me how it works in theory all night if you want, but the amount of real world court cases and refusals would suggest that theory and real-world are at odds with each other. Like I said before, in theory, I should be able to get an AR-15 without any real hassle- but in the real world you can be almost guaranteed that it will end up going through the courts.

EDIT: Sorry to get so off-topic. Going to stop posting now.

Yes the bold bit does say something , it says the irish shooter isn't the sheep he (or she) was back in 1972 and if he feels he is getting a raw deal , then if after the usual meetings etc it'll wind up in the district court.
The famous pistols list is one part of the new act that has degenerated into a dogs breakfast, if a list was to be used , it should have been linked to the rimfires on the californian approved list (this is where the few on the list came from in the first place). As i asked before , the irish list isn't updated , so irish shooter might end up using out of date equipment in a few years time.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Yes the bold bit does say something , it says the irish shooter isn't the sheep he (or she) was back in 1972 and if he feels he is getting a raw deal , then if after the usual meetings etc it'll wind up in the district court.

Hopefully only when the shooter is actually getting abused; we've already lost one case in the Supreme Court where the shooter felt they were being abused, but everyone else thought otherwise (and honestly, reading the transcripts, I can't side with the shooter on that case, it was a train wreck).

The famous pistols list is one part of the new act that has degenerated into a dogs breakfast, if a list was to be used , it should have been linked to the rimfires on the californian approved list (this is where the few on the list came from in the first place).

No, it's not; though I wouldn't doubt that some of the PTB looked at the californian list. Basicly, NGBs got asked what was in use and that's where the list came from. Which is why it's almost entirely what the NASRPC and NTSA shooters were using at the time. But the list is not the law and the NGBs all fought to ensure that was the case.

As i asked before , the irish list isn't updated , so irish shooter might end up using out of date equipment in a few years time.

Nope.
The list is - and the FPU have always backed this - a list of examples of what pistols meet the actual rules laid down in the Firearms Act.
If you go out this year and buy a 5-shot .22lr pistol not on that list, but which meets the rules in the restricted list SIs, then you can licence it (or at least apply to licence it and be considered as evenly as if you'd applied for one on the list) and that's the law. If the Super isn't following the law, that's what the NGBs, the FPU and if necessary, the courts, are all there for.

Mike87

Grizzly: You know Id love to say that to my super regarding the AR and then accuse him of having a problem with the calibar. But to be honest. I just couldnt be bothered because I know he's not going to suddenly have a change of heart or realise he's wrong and apologise and tell me to go get a deposit down and come back with the application for him to stamp it.

His logic was this. Pistols are more sought after by criminals then rifles. Thus I become a high risk target. I can have the best alarm system, with camera's in every direction, and storing the pistol in a bank vault buried 100 yards beneath my house which is accessed by an elevator that will only recognise my palm print- but what happens when a criminal kidnaps my wife and tells me they want the pistol. All the security counts for nothing. Thats what I was told. Now grizzly I know thats wrong, and you know thats wrong, and everybody reading this knows thats wrong, but apart from going to court- what can I do?

You's talk about arguing with Supers and standing up for my rights and going to court like its my duty as a shooter and not be walked on. Well Ive got news for you, me (and probably the majority of people reading this) just dont have the time/money/energy/desire to take a Superintendent to court.

Grizzly I know you have been to court multipe times, and I have a lot of respect for you for that. And the other, 156 pistols owners (hope I got that number right) who just finished court a few months back- I have great respect for them. But you have to understand, most of us just dont want a pistol/restricted rifle that badly. Which ultimately (and unfortunately) means we are at the mercy of our Supers- so that means if he decides he wont relicence any of my rifles because the gas released is casuing holes in the ozone layer- well then I guess that means I'll be giving up shooting and doing a lot more fishing.

Grizzly 45

Mike87 wrote: »

Grizzly: You know Id love to say that to my super regarding the AR and then accuse him of having a problem with the calibar. But to be honest. I just couldnt be bothered because I know he's not going to suddenly have a change of heart or realise he's wrong and apologise and tell me to go get a deposit down and come back with the application for him to stamp it.

Have you tried it first off?? And no one is accusing anyone of anything least of all you accusing your cheif superintendant of being biased..
Maybe try asking first,if he wont liscense you on a pistol maybe he might on a semi CF..You WONT KNOW unless you try that at least..

His logic was this. Pistols are more sought after by criminals then rifles. Thus I become a high risk target. I can have the best alarm system, with camera's in every direction, and storing the pistol in a bank vault buried 100 yards beneath my house which is accessed by an elevator that will only recognise my palm print- but what happens when a criminal kidnaps my wife and tells me they want the pistol. All the security counts for nothing. Thats what I was told. Now grizzly I know thats wrong, and you know thats wrong, and everybody reading this knows thats wrong, but apart from going to court- what can I do?

Quite a lot from that logic displayed there. So is he saying that he belives the guideline and legal aspects of the security is insufficent?He's perfectly within his rights to impose extra conditions on the security to bring it up to his satisfaction,within reason.That about kidnapping your wife is utter and total BullSHT!!! What are you going to do??Show it off to all and sundry,make sure your security details and routines are posted up on Facebook???:rolleyes:C'mon..that is the most lamest excuse I've seen here in awhile..Be that the case he could just as easily claim a double barrel is just as dangerous and likely to fall into criminal hands,etc.

You's talk about arguing with Supers and standing up for my rights and going to court like its my duty as a shooter and not be walked on. Well Ive got news for you, me (and probably the majority of people reading this) just dont have the time/money/energy/desire to take a Superintendent to court.

First off..You dont have "rights" as a shooter here in Ireland .PERIOD!
You have a granted privilige to own a gun here,like anyone else.
Second,and not being personal about it... iI you arent going to put in at least some effort on trying to aquire what you want,well then quit bitching about how badly your super is treating you..You are saying he wont liscense you on a pistol...Fine,have you tried him on an AR15 ??Yes ?No?
No..Why not? What is his reasons?
Or is it more a case of "Ah well I cant get a pistol,He'll refuse me on everything else..Its stacked against me..So therefore,everyone dont bother trying!!

Grizzly I know you have been to court multipe times, and I have a lot of respect for you for that. And the other, 156 pistols owners (hope I got that number right) who just finished court a few months back- I have great respect for them.

Thanks on that...But belive you me it was at the end of a very long road of diplomatic negoiation [and that was mostly one sided attemptsd on my part]. As Sparks has said here umpteen times,court should be the final and utter alternative..
It wasnt a decision I took lightly either,but I took it because I had owned the gun for two years before the gun ban,had fought for three years before that to get it liscensed and had like 100% of Irish handgun gunowners done nothing wrong to be deprived of that liscense!!!
IOW there was a lot more involved in this than just liscensing issues to me.On a personal level as well..
Do you think those lads in the HC took those cases as an easy option??They were gambling tens of thousands on that.Everyone could have said "ah fek this..Its not worth it..Its all a scam..and I dont want it that badly?"
Where would we be?? Back at slight post TCO 1972 times possibly...That HC affair and discovery of collusion to pervert the law of the land isnt over by a long shot yet..

But you have to understand, most of us just dont want a pistol/restricted rifle that badly. Which ultimately (and unfortunately) means we are at the mercy of our Supers- so that means if he decides he wont relicence any of my rifles because the gas released is casuing holes in the ozone layer- well then I guess that means I'll be giving up shooting and doing a lot more fishing.

Well then if you think like that ,fishing might be a better option..
But please dont come on and say it cant be done,its rigged against you ,you havent got time,money and dont want to put in the effort to at least TRY to get over the first few hurdles.There are plenty of total newbies out there who have liscensed .22 pistols since 2008 and proably have had just as many difficult supers to deal with,and managed to do so,as have lads who have semi rifles.
Its a long road from the first asking nicely to the court door,and either of you can get off it by blinking at anytime if you dont think it is worth the game,but you wont know it until you get on the road in the first place.


As Teddy Roosevelt once said.It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

shooter88

licensing a pistol should be the same as a rifle if you meet the requirements..how many firearm holders commit gun crime?I wouldn imagine it is probably one of the lowest in the eu as guns are only granted to trustworthy people..
I just can't imagine pistols being different I personally would love a pistol for the odd bit of target shooting where I have permission to shoot but it would be to costly having to join a club etc also I'm 24 so age will prob go again me even tho I have held licence since I was 16

rowa

shooter88 wrote: »

licensing a pistol should be the same as a rifle if you meet the requirements..how many firearm holders commit gun crime?I wouldn imagine it is probably one of the lowest in the eu as guns are only granted to trustworthy people..
I just can't imagine pistols being different I personally would love a pistol for the odd bit of target shooting where I have permission to shoot but it would be to costly having to join a club etc also I'm 24 so age will prob go again me even tho I have held licence since I was 16

Your age wouldn't go against you, but not being a club member certainly would.

sungear

I am a member of a club, but I am still concerned applying for a pistol which i want to do as its something im interested in.
Mainly its as I'll be putting down a good bit of cash with a dealer and I am concerned about it getting delayed or refused and then me being out of pocket as any dealer I have spoken to wants the cash upfront (understandable as they dont want to lose out if a refusal happens).
My concerns for a refusal are over the ambigious stuff, how do I stand given i have a .22 rifle already?

Sparks

sungear wrote: »

me being out of pocket as any dealer I have spoken to wants the cash upfront

Any dealer who wants your cash upfront and nonrefundable in the event you're refused licence is a dealer you do not want to do business with. Politely say thank you but no thank you and walk the heck away and give your business to someone else.

Cass

Each application is meant to be judged on it's own merits. Meaning you stand as good a chance as anyone. The fact that you have a firearm stands in good stead to you. Once you have membership of a range that should be the only factor you need to fulfill, other than the obvious ones of security, etc.

I would suggest one thing though. There are plenty of pistols out there already for sale. Now maybe some will not suit or you want a new one, but have a look around. If a dealer has one that you like then you need only go the same route as any other gun. A small, refundable, deposit until your application goes through.

The reason some dealers are asking for full price up front is to cover them in the event you change your mind, and they get lumped with a gun. After saying that i fail to see why they do not just reserve the gun (which can be done on a small fee basis), and if successful then import.

sungear

Ezridax wrote: »

I would suggest one thing though. There are plenty of pistols out there already for sale. Now maybe some will not suit or you want a new one, but have a look around. If a dealer has one that you like then you need only go the same route as any other gun. A small, refundable, deposit until your application goes through.

The reason some dealers are asking for full price up front is to cover them in the event you change your mind, and they get lumped with a gun. After saying that i fail to see why they do not just reserve the gun (which can be done on a small fee basis), and if successful then import.

Any recomendations for dealers in the leinster area, some that may be better on stocking pistols? I appreciate thats a bit of an iffy thing to ask online.Pm if thats any better
I started looking online to locate a dealer but nothing was coming up for pistols, I have been recomended to get new but id nearly prefer to get second hand, partly for price, as a good second hand relatively new should be in good condition.