Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
smith and wesson m&p 15.22
Options
-
26-02-2013 9:51pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I have never heard of a .22lr "assault" rifle , also an assault rifle is either selective fire or fully automatic, any firearm with fully automatic capability is a prohibited firearm and not available to the public. Three members of my club have these rifles and none have had any problem licencing them, even when they included photos of them in the application, .22lr restricted to 10 rounds not a restricted firearm in the opinion of the gardai.
It doesn't have to be an assault rifle, it just has to resemble one according to the SI.I think some people feel because its black it might be restricted. I also dont see any forward assist and a tiny little ejection port. To quote a greater man than myself, "is it cuz I is black!?".
Umarex HK416 in .22lr..meets your criteria.
0 -
-
-
Whatever about having a dressed up 10/22 under an unrestricted licence based on you and the super agreeing.
There is no way anyone could look at a S&W M&P15 .22 or the Umarex above and say it doesn't look like an assault rifle..they're exact clones of the CF versions. If they don't fall under the category of resembling an assault rifle I don't know what does.
You are right, the hk 416 does resemble an assault rifle in my opinion. I'll admit defeat there but ill stand by the m&p not resembling one for the reasons I mentioned. You or I could look at the m&p and know its not an m4/16, not so much with the 416. I think you would have to get your hands on it to tell unless you could read the markings.
And before you say you or I are more informed and to the layman it would be an assault rifle, everything black would be an assault rifle... Or a glock!
0 -
Advertisement
-
Interesting topic. Without a precedent setting court case I'd say we'll all be talking around in circles on this one (again).
Firstly I'd have to say that if the Super says it doesn't resemble an 'assault rifle', having seen what it looks like, then it doesn't resemble an assault rifle - at least as far as the licencing authority is concerned. If the Chief Super agrees that it does not 'resemble' an 'assault rifle' that covers the bases.
Maybe ask your Super and Chief Super to make a decision as to whether this should be dealt with as a restricted or non-restricted licence application. How one would go about getting the CS to take time to 'rule' on this, I don't know. On the other hand, I understand that the law makes the CS the relevant authority in this, and the CS derogates certain authority to the Super in these matters - therefore, the Super should be able to make the decision or if unable to do so 'kick it upstairs' for a decision by the Chief. So first port of call would be a chat with your Super and bring along a photo so they can decide if it 'resembles' a dreaded 'assault rifle' or not. (Of course, there's no definition of what 'resembles' means, or whether its the subjective opinion of the Super, the CS, or the Man-on-the-Clapham-omnibus' as to the level of resemblance
)
So put simply, I reckon you should go ask your Super what they think - and make a note of the discussion and their advice.
On the actual definition of what is and is not an 'assault rifle': it's a fairly widely and universally accepted part of the definition that an Assault Rifle MUST have Selective Fire. If it does NOT have selective fire (i.e. Full Auto, Semi Auto, AND Single Shot/Burst Fire), then it is NOT an Assault Rifle. That seems to be the one prerequisite that any source I've checked actually does agree on.
So first you need to form an opinion as to whether the 'original' is even an 'assault rifle'....once you've done that, you can start to figure out if the rifle in question 'resembles' the original.
Interesting to note that if one takes a look the comprehensive legislation in the USA on what is or is not an assault rifle (topical!) Whether you or I agree with the US legislation and whether its even applicable as evidence in Ireland, it's still some of the most comprehensive legislation on what is or is not an 'assault rifle' - By the old US definition (from the last ban), an 'assault rifle' MUST have the following features (in addition to being Semi Automatic)
- It MUST be capable of accepting detachable magazines
PLUS
It MUST have at least TWO of the following features:
- Folding or Telescopic Stock
- Pistol Grip
- Bayonet Mount
- Flash Suppressor or threaded to take same
- Grenade Launcher
Not sure what the new proposed ban defines them as, but I may do some interweb digging.
With no CLEAR legal definitions provided in our own Irish legislation in relation to this matter ('resembles', 'assault rifle', whose subjective opinion is relevant, etc etc), and AFAIK no precedents set by the Courts on this matter, it may be of interest and some relevance to look for definitions in UK law (particularly in the UK 'assault rifle' ban) and in Canadian and Australian legislation/bans/definitions....AFAIK legal arguments using information and legislation from the UK, Canada, and Australia are accepted in our Courts in the absence of our own legal definitions sufficing.
As ever, this is just me thinking out loud and is not a legal opinion or advice - just some food for thought.
dC0 -
-
harmoniums wrote: »The latest Fienstein bill I saw changes it to one "feature", so an AR with a standard pistol grip and standard magazine release but no other feature would be defined as an "assualt weapon"
This is what we live with already here in California, we get by with "bullet buttons" or no pistol grips, although there are state bills to outlaw such modifcations.
Federally, I don't think Fiensteins bill has much chance of passing, I'll wager whats going to come out of all this is extended back ground checks and shrinking of the "gun show loop hole"
Fingers crossed for you it won't pass, piers morgan and the other do-gooders will be upset. Seriously though trying to accurately describe an "assault" rifle is like trying to knit fog, the gardai know that and its a can of worms they don't want to open in court. what extra danger or risk to the public is a semi ten shot .22 that resembles an ar over a wooden stocked 10/22 semi ten shot ? None is the common sense answer. 0 -
-
-
-
Thanks Tac
I know - hence the use of inverted comma's. It wasn't an assault rifle ban, so I didn't write that: I wrote 'assault rifle' ban. See how I did that?! Magic!
But I take your point and I did read the UK Firearms Amendment Act 1988 which I believe you've quoted above and you're correct: it makes no mention of the phrase 'assault rifle'. I used that term as that is what many (myself included) would colloquially refer to that particular ban. But yes, that particular bit of legislation did more damage than simply prohibiting so-called 'assault rifles'.
Your points are duly noted and as you've pointed out above, the 'assault rifle' ban (so-called) was not just or only that, but far more.
I won't be editing my previous post as this will confuse / destroy the narrative of this thread. But you've clarified the actual ramifications for us and I think it's clear to all readers that there's more to the UK's 1988 act than simply a ban on so-called 'assault rifles' or indeed assault rifles. So no need for any retrospective editing, I think.
Thanks. dC0 -
-
Thanks Tac...Your points are duly noted and as you've pointed out above, the 'assault rifle' ban (so-called) was not just or only that, but far more. Thanks. dC
Thanks for the soft answer. [can you see that emoticon?]
As an aside, when I can see ANY of the new .22 'lookalikes' capable of being fitted with a bayonet, UBGL, burst-fire capability or even fully automatic fire, I'll begin to have some element of sympathy with your very confused police officers, trying their hardest to knit fog in an area where the people who MAKE them don't know what to call them, let alone an allegedly hard-pressed police force in a country where the possession of anything that looks even vaguely military is viewed as the beginnings of training for [another] civil war.
Suffice it to say that from over here those of us with any interest at all in Irish firearms law watch in horror as your police tie themselves in self-administered knots, as well as tying up court time and much public money, cover themselves in a cloak of mistrust and misery, all to prevent honest and law-abiding citizens from having a bit of legal fun.
As we all know, me perhaps more than most of you from being on the wrong end of a real military firearm in Ireland, those people who want the real thing seem to have no trouble in acquiring them, nor, it seems, do they ever get caught.
We, the honest legal shooters, are the fish in the barrel - unlike the REAL criminals, AGS know exactly where to find US and do as they wish.
tac0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement