Legal magazine capacity

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Neither A nor B is the actual law though rowa.
Though in practice, there isn't actually any definition of what an antique firearm actually is, there's just "we've always done it this way" and even there that varies from place to place.

Yes Sparks. Two points though 1. What does the actual law have to do with getting a licence in ireland, surely the recent pistol debacle proves this ? 2. Who in there right mind is going to go through an expensive court case to obtain what is in effect a wall hanger ?
A garda told me about buying a firearm chambered in an obsolete calibre " if you really wanted to you could get that thing firing again" and he had a point, unless it was a very old rimfire round or something exceptionally rare, brass would probabily be obtainable for it, and that seemed to be the opinion i kept getting from whoever i asked. Original muzzle loaders they had no problem with though.

It wasn't me!

The UK's law on obsolete calibres specified, if I recall correctly, that ammunition not be currently commercially produced. That's something that would give me a major squeaky arse, since with absolutely nothing to do with me, a company thousands of miles away can make a decision to produce ammo in that calibre again. I might not even hear about it, but suddenly I have an unlicensed firearm. I saw a .450/400 double for sale on Guntrader before, the seller of which was advertising that as an obsolete calibre, no licence was required. Problem was, I knew Hornady had decided that was a cartridge they were going to load for and bring back (Since Ruger were chambering it in the No. 1), so that guy, though in all good faith, was trying to get people to buy a rifle without licensing it. It's a bit of a crap definition really. If we could have a bit of sense and just see that there's shag all difference in risk of ownership between the various types of firearm, get on with licensing individuals and letting them make the decisions about what they want to own and shoot, that'd be lovely.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Yes Sparks. Two points though 1. What does the actual law have to do with getting a licence in ireland, surely the recent pistol debacle proves this ?

No, that's not what that debacle proved. What it proved was that the loud shouty people who tell you that they can beat the government in the courts are full of hot air and little else and that others tend to suffer when we do what they suggest. It should also have proven that we never seem to take the court cases we should be taking. Example - someone applies for a pistol licence for a pistol that's not on the list in the commissioner's guidelines but does qualify under the law. The FPU says yay, then Ballistics says nay and the Super goes along with Ballistics. That is a case that should be appealed - but we don't take those cases for some reason...

2. Who in there right mind is going to go through an expensive court case to obtain what is in effect a wall hanger ?

Nobody, I would hope (I keep hoping for sane people and this country continues to cause me despair) - but there's a long, long walk between knowing something is down to a Super's whim and going along with that for a quiet life or because the cost/benefit analysis says it's not worth it; and thinking that a Super's whim is the same thing as statute law.
I think most people would agree I'm safely in the "not a shouty person" camp :pac: -- but that doesn't mean I think we should be empowering whims like that where the law doesn't back it up, regardless of whether it's a natter over a pint in the snug or an opening argument in front of a supreme court judge.

MacsuibhneR

Example - someone applies for a pistol licence for a pistol that's not on the list in the commissioner's guidelines but does qualify under the law. The FPU says yay, then Ballistics says nay and the Super goes along with Ballistics. That is a case that should be appealed - but we don't take those cases for some reason...




That's not correct, I know of at least two district court appeals on this very point that are on going at the moment. I won't discuss these cases any further to comply with the site rules.

These types of cases are being taken at district court level but it will be at the applicant's own expense (after the recent High Court Ruling on Costs). I don't know if anyone has tried to Judicially Review any of the decisions on these grounds and gone directly into the High Court but again costs would be a major factor to decide to go to the District Court in the First Instance.

On the Antique firearm point it is my understanding a restricted licence could be granted for an antique rifle and the "good reason" requirement for having the restricted licence is on the basis of it's value, historical significance etc. It wouldn't be possible to licence a centre-fire pistol on this basis though.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

That's not correct, I know of at least two district court appeals on this very point that are on going at the moment. I won't discuss these cases any further to comply with the site rules.

That's great news, I hadn't heard of those cases. Looking forward to hearing about a positive result when they're done.

But - they need to be JRs in the High Court rather than DC appeals to be of use to the wider community, and it's the cases being taken by NGBs backing individuals to affect the system that I'm talking about, not personal appeals. I'm not saying anything against the DC appeals but they tend not to have an effect for anyone other than the applicant, whereas HC JR cases do (which can cut both ways). In the past, those were mainly (though not always) taken to try to use the courts as a stick to beat the government, and that never worked (and we all suffered as a result of many of them failing); but the quieter cases where the case would just answer one single point about the law conclusively (such as, can I legally licence a rifle with a barrel shorter than 50cm if it came from the factory that way and was that way when the licence was issued?) were never pushed that way and should have been.

I don't know if anyone has tried to Judicially Review any of the decisions on these grounds and gone directly into the High Court but again costs would be a major factor to decide to go to the District Court in the First Instance.

As far as I know nobody's done this on a HC level. There's a veritable list of this kind of case, where specific points of law are vague enough to need to be backed by precedent in court; but there's never been a push to address that list. I have a somewhat jaded view of this I'm afraid :pac:

On the Antique firearm point it is my understanding a restricted licence could be granted for an antique rifle and the "good reason" requirement for having the restricted licence is on the basis of it's value, historical significance etc. It wouldn't be possible to licence a centre-fire pistol on this basis though.

That would be my understanding as well, but the law is supposed to provide an alternate route for antiques through article 26 (which we've mentioned once or twice over the years).