Antique rifles status

rowa

The firearms officer i had at the time was a decent sort and he enquired with the superintendent (another very decent, now sadly retired man) , he in turn , not knowing a huge amount about firearms himself contacted either the ballistics section or the fpu, he got an answer and that was a firm no.

MacsuibhneR

Sparks, I agree entirely with what you say above but in the absence of a statutory definition then the Guidelines are the only thing anyone can rely on with any degree of certainty, if they want to collect "Antique" firearms. At least if AGS sought to prosecute someone for having unlicenced firearms then a person can refer to the Gardaí's own Guidelines in their defence which should make a successful prosecution nigh on impossible.

That is not to say that one couldn't rely on the UK obsolete cartridge rule or the US pre 1899 rule in an Irish court but it would be a bigger stretch. I have never had time to check if the pre-unitary cartridge rule is the norm (as stated in the guidelines) for antique firearms in other countries but it would be interesting to see if this is in fact the case as two of our most closely related common law neighbours (UK and US) don't use this rule. I wonder how an "Antique" firearm is defined in Canada and Australia, as the laws in other common law jurisdictions can be referred to in an Irish court if it came down to how to define an "Antique" firearm which is being possessed by a collector with no intention of firing it.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

contacted either the ballistics section or the fpu, he got an answer and that was a firm no.

Methinks that the answer he got might have depended to a large degree on which of those two he contacted

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Sparks, I agree entirely with what you say above but in the absence of a statutory definition then the Guidelines are the only thing anyone can rely on with any degree of certainty, if they want to collect "Antique" firearms.

I'd much rather try to argue for or against the mentions of firearms classification in other SIs as being intended (but heinously written) definitions relating to article 26. At least those are statutes and not simply a document that has no oversight in its drafting or revision procedure.
Simply put, the guidelines not only aren't law; but they're just not up to being law, not even a little bit (which, to be fair, was never a requirement for them in the first place). They're basically a word document on the Commissioner's computer.

I sure as fudge would't want them to form the basis for a legal defence in a criminal trial!

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Methinks that the answer he got might have depended to a large degree on which of those two he contacted

Yes the ballistics dept do come up with some cracking bits of logical and straightforward thinking :rolleyes:.

Sparks

I do sometimes think that there's a division of thinking in the AGS between those who've had contact with the target shooting/hunting communities and who know that there are people who safely use firearms for legit purposes... and those who don't!

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

I do sometimes think that there's a division of thinking in the AGS between those who've had contact with the target shooting/hunting communities and who know that there are people who safely use firearms for legit purposes... and those who don't!

I've suspected the same thing, some ags i know do or have done in the past, shooting as a sport and seem well disposed towards us, however some other ags do seem to have an attitude of suspicion against the shooting community, like we are all up to something.