GSG 522 Legality - Michael Healy Rae

The Aussie

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You are too kind.

No, just don't want to be banned :pac:

Sparks

meathstevie wrote: »

Well, one thing is for sure. It most definitely does not resemble an assault rifle. Any keyboard warrior knows it looks like a submachine gun and that's a term that's not mentioned in the description of the characteristics of restricted firearms.

Reread the SI's definition of "assault rifle". You're thinking in real terms but they were writing in legal terms. In fact, Bravestar asked this exact question not too long ago. Short answer? The legal term "assault rifle" includes submachine guns.

Oh, and also?

BattleCorp wrote:

If he has a restricted licence, then the Chief Super thought his reasoning for having it was fair enough.

Or maybe his Super didn't think it warranted a restricted licence....... the way the law is written, it's all up to the opinion of the Super.

That's not right. And what the law actually says here is scary, because it doesn't say a darn thing apart from that it's your fault if you have the wrong kind of licence! Again, we talked about this only a few days back, when you started a thread on that topic Battlecorp :P

BattleCorp wrote: »

...
Supposing I apply for a rifle on the basis that it's an unrestricted rifle, the Super agrees with me and grants me an unrestricted licence for the rifle...
...
Then, a few years down the road, a new Super is appointed, and he doesn't think that my rifle is an unrestricted rifle due to the stock on it (same stock that previous Super thought was unrestricted).
...
Have I broken the law by being in possession of a restricted firearm without the proper licence through no fault of my own?

Sparks wrote: »

The horrible answer is practically yes.

I have strong doubts over anyone ever being prosecuted for such a change in opinion, mind you, because the theoretical answer is that the superintendent is no longer the persona designata for firearms licencing, that's now the district court judge (it's been that way since the '06 act). So in your hypothetical case, you could be charged with possession of an unlicenced firearm, but your defence would be that due diligence had been performed and you would contest the licence in the district court to establish what kind of licence it should be.

Thing is, this is about the hairiest, grayest area in the firearms act that I know about, especially when a rifle is on the restricted list because it looks like an assault rifle (where "assault rifle" is the legal term in the restricted SI's definitions, not the real life term); and the way the law is written, it is all on the applicant to have the right kind of licence so you're hosed either way.

In reality however this wouldn't arise; the new Super would just call you in and tell you his opinion had changed and you had to reapply and you'd just send in the new FCA1 to the chief super's office along with a photocopy of the old licence and a cover letter explaining the situation.



edit: We probably should point out that there have already been cases where licences were issued in error for firearms which couldn't be held, either unrestricted licences for firearms which were definitely restricted, or for firearms which weren't even legal to possess; those licences were legally voided by the Super not having the authority to issue them, so they almost weren't worth the paper they were printed on...

rowa

I haven't heard of anyone losing their licence or being charged with having an incorrect licence type, over these so-called assault rifle replicas Sparks. Neither have i heard of anyone appealing a refusal to the district courts. The main object of the doj/gardai's ire seems to have been the centrefire pistols and practical shooting, if they wanted to make a fuss over these assault rifles then i think it would have happened before now.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

Neither have i heard of anyone appealing a refusal to the district courts. The main object of the doj/gardai's ire seems to have been the centrefire pistols and practical shooting, if they wanted to make a fuss over these assault rifles then i think it would have happened before now.

AHEM,Cough,Cough!!;)

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

AHEM,Cough,Cough!!;)

Yeah, but yours was a centrefire, not a .22lr. I did ask the FO about the .22 replicas before, the feeling i got was, as far as they were concerned a .22lr semi is a .22 semi, be it a ruger 10/22 or a gsg mp5 look-a-like.

bravestar

rowa wrote: »

Yeah, but yours was a centrefire, not a .22lr. I did ask the FO about the .22 replicas before, the feeling i got was, as far as they were concerned a .22lr semi is a .22 semi, be it a ruger 10/22 or a gsg mp5 look-a-like.

Most of the time that would be the case, but then comes the time when the long hard c€ck of the law wants to bend you over and make you it's b%tch.

Amonisis

Are you sure about the pistol grip only being referred to on a shotgun in the guidelines? Do you have a link to the particular wording which differentiates between shotguns and rifles?

Witcher

Read the 2008 Restricted Firearms SI.

Only applies to shotguns.

Amonisis

Yep, I must admit you seem to be right. I had a look and reread it a couple of times. No mention of pistol grips being restricted on rifles. I'd previously heard that the GSG stuff was awful. The firearm I'd prefer is the Sig Sauer 522.

rowa

Amonisis wrote: »

Yep, I must admit you seem to be right. I had a look and reread it a couple of times. No mention of pistol grips being restricted on rifles. I'd previously heard that the GSG stuff was awful. The firearm I'd prefer is the Sig Sauer 522.

A lot of these .22 replicas of larger firearms are made by umarex under licence, they make , all the .22 colt, browning 1911's etc. Most are made of zinc pot metal are wouldn't be built to last.

http://www.umarex.com/

cw67irl

The gsg isnt as bad as you think, Put a little scope on it and its great craic shooting spinners and the like, Might not be a gun for shooting groups but definitely a fun gun!!

Amonisis

rowa wrote: »

A lot of these .22 replicas of larger firearms are made by umarex under licence, they make , all the .22 colt, browning 1911's etc. Most are made of zinc pot metal are wouldn't be built to last.

http://www.umarex.com/

The Sig Sauer 522 is made by Sig Sauer and has a milled aluminium breech. The rest of it seems very well made using high quality materials. I can't find a bad review of it anywhere.

Grizzly 45

Umarex stuff isnt "bad" as such...So long as it is blank firing,airsoft or air powered.When it comes to .22...Run away very quickly.. Things like the utter POS Walther p22 and SIG mossie .22 are Umarex products.

Maybe they have improved recently ,I dont know,but I do know you cant use pot metal castings for powder cartridge guns and expect them to last a lifetime.

That was their trouble they were using some non vital pressure components on the .22s that were used on their blank firers and airsoft models.

OK not too a biggie if you live in a country with civillised gun laws and can drop it into your gun dealer and have a full replacement within 24 hours,but try doing that here in Ireland if it breaks!!

Plus the GSG line are basically the same internal mechanism in the rifles with a clam shell outer covering to give its looks.None of them strip anyway like their bigger counterparts.

They are plinkers and fun guns that are relatively cheap& cheerful
.But as we all know any type of fun shooting " and plinking" is frowned upon by our legislators and betters here in Ireland and MUST be carried out under rigioursly controlled conditions of seriousness and humourlessness.:rolleyes:

tac foley

Yes, for G*d's sake don't let anybody actually ENJOY themselves shooting their so-hard-to get-anyway guns.

There's a lot wrong with the way it is over here, but we don't have ANY of the mental hangups that seem to bedevil the decision as to whether a gun looks dangerously military or not, depending on personal whim and opinion...

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

There's a lot wrong with the way it is over here, but we don't have ANY of the mental hangups that seem to bedevil the decision as to whether a gun looks dangerously military or not, depending on personal whim and opinion...

Tac, I know you're fond of the system you have over there, but unless my history's well out, the UK system is the end product of a few decades of appalling tragedies and resultant useless kneejerk legislation mangling an earlier, far more workable system. I think everyone knows I'm no fan of the system we have here (and I don't know anyone who knows our system well who is), but the current UK system wouldn't be the model I'd replace it with (I'd certainly swipe parts of it, like the one-person-one-licence approach, but no pistols and no SLRs? No thanks).

And somehow I suspect that you wouldn't have seen such widespread public support for those articles of kneejerk legislation at the time if those mental hangups you mention hadn't been more widespread than you think.

We've got more than our fair share of problems here... but I know of damn few countries that don't have that issue, and the UK is not amongst that small happy few by any measure, and with the possible exception of yourself, I've never met a shooter from the UK who thought the UK was one of the happy few.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Tac, I know you're fond of the system you have over there, but unless my history's well out, the UK system is the end product of a few decades of appalling tragedies and resultant useless kneejerk legislation mangling an earlier, far more workable system. I think everyone knows I'm no fan of the system we have here (and I don't know anyone who knows our system well who is), but the current UK system wouldn't be the model I'd replace it with (I'd certainly swipe parts of it, like the one-person-one-licence approach, but no pistols and no SLRs? No thanks).

And somehow I suspect that you wouldn't have seen such widespread public support for those articles of kneejerk legislation at the time if those mental hangups you mention hadn't been more widespread than you think.

We've got more than our fair share of problems here... but I know of damn few countries that don't have that issue, and the UK is not amongst that small happy few by any measure, and with the possible exception of yourself, I've never met a shooter from the UK who thought the UK was one of the happy few.

Sir, I'm thunderstruck that you think that I'm 'fond of the system' here. I AM fond of the long-term safety learning process that insists on new shooters being aware of the dangers of inattentive firearms handling and how safety and knowledge go hand in hand. But 'fond of the system' per se? You must have been reading somebody else. I lost eight semi-autos in 1988, and so many handguns in 1997 that it took a whole day to process them, in spite of the fact that around thirty had already escaped elsewhere.

My post above related to the UK authorities attitude to the .22 military lookalikes. As you know, here we can have any kind of a .22 rifle or carbine that we like, military-looking arms being very popular, and with thirty-round magazines]. Am I happy with the status quo? Of course not, but like you over in the RoI, I put up with what I CAN do, suffer for what I CAN'T do, and, just like you, am totally unable to do SFA about it.

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

I put up with what I CAN do, suffer for what I CAN'T do, and, just like you, am totally unable to do SFA about it.

Now that pain, I completely sympathise with

BattleCorp

Originally Posted by BattleCorp
If he has a restricted licence, then the Chief Super thought his reasoning for having it was fair enough.

Or maybe his Super didn't think it warranted a restricted licence....... the way the law is written, it's all up to the opinion of the Super.

SPARKS
That's not right. And what the law actually says here is scary, because it doesn't say a darn thing apart from that it's your fault if you have the wrong kind of licence! Again, we talked about this only a few days back, when you started a thread on that topic Battlecorp :P

That's one badly worded law.

Just to be clear...... you could go to the Super to licence a rifle, ask him if it's a restricted rifle or not.......he could answer you and say that it's not restricted.....grant you an unrestricted licence.......and you are still breaking the law?

Am I understanding that properly?

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Am I understanding that properly?

Yup.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to know which license is required and to apply for that license to the appropriate person.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

Yup.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to know which license is required and to apply for that license to the appropriate person.

But the licence required is dictated by the Supers opinion no, seeing as he is the person who decides if it looks like an assault rifle or not?

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's one badly worded law.

Just to be clear...... you could go to the Super to licence a rifle, ask him if it's a restricted rifle or not.......he could answer you and say that it's not restricted.....grant you an unrestricted licence.......and you are still breaking the law?

Am I understanding that properly?

Yup, exactly. Worse, if the super and chief super disagree,the law doesn't say whose opinion wins, you'd have to go to court (though I think the AGS wouldn't have many supers who'd disagree so publicly with a chief super!)

Like I said, one hairy mess of a law.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

But the licence required is dictated by the Supers opinion no, seeing as he is the person who decides if it looks like an assault rifle or not?

The law doesn't say that though...

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

But the licence required is dictated by the Supers opinion no, seeing as he is the person who decides if it looks like an assault rifle or not?

The law doesn't say that though...

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

But the licence required is dictated by the Supers opinion no, seeing as he is the person who decides if it looks like an assault rifle or not?

The law doesn't say that though...

IRLConor

I suspect that the safest option would be to ask your Chief Super (not the Super) to say (in writing!) that it wasn't a restricted firearm in his opinion. It's not 100% airtight, but it would be a very foolish person who'd try to convict you in that case.

It's a lot of hassle to go through for cosmetics. At least with obviously restricted firearms you know where you stand.

EireGun

How is this legal?

Looks all the world to be a H&K MP5, firing .22 or not, how on earth is this legal in Ireland? The firearm itself, the clip, I've had trouble buying slings before because they are banned in some EU countries, classified as 'Military Surplus'.

Unless he has some sort of restricted firearms license he managed to attain, surely having a submachine gun in any calibre here is out of the question? .22 can kill, it's not like it's firing plastic airsoft pellets!

tac foley

I have to say, at a safe distance, many thousands of miles from this gentleman, that he looks as comfortable with that carbine as a duck on a tricycle.

A natural he ain't, that's for sure.

Anyhow, the thing is that well-known GSG5, a .22 copy of the machine carbine so beloved of police and military all over the world.

Great fun [am I allowed to say that?], cheap as chips and, with its thirty-round magazine, can go through a year's ammunition allowance in a morning - or, if it's my pal Jon, under half an hour...BTW, looking at HIS magazine, he has it loaded, but not cocked, with at least nine cartridges...now THAT's interesting, I thought that.................................................well, never mind.

There must be at least half a dozen in the club here with all kinds of spiffy sights.

tac

IRLConor

EireGun wrote: »

How is this legal?

It's 100% legal if you have the proper paperwork.

He probably needed a restricted license for it but perhaps not, it's hard to say for sure. Given that the actual danger from that gun isn't any different from any other semi-auto rimfire (many of which look a lot more conventional) it's actually quite silly that such a gun would be restricted purely on its cosmetic features.

He was shooting targets outside of an authorised range though, which is a no-no.

Witcher

EireGun wrote: »

How is this legal?

Looks all the world to be a H&K MP5, firing .22 or not, how on earth is this legal in Ireland? The firearm itself, the clip, I've had trouble buying slings before because they are banned in some EU countries, classified as 'Military Surplus'.

Unless he has some sort of restricted firearms license he managed to attain, surely having a submachine gun in any calibre here is out of the question? .22 can kill, it's not like it's firing plastic airsoft pellets!

You're surely aware that it is no more dangerous than a Ruger 10/22?

How it looks has no bearing on the firearm's lethality.

You sound like a Super..'Jesus ya can't have that GSG522..much too dangerous..here have a 10/22 instead..much safer'

tac foley

Blay wrote: »

How it looks has no bearing on the firearm's lethality.

THAT, Sir, is precisely the point we are all trying very hard to make - it doesn't matter WHAT the gun looks like, the bullet is STILL coming out at 1050 or 1200 fps. Same as my 1910 BSA single-shot bolt-action boy's rifle.

However, as Sparks and all the others have pointed out, it is what it looks like in the mind of the authorising officer that counts, not facts.

tac