GSG 522 Legality - Michael Healy Rae

rowa

Blay wrote: »

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

What about the lad refused a .38 spl lever action, but the super said he'd give him a less powerful rifle like a .308 or .300 win mag. People with no clue what they are talking about making up rules and regulations :rolleyes::rolleyes:.

tac foley

...you can't have that .303 rifle, it's far too accurate.....'

True words, spoken to an Irish rifleman trying to renew his license.

You really couldn't make it up.

tac

EireGun

Blay wrote: »

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'

I'm just upset I don't have one.

wexfordman2

IRLConor wrote: »

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

That wasn't the only thing that seems to be illegal in that clip

Bogwoppit

wexfordman2 wrote: »

That wasn't the only thing that seems to be illegal in that clip

What about letting the reporter use it? Does she not need a license too?

2011

IRLConor wrote: »

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

Yes but don't forget the normal laws do not apply to politicians.

We had to spend thousands of euro building a range to the required standard. However this gentleman can use any old ditch as a backstop and not face any consequences.

You gotta love this country!

Grizzly 45

"Duck on a tricycle" Love it!!!
Wonder is it possible that because he has such an awkward firearms handling and head position is simply because he is unfammilar with the gun because he has never handled one before,ergo its very new or he "borrowed" it off somone for a "big up image".
Be really intresting to know does he actually posses a liscense for one,or is this a "prop"??


He faces no consequences if we raise no HELL about it!!
The law should apply to us all without fear or favour
.IF we are genuinely certain that he was target shooting on an unathorised range,then we have every right to complain to the cheif range inspector and AGS that the gun laws were broken here.Sauce for the goose and all that.

Its not like this oaf hasnt been caught with his hand in the cookie jar before with his controversial carry on in the Dail and down in his pub. Wont even say what comments and thoughts the Germans made to me about this dopes carry on with the DUI laws when they saw his interview on German national TV.:o:o:o

2011

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

"He faces no consequences if we raise no HELL about it!!
The law should apply to us all without fear or favour"

In theory you are correct.
In practice there will be no consequences for those individuals that were blatantly breaking the law by target shooting outside an authorized range on national TV.

Grizzly 45

Well,somone has to put in a formal complaint and even ask their tD to raise a Dail question on this as well offf Shatter.
But then again ,does he need the extra publicity for free??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,somone has to put in a formal complaint

True and it doesn't have to be someone with an official title.

As to "one law for us and one for them", well the Firearms Act is applied unevenly, we all know this and we also know (even if it pains us to admit it) that there just isn't any simple solution to that problem and there may never be one. But there's a hell of a walk between accepting a difficult problem as being a difficult problem; and saying it's okay for a TD to apparently break the firearms act in three separate ways on national television during prime viewing hours.

It's also somehow difficult to entertain the idea that the Minister would intervene to prevent anything being done in the case of this specific TD no matter how cynical a view you take of things...

pedroeibar1

IRLConor wrote: »

Going after rabbits I presume? Odd that an Irish TV station would televise hunting, they tend not to be particularly supportive of it.

I'm assuming he was hunting something since they wouldn't want to show him shooting targets while not on an authorised range of course!

I'm coming to this thread a bit late, but Clivej shoots around Kilgarvan and has photo evidence of what they shoot down there - see here We discussed it at some length at that time.;)

rowa

I have to say i am shocked, a trashy tv station interviews an attention hungry cute hoor about shooting and it ends in controversy ? Who'd have thunk it ?

BattleCorp

One last question before I abandon this thread nearly as confused as when I joined it.


Who or where do you go to if you are applying for a rifle licence and want to know if you need a restricted licence or an unrestricted licence?

IRLConor

BattleCorp wrote: »

Who or where do you go to if you are applying for a rifle licence and want to know if you need a restricted licence or an unrestricted licence?

Pedantic answer: no-one. There's nobody who can answer that question 100% reliably except for a jury of your peers after you've been hauled in front of them.

Slightly more practical answer: If you think a gun might be restricted, apply to the Chief Super for a restricted license and tell him you're not sure if it's restricted or not. If he tells you it's not then ask him for that in writing and apply as normal to the Super.

Answer from the sure-it'll-be-grand school of Irish firearms law: Just apply for a regular license. Odds are that no-one will care. Keep your nose clean and you'll be fine. Probably.

tac foley

That's the real problem with having an 'options list' to choose from rather than any cut and dried list of conditions that must be adhered to.

The problem is exacerbated when your old and compliant super moves or retires, and his place is taken by a fire-breathing anti-gun fanatic like the one I met a few years back in Dublin, who told me that his avowed intention was to get every gun he could out of the hands of civilians in his patch before he retired.

Only the police and the Army should have guns, he said.

I told him that had been tried before, and in the end found wanting, having caused ALL kinds of troubles for the authorities.

Where and when was that, he asked?

Germany, in 1933, I told him.

tac

rowa

Rather than have a list of what you can have, it should be a list of what you cannot have. A list of all licencable firearms would be impossible to draft up. Even in very liberal America they have catagories of firearms that you cannot have for whatever reason eg. classed as a destructive device because of calibre.
The fpu is being ignored in favour of the Ballistics Dept and the opinion of Inspector Youtube by supers and chief supers, the whole reason it was set up was to advise.

tac foley

Totally agree, Ronan - an actual IMAGE of each prohibited firearm is what is needed, as well as the written list.

EVERYBODY knows what a hand-grenade looks like - probably - but few would put their hands on their heart and say that this or that looks military unless it was clear an unmistakeably so.

The FPO seems to have nothing at all to do with anything these days, and the Ballistics department seems to me to derive most of its 'intelligence' from 'Whizbang War comics'.

tac

Sparks

IRLConor wrote: »

Pedantic answer: no-one.

Pretty much really.
You could probably cite the legal opinion of a district court justice given that they're the persona designata these days, but even then the law's completely and utterly silent on the topic, so who knows?

As far as the law is concerned it just says "if it looks like an assault rifle, it's restricted" - it never says to whom it has to look like that and how much it has to look like one for it to count (my anschutz air rifle has a trigger and a barrel and so does an M60 machine gun, so does my anschutz look enough like an assault rifle? The law says nothing!)

It's probably the hairiest bit in there as well, though it's not like it doesn't have competition for that title!

Sparks

BTW - that applies to cases where there's some question about restricted status (like the "does it look like an assault rifle" cases). There are cases where it's very clear if it's restricted or not, such as when a .22lr semi automatic rifle has more than ten rounds in the magazine.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

Rather than have a list of what you can have, it should be a list of what you cannot have. A list of all licencable firearms would be impossible to draft up. Even in very liberal America they have catagories of firearms that you cannot have for whatever reason eg. classed as a destructive device because of calibre.

The fpu is being ignored in favour of the Ballistics Dept and the opinion of Inspector Youtube by supers and chief supers, the whole reason it was set up was to advise.

Actually you are somwhat wrong there.
If you live in a Class 3 state of which over 50% of the Union states is you can own whatever you can afford in destructive devices,short barrelled rifles and shotguns ,silencers and full automatic firearms.
As these are Federally liscensed items you apply to the Feds for your permit which costs $200 per item,and as such is really a tax payment not a permit to be really pendantic about it.

Applying is more or less like our liscensing with finger prints down in the local Sheriffs office.[Sherriffs depts trump the police depts over there.]
They pop it into the instant check system and send it off to the BATFE and it takes about as long as 12 weeks for a reply,but usually less.
You go to your Class 3 dealer with the approval and tax stamp ,collect your full auto whatever after leaving a huge hunk of cash for it and buy a bushel full of ammo to feed it you go and enjoy.
No extra security is needed ,but seeing that most full auto stuff starts at 3thousand dollars upwards.most folks have built strong rooms to store their guns. Ironicaly since the 1932 act was introduced there has been not one case of a registerd full auto gun been stolen to be used in a crime or in a murder.Also in some cases they have classified certain shotguns as destructive devices IE the USAS 12 because of its mag capacity rather thsn its calibre. Register as a DD a shotgun,but your 20mm Maadi Griffin anti material rifle is free and easy in CA ...Go figure.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

As far as the law is concerned it just says "if it looks like an assault rifle, it's restricted" - it never says to whom it has to look like that and how much it has to look like one for it to count (my anschutz air rifle has a trigger and a barrel and so does an M60 machine gun, so does my anschutz look enough like an assault rifle? The law says nothing!)

When clinton tried to ban "assault" rifles in america back in the 90's, there was endless debates in the government and courts on what exactly an assault rifle was and what features made an assault rifle an assault rifle, there was never a diffinitive answer. I think that if it stumped the american government and legal systems, then it would be a brave super who would want to drag it all into a courtroom to debate it.

Grizzly 45

tac foley wrote: »

Only the police and the Army should have guns, he said.

I told him that had been tried before, and in the end found wanting, having caused ALL kinds of troubles for the authorities.

Where and when was that, he asked?

Germany, in 1933, I told him.

tac

:D
Nice,but actually a great MYTH.The Nazis never banned private gun ownership in Germany.All they did was ban it for certain cateogeries of people,like criminals ,the insane,political dissidents,undesireables,non party members etc.And that was there since Weimar republic times,the Nazis just enforced it more and added to it.
Seeing that the party was all pervasive you needed to be a member to get along it was then no problem to own a hunting rifle or whatever.
It even showed after the war when the allies posted ordinances prohibiting German citizens from owning firearms or swords.They were amazed at the amount of private firearms that were surrenderd at collection points by German citizens.

My uncle was a teenager in immediate post war Germany and he remembers his first hunts with American GIs who wanted to shoot roe deer and boar.They would pitch up with a jeep load of M1 carbines and Garands or Winchester 1897 riot shotguns with 12 GA 00 buck shotgun shells ,and issue the German hunters one of whatever for the day and off they went hunting.
End of the day,they handed everything back and went back to barracks or back home with whatever was shot or a load of nylons or Lucky Strikes or whatever the Germans needed to swop out for their shot game.
He remembers studying for his hunters test on De naziified hunting texts.
we still have the book,all the political bits and Swastikas are blanked out with white paper that is glued in place with some glue that trumps superglue even its so strong after 50 years!!:eek:

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

:D
Nice,but actually a great MYTH.The Nazis never banned private gun ownership in Germany.

1933. The wiemar republic, not the nazi party, they'd not come to power yet. Ironically, a measure designed to limit them...

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

They were amazed at the amount of private firearms that were surrenderd at collection points by German citizens.

Watch and weep

http://youtu.be/YfbcL_sP6z0

juice1304

rowa wrote: »

Watch and weep

http://youtu.be/YfbcL_sP6z0

tac foley

My salutory yarn was in the nature of an allegory, not, as you note, strictly a historical fact. All I wanted to do was to p*ss this pr*ck off severely, which is what I did.

tac

Grizzly 45

And yet within 10 years,the Germans were being allowed to privately posses firearms again of all types.Even in the time of the immediate firearms surrender certain Germans could have a firearm for self defence purposes if they were issued a permit by the American regional governor and were not a party member and had been" de nazified". I suppose if they were expecting Ivan to drop in anytime it made sense to tool up your new ally ASAP.:p

Grizzly 45

tac foley wrote: »

My salutory yarn was in the nature of an allegory, not, as you note, strictly a historical fact. All I wanted to do was to p*ss this pr*ck off severely, which is what I did.

tac

And well done to you too Sir for doing so.:)

I just needed to point out that there are many on both sides of the divide that belive that to be historical fact and quote it as such.Backed up by the famous

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! Quote

Which no one can find in Adolfs many speeches or even where he said it.It was supposedly in a Berlin newspaper[Berliner Tagesblatt],but research of the paper on the page and date of this quote puts you in the arts& culture section.

IOW it sounds good and possibly somthing a dictator would say,but it is dubious at best and it could be thrown back at you in a debate someplace that it is makey up history...
Just saying..;)

Spannerman7

IRLConor wrote: »

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

I've seen this banded about a lot on here, can you post me a link of the legislation that states this as I could not find it, not hearsay or owt.

Everyone on here is doing a "no-no" when zeroing their rifle, should we not zero our rifles and just have a lash and hope for the best when shooting at live targets

dc99

I don't believe shooting targets outside a range WITH A RIFLE is illegal.
As long as you are shooting on permission land (be it your own or a neighbours).

Now shooting outside a range with a Pistol...thats a differant matter.