Colt /Umarex 1911 .22 Restricted or unrestricted?

Amonisis

I was told today by my local FO that a Colt/Umarex 1911 .22 which is certified to hold only five rounds is on the restricted list and that my application for a permit will be unsuccessful. He also stated that due to it's not being on the "guideline list" is another reason for the refusal. He confirmed to me (on enquiry about a rumour I heard in the last few weeks) that the Ballistics section have issued a "memo" to Supers advising against issuing permits for 1911s. No details of any particular reason for the "memo" were given. I was also told that the area I live in has a lot to do with their reticence to allow me to have one. I own a shotgun, bolt action .22 rifle, and semi auto .22 pistol, and was told a recent application for a semi- auto .22 rifle will be successful. The FO stated that there would be all hell to pay if my house was burgled and they got away with five guns as opposed to four, especially if the "fifth" firearm (Colt 1911) permit had been issued against the advice of the Ballistics section. He stated therefore that neither himself nor the Super would be willing to recommend or issue a permit for this particular firearm. No official refusal as yet, just a face to face verbal. Should I simply accept that I won't have any issues with the new rifle permit and forget about the 1911, or in the event of an official refusal should I appeal the decision? Is this worth bothering with or is it yet another erosion of our freedom to pursue our chosen sport to it's fullest extent? Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.

Witcher

It's unrestricted if it only holds 5 rounds.

Some supers won't licence pistols that aren't on the list, he probably will refuse it and then you could go to court etc. and fight for it.

Just remember if you go for it and he refuses you, you'll have to explain that refusal on any application you make in the future.

BattleCorp

There is nothing in the SI that says 1911's style pistols are restricted because of their style. Once they are .22lr calibre and have magazines that only hold 5 rounds, they should be grand.

Sounds like the Ballistics department are making up the law themselves.

The sad fact is that, one way or another, the Super calls the shots and even if he is incorrectly refusing you a pistol licence, it will cost you a shed load of dosh if you decide to take him to court.

Amonisis

Blay wrote: »

It's unrestricted if it only holds 5 rounds.

Some supers won't licence pistols that aren't on the list, he probably will refuse it and then you could go to court etc. and fight for it.

Just remember if you go for it and he refuses you, you'll have to explain that refusal on any application you make in the future.

My application is already in with my local station, so my only options are to let it run the course and see what happens, or contact the FO and ask him to scrap the application before it reaches the Super for a decision. In the event that I was to appeal a refusal and succeed in court, would the original refusal still have to be explained on any future applications? I don't envisage ever applying for another permit if I get the 1911, my collection will be complete.

Sparks

Your FO is incorrect about the restricted status of the pistol, and none of the rest of what he's saying has anything to do with the Firearms Act (though you should note that with that many firearms, you're moving up a class in the secure storage requirements (to class 3 in the list in this post)). The advice from the Firearms Policy Unit in cases like this is to be polite, thank the FO for his advice, and request that the application be sent directly to the Super anyway (the FPU were very clear on this - the call is not the FO's, it is the Super's). If the Super refuses, get the reasons in writing; then contact the FPU via your NGB or directly as a first step before even looking at a court.

The rumours about Ballistics are sadly believable; there's a bit of a split in the AGS with regard to firearms policy it would appear, and Ballistics by all reports are firmly on one side and the FPU on another, and the scuttlebutt all agrees that Ballistics would much rather none of us owned firearms at all.

To answer your last question, if you did go to court and the refusal was successfully appealed, no you wouldn't need to list it on future applications because the court would have found the refusal was in error. However, going to court is a bit like going to the races. Don't expect the more logical case to succeed - it's an adversarial system even in the highest of courts, and because the District Courts being the first line of contact with petty crimes and the like, they tend to be a bit more rough and ready than their four courts counterparts. And that's even before you remember that when people go to court, only the people who are being paid to be there win.

LIFFY FISHING

There is whispers about that any .22lr with a full size slide is under threat for new applications, heard a few 1911's and Sigs been refused recently, like I say its been whispered but it isnt the law, and it the man with the braid in your locall who gets the final say.

Sparks

There's whispers aplenty, and I have a horrible feeling that this time around some of them are closer to the truth than usual, and we've seen it coming from some ways off; but for the OP's current problem, that's all irrelevant. The law is (for now) what it is and the local super isn't free to draft new law if he sees fit.

That being said, it is generally a really bad idea to go into a meeting with your local super with your back up on the basis of rumours and pub gossip. Just apply and follow the normal procedures and remember that well over 99% of all firearms applications just go through without any problems. Wait until you're in the tiny, tiny minority of cases where there is a problem before worrying about it.

Sparks

Also, moving this to the general shooting forum as it's more to do with that than with the target shooting forum.

Amonisis

Sparks wrote: »

Your FO is incorrect about the restricted status of the pistol, and none of the rest of what he's saying has anything to do with the Firearms Act (though you should note that with that many firearms, you're moving up a class in the secure storage requirements (to class 3 in the list in this post)). The advice from the Firearms Policy Unit in cases like this is to be polite, thank the FO for his advice, and request that the application be sent directly to the Super anyway (the FPU were very clear on this - the call is not the FO's, it is the Super's). If the Super refuses, get the reasons in writing; then contact the FPU via your NGB or directly as a first step before even looking at a court.

The rumours about Ballistics are sadly believable; there's a bit of a split in the AGS with regard to firearms policy it would appear, and Ballistics by all reports are firmly on one side and the FPU on another, and the scuttlebutt all agrees that Ballistics would much rather none of us owned firearms at all.

To answer your last question, if you did go to court and the refusal was successfully appealed, no you wouldn't need to list it on future applications because the court would have found the refusal was in error. However, going to court is a bit like going to the races. Don't expect the more logical case to succeed - it's an adversarial system even in the highest of courts, and because the District Courts being the first line of contact with petty crimes and the like, they tend to be a bit more rough and ready than their four courts counterparts. And that's even before you remember that when people go to court, only the people who are being paid to be there win.

My security arrangements definitely comply with Class 3 as is. The inspecting officer was quite impressed with how secure my gun safe is. His comment was "Christ, there's no way anyone is getting that thing out of there!" House is alarmed and walled rear garden with large Alsatians too, which he said sounded like a pit full of werewolves. Thanks for the advice and information.

Sparks

Amonisis wrote: »

My security arrangements definitely comply with Class 3 as is. The inspecting officer was quite impressed with how secure my gun safe is. His comment was "Christ, there's no way anyone is getting that thing out of there!" House is alarmed and walled rear garden with large Alsatians too, which he said sounded like a pit full of werewolves. Thanks for the advice and information.

Well, if the inspecting officer is satisfied with the secure storage, then the FO's completely wrong to be worrying about burglary. That's the whole point of the inspection process...

bravestar

OP, out of curiosity, what reason did you give for wanting a second .22 pistol?

If I have read your post correctly you already own one. I owned one of the colt 1911 .22 and while it was fun, it was hardly a bronze medal winner in accuracy terms.

Amonisis

bravestar wrote: »

OP, out of curiosity, what reason did you give for wanting a second .22 pistol?

If I have read your post correctly you already own one. I owned one of the colt 1911 .22 and while it was fun, it was hardly a bronze medal winner in accuracy terms.

On advice, I didn't put for Timed and Precision, as some Supers see this as military/combat training leading to refusals. I couldn't state for standard target use as I already have a Buckmark. For gallery comps was a no-no too as an accompanying application was for a 1022 for gallery. The only option I could think of was benchrest. This can be argued as a way of increasing this pistols accuracy and shooting practice with this light pistol would increase ones accuracy with the heavier Buckmark. I've heard that the lighter pistols with the 1911s grip angle is very good for various disciplines.

Grizzly 45

Amonisis wrote: »

On advice, I didn't put for Timed and Precision, as some Supers see this as military/combat training leading to refusals

.

Whoever "advised " you is talking out their rear end!!:rolleyes:
Next time you encounter such a Bull sht statement and reason,ask how many people have been arrested in the ROI for actually participating in this "combat shooting" disipline.:mad: As in that case there must be some very negligent Garda Supers and cheifs and not to mind the Garda ballistics expert who holds a Det insp rank ,as they have been to numerous of these shoots of all these disiplines that they TRY to lump as combat shooting and yet NOT ONE person has ever been arrested by them .So either they are derelict in their duties or they know it is a baloney reason.

T&P ,and Bullseye is a perfect disipline for either full size pistols or .22s in the 1911 style.Bullseye evolved from the model 1911 in 45ACP,and is the most widely used design of pistol for that disipline.

Amonisis

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.

Whoever "advised " you is talking out their rear end!!:rolleyes:
Next time you encounter such a Bull sht statement and reason,ask how many people have been arrested in the ROI for actually participating in this "combat shooting" disipline.:mad: As in that case there must be some very negligent Garda Supers and cheifs and not to mind the Garda ballistics expert who holds a Det insp rank ,as they have been to numerous of these shoots of all these disiplines that they TRY to lump as combat shooting and yet NOT ONE person has ever been arrested by them .So either they are derelict in their duties or they know it is a baloney reason.

T&P ,and Bullseye is a perfect disipline for either full size pistols or .22s in the 1911 style.Bullseye evolved from the model 1911 in 45ACP,and is the most widely used design of pistol for that disipline.

Sheeiit! Thanks for the heads up on that. Hmm,I wonder if it's too late to get to the FO and change that on the application or if changing the reason would even be allowed?

Tackleberry.

Apply for your 1911 but be ready to go to court, and go to the high court that is because you will not get your costs payed if you win in the District court.
I'm in DC ( i had started this case before the case about costs was lost) and in the middle of a court case for a Gsg1911 .22 it is a restricted firearm until you modify the magazine and that where you will win or loose your case this needs to be done correctly i.e. tamperproof, if thats solid your off to a good start.
My case is finish next week ill pm yo my number when it done and will advice you further if you like...
I believe Ballistics dept has a chip on it shoulder after all the centre fire cases they lost and now for some reason nearly after 4 years rim fire pistols are now being challenged...there was no problem up to lately..

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Whoever "advised " you is talking out their rear end!!:rolleyes:

And yet in that rear end product was a grain of truth in that there have been licences pulled because their given good reason on the applications was IPSC. When IPSC went away, the good reason for those licences went too.

The advice, however, shouldn't have been "don't put specific sport #6 as your good reason", but just "put target shooting" because that's what it's for.

Also, while "I just want another one" is even less of a good reason than "I just want one", it is equally important to remember that "I want another pistol for target shooting" is not a good or sufficient reason for a refusal, any more than (and for the same reason as) a golfer wanting different golf clubs would be cause for suspicion.

Sparks

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Apply for your 1911 but be ready to go to court, and go to the high court that is because you will not get your costs payed if you win in the District court.

No point in going to the HC because (a) they can't issue you your licence if you win, and (b) you'll be fought on costs now.

there was no problem up to lately..

There was no 180-odd cases and lots of bad press from our little community until lately either. The phrase "poked the bear" comes to mind...

Sikamick

Amonisis wrote: »

I was told today by my local FO that a Colt/Umarex 1911 .22 which is certified to hold only five rounds is on the restricted list and that my application for a permit will be unsuccessful. He also stated that due to it's not being on the "guideline list" is another reason for the refusal. He confirmed to me (on enquiry about a rumour I heard in the last few weeks) that the Ballistics section have issued a "memo" to Supers advising against issuing permits for 1911s. No details of any particular reason for the "memo" were given. I was also told that the area I live in has a lot to do with their reticence to allow me to have one. I own a shotgun, bolt action .22 rifle, and semi auto .22 pistol, and was told a recent application for a semi- auto .22 rifle will be successful. The FO stated that there would be all hell to pay if my house was burgled and they got away with five guns as opposed to four, especially if the "fifth" firearm (Colt 1911) permit had been issued against the advice of the Ballistics section. He stated therefore that neither himself nor the Super would be willing to recommend or issue a permit for this particular firearm. No official refusal as yet, just a face to face verbal. Should I simply accept that I won't have any issues with the new rifle permit and forget about the 1911, or in the event of an official refusal should I appeal the decision? Is this worth bothering with or is it yet another erosion of our freedom to pursue our chosen sport to it's fullest extent? Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.

What a load of BOLL*x, we have been told that a lot of what is on the guidelines list would not be Olympic standard, and here is a pistol that probably should pass as Olympic standard and because it's not on the list it can't be considered. Who in there right mind would use a Smith & Wesson
22A for an Olympics competition or some on the list below.

Ráiteas Misín / Mission Statement:
An leibhéal insroichte is aired a bhaint amach maidir le
Cosaint Phearsanta, Tíomantas don Phobal agus Slándáil Stáit.
To achieve the highest attainable level of Personal Protection, Community Commitment and State Security
41
ANNEX F: SUITABLE OLYMPIC STANDARD PISTOLS
The following .22 calibre firearms, although not e
xhaustive, come within the definition of
section 4(2)(e)(iii) of the Firearms (Restric
ted Firearms and Ammunition) Order, 2008 as
amended. Accordingly, applicatio
ns for certificates for these
NON RESTRICTED
firearms (with a magazine
capacity not greater than
5
rounds) should be made to the local
superintendent
of the Garda Síochána where the applicant resides.
Baikal
IZH 35
Baikal
IZH 35M
Benelli
MP90S
Benelli
MP95E
Beretta
U22 Neos\87
Browning
Buckmark
FAS Domino
SP602
FAS Domino
SP607
FAS Domino
SP 607 Light
Feinwerbkau
AW 93
Feinwerbkau
AW 93 Light
Frankonia
Favorit
Hammerli
208\S
Hammerli
280
Hammerli
SP 20\SP 20 RRS\Xesse
Matchguns
MG2\E
Matchguns
MG2\E-RF
Morini
CM102E\CM22E\M\RF
Pardini
SPE
Pardini
SP or SP Rapid Fire
Pardini
SP1 or SP 1 Rapid Fire
Sako
Tri-Ace
Smith & Wesson
22A\41\617
Ruger
Mark I\ II\ III
Taurus
94
Tesro
TS 22-2
Unique
DES 69\U
Walther
GSP or GSP expert
Walther
SP22\SSP\M4
Walther
KSP\SSP

Olympic Standard should have never been included in the requirement for pistol license, most pistol shooters are plinkers or local club competition competitors. Has Ireland ever had someone compete in the Olympics pistol shooting competitions, Sparks can you please answer this. This is an important question to answer, because if we have never competed who or why was this included in the requirements.

Ireland what an ass hole of a country.

Sikamick

Sparks

It's not the country in that particular case sikamick, it's that particular FO not having been trained enough because we underfund the AGS.

Sikamick

Yea Sparks I believe you, I have Daughter that was smashed in the face with a crowbar by a scumbag on the 23rd of December 2013 and the Garda know the person and where he lives and have not questioned him to date. Boll*x. The likes of this is where they should be concentrating their efforts.

And you have not answered the question has Ireland ever Competed in Olympic Pistol competitions and why was it included as a requirement for a pistol license.

Sikamick

Witcher

Sikamick wrote: »

why was it included as a requirement for a pistol license.

Sikamick

It doesn't have to be 'Olympic standard' for you to get a licence for it. That list is non exhaustive and is just a sample list of pistols for supers to reference. Some supers won't licence one that's not on it but they're in the wrong, that wasn't the intention of the list.

When you see people getting Sig Mosquitos and Walter P22's you know pistols don't have to be up to Olympic standard for you to get them

rowa

The "guidelines" used to contain a little paragraph just beneath the famous list. Its how i was able to licence my old revolver when it was pointed out it wasn't on the list.

.I. No.337 of 2009 , article 4(2) part (iii)

“other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire ammunition provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is greater than 10cm”

The "Other firearms" bit i reckon is the important part because it refers to pistols NOT on the list of specific makes and models, but then again i don't speak legalise, so could be getting it arseways. Anyway the super seen my point and granted a licence.

Last time i checked, this paragraph had been removed. If the laws/guidelines etc don't suit your agenda, simply delete or ignore them and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for the court cases.

Witcher

rowa wrote: »

The "guidelines" used to contain a little paragraph just beneath the famous list. Its how i was able to licence my old revolver when it was pointed out it wasn't on the list.

.I. No.337 of 2009 , article 4(2) part (iii)

“other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire ammunition provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is greater than 10cm”

The "Other firearms" bit i reckon is the important part because it refers to pistols NOT on the list of specific makes and models, but then again i don't speak legalise, so could be getting it arseways. Anyway the super seen my point and granted a licence.

Last time i checked, this paragraph had been removed. If the laws/guidelines etc don't suit your agenda, simply delete or ignore them and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for the court cases.

That's in the Restricted SI here at the bottom;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0337.html

It's on page 9 of the guidelines too under 'Restricted or Non Restricted Firearm?'

Sikamick

Blay wrote: »

It doesn't have to be 'Olympic standard' for you to get a licence for it. That list is non exhaustive and is just a sample list of pistols for supers to reference. Some supers won't licence one that's not on it but they're in the wrong, that wasn't the intention of the list.

When you see people getting Sig Mosquitos and Walter P22's you know pistols don't have to be up to Olympic standard for you to get them

So is the OP telling lies and he may be, but I personally know of people that are being refused .22 revolvers and semi auto's that fall well within the requirements. These people are already licensed on other firearms.

Sikamick

rowa

Blay wrote: »

That's in the Restricted SI here at the bottom;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0337.html

Well spotted blay , but its not in the commissioners guidelines pdf on the garda.ie website, where are previously it was, i just checked. Someone made a conscious decision to remove it.

Witcher

rowa wrote: »

Well spotted blay , but its not in the commissioners guidelines pdf on the garda.ie website, where are previously it was, i just checked. Someone made a conscious decision to remove it.

It's on page 9.

Witcher

Sikamick wrote: »

So is the OP telling lies and he may be, but I personally know of people that are being refused .22 revolvers and semi auto's that fall well within the requirements. These people are already licensed on other firearms.

Sikamick

That's down to their supers though, other people elsewhere proabbly had no problem getting the same pistols.

The issue is that supers are misinterpreting the law and the guidelines and Garda ballistics are backing them up despite the FPU telling them they're talking bollocks.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

And you have not answered the question has Ireland ever Competed in Olympic Pistol competitions and why was it included as a requirement for a pistol license.

I didn't see the question Sikamick. To answer it, yes we have, up to the World Cup level, many times. I think the last World Cup entrant was in Atlanta by Tim Scannel, but I could be wrong. We've just had Irish Olympic Pistol shooters arrive back home from RIAC in the last month after making the finals there.

As to why it's in the guidelines and the act, my guess is that we were thought of as safe and harmless. It didn't help when (in front of you as I recall), someone stood up in front of Ballistics and that nice lady Super from Boston and pointed out that the ISSF rules allowed his 9mm so he should be allowed have it as well (after which came all the additional restrictions on calibre and so on).

rowa

Blay wrote: »

It's on page 9.

It says "olympic" pistols though Blay, a lad who wants a buckmark or ruger for club competitions knows full well he isn't shooting an olympic pistol in an olympic discipline.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

The "guidelines" used to contain <snip>
Last time i checked, this paragraph had been removed. If the laws/guidelines etc don't suit your agenda, simply delete or ignore them and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for the court cases.

Rowa, that quote isn't from the guidelines, that's from the restricted list SI, the latest one and it's still the law of the land.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

It says "olympic" pistols though Blay

Yes it does, and any pistol that meets the ISSF regulations counts. Which includes rugers and buckmarks. Please note, there was a lot of fighting (by the NGBs on the FCP as a whole) to ensure that the act didn't require you to be a world-class competitive shooter. The guy who buys a cheap ruger MkII and goes to the range once every few weeks as time allows and shoots his sport at a very low level, is legally treated the same as someone who trains every day and represents his country on the international circuit (and by the way, you can chalk that one up in the list of things the FCP achieved while you're at it).