Colt /Umarex 1911 .22 Restricted or unrestricted?

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

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.

It used to be in the guidelines though sparks, thats where i got it from, i still have the copy i printed to bring with me to the meeting with the super. If the quote still stands, then it in a way makes the list academic, if you want a .22lr pistol not on the list , have its magazine restricted to 5 rounds and its barrel is longer than 10cm then it should be perfectly licencable.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

It used to be in the guidelines though sparks

Doesn't matter. Guidelines is guidelines, law is law. And the law wins.
Plus, it was in the guidelines because it was cribbed from the law - look to the publication dates.

if you want a .22lr pistol not on the list , have its magazine restricted to 5 rounds and its barrel is longer than 10cm then it should be perfectly licencable.

It is.

Sparks

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.

And that's wrong and they shouldn't be, but that's not down to the law being wrong (though if you know me at all you know I think it's a shambles of a thing) -- it's down to the super not making the right call (assuming his written reason for refusal is that the pistol isn't legally licencable).

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

It is.

Then why are so many, such as the op, having difficulty even making an application for a pistol (which meets the requirements legally) just because its not in these guidelines ?

Sikamick

Blay wrote: »

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?'

Blay I'm going to be totally over the top here, but when Governments change should the Ministers name not change on the Act/SI, if he/her is not in the Minsters Position how can it be legal.

Sikamick

I, DERMOT AHERN, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 2B (inserted by section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (No. 26 of 2006)) of the Firearms Act 1925 (No. 17 of 1925), hereby order as follows:

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Then why are so many, such as the op, having difficulty even making an application for a pistol (which meets the requirements legally) just because its not in these guidelines ?

Honest answer isn't short or singular but here's my best guess - it's one, more or all of the following in varying combinations depending on where in Ireland you happen to be:

• A reason that the applicant hasn't mentioned to anyone, as in (say) McCarron where the applicant sabotaged his case by - according to the court report - having a row with the Super in the station and then storming off to court; or alternatively some other reason which, if you and I knew about it, would make us say "whoa there, stall the digger" ourselves. We may not like to ponder it, but at least some applicants shouldn't be left within an ass's roar of a firearm (for a real example, remember that the Irish neonazi crowd on stormfront were trawling through here at one point -- I don't think anyone would want that lot given access to legal firearms).
• Poorly trained FOs who don't know the law, but who are tasked with implementing it and who inevitably make errors as a result.
• Poorly trained Supers who do the same thing (oddly, we're not top of the list of the Garda Training budget and if you read the papers today, you know they're saying themselves that they're horribly screwed for manpower and training)
• Actual, deliberate, Idontlikethelookofthat-based biases which are allowed to override the law. These are what the courts are for, but honestly, there really aren't as many of these as we fear. And the Supreme Court came down very heavily against this kind of thing as far back as Dunne (the gun safes case, as it's commonly referred to, even though that's not a fair description). They were explicit in stating that the Dail drafts the law, not the Gardai or the Minister.

And of late, after a long campaign to throw muck at the Minister using the 180-odd court cases and the press, I would hazard a guess that there was a lot more bias against us so that the first of those now has no leeway, the middle two aren't corrected as often, and the last one may well have a good chance now to go from a bias the courts won't permit to being a bias expressed in law and therefore unassailable.

Like I've gotten heartsick from saying, you can't use the courts as a stick to beat the government with -- but we did it anyway and we may now be looking at reaping what was sown.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Blay I'm going to be totally over the top here, but when Governments change should the Ministers name not change on the Act/SI

Short answer, no.
Longer answer, noooooooo.

if he/her is not in the Minsters Position how can it be legal.

Because there's a date on the SI and at that date, he was the minister and empowered by the act to effect that SI.

Seriously Sikamick, if it didn't work that way, every new government would have to start from scratch and re-pass every law on the books on day one, and for a brief moment while the paperwork churned, everything from jaywalking to premeditated mass murder would be utterly legal...

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

Doesn't matter. Guidelines is guidelines, law is law. And the law wins.
Plus, it was in the guidelines because it was cribbed from the law - look to the publication dates.

It is.

Law is law. And the law wins. And fu*k the commissioners guidelines unless I have to use them,. Ah so another court case, the OP states having being told if it's not on the Guidelines.

Garda / DOJ say well it might be, but then again it might not be, and then again it could be, I'll have to look into it. Sorry but Boll*x again.

Sikamick

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Law is law. And the law wins. And fu*k the commissioners guidelines unless I has to use them,

No; not feck the guidelines; just remember that the word guideline is spelt differently to the word law because they're not the same thing and have different words for a good reason (and maybe if some supers were told this over a pint by the FPU a bit more often, we'd all have quieter lives)

The original point and purpose of the guidelines was not supposed to be to make things awkward, but to make things more uniform; so that Super Joe in the heart of dublin who knows firearms law six ways from sunday because his district includes Sherrif St. applies the law the same way as Super Paddy in Mayo who's out in camo with his shotgun at 0500 on the first day of the season every year.

This, by the way, is what we were all clamouring for and what some of us are still calling for - a single reference point for how the law's applied. I have been saying for a few years now as loudly as I could that this wasn't a cure-all, but a single point of failure because if that one reference point is opposed to private firearms ownership, we're all screwed, but hey, what would I know?

Ah so another court case, the OP states having being told if it's not on the Guidelines.
Garda / DOJ say well it might be, but then again it might not be, and then again it could be, I'll have to look into it. Sorry but Boll*x again.

It would be a rather abnormally patient District Court Justice who sat quietly through a Garda saying something like that. They have... something of a reputation for not suffering fools who waste their time, regardless of what side of the courtroom they're sitting on, and "errra, I should look into that" said during a hearing would be comedy gold for the Phoenix reporter...

You're still going to get challanges in the courts Sika, even if everything was perfect; that's life. But when you politicise them as we've done... yeah, that's not wise, it burns everyone in the long run. And we might be starting to see the beginning of that now.

Tackleberry.

The Judge on my case said " don't worry about the guidelines the commissioner can't see into future and can't be expected to get everything right" And that this gun is either restricted or unrestricted within the law and that why we are here today"

Amonisis

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

The OP is not telling any lies. Why the hell would I?? My sole reason for the initial enquiry was to glean as much valid advice as possible. I included everything that was said to me by the local FO and included all relevant information regarding my current firearms ownership.

Grizzly 45

Tackleberry. wrote: »

A
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..

Putting it mildly...:P more like they were supposed to deliver wins on a daily basis and the odds now are 95% against them winning any arguements in court. Recently they were trying to make out that a Walther P22 POS is a "combat firearm":rolleyes::rolleyes:
And thats one of their standard arguements every handgun is a combat firearm or was/is used by criminals or police forces.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Like saying the Sun rises in the East.. No arguement whatsoever.

Amonisis

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.

Could you let me have a PDF or copy of that Rowa? It would be really handy to have when I see my Super (which I presume I'll have to). I just checked the statistics of the Colt 1911 .22 and the barrel length is 5.3"/13.462cm. The mag is already restricted to five rounds. It definitely falls within the unrestricted SI. The guy I bought it from got an unrestricted permit for this firearm in mid 2012. I'm finding it hard to understand why my local FO told me that having checked the serial number in the system it returns a PULSE number which states it's a restricted firearm!?!? Did my FO lie to me? Is there any independent way to check the veracity of his statement? Is there any recourse to the attitude of "We're not going to issue a permit for a firearm which the ballistics section have said not to"?

rowa

Amonisis wrote: »

Could you let me have a PDF or copy of that Rowa? It would be really handy to have when I see my Super (which I presume I'll have to). I just checked the statistics of the Colt 1911 .22 and the barrel length is 5.3"/13.462cm. The mag is already restricted to five rounds. It definitely falls within the unrestricted SI. The guy I bought it from got an unrestricted permit for this firearm in mid 2012. I'm finding it hard to understand why my local FO told me that having checked the serial number in the system it returns a PULSE number which states it's a restricted firearm!?!? Did my FO lie to me? Is there any independent way to check the veracity of his statement? Is there any recourse to the attitude of "We're not going to issue a permit for a firearm which the ballistics section have said not to"?

I don't have it on pdf, but blay has a link to it earlier in this thread. Don't go steaming into the station with it and demanding your rights, thats a sure fire way to get everyone's back up and get yourself nowhere. I would take a copy of it to the Fo and ask him does he think it would apply to your pistol, along with a letter from the dealer stating it has been restricted to 5 rounds, and a picture if you can, of the barrel with a ruler along side showing its barrel is longer than the minimum 10cm. Have you contacted the fpu and asked them what they think ?
When i did this the super was happy, as in his words "my arse is covered" , which is what a lot of them are concerned about.

Witcher

The PDF is on the Garda website, top of the list on the right;

www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=4144&Lang=1

The list page references Section 4 (2) (e)(iii) of the Restricted SI, that's the section which states any 5 shot pistol is OK. So bring a copy of that SI too, I posted a link to it two pages ago I think.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

When i did this the super was happy, as in his words "my arse is covered" , which is what a lot of them are concerned about.

If you think about it, from their point of view they have no training, it's one of the most badly-written, overly-complex, scattered-to-the-winds-across-multiple-Acts pieces of law out there and they're being asked to make a judgement call without any backup and it's not terribly clear how liable they would be for getting it wrong. Doesn't make it right to feck about, but it does give a window into their mindset I suppose...

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

If you think about it, from their point of view they have no training, it's one of the most badly-written, overly-complex, scattered-to-the-winds-across-multiple-Acts pieces of law out there and they're being asked to make a judgement call without any backup and it's not terribly clear how liable they would be for getting it wrong. Doesn't make it right to feck about, but it does give a window into their mindset I suppose...

It's not that difficult to determine if a .22lr pistol is restricted or not. Only 5 in the mag - check. Barrel length ok - check. I think I have covered most of it there.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not that difficult to determine if a .22lr pistol is restricted or not. Only 5 in the mag - check. Barrel length ok - check. I think I have covered most of it there.

Sure, but you're posting on a forum where we've gone over that point a few dozen times in the last year or two alone -- that's a damn sight more training than the Supers got (and btw, the concept of ".22lr pistol" is a familiar one to you, but how many Supers are target shooters themselves?). Plus, that's just the one point in a large morass of law, and they don't have to just enforce that one law, but everything else on the books as well, in a nation where we seem to enjoy writing new laws more than fixing old ones. I don't have any sympathy for the tiny handful of Supers who just ignore the law because of personal bias (and given that they've been called "problem supers" by other AGS personnel indicates that they don't have much sympathy inside the AGS either) -- but for the vast majority of them, it's more down to FUD than deliberate malice. Knowing that might well be useful to an applicant...

rowa

Blay wrote: »

The PDF is on the Garda website, top of the list on the right;

www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=4144&Lang=1

The list page references Section 4 (2) (e)(iii) of the Restricted SI, that's the section which states any 5 shot pistol is OK. So bring a copy of that SI too, I posted a link to it two pages ago I think.

To me the link you posted last night is clearer and its in the link below. I'd print it off and go over it with a highlighter and ask the FO what he thinks.

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

Amonisis

Thanks for all the clarifications and advice guys.