Spent cases = Live cases ????????

Sparks

J C wrote: »

Could I ask where in the particular law/SI does it state that it is illegal to target shoot outside an authorised range ?

IRLConor had a good summary of the basics here and I've put some links to the relevant bits and the Minister's take on them here.

Cass

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I was told the DOJ decide who or more so what "disciplines" can reload. Are you still part of the F Class squad?

They do. The scheme was granted for the purpose of target shooting, namely F-Class.

The DoJ grant authorisation to the range to run the scheme. The range then record the details of who, what, when , how much, etc, etc. on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis.

It's all here if you want to read up on it. It started as a pilot scheme and thus far has continued successfully.

And yes i am still a member of the range & the F-Class squad. Unless you know something i don't?

Ghost. wrote:

........ they just aren't very good ones.

Might suit some, and not others, but hey most things are the same.

BattleCorp

So just to argue the toss, and I know I'm being piddly here but if I am out in the fields hunting, fire off a few shots, and don't pick up after myself, am I technically breaking the law?

I would be, after all, not disposing of ammunition components correctly as it's not a range or an authorised scrap yard.

Ghost.

BattleCorp wrote: »

So just to argue the toss, and I know I'm being piddly here but if I am out in the fields hunting, fire off a few shots, and don't pick up after myself, am I technically breaking the law?

I would be, after all, not disposing of ammunition components correctly as it's not a range or an authorised scrap yard.

Thats what I was thinking. Its daft but from reading this thread it seems to be the case. Another example of the well thought out legislation we have here and its degree of clarity on the issue of firearms usage. As Cass said it suits some (members of a range) and not others, like most things. More like suits the few and not the majority.

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

Just take his name so you can refer to him if someone ever makes life awkward

Up to recently they may even have taped your conversation :eek:

Cass, I don't take much notice of gossip or stories, so I just asked

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

So just to argue the toss, and I know I'm being piddly here but if I am out in the fields hunting, fire off a few shots, and don't pick up after myself, am I technically breaking the law?
I would be, after all, not disposing of ammunition components correctly as it's not a range or an authorised scrap yard.

As far as I know, the law doesn't say you have to dispose of (spent) ammunition components correctly at all. It concerns itself solely with your acquisition and possession of them - and the acquisition and possession of them by everyone else, obviously, which is supposed to be the safeguard - the scrap yard has to be authorised to take them so there's meant to be this long chain from import to resale to retailer to sale to you, to use on a range to disposal at a known site. But there's this great big hole in that chain.

It's a pretty solid example of just how big an ass it actually is - you can (and people have) been prosecuted for having more ammunition in the safe than on your cert, but if you just dump a hundred empty cases on the side of the M50, all of which are technically and legally ammunition, the only directly applicable offence is littering, but the poor sod who tidies up your mess is strictly speaking in possession of ammunition without a licence and that can be both heavy fines and serious jail time (there's no default exemption clause in section 2(4) or 2(3) for motorway maintenance people). It wouldn't ever come to that, we're not quite that insane yet (though it really is starting to seem like we can see there from here), but that's what a strict interpretation of the law would say.

Daft.


(Do I even need to mention that this is NOT me condoning illegal dumping or littering or just generally pushing things?)

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Up to recently they may even have taped your conversation :eek:

Yeah, but just try getting access to that under FOI...

Cass

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Cass, I don't take much notice of gossip or stories, so I just asked

Did not realise i was the subject of gossip.

If someone is that interested in my activities then they should ask. Anything else is bullsh*t spread by idle minds.

tac foley

How do the dealers at shows who sell bandoliers of dummy rounds, and machinegun linked belts of 'dummy' ammunition - made of empty cases with bullets of one kind or another stuck int them - get on with the law in Ireland?

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

How do the dealers at shows who sell bandoliers of dummy rounds, and machinegun linked belts of 'dummy' ammunition - made of empty cases with bullets of one kind or another stuck int them - get on with the law in Ireland?
tac

They basicly operate on sufferance and blind eyes being turned, same as the entire paintball industry does.

tac foley

Paintball is a problem in Ireland? I didn't know that. Sorry to drift - I'll go look it up to save any more moving off this thread subject.

tac

Sparks

Technically, 95% or so of all paintball markers are legally short restricted firearms and can't be licenced here, let alone rented out to stag parties. We've mentioned it here a few times, and the paintball folks know about the issue as well, as do the DoJ.

J C

Sparks wrote: »

There's no such animal in Irish law. The part of the 2006 Act that introduced the idea was repealed by the 2009 Act before it was ever commenced. The relevant parts of the Explosives Act are for possession of the propellant and primers, not for reloading itself.

Also, just on a piddling point, we don't have FACs, that's a UK thing. We have firearms certificates (we usually just call them licences but that's not the actual term). I know what you mean and so do we all, but if you're going to argue the semantics of the firearms act, your life gets a lot easier when you use the right terminology.

I think that a gun licence in Ireland and the UK is officially called a Firearm Certificate - although technically the plural Firearms Certificate is used in the UK. Is this because multiple firearms can be listed on the UK variety whereas the Irish one only lists one firearm on each Cert?
I guess that people may abbreviate it to a FC or a FAC depending on whether they put emphasis on the 'arm(s)' in 'Firearm(s)' or not.
... and I didn't know that Irish people never refer to their gun licence as a FAC ... something else I have learned from visiting your forum. I'll use the abbreviation of FC/FAC in acknowledgement and respect for this linguistic difference.

Anyway, I don't think I'm engaging in semantics about the substantive issue under debate here - the most basic legal instrument for all firearm holders is their FC/FAC and knowing exactly what it authorises and just as importantly, what it doesn't authorise, is key to ensuring that all gun owners stay safely within the law.
I fully accept that the posters on this site (including yourself) are experienced knowledgable people on all aspects of gun use and law ... and I'm just a person of very limited knowledge on the subject.
... and I bow to all of your superior knowledge on the subject.

Sparks wrote: »

Because it's not illegal. Our system of law is proscriptive in nature - if something's not explicitly illegal, it's legal to do.

We are in a Common Law juristiction in both Ireland and Britain, so circumstantial evidence and mitigation as well as aggravation are also allowed to be considered and given due weight in court ... so both the spirit and the letter of the law are important and both must be complied with.

Sparks wrote: »

It's no such thing and expressing that about an identifiable person would be grounds for them to sue you for defamation (and we've seen shooters sue shooters for that over lesser comments).

I'm saying nothing disrespectful about anyone because I know nothing about any of you - other than what I'm reading in your posts - which is pretty good and impressive stuff, by the looks of it.
I'm just looking at how guns and ammunition are authorised (which was being debated when I came upon your forum) and I welcome any inaccuracies in what I say being pointed out.
For example, it seems that literally every letter can count on a FC/FAC - I undestand that a tiny capital 'S' means the difference between being legally authorised to be in possession of a moderator ... or not - or should it be called a silencer because that is what the 'S' stands for on the licence?
... or does the 'S' stand for something else?

tac foley

It is my understanding that the 's' stands for 'supressor', as in 'sound/noise supressor'. In UK they are referred to as 'sound moderators', and also require an entry on your Firearms Certificate [FAC]. However, the law being very odd in UK, as well as in Ireland, anybody over the age of eighteen can buy a sound moderator for their airgun without any form of license. The fact that it will also be a nice fit on their .22 rifle is something that appears to have been overlooked...

Of course, actually putting the thing on your .22 rifle is an offence...

Incidentally, each moderator in your possession has to be licensed for a firearms use, but if you have ten airguns - all with moderators - there is no paperwork of any kind needed.

Makes as much sense as any part of firearms law in UK.........

tac

It wasn't me!

tac foley wrote: »

It is my understanding that the 's' stands for 'supressor', as in 'sound/noise supressor'. In UK they are referred to as 'sound moderators', and also require an entry on your Firearms Certificate [FAC]. However, the law being very odd in UK, as well as in Ireland, anybody over the age of eighteen can buy a sound moderator for their airgun without any form of license. The fact that it will also be a nice fit on their .22 rifle is something that appears to have been overlooked...

Of course, actually putting the thing on your .22 rifle is an offence...

Incidentally, each moderator in your possession has to be licensed for a firearms use, but if you have ten airguns - all with moderators - there is no paperwork of any kind needed.

Makes as much sense as any part of firearms law in UK.........

tac

And yet it's not so long ago here that we narrowly avoided a situation whereby your centrefire rifle wouldn't be a restricted firearm, but the moderator on it would. Lunacy isn't even the word.

J C

tac foley wrote: »

It is my understanding that the 's' stands for 'supressor', as in 'sound/noise supressor'. In UK they are referred to as 'sound moderators', and also require an entry on your Firearms Certificate [FAC]. However, the law being very odd in UK, as well as in Ireland, anybody over the age of eighteen can buy a sound moderator for their airgun without any form of license. The fact that it will also be a nice fit on their .22 rifle is something that appears to have been overlooked...

Of course, actually putting the thing on your .22 rifle is an offence...

Incidentally, each moderator in your possession has to be licensed for a firearms use, but if you have ten airguns - all with moderators - there is no paperwork of any kind needed.

Makes as much sense as any part of firearms law in UK.........

tac

Hi Tac.

I think that the Irish Legislation refers to it as a 'Silencer' in Section 4 (1) (g) (ii) (of the 1925 Act as amended by the 1990 Act) where its defined as a 'firearm' and requires authorisation to a particular gun (including air rifles).
It has been said that Americans and Britons are separated by a common language i.e. even though they both speak English, they have different words for the same things e.g. garbage/litter, sidewalk/footpath, pocket book/wallet and trunk/boot, etc.
It now seems that Irish and British gun owners are also separated by a common language with FCs/FACs ... sliencers/sound moderators/suppressors etc.!!!:)

Cass

It's a bit of a joke calling it a silencer. A term coined from too much TV.

The only gun that is really "silenced" is a .22lr. With the right Mod, subsonic ammo, etc. the gun is very quiet, but never completely silent. Every other round above 1128fps creates a sonic crack/boom and all a Mod does is muffle the sound at the shot.

It has other benefits that no one in power ever knows, realises or cares to. Increased ability to manage recoil, hence quick follow up shot (if needed), hearing protection, etc.

J C

Cass wrote: »

It's a bit of a joke calling it a silencer. A term coined from too much TV.

The only gun that is really "silenced" is a .22lr. With the right Mod, subsonic ammo, etc. the gun is very quiet, but never completely silent. Every other round above 1128fps creates a sonic crack/boom and all a Mod does is muffle the sound at the shot.

It has other benefits that no one in power ever knows, realises or cares to. Increased ability to manage recoil, hence quick follow up shot (if needed), hearing protection, etc.

I can imagine that hearing protection would be a big one for target shooters, especially, where they are shooting large quanitities of ammunition in close proximity to each other on a range - no matter how good their ear defenders are.
It is a benefit that clay shooters generally don't enjoy.

Moderators are also very useful for vermin control in proximity to farm livestock and other wildlife, that could be stressed or stampeded by sudden loud gunfire.

tac foley

Hearing protection - inside the ear or external, is mandatory on every live-firing range I've ever been on in the last fifty years.

As I'm sure the target rifle shooters here will advise you, moderators do NOT appear on F-Class or F-TR rifles on the target-shooting range, although many here in UK use these for other elements of the sport that are not target rifle shooting as is generally undertaken in the RoI. Practical rifle shooting, including practical/tactical - not currently seen on ranges in the RoI, will show you the extent to which moderators are used by the rest of the world shooters. The ARW team that was so successful in recent years in former eastern bloc sniping comps all had moderators on their AIs.

tac

J C

tac foley wrote: »

Hearing protection - inside the ear or external, is mandatory on every live-firing range I've ever been on in the last fifty years.

As I'm sure the target rifle shooters here will advise you, moderators do NOT appear on F-Class or F-TR rifles on the target-shooting range, although many here in UK use these for other elements of the sport that are not target rifle shooting as is generally undertaken in the RoI. Practical rifle shooting, including practical/tactical - not currently seen on ranges in the RoI, will show you the extent to which moderators are used by the rest of the world shooters. The ARW team that was so successful in recent years in former eastern bloc sniping comps all had moderators on their AIs.

tac

You're right that hearing defenders are essential when firing a gun or standing near to somebody who is doing so - your hearing is too precious to do anything else.

Many people use both internal and external ear protection.
I hear (no pun intended) that inside ear protectors can benefit from bring supplemented by external protectors, as noise can enter the ear canal at the back of the ear and wearing headgear also helps to reduce conducted sound throught the skull.
Any time I'm in a high noise environment I find that external ear defenders are better than internal ones ... though the internal ones are somewhat easier to wear.
Like everything else, different ear defenders fit different people better and its not always the most expensive ones that fit the best.

Cass

More cleaning up done.

The thread has been split again with the debate on terminology going into it's own thread.