MORE crap on the way.

Cass

Gun safes. They were included in the list of stolen firearms so they may ban them completely or simply restrict them.

So if i were you i'd buy that 10 gun safe you might have had your eye on before they restrict them to 5 gun or fewer only.

Rimfire Shooter

Cass wrote: »

Gun safes. They were included in the list of stolen firearms so they may ban them completely or simply restrict them.

So if i were you i'd buy that 10 gun safe you might have had your eye on before they restrict them to 5 gun or fewer only.

Nothing would surprise me

Grizzly 45

Thats one thing we do need to find out if it will be retrospective or not. Who do we talk to on the FCP to raise this issue with the minister?Think there is a meeting this or next month?And as to clarify a few points like;

[ Notwithstanding and depending on the outcome in the EU from first reading on Wed 14th July and 23 Nov 2016 second reading ]

Is this applying to ALL semi auto firearms in CF or as has been rumoured about that "pre to mid 1950 "designs would be exempt?

Somthing methinks the Gallery folks might be intrested in as this would cripple a section of their M1 carbine shoots.

IF it is retrospective to the ministers statement of the pre election statemenrt on this issue?
I know theDOJ set the meeting agenda etc but quireies must go upwards as well?

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Gun safes. They were included in the list of stolen firearms so they may ban them completely or simply restrict them.

So if i were you i'd buy that 10 gun safe you might have had your eye on before they restrict them to 5 gun or fewer only.

Dont forget to get your hand grenades as well.:)
Wondered about that..Does the liscense only cover one grenade,and once it has welll ...exploded would you have to reapply for a new liscense for one and is it restricted or unrestricted? Or is it like the ammo limit?Do you buy and liscense one and are limited to a certain amount of grenades in your possesion at any one time?

Rimfire Shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thats one thing we do need to find out if it will be retrospective or not. Who do we talk to on the FCP to raise this issue with the minister?Think there is a meeting this or next month?And as to clarify a few points like;

[ Notwithstanding and depending on the outcome in the EU from first reading on Wed 14th July and 23 Nov 2016 second reading ]

Is this applying to ALL semi auto firearms in CF or as has been rumoured about that "pre to mid 1950 "designs would be exempt?

Somthing methinks the Gallery folks might be intrested in as this would cripple a section of their M1 carbine shoots.

IF it is retrospective to the ministers statement of the pre election statemenrt on this issue?
I know theDOJ set the meeting agenda etc but quireies must go upwards as well?

Good luck with that! I made submissions to a few shooting reps on it and they've not even acknowledged receiving my submission never mind bring them up!

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thats one thing we do need to find out if it will be retrospective or not. Who do we talk to on the FCP to raise this issue with the minister?Think there is a meeting this or next month?

It would have to be your associations rep. Make sure you put all questions in written format. Word of mouth has no record.

Is this applying to ALL semi auto firearms in CF or as has been rumoured about that "pre to mid 1950 "designs would be exempt?

The "sports coalition's" proposals specifically seek to have these exempted. To me that is a complete slap in the face. How can you claim to be a coalition of sports when you're so readily willing to throw one/multiple section(s) under the bus but not another? not going to turn this into another SC thread as it's been done to death, but no harm to remind people who is apparently fighting our corner.

Somthing methinks the Gallery folks might be intrested in as this would cripple a section of their M1 carbine shoots.

See above.

IF it is retrospective to the ministers statement of the pre election statemenrt on this issue?

Frankly i think it's a done deal, the statement that is. The statement was made so now its a case of arguing against the entire proposal.

If this goes through it'll be right up there with magazine restrictions, more than 3 shots being restricted hence more dangerous than one with 3, a pistol grip being restricted (shotgun), etc, etc. IOW basing legislation on appearance and not functionality.

I know theDOJ set the meeting agenda etc but quireies must go upwards as well?

Again write to your Rep, set out your questions, a date for the next meeting, and request an update after.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Dont forget to get your hand grenades as well.:)

Well i thought i'd keep my tongue in cheek in the realms of actual reality, but yeah that is right up there too. :rolleyes:


My personal thoughts on the whole subject, and in keeping with the theme of this thread, is that our Government will wait for our European Overlords[/S,] Masters, Ministers to "do the dirty work" and if a ban happens in Europe they are home free.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

The Minister can make a statement in the Dail declaring her intent to impose restrictions or a ban on certain firearms. Any new legislation will then be retrospectively applied to the date she made the statement in the Dail. Exactly what happened with C/F pistols.

I'm curious. What kind of mechanism is used to retrospectively apply a ban?

The Minister says something in the Dail signalling her intentions. This is her speaking. It isn't law so how can it be applied retrospectively?

I always thought the law had to be applied 'as is'. You can't go making stuff up. There is no S.I. or any legislation passed to say that these firearms are banned so how can the Minsiter's 'word of mouth' have any legal standing?

I'm just curious how that works.

Cass

The Minister is not "making it up". She did not signal her intent as much as say new legislation would be drafted.

I won't pretend to understand the ins and outs of all areas of our legal system. The constitution also prohibits the retrospective application of new law to criminalise acts that at the time of being committed were not illegal.

However if the Minister states in the dail (IOW on record) that new legislation is being drafted, and due to the length of time new legislation can take, and will take effect from the date she made the statement, not the time is was finalised, then apparently this is legal.

As said above i'm not making excuses, nor am i capitulating to the legality. I simply don't know enough about the legal system to tell you why this is legal and allowed. It was used on the pistol "ban" in 2008 and i'm sure there are much smarter people than me out there that would have picked up on any illegality if it existed (on our side).

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

The Minister is not "making it up". She did not signal her intent as much as say new legislation would be drafted.

I won't pretend to understand the ins and outs of all areas of our legal system. The constitution also prohibits the retrospective application of new law to criminalise acts that at the time of being committed were not illegal.

However if the Minister states in the dail (IOW on record) that new legislation is being drafted, and due to the length of time new legislation can take, and will take effect from the date she made the statement, not the time is was finalised, then apparently this is legal.

As said above i'm not making excuses, nor am i capitulating to the legality. I simply don't know enough about the legal system to tell you why this is legal and allowed. It was used on the pistol "ban" in 2008 and i'm sure there are much smarter people than me out there that would have picked up on any illegality if it existed (on our side).

I hear what you are saying but it sounds like a total bullsh1t system to me.

Either it's law or it's not law. Intending to do something is not the same as doing it.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

the numbers already out there under the new proposed national legislation from last year which they have been busy on behind the scenes..IOW this tempoary cap malarkey is what it is

What new legislation would this be then?

Cass

You would need someone with a good understanding of Dail practices and how they relate to legislation to explain how and why it's legal.

I asked the same question and had the same attitude you do, 7 years ago. I still think it's crap. Either you can or cannot retrospectively apply the law. The constitution says you cannot, so how can a statement do it. However it seems to be the case.

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

What new legislation would this be then?

These proposed amendments that apprently have been put together with all our "agreement and consultation."

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

These proposed amendments that apprently have been put together with all our "agreement and consultation."

Any idea what they are?

Grizzly 45

Ok Went over to the sports colation website and found the documentation and the pertinent bit [Italics mine]

Immediate cap on licensing of any new centre-fire semi-automatic rifles.
The Minister intends to introduce an immediate temporary cap on the licensing of any new
centre-fire semi-automatic rifles pending the establishment and determination of the
Authority. Assume the firearms assessment and appeals authorithy?
Legislation will provide for the revocation of any licenses issued between today (18
September 2015) and the enactment of the legislation and it is intended that anyone applying
for licenses of this nature will be informed of that fact.

This IMHO is entirely questionable as there is no current legislation or statue In my knowledge that allows this cap in the first place.So whats been said here is "until we have a law on the book,sometime,which wont allow them anyway,we arent liscensing any new ones


BC the proposed legislation,statement?Thingy http://www.sportscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/New-Firearms-Arrangements-2015.pdf

ezra_

BattleCorp wrote: »

I hear what you are saying but it sounds like a total bullsh1t system to me.

Either it's law or it's not law. Intending to do something is not the same as doing it.

IANAL but retrospective criminal law is constitutionally prohibited.
So they can't pass a law on 1 January 2016 that says anyone who owned a .22 on or after 1 January 2015 was committing an offence.

Retrospective laws that aren't criminal acts are allowed (sometimes).
For example, there was whistleblower legislation brought in some time back, and that is retrospective in nature in that anyone who 'ratted out' someone can now rely on that legislation for protection even if their squealing took place before the legislation was enacted (or even proposed).

You would probably now say, but Ezra_, I'm relying on my property rights as enshrined in the constitution and I'm sure the S.C. would hold little truck with retrospective property seizures.

A good point, however, firearms most definitely fall under the wooly and opaque blanket called 'public policy' which is the catch all excuse that the S.C. can use if the spirit of the law outweighs its specific legalities and firearms possession itself is subject to official approval and sanction so this legislation, albeit retrospective still fits within the current framework.

In short: it would take a S.C case that you probably wouldn't win because they'll get you by virtue of public policy.

Grizzly 45

To use a a boxing phrase.
All of the above few posts will proably be academic in the next few months anyway. Yesterday there was another IMCO cum EU parliment debate on the gun laws ,and we came out of it BADLY!:(:(:( Despite FACE claiming it was "a great success." How the frup you can claim moving firearms that have had 0.0001% use in crime in the EU from a category of unrestricted to prohibited is beyond me,but after a nights sleep they seem to have woken up to the cluster fuk they supported and are now trying to undo the damage.TBH I always found FACE taking this somewhat not too seriously and slow off the blocks in responding in the EU to this.NOW it is going to affect suddenly ANYONE [including .22 owners] who have a rifle which can take a greater than 10 shot magazine or handgun that can take over 20 shots. will now find them in CAT A [prohibited] EU wide. Anyone with a rifle that can fold down to an OAL length of less than 50cms ..Goodbye! Its now going to a CAT A,[a most ridicilous situation as all you do is put a longer muzzle break on it to bring it to 51 cms OAL when folded.] I think FACE thought it would be ok for those hunters with expensive semi auto Merkels,Browning BARS and Mausers,as they are only three shot.BUT have detachable mags and are now looking at losing these as well that woke them up...

Those of you with converted FN FALS and R4s and the odd HK that are perfectly safe semi conversions of select fire guns. Lawyer up!!! You are going to need one for the compo claim from the EU for your property.:(
So this is the position at the moment your EU benevelont dictatorship has decided to" fight terrorism" by banning your ruger 10/22,and enacting legislation to get deacts up to an EU standard SEVEN years after the directive ws put on the law books and three mass shootings and countless gang related incidents EU wide!! Of course there will be "exceptions" like being in a recognised spoert disipline and a club with one years training,[still harping back to this Olympic recognised sports] at the discretion of national goverments!! This is the "gold plating" that Marian Harkin referred to at the meeting in Athlone a couple of months ago. IOW pistol shooters,even if you never wanted or touched a semi auto rifle in your life,your approved 5 shot unrestricted Olympic pistol because it "could" take a 100round drum is now yet again potentially at the mercy of the AGS and govt and this time they will have the "EU excuse" to do it.

This still can be stopped,but the chances are slim.You need to get onto your reps and clubs and lobby FACE to get their act in gear.Donate even to Firearms united.com.They have got an expert team in Brussells and is a pan EU organisation of every nationality.FU came out of nowhere last year and is now the second most quoted and referred to lobby group on shooting sports nd firearms after FACE in the European parliment and media.Email all the EU MEPS bot irish and foregin,they speak English or have translators to translate,andwe are conspicious by our silence in EU circles.Get everyone you know,your fammily,relatives,pub mates,cat dog,deceased friends&relatives to sign the change.org petition[lets show them the Irish "Vote early ,vote often!"trick] Estimated 260 million gun owners in the EU,and not half a million have signed this?
We know that Ireland will follow the EU diktats no matter what.But maybe we might stop them enforcing "irish style" legislation on the rest of Europe,as it will only come back to bite us in the end as well? Lets get up off the canvas and finish this in round three on Nov 23rd.That is judgement day.


EDIT.. I have been informed that it wont affect .22 semi autos...To that point I'll say wait and see.835 amendments and another 4months can change alot of things.Just hope the EU has a very big cheque book handy as this is going to cost us all in the EU another PIIGS style deficit for the guns,the accessories,the "cost of the field"in legal terms etc.

ezra_

are you saying that any rifle that takes a mag is effected?
Like a CZ 452 (for example)?

Grizzly 45

Bolt actions,levers,pumps,MARS etc are sofar outside this directive. So you should be ok.
But never trust a gun banning organisation in power...We had the Dutch anti gun president suggesting that single barrel rifle and shotguns should become class B guns!! Never heard of a terrorist using a BP musket...
[Well maybe in 1776 in America or in 1791 in Ireland perhaps].But generally no they prefer somthing a tad more up to date.

Rimfire Shooter

Grizz, you're a bit like the boy who cried wolf.................yet again the sky is falling..............

Grizzly 45

Im reporting as its happening,and the sky is falling...Its just not coming down like a ton of rocks.

Cass

While the full ramifications have not been reported below is a summary from the Firearms United group on the most likely changes that will come into being based on the voting of the IMCO.

Once again we have this ridiculous notion that limiting magazine capacities somehow makes a firearm more or less dangerous. IOW the same crap we have to deal with here regarding 22 pistols and their 5 shot mags.

Have a read.

• Authorised collectors are now within the scope of the Directive but may be permitted to acquire and possess Cat. A firearms in full working order;
• Museums are also within the scope of the Directive but they will not have to deactivate their Cat. A firearms;
• B7 semi-automatic firearms are NOT banned.
• B7 Firearms which can internally hold more than 20 rounds or if one attaches a magazine with a capacity exceeding 20 rounds move to Cat. A and is prohibited unless the owner is a member of the military reserve or is a sport shooter who belongs to a club or organization and actively competes in disciplines requiring such firearms – this violates the rule of “freedom of association” which is present in the constitution of several MS;
• Such Cat. A firearms may be included in the EU Firearms Pass;
• One has to present a valid firearms permit in order to purchase a magazine which takes more than 20 rounds;
• The reloading of ammunition will still be permitted – no changes here.
• Minor modifications to firearms which do not alter their categorization and may be performed by the licensee;
• Permits will be issued for 5 years maximum unless MS have a “system of continuous monitoring”. This greatly increases red tape, diverts resources away from the fight on terrorism and therefore decreases overall security within the EU area.

ezra_

Cass wrote: »

• B7 Firearms which can internally hold more than 20 rounds or if one attaches a magazine with a capacity exceeding 20 rounds move to Cat. A and is prohibited unless the owner is a member of the military reserve or is a sport shooter who belongs to a club or organization and actively competes in disciplines requiring such firearms – this violates the rule of “freedom of association” which is present in the constitution of several MS;
• One has to present a valid firearms permit in order to purchase a magazine which takes more than 20 rounds;

Interesting, the fact that they cover the purchase of larger magazines in the legislation would imply that Grizz's 'all semis are now banned as all can be fitted with larger mags' point is moot.

Don't know what sort of effect it will actually have in reality, but what legitimate needs are there for a 20 round mag?

Rimfire Shooter

Thanks for that Cass!

ezra_ wrote: »

Interesting, the fact that they cover the purchase of larger magazines in the legislation would imply that Grizz's 'all semis are now banned as all can be fitted with larger mags' point is moot.

Not the first time he's posted inaccurate info here. Hence my previous reference to boy who cried wolf.

Cass

ezra_ wrote: »

Interesting, the fact that they cover the purchase of larger magazines in the legislation would imply that Grizz's 'all semis are now banned as all can be fitted with larger mags' point is moot.

This is NOT an officially released report on the vote. While it might be exactly what the vote says it is Firearms United's review on what way things will be once the report on the vote is released.

They done this to squash some scaremongering and improper information that was released, in some cases by MEPs.

Don't know what sort of effect it will actually have in reality, but what legitimate needs are there for a 20 round mag?

You are thinking in Irish terms. These rules will effect all 27 countries. In some of these countries CSR and similar type comps are run and high mag limits are needed.

Anyone with a 20+ round mag is now in possession of a Cat A firearm which in Ireland is prohibited. So if i use the same gun and insert a 20 round mag i'm fine. I put in my 30 round (without being a member of a range/sporting club) my gun is now illegal. As my firearm is already restricted i do not have a mag limit, and as the only other category above restricted is banned, well you can see where this is going.

Another reason is cost. I can buy a polymer 30 round mag cheaper than a 10 round steel one from the original manufacturer.

A knock on effect it will have is to make 5, 10, and 20 rounds mags more expensive as the option of cheap 30 round ones are now out.

After saying all that the round limit only applies to hunters. Military personnel, sports shooters, and members of clubs that may have use of a mag with more than 20 rounds can still do so. IOW, and this is only an example, if i showed my range membership and shot in comps where such mags were allowed or even required i can still buy and use them.

As for people posting inaccurate information, see my comment at the start of this post, and the report i linked to. Some MEPs were, after the vote, saying all Cat B7 firearms were banned, only semi autos were banned, etc. So it's easy to see how such misinformation can spread especially when you're one of the people at risk of loosing their firearm.

Grizzly 45

ezra_ wrote: »

Interesting, the fact that they cover the purchase of larger magazines in the legislation would imply that Grizz's 'all semis are now banned as all can be fitted with larger mags' point is moot.

Actually I was going to write a long post about these snitty comments,but fuk it !!!I'll just post the whole article and you can decide for yourselves what is moot Or whethe r Im crying wolf.Or posting misleading info.:rolleyes::rolleyes::
With permission from Firearms United Ireland /Firearms United. [Italcs and emphasis mine]

http://firearms-united.com/2016/07/18/really-happened-imco-vote/

Firearms United wrote:

As you may have noticed, we have not yet reported the exact results of the last Wednesday’s IMCO vote. This is due to two reasons; firstly we are all quite exhausted after the stressful effort to defend our position up to this point and secondly we needed time to analyse the result before rushing in to judge the result.

Rumours of what has actually been banned, if anything, have been circulating together with justified questions about the next steps in this process. These were mainly sparked by conflicting comments made by various MEPs. It is now quite obvious that a considerable number of MEPs did not fully comprehend what they voted for and are even less aware of what the result states. The prize for the most absurd comment goes to Finnish SnD MEP Liisa Jaakonsaari who immediately declared in the Finnish national news: “It was an excellent compromise. The best parts were the ban of semiautomatic weapons and restricting access to firearms.”

http://yle.fi/uutiset/eun_parlamentti_muotoili_kantaansa_aselakeihin__suomen_reservilaisilla_ja_aseharrastajilla_ei_huolta/9023831

This article was understandably swiftly edited to reflect reality the rest of live in and the comment was changed to “It was an excellent compromise. The most important change was restricting access to firearms”. These hasty statements highlight the complexity of the voting list and the compromise amendments. Indeed some MEPs expressed their view that this was the most complex voting list that they had ever seen.

Below you will find a short summary of the IMCO opinion based on the notes compiled by Firearms United members and experts who attended the voting session on Wednesday 13th July. We would like to draw your attention that the official final text of the IMCO Opinion is yet to be published. We will share this with you once it is in hand.

Summary of the most salient points

• Authorised collectors are now within the scope of the Directive but may be permitted to acquire and possess Cat. A firearms in full working order;
• Museums are also within the scope of the Directive but they will not have to deactivate their Cat. A firearms;
• B7 semi-automatic firearms are NOT banned.

B7 Firearms which can internally hold more than 20 rounds or if one attaches a magazine with a capacity exceeding 20 rounds move to Cat. A and is prohibited [This is the bugbear that contradicts the first point above]

unless the owner is a member of the military reserve or is a sport shooter who belongs to a club or organization and actively competes in disciplines requiring such firearms – this violates the rule of “freedom of association” which is present in the constitution of several MS;[And as Sparks pointed out the entire ISSF,etc,governing bodies,blah,blah Olympic recognised plaver we had ourselves]

Such Cat. A firearms may be included in the EU Firearms Pass;
One has to present a valid firearms permit in order to purchase a magazine;[Over 20 rounds presumeably?]
The reloading of ammunition will still be permitted – no changes here.
Minor modifications to firearms which do not alter their categorization and may be performed by the licensee;
Permits will be issued for 5 years maximum unless MS have a “system of continuous monitoring”. This greatly increases red tape, diverts resources away from the fight on terrorism and therefore decreases overall security within the EU area.

And will be VERY reluctantly be considerd by the irish govt according to the DOJ unless it becomes an EU directive,as they consider the 3 year liscense more than adequate.So even a morsel of a benefit out of this cluster fuk would be denied us too]

Firearms United wrote:

The issue with B7 Firearms that move to A7

The current wording as approved in last Wednesday’s vote is as follows:

7 a. Semi-automatic firearms with centrefire percussion, and loading devices, with one or more of the following characteristics:

a long firearms (i.e. firearms that are originally intended to be fired from the shoulder) that can be reduced to a length of less than 60cm without losing functionality by means of a folding or telescoping stock;
b) firearms which allow the firing of more than 21 rounds without reloading, if a loading device with a capacity exceeding 20 rounds is part of the firearm or is inserted into it;]
c) in order to acquire a loading device a correspondent firearm authorization must be presented at the time of acquisition.

If any one of the characteristics listed above is applies to your firearm then your firearm moves from B7 to A7. This is of course an utterly ridiculous consideration:

Magazine out: B7, Magazine in: A7!

One can just image court cases where the prosecution has to prove that the magazine was in. However, as stated earlier, if you are a member of the military reserve or if you are a sport shooter and a member of an organization and you actively compete in disciplines requiring such firearms then you may still acquire and possess such firearms.

The Exemptions

Army reservist are clearly exempt from previously-stated restrictions:

This Directive shall not apply to the acquisition or possession of weapons and ammunition, in accordance with national law, by the national defence forces, the police and other public authorities. The national defence forces encompasses all units, reservists and voluntary defence forces within the framework of the national defence systems under the command of the national defence forces, including the military and systems of internal public security. Nor shall it apply to commercial transfers of weapons and ammunition of war. The national defence forces of a Member State as defined under national law may, in addition to the military, include units such as a home guard as well as reservists and other persons taking part in national defence systems under the command of the national defence forces.

So are collectors provided they fall within the following definition:

For the purposes of this Directive, “collector” means any legal or natural person dedicated to the gathering and conservation of firearms or ammunition for historical, cultural, scientific, technical, educational, aesthetic or heritage purposes, and recognised as such by a Member State.

Sport shooters are also exempt subject to the following conditions.

The obvious problem with this text is that this is wide open to interpretation in MS and some of the less benevolent ones will surely pick on this proviso to bar persons from owning a semi-auto firearm. What about sport shooters who do not compete or do not belong to any shooting club? Would some MS take the opportunity not to issue a permit or not renew it?

This is the Gold plating clause Marian Harkin MEP warned about that COULD be used here in Ireland[]/B] The EU ignores the existence of recreational sport shooters. It is akin to stating that no one may play football unless one plays in a national league match…

Member States may authorise target shooters to acquire and possess semi-automatic firearms classified in categories A.6 or A.7, subject to the following conditions:

a) the target shooter participates in shooting competitions organised by an official shooting sport organisation recognised by a Member State or by an internationally established and officially recognised shooting sport federation; and
b) the target shooter is a member of a recognised shooting club, regularly practises target shooting and has been doing so for at least twelve months.

[Sound fammilar???]

Firearms United wrote:

So what about hunters and the rest?

Hunters appear to have fallen victim to the result of this vote: they will not be allowed to purchase or possess magazines with a capacity larger than 20 rounds.

Irrevelant to the ROI as we dont have a mag capacity restriction for CF rifles semi or not.As well as being pretty irrevelant tro german hunters too,unless you are a sport shooter as well...More to do with a recent legislative hiccup in Germany which questioned could you use a SA with just a three shot mag for hunting.A sport shooter and hunter[both are two seperate liscenses over there] wanted to use his SA rifle for hunting as well as IPSC.The police and council refused to enter it on both liscenses as they figured it wasnt compatible to use a "sport rifle" for Hunting.It took going to the court below the German constitutional court to getthis sorted and to the German parliment,it still has to be ratified by the German senate[Who are just as useful as our Senad ,mostly]

Firearms United wrote:

Firearms United stands against the ridiculous limitations listed above and maintains that all the measures not covered by an impact assessment should be rejected. There is no proven link between legal registered firearms and acts of terror – the Commission should be targeted illegal firearms and not those possessed by law-abiding citizens.

The Trialogue discussions between the Commission, the Council and Parliament will commence after the summer recess. Rapporteur Vicky Ford will be responsible for presenting Parliament’s Opinion and as such we expect her to take a stand against the Commission and the Council. Our hopes lie with her to defend our position and we assure he of our full support. She has been very objective so far and thanks to her leadership the most outrageous Commission proposals, such as the confiscation of Cat. A and Cat. 7 firearms, have been thwarted. This is something which we should not lose sight of even if politically the result of the IMCO vote is a slap in the face for millions of law-abiding firearm owners and users who were unjustly targeted by the unelected Commission.

Stake holders rightfully expected their elected representatives to go the whole hog and reject all the measures which were not part of an impact assessment study and which violate the fundamental EU principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The politics of compromise within IMCO led to the contamination of the earlier justifiable stand taken by most political groups wherein they were ready to respect the status quo on most issues. However in seeking to appease the S&D and the Greens they ruined the good work which they had done up to that pointThe opportunity to achieve what the LIBE vote of 9th May had famously done, that is a slap in the face of the Commission which deserved every bit of it, was sadly missed and instead it was the Commission’s victims who were asked to live with complexities which they do not deserve to face.

However the biggest loser in this process is undoubtedly the EU itself and its credibility with millions of law-abiding citizens who are utterly disgruntled by its heavy-handed approach to our civil liberties.

Yeah , bet ISIS followers will be really concerned about whether they can use 20 or 40 round mags to legally slaughter infidels in rock concerts in the future.Remember this is all about supposedly making us safer from terrorism

Firearms United wrote:

Firearms United is committed to carry on its fight alongside the rest of the stake holders in order that the legislation is eventually purged of the its many absurdities. We have learnt to work together and this unity of action has so far defeated the Commission. We must ensure that we keep this cooperation alive and well so that we block the Commission from making any further incursions into our lives in the years to come.

But just "moot points" of course..From the boy who cried wolf,and cried it in 2008 and was ignored as well when the sky did fall on IPSC and pistol shooters.

ezra_

To be fair, this isn't reading as a blanket ban on firearms that could potentially be modified (buy a mag) to hold more than 20 rounds but more as, if you have a gun and a 30 round clip, you'd better have the appropriate licence.

I've yet to read on this thread a solid reason for needing a 20+ round clip. Sayings its cheaper than buying smaller mags doesn't really cut it.

SVI40

ezra_ wrote: »

To be fair, this isn't reading as a blanket ban on firearms that could potentially be modified (buy a mag) to hold more than 20 rounds but more as, if you have a gun and a 30 round clip, you'd better have the appropriate licence.

I've yet to read on this thread a solid reason for needing a 20+ round clip. Sayings its cheaper than buying smaller mags doesn't really cut it.

IPSC rifle for one requires a large capacity magazine(s). It may be prohibited here, but is hugely popular in the rest of Europe, and in particular the Nordic countries.

Rimfire Shooter

So when/where, are/were, 10/22's in "trouble"? As I said more scare mongering!

ezra_

Just to clarify, we have a similar situation here in Ireland right now with semi auto shotguns:

I'm pretty sure that I could 'adjust' my semi so that it can take 5 / 7 / 30 / 90 cartridges but my gun isn't restricted because right now (and as it was sold) it only takes two in the whatever you call the thing where the shells go that haven't been fired yet.

However, were I to make the adjustment and do something that has my licence being examined, the lack of restricted licence would get me in some hot water.

That seems to be how this is intended to play out:

Buy your semis, use your semis but if you equip your semi with a mag that is outside of these legislation, then you'll be in breach of licensing laws. This is what we currently have in operation here.

Cass

ezra_ wrote: »

I've yet to read on this thread a solid reason for needing a 20+ round clip. Sayings its cheaper than buying smaller mags doesn't really cut it.

I own a restricted firearm. I have 30 round mags for it. If this is the way forward then even though the gun has not changed one bit in terms of looks, functionality, etc. if i use a 30 round mag (or any mag with more than 20) i now have a Cat A7 firearm. These are prohibited in Ireland. Meaning illegal to own, outside of the defense forces.

So if you load 6 into a 22 pistol, or 4 into a semi auto shotgun you turn it from an unrestricted to restricted. An offence, but not as serious as turning a firearm from restricted to prohibited simply because of the size of the mag.

As for cost. The mags for my rifle are £55 (€65) without delivery for a 5 round one. The polymer ones in 30 round are €20. Whether i choose to use 30 rounds or not is moot as my current IRISH firearms license allows me to have this.

It's like the CPC course for lorry drivers. In essence the EU has said your Irish license is not worth the paper it's written on so here is an expensive course you must do to get a "real" license with continuous testing throughout your life.

I'm a little annoyed at this remark:

"Doesn't really cut it"

Do you have or own a restricted firearm that will be effected by this? Cause if not then its all academic to you. For everyone else it means examining your situation and possibly having to join a range or club if you want to keep your property (because mags are property) or forgo them.

The other issue as i said above is this is not just an Irish problem, it's an EU problem where the full range of sports shooting is open to it's citizens not just the ones the Government deem ok. Practical shooting was banned as was dynamic because they said it resembled military or tactical shooting/training. Well what are the weekend warriors with the toy guns (BBs, airsoft) doing each week in the woods? Same goes for the paintballers. they have restricted short arms with no gun licenses but that is perfectly fine.

The reason it annoys me more than anything else is it's reminiscent of the proposal of the sports coalition who sought a temporary cap of centrefire semi auto rifles (illegal) but made exemptions for "vintage" or "classic" rifles of the same design/functionality. IOW once you don't touch our stuff do what you want.

That is called throwing others under the bus. Whether you see a point for them or not is irrelevant. You should throw your support behind others that use and have them rather than stand back saying "f**k it, i'm alright".