MORE crap on the way.

Grizzly 45

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/firearms/open-letter-vicky-ford-mep-firearms-directive-73362

Some clarity,but whether it is practible in the long run is another question.
Intresting in the last paragraph,the EU cant figure out the difference between a semi auto shotgun and a semi auto rifle...

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/firearms/open-letter-vicky-ford-mep-firearms-directive-73362

Some clarity,but whether it is practible in the long run is another question.
Intresting in the last paragraph,the EU cant figure out the difference between a semi auto shotgun and a semi auto rifle...

Unless I'm badly mistaken, this means that anyone with a Mossberg MVP bolt action can load 30, 40, 100-round etc AR mags legally, but if they put the exact same mags into an AR semi, they will be acting illegally if they do not have the required exemption paperwork.

Also, it will not be illegal to own mags for semi autos which hold more than 20 rounds without the new paperwork, it will be illegal/impossible to acquire or buy them after a certain date without the paperwork aforementioned.

I'm sure you can all see where this is going and some of you may remember the very similar mag ban in the US.

What a waste of paper and hot air on behalf of the Masters of the EUniverse.

Can't sleep, btw - went to bed real early because I was a bit unwell; now I've had my 8 hours, the body clock is talking.

PPS; the Munich shooting atrocity perpetrator seemed to have 20 rd mags - just mentioning it because I feel the need to keep it real. These shootings are atrocities and unspeakable crimes against innocent people.
Doubt any of these criminals had legally-obtained and licensed firearms, that's the difference.

Grizzly 45

Seems Munich was a Glock 17 with bog standard 17 rounders with possibly plus 3 conversions,and 300 rounds of ammo.Wonder how the anti gun nuts will play this one?
Serial number was removed and there is NO WAY that this shooter could have got a handgun legally under German gun laws.First being treated for head problems is an instant refusal and for a handgun application between 18/25 have to have a cumpulsory state head shrinker interview.even then you will be only permitted a .22 pistol until you are 21 and have to be a club member,unless you have the German hunting liscense.Then you are only permitted two handguns.
OTOH there are more illegal guns in circulation than legal guns in Germany.Courtsey of 2world wars,a fallen Communist state,open borders right down to the arms meccas of the Balkans and Russias Kaliningrad.All within about a days drive.Oh and a gun ban "to fight terrorism" in 1972 based again on looks of the gun.

As for the mags..Got it in one.Already the prices for them are creeping up for over 20 rounders.Yet the 20 rounders are static,sofar. It is an utter farsce this.What happens with Thermold mags,that can have conversion kits to bring them up to 30 rounds? How about duct tape and two 20 rounds taped together?Or the SIG 550 clip together facility as standard on its issued 20 round mags?

Limerick Sovereigns

http://traleetoday.ie/gardai-probe-break-ins-ballybunion-killorglin-homes/

This won't help the cause.

Grizzly 45

Well,it was in a safe which was forced open,and it doesn't say how the ammo was stored or where.[So reading it from here we will have to give benefit of doubt that it was stored seperately] So it would seem from this report whoever it was ,was doing things right.

turismo2142

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,it was in a safe which was forced open,and it doesn't say how the ammo was stored or where.[So reading it from here we will have to give benefit of doubt that it was stored seperately] So it would seem from this report whoever it was ,was doing things right.

Perhaps, but it still gives senior AGS a stick they so dearly wish to beat us with.

On a personal note. The person from whom the Sig was stolen has not only lost that gun and its value but cannot replace it and can no longer shoot CF pistol. I hope they weren't very active in competition and didn't use it too often. But even still, it's awful. If it were me I'd be utterly gutted.

I presume it's a member of an Riocht.

Grizzly 45

One civvie gun in what ten years? Compared to how many AGS personal guns? Like the one securely stored under the bed pillow?;)Of course,they will no doubt try it on.:rolleyes:
It does now raise an intresting legal point..Seeing that it was illegally removed from the owner by theft,and from what we can tell it was stored securely within his conditions.Why as such should he be punished for an act he had no part in,and was in legal possesion of said gun by being denied the opportunity to replace it? This could get very intresting..

Cass

I seen this a few days ago and never brought it up because in my book the owner has done nothing wrong. You cannot criminalise the victim because of the items stolen.

To have the pistol the owner must have completed the vetting process including the secure accommodation needs. If AGS signed off of his security then he has done all he can. If someone wants into your house and at your guns well frankly they will get them. I had a recent visit by my CPO and i told him the same. With all my security i'm level 10, not just level 4 but still it's a deterrent and not a guarantee.

As i said at the start you cannot criminalise the victim because firearms are stolen. IOW the owner is not at fault if they took all steps dictated to them by AGS to secure is firearms.

The article is the typical crap you see when firearms are involved, "Gardaí fear the pistol may be used in future crime". Funny they don't say the same when a car is stolen. Such as "Gardaí fear it'll be used in drive by, ram raid, joyride". It's that little jab at gun owners. Or what about power tools, "Gardaí fear the thieves may build an extension". FFS. It's sensationalism at it's best. Same with the article about the man that shot an intruder at his Father's house. One article has a picture of a Colt 1911. A SHOTGUN was used, but the picture of the 1911 looks more "deadly".

I won't touch on a particular subject out of respect (which is more than is shown to sports shooters), but as said above AGS have lost, by their own admission, more of the same firearms than have been stolen from private owners. Same with the defence forces. Yet there is not a word about that because they are "trained", or it's a matter of internal/operational security.

The home/gun owner was a victim of a crime and deserves to be treated as such. Not with distrust, scorn or any sort of judgement.

turismo2142

Cass wrote: »

I seen this a few days ago and never brought it up because in my book the owner has done nothing wrong. You cannot criminalise the victim because of the items stolen.

To have the pistol the owner must have completed the vetting process including the secure accommodation needs. If AGS signed off of his security then he has done all he can. If someone wants into your house and at your guns well frankly they will get them. I had a recent visit by my CPO and i told him the same. With all my security i'm level 10, not just level 4 but still it's a deterrent and not a guarantee.

As i said at the start you cannot criminalise the victim because firearms are stolen. IOW the owner is not at fault if they took all steps dictated to them by AGS to secure is firearms.

The article is the typical crap you see when firearms are involved, "Gardaí fear the pistol may be used in future crime". Funny they don't say the same when a car is stolen. Such as "Gardaí fear it'll be used in drive by, ram raid, joyride". It's that little jab at gun owners. Or what about power tools, "Gardaí fear the thieves may build an extension". FFS. It's sensationalism at it's best. Same with the article about the man that shot an intruder at his Father's house. One article has a picture of a Colt 1911. A SHOTGUN was used, but the picture of the 1911 looks more "deadly".

I won't touch on a particular subject out of respect (which is more than is shown to sports shooters), but as said above AGS have lost, by their own admission, more of the same firearms than have been stolen from private owners. Same with the defence forces. Yet there is not a word about that because they are "trained", or it's a matter of internal/operational security.

The home/gun owner was a victim of a crime and deserves to be treated as such. Not with distrust, scorn or any sort of judgement.

I don't think anyone here was saying he'd done anything wrong at all. It could happen to any of us. Like you said, it's a cheap jab had they were only waiting to make it. And they can now point to a handgun being stolen from civilian hands even though there's nothing that that person could have done it seems.

I just feel sorry for the poor man as the law will not allow him replace his cf pistol. That's the real wrong here.

yubabill1

Cass wrote: »

.....but as said above AGS have lost, by their own admission, more of the same firearms than have been stolen from private owners. Same with the defence forces. Yet there is not a word about that because they are "trained", or it's a matter of internal/operational security.

The home/gun owner was a victim of a crime and deserves to be treated as such. Not with distrust, scorn or any sort of judgement.

PLUS the make/calibre of the handgun and the owner's housing estate are now public knowledge.

From this remove, it could look like someone is making sure this guy's security is compromised for any future licence application, short of moving house.

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

From this remove, it could look like someone is making sure this guy's security is compromised for any future licence application, short of moving house.

Things that would make you go Hmmmm alright!

Cass

It was a while ago, but there was a court case along the same lines

Chap's house was broken into and his firearms stolen (among other things). Claimed on his insurance, got the money, bought new guns then went to license them. He was refused. He brought it to court where the judge said that as his security not only met the minimum standard but exceeded it, and was signed off on by the CPO and Super that treating the victim (gun owner) as a criminal was not fair, or right. That he had taken every precaution to prevent such a theft. He ordered the Super to re-evaluate less e issue the licenses himself.

My point is if your car is stolen does your driving license become void if the car is used in a robbery, joyride or simply because it was stolen. Given that cars have immobilisers, alarms, steering locks, etc.

Now i don't like comparing guns to cars as they are two completely separate things and looked on differently, but for all intensive purposes they are still property.

If the chap was refused a license (putting aside the legal problems with it being a C/F pistol) because someone managed to steal the first one then the Gardaí would surely shoulder part of the blame for issuing the license to a person that did not meet the security needs. Barring the fact the person left their back door open and map to the safes location he done all that was required of him.

As said already this will not stop some from trying to turn it into something it's not, but we are not them.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

It was a while ago, but there was a court case along the same lines

Chap's house was broken into and his firearms stolen (among other things). Claimed on his insurance, got the money, bought new guns then went to license them. He was refused. He brought it to court where the judge said that as his security not only met the minimum standard but exceeded it, and was signed off on by the CPO and Super that treating the victim (gun owner) as a criminal was not fair, or right. That he had taken every precaution to prevent such a theft. He ordered the Super to re-evaluate less e issue the licenses himself.

My point is if your car is stolen does your driving license become void if the car is used in a robbery, joyride or simply because it was stolen. Given that cars have immobilisers, alarms, steering locks, etc.

If the chap was refused a license (putting aside the legal problems with it being a C/F pistol) because someone managed to steal the first one then the Gardaí would surely shoulder part of the blame for issuing the license to a person that did not meet the security needs. Barring the fact the person left their back door open and map to the safes location he done all that was required of him.

As said already this will not stop some from trying to turn it into something it's not, but we are not them.

In this instance unfortunately there is nothing that the Chief Super can do to help the gun owner, even though through no fault of his own, was the victim of a crime. As you hinted at, the Chief Super is legally barred from issuing a new centrefire licence to the guy.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Unless I am mistaken, the Chief Super is legally barred from issuing a new centrefire licence to the guy.

Pretty much. I was thinkingo of ways this could be "excused" but none come to mind.

It's also why i said the above with the legal part in mind:

Cass wrote: »

If the chap was refused a license (putting aside the legal problems with it being a C/F pistol) ...........................

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

It's also why i said the above with the legal part in mind:

Ah yeah, I got that bit alright.

What happens if someone's centrefire pistol is damaged and it's a part that has the serial number stamped onto it? How do you get such a replacement part in this case? Do the factory take back the damaged part and send you out a new part with the same serial number on it?

If this is the case, can they do the same for a whole gun? On reflection, I doubt they'd allow two guns outside the factory with the same serial number, so I guess that's a non-runner.

And I suppose another point is that every single centrefire pistol licenced is at least 8 years old so there's a fair chance that that part/pistol is no longer manufactured.

It looks like there is not much that can be done to help the guy who had his pistol stolen.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

What happens if someone's centrefire pistol is damaged and it's a part that has the serial number stamped onto it? How do you get such a replacement part in this case? Do the factory take back the damaged part and send you out a new part with the same serial number on it?

I had to check into this a couple of years ago for my own gun.

In short i was told i must send the defective part back to the manufacturer, get a letter from them stating it's defective and then i can bring in a replacement part. The new part might have a serial number and if you its recorded under the same license.

If this is the case, can they do the same for a whole gun? On reflection, I doubt they'd allow two guns outside the factory with the same serial number, so I guess that's a non-runner.

I thought of that, but no. As you said they won't want two pistols from the same manufacturer with the same serial number. Starts to get confusing.

And I suppose another point is that every single centrefire pistol licenced is at least 8 years old so there's a fair chance that that part/pistol is no longer manufactured.

Might be with some, but some manufacturers use such a similar design that parts are interchangeable. Its why i looked into it myself.

It looks like there is not much that can be done to help the guy who had his pistol stolen.

My thinking was he won't be seeking a new license, just a replacement pistol.

The law does not prohibit the firearm just the licenses for them Now that is essentially the same thing but a key point is the distinguishing of license to firearm. So there may be a chance, however slim, that the person could get another pistol with a new serial number, under his current license. It would essentially be a substitution. Now these are not allowed as AGS class them as a new license, but he is not seeking to replace out of boredom or want to change for a newer model. It's a necessity.

Then again maybe he (owner) might just claim off his insurance if he is covered and thank his lucky stars he is out of the whole crap fest that is C/F pistol licensing.

yubabill1

There is a chance the pistol in question could be recovered.

I'd imagine AGS will be pretty hot on getting it back from the thief.

BattleCorp

yubabill1 wrote: »

There is a chance the pistol in question could be recovered.

I'd imagine AGS will be pretty hot on getting it back from the thief.

Unless they know who stole it and get to them quick, I'd say the chances of getting it back are very very slim.

Grizzly 45

One thing that is surprising to me is the theif seems to have had bags of time to locate and break into the safe.What was going on with the alarm during the meanwhile?

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

One thing that is surprising to me is the theif seems to have had bags of time to locate and break into the safe.What was going on with the alarm during the meanwhile?

Maybe they disabled the alarm first. Some clever scumbags out there unfortunately.

SVI40

Talking to a couple of lads from An Ríocht today, and they told me the Sig that was stolen was a Sig .22, and not a P226 as reported in the article.

Bad_alibi

SVI40 wrote: »

Talking to a couple of lads from An Ríocht today, and they told me the Sig that was stolen was a Sig .22, and not a P226 as reported in the article.

The media getting it wrong that's practically unheard of.

SVI40

Bad_alibi wrote: »

The media getting it wrong that's practically unheard of.

Unheard of for sure. The only thing I believe in the media now, is the name of the publication, and the price on the cover.

Grizzly 45

Somebody had an agenda there in the first place to leak details like that to the media in the first place.But yes,the media cant be trusted anymore to tell any sort of the truth ,especially with gun and shooting matters.As one media mogul said "its'more profitable to make the news,than report the news.":(

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

............... cant be trusted anymore to tell any sort of the truth ,.............

So it seems.

BattleCorp

This explains a lot.

yubabill1

Cass wrote: »

So it seems.

A guy I know was laughing at that report when it came out.

He said the AK was a civilian "hunting" version, it had no bayonet lug or select fire lever and had an upmarket coating on the metal. All the other firearms were plainly hunting rigs, except a pistol shown briefly, which could well have been licensed. He thought they may have been stolen from hunters/shooters.

Reminded me of the old "Cook Report" programme, which regularly substituted air guns when they couldn't get "illegal weapons" for their reports. He even appeared with a "silenced" revolver in one photo shoot.

Grizzly 45

Looks like ol Ramsey has been caught in his own web of lies.But then again nothing new from the Murdochian LIE TV when it comes to gun related matters.

.
https://firearms-united.com/2016/08/13/fake-sky-news-pay-hunters-act-arms-traffickers/#comments

turismo2142

yeah, was in an riocht on Sunday too for the Munster league and was told it was a .22.

Was also told it was ignorance rather than an actual agenda on the part of the relevant Garda which lead to it being reported as a p226.

CASS, substitutions for restricted firearms are prohibited by the 2006 criminal justice act. There is absolutely no way a cf pistol can be replaced if you apply the law correctly. It's hugely unfair but there you go.

Cass

turismo2142 wrote: »

CASS, substitutions for restricted firearms are prohibited by the 2006 criminal justice act. There is absolutely no way a cf pistol can be replaced if you apply the law correctly. It's hugely unfair but there you go.

I know they cannot be substituted. I said so above.

Also is it not the 2009 Criminal Justice (miscellaneous provisions) Act 2009 after the Minister's statement in November 2008.