MORE crap on the way.

turismo2142

Cass wrote: »

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.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying when you suggested earlier that a person might have a chance, however slim, of substituting a different CF pistol for his damaged one. This can't happen I'm afraid as substitutions of any restricted firearm are prohibited by

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0026/print.html#sec55

Section 55 of the 2006 CJA which amends s 21 of the firearms act 1964

On top of that, as you point out, the 2009 cjmp act implements the terms of the restricted firearms and ammunition si which only lets you apply for a cert on a short cf firearm you had certified pre 2008. If s. 55 wasn't in place, however, you could apply for a substitution (theoretically) within you existing certificate which you could argue wouldn't fall foul of the 2009 act. So it's the 2006 section rather than the 2009 act which screws replacements in my view.

Do you follow my logic? Firearms law being as clear as mud and all.

i hijack this post too often I think.

Cass

turismo2142 wrote: »

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying when you suggested earlier that a person might have a chance, however slim, of substituting a different CF pistol for his damaged one. This can't happen I'm afraid as substitutions of any restricted firearm are prohibited by

I was theorising what could possibly be done, but as i said in this post due to the firearm (reportedly) being a centrefire that no method comes to mind.

If s. 55 wasn't in place, however, you could apply for a substitution (theoretically) within you existing certificate which you could argue wouldn't fall foul of the 2009 act. So it's the 2006 section rather than the 2009 act which screws replacements in my view.

True.

However if section 55 were not there, and i'm quoting a Chief Super and person from the DoJ when i tried to fight this some years back, "If you apply for a substitution the replacement license would constitute a new license and as such be void/not issued".

Now i argued this point to the extent, and i think i said it above, that every there year i get a "new" license in the form of my renewal/re-application. So how does a sub differ? I got no satisfactory or legal solid answer.

My thinking, which is no breakthrough, is that they don't want the new gun in, moreso than the new license.

Do you follow my logic? Firearms law being as clear as mud and all.

I got ya, and honestly never considered section 55 what with the 2009 act basically doing away with any hope of C/F pistols anyway. IOW of the two i'd sooner see the 2009 act changed/gone than S.55. In a perfect world, both gone.

The only shining light being, as you rightly said, the 2009 acts paves the way for SI 21/2008 & SI 337/2009 which is the cause of our angst. As an SI it would not be anything near as big an ordeal to have it repealed as the actual act.

Another job for the FCP.

However all of this seems moot now what with the reports of it being a C/F being exaggerated.

i hijack this post too often I think.

Nah, makes a pleasant change of topic if only for a few posts.

Sparks

Um. Section 55 of the 2006 Act amends section 13 of the Firearms Act (relating to sales of firearms by auctioneers). Section 56 of the 2006 Act does amend section 21 but it doesn't mention anything about restricted firearms and anyway section 21 is about importation of firearms where you have a licence for the firearm.

So I'm not following the argument at all now.


As far as I understand it -- and I think we'll wind up seeing a courtroom to decide on it at some point given how these things go and if so, that'll be the real test, this is just, like, my opinion, dude -- if you applied for a substitution on your certificate you should be refused on the grounds that the 2009 act says you can't apply for a certificate for a restricted short firearm you didn't have a certificate for prior to november 2008 (I say should on ethical grounds because while you could in theory argue for the substitution, come the end of the certificate you'd be reapplying for a new certificate for a pistol you had no cert for before november 2008, which means the Chief Super would be legally prohibited from granting the licence and you'd be up the creek).

Cass

As i said above i did not think of section 55 (because i was not aware it existed in relation to the topic) and when i read the link it did say auctioneers.

I never pretend to be a legal eagle so assumed this related to the sale of firearms by any person (RFD) and that it did not mean auctioneers in the literal sense. I know, i know. I shouldn't assume anything.

The other aspect being, and i had to check before i posted, i done a sub in 2006 (around July/Augsut) from a Beretta to my current Sig. Section 55 was in law at the time, and should have prevented this. Also two others i shoot with also done subs in 2006 and 2007.

As for the subs, you have a point. I had to read the various sections and SIs again for the wording (its all in the wording). I was hoping for some vague language regarding license, but it specifically mentions the types of firearms. Having said that there are a lot of much smarter people than me out there and if this was some sort of avenue it'd have been used by now, no doubt.

turismo2142

Sparks wrote: »

Um. Section 55 of the 2006 Act amends section 13 of the Firearms Act (relating to sales of firearms by auctioneers). Section 56 of the 2006 Act does amend section 21 but it doesn't mention anything about restricted firearms and anyway section 21 is about importation of firearms where you have a licence for the firearm.

So I'm not following the argument at all now.


As far as I understand it -- and I think we'll wind up seeing a courtroom to decide on it at some point given how these things go and if so, that'll be the real test, this is just, like, my opinion, dude -- if you applied for a substitution on your certificate you should be refused on the grounds that the 2009 act says you can't apply for a certificate for a restricted short firearm you didn't have a certificate for prior to november 2008 (I say should on ethical grounds because while you could in theory argue for the substitution, come the end of the certificate you'd be reapplying for a new certificate for a pistol you had no cert for before november 2008, which means the Chief Super would be legally prohibited from granting the licence and you'd be up the creek).

You're dead right Sparks, my bad. I meant s.54. 2006 act :-) The perils of doing this from memory and not re reading what I copy and paste.

And yes, it's all horse**** really. But a sub is different to a new cert.

Let's hope the FCP can get the SI altered. I've heard from one FCP rep that he had some confidence that this could be done. I personally wouldn't hold my breath.

Here's something I've been chewing on and see what you guys think;

1. The 2008 restricted firearms and ammunition order defines what's restricted and what's not.
2. The 2009 amendment order specifies .22 rim fire pistols as we now know them as not restricted (effectively every other pistol is then deemed restricted)
3. Then the nasty nasty s.30 (3)D(b) of 2009 criminal justice misc provisions act (I'm paraphrasing for brevity) prohibits new Certs for short firearms unless a) they're .22s as specified in the 2009 amendment order or b) you're a lucky SOB like CASS and you had a pre 2008 cf pistol cert.

Everyone seems to accept that if you change the 2008 si (as amended by 2009 order) then you can enlarge the types of short firearms which are not "uncertifyable" (and bring back some sort of CF pistols) and that this can be done without primary legislation (which would never ever be passed to allow even limited CF pistol reintroduction).

This was all mooted pre last September before the modest chage to aforementioned s.i. re .22 magazine capacity when there was some suggestion that a graduated licensing system for cf pistols could be introduced (and all the internal political mess that followed).

My first observation is that if this were to happen and say, the SI was reintroduced to allow CF target pistols like a 9mm Pardini, long slide STI 2011 or a sig p226 x6 etc on a graduate basis (never mind what you might think of this or the problems with it) then these guns would have to be unrestricted given the way the 2009 misc provisions act and the 2008/2009 S.I.s interact (Sparks, check my sums to see if I'm right, I'm sure I am). Can we honestly ever see this scenario being tolerated/conceded? A 9mm semi auto or a .357 revolver on an unrestricted cert?

My second observation is a real nerdy academic one. S. 30 of the 2009 misc provisions act is a primary piece of legislation, "theoretically" debated by the legislature and enacted. The 2008/2009 si to which it refers specifically gave the act its language when "banning" all pistols other than .22s and legacy CF pistols. So it can be said that the intention of the legislature via the 2009 act was to ban the aforementioned. How then can a secondary piece of legislation made by executive order I.e. an SI changing the 2008 SI and reintroducing cf pistols be remotely constitutional as it purports to usurp the power held exclusively by the legislature.

Neither two of the above observations bode well for any FCP effort to have the SI changed.

Cass

Official report released.

Still reading through it, but after the first line or two i already have "issues" with the language.

Sparks

5 and 6 look like they have the capability to **** everything over.
7 - who the hell needs a machine gun for personal protection in the EU?!?!?!?!
8 could kick eguns.de in the head

I don't like them using "weapon" everywhere, but in the EU they don't have the problems we do here with that word, so I suppose it's to be expected. Would be nice to see it changed though.

Apart from that, nothing's jumping out at me screaming so far.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

Apart from that, nothing's jumping out at me screaming so far.

Nothing detrimental anyway.

The storage is too general and as with our own review introducing extreme storage requirements because a firearm is or looks like something else has been shown to not be workable.

The concern is 6, medical. This is the same crap with dealt with recently and in the past 5 - 7 years. Completely unworkable, cost prohibitive and lacking the infrastructure to initiate.

As with your issues with the use of the word weapon, and rightly so, mine lies with things like (paraphrasing):

"We're seeking to control/further restrict this type of gun because something like it (LIKE, NOT ACTUALLY IT) is suspected of being used for illegal activities"

Well as we all know that is not down to legislation as it already makes such acts illegal it's down to enforcement. So new laws won't stop it anymore than the old ones did unless there is an improvement in the methods used to identify and stop such acts.

BattleCorp

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) Some semi-automatic firearms can be easily converted to automatic firearms, thus posing a threat to security. Even in the absence of conversion to category “A”, certain semi-automatic firearms may be very dangerous when their capacity regarding the number of rounds is high. Such semi-automatic weapons should therefore be banned for civilian use.

It's a bit confusing but does the above paragraph mean that they are trying to get rid of certain semi-auto firearms or has this been deleted?

BrownTrout

"The commission also wishes to move the so called B7 category of "semi-automatic firearms for civilian use resembling automatic firearms" to category A. The Rapporteur recognizes that this provision is neither comprehensible nor practically implementable in its current shape, since it is does not distinguish between physical appearance and technical characteristics. Instead of the mere looks of a weapon, technical criteria should be decisive, such as excitation energy of the firearm, the calibre, possibility of attaching a large magazine; or other properties that are not justified for good cause such as pistol grip, foldable stock, cooling systems et cetera. The Rapporteur urges the Commission to reconsider its proposal on this point."

At the end there, are they trying to say there is no good cause for having a gun with a pistol grip?

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's a bit confusing but does the above paragraph mean that they are trying to get rid of certain semi-auto firearms or has this been deleted?

Deleted. There is no proposal to ban semi auto firearms.

BrownTrout wrote: »

At the end there, are they trying to say there is no good cause for having a gun with a pistol grip?

In essence, yes.

Much like here where a pistol grip can change the designation of a firearm from unrestricted to restricted. They think the same should be applied, or more accurately, reexamined as the commission has already removed/deleted this proposal to the unworkable nature of it.

You would have to inspect each firearm to ascertain whether it just looks like something else or actually functions like something else.

This is as a consequence of the rushed nature of this legislation. There was no impact assessment done. All these changes are/were proposed based on people's "best guess". They did not realise the impact or ramifications such changes would have and so the original proposal has been drastically changed to the current one.

As i've said umpteen times in this thread this is what you get when you rush through something based on knee jerk reaction. I only wish we had the same vehicle for change here as there is in Europe. By that i mean while these proposals are based on fear, we had many firearms groups and advocates for firearm owners working tirelessly to try and educate and combat the ridiculous nature of the proposals. We had no such avenue for that here and as a result of the shooting in 2008 we got the Criminal justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 and the banning of C/F handguns among other things.

It done' nothing to combat illegal gun ownership, gangland murders or stem the flow of illegal guns into the state. It simply banned many firearms, some disciplines of shooting, and restricted the legal sports shooters further.

yubabill1

Vicky supports banning semi autos converted from full auto:

The rapporteur's position

The rapporteur welcomes the revision of the directive so that loopholes in existing legislation can be closed and the security of European citizens can be enhanced. The rapporteur consequently supports the majority of suggestions in the Commission's proposal. However there are parts that need to be amended in order to make the new legislation understandable, effective, balanced and proportional.

Furthermore the rapporteur would strongly like to emphasize that this Directive, although the aim is better security for the citizens, is not addressing illegal arms and with them related organized crime and terrorist activity, which are only two types of gun related problems. It is more about preventing legal firearms from ending up on the black market, preventing shooting rampages, suicides, homicides and accidents with firearms.

The rapporteur regrets that the commission did not present an impact assessment in advance. In an impact assessment the commission for example could have specified the types and amounts of firearms affected by the proposal, making it easier for the parliament to take an informed position on the matter.

In view of these considerations, the rapporteur proposes amendments particularly concerning:

1. The scope of the directive (to include not only firearms, but also their essential components and ammunition);

2. The marking of essential components;

3. The deactivation of firearms;

4. The exchange of information between Member States;

5. Distance sales;

6. Suitability tests for license applicants;

7. Additional security measures.

************ In its proposal the commission wishes to amend Annex I of the Directive so as to add in category A "automatic firearms which have been converted to semi-automatic firearms" **********

and "firearms under points 1 to 7 after having been deactivated", consequently prohibiting such firearms. The rapporteur supports this provision.

The commission also wishes to move the so called B7 category of "semi-automatic firearms for civilian use resembling automatic firearms" to category A. The Rapporteur recognizes that this provision is neither comprehensible nor practically implementable in its current shape, since it is does not distinguish between physical appearance and technical characteristics. Instead of the mere looks of a weapon, technical criteria should be decisive, such as excitation energy of the firearm, the calibre, possibility of attaching a large magazine; or other properties that are not justified for good cause such as pistol grip, foldable stock, cooling systems et cetera. The Rapporteur urges the Commission to reconsider its proposal on this point.

still much to read, although she declines to consider magazines as essential firearms components....have to read more to see what that means wrt capacities

Cass

Mag capacity, if memory serves, is that they wanted no semi auto to have a capacity above 20 rounds. Anyone wanting one above 20 rounds would have to show membership to a range or sporting group. Not necessarily a need for it just to be a member. This would eliminate hunters, etc from owning high capacity mags.

Grizzly 45

Only thing that is worrisome is this magazine cpacity situation.Mag with more than 20 shots CAT A prohibited.
Take Mag out and put a 20 shot mag in,if you are a club member participating in an intetrnational and national recognised sporting disipline[I see wriggle room for the PTB on that here] its Cat B!!
And then shoving semi autos into Cat A prohibited opens another can of worms .If you are allowing us to have a "prohibited firearm in semi auto,that is somehow as "dangerous" as a full auto. That surely justifies anyone applying for a genuine full auto then as well..
Thussly,you have now proably opened a potential challange to the very item you were trying to prohibit under your own EU Then it is utterly vauge on its definition of a mag..And what part is then liscenseable of the mag as well? So this needs to be reexamined too.
So in the end all this looks like it has done has been to bring in some legislation on deacts that has been on the books for the last 8years in the EU ,but was never implimented properly until after a massacre in Paris. So what was the whole purpose of this proposed legislation?

One thing it has certainly done is to start to unify shooting bodies alot more across the EU.And in places where firearms are allowed for self defence [most of the EU in fact] It has caused more people than ever to start applying for firearms permits for self defence.Added with the exellent German wins in Rio in shooting this has given shooting a PR boost at the right time.So somwhat optimistic outlook on things here.

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Vicky supports banning semi autos converted from full auto:


still much to read, although she declines to consider magazines as essential firearms components....have to read more to see what that means wrt capacities

Yet that is paradoxically now diminished in a statement that ,so long as they are permantly made semi auto ,in line with EU guidelines on conversions from full to semi,thats ok.
Think that was peeing off the Swiss with their militas and the Czechs as well.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

5 and 6 look like they have the capability to **** everything over.
7 - who the hell needs a machine gun for personal protection in the EU?!?!?!?!
8 could kick eguns.de in the head

I don't like them using "weapon" everywhere, but in the EU they don't have the problems we do here with that word, so I suppose it's to be expected. Would be nice to see it changed though.

Apart from that, nothing's jumping out at me screaming so far.

Certain "qualified personel" [IE bodygaurds,couriers, etc] in the Czech republic,Germany are eligible to posses these for client protection.

Whats Egun done to raise your ire??


Dont even know what you could call them otherwise in some langauges
The" weapon" terminology is literally translated in German and French into "fire weapon"[Fuerwaffe,jagd waffe or Arme à feu or Arme de Chasse]

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Whats Egun done to raise your ire??

It's not ire. It's an example.

Part 8 deals with online/distance sales. Egun would be one of the better known ones.

Grizzly 45

Ah! Ok.. Read that wrong!:o It will be intresting to see how that would then work out with the EU rules on movement of goods and services..
Considering that the EU/UN introduced literally a phone book worth of rules on marking ,moving,sales of and end usage and storage of explosives.[Including small arms munitions].Yet it hasn't stopped one terrorist bombing anywhere in the EU ,as terrorists are pretty good ad brewing up their own stuff from under the kitchen sink,medicine cabinet and garden shed.

So how will this stop Achmed and Massoud from buying their AKs and semtex on the dark net paying in bit coin and proably having them deliverd by UPS quicker than you or I buying ligit bits for our liscensed firearms,where there is a verifiable paper trail for any vital pressure bearing components or ammo thru the following?

EU import and export certs from both countries for the firearm,components or ammo? Handled and verified by both countries police depts and revelant ministeries?

Sending of liscenses and proof of ID and address to seller from buyer?

Details of transportation manifest by courier company to seller?
IOW all the info is there already in the system to verify anything being sold by whom to whomever within the EU,and from outside into the EU. It just needs better colation and sharing not banning.

Cass

Seems Switzerland is not happy with this either.

Grizzly 45

They weren't happy with it EVER.It's one of the reasons that this milita clause was added in hastily for countries like Switzerland ,Sweden,Finland. This whole legislation is becoming more and more of an utter joke as the days progress.

yubabill1

Consider yourselves part of the Far Right, anyone who opposes these proposals.

Grizzly 45

Yup,and no doubt a "bitter clinger" in Obama /Klinton speak too.
Well, if you are going to be branded a bstrd,you might as well act like one.

pm.

Lads sorry for being a lazy sh1t but are semi shotguns OK or are they still in trouble?

Grizzly 45

"SHOULD" be ok....But you never know with that lot in Brussells. There is a possibility of them having a problem with any detachable box mag shotgun capable of taking a mag over 20 rounds.[IOW any and all of them]. But seeing they arent that common here it shouldn't be a big problem...

turismo2142

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

"SHOULD" be ok....But you never know with that lot in Brussells. There is a possibility of them having a problem with any detachable box mag shotgun capable of taking a mag over 20 rounds.[IOW any and all of them]. But seeing they arent that common here it shouldn't be a big problem...

In short, no. Certainly not tubular mags.

Grizzly 45

Getting to secret negoiations behind closed door time in Brussells.BUT pertinent questions are being asked of the Comission and no answers,sofar have been forth coming.

https://firearms-united.com/2016/09/07/back-core-business-summary-committee-internal-market-consumer-protection/

Grizzly 45

turismo2142 wrote: »

In short, no. Certainly not tubular mags.

Unless its one of these perhaps?:P;) an utter steal at 700 USD:pac:

tac foley

Cass wrote: »

Seems Switzerland is not happy with this either.

Please to note for the record that in Switzerland -

1. The former member of the military - who serves from age 18 - 42 - has to pay to retain their former issue firearm. They are also liable to call-up in an emergency up to the age of 65.

2. The arm is permanently altered internally from full-auto to semi-auto in compliance with Swiss Federal Firearms law AND Euopean laws.

tac
wwwswissrifles.com

Grizzly 45

How much does the conversion cost,as I assume that's what they are paying for to the rifle Tac?Still an all nice to see a govt trusting it's former active military personel with firearms without much ado.

tac foley

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

How much does the conversion cost,as I assume that's what they are paying for to the rifle Tac?Still an all nice to see a govt trusting it's former active military personel with firearms without much ado.

It's free to convert. In my usual hosts' house near Dubendorf there are five K31s, three StG57 and three Stg90 [twin sons still serving]. This represents every male person in the family who served in the militia since the mid-1940s.

Only one person in the village has not served - he has cerebral palsy - but serves in his own way as an instrument technician on the nearby airbase.

tac