What should be discussed in the FCP

Cass

I still don't see how it works.

bpb101 wrote: »

What I mean by this is you have the security to house 3.

The secure accommodations SI has 4 levels of security. The first applies to a single shotgun only (broken up, trigger lock, stored in different places). The next level (level 2) covers three (or fewer) unrestricted firearms or a single restricted firearm. So asking for everyone to have security to house 3 already exists regardless of whether you have 3 or fewer.

I know a lot of people have 6/7 ect but with a licences a person approach you couldn't have a unlimited number as at present although people have the min security , they would always consider security again.

This would still be an issue with your proposal. As soon as you want to pass 3 you need a new level of security. This is also in place in the same SI that dictates a higher level of security for a higher number of guns.

The only way this "could" work is if everyone was made get the highest level of security regardless of number of guns. This would mean someone with a single rifle would need thousands in security. Not going to happen.

Maybe i'm taking you up wrong. Maybe i'm not fully understanding what you re proposing, but it just seems you are asking for a renaming/rehashing of what already exists just in a more complicated way.

I would suggest saying you want x amount of firearms . You consider the security for that amount

But this already exists. A friend recently went from never owning a gun to buying a rifle and shotgun. He had to know the minimum security level he needed and have this in place prior to getting his licenses. The security level he is at will allow him to have one more gun before he needs to consider going up a level for any future guns. All of this is a minimum of course.

I mean allow them to be licenced. I know .22 are but I would like to see cf.(for new ppl)

Yeah, it would be nice. A simply change to the SI would sort that. No need for complicated re-writing of an Act.

Sorry my reply is all over the place. On phone

It's a bit mad alright, but i think i got it all.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Already done:

If i'm unsuitable/dangerous with more than 5 in a pistol or 10 in a semi auto then how am i suitable to have the firearm AT ALL.

Just for a point.There is no restriction on mag capacity on restricted SA rifles here.Either punching paper or going hunting.Default mag capacity is accepted as 10 rounds but its not a restriction.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just for a point.There is no restriction on mag capacity on restricted SA rifles here.Either punching paper or going hunting.Default mag capacity is accepted as 10 rounds but its not a restriction.

I know. As i said earlier:

Cass wrote: »

............ my restricted license allows me to have more than 5 shots..............

While referring specifically to my pistol i know my SA C/F has no such restriction such as the 10 round on unrestricted licenses. That is what i was referring to.

Grizzly 45

Ok, lot that point in the convoluted postings.:)

bpb101

Im going to try and quote myself here to clarify..

bpb101 wrote: »

firstly to the person who suggested a cross bow licenses, Grand no issues. But its not a firearm. it shouldnt be in it

As said above (kinda) i would suggest the firearms act of 20?? removing the rest.

its mad to think somebody who is new to the sport will never be allowed to get a cf pistol (at present).

central licensing authority with a built in appeals process.(with courts options thereafter)

maybe some type of reloading licenses(not an expert on it,but a way to reload if you have the right conditions)

a clear classification of what a firearm is as something that is over 16 joules of energy(ie allow air rifles)

a clear definition of what an assault rifle is. - What i mean by this is the current definition is wrong and what an assault rifle is something like section A of whats in the act, remove section b


a super couldnt reject an applicant based on the colour of their skin, so why the colour of the gun.

licenses the owner like a car( this person can own(instead of drive)
.22 calibers rifles
.22 pistols
up to .308 rifles
ect
provided he has no more than 3(or whatever) - What ever you can accommodate for your security . so if i have a 3 gun safe, i cant buy 10 firearms. Unless i decide that i want to upgrade (and then get this amended) . I know what you think i mean, but thats not what i mean(if that make sense). Unlimited number, but only if you have the security to have them .AFAIK, in the uk , you apply for 5 models you think your going to buy in the next 3 years, and if you change your mind about the model. you have to remove 1 and replace it. If our law said you can buy 5(7 or whatever you can securely accommodate) in this 3 years, and just send us an fyi when you buy them, that would be great.


then when you want to buy something you let the guards(or licensing place) know that yeah joe blogs now owns a rugar 10/22 and has got rid of his cz .22

allow zeroing a scope off a range.(clearly if only safe to do so)

allow .22 pistols and center fires at authorized ranges - yeah i know this is here, but allow people to get them(new cf). People saying about magazines, Maybe have a limit on the number by default and have a reason to have more(not a expert so somebody else could suggest a number) The main reason for this would be to stop something like a 50 round mag (in theory)


a bit of common sense. Like they go on about how pistols are dangerous and have a risk of getting robbed and they are right. But how is the storage of a shotgun less than that of air rifle and the storage of an air rile is the same as a cf pistol.

dont go mad with the price.

I also dont like a few of the way the bullpup rifles are auto restricted either.

At the end of the day, if somebody has a reason for needing a firearm, themselves do not cause a public safety risk , not their security has a public safety risk there shouldnt be an issue.

What was mentioned and overlooked by a lot in the original list of bullshít was amending article 2(4) to not allow the use of handguns for target practice and competitions at an authorized range ( without a licenses) . As somebody who runs a college club , this bans us from using handguns and it also effects a few clubs revenue streams. Protecting this is article is essential as it will be used by 100% of people who want to get into the sport. if this was removed, it would mean, the first chance you get to shoot is when you have your bought a firearm and have invested 1000s, only to find out this isent for you. And lets face it, nobody would invest this much on a gun without ever having fired one .

I know a lot already exists or could be change by an si, but i think a lot would agree a clean bill would be the best approach. This would be needed for the new licenses system with an build in appeal ( or repeal and replace a lot of articles)

goz83

Being very new to this, but having done a decent bit of research and nosing about, I would like to see the following (some of which is already mentioned):

A consolidation of the firearms legislation. There is a huge amount of information spread all over the place, which should be migrated to one document and updated from there.

Allow new pistol licenses. And I don't mean the gsg stuff. I think it's unfair to disallow newcomers the chance to get a license for larger calibre pistols.

Centralised firearms applications. The current system is full of problems and too much weight is given to the local super and the opinion they hold on firearms. There is no way of knowing if an application is being processed, or if it is a coffee coaster on the FOs desk. I could apply for a license in Cork and get granted in a week and I could do the same in Dublin and never hear a thing and there is no way to find out where you are along the line.

One license card. This makes so much sense. The license holder would have a license number on his card with photo id (maybe). I would go further and say have one fee for the license and be able to add firearms permissions to that license, which would last until the license expires, at which point all firearms expire on it, unless renewed. Would cut down on the number of licenses for each individual firearm. Charge a small fee (€10) if adding firearms to the license.

License type of firearm. If granted a license fir a 22LR rifle with a suppressor, one should be able to purchase another one, or change the current one out without the need to go through what can be a long process of applying for a fresh license. This would bring into question the "need" for another firearm of the same type, but I don't see the issue if someone owns 2, or 3 firearms of the same calibre, as long as they meet the security requirements for what they hold. You apply for a calibre, or category and you should then be able to add firearms of that calibre/category, or below. If licensed for a 308, you should be able to get a 22 cal without an issue.

Reclassification of spent brass. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that a used cartridge, or brass case is considered a firearm. I could get into less trouble for carrying a 12 inch hunting knife around town with me as I would holding a used 22 cal casing.

Cass

bpb101 wrote: »

Im going to try and quote myself here to clarify..

Not going to quote it all again.

I think i understand what you're saying, however from my reading of it, my understanding of it, and based on current legislation most of what you want is already in place just in a different format.

As was said previously a restatement of all the Acts would clear up a lot of this mess and then deal with the other issues after that.

Sparks

bpb101 wrote: »

What was mentioned and overlooked by a lot in the original list of bullshít was amending article 2(4) to not allow the use of handguns for target practice and competitions at an authorized range ( without a licenses) . As somebody who runs a college club , this bans us from using handguns and it also effects a few clubs revenue streams. Protecting this is article is essential as it will be used by 100% of people who want to get into the sport. if this was removed, it would mean, the first chance you get to shoot is when you have your bought a firearm and have invested 1000s, only to find out this isent for you. And lets face it, nobody would invest this much on a gun without ever having fired one .

This is a pretty good example of what I was talking about above, in that it's a valid concern raised by someone who should be concerned about it because they're running a club which would be directly and hugely impacted by this law... except that this law doesn't exist.

Section 2(4)(d) has been amended only once since the '25 act, and that was to say that the ranges had to be authorised under section 4A (which is, btw, the main difference between getting a 4A for your club and just having the local Super issue a section 2 authorisation as we always used to do (and still have to even with 4A authorisation today)).

There's a new section at the bottom of section 2(4) that says that 2(4) does not apply to restricted firearms; but there's nothing that says you can't use unrestricted pistols under 2(4)(d).

This is what I'm talking about - if you can't read the damn thing in the first place, how can you adjust the law to be better? Having it spread across almost a hundred Acts, SIs, Directives, Regulations and Guidelines is a stupid, ridiculous, incompetent, unprofessional, messy, unacceptable situation. Fix that first. After you do, how many of the existing worries will be seen to be just misunderstandings, and how many things we thought were fine will we suddenly notice are actually major problems in the making?