walther ppq .22

BattleCorp

Luckysasha wrote: »

Very hard to find any dealers listing pistols for sale on their websites. Plenty of shotguns , rifles and air rifles. It's like a secret society!!!!!!!

Yeah, you need to go to the clubs and see what's around. Like I said to Goz earlier, check out places like Hilltop and Harbour House on a Saturday.

Brasros

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yeah, you need to go to the clubs and see what's around. Like I said to Goz earlier, check out places like Hilltop and Harbour House on a Saturday.

There's a club shoot on this Saturday in Harbour House, you'll see a lot of different types of pistols and different types of the same pistol, I'll have my Mklll there if you wish to shoot.

goz83

BattleCorp wrote: »

Goz, try Harbour House on a Saturday. There are usually two gun dealers there, Harbour Guns and Gunshop.ie. They'd have a decent selection of pistols plus most lads in the club would have no problem showing you their pistols.

Brasros wrote: »

There's a club shoot on this Saturday in Harbour House, you'll see a lot of different types of pistols and different types of the same pistol, I'll have my Mklll there if you wish to shoot.

Cheers for the advice guys. Unfortunately I work every Saturday. It's possible I could drop in maybe of a Saturday morning at some stage. The info/opinions of this thread alone are great to see and makes me want to go out and buy a pistol right now

Grizzly 45

There is one poster here who does have a mod for a 9mm pistol .It can be done alright but what you could give as to a very good reason to convince your super is going to be the intresting bit.One thing for sure it is a conversation piece on the range if you do rock up with a canned pistol.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

There is one poster here who does have a mod for a 9mm pistol .It can be done alright but what you could give as to a very good reason to convince your super is going to be the intresting bit.One thing for sure it is a conversation piece on the range if you do rock up with a canned pistol.

Winning the lotto can be done too. Just sayin.

Cass

Its like all other things. Word of mouth, rumor and widespread belief makes something that is legal seem illegal or impossible to get.

• Semi auto centrefires. The amount of people i've spoken to lately that think they are banned, prohibited or simply cannot be licensed.
• Suppressors for pistols. No different to any other gun. Once you show good reason for needing it, it can be gotten. Plus if refused the Super must say why he thinks it should not be granted.
• Hunting with a pistol (probably a thread in its own right). The law says you must be a member of an authorised range to get one, but it doesn't say the firearm must only be used on a range. Granted it'll take some "luck" or explaining when doing the FCA1.

Sparks

Brasros wrote: »

3.5" barrel will be a problem, unsure if they have long barrels, I don't think they will be out shooting the other pistols mentioned, I agree with sparks, shoot other people pistols till your sure.

Might be an accuracy issue, but the barrel length requirement in the SI is gone now, so it's not a legal issue anymore.
(see the first sticky thread at the top of the forum)

Sparks

And y'all can keep your Rugers, this is what a pretty piece of engineering looks like



Or the version with the electronic trigger...




Though if you could find one, the old Baikal 35M was popular for a good reason:



(And not just because it used to cost less than a Ruger Mk2)

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

Or the version with the electronic trigger...

Fecking kids and new fangled gadgets, next ye'll be wanting keyless entry and bluetooth/WiFi.

I remember when you had to pull and actual trigger with nothing more than the strength in your own finger ................................

Sparks

...and when there was a slight difference in how the trigger felt when dry-firing and when live-firing and the way that that used to muck up your training a bit...

goz83

Cass wrote: »

[*]Hunting with a pistol (probably a thread in its own right). The law says you must be a member of an authorised range to get one, but it doesn't say the firearm must only be used on a range. Granted it'll take some "luck" or explaining when doing the FCA1.
[/LIST]

Now, to be fair, I am guilty of believing this too. So, it could be got for hunting? I can't see too many applications for a pistol while hunting....maybe some rats and rabbits close range, or a clean kill if you realise at a close range that you actually mucked up the original shot. Interesting alright.

Cass

As i've said it's really a topic for its own thread, but i was only thinking about it a few weeks ago and started to do some digging.

In short, because its way too long to go through it all now, the law says you must be a member of an authorised range. If you are you can apply for a pistol. If you tick hunting on the FCA1 as well as target shooting and the Super either doesn't have a problem with,doesn't see it or puts no conditions on your license and the license is granted then you get the pistol for target shooting and vermin (as you cannot hunt with a pistol).

If the Super said he wouldn't grant it for hunting, you ask why. If he says it's illegal you ask for the act, si or amendment that says so. He won't find one because other than a pistol being mentioned in the Widlife Acts as not being allowed for hunting of game (wild birds, animals, etc) there is no such restriction on rabbits, foxes, etc. It's why you can shoot them with a rifle or shotgun and why some other species (mostly game) have a specific firearm named as being needed. Also no law exists that says a pistol can only be used on a range, just that the applicant be a member of a range.

Probably shouldn't be saying all this, but if i've found it i'm sure others have too.

Same with suppressors for a pistol. All new licenses are 22lr and unrestricted. IOW it's judged, legally, no differently to any other unrestricted firearm. If the Super cannot say why you should nott have one then he "must" grant it.If he refuses then you he must state why in a written refusal letter like with a rifle, etc.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

If the Super cannot say why you should not have one then he "must" grant it.

That's not in any act as far as I know. He doesn't even have to give his reasons (verbally or in writing) unless you take him to the District Court on appeal (if he simply doesn't respond to the application at all inside the three months, that's legally held to be a refusal and proper notification of that refusal).

The Super is required, by law, to evaluate each case on its own merits and in accordance with the Firearms Act (which is what the Supreme Court held that they were not doing from 1972 to 2004), but there's absolutely nothing in the Acts that require a licencing officer to issue a licence under any conditions (by contrast, there are bans on them issuing licences in several conditions).

In practice... that's a whole other kettle of fish. But we've lost a fair few cases in the High Court over the years where it was (presumably) assumed that a licence had to be granted if you met the conditions mentioned in Section Four.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

That's not in any act as far as I know. He doesn't even have to give his reasons (verbally or in writing) unless you take him to the District Court on appeal (if he simply doesn't respond to the application at all inside the three months, that's legally held to be a refusal and proper notification of that refusal).

I put the word must in brackets because i could not think of another way to phrase it, but it most certainly could have been worded better.

By must i meant if you show good reason, and have fulfilled ll conditions necessary to get a firearms license then there is no reason for a Super not to issue it. To refuse to issue one because of some reason that is not legal or supported by law is in itself an illegal act.

I know the situation regarding refusals after three months, but if that piece of sh*t law was actually enacted how many lads would have been refused, myself included, because our applications took 4, 5 and in my case 10 months to process?

How many, again myself included, have been told when we rang up "sure don't worry about the three months, it's still being processed"?

How many have been refused and never issued a letter of refusal which is a requirement is it not?

Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended, provides that a decision on an application for a firearms certificate or its renewal shall be given within 3 months from the date on which the applicant submitted a completed application. Where an application is refused, the applicant shall be informed in writing of the refusal and the reason for it. If a decision on an application is not made within this 3 month period then this is deemed to be a refusal under section 15A of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.

Lastly the highlighted part of the above. The date from which the applicant submitted it. You know as well as i, and everyone else, this is not the case. they deem the time begins when they start to process it which can be anything from weeks to months after it's submitted. It's why we took umbrage with the figures An Gardai released about the times on applications and how they claimed 90% (or some other ridiculously high number) were processed within the given time frame.

The Super is required, by law, to evaluate each case on its own merits and in accordance with the Firearms Act (which is what the Supreme Court held that they were not doing from 1972 to 2004), but there's absolutely nothing in the Acts that require a licencing officer to issue a licence under any conditions (by contrast, there are bans on them issuing licences in several conditions).

As above.

In practice... that's a whole other kettle of fish. But we've lost a fair few cases in the High Court over the years where it was (presumably) assumed that a licence had to be granted if you met the conditions mentioned in Section Four.

Again i worded i poorly, and knew i did when i wrote it. So apologies for the confusion.

goz83

The bit that gets me is

If a decision on an application is not made within this 3 month period then this is deemed to be a refusal under section 15A of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.

Which seems to suggest that an application can be just left there for 3 months, after which it may legally be seen as a refusal. Or am I reading it wrong?

Cass

That is it in a nutshell. As you, only recently, found out if this was enforced strictly you'd have been refused your .22 license a month ago.

Sparks

Yup. I don't know if it's been tested in court, but if you ever walked in the door of the courtroom after not hearing from the super for three months, then yes, you've officially been refused and notified. The thing is that most of the time, we're just such a low priority that we get filed at the bottom of the to-do list and if the Super will turn round and process the application, ignoring 15A, after a phone call; well a phone call is less hassle than a court case so most reasonable people would pick their battles elsewhere.

But I still don't think I've ever seen anything in any law that says anyone has to decide to issue a licence; there are requirements for how they make the decision, yes, but they have so much leeway (and the law keeps getting changed to add more leeway all the time), that in effect it's a meaningless distinction. "I'm sorry your Honour but in my opinion the level of crime in the area poses a substantial risk to the public safety if I was to grant this licence" is a bull**** reason, but it's damn hard to argue against in a court (not least because as members of the public we're not privy to raw data on crime rates and that kind of thing). It's mainly the "The law says X" (when it clearly does not) cases that we've seen being won in the courts.

It's just a bugbear of mine because of the Supreme Court cases shooters have lost over the years, probably the worst was one for an application where the application basically came down to "you gave my mates licences, so you have to give me one too". And that one case led to a precedent from the Supreme Court that said a Super could consider the firearm and not just the applicant, which was a total reversal of a number of High Court case rulings from the previous few years.

Sparks

And then there's this - the Minister was all for the idea that it should not be mandatory for the reason for refusing a licence to be disclosed. So if the Super decided not to do so, you'd have to take him to court to find out why, you've no automatic right to it (though again, in practice that might simply never come up).

cw67irl

BattleCorp wrote: »

That pistol looks very very small in this pic.

I'v shot one of these. I don't have particularly big hands and i found it tiny. Also the short barrel makes it little more than a plinker. It has the looks but it won't be the slightest bit competitive. So I don't think too many will appear here. Although there are a few floating around the north

dc99

Sparks wrote: »

Might be an accuracy issue, but the barrel length requirement in the SI is gone now, so it's not a legal issue anymore.
(see the first sticky thread at the top of the forum)

OH,
The length is no longer in the SI?

I thought that it was still 4inches?

Sparks

No, the barrel length requirement was removed. (See the sticky thread for details)

dc99

Just stated to follow this thread.

FWIW, I started with the GSG 1911. Really loved it....it was great to start off with, but as the rest say , you'll be left behind at competitions gauerneted !

I changed for the Hammerli - reasonable cost and super accurate. Not casting aspersions against the other pistols mentioned, but this is the one I liked and purchased.

All of the advice given is good - try as many as you can.