How long until my firearm license comes?

FaceTube

I submitted my application on the 18th and was wondering how long it will take? I don't mind waiting it's just that I'v heard so many different estimates from 3 weeks to 2 months!

The most reliable source I asked was my firearm dealer and he said best case scenario is 6-8 weeks. He said there is a lot of renewals happening at the moment.

I'd like to hear your experiences with this and how long you think it will take?

It's my first licence and its for a .22

Thanks.

RossiFan08

The problem with giving you a time frame is that each district is different. Like you said it can range from 3 week to 3 months. There is no central processing centre so it depends on your location and as a result times will vary.

If your dealer told you 6-8 weeks I would say that is a pretty good estimate. Maybe if you told us what your location is, lads close to you could confirm this

FaceTube

RossiFan08 wrote: »

The problem with giving you a time frame is that each district is different. Like you said it can range from 3 week to 3 months. There is no central processing centre so it depends on your location and as a result times will vary.

If your dealer told you 6-8 weeks I would say that is a pretty good estimate. Maybe if you told us what your location is, lads close to you could confirm this

I'm in Westmeath. My local station is Mullingar.

Bad_alibi

If the dealer is in your area he'll have a good idea of wait time. While your waiting for the gun he's waiting for the money.

Luckysasha

Even local station waiting times can vary. I received my first .22lr rifle license in 10 days. Currently I'm waiting on my .22lr pistol license to come through. I submitted the application 5 weeks ago. It's a waiting game I'm afraid.

FaceTube

Luckysasha wrote: »

Even local station waiting times can vary. I received my first .22lr rifle license in 10 days. Currently I'm waiting on my .22lr pistol license to come through. I submitted the application 5 weeks ago. It's a waiting game I'm afraid.

10 days is very quick. What time of year did you apply for the rifle licence?

I'd imagine they would be more careful about pistols though. Its a weapon that can be concealed.

ezra_

FaceTube wrote: »

Its a weapon that can be concealed.

We try and leave terms like 'weapons' to the tabloid media.

If you have a licence for a firearm (be it a short or long firearm), you have satisfied the guards that you have a valid reason for holding it. They don't give them out for 'weapons'.

To answer your question; for a first time applicant it may take a little time as they will check with your references and run a background check on you. If the station is busy, this will take longer.

6-8 weeks seems a reasonable amount of time.

PSXDupe

As the lads have already said, its like "how long is a piece of string".

My first licence took 3 months, 2nd took 7 weeks, Pistol only took 3 weeks. My last applications took 4 weeks. Really depends on the workload of the FO/Super.

turismo2142

There's no straight answer. I gave my F.O. my application for my shotgun on a Friday, had the grant on the Tuesday and the physical certificate on the Friday morning. My rifle wasn't much longer but my pistol took 2 months. Short firearms tend to be considered at a higher level.

But more than anything, it depends on the district. Your dealer will know better than anyone.

Shooters get very animated when people refer to sporting firearms as weapons. We can't and won't use them as such so the term Firearm is preferred. But not to worry, it's a term which is used all the time by new entrants and it's understandable why they do. Also, there's no mention of the term weapon in the Firearms act which demonstrates this mindset.

Hope you get it nice a soon and enjoy it. Good luck. :-)

FaceTube

turismo2142 wrote: »

There's no straight answer. I gave my F.O. my application for my shotgun on a Friday, had the grant on the Tuesday and the physical certificate on the Friday morning. My rifle wasn't much longer but my pistol took 2 months. Short firearms tend to be considered at a higher level.

But more than anything, it depends on the district. Your dealer will know better than anyone.

Shooters get very animated when people refer to sporting firearms as weapons. We can't and won't use them as such so the term Firearm is preferred. But not to worry, it's a term which is used all the time by new entrants and it's understandable why they do. Also, there's no mention of the term weapon in the Firearms act which demonstrates this mindset.

Hope you get it nice a soon and enjoy it. Good luck. :-)

Thanks for the advice and wishes.

I use terms firearm and weapon interchangeably simply because they mean the same thing and weapon is the common term where I'm from. But perhaps we're less sensitive to petty things like these. To call me a new entrant wold be questionable since iv been Lamping since before I could use a spoon.

But getting back to the topic thanks again for the replies lads. Hopefully all goes well because I'v just been given a beautiful side by side that i'll also need to apply for!

PSXDupe

When are you going to war mate, firearm & weapon do not mean the same.

Go to you super and ask him for a weapon licence and see how far he/she puts his/her boot up your ***. I know from speaking with my FO etc, weapon in the eyes of the guards is always seen as something illegal.

You go into a shop with a baseball bat in your hand, its a baseball bat, as soon as you threaten to rob the shop it then becomes a weapon. Its still the same baseball bat.

Firearm
noun
1. A firearm is a portable gun - a barreled weapon that launches one or more projectiles, often driven by the action of an explosive force


Weapon
noun
1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.

ezra_

FaceTube wrote: »

Thanks for the advice and wishes.

I use terms firearm and weapon interchangeably simply because they mean the same thing and weapon is the common term where I'm from. But perhaps we're less sensitive to petty things like these. To call me a new entrant wold be questionable since iv been Lamping since before I could use a spoon.

A friendly FYI - attitudes like that don't go far on here.

Every firearm owner in this country has a man in blue standing behind him/her, just waiting to take their firearms away.

'Petty' things like calling them weapons do nothing for the community and as such, aren't appreciated by them.

Posting publicly that you are seeking your first licence and then saying in the same thread that you've been lamping since 'before you could use a spoon' also don't do much for the majority of shooters here who don't breach firearm legislation.

If you get your licence (and I hope you do), remember that your actions have consequences for the rest of us. There are large, active groups of people (both private, in the civil service and in government) who would like to see every firearm taken away. Try not to give them the ammunition that they like to throw at us.

robertpatterson

ezra_ wrote: »

A friendly FYI - attitudes like that don't go far on here.

Every firearm owner in this country has a man in blue standing behind him/her, just waiting to take their firearms away.

'Petty' things like calling them weapons do nothing for the community and as such, aren't appreciated by them.

Posting publicly that you are seeking your first licence and then saying in the same thread that you've been lamping since 'before you could use a spoon' also don't do much for the majority of shooters here who don't breach firearm legislation.


If you get your licence (and I hope you do), remember that your actions have consequences for the rest of us. There are large, active groups of people (both private, in the civil service and in government) who would like to see every firearm taken away. Try not to give them the ammunition that they like to throw at us.

He could have been lamping with dogs plenty of
people do who dont have firearms

ezra_

robertpatterson wrote: »

He could have been lamping with dogs plenty of
people do who dont have firearms

That may be the case, and if it is, then the OP is 'new entrant' to shooting.

The pigeon man

PSXDupe wrote: »

I know from speaking with my FO etc, weapon in the eyes of the guards is always seen as something illegal.

Unfortunately I think in many cases the Gardaí do not know the difference between firearm and weapon. I received a letter from AGS when I applied for a firearms licence, in this letter it said "This application is in reference to the following weapon". It disappoints me that they don't know the difference between the two terms but I don't think there's any point debating this with them.

PSXDupe

The pigeon man wrote: »

PSXDupe wrote: »

I know from speaking with my FO etc, weapon in the eyes of the guards is always seen as something illegal.

Unfortunately I think in many cases the Gardaí do not know the difference between firearm and weapon. I received a letter from AGS when I applied for a firearms licence, in this letter it said "This application is in reference to the following weapon". It disappoints me that they don't know the difference between the two terms but I don't think there's any point debating this with them.

I think a lot of the FOs appreciate the difference but couldn't be arsed trying to get the documentation changed.

I know for working in a large organistaion, you can change the big things quickly but to change the smallest of things seem to take the most effort and time.

Sparks

The pigeon man wrote: »

I don't think there's any point debating this with them.

Correct. There's a right term (firearm) and a wrong one (weapon). So we keep using the right term and never accept the wrong one.
Next thing you know, Gardai are using the right term, at least when talking to us. The right term gets used in the Oireachtas. The right term stays in the law. And we're all better off as a result.

robertpatterson

In the military they call them weapons I call them firearms id like to see anyone explaining the nuances of language to a drill instructor on the parade ground
Its tomayto tomahto to me it doesn't bother me whatever someone wants to call their gun

Rimfire Shooter

robertpatterson wrote: »

In the military they call them weapons I call them firearms id like to see anyone explaining the nuances of language to a drill instructor on the parade ground
Its tomayto tomahto to me it doesn't bother me whatever someone wants to call their gun

In the Irish military they're normally referred to as NCO's and the Square

At the end of the day they're only words :rolleyes:

Sparks

In the end, laws are only words too. And the Defense forces train to shoot people not paper or metal targets. And you mount a gun on a ship or tow it behind a truck if you really want to fuss over it. And you do nobody a favor if you call your rifle a weapon.

Rimfire Shooter

Words can be a weapon too if used incorrectly.

I call my rifle "Sheila" I hope nobody takes offence to that.

RossiFan08

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Words can be a weapon too if used incorrectly.

I call my rifle "Sheila" I hope nobody takes offence to that.

I am highly offended. Shirley You Can t Be Serious?

FaceTube

You know its time to unfollow a thread when the inevitable lectures and knowledge hurling begin.

Respect to the lads that simply answered my question and contributed to the topic without nit-picking at the language.

goz83

FaceTube wrote: »

You know its time to unfollow a thread when the inevitable lectures and knowledge hurling begin.

Respect to the lads that simply answered my question and contributed to the topic without nit-picking at the language.

Incorrect use of words when it comes to a topic that is constantly under fire, just adds fuel to that fire. You're posting in a forum with a clear charter. Some respect to that might have prevented any "nit-picking". Didn't read it? That's ok, I didn't either at first. I too would have been ignorant to the importance of the words used, but I would be an a$$ to choose to stay ignorant.

Anyway, if you say what weapon you want on your fca1, you might find that a refusal letter will issue soon after. Good luck anyway.

Grolschevik

PSXDupe wrote:

Firearm noun 1. A firearm is a portable gun - a barreled weapon that launches one or more projectiles, often driven by the action of an explosive force

While I now understand the importance of the terminological distinction (I think I had a definitional argument on Boards a few years ago), surely quoting a definition of 'firearm' that has the disputed term as one of its main components is either illogical or counterproductive!

PSXDupe

Grolschevik wrote: »

While I now understand the importance of the terminological distinction (I think I had a definitional argument on Boards a few years ago), surely quoting a definition of 'firearm' that has the disputed term as one of its main components is either illogical or counterproductive!

Time to unfollow this one

The point I/we are trying to make is, when the sh*t hits the fan and we as firearms owner are looking for support to keep our sports alive. Do you really think the public will support us when we are using firearm for our sports, or weapons for our sports.

No need to reply as I already know the answer, as do you.

Grolschevik

That wasn't my point. My point was purely semantic.

To convey the distinction between 'firearm' and 'weapon' you gave two definitions.

However, the definition of 'firearm' you quoted had the term 'weapon' as part of that definition.

Do you not get the point?

turismo2142

I was trying to be kind and reasonable to the OP in my response. I think he probably took offence at being called a new entrant more than anything. Offence which I never intended. Guys, how many times will we see this topic repeated? Leave it be.

To the OP, you'll always get excellent, helpful and considered advice here from people who've been through it all (many times). I totally understand and respect your initial reaction at thinking the terms are interchangeable. In many Jurisdictions, from a legal perspective, they are. In Ireland, they're not. Many here have suffered long and hard at the hands of such assumptions which have cost them thousands and I'd ask the OP to see the reaction to his post in that context.

Again, best of luck and if you have any firearm questions at all, we'll all be delighted to see if we can help you out.

FaceTube

Grolschevik wrote: »

While I now understand the importance of the terminological distinction (I think I had a definitional argument on Boards a few years ago), surely quoting a definition of 'firearm' that has the disputed term as one of its main components is either illogical or counterproductive!

Yes. The classic mistake of using wikipedia to back you up. What a backfire. Excuse the pun.

FaceTube

turismo2142 wrote: »

I was trying to be kind and reasonable to the OP in my response. I think he probably took offence at being called a new entrant more than anything. Offence which I never intended. Guys, how many times will we see this topic repeated? Leave it be.

To the OP, you'll always get excellent, helpful and considered advice here from people who've been through it all (many times). I totally understand and respect your initial reaction at thinking the terms are interchangeable. In many Jurisdictions, from a legal perspective, they are. In Ireland, they're not. Many here have suffered long and hard at the hands of such assumptions which have cost them thousands and I'd ask the OP to see the reaction to his post in that context.

Again, best of luck and if you have any firearm questions at all, we'll all be delighted to see if we can help you out.

It wouldn't be in my psyche to take offence to a collection of words assembled by a faceless and nameless person on a forum.

I just get a little peeved at the fact that no matter what sort of media you use, be it facebook, twitter, boards or youtube, people seem to jump at the chance to correct you, lecture you and impart unnecessary ''wisdom'' onto you instead of simply containing themselves, and contributing to the original post and question.

Sparks

FaceTube wrote: »

I just get a little peeved at the fact that no matter what sort of media you use, be it facebook, twitter, boards or youtube, people seem to jump at the chance to correct you, lecture you and impart unnecessary ''wisdom'' onto you instead of simply containing themselves, and contributing to the original post and question.

That would be because this is a discussion forum where people discuss something they consider important to them; as opposed to a free service dedicated to answering just your question and then shutting up. If the latter was what you were seeking, you may find your search somewhat lengthy.