GARDAI SEIZED RIFLES (September 06) new licence from Dec

Grizzly 45

y understanding is all Black or all Green in colour alone it maybe in the short future becomes restricted on "resembles" part of the legislation because the public might believe that it's a Police/Military weapon note weapon not rifle or shotgun and I was thinking bullet capacity semi auto over 22.lr folding stocks...

My head hurts from thumping it on my desk from reading that utter gibberish of an explanation.
So as far as they are concerned it's restricted because;

It's an all black or evil green colour?

Humpadoo Christ....Seriously??

It may become restricted, because "the public" might consider it a genuine assault rifle if they see it?Sometime in the future, the law might change too??

The manufacturer might become restricted?? WTF???

Firearm a member of AGO said all of the above at this point I zoned out feeling sick and having cross eyes trying to understand him I couldn't take in the other stuff he said + Please do not try and explain anything Officers Google & Wikipedia are on the case...!!

Whoever said that to you [1] Was literally talking out his arse!
[2] Had no clue what he was even talking out his arse about!
[3]Was trying to baffle you with Bull sht!

I sincerely hope,for your sake and, for the pure entertainment value of this, that they run with this line of argument in court!Along with the blatantly illegal actions they have pulled in this case...The entertainment value on this is priceless.

Sparks

ED E wrote: »

They could still flip flop back on that yet I thought.

No, they can't.
They had tried; it was pointed out to them that the GDPR, as an EU regulation, supersedes Irish law and that they were required to implement it as written, including the fines against state bodies; and they abandoned efforts to write in that exemption. The Data Protection Bill as it stands doesn't try to give them that out.


Within 24 hours of that news breaking, the RSA announced you didn't need a PSC for your driving licence. Totally and utterly coincidentally, naturally.

Cass

Sorry for going off topic, but if the dept is to be fined does that mean situations like this are the responsibility/liability of the dept too?

.243

Tricky1127 wrote: »

AGS and the superintendent & chief superintendent believe that my rifles "resemble" restricted firearms henceforth my rifles are restricted...

It’s a good job car insurance companies aren’t like this or my mates toyota mr2 with the Ferrari body kit would be paying Ferrari insurance premiums because it “looks like one”

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

y understanding is all Black or all Green in colour alone it maybe in the short future becomes restricted on "resembles" part of the legislation because the public might believe that it's a Police/Military weapon note weapon not rifle or shotgun and I was thinking bullet capacity semi auto over 22.lr folding stocks...

My head hurts from thumping it on my desk from reading that utter gibberish of an explanation.
So as far as they are concerned it's restricted because;

It's an all black or evil green colour?

Humpadoo Christ....Seriously??

It may become restricted, because "the public" might consider it a genuine assault rifle if they see it?Sometime in the future, the law might change too??

So if i was an eccentric millionaire, splurged 100k + on a cased pair of Holland and Holland royals, took a brainfart and decided to spend a further tenner on a can of matt black spray paint in the local motor factors, spray the two guns, they suddenly become restricted ?

The colour has nothing to do with it.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

Sorry for going off topic, but if the dept is to be fined does that mean situations like this are the responsibility/liability of the dept too?

I'm not sure - I think that'd be a case-by-case sort of thing where they'd have to weigh whether or not the department had done its due diligence and if the defendant had worked harder than it was reasonable to assume someone would to subvert any controls that were in place.

meathstevie

It'd be interesting to get the State's expert opinion on a nice Merkel Helix or a well maintained old Swiss Schmidt Rubin 1911.

Saying that a straight pull bolt action rifle that looks a bit like an assault rifle is an assault rifle essentially comes down to the same as saying that a front wheel drive Duster is the same as a Humvee.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not sure - I think that'd be a case-by-case sort of thing where they'd have to weigh whether or not the department had done its due diligence and if the defendant had worked harder than it was reasonable to assume someone would to subvert any controls that were in place.

My reason for asking is if someone were to do this or there was some sort of data breach what is to stop the dept saying "out of our control" or "wasn't us" and effectively being blame free.

I won't pretend to understand the tech aspect could could data not be a "read only" or alerts when data is copied. Also restricting people to specific sections of data and not like AGS with PULSE and how it was said they use it like facebook.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

My reason for asking is if someone were to do this or there was some sort of data breach what is to stop the dept saying "out of our control" or "wasn't us" and effectively being blame free.

Instead of doing due diligence you mean? That's the law even now, if you have someone's data you're supposed to keep it protected. The penalties will go through the roof with GDPR though and the DPC gets changed from one, "helpful" person to three and with the european courts to enforce our enforcement of it, as opposed to it being entirely under our aegis.

I won't pretend to understand the tech aspect could could data not be a "read only" or alerts when data is copied.

Yes, but such systems can fail ("hacking" is far more based on stuff being broken than trying to outsmart working stuff - like the physical security guys who know how to pick a lock but almost never do because people almost never fit doors or windows properly and people are always leaving them unlocked - and btw, this is a pretty fun video to watch if you have some spare minutes and never want to trust your front door again).

Also restricting people to specific sections of data and not like AGS with PULSE and how it was said they use it like facebook.

Yeah, people are the weakest link in all of this; no point restricting access to one group if you can bribe once of the group's members.

GDPR as I understand it - and this is a specialist field of study that I wouldn't claim to be an expert in - is more along the lines of deterring people from even gathering personal data they don't absolutely need by having very heavy fines for failing to protect that data from abuse (and by "very heavy", read "a percentage of your annual profits" rather than a fixed number).

Nekarsulm

"A percentage of your annual profits "

That's every Govt. Dept. off the hook, right away.

Melodeon

Nekarsulm wrote: »

"A percentage of your annual profits "

That's every Govt. Dept. off the hook, right away.

I'd hope and expect that the legislation would include some similarly severe sanction for non-profit making organisations.

Nekarsulm

5% of overall budget?

Sparks

For government departments there are specified amounts (a million euro last I heard). For facebook, it's 4% of their annual profits.
(I am oversimplifying enormously here, but you get the gist).