licence substitution

fiestaman

Does anyone know if i can do a subtitutuon from .17hmr to .223

German pointer

Depends on the super as you are going from rim to center fire. Some allow them some don't.
Mine allowed a .223 to an air rifle not sure if he would have allowed it the other way.
A call to test the waters will let you know what way he thinks about it

extremetaz

I'd say if you frame it in the sense of the applied use for the rifle then you'll have a better chance - ie: that you're controlling fox and the ground you're on tends to place them beyond about 70m, which is considered the effective range of the HMR for reasonable assurance of humane dispatch*; or that you're having a hard time finding HMR ammunition which is appropriate to the task and .223 is far easier to come by.. etc.


*This is not a jab at the HMR, I'm sure plenty of people have taken fox at longer ranges with it; merely that this is about the point for the HMR where the shooter (and a measure of luck) becomes far more important than the caliber.

Cass

Cannot see why not. I got one done, but again depends on district/Super.

• Both are unrestricted
• Both will be bolt action
• Both are "vermin" caliber
• Both are for the same purpose.

It meets every aspect of like for like. Stick in a sub and find out.

Hunter456

i know the super wouldn't sub my 223 for a 243 because my reason for changing was different. all depends on the super

Cass

Going a little off topic, but this is the third time i've heard of such a problem in the last two weeks. It's starting to grate on me.

We [the shooting community] have allowed ourselves to be duped into believing that we need a deer license or range membership to get anything over a 223. The law and Act makes no such stipulation. It does ask for good reason and some have even argued, almost against ourselves, that the only good reason for anything bigger than a 223 is deer hunting or range shooting.

While these would be two valid reasons they are not the only ones. A 243 (example) is superior to a 223 in every way. Ballistics, knock down power, serving as a dual purpose rifle, etc. However because some years back a Super, or two, started to refuse them if you didn't have a deer license or range membership it has mutated and spawned the lie that these are now the only two ways to get one.


Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

fiestaman

I'm going to chance the sub and see

alanmc

fiestaman wrote: »

I'm going to chance the sub and see

Did you ask your FO yet? They'd have an idea.

I did much the same and chanced my arm subbing a 223 to a 308. After 6 weeks I got a call saying I'd have to do a fresh application. So the "3 month clock" was reset to 0.

Give them a call first. Might save you some time.

meathstevie

In the district where I live I've previously swapped a .22 Hornet for .308, shotgun for shotgun, shotgun for .22 air rifle and .22 air rifle for shotgun. So going by my experience it's definitely possible as long as you have a good reason to do so.

fiestaman

alanmc wrote:

Did you ask your FO yet? They'd have an idea.

alanmc wrote:

I did much the same and chanced my arm subbing a 223 to a 308. After 6 weeks I got a call saying I'd have to do a fresh application. So the "3 month clock" was reset to 0.

alanmc wrote:

Give them a call first. Might save you some time.

I done it's last night. The FO done it for me, it was no problem, I said I was using the .17 for some foxing and wanted more stopping power for the same and he said that's grand.

alanmc

Great. Hope It's not a long wait. Best of luck with your new rifle.

Gravelly

Cass wrote: »

Going a little off topic, but this is the third time i've heard of such a problem in the last two weeks. It's starting to grate on me.

We [the shooting community] have allowed ourselves to be duped into believing that we need a deer license or range membership to get anything over a 223. The law and Act makes no such stipulation. It does ask for good reason and some have even argued, almost against ourselves, that the only good reason for anything bigger than a 223 is deer hunting or range shooting.

While these would be two valid reasons they are not the only ones. A 243 (example) is superior to a 223 in every way. Ballistics, knock down power, serving as a dual purpose rifle, etc. However because some years back a Super, or two, started to refuse them if you didn't have a deer license or range membership it has mutated and spawned the lie that these are now the only two ways to get one.


Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

I was one of those who thought you couldn't get anything over a 223 without a range membership or deer licence!

meathstevie

Gravelly wrote: »

I was one of those who thought you couldn't get anything over a 223 without a range membership or deer licence!

Looking for a .30-06 for foxing will most likely draw a frown and a "yeah right" but the likes of .22-250, .243, .220 Swift and so on are far from unreasonable calibers for someone who does a good bit of foxing.

Cass

Gravelly wrote: »

I was one of those who thought you couldn't get anything over a 223 without a range membership or deer licence!

Here is the thing.

I won't say it's a done deal and if you brought it as far as court (if refused on your application) that you'd easily win.

What i am saying is exactly what you just said you thought. There is an alarming amount of people that believe without range membership or a deer license you cannot have a "deer caliber".

The law does not dictate a certain caliber, nor does it limit the caliber you can apply for. It merely says you must show good reason. now most lads read that as range membership and/or deer license. It's true both are very good reasons, but they are not the only ones. However given the extra burden/hassle or having to prove your point to a Super, again most lads will opt not to try and go for the smaller caliber.

As i said above about ballistics, performance, power, possibility of getting into deer shooting hence the need to buy one gun for a (later) dual purpose, etc. If you can show good reason why you need a 243, 6.5 or 308 over say a 223 then apply for it and have the Super issue a refusal. The refusal must say why the Super thinks this caliber rifle is not suitable or that another smaller caliber rifle can perform the same function.

This train of thought is not limited to deer caliber rifles. I'm sure we've all heard stories over the years about lads not going for something or believing one thing when in fact the law does not say that or does not prohibit it. Someone asks someone else and that someone else gives an opinion (not inherently wrong in itself), and that opinion makes the rounds. It is then coupled with misinterpretation of the law and all of a sudden something has become banned when it never was. Some of the recent things i've heard include semi auto rifles being illegal (once from an RFD), only allowed to have a suppressor matching the caliber of rifle you own, NV being completely illegal, and of course not being able to own anything over a 223 unless you are a member of a range/have deer permission.

eoin.d

Sorry to jump on the thread but Cass following on from what you were saying if I was to buy a 308 for target shooting at a range and hunting would I need to provide proof of range membership with my application or can I wait and make sure I get granted licence then get range membership
Thanks

Cass

If you want it for hunting you must show why it is needed above another caliber, keeping with the 308 analogy, and provide one of the following :gun club membership, a deer license or private land permissions.

Now if you wanted it for target shooting you must show range membership as that is the only legal place target shooting can take place. So to apply for it for target shooting and not being a member of a target range will result in refusal.

Now if you wanted it for both reasons then you must have both. IOW land permission/gun club membership/private permission AND range membership. However if you got the 308 for one reason and wanted to do the other at a later date you would need to tick both hunting and target on the FCA1, be granted the license on one reason, and then you'd be free to follow up with the second reason at a later date. This most likely won't work if seeking it for target shooing now and hunting later if you don't have membership to a range, but if you got the rifle for hunting, ticked the target box on the FCA1, you could join a range at a later date if you can convince the Super your reasons are justified.

My point in my previous posts does not negate the need to show/prove good reason only that one or two of the best reasons are not the sole reasons. I always liken it to a the competence for an application. Everyone today, including An Gardaí, rely heavily if not solely on a competence certificate. However there are four methods to show competence and the other three get overlooked in favour of the certificate.

eoin.d

Thanks cass that's very helpful. Time to start ringing around for prices on range membership so.

extremetaz

Cass wrote: »

Now if you wanted it for both reasons then you must have both....

I know we had this discussion a while back but I can't remember what the bottom line was - in the absence of any additional restrictions employed by the super, is there actually a requirement beyond the possession of the licence itself, to declare the use beyond the point of 'a proof of need'?

In other words, is there actually a component in law which forbids a person, by default, from using a shotgun obtained for competition clay shooting, from wildfouling for example? (ie: is dual declaration ever actually required given that the form only requests proof of a need for the the firearm; again I'm assuming no specific instruction from the Super such as 'for target use only')

fiestaman

Well I'm just in and opened the post and I have my licence back. Submitted Friday to FO and back today. Happy days. Only problem now is the gun shop is waiting on the import licence for the gun as it wasn't in stockðŸ˜

Cass

extremetaz wrote: »

I know we had this discussion a while back but I can't remember what the bottom line was - in the absence of any additional restrictions employed by the super, is there actually a requirement beyond the possession of the licence itself, to declare the use beyond the point of 'a proof of need'?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer.

By ticking the corresponding box on the FCA1 you are declaring what you intend to use the gun for. If you tick hunting, get the license, and go target shooting you are in breach of the conditions of your license. This is covered under the various sections of the firearms acts about conditions of granted license and target shooting/ranges.

Here is where it complicated.

Clay pigeon shooting is not classed a target shooting. So unlike a rifle it doesn't have to only take place on a range (target shooting). However the same applies when applying for your license. You must declare what you intend to use it for so for shotguns i always tick both.

For a rifle where target shooting can only take place on a range if you tick target shooting you must show membership. If you ticked the boxes and got the license without having to show membership then kudos, and haveatit, but again if done outside a range you fall to the law regarding target shooting outside of a range regardless of the conditions of your license.

Jaysus my head hurts trying to get that written down.

Cass

fiestaman wrote: »

Well I'm just in and opened the post and I have my licence back. Submitted Friday to FO and back today. Happy days. Only problem now is the gun shop is waiting on the import licence for the gun as it wasn't in stockðŸ˜

Nice one. Done and done fast. Makes a nice change waiting on the RFD and not the Gardaí.

extremetaz

Cass wrote: »

if [target shooting] outside a range you fall to the law regarding target shooting outside of a range regardless of the conditions of your license.

That much is a given however this bit:

Cass wrote: »

By ticking the corresponding box on the FCA1 you are declaring what you intend to use the gun for. If you tick hunting, get the license, and go target shooting you are in breach of the conditions of your license. This is covered under the various sections of the firearms acts about conditions of granted license and target shooting/ranges.

I still don't have a recollection of us reaching a conclusion on - can you recall where the point was clarified? Everything I'm aware of suggests that the possession of the licence means that evidence of a 'requirement' has been provided but I still don't recall having seen anything in the legislation which bans application outside of the declared need.

None of this discussion should be taken to suggest that I have a problem with dual declaration, I've done it myself many times where I knew I was going to use the rifle in multiple roles; These days however I have a target rifle and a field rifle, and I'm not aware of it being the case that I would be in breach of my licence were I to use my field rifle, at a whim, in a competition which called for such - silhouette for example.

If that is shown to be the case, then I'll be ticking as many of those boxes as I can going forward!

Cass

extremetaz wrote: »

I still don't have a recollection of us reaching a conclusion on - can you recall where the point was clarified?

My knowledge of the law is limited and as always i stand to be corrected, but here goes.

On the FCA1 you tick the box relating to the use/good reason for seeking the firearm. On page 6 you sign your name under the declaration that all the information you have provided is true to the best of your knowledge.

You have now applied for the firearm for (example) hunting only. Lets ignore the shooting outside of a range bit for the moment as we all know what the story is there.

Section 5 of the Act deals with revocation of a certificate/license, and the important part is part (d):

(d) where the firearm certificate limits the purposes for which the firearm to which it relates may be used, is using such firearm for purposes not authorised by the certificate.

You can argue that this means someone using a limited shotgun cert outside their own land, but the section doesn't name any one particular action only that if the firearm is used outside the bounds of the reason it was granted then it may be revoked. Well seeking it for hunting and using it for target shooting is outside of the condition upon which it was issued. Had you declared target shooting when applying perhaps the Super would have refused, sought more information, asked for a meeting, etc. IOW it may have come under stricter review than simply seeking it for hunting.

The 2006 act amends that further with the addition of part (e):

(e) has not complied with a condition attached to the grant of the certificate, or

A condition can be something the Super adds that is written on the grant, but failing that it is the reason for which you sought the license/firearm. So if granted the license for hunting and you go target shooting, you have breached the condition of the license as you did not declare your intent to target shoot when applying.


That is about the limit of my knowledge. If i'm wrong someone will correct me, but that is my understanding of it.

extremetaz

Cheers for that Cass - good bit of effort went into tracking that info down I expect.

I'm still in my original position though - in the absence of additional conditions, as are at the discretion of the Super to specify, I don't see that there's actually any breach of the default grant conditions in either of those instances.

Now if you got a 30-06 for deer stalking, and the licence was granted with the condition attached that it only be used for that purpose, then I believe the above would absolutely be applicable and correct. It is not my understanding however that such conditions are attached, or otherwise inferred, by default.

As always, and much like yourself, I'm more than happy to be corrected.

Cass

There is nothing i can point to and say "there it is". There is also no court case that i know of where a person (again an example) was out hunting with a rifle they sought to license for target shooting (by ticking only the target shooting box on the FCA1).

To add to all the above if someone were to license a firearm for hunting by ticking only the hunting box and was on a range, are they not covered under section 2(4)(d) or 2(5)?

I think i'm rigth in what i posted above about ticking the box(es) you intend to use it for. However like most things i believe a court case will be the only way to sort it, and i for one don't want to be the test case so i'll continue to tick both boxes.