Straight Pull Rifle + Import from UK

Mellor

tudderone wrote: »

The super was a member of the club, he knew what people were shooting. They were .22 semi-autos, no different to the ruger 10/22 or any number of different blue steel and walnut .22 semi-autos.

You're preaching to the choir. I don't think anyone here will disagree that the aesthetics has an impact on how it fires rounds.

Unfortunately, the law as written, refers to appearance. And the people making the decisions down the station, quite often don't much about how a firearm functions.

jb88 wrote: »

You can get a licence for a "Steyr AUG", I know a lad with two for sale. There is no issue with this except in peoples heads. Its actually got a longer barrel than most AR's

A Steyr AUG is definitely restricted. It's a bullpup rifle, that's unambiguous.
The guy you know that has one, presumably has a restricted license. That's all

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

The super was a member of the club, he knew what people were shooting. They were .22 semi-autos, no different to the ruger 10/22 or any number of different blue steel and walnut .22 semi-autos.

I can go to a shop near me and buy a non firing replica of an ak47 or ar15, they look exactly like the real thing and are completely harmless, their appearance doesn't make them dangerous.

The only issue i can see is if one of these military styled rifles were bullpups, like a Tavor or steyr AUG.

Here's the fcuked up thing about the law. One Super might think it is unrestricted (in other words he/she isn't concerned about its appearance) and they can grant an unrestricted licence for it. 5 years down the road when the Super retires, a new Super might consider it to be a restricted firearm (based on how they view its appearance) and hey presto you don't have the correct licence. That's my take on it anyway.

LIFFY FISHING

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

All centrefire semi auto rifles licenced from 2017 can be revoked without compensation:pac:

Where does it say in that act that " all semi auto rifles licenced from 2017 ....can be revoked.." Without compensation"...
Compensation is not discussed one way or the other in the Commisioners guidelines.. have you a referance stating that comment ?

BattleCorp

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Where does it say in that act that " all semi auto rifles licenced from 2017 ....can be revoked.." Without compensation"...
Compensation is not discussed one way or the other in the Commisioners guidelines.. have you a referance stating that comment ?

There is absolutely nothing, and I mean zilch written in legislation regarding recinding semi-auto centrefire licences.

The Minister made a statement in the Dail years back, and correct me if I'm wrong, but legally speaking that has as much effect as me making a statement in the pub.

Commissioner's Guidelines aren't legislation either.

LIFFY FISHING

BattleCorp wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing, and I mean zilch written in legislation regarding recinding semi-auto centrefire licences.

The Minister made a statement in the Dail years back, and correct me if I'm wrong, but legally speaking that has as much effect as me making a statement in the pub.

Commissioner's Guidelines aren't legislation either.

If you read what I asked the poster, I asked him where he got his informstion regarding compensation...

Grizzly 45

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Where does it say in that act that " all semi auto rifles licenced from 2017 ....can be revoked.." Without compensation"...
Compensation is not discussed one way or the other in the Commisioners guidelines.. have you a referance stating that comment ?

I was para phrasing what the act says,And if you are following what I posted about my visit as FUNI rep to the DOJ in Dec on the question of compensation for surrenderd high capacity magazines, here we have been told to FO politely by both the DOJ and the EU court ruling on this too from the cases taken by the Czech Republic ,Slovakia and Poland last year...

So logically,are they going to pay you for a rifle you bought knowingly that under the 2017 legislation that such a liscense in theory cant even be liscensed,but because it isnt actually on the statue books, and we have no idea, if,how,when they might introduce suvchleaves you in legal imbo with a Damoclean sword over your head? IOW are you going to risk losing 2K worth of rifle because someone in the ministers dept thinks maybe 201 semi auto CF rifles is one to many,or 2000,or 20,000 and decides to push that paragraph into the statue book?
This is NOT to say dont go out and try and get one.I'd be the 1st to say go for it.It's just a "Cevat Emptor" of what might happen,or might not under our crazy legislation.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the fcuked up thing about the law. One Super might think it is unrestricted (in other words he/she isn't concerned about its appearance) and they can grant an unrestricted licence for it. 5 years down the road when the Super retires, a new Super might consider it to be a restricted firearm (based on how they view its appearance) and hey presto you don't have the correct licence. That's my take on it anyway.

Apart from the issues around it being irrelevant to risk.
The huge issues is that’s the law as written, involves an subjective opinion.

LIFFY FISHING

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I was para phrasing what the act says,And if you are following what I posted about my visit as FUNI rep to the DOJ in Dec on the question of compensation for surrenderd high capacity magazines, here we have been told to FO politely by both the DOJ and the EU court ruling on this too from the cases taken by the Czech Republic ,Slovakia and Poland last year...

So logically,are they going to pay you for a rifle you bought knowingly that under the 2017 legislation that such a liscense in theory cant even be liscensed,but because it isnt actually on the statue books, and we have no idea, if,how,when they might introduce suvchleaves you in legal imbo with a Damoclean sword over your head? IOW are you going to risk losing 2K worth of rifle because someone in the ministers dept thinks maybe 201 semi auto CF rifles is one to many,or 2000,or 20,000 and decides to push that paragraph into the statue book?
This is NOT to say dont go out and try and get one.I'd be the 1st to say go for it.It's just a "Cevat Emptor" of what might happen,or might not under our crazy legislation.

Who /What are FUNI ?

otmmyboy2

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Who /What are FUNI ?

Firearms United Ireland, https://www.facebook.com/FirearmsUnitedIreland/

Firearms advocacy group Europe wide.

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the fcuked up thing about the law. One Super might think it is unrestricted (in other words he/she isn't concerned about its appearance) and they can grant an unrestricted licence for it. 5 years down the road when the Super retires, a new Super might consider it to be a restricted firearm (based on how they view its appearance) and hey presto you don't have the correct licence. That's my take on it anyway.

Nope...He is then changing a category off his own bat from unrestricted to restricted,based on "Idontlike de look of that now!" clause. He has to be able to justify that decision and also why his pedecessor was wrong in liscensing it as unrestricted from the word go.
Only reason I could see you have a restricted .22 is simply you need a mag capacity increase for a disipline...But for what here?We dont have mini practical rifle,and unless you are shooting outside the ROI in such comps it's hardly likely you will be needing such here.Or you have one serious rabbit problem too?

The "looks like " is much too shakey ground to base a refusal on.It fell with the CF rifles,and there is no definition in law as to what an "assault rifle" looks like in Irisjh law,which no one has here anyway.We all shoot modern sporting rifles whether in CF or .22.Nor could we own an assault rifle here or in the EU legislation anyway,as it is a military select fire weapon.

Also the looks like has got precedent in HC law here in Ireland. The 1980s "Waterford tractor case" in common parlance.Concerned the definition of a "tractor",as one lad was trying to be done by Revenue for putting green diesel in a Hilux pick up he had converted to a low ground pressure sprayer with ballon tyres. It fell on the no description in Irish law as to what a "tractor" looks like or is.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nope...He is then changing a category off his own bat from unrestricted to restricted,based on "Idontlike de look of that now!" clause. He has to be able to justify that decision and also why his pedecessor was wrong in liscensing it as unrestricted from the word go.
Only reason I could see you have a restricted .22 is simply you need a mag capacity increase for a disipline...But for what here?We dont have mini practical rifle,and unless you are shooting outside the ROI in such comps it's hardly likely you will be needing such here.Or you have one serious rabbit problem too?

The "looks like " is much too shakey ground to base a refusal on.It fell with the CF rifles,and there is no definition in law as to what an "assault rifle" looks like in Irisjh law,which no one has here anyway.We all shoot modern sporting rifles whether in CF or .22.Nor could we own an assault rifle here or in the EU legislation anyway,as it is a military select fire weapon.

Also the looks like has got precedent in HC law here in Ireland. The 1980s "Waterford tractor case" in common parlance.Concerned the definition of a "tractor",as one lad was trying to be done by Revenue for putting green diesel in a Hilux pick up he had converted to a low ground pressure sprayer with ballon tyres. It fell on the no description in Irish law as to what a "tractor" looks like or is.

I agree that the Super would be on dodgy ground, but because of the sh1te subjective way the law is written, there is a bit of a footing there for a Super to act the boll1x although the likelihood is that the gun owner would win if they had the stomach for a court battle.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nope...He is then changing a category off his own bat from unrestricted to restricted,based on "Idontlike de look of that now!" clause.

Which is exactly the subjective clause that the law uses. Not difficult to argue, but the effort involve in argument in court is a lot more than arranging a restricted license.

Which is the difference with the tractor case. He was defending himself after the fact. Gun licensing is agreed in advance.

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

I agree that the Super would be on dodgy ground, but because of the sh1te subjective way the law is written, there is a bit of a footing there for a Super to act the boll1x although the likelihood is that the gun owner would win if they had the stomach for a court battle.

Its not the stomach for a court battle, its the pockets. When the centrefire pistols were stopped here in 2008, i had been made redundant like thousands of others, hadn't the proverbial pot to pee in and taking a court case when they refused to relicence my .45, was about as sensible as trying to fly to the moon with a kite.

If you win you may get your costs back, eventually.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nope...He is then changing a category off his own bat from unrestricted to restricted,based on "Idontlike de look of that now!" clause. He has to be able to justify that decision and also why his pedecessor was wrong in liscensing it as unrestricted from the word go.
Only reason I could see you have a restricted .22 is simply you need a mag capacity increase for a disipline...But for what here?We dont have mini practical rifle,and unless you are shooting outside the ROI in such comps it's hardly likely you will be needing such here.Or you have one serious rabbit problem too?

The "looks like " is much too shakey ground to base a refusal on.It fell with the CF rifles,and there is no definition in law as to what an "assault rifle" looks like in Irisjh law,which no one has here anyway.We all shoot modern sporting rifles whether in CF or .22.Nor could we own an assault rifle here or in the EU legislation anyway,as it is a military select fire weapon.

Also the looks like has got precedent in HC law here in Ireland. The 1980s "Waterford tractor case" in common parlance.Concerned the definition of a "tractor",as one lad was trying to be done by Revenue for putting green diesel in a Hilux pick up he had converted to a low ground pressure sprayer with ballon tyres. It fell on the no description in Irish law as to what a "tractor" looks like or is.

I remember when Clinton had his go at an "Assault weapons" ban in the 90's. No one could come up with a definition as to what exactly made an assault rifle an assault rifle. Black plastic stocks ? I have seen single barrel shotguns with black plastic stocks, they are not assault rifles. Flash hiders/muzzle brakes ? Plenty of bolt action rifles have muzzle brakes, especially light rifles in lairy calibres, so nope not assault rifles either. Pistol grips ? Semi-auto's, detachable magazines ? Individually nope.

So no one could say for certain exactly what an assault rifle is. As far as i know the only assault rifle for certain was the German ww2 stg44, and thats because the German military said it was an assault rifle.

otmmyboy2

tudderone wrote: »

I remember when Clinton had his go at an "Assault weapons" ban in the 90's. No one could come up with a definition as to what exactly made an assault rifle an assault rifle. Black plastic stocks ? I have seen single barrel shotguns with black plastic stocks, they are not assault rifles. Flash hiders/muzzle brakes ? Plenty of bolt action rifles have muzzle brakes, especially light rifles in lairy calibres, so nope not assault rifles either. Pistol grips ? Semi-auto's, detachable magazines ? Individually nope.

So no one could say for certain exactly what an assault rifle is. As far as i know the only assault rifle for certain was the German ww2 stg44, and thats because the German military said it was an assault rifle.

AFAIK the best, well, least worst definition of an assault rifle was a select fire(semi & auto/burst), intermediate calibre(ie 5.56 NATO) rifle.

However given that full auto/burst is off the books for pretty much everyone here then there are no true "assault rifles" here, thus the licencing should be a non issue.

In a more ideal world anyway.

tudderone

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

AFAIK the best, well, least worst definition of an assault rifle was a select fire(semi & auto/burst), intermediate calibre(ie 5.56 NATO) rifle.

However given that full auto/burst is off the books for pretty much everyone here then there are no true "assault rifles" here, thus the licencing should be a non issue.

In a more ideal world anyway.

Yup, select fire between semi and full auto is the biggie and as you say is a no-no here in the first place.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

Which is exactly the subjective clause that the law uses. Not difficult to argue, but the effort involve in argument in court is a lot more than arranging a restricted license.

Which is the difference with the tractor case. He was defending himself after the fact. Gun licensing is agreed in advance.

As in this case you would have one super disagreeing with a pre agreed definition of his colleuge,ergo after the fact...Anyways, the facts remain it is precedent HC case on terminology in Irish law.

Also, remember too the State in the form of the super or cheif is now also liable for costs under the Dist court act as welll,at the judges discretion,but sofar they have awarded costs in most cases.So there is that factor to be considerd as well in refusals.

TBH,I reckon all this "restricted because it looks like" is basically them making you work for it People who are serious about owning one will put the effort in and take it to the brink or the court doors,those who are just "Meh I want one beecause..." will blink and fold at the obstacle course. It's just a theory on my part,but it seems plausabile considering those who do dare win.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Its not the stomach for a court battle, its the pockets. When the centrefire pistols were stopped here in 2008, i had been made redundant like thousands of others, hadn't the proverbial pot to pee in and taking a court case when they refused to relicence my .45, was about as sensible as trying to fly to the moon with a kite.

If you win you may get your costs back, eventually.

Think it is best summed up by this ... If you dont fight for what you want,dont cry for what you lost! It's a tough one I know and I had to borrow 5K from the credit union for this lark too. Which I could have done without as well:mad: It was a huge gamble,but thats just me and i understand anyone who couldn't do it either.But there were others who were gambling with much higher stakes than me in the High court,where it is tens of thousands to play. So I was standing on the shoulders of a few giants.:)

But ,no they were quick enough to pay up when I and six others won in in Limerick.All settled in my case within 4 weeks.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

I remember when Clinton had his go at an "Assault weapons" ban in the 90's. No one could come up with a definition as to what exactly made an assault rifle an assault rifle. Black plastic stocks ? I have seen single barrel shotguns with black plastic stocks, they are not assault rifles. Flash hiders/muzzle brakes ? Plenty of bolt action rifles have muzzle brakes, especially light rifles in lairy calibres, so nope not assault rifles either. Pistol grips ? Semi-auto's, detachable magazines ? Individually nope.

So no one could say for certain exactly what an assault rifle is. As far as i know the only assault rifle for certain was the German ww2 stg44, and thats because the German military said it was an assault rifle.

I lived in CA at the time of Clintons Crime bill,which did nothing to stop any crime at all.It was an unmitigated clusterfuk.CA went by features,and I had at the time a MAK 90 Chinese AK copy,with a "thumbhole stock" ,no flash hider,but a muzzle break I added,no cleaning rod,in case I decided to poke someone with it,ditto a missing bayonet lug too.as drug dealers are well known for bayonet charges. Yet I had a whole bunch of E German 30 round AK mags,bought legally from Shotgun News,because the MAK 90 was not on the CA assault weapons ban list. Two years later I moved to Scottsdale AZ,and it was like moving to a different planet. The Arzionainas were completely perplexed by this CA aberation of a stock,and I was planning to get it converted to a proper wood stock of Western person proportions,before I came home for a family crisis,and have been stuck here since...

GW Bush finally sunsetted this nonsensecial bill,as it had done nowt obviously to reduce gun crime,and proved that scary features dont make a gun anymore deadlier except in Hoplopophobes tiny minds. Ironically ,my MAK 90 in the CA ban version is now worh double the 450 usd I paid for it in CA in 1993.:P

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As in this case you would have one super disagreeing with a pre agreed definition of his colleuge,ergo after the fact...

The previous agreed description isn't legally fixed however. So the next super can describe it differently. This is the issue with a subjective assessment forming part of a law.
I donlt know if any wording could be perfect, but t could certainly be better

TBH,I reckon all this "restricted because it looks like" is basically them making you work for it People who are serious about owning one will put the effort in and take it to the brink or the court doors,those who are just "Meh I want one beecause..." will blink and fold at the obstacle course. It's just a theory on my part,but it seems plausabile considering those who do dare win.

Probably tbh.

I wonder is a list of decisions, where the courts decided the status of X or Y would benefit other.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

The previous agreed description isn't legally fixed however. So the next super can describe it differently. This is the issue with a subjective assessment forming part of a law.
I donlt know if any wording could be perfect, but t could certainly be better

This is where humanity comes in with having to deal with imperfect laws. Unless you are a complete dick with an agenda why would you try fixing s

[1]Somthing that aint broke?a
[2] Go against a decision of a now,no doubt superior officer to you in rank?
3] Have to justify it in a court because you are now accusing someone of virtually criminal negligence or intent, in now re classifying a gun you personally deem to be an asault rifle and your office incorrectly liscensed.

First question out of the defence barrister is going to be."Now Super,could you tell this court of your personal technical qualifications in firearms design,recognition and handling that made you come to this conclusion that this is an assault rifle?":)..And we'll go from there...

I wonder is a list of decisions, where the courts decided the status of X or Y would benefit other

.

If there is,it certainly would.Not just for firearms.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

This is where humanity comes in with having to deal with imperfect laws. Unless you are a complete dick with an agenda why would you try fixing s

[1]Somthing that aint broke?a
[2] Go against a decision of a now,no doubt superior officer to you in rank?
3] Have to justify it in a court because you are now accusing someone of virtually criminal negligence or intent, in now re classifying a gun you personally deem to be an asault rifle and your office incorrectly liscensed.

You could of course use that to try sway his opinion. But if he digs his heels in, then the "restricted label" sticks.

Because the previous classification is not relevant from a legal perspective. Which is a pain in the hole, but it's the reality of the law/system. What matters is whether or not it is classed as restricted when applying.

Imagine a super incorrectly identified a semi-auto shotgun as restricted. And forced somebody to get a restricted license. New super comes along, and says it's not restricted. It wouldn't be fair if they were forced to maintain the original restricted status. Goes both ways.

Or say you get to keep the non-restricted license based on previous super's opinion. But then I make a new application for the same firearm, with no previous opinion status. So it's restricted for me?

First question out of the defence barrister is going to be."Now Super,could you tell this court of your personal technical qualifications in firearms design,recognition and handling that made you come to this conclusion that this is an assault rifle?":)..And we'll go from there...

I think that would be a poor approach tbh.
Super could openly admit to not being a technical expert, and point to the fact that technical specs are not relevant to the definition of assault rifle under law.

That's the issue. The law allows appearance OR function to equally dictate status.

jb88

A Steyr AUG is definitely restricted. It's a bullpup rifle, that's unambiguous.
The guy you know that has one, presumably has a restricted license. That's all[/QUOTE]

In .223 yes its restricted I assumed that was assumed, how over assumptive of me.

jb88

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the fcuked up thing about the law. One Super might think it is unrestricted (in other words he/she isn't concerned about its appearance) and they can grant an unrestricted licence for it. 5 years down the road when the Super retires, a new Super might consider it to be a restricted firearm (based on how they view its appearance) and hey presto you don't have the correct licence. That's my take on it anyway.

Not saying that hasn't happened, we all know cases of this. But as an applicant for a firearm its always the individuals responsibility to check the law thoroughly before applying and have all the facts straight.

Its always the guys who don't know their stuff who end up on this and a multitude of different forums and gun clubs moaning about why their application wasn't accepted or later rejected.

If in doubt consult with a lad who has done this already and learn to navigate the pitfalls and you will be ok.

A great former Super, very informed on all things firearms, once told me "Paper never refuses Ink", so write a letter in support of your application guys.

All above for the wider public Battlecorp.

You a man extremely aware in all things already know this well.

jb88

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I was para phrasing what the act says,And if you are following what I posted about my visit as FUNI rep to the DOJ in Dec on the question of compensation for surrenderd high capacity magazines, here we have been told to FO politely by both the DOJ and the EU court ruling on this too from the cases taken by the Czech Republic ,Slovakia and Poland last year...

So logically,are they going to pay you for a rifle you bought knowingly that under the 2017 legislation that such a liscense in theory cant even be liscensed,but because it isnt actually on the statue books, and we have no idea, if,how,when they might introduce suvchleaves you in legal imbo with a Damoclean sword over your head? IOW are you going to risk losing 2K worth of rifle because someone in the ministers dept thinks maybe 201 semi auto CF rifles is one to many,or 2000,or 20,000 and decides to push that paragraph into the statue book?
This is NOT to say dont go out and try and get one.I'd be the 1st to say go for it.It's just a "Cevat Emptor" of what might happen,or might not under our crazy legislation.

I disagree with this, if its not in law then it doesn't exist, and all this worry about paying for something and maybe someone is going to legally take it is blue sky thinking.


You want a restricted gun, then go out and get one, forget about what may or may not happen in the future. Ive been hearing this for ten years. Ten years plus of fun times with restricted firearms. Ten years when lad s are too afraid to get what they can legally apply for because they are worried.

Mellor

jb88 wrote: »

In .223 yes its restricted I assumed that was assumed, how over assumptive of me.

That’s all the previous poster was saying. That it was restricted.
And they (Bullpups) are restricted in all calibres. Even 22lr

tudderone

Mellor wrote: »

That’s all the previous poster was saying. That it was restricted.
And they (Bullpups) are restricted in all calibres. Even 22lr

Yes, but a pistol in .22lr is unrestricted :rolleyes:. So a .22lr pistol 5 or 6 inches long is unrestricted, but a 24 inch long bullpup is restricted. Irish logic at its finest folks.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

You could of course use that to try sway his opinion. But if he digs his heels in, then the "restricted label" sticks.

See ya in court then!He'd be on a hiding onto nothing if he dug in on those points. Contradicting and rescinding a superior officers previous decisions...Big career move there! Making a decision based on no tech knowledge,and despite the ballsitics telling him,not a good idea?

Because the previous classification is not relevant from a legal perspective. Which is a pain in the hole, but it's the reality of the law/system. What matters is whether or not it is classed as restricted when applying.

Initial first application!

[

QUOTE]Imagine a super incorrectly identified a semi-auto shotgun as restricted. And forced somebody to get a restricted license. New super comes along, and says it's not restricted. It wouldn't be fair if they were forced to maintain the original restricted status. Goes both ways.

Totally different!!! Shotguns are restricted here on barrel length ,mag capacity and whether they have an awkward stock on them or not. There are better defined parameters than "looks like"
And that situation is solved by a visit to a gunsmith/dealer to certify its mag capacity,to unrestricted and to correct there and then.Not a biggie and very unlikely as the default assumption here is they are unrestricted game guns anyway.
Also,lets dispense with another myth here.This "re application" phrase.Do we honestly think they sit down and re examine all the minatuae of every firearms details every 3 years?? Strange then that they issue pre filled application forms then for "new liscenses,which according to the law is what we are supposedly doing every 3 years? Its eye wash for a utopian situation,but like the restricted CFs there is reality of dealing with it day to day.And its no biggie either to change to restricted or unrestricted in a shotgun either.

think that would be a poor approach tbh.
Super could openly admit to not being a technical expert, and point to the fact that technical specs are not relevant to the definition of assault rifle under law.

And many did,buried themselves straight away by admitting such..It is an opinion not based of factual knowledgeThey referd it ot their ballistics experts, who were buried along with their predecessor,on the simple grounds too that just because they were Garda ballisticians,they too DID NOT POSSES the technical qualifications to say why a MSR was an assault rifle in the eyes of the Irish state. You actually do need a professional qualification in firearms engineering or firearms identification or both to be able to give an expert opinion in a court as to firearms.Same as if you were any other expert witness in a specialist field.

95% of cases for handguns and semi auto rifles were won on this in various different DC cases around Ireland.
IOW the judges agreed on these legal points and did not accept this plaver of looks like as written in the law. FACT!! QED!! NEXT!!!

That's the issue. The law allows appearance OR function to equally dictate status.

There is also the expression "The law is an ass!"

Once again...Form does NOT DICTATE function! Because somthing "looks like" does not mean it actually is! You can build a kit car on a Ford Escort chasis to look like A Ferrari GTI in all of the details,but unless it rolled out of Enzo Ferrari's factory in Italy sometime ,with his price tag as well,It's not a Ferrari

Also,we have ZERO,Nada, nichts, non definition of what a assault rifle is under the Irish law.So if you cant define an object in law how do you legislate for it?? Point of law!As well as having this proven by the Waterford tractor in the HC. The State could not define either objects in law,and therefore the judges rightly threw the states cases out.

Grizzly 45

jb88 wrote: »

I disagree with this, if its not in law then it doesn't exist, and all this worry about paying for something and maybe someone is going to legally take it is blue sky thinking.


You want a restricted gun, then go out and get one, forget about what may or may not happen in the future. Ive been hearing this for ten years. Ten years plus of fun times with restricted firearms. Ten years when lad s are too afraid to get what they can legally apply for because they are worried.

REalllllyyyyy?? Blue sky thinking?? Just to remind you what happened FIVE years ago?? http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Minister_Fitzgerald_announces_changes_to_Firearms_Licensing

Immediate cap on licensing of any new centre-fire semi-automatic rifles

The Minister intends to introduce an immediate temporary cap on the licensing of any new centre-fire semi-automatic rifles pending the establishment and determination of the Authority.
Legislation will provide for the revocation of any licenses issued between today
(18 September 2015) and the enactment of the legislation and it is intended that anyone applying for licenses of this nature will be informed of that fact



And for those who want a full discussion of this may I suggest the "more crap on the way " thread here in that time frame of the article??

Ya know it reminds me of when it was posted here by me that Dermot Aherne said in May 2008 at the Assoc of Garda Sgts and inspectors,that he weas going to tighten up on gun laws in Ireland to prevent an "American style gun culture"[Whatever the Hell that is!] It was poo-poohed here,as "Well the arse has just fallen out of the economy, so they will have better things to do than ban handguns!"Is one famous comment that stuck in my mind.

End result while our organisations were swinging thei lead ,as usual.
We suffered the equivilent of 9/11 to the nascent CF pistol shooting sports. .

Because of the greatest curse of Ireland the "Ah shure nuthin will happen !Be grand !" attitude we display as a people,and then it turns up and bites us,badly!:(:(

DO NOT delude yourselves that the DOJ/AGS are not waiting for this to reach a certain tipping point, of which we have no way of countering,as we dont know,who what, when,where,how?and they dump on those liscenses issued post 2017.
You have the evidence,you are responsible and smart adults,and I am 100% for anyone who wants one of these to go and apply and get one hopefully.

But DO NOT pitch up here then bawling in a month,a year,five years etc that your semi-auto liscense post 2015 for a 3 grand [irish price] AR15 was revoked and "we must do something about it!"
You are getting that liscense on the explict understanding that it CAN be revoked at any time under the legislation as it now stands by Fitzgeralds statement and decision.

I'm in the process myself of aquiring a Ruger mini14 in Germany to export to here,[450 euros],I can afford to lose that if it goes South in the future here with semis.
But FO if I am spending over 2 thousand euros for somthing that could be confiscated by this state and be told "Fk U if you think we are giving you a penny compo,because the EU high courts said we dont have to,despite the EUCHR saying we must":mad:

So if it is "blue sky thinking" to point out this Damoclean sword,well then I beg everyones forgiveness....Because I dont want to post here one day saying "Told ya!" on this topic.:(
Grizzly 45

tudderone

Don't also forget too that from 1972 we could own sfa due to the cowboy gunslinging up north by the marxist/socialists. But that was not a law either, it was "Garda policy", not to licence pistols, centrefires over .22, semi-auto rifles over .22 and everything else apart from double barrel shotguns and .22 bolt actions. I believe the threat was if anyone went to court to challenge the "Temporary" custody order, which was supposed to last 2 weeks for ballistic testing, then there would be a move to enshrine the ban in law.