New rules from Revenue?

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

You don't need a firearms licence to have a NV scope. You don't need any permission whatsoever to have it in your possession.

Just to be clear and Grizzly mentioned it above, yes you do.

If you buy a Nightvision scope you DO need authorisation, like a suppressor, to have one. Whether you have a firearms license or not or use it or not. Just to have the nightvision scope, to own it, you need authorisation.

You only need authorisation if and when it's mounted on a firearm.

Now the bit that is messy is if you have a Nightvision add-on/attachment you only need authorisation when or if you attach it to the firearm. So as with the example above if you have a handheld device you're fine. If you glue/tape/mount it to your gun or attach it ANY way to the firearm then it requires authorisation.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

Is that it on a nut shell..?

The case has now set precedence that any part you order for a firearm that is not a component part without which the firearm would not function, is fine to import without an import license.

Any other part that is deemed component part, or is in itself deemed a firearm (such as NV scopes, Suppressors) require importation and marking as per SI 420/2019.

So in theory licenced holders are now allowed to import, without licence, parts that are not beemed as essential component parts?

Yes.

Or can a licenced holder import any component parts as long as they adhear to SI 420/2019 in so much as they follow the rule of component identification..?

As above SI 420/2019 is only part of it. You need an import license form the DoJ to import component part without which the gun cannot function. So trigger, barrel, action, etc.

tudderone

Surely the only parts that need to be controlled are pressure bearing parts like barrels, bolts, bolt heads, action bodies etc ?

Mellor

Zxthinger wrote: »

Well, that's the defence that was given. At least that's how I read it.,

Then you didn’t understand the argument put forward.

They are not arguing that their that their firearm is functional, therefore any part is non-component.
They are saying the gun does not need a stock to function. Any stock.

If you owned a particular firear and acseller (private or otherwise) had a barrel for that same firearm in that same calibre in Ireland, then there is nothing to say that your not allowed own it or buy it.. and you'd avoid the ruling on serial numbers too.. unless you met a difficult dealer..

I don’t believe that is correct. It’s classed as it’s a firearm in itself.

With that said, there is hardly a dealer out there that silll sell you a second barrel without taking your old one and charging a massive fee to have it fitted too..

The fact he takes the old one is key.
That makes it different to the importation.

You are entitled to spare parts and dare I say that you could nearly extend that logic to the receiver as well except for the fact that it would be impossible to buy a reciever with your existing number.. lol.

You clearly aren’t allow to have a spare receiver. It is a component part.

(iii) any object —

(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and

(II) without which it could not function as originally designed,

Regards Zxthinger.

That would include barrels, bolts, receiver etc.

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

Surely the only parts that need to be controlled are pressure bearing parts like barrels, bolts, bolt heads, action bodies etc ?

No law states anything about pressure bearing parts. Just component parts essential to the function of the firearm. So action, barrel, trigger, bolt. Everything else is essentially cosmetic.

Zxthinger

Mellor wrote: »

Then you didn’t understand the argument put forward.

They are not arguing that their that their firearm is functional, therefore any part is non-component.
They are saying the gun does not need a stock to function. Any stock.



I don’t believe that is correct. It’s classed as it’s a firearm in itself.


The fact he takes the old one is key.
That makes it different to the importation.


You clearly aren’t allow to have a spare receiver. It is a component part.


That would include barrels, bolts, receiver etc.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1971/act/13/section/5/enacted/en/html

Mellor

Zxthinger wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1971/act/13/section/5/enacted/en/html

That’s is the law. It doesn’t agree with your interpretation of it.

As Cass pointed out above. A non-component is something that is not required to function because it is aesthetic (or ergonomic).
It is not something that is not required to function because the firearm already has one.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1971/act/13/section/5/enacted/en/html

Nothing in that contradicts what happened here.

If you have a 223 barrel for sale and i buy it i have to produce a 223 license. Al good. We both have Irish licenses and nothing had to be imported.

However once it comes from outside the state you have to have an import license if its a component part essential to the function of the firearm or, because of this case, no import if its a "cosmetic" item.

Its because of that small act that we can sell goods in the for sale section and don't have to be RFDs, as the Gardaí thought a few years back when they touched on the subject, unofficially, of banning private sales.

Zxthinger

Cass wrote: »

No law states anything about pressure bearing parts. Just component parts essential to the function of the firearm. So action, barrel, trigger, bolt. Everything else is essentially cosmetic.

OK...?

So how does that relate to the magazine that were ordered.. and seized..

Yes some guns can operate with or without a magazine but in all cases a repeating long-arm is technically unable to operate as a repeating unit or as originally designed, without the service of a feeding device otherwise known as a magazine..

(iii) any object —

(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and

(II) without which it could not function as originally designed,

I merely suggest that the defendants firearm was fully functional regardless of the procurement of the magazines.. The defendant himself, alluded to this in his detailed synopsis in post 170..

Maybe I need to read it again.. or maybe the learned gentlemen of the courts made a gross error in their understanding of part (II) without which it could not function as originally designed
Or maybe they didn't!....

Forgive me if I'm wrong and please show me the error of my understanding.. I don't wish to profligate erroneous concepts.. I just want to fully understand how the court arrived at the decision..
And by the way, its a great decision..

Zxthinger

Mellor wrote: »

Then you didn’t understand the argument put forward.

They are not arguing that their that their firearm is functional, therefore any part is non-component.
They are saying the gun does not need a stock to function. Any stock.

Please show me were it says that.. I looked twice and perhaps it does say that..??

Mellor wrote: »

I don’t believe that is correct. It’s classed as it’s a firearm in itself.

irrelevant.. Its a component to which you are entitled to under the act.. See link provided

Mellor wrote: »

The fact he takes the old one is key.
That makes it different to the importation.

The dealers antics are ill-guided practices born out of fear of AGS..

Mellor wrote: »

You clearly aren’t allow to have a spare receiver. It is a component part.

Not actual that clear.. more of technical impasse than an explicit rule.

Mellor wrote: »

That would include barrels, bolts, receiver etc.

Not as I see it.. IMO it captures two sets of situations:

1. One is the criminal with no legally held firearms
   

1. and the other is the regulated shooter with legitimate licensed firearms

Maybe the criminal would be stupid enough to state that his stolen-gun requires parts or that his unlicensed gun needed upgrades..? Either way the double catch in part (ii) is the defining swan-song that allows the explicit statement to work..

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

Just to be clear and Grizzly mentioned it above, yes you do.

If you buy a Nightvision scope you DO need authorisation, like a suppressor, to have one. Whether you have a firearms license or not or use it or not. Just to have the nightvision scope, to own it, you need authorisation.

I stand corrected. I thought they were classed the same as hand held devices. I see that if they are designed to be firearm mounted then they are a component part.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

OK...?

So how does that relate to the magazine that were ordered.. and seized..

If a firearm can function without a mag then the mag is not an essential component. Repeating firearms is an "old" concept in that every round of a bolt action is manually cycled so the definition of repeating firearm is as much "wrong" as is your thinking that its not a repeating firearm if you have load one at a time, manually.

As a magazine is not classed as a firearm in itself and the firearm can function without it then its a non essential component.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

I stand corrected. I thought they were classed the same as hand held devices. I see that if they are designed to be firearm mounted then they are a component part.

Section 4(g)(i) of the 1990 offensive weapons act:

(g)(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e), and

Zxthinger

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not trying to be awkward, and if I'm incorrect I'll happily apologise but where in legislation does it say you need authorisation to have a nightvision scope in your possession, i.e. not mounted to a firearm?

For example, lets say I don't own a firearm. Am I breaking the law by having a nightvision scope?

Well according to the law its a firearm.. as is any component part but we all have component parts in the form of ammo, triggers and possible spare mags.. all of which can be justified under your original firearms licence..
If however, you don't have any licence then i'd think that you have no business owning such an item..
The references by others posters, to written-authorizations are a crossed interpretations of the "silencers" rules.. & I'll provide the obligatory caveat by stating that is my opinion!

BTW..The law doesn't state what form the written authorization needs to take and it seems that AGS have, in their wisdom, deemed it sufficient to reciprocate with a only single written/types letter, 'S' on the respective licence..

No parallel vehicle exist for a mountable NV gun-scope. However it needs to be noted that part 3.2 of the FCA (firearms application form) needs to have the deceleration filled in that lists the scope(s) or other accessories to be used. This is the only place that I can find that forms any sort of licencing framework around these devices..
As such it would be advisable to include them one in your next firearms application and copy it, ask AGS to stamp it as received and photograph it as evidence of your original inclusion in your application..
At a future point in time, you cant tell if you were granted the use of such a unit by looking at your licence as it has no reference to the any NV unit for which you may or may not have applied.

Additionally.
Your conditions in the rear of the large-form of the licence document may stipulate conditions on night-time shooting such as "only permitted for the protection of live-stock" or "only permitted under a section 42"

Below is an extract for the amended act(s).......



( g ) except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph ( a ), ( b ), ( c ) or ( e ),

(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph ( a ), ( b ) or ( e ), and

(iii) any object —

(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and

(II) without which it could not function as originally designed

Zxthinger

Cass wrote: »

If a firearm can function without a mag then the mag is not an essential component. Repeating firearms is an "old" concept in that every round of a bolt action is manually cycled so the definition of repeating firearm is as much "wrong" as is your thinking that its not a repeating firearm if you have load one at a time, manually.

As a magazine is not classed as a firearm in itself and the firearm can function without it then its a non essential component.

A criminal, caught with a magazine in his possession is going to be prosecuted..

Your reference to an 'old-term' is not capable of holding any water.. The law hold no such delineation pertaining to out-dated terminologies.

A repeating firearm is a significant more deadly unit than single shot.. Ask John Wayne..

The functionality as originally designed is the key..

Can you just show me where the courts took the interpretation that you are supporting and I'll concede but I will not acquiesces based on this dilute explanation.

tudderone

Zxthinger wrote: »

A criminal, caught with a magazine in his possession is going to be prosecuted..

Your reference to an 'old-term' is not capable of holding any water.. The law hold no such delineation pertaining to out-dated terminologies.

A repeating firearm is a significant more deadly unit than single shot.. Ask John Wayne..

The functionality as originally designed is the key..

Can you just show me where the courts took the interpretation that you are supporting and I'll concede but I will not acquiesces based on this dilute explanation.

So a criminal caught with a magazine is going tobe prosecuted, but an ordinary civilian caught with one won't ?

Zxthinger

tudderone wrote: »

So a criminal caught with a magazine is going tobe prosecuted, but an ordinary civilian caught with one won't ?

NO.. that's not what I said..

If your in possession of a 'magazine designed for a firearm' and you hold no official licence that authorities you to be in possession of that magazine or the associated firearm (one in the same), then you are a criminal (to some degree) unless you can otherwise show that you are a person who is entitled to posses such items by way of the Firearms act.....

Zxthinger

Cass wrote: »

If a firearm can function without a mag then the mag is not an essential component. .....

In relation to that statement: I fully agree with.

I go back and read it all just one more time.. Hard to read this when all the family are floating about the place..:p

Zxthinger

Ok Below, I have quoted the post no 170 and trimmed it down for easy of reading.. Please take no offence if I have materialistically altered the content in anyway. I have tried to maintain the context within and this is being done for the right reasons,,

donkeykingkong wrote: »

.Judicial Review –
(i) Quashing the Notice of Seizure dated the 1st April 2020 on the grounds that no importation license was required for the goods, specifically (a) 2 Empty Magazine Cartridges for TAC21, (b) 1 Buttpad Spacer Kit (c) 1 ORYX Chassis System (hereafter “the goods”) because the goods did not constitute component parts within the meaning of the Firearms Acts and the regulations made thereunder;

Part (i)… the text is key here. the ruling stated that the items did not constitute component parts... It clearly doesn't reference essential-parts..

donkeykingkong wrote: »

The defendant was notified that Revenue seized the items and calmed that the items were firearm components as defined by the Firearms Act Section 1(1)(g)(iii) as amended by Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 which states that any object (i)manufactured for the use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm and (ii)without which it could not function as originally designed, is a firearm.

There it is in B&W and Red... Part (iii) (edit or addition: These are the regulations made thereunder as listed in the top extracted quote.. Again all referring part 1 of the act....blah blah Part g (iii)
All parts are component parts..

.

donkeykingkong wrote: »

The defendant was advised by one of their staff in DOJ that a rifle stock does not alter the function of the firearm or otherwise change the category of the firearm, therefore it is not considered to be an essential component part of a firearm and may be imported without an import license.

All hear-say and by chance correct advise but not because for the reasons outlined on the courts statement but because these were not essential components as per SI 420/2019. However they were still being incorrectly deemed as component parts (or firearms) by revenue because they failed in their interpretation of the two lines within part (iii)..

(Edit/addition) Just because some desk-jockey in the DOJ stated this or that etc etc.. all means nothing.. and their reference to the wording of "essential" means nothing either...... a ten year old could tell ye whats part would be considered essential and besides the """pressure bearing"" parts (UK nomenclature is more suitable).. really every part is essential..
The codswallop in SI 10-2019 is at best homage to the EU directive and the new identification systems.. Yes it's still the law and you need to comply but.. you could still possibly have your parts engraved before the were shipped... once they confirmed and you had a licence they'd roll right in..

donkeykingkong wrote: »

In June 2020 he received a letter that “goods namely two empty magazine cartridges for TAC21, 1 buttpad spacer kit and one oryx chassis system were seized on the basis that they were imported into the State in contravention of Section 1, Firearms Act 1925 as amended.

Look at the text... he was in contavention with section 1 of the firearms act.......
Section 1, Firearms Act 1925 as amended has noting to do with SI 420 of 2019... and it was 'Section 1 of the Firearms act 1925 as amended' which officials and others used in a threatening fashion. Yes, consequences were being threatened..

donkeykingkong wrote: »

My firearm is complete and functioning without any of these new items and as such under the firearms act they cannot be classified to be component parts, only accessories.

This was his defense.. I dont know where he found reference to accessories but that is irrelevant.. but its not the first time that this sentiment has been flagged here on the boards.. Mellor, you were already questioning this statement 10 years ago..

Finally, it the double tap on part(iii) that set the whole thing up for legal shooter to acquire small non essential components without fear......:rolleyes:

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

as is any component part but we all have component parts in the form of ammo, triggers and possible spare mags..

Ammo is NOT a component part of a firearm. Its ammunition which is separately dealt with as are the component parts of the ammunition hence the law/rules on propellant, primers, casings and bullets.

If however, you don't have any licence then i'd think that you have no business owning such an item..

If it is a dedicated NV scope in that it is designed to mount to a rifle and only for that purpose then its a firearm and requires authorisation/licensing. Any other item that is NV but not specifically designed to be mounted only requires authorisation when mounted but not to own/possess "off" a firearm.

The references by others posters, to written-authorizations are a crossed interpretations of the "silencers" rules.. & I'll provide the obligatory caveat by stating that is my opinion!

There is no iterpretation(s) here. Suppressors and NV scopes are specifically dealt with in the 1990 offensive weapons act, section 4 as above.

BTW..The law doesn't state what form the written authorization needs to take and it seems that AGS have, in their wisdom, deemed it sufficient to reciprocate with a only single written/types letter, 'S' on the respective licence..

Yes it does.

The section above states they are firearms in their own right hence need licensing and the FCA1 in section 3.2 deals with the licensing/application for such items.

No parallel vehicle exist for a mountable NV gun-scope.

Yes it does. Section 3.2 of the FCA1 "Sight".

However it needs to be noted that part 3.2 of the FCA (firearms application form) needs to have the deceleration filled in that lists the scope(s) or other accessories to be used. This is the only place that I can find that forms any sort of licencing framework around these devices..

That is the only way to apply for one although i'm not sure what you mean by deceleration.

Much like the FCA1 is the only way to apply for a firearm license.

At a future point in time, you cant tell if you were granted the use of such a unit by looking at your licence as it has no reference to the any NV unit for which you may or may not have applied.

The suppressor is covered by the "S" on your license but has been previously said by those with NV authorisation there is no such visual authorisation for a NV scope on your license.

However as both would be recorded on PULSE as being authorised the only thing i can say, and its not a guarantee, is if you apply for a NV scope or add on for that matter and you are not specifically refused it and there is no condition on your license to prevent its use then once you have a copy of your application, as you said above, then barring the confirmation of authorisation by your FO after checking PULSE you may be able to assume you are authorised.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

A criminal, caught with a magazine in his possession is going to be prosecuted..

You're confusing criminality with licensing/importation. They're not the same thing.

A person with a magazine and no firearms license is guilty of an offense. A person with a firearms license has been authorised to have that component part so there is no offense.

Apples and oranges.

Your reference to an 'old-term' is not capable of holding any water.. The law hold no such delineation pertaining to out-dated terminologies.

Repeating firearm in one that can fire multiple rounds without manually reloading the gun usually in the form of a tube, internal mag or detachable magazine. They go back to the mid 1850s hence my old comment.

As every round has to be manually loaded by cycling the bolt/lever its a misnomer in Irish law.

A repeating firearm is a significant more deadly unit than single shot.. Ask John Wayne..

Not germane.

The functionality as originally designed is the key..

Key to what?

You keep saying "originally intended to function". With a rifle, just an example, you load a round and fire it. The gun has functioned as originally intended because the round went in one end and the bullet came out the other.

If i had to keep with your interpretation of the law if i load a round singularly and manually, then i'm not using the gun as originally intended and could be argued breaking the law.

On the same note i could argue the guns original intended function is to fire a bullet so how its loaded and fired is irrelevant.

You're picking at a scab that does not need picking and has no relevance as the courts have ruled on this.

Can you just show me where the courts took the interpretation that you are supporting

From the fact the guy won his case based on the exact same argument.

and I'll concede but I will not acquiesces based on this dilute explanation.

Frankly you're reading far more into this than is present..

The courts has ruled on this and set precedence. You have taken that and bastardized the ruling with your own, incorrect, interpretation which in contrary to the ruling of the courts (that in itself should speak volumes to your line of thinking).

The law is not a one line explanation. To explain suppressors you need to see the 1925 act, the 1990 offensive weapons act, and the 2006 & 2009 act to see they require licensing.

Very little in the Irish firearms laws is so simple as pointing to one specific line/section and saying "here is what you want". Its a cobbling of many acts and SIs to get an answer and while you or i may have our own idea as to the meaning some is very clear, some is a little open to interpretation and the rest will require a court case to decide at which point no other decision or interpretation matters.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

Part (i)… the text is key here. the ruling stated that the items did not constitute component parts... It clearly doesn't reference essential-parts..

Are you hung up on the word essential. The law doesn't say essential and i only use it to separate it from any other part.

There it is in B&W and Red... Part (iii)

I'll be honest i'm getting turned around now.

What is your point here? That the mags are not component parts and hence don't need a license/import, do need a license/import, ???????

All hear-say

No its not. Hear-say is not admissible, usually, and the OP never said if that advice was written or verbal.

but not because for the reasons outlined on the courts statement but because these were not essential components as per SI 420/2019. However they were still being incorrectly deemed as component parts (or firearms) by revenue because they failed in their interpretation of the two lines within part (iii)..

See now i'm confused again.

You're literally repeating the verdict of the court case. Now its gone through the court the matter is once and for all finalised. No one will have to go through this again and if revenue try it again the next person can cite this case and resolve it before it gets to court.

So what has that to do with your previous stance? I'm asking that by the way. You've shifted so much its hard to keep track of the point you're making.

Section 1, Firearms Act 1925 as amended has noting to do with SI 420 of 2019...

Are you mad?

Of course it does. An SI has no "standing" without the principle act.

and it was 'Section 1 of the Firearms act 1925 as amended' which officials and others used in a threatening fashion. ..

Part F which reads:

( f ) any article which would be a firearm under any of the foregoing paragraphs F3 [ or paragraph ( h ) ] but for the fact that, owing to the lack of a necessary component part or parts, or to any other defect or condition, it is incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile or projectile or of causing a shock or other disablement, as the case may be,

And it was this section which lead to the decision, which revenue used incorrectly, to seize the goods.

This was his defense.. I dont know where he found reference to accessories but that is irrelevant..

This seems to be your problem. You're getting hung up on the words used to talk about this even though they may not be used in the legislation.

Its colloquialism and if you're using this as a means to pick holes in something you're going to be frustrated. Also if you demand the exact legal text each and every time you'll also be frustrated as you won't get it and frankly no one wants to read that type of speech.

Put it this way. When someone says round i know that to be a round of ammo, but when someone says bullet and they mean a round i'm not going to pull them up on it because its not technically or legally correct.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Just to be clear and Grizzly mentioned it above, yes you do.

If you buy a Nightvision scope you DO need authorisation, like a suppressor, to have one. Whether you have a firearms license or not or use it or not. Just to have the nightvision scope, to own it, you need authorisation.

You got that a little bit wrong...You CAN buy a rifle night vision scope,or any other night vision equipment without a license no problem here. It is licensable if you mount it or, intend to mount it on a live firearm!!! Irrespective if it is a dedicated NV scope or an attachable unit to a day scope

Yes, it is classified as a "firearm" under the legislation, courtesy of Mr ODea [FF], but has anyone heard of anyone being charged with an "unlicensed firearm" when they have in fact got a scope? Bad and lazy terminology causing legal upsets and all that.

2 examples where you could posses an NV scope intended for a live firearm and not be breaking the firearms law.

You could use it in airsoft for example for night games and be 100% legal
You could be a "Nam" re-enactor and mount an old functioning Starlight unit on a deacted M16 or M1 carbine as a demo and be legal too.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You got that a little bit wrong...

No i didn't.

You CAN buy a rifle night vision scope,

With authorisation or with a firearms license through section 3,2 of the FCA1 but if you buy a NV scope (and i'm talking about a scope with NV that has one purpose/designation) without this authorisation you're in breach of the law as its classed as a firearm in its own right the exact same as a suppressor.

IOW one of these:

or any other night vision equipment without a license no problem here

So long as the other NV equipment is hand held, head mounted, etc and not specifically designed to be used on a firearm..

IOW one of these:

It is licensable if you mount it or, intend to mount it on a live firearm!!! Irrespective if it is a dedicated NV scope or an attachable unit to a day scope

Wrong.

Dedicated (for want of a better word) NV/Thermal/light emitting scopes are firearms and require authorisation just to possess regardless of firearms license status.

Hand held and non "dedicated" unit only require authorisation when mounted.

Yes, it is classified as a "firearm" under the legislation, courtesy of Mr ODea [FF],

You can stop there, because that ends your points above.

but has anyone heard of anyone being charged with an "unlicensed firearm" when they have in fact got a scope? Bad and lazy terminology causing legal upsets and all that.

So because you can "get away with it" its not really important enough to give the correct legal position.

Come on man. :rolleyes:

You could use it in airsoft for example for night games and be 100% legal

Nope.

If its the "dedicated" unit you need a license/authorisation.

You could be a "Nam" re-enactor and mount an old functioning Starlight unit on a deacted M16 or M1 carbine as a demo and be legal too.

Nope.

Still a firearm and still requires authorisation.

Cass

By the way we're focusing on Nightvision.

The law says any light amplification, light emitting or infra-red device is also a firearm. So your thermal scopes, laser range finding scopes, etc. all fall under the same category.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

By the way we're focusing on Nightvision.

The law says any light amplification, light emitting or infra-red device is also a firearm. So your thermal scopes, laser range finding scopes, etc. all fall under the same category.

Like a led-lenser led torch or clone :eek:

Cass

No. Thats a torch, not optics/scope.

Vizzy

Rangefinding scope ?


Already answered by Cass

Mellor

Zxthinger wrote: »

So how does that relate to the magazine that were ordered.. and seized..

Yes some guns can operate with or without a magazine but in all cases a repeating long-arm is technically unable to operate as a repeating unit or as originally designed, without the service of a feeding device otherwise known as a magazine..

The part in bold is the key point.
The firearms function is to fire a round.
A magazine is not required to do that. Ergo, it's not a component. This is now law.

You seem to be confusing being designed and function as designed.
An engraving on the side of a shotgun is designed by somebody, it is not a component element of the design.

Zxthinger wrote: »

Please show me were it says that.. I looked twice and perhaps it does say that..??

In the report of the court result. It's quite clear imo.

Regardless of this specific case, arguing that you can have import ANY part if you have a license of a given firearm is frankly ridiculous. The intent is to prevent a situation where people can assemble unlicensed intact firearms from parts.

irrelevant.. Its a component to which you are entitled to under the act.. See link provided

Entitled to possess and entitled to import and not the same thing.
If you want to argue to latter, you'd have to take that to the courts.

Not actual that clear.. more of technical impasse than an explicit rule.

NO, it's a specific rule/law and has been referenced multiple times.

Not as I see it.. IMO it captures two sets of situations:

1. One is the criminal with no legally held firearms
   

1. and the other is the regulated shooter with legitimate licensed firearms

It's not a licensing issue. It's an importation issue.

Zxthinger

Cass wrote: »

Are you hung up on the word essential. The law doesn't say essential and i only use it to separate it from any other part.

I'll be honest i'm getting turned around now.

What is your point here? That the mags are not component parts and hence don't need a license/import, do need a license/import, ???????

No its not. Hear-say is not admissible, usually, and the OP never said if that advice was written or verbal.

See now i'm confused again.

You're literally repeating the verdict of the court case. Now its gone through the court the matter is once and for all finalised. No one will have to go through this again and if revenue try it again the next person can cite this case and resolve it before it gets to court.

So what has that to do with your previous stance? I'm asking that by the way. You've shifted so much its hard to keep track of the point you're making.


Are you mad?

Of course it does. An SI has no "standing" without the principle act.

Part F which reads:

And it was this section which lead to the decision, which revenue used incorrectly, to seize the goods.

This seems to be your problem. You're getting hung up on the words used to talk about this even though they may not be used in the legislation.

Its colloquialism and if you're using this as a means to pick holes in something you're going to be frustrated. Also if you demand the exact legal text each and every time you'll also be frustrated as you won't get it and frankly no one wants to read that type of speech.

Put it this way. When someone says round i know that to be a round of ammo, but when someone says bullet and they mean a round i'm not going to pull them up on it because its not technically or legally correct.

I have explained it till I'm blue in the face.. i reinforced post 230... Night night