Just out of curiosity, what's the accuracy like on it?

M&P 15-22 all the way in my opinion, it is very functional as a Gallery Rifle gun, it will never out run the customized Kidds etc but as a functional and fun gun cannot be beaten, unfortunately 99% of the time it will be required to be licensed as restricted, that then in a perverse way allows you to have magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, seems odd to me that AGS insist on it being restricted facilitating high capacity magazines just because it is black and it looks like!!!

Rant over, go for it, if you can afford the Performance Centre version worth the extra, I dropped in a CMC trigger, as the PC trigger is not fab, and added a TandemKross muzzle break, if you do go for the TandemKross muzzle break you need to order the spacer washers also other wise it will not time correctly on your barrel, these are cut specifically for Ruger pistols but do fit correctly without the spacer washers on the 15-22. I'd recommend them, they can be imported directly and cost less than €60.00 and decrease muzzle flip substantially, they look good also!

PS in my experience CCI standard run no problem and are cheap when banging through volume, but for clean and reliable function go for CCI AR, copper washed round nose solids, 40 grn, about 1100FPS just below CCI mini Mags.

What case law was that? It was alluded to before on here, and I asked but nobody was ever able to point to it.

At the time I felt separate laws were getting mixed up. “Looks like” isn’t sufficient to say a guns falls into the banned assault rifle category. As its not part of the definition.

But that’s a completely different law to the restricted list SI. Case law of one may not apply to the other.

Court decisions related to the ban (stemming from the EU) on assault weapons. Or the restricted SI?

Two different laws. I’m aware of the former, but not the latter.

Well, we all know that’s not actually true though. There is a definition in SI 21/2008 - a bad one, but that’s the entire problem.

We’re not referring to any ban.

The guidelines don’t say they are restricted, but they also don’t say that they are not. The bit about SACFs only applies to SACF.

IOW people around the country making these decisions do not have clear guidance to ignore the (redundant) definition in the SI. Many do ignore these, but many do not.

I assume @smmember20 was referencing his own firearm, and I’ve no reason to doubt him.

District Court decisions do not, in law, set legal precedent.

As for the district case, I asked for details, would be good to know how it went, even if not a precedent. But as I mentioned above, I know cases regarding SACFs and the EU "Assault" weapons ban. Completely baseless to make that connection on looks, but also complete irrelevant in terms of the restricted SI

How much details do you want ,and on what point and topic???

Also in relation to the "EU Assault weapons ban"..No such thing.Full auto and select fire weapons have been banned from civilian ownership since the EU directive of 1990,if bnot before in members own individual national laws. Are you getting mixed up with the 2017 "magazine ban" that codified former selectfire/full auto weapons that are converted to semi-auto only being banned post a registry date of 2017?

Correct. Case law is precedent.

None the less, favorable district court decisions would at least be reassuring that they won't continually pull it. Which is where Otmmyboy is going I think.

Thats pretty much as it now stands.

The guidelines don’t say they are restricted, but they also don’t say that they are not. The bit about SACFs only applies to SACF.

The guideline makes no mention anymore about looks, suitability,form ,etc be they SC or RF SA.Only thing is v

this bit about post 2017 SACF licenses standing revoked if the law is enacted.

IOW people around the country making these decisions do not have clear guidance to ignore the (redundant) definition in the SI. Many do ignore these, but many do not.

Seems pretty clear... As they have the mag capacity and caliber to go by to decide on restricted or not.

Well, we all know that’s not actually true though. There is a definition in SI 21/2008 - a bad one, but that’s the entire problem.

But there has been a number of district court cases, where the firearm owner was successful in getting approval. It would be good to know the basic details of the firearms. ie Make/Model/Calibre. That way it would be helpful for people to know what type of this was ok.

My understanding was that these were mostly SACFs but perhaps not.

From my personal knowledge. There were over 30 dist court cases that I know of in relation to firearms over .22 cal. It ranged from any type of CF handgun to any type of semi-auto rifle and in two cases to "military-style" semi-auto shotguns.[SPAS12&15] and one semi-auto shotgun[customised Rem1100]. So as a fair sample, you can say 9mm Glock and AR types, followed by HK style rifles of all brands were a good cross example in 223/7.62 NATO/308.But you could probably throw a dart at a list of SACF rifles,and your hit is/was probably on it too.

The States argument was mostly based on the idea that these firearms were military/police weapons and unsuitable for civilian usage due to their "dangerous calibres and high rate of fire" And that if they fell into the wrong hands...etc, etc. And that there weren't any suitable competitions or "good reason" for civilians to own these. As well as that they could be "easily converted" to full auto. The "looks like" came up a few times,but it fell apart on the acceptance in every dist case of the argument of "form does not follow function, and by the state falling into a trap of believing that one brand SIG was the same company as SIG/Sauer and trying to equate a SIG handgun which was a combat model, with a SIG/Sauer model that was a civilian target model. Aptly explained by a German company rep of SIG /Sauer who was imported especially for the court case.

Nor did they help themselves by putting a virulently anti-gun Cheif super in the stand in Tralee, who declared under oath that he was totally biased against civilian gun-ownership of any kind and esp these kinds of "big calibre weapons with a high rate of fire,that should only be used by trained police or military personnel." And that his policy was "to refuse such licenses on principle".Nor was it helped much by the AGS ballistics expert continuously referring to a copy " Janes infantry weapons" reference book as his source reference.A fact that peeved the judge off no end.

The easily converted was dismissed by simply getting the German Bundeskriminal Amt technical depts certification of any particular make and model of firearm that is for sale to the public cannot be converted or modified with normal household tools, or does not fall foul of the German war weapons act before it can be put on the market. Since most of these types of guns are sold/bought from German sources and wholesales and imported here to Ireland. They are certified as being unconvertable semi-auto sporting rifles designed as such from the ground up, or rifles built on demilitarized parts kits incapable of being converted back.

This tactic continued until Oct 2012 when it came to a head in the Limerick Disct court, where costs were awarded against the CS of Henry st, who lost 6 cases in a row on the same day against a mixed bag of handguns and SA rifles.

It's been pretty quiet since then...

Generalising a bit here. But wouldn’t they mostly be restricted firearms. Centrefire handguns, "military-style" shotguns, SACF rifles. etc.

They are. There has never really been any problems that amounted to DC cases with unrestricted firearms before. Since there has been a couple of cases regarding Supers being bolshie about calibres.

Another point I should mention is that before the DC cases there was an unofficial "policy" of as we coined the phrase here on boards of the "Idontlikedelookofdatnow!"clause much employed by Supers and Cheifs to refuse to license firearms solely on their looks or titles.[One dealer was refused import licenses from the DOJ for the Henry arms AR7 rifle, because of the word "Survival" in its name. Long since rectified I believe]

This practice has also gone as now a Super or CS must give in writing his reasons for refusing a license, and just refusal on looks alone of a firearm has been discounted as a refusal to grant

Where any of them non restricted. Say SA-RF .22lr rifles?

Not in these cases. The SA RF licensing problems only came about in later years, as at the time these were pretty much a novelty and just starting to appear on the market. However,as far as I am aware, none of these licensing probs for these types has gone to a courtroom,yet.