Without going into all this again as we have done numerous times and actual court cases have proven you wrong,as well as some utter inaccuracies from your examples.i'll humbly beg to disagree with all of the above yet again.

Re your above point of the court cases.

There you go.All are researchable and on record for a bright lad like you to research. The ones with the asterisks are the important ones.

*Oct 2014 District court Limerick c Grizzly 45& others V CS Sheehan. Win in all six cases for the plaintiffs. First costs awarded against the state

May 2014 " " " Grizzly 45 V CS Sheehan Win for the plaintiff. Technically the 1st case with costs awarded in Ireland.Judge reserved his decision on costs.

*July 2012 " " " multiple plaintiffs V CS Sheehan Win for the plaintiffs. Particularly on the FAILURE of the state to prove that the firearms in question were "assault rifles" as the judge remarked, "With no definition of such in Irish legislation, the state cannot prove its case" Plaintiffs witness ,a firearms expert and personal trainer of aGS ballistics dept Stated. "Form does not follow function in engineering or legal aspect.It is impossible to use "looks like" to describe a particular type of firearm when its function is clearly impossible to be what it is supposed to be under an accepted international definition of many years standing"[para phrase].

Also have a look at the act. The Irish legislation clearly states now in the definition

An assault rifle is

“assault rifles” means—

(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,[ even this is a mangled definition and more or less right]

(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

[b] is the kicker!! What does an "assault rifle" look like??? an M16?an AK?a G3 ?FAL? M2 carbine? Ruger mini14 ACR?... It's not defined in LAW! And it is defeated easily as done in Germany from 1972 to 2002 and in the US under the Crime control bill 1994. You REMOVE the features that make it look scary, and it then doesn't resemble an "assault rifle" FS I even owned one in CA in that time frame I had a Chinese MAK 90 sporter with the stupid thumbhole stock. It's an utterly stupid way of going about regulating anything basing it on looks.

The second point was the failure of the state to prove that they were used in dynamic shooting. After a demonstration on An Riocht range mandated by the judge a week later.

Present at this was Grizzly 45, numerous other SA CF owners involved in this case,CS Sheehan,Insp Brooks of the Garda ballistics.There is a vid of this shooting demo still out there somewhere Both grudgingly accepted in the follow on hearing that these rifles were not used in the dynamic shooting disciplines.

*May 2010 Limerick Dist court Grizzly 45 & others Vs Cs Sheehan Win for the plaintiffs.

Those are my personal cases. Safe to say in personally THREE cases and at least 12 others the state tried this "looks like" argument and failed miserably.

There are at least two dozen others like this across the land that must be on record in the same timeframe and searchable in a law library or online?

So yeah,I think I know WTF I,m on about Re this assault rifle lark.!

As for the Mag behind the trigger definition RE pistols. That's not me. That's a LEGAL OPINION of A JUDGE when asked about this privately. Whether he is right or wrong...I'll let you argue that one.

Also has anyone noticed in all this that bullpup SHOTGUNS are not mentioned in the legislation?

We’re talking about restricted list (not EU ban). In which case was the judgement the firearms in question were not restricted? Not any involving SA CFs presumably.

EVERY.SINGLE.ONE .OF.THESE.MENTIONED.CASES. WERE. ABOUT.CFSA and CF HANDGUNS.AND.SHOTGUNS!!! why would you think I would be mentioning them continuously in these damn arguments??? I was a PLAINTIFF in THREE of them!!!You claimed I couldnt prove these happened or was reluctant to give this info publically.Well there it is!! As I have for years shown and if you could be bothered go back to the archives on those dates here on boards ,and you will find my initial reports of the court cases as they happened. You have proof now aplenty END OF

I've no idea why you keep mentioning those cases, re-read what I said. "...[that] the firearms in question were not restricted?" If they were in relation to SACFs, the they are still restricted. As I've said many times, you are conflating the EU ban, and the SI. I pointed this out the last time too. No proof, again.

The assault rifle definition in the SI is terrible, but its still the law. It's also largely redundant. The point all along has been that it could be challenged in court but it has not been. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of those cases did that. They were still licensed as restricted firearms, correct?

So even though you were successful (well done), it doesn't follow that the restricted SI doesn't apply. And to stay on topic. I don't see how you've made the leap that the bullpup definition doesn't exist or doesn't apply. You claim it was proven in court, which of those cases result in a bullpup being non-restricted?

Yup. It's right there is plain English. Also very clearly say rifles and not pistols.

It's a bit baffling as to why Grizzly is suggesting I was wrong (or lying about it). We all know it exist, its nearly 15 years old now.

Which could make it a rifle? and therefore restricted as mag is behind trigger? and the serial no. Is for a pistol?

I'd not be chancing it

I'll take your word for it 😉

No ! It would make it a pistol,as thats what it was originally licensed and described and imported as. Whether it has a stock added or not is irrelevant! As we do not have a category in Irish law of "stocked pistols".The stock in this case is an accessory and does not turn the pistol permanently into a rifle as it is detachable. Same as the French Unique pistol/rifle combination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fFqh78orew

Thing with the law is that it's always vague enough to convince you that your right 😀

Unless it's been "tested" in a court situation it's all about opinions.

I'd not want to be the test case 😀

So if overall length of said Buckmark including detachable stock is less than 60cm it would appear you'd be OK.......So is it under 60cm?

Yup, it's still a short firearm. The suggestion was that sticking a detachable stock onto it allows more rounds. Which is obviously no true. Possibly some confusion between the pistol version sand the rifle version - that is 850mm overall.

Agree with most of that, but not all of it.

It's irrelevant where the added parts are detachable or welded on. The definition of short firearm was posted above by @otmmyboy2 and clearly includes detectable parts. The Glock and Buck mark pistols, still meet the criteria of short firearm with a stock, so are still pistols. The barrel lenth defiens tham as pistols.

However, then swapping in a carbine barrel (with the stock ) means it no longer meets the definition of short firearm - In short you'd have converted it carbine (long firearm). Carbine barrel on its own, different story.

The firearms are defend by their size not the paper work - otherwise all sots of modifications would legal.

A similar hypothetical: is a 223 bolt action rifle with an adjustable stock restricted or non restricted if its 95cm with the stock fully extended and 85cm fully retracted. Likewise, is a 223 bolt action rifle with a fixed stock restricted or non restricted even if you remove the stock to bring it below 90cm.

If the stock is collapsed or removed for storage. I imagine that is fine. As the firearm is the required length when restricted? But if somebody shortened a rifle and was intending to use it. It would be restricted. Sane as any other restricted modification you could make.

On the stock I think most sensible is to measured in the state it’s used in.

Not sure why 1000s would be in court? There are not many rifles under 90cm out there. But maybe I’m misunderstanding.

A 20” barrel rifle with the stock removed will in most cases be under <90cm. But I’m not following why you say the restricted rules wouldn’t apply? I don’t often see people at the range firing rifles without stocks.

It seems like that’s exactly the kind of modification that would make a rifle restricted. As I said above, I don’t believe it would apply to a removing/folding a modular stock for storage or maintenance but only the rifle in use.

Isn’t that covered the second paragraph? I suggested disassembly for storage, maintenance, changes, etc modification would be fine.

It would only fall into the restricted category if somebody tried to shoot with a shorten rifle.

Say a modular stock, fine to remove stock to change configuration. But turn up to the range with a stock less rifle, shooting from a pistol grip like Terminator. That’s probably were the restricted category comes into play.

Also no laws against getting a 22lr sbr with a proper stock.

Certain overall length (60cm) AND certain barrel length (30cm).

If one or the other is under it’s a shirt firearm (includes pistols and revolvers)

Only specific named pistols are exempt and they’re fairly specific, so certain Browning Hi Powers are exempt and others aren’t.

Yeah the whole SBR and SBS are a relic of an attempt to ban pistols in the 30s. Not as if it makes any difference when you can but an AR15 pistol upper on an AR15 lower with a stock.