Mike87 wrote: »

If I remember correctly, doesnt it say in the guidelines that a pistol must not look like a 'military/police' pistol and that it must be easily recognised as an olympic one. Well you cant get much more military then 1911.

No it does NOT..Need to go read them again. ,.22There is a recommended list in the guidelines[that just happen to be Olympic pistol orientated apart from things like the Ruger Mark 1to3] But as said it is a guideline,not engraved in stone.

Also, abit of a misnomer to argue now that the Browning design of the 1911 is a "militaty pistol" seeing that it is over 101 years old and has been used more by civillian shooters than its entire military career in the last century.. Which military forces issue a .45 now as a standard sidearm??

2011 wrote: »

My understanding is that if a pistol has a military/police look or styling it requires a restricted license. To many the GSG falls into this category.

There's no definition of what a 'military' pistol is in firearms legislation. The only firearms restricted based on looks are rifles resembling 'assault rifles'.

2011 wrote: »

That may be part of the problem.

I have met plenty of people who are from areas that can only license pistols from the famous representative list and even then it can be quite difficult for them.

The OP Stated that he felt the "need to upgrade to a more target orentated pistol."

The Hammerli Xesse is an .22 excellent target pistol and has the benefit it may be more palatable to certain superintendents.

You do have the option of taking it up with the FPU,to explain to your Supers about this list being a guideline only.There have been plenty of GSG or 1911 style pistols liscensed here,as well as other designs and older designed Olympic style target pistols,which are just as good,[if not better than some plastic offerings today]. As well as that,what happens when newer models apper on the market??Are we going to be stuck in a time warp with only that list forever more?? Dont think so!

Mike87 wrote: »

Does that bold bit not say something.

My own super doesnt refuse the licence based on "I have banned them in my district" but rather he insists its a danger to the public if I get robbed of it.

Well, why should that be a concern if you have met the security requirements of secure storage and good reason??? If you fulfil those requirements and they are stolen which has happened in one or more cases since 2008,the Gaurds dont assign blame on that point.
Nor is his reasoning sound... IF is a very big word in law,he could just as easily refuse you a unrestricted firearm as it might be just as easily stolen..

.

All Im saying is that a lot of Supers stick to those guidelines very rigidly. THat been the case you may be in for a hard ride to get a 'military-looking-pistol-which-isnt-on-the-list'. Thats all Im saying.

You can tell me how it works in theory all night if you want, but the amount of real world court cases and refusals would suggest that theory and real-world are at odds with each other. Like I said before, in theory, I should be able to get an AR-15 without any real hassle- but in the real world you can be almost guaranteed that it will end up going through the courts.

Well heres a test then..Ask him would he liscense it in .22lr??Same design,same looks [and possinly with even more evill features] and I would bet it will be liscensed alot quicker...Irrespective of it's evil assault rifle mass baby killing features.:rolleyes:

So then your arguement is if it isnt the features it is the calibres,and obviously then the guidelines as interpertated into law by some,is not being administrated fairly either.

The "idoanlikedelookodat" clause has to apply then fairly to both types wether rim or centrefire.If they will liscense it in .22 and not in .223,then they are making it plain that the .22 isnt considerd that much of a problem.

But the fact is in the end,you have to put mouth where money is and go and fight for it after all else fails.It is one thing the PTB are relying on that most wont fight for a restricted firearm and therefore we ourselves start making it out to be some dark art to aquire one.Just do your research well and have good reason as to why you want one and you can get one.:)

rowa wrote: »

Yes the bold bit does say something , it says the irish shooter isn't the sheep he (or she) was back in 1972 and if he feels he is getting a raw deal , then if after the usual meetings etc it'll wind up in the district court.

Hopefully only when the shooter is actually getting abused; we've already lost one case in the Supreme Court where the shooter felt they were being abused, but everyone else thought otherwise (and honestly, reading the transcripts, I can't side with the shooter on that case, it was a train wreck).

The famous pistols list is one part of the new act that has degenerated into a dogs breakfast, if a list was to be used , it should have been linked to the rimfires on the californian approved list (this is where the few on the list came from in the first place).

No, it's not; though I wouldn't doubt that some of the PTB looked at the californian list. Basicly, NGBs got asked what was in use and that's where the list came from. Which is why it's almost entirely what the NASRPC and NTSA shooters were using at the time. But the list is not the law and the NGBs all fought to ensure that was the case.

As i asked before , the irish list isn't updated , so irish shooter might end up using out of date equipment in a few years time.

Nope.
The list is - and the FPU have always backed this - a list of examples of what pistols meet the actual rules laid down in the Firearms Act.
If you go out this year and buy a 5-shot .22lr pistol not on that list, but which meets the rules in the restricted list SIs, then you can licence it (or at least apply to licence it and be considered as evenly as if you'd applied for one on the list) and that's the law. If the Super isn't following the law, that's what the NGBs, the FPU and if necessary, the courts, are all there for.

Mike87 wrote: »

Grizzly: You know Id love to say that to my super regarding the AR and then accuse him of having a problem with the calibar. But to be honest. I just couldnt be bothered because I know he's not going to suddenly have a change of heart or realise he's wrong and apologise and tell me to go get a deposit down and come back with the application for him to stamp it.

Have you tried it first off?? And no one is accusing anyone of anything least of all you accusing your cheif superintendant of being biased..
Maybe try asking first,if he wont liscense you on a pistol maybe he might on a semi CF..You WONT KNOW unless you try that at least..

His logic was this. Pistols are more sought after by criminals then rifles. Thus I become a high risk target. I can have the best alarm system, with camera's in every direction, and storing the pistol in a bank vault buried 100 yards beneath my house which is accessed by an elevator that will only recognise my palm print- but what happens when a criminal kidnaps my wife and tells me they want the pistol. All the security counts for nothing. Thats what I was told. Now grizzly I know thats wrong, and you know thats wrong, and everybody reading this knows thats wrong, but apart from going to court- what can I do?

Quite a lot from that logic displayed there. So is he saying that he belives the guideline and legal aspects of the security is insufficent?He's perfectly within his rights to impose extra conditions on the security to bring it up to his satisfaction,within reason.That about kidnapping your wife is utter and total BullSHT!!! What are you going to do??Show it off to all and sundry,make sure your security details and routines are posted up on Facebook???:rolleyes:C'mon..that is the most lamest excuse I've seen here in awhile..Be that the case he could just as easily claim a double barrel is just as dangerous and likely to fall into criminal hands,etc.

You's talk about arguing with Supers and standing up for my rights and going to court like its my duty as a shooter and not be walked on. Well Ive got news for you, me (and probably the majority of people reading this) just dont have the time/money/energy/desire to take a Superintendent to court.

First off..You dont have "rights" as a shooter here in Ireland .PERIOD!
You have a granted privilige to own a gun here,like anyone else.
Second,and not being personal about it... iI you arent going to put in at least some effort on trying to aquire what you want,well then quit bitching about how badly your super is treating you..You are saying he wont liscense you on a pistol...Fine,have you tried him on an AR15 ??Yes ?No?
No..Why not? What is his reasons?
Or is it more a case of "Ah well I cant get a pistol,He'll refuse me on everything else..Its stacked against me..So therefore,everyone dont bother trying!!

Grizzly I know you have been to court multipe times, and I have a lot of respect for you for that. And the other, 156 pistols owners (hope I got that number right) who just finished court a few months back- I have great respect for them.

Thanks on that...But belive you me it was at the end of a very long road of diplomatic negoiation [and that was mostly one sided attemptsd on my part]. As Sparks has said here umpteen times,court should be the final and utter alternative..
It wasnt a decision I took lightly either,but I took it because I had owned the gun for two years before the gun ban,had fought for three years before that to get it liscensed and had like 100% of Irish handgun gunowners done nothing wrong to be deprived of that liscense!!!
IOW there was a lot more involved in this than just liscensing issues to me.On a personal level as well..
Do you think those lads in the HC took those cases as an easy option??They were gambling tens of thousands on that.Everyone could have said "ah fek this..Its not worth it..Its all a scam..and I dont want it that badly?"
Where would we be?? Back at slight post TCO 1972 times possibly...That HC affair and discovery of collusion to pervert the law of the land isnt over by a long shot yet..

But you have to understand, most of us just dont want a pistol/restricted rifle that badly. Which ultimately (and unfortunately) means we are at the mercy of our Supers- so that means if he decides he wont relicence any of my rifles because the gas released is casuing holes in the ozone layer- well then I guess that means I'll be giving up shooting and doing a lot more fishing.

Well then if you think like that ,fishing might be a better option..
But please dont come on and say it cant be done,its rigged against you ,you havent got time,money and dont want to put in the effort to at least TRY to get over the first few hurdles.There are plenty of total newbies out there who have liscensed .22 pistols since 2008 and proably have had just as many difficult supers to deal with,and managed to do so,as have lads who have semi rifles.
Its a long road from the first asking nicely to the court door,and either of you can get off it by blinking at anytime if you dont think it is worth the game,but you wont know it until you get on the road in the first place.


As Teddy Roosevelt once said.It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

sungear wrote: »

me being out of pocket as any dealer I have spoken to wants the cash upfront

Any dealer who wants your cash upfront and nonrefundable in the event you're refused licence is a dealer you do not want to do business with. Politely say thank you but no thank you and walk the heck away and give your business to someone else.

@Tac
1] Unless it is isued to ALL FIVE branches of the US armed forces.
IE Army,Navy,Marines,Air Force and Coast Gaurd.
It is NOT a standard issue US GI firearm.

2] USN SEALs are a special forces unit with their own seperate budget to buy plenty of toys to play with .As do all the other arms that have SF units,but it is still no matter what the M9 is the regulation issue current US sidearm.

3] There is talk of going back to the 45ACP in a pistol,the USMC is looking at a revamped traditional model 1911 for Force Recon.
But thats as far as it will go..Talk..Budgets will not allow to re equip the entire US armed service from NCO upwards with a new GI 45ACP.
Especially that not one other NATO ally uses .45 ACP.
Bad move to have non compatible ammo with your allies.:)

Nor is it a good move to change weaponary in the middle of a conflict..Sure there are now much better weapon designs than the M16 platform [now the longest serving rifle in the US armed forces history],with much better calibres that the uS could afford,but because everyone and their granny are making M16 components for defence contracts and there are billions of dollars of parts inventories.The chances of a change of calibre and gun design is slim.If they arent going to do this with their main rifle,whats the chance of a re issue on a sidearm??:pac:

Hi,
I've read the post and am hoping to get in to pistol shooting soon. I have tried to follow the legislation, the guidelines and the unrestricted/restricted listings etc.

I'm unsurprisingly confused.

Is the GSG 1911 easily licence-able? or that style of gun? (In the .22 calibre)?

surly the magazine is larger than 5 rounds? (which seems to be one of the unrestricted/restricted points?

As I say newbe to this sport (I have read the red bannered posting at the start, and am confused etc).

Im in Kerry if this matters???

No Problem with the "sh*ty" answer, I understand that this is not an 'exact science' :-).
It does confuse me alright.
I see somewhere else in the postings that someone casually mentions 'getting a Sig Mosquito', which is the type of pistol I'd like to get (I know I've read reviews online and on youtube, lotta people don't like them...) or something similar.

Thanks for the answer so far though, every thing helps to shed some light...