On Tuesday, 25 November, the Executive Committee of the NASRPC became aware that a scheduled meeting was taking place between the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration – specifically the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Unit, Policy and Inspection Unit – and a number of stakeholders, representatives, and individuals. The Committee contacted the Department to request participation. The Department responded promptly and extended an invitation for the Association to nominate one representative. The Executive Committee selected its Secretary, Julie Moran, to attend. In the interest of transparency, and to ensure that our member clubs and all those who support the Association through participation in NASRPC sanctioned competitions are fully informed, we are sharing the following summary notes of the meeting, as prepared by Julie, and thank her for taking the time to do so.
Notes from Julie Moran (Secretary for the NASRPC) following a meeting with the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and other stakeholders.
Disclaimer: The following notes were prepared by me, Julie Moran, in my capacity as Secretary of the NASRPC, for the purpose of informing members of the Association and those who compete at NASRPC sanctioned matches. These notes are not official minutes of the meeting and do not represent the views or statements of the Department of Justice, An Garda Síochána, or any other stakeholder. They are my personal record and interpretation of the discussion as I understood it at the time. While I have taken care to be accurate, these notes may contain errors or omissions. The Department of Justice will issue the formal minutes, which should be relied upon for the official record.
This meeting follows from an original meeting with the Department and stakeholders, (including Registered Firearms Dealers and firearms users) in Mullingar on 19 June, and a further exploratory firearms stakeholder meeting in September with invites issued to individuals with whom the Department had significant, previous engagement and whom they believed could offer an informed view.
Today’s meeting (Monday, 1st December 2025) had a single agenda item which was to examine S.I. 21 of 2008 inclusive of the amendments which are S.I. 337 of 2009 and S.I. 391 of 2015. The meeting took place in The Hilton Hotel, Kilmainham, South Circular Road, Dublin, D08 XAK3 from 10:30 to 15:30. The meeting specifically looked at four items in relation to S.I. 21 namely night vision and thermal scopes, five round capacity in magazines, moderators or suppressors, and the use of the term assault rifles. The final item on the agenda was AOB.
Present at the meeting were representatives from the Department of Justice (Firearms Unit), An Garda Síochána Firearms Policy Unit, and 21 stakeholders/representatives/individuals.
From the outset, it is important to note that any proposals voted upon during the meeting was simply to gauge opinion; that ultimately, the decision to have the S.I amended will rest with the minister (Minister Niall Collins has this responsibility).
1. Night vision and thermal scopes
When the S.I. was introduced in 2008, night vision and thermal scopes were not included. Classified as firearms in the primary legislation (The Firearms Act. 1925), their omission from the S.I. automatically categorised them as restricted. If the S.I. is amended, they could become unrestricted, but not delisted as a firearm, which would require the primary legislation being changed. Moving them to unrestricted would still require authorising and would still require licencing. A lengthy discussion took place in relation to this proposed amendment. Discussion varied between military grade and commercial grade, between technology and quality, how the technology makes it better and safer for hunters today, and defining minimum standards for safety reasons.
As the NASRPC representative my own contribution was to state that it seemed to me that the obvious solution was to have them unrestricted. It would still need assessment by an authorising person (Garda) anyway. My only caveat was that any amendment would not use any subjective language but objective and technically accurate terms that rely upon mechanical or capability characteristics. This would facilitate consistency in decisions being made by the authorising person.
A vote was taken on addressing this matter in the S.I. so that night-vision and thermal scopes would be unrestricted but still require authorisation; this was agreed as the position to be put forward to the Minister. There was also agreement that changes to the primary legislation could be considered at a later stage.
2. Five rounds in magazines for short barrel firearms
Discussions also varied in relation to the number of rounds in a small barrel firearm magazine. In principle, AGS Ballistics Section had no issue with the increase from 5 to 6 rounds. However, most participants argued that this still meant the modification or dismantling of a magazine, so it wouldn’t change that aspect for users, which is one of the main reasons why most stakeholders were seeking an amendment to this S.I.
Contributions ranged from the OEM (original equipment manufacturer) of most magazines in Europe being 10 shot magazines and that 10 shots were a recognisable and standard number of rounds currently being allowed in the magazines (and tube fed) small bore and centrefire rifles. It was agreed that if the S.I. was amended without specifically naming the number of rounds (i.e. limitless) that this would not be accepted by the minister.
As the NASRPC representative, I stated that whilst the highest possible safety standards are being upheld on our ranges, and whilst the 5 round limit does not prevent competitions from being shot, it does introduce avoidable movement and safety risks. That in 6 or 10 shot timed disciplines, additional handling steps are required within the timing. That most standard magazines are designed with a 10 round capacity. That modifying them to hold only 5 requires disassembly and internal alteration, which reduces equipment reliability and not part of the manufacturer’s safety design. I proposed that short sporting firearms should not be restricted solely because they are short. That removing the restriction would allow safe use of short barrel firearms into standard designed configuration.
Another contribution stated that if 10 was introduced as the capacity for short barrel firearm magazines, that this would then be standard for rifles, pistols and revolvers, and would leave no ambiguity for the firearms officer as it would be 10 rounds across the board.
Following the vote, the 10-round capacity was agreed as the position to be put forward to the Minister.
3. Suppressors/Silencers/Moderators
The discussion in relation to suppressors was very much in keeping with the discussion that took place regarding the night vision and thermal scopes. However, the discussion varied widely on whether or not the S.I. should be amended to authorise the use of suppressors on long barrel and or short barrel firearms. Most people present agreed it was better to use the term suppressor rather than silencer or moderator. There was general agreement that the S.I. should be amended so that suppressors would not be restricted, but would still require authorisation for use with long barrel firearms only. An Garda Síochána Ballistics give their opinion on the matter, which was a yes for authorising on long barrel firearms but not on short barrel firearms.
Many at the table felt that our shooting sports and other pursuits such as hunting did not have much public acceptability and that the perception and the face of shooting sports in Ireland is already very low. It was felt that adding suppressors to short barrel firearms would not increase this perception, but would reduce it further, and that there was no necessity for their use as they are only permitted for use on pistol ranges.
As the NASRPC representative, I did clarify when asked that I personally have not seen a suppressor being used on a short barrel firearm on the ranges where we sanction matches. A vote was taken on amending the S.I. so that suppressors would be non-restricted but still require authorisation for long-barrel firearms such as rifles and shotguns; this was agreed as the position to advance to the Minister. A subsequent vote on applying the same approach to short-barrel firearms was not agreed.
4. Assault rifles
When seeking the opinion of An Garda Síochána Ballistics, their view remained the same; that the reference to assault rifles in the S.I. should remain and also, the reference to the word “resemble.” However, they did clarify that the authorising person could not simply say it looks like an assault rifle. They believed that the authorising person would need to be able to name exactly which assault rifle the firearm looks like and how or where the common features on both make them look the same. Most of the discussion revolved around this being essentially subjective, and that cosmetics could not be the indicator for restricting a firearm. The consensus was that the wording assault rifles should be removed from the S.I. as well as the associated bracketed sentence in 4 (2) (c). As the NASRPC representative, I said that it should be capability-based criteria which would provide clarity for both the licence holder and the authorising person. If it only discharges one round each time the trigger is squeezed, it is a semi-automatic firearm; that there are no public safety implications, that all the existing safety controls, licencing conditions, and Garda oversight remain in place and unchanged. I also argued that this would remove the two-tier licencing situation of passing restricted firearm applications (unnecessarily) up the chain of command, which is what is currently taking place simply because it cosmetically looks like something it is not.
A vote was taken and the agreed position was to remove the words assault rifle and the associated bracketed sentence from the S.I.
5. AOB
During the remaining time of the meeting, several other items were brought up for consideration for the agenda the next time this group gathers. One included clarification in relation to pistol grips on shotguns. Another related to sabot ammunition, which no longer seems to be in circulation and therefore no longer required in the S.I. A third was the return of, in a phased and controlled manner, centrefire short firearms for the purposes of target shooting at authorised ranges. The fourth was in relation to restricting, or not, long barrel firearms by their muzzle energy in joules rather than bore diameter.
As the NASRPC representative, I named that many of the members of our member clubs would like to see the restriction on lever action centrefire rifles removed based on the muzzle energy and not the bore diameter. I stated that the current restriction, which relies upon bore size does not indicate power, range, or risk. That low energy rifles end up in the restricted category, whilst higher energy rifles fall outside of it. This leads to inconsistent and technically incorrect classifications. That muzzle energy, which is an objective and scientific measure, would provide a clear meaningful benchmark. I named the Lapua .338 as a good example of where the limit might be set with an approximate 7,000 joules of energy. For examples of energy rather than bore diameter, I named the average muzzle energy in relation to the following calibres:
.22lr (Not restricted): 150-200 Joules
.38 Special (Restricted): 250-300 Joules
.357 Magnum (Restricted): 540-600 Joules
.308 Winchester (Not Restricted): 2,600-3,000 Joules
.300 Winchester Magnum (Not Restricted): 4,700-5,000 Joules
.338 Lapua Magnum (Restricted): 6,500-7,000 Joules.
As the meeting came to a close, there was a reminder that we were only voting on recommendations to put to the minister to amend S.I. 21 inclusive of the amendments which are S.I. 337 of 2009 and S.I. 391 of 2015. Once we have visibility of any proposed amendments to the S.I. – as a consequence of our input – all were asked to contact our local representatives to make them aware that proposals are forthcoming and to seek his or her support.
Personal Note from the Secretary of the NASRPC: I would like to add that the meeting itself was constructive, open, and courteous throughout. The discussion was frank, transparent, and productive, and all participants who wished to contribute were given the opportunity to do so. I appreciated the respectful atmosphere in which differing viewpoints were expressed, and I would welcome any future engagement of this kind.
I encourage our member clubs to engage with this update, and with each other, in the same spirit: respectfully, constructively, and with the shared goal of supporting and progressing our sport. I welcome thoughtful feedback, and I ask that communications in relation to this remain focused on the matters actually discussed at the meeting – namely the proposed amendments to the S.I. – rather than broader issues or individual wish lists. Keeping the conversation centred on the topics addressed will help ensure we approach any future engagement with clarity and unity.
Email: secretary@nasrpc.ie
Please include your full name and the name of your rifle or pistol club in any correspondence.