Summary of Firearms Stakeholder Engagement Meeting
Hilton Hotel, Kilmainham – Thursday, 29 January 2026
Notes by Julie Moran (Secretary, NASRPC)
Disclaimer: These notes are my personal record of the meeting. They are not official minutes and do not represent the views of the Department of Justice, An Garda Síochána, or any other stakeholder. The Department of Justice will issue the official minutes, which should be relied upon for the formal record.
On Tuesday, 23 December 2025, I received an email from the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Unit. The email advised that the next Firearms Stakeholder Engagement Meeting would take place on Thursday, 29 January 2026, with the agenda to follow. The agenda and stakeholder submissions were circulated on Wednesday, 28 January. The meeting took place from 10:30 to 15:30 at the Hilton Hotel, Kilmainham. Attendees included representatives from the Department of Justice (Firearms Unit), An Garda Síochána Firearms Policy Unit, stakeholder bodies, representatives, and individual participants.
1. Welcome and Overview of the Process
Padraic Ferris (DOJ) welcomed attendees and outlined that this meeting formed part of Phase 1, which included earlier meetings in Mullingar (19 June), a further exploratory stakeholder meeting in September, the meeting of 1 December 2025 (my notes can be found here) and this meeting of 29 January. If Phase 1 concluded as planned, the DOJ would prepare a document summarising outcomes and proposed amendments to S.I. 21 of 2008 for the Minister. The DOJ envisages a further day of consultation with stakeholder bodies before submission to the Minister, at which point Phase 2 would begin.
Padraic advised that the Minister is very satisfied with the process to date and has indicated that these “Kilmainham” meetings are his preferred method of engagement. Mr Jack White attended in a listening capacity on behalf of the Minister. The remainder of the meeting was chaired by John Guinane (DOJ).
2. S.I. 21 of 2008
a. Gauging of Rifles
This issue was raised at the previous meeting and discussed further following stakeholder submissions. Discussion covered bore diameter, muzzle energy (joules), pistol rounds, and the practical realities of long-distance and gallery rifle shooting. Many agreed that the current system unfairly categorises some low-energy rifles as restricted while allowing higher-energy rifles to remain unrestricted, creating inconsistency and a two-tier licensing system for AGS.
My contribution: I restated that bore diameter does not indicate power, range, or risk, resulting in technically incorrect classifications. I argued that muzzle energy is an objective, scientific measure that would provide a clearer and more meaningful benchmark.
John Guinane explained the historical rationale for bore diameter. When a stakeholder queried how AGS would determine bore size in practice, I noted that my recently issued licence now explicitly states “unrestricted,” which may assist implementation.
It was acknowledged that once a joule threshold is set in law, even marginal exceedance could result in illegality due to ammunition variation. It was agreed that centrefire pistols and centrefire semi-automatic rifles are already un-licensable under primary legislation, making the restricted category in the S.I. redundant and confusing. Removing the restricted category from the S.I. (or revoking the S.I. entirely) would not alter the statutory definition of restricted firearms or affect grandfathered firearms. The DOJ agreed to assess whether removal would have consequences for other S.I.s or Acts.
b. Bullpups
Stakeholders discussed whether bullpups remain a meaningful category. Some argued that overall length already determines licensability.
My contribution: I emphasised that the issue is definition, not perception. I stated that the current bullpup definition is technically inaccurate, that classification should be based on function rather than layout, and that misclassification creates licensing inconsistency for AGS. I suggested that removal of the definition appeared the most logical solution.
Regarding existing licences, I and others suggested substitution licences to avoid unnecessary storage during renewal. It was agreed that the bullpup definition should be removed from the S.I.
c. Pistol Grips
Submissions addressed pistol grips on shotguns, including their importance for shooters with disabilities and their prevalence in modern rifle stocks. John Guinane explained the historical basis for the provision, noting that firearm accessories were less common at the time of drafting.
My contribution: I stated that the current policy is effectively banning features, not function, with no public safety benefit. The problem is subjective interpretation, and the solution is removal of feature-based restrictions. I highlighted the inconsistency with rifles, where similar features are already permitted without public safety impact, raising proportionality concerns.
A stakeholder suggested that the S.I. should list restricted firearms as “NIL,” consolidating licensing into a one-tier system while leaving un-licensable firearms unaffected. The only identified consequence was potential loss of restricted dealer licence fees.
It was agreed that stakeholders would consider whether to propose amendment or full removal of the S.I. at the next meeting, following further assessment of legal impacts.
3. Next Steps
Following completion of Phase 1, Phase 2 would address broader issues affecting the Firearms Act itself. This phase would be longer and more complex due to implications for primary legislation and EU law. Suggested topics included centralised online licensing, one-on/one-off policies, the return of some centrefire firearms, competency, and training. It was agreed that sub-groups could examine legislation in detail and that contact details would be shared to facilitate collaboration. The DOJ confirmed that Phase 1 proposals would be drafted, consulted upon with relevant bodies, and then submitted to the Minister before Phase 2 proceeds.
4. AOB
Relating to one submission made by a stakeholder, technical amendments to S.I. provisions on blank firearms and shotgun magazine capacity were discussed and agreed for DOJ review. Proposed amendments to barrel length definitions were also agreed, subject to compatibility with the Wildlife Acts and EU alignment.
A submission was made proposing the establishment of a smaller, permanent firearms consultative forum comprising a limited number of representatives. The submission referenced the “Kilmainham DOJ Meetings” as decision-making meetings and argued that, as preferences and votes were being taken and later conveyed to the Minister, substantive firearms policy decisions should instead be made by “proper representative groups” rather than by individuals or bodies representing smaller cohorts of licence holders at these meetings.
This prompted extensive discussion around representation, legitimacy, inclusivity, and process. Several participants challenged the basis of the submission, noting that target shooting is a growing sector and that S.I. 21 of 2008 disproportionately affects target shooters, making their continued inclusion essential. Others expressed concern that restricting participation risked excluding expertise and undermining the constructive progress achieved to date. Many emphasised the positive, collaborative atmosphere of the current forum and cautioned against proposals that could derail or narrow that engagement. Strong views were expressed that no single organisation should have a monopoly on consultation or decision-making simply by virtue of size.
My contributions: I made several points in response.
First, I drew a clear distinction between decision-making and decision-taking. I stated that decision-making involves consultation, analysis, expertise, and consensus-building, all of which are occurring within this forum. Decision-taking, however, is the formal legal act carried out by the State and rests solely with the Minister. I emphasised that the use of votes or expressions of preference at these meetings is a mechanism to understand stakeholder views, not a transfer of authority. The authority to decide remains with the State, but that does not diminish the legitimacy or value of the consultation process taking place.
Second, I welcomed the proposal to establish sub-groups or working groups, noting that they can play a valuable role in examining complex issues in detail, identifying unintended consequences, and developing workable policy options. However, I stressed that such groups would require expert facilitation, a clearly structured consultation process, and transparent reporting back to the wider forum in order to strengthen both the quality and legitimacy of the outcomes.
Third, I sought clarity on how the Minister could take informed decisions if ministerial representation at earlier stages of the process was inconsistent. In response, John Guinane confirmed that he acts as the consistent representative at the table on behalf of the Minister, providing continuity throughout the process.
Fourth, I echoed the prevailing sentiment around the table, acknowledging the good will, constructive engagement, and high standard of discussion within the current forum. I cautioned against the assumption that fewer participants necessarily lead to better outcomes and emphasised that inclusivity, expertise, and diversity of experience have been key strengths of the process to date.
Clarifications from John Guinane
John Guinane provided several important clarifications:
- The Minister has previously reviewed this particular submission and has clearly indicated that these “Kilmainham” stakeholder engagement meetings are his preferred mechanism for progressing firearms policy, reflected in the attendance of Mr Jack White at this meeting.
- There is now a significant volume of substantive work to be undertaken, and this forum is where that work will be progressed.
- Participants are present by invitation of the DOJ in their personal capacity, rather than as formal organisational representatives; however, all relevant organisations will be formally consulted once the DOJ has prepared the Phase 1 document emerging from this group.
In my final contribution on this matter, I emphasised the importance of making the process work as intended and maintaining the positive trajectory established to date. I stated that the objective must be to produce clear, consistent, and workable legislation that serves licence applicants, Gardaí, and the Minister’s office alike, and that this is best achieved through continued inclusive, well-structured, and good-faith engagement.
Additional Issues Raised
- Implementation of the Commissioner’s Guidelines: Concern was expressed that the spirit and intent of the Commissioner’s Guidelines are not being consistently applied, pointing to an implementation issue rather than a deficiency in the Guidelines themselves.
- Centralised Licensing Systems: Participants referenced other areas of Irish legislation where centralised, online licensing systems operate effectively. This was raised as an example of how administrative efficiency, consistency, and transparency might be improved in the firearms licensing system, rather than as a specific proposal for immediate change.
- Continuous Professional Development (CPD) for Firearms Officers: It was noted that Firearms Officers operate in a technically complex and legally sensitive area, yet there is no structured CPD requirement. The absence of ongoing training was highlighted as unusual compared to other regulated sectors. John Guinane referred to the Firearms Expert Committee’s firearms-and-uses matrix, suggesting that endorsing such tools could support more consistent decision-making.
- Insurance Requirements: The lack of compulsory insurance was raised as an issue requiring examination, particularly in the context of public assurance and alignment with practices in other regulated activities.
- Training for New Licensees: The need for structured training (distinct from competency testing) was raised, with suggestions that training could be delivered by recognised bodies operating to agreed standards across different disciplines (e.g. hunting, clay shooting, pistol).
- Licensing the Individual Rather Than the Firearm: Participants referenced licensing models in other EU jurisdictions and in domestic hunting contexts, where the individual is licensed rather than each specific firearm, alongside a hunting or non-hunting category.
- Calibre and Velocity in Relation to the Parks and Wildlife Acts: Concerns were noted regarding how calibre and velocity restrictions intersect with wildlife legislation, highlighting potential inconsistencies or unintended consequences.
- Appointment and Support of Firearms Officers: It was noted that Firearms Officers are sometimes assigned to the role without having sought it and without adequate support, placing them in a difficult position. This was raised as a workforce and governance concern rather than a licensing policy issue.
- Applicants with Periods of Residence Outside the State: Issues were raised regarding how applications are assessed for individuals who have lived abroad for extended periods or who have moved between jurisdictions, particularly in relation to background checks and administrative delays.
- Statutory Timeframes for Licence Processing: Concern was expressed that completed applications are frequently taking longer than the statutory three-month period to process. Questions were raised about the legal status of applications and licences issued outside this timeframe, pointing to a need for clarity and consistency.
- Ministerial Engagement: Mr Jack White was thanked for his presence. His attendance was acknowledged as a signal of the seriousness with which the Minister is treating this process and the work of the forum.
Personal Note (Julie Moran)
This meeting was again constructive, open, and respectful. Discussions were frank and productive, and all participants were given the opportunity to contribute. I am encouraged by the progress to date and ask that those who engage with this update, do so constructively and remain focused on the proposed S.I. amendments. This clarity and unity will best support future engagement.