Clare gunner wrote:

Answer; the same way you deal with the rubbish tip that has been polluting our ground water and well for the last 30 years

And there is also a saying"The law is an ass".

What?Gardai making up the law as they see fit???Nothing new there.

Can you imagine what will happen to your camcorder if you tried filming a Garda raid on your property??I think you would require rectal surgery to remove your camcorder after a garda pushed it up there quite forcefully.

There is nothing in law that says you cannot sneak up on somone to challange them

Once he claims to be who he is,he can hand out his ID ,thumb and little finger,and he can stay hands where I can see them

Remember he is the one caught tresspassing in suspicious circumstances in the middle of the night

,and if he is "assaulted" perish the thought,who is to say he didnt fall down that rickety ladder in the barn,and I found him there unconcious?

Plus under owners and occupiers liability act,I can disclaim any responsibility for him injuring himself as he came uninvited onto the property.

So you are saying that they will have more power than the Gardai or revenue and customs men.

That should make life most intresting in Ireland then even for the non shooting public.

All very polite and nothing in writing of course.... but it really was a take it or leave situation

What constitutes a target ?

Dear Senator Moylan

Like yourself, I am a shooter. Though our disciplines differ, I'm asking you to intercede on behalf of all shooters throughout the country over the debacle that the Criminal Justice Bill amendments to the Firearms Act have become, because not only do they threaten to eridicate our sport, they also threaten the civil liberties of every non-shooter as well.

There is quite literally a litany of problems with the Bill in its current form as amended by the Dail Select Committee. Starting with that which affects most, is Section 4B. It proposes to create the role of Firearms Range Inspectors. On the face of things, this is reasonable; but the Bill is so badly drafted that the potential for abuse is unbelievable. Most directly impinging on non-shooters is section 4B(4), which states:

(4)An inspector who suspects, with reasonable cause, that any place is being used for rifle or pistol target shooting may enter and inspect it, at any time and without prior notice.

What can we take from this, only that these people, who need not be Gardai, Department of Justice personnel, or even firearms experts; and who need not have any training in inspection; may go anywhere at any time and search any premises, dwelling, vehicle or land without needing any specific search warrant, nor needing to give notice to the occupant? The bill does state “with reasonable cause”, but it gives no standard by which this is to be judged, nor does it say when or to whom this cause is to be divulged, nor does it say to whom or how often these inspectors must answer for state oversight. It does not even require that these Range Inspectors be free from a criminal record!

This point becomes even more laboured when you consider that there is no definition of what a range actually is. Does it mean a dedicated range like Courtlough or Wilkinstown? Or does it include even a hunter zeroing his rifle on his own private land for the start of the hunting season? There are no standards set in the bill as to what a range must conform to; these are all to be set out by the Minister after the Bill is enacted, and in this, not only are there are no checks and balances to prevent oppresive rulings by the Minister without parlimentary oversight; there are also no mechanisms for resolving conflicts between Department of Justice requirements and County Council planning permission requirements.

In fact, if enacted today, this Bill would create two conflicting legal definitions of the very term “Firearm”, one from the 1990 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act and one from the Bill itself!

There are more problems; The newly proposed Firearms Training Certificate, which interest groups wanted to have made available from age 12 onwards for airguns (in order to be able to compete with other nations in the Olympics), but which was pushed to age 14; has now been pushed to age 16 – at which point the applicant can get a full licence anyway. This takes safety out of the legislation and makes it as purely optional as taking advanced driver training after passing your driving licence; and destroys our hopes of being able to train our junior olympic shooters (who already have a reputation for excellence, having won medals in the British Open Championships for several years running) to the standard needed to bring World Cup medals into reach. It, in fact, makes a mockery of the entire concept of the Training Certificate.

There is also no definition of “target”, which means that clay pigeon shooters are in a gray area, as Section 4(2)(e) now reads:

(e) where the firearm is to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club

and so any clay pigeon shooter who is not a member of a rifle or pistol club could come into conflict with the legislation. There are similar lacks of consideration for clay pigeon shooters when dealing with clay pigeon ranges like Courtlough.

According to section 4(2)(f), we are required now to prove that we are of sound mental health! How can anyone prove this without months of observation by a clinical psychologist? And how can their ruling apply if the applicant's environment changes? So how can we possibly comply with this new requirement? Section 4(1) prohibits a certificate being granted unless the issuing person is sure that the applicant “will continue to comply with (the conditions) during the currency of the certificate”. How can any person be sure that the applicant will not undergo serious personal stress during the currency of the certificate and suffer a breakdown as a result? A strict interpretation of the law would prohibit the issuing of any certificates!

We are also required now to give prior permission for our medical records to be examined by the Gardai by section 4(3)(c) – though we won't be notified if this is done, nor will we have any assurances as to confidentiality, nor will we know precisely whom has seen our records, which are often hard enough for ourselves to get access to!

We are also now to give character references! When did we become by implication disreputable people? In fact, the entire Bill appears to have been drafted with the unstated axiom that shooters are disreputable, irresponsible people with criminal tendencies! And how will applicants from outside the state provide viable character references? And if they need not, why must we?

We must prove competence with the firearm being applied for. How are we to do this? Forget momentarily that an applicant not only will not have the firearm as yet, and has no legal way to gain this competence; what metrics and standards are being used to determine competence? Nothing is defined in the bill! Who sets these standards and metrics is not even defined!

Senator, when I say that I could continue this letter for many more pages, I am not exaggerating. The current Criminal Justice Bill, as amended in Committee, is frightening. It contains more potential for oppressive abuse than any law should. I urge you sir, oppose this in the Committee. Point out the problems with the Bill, and let it be amended to resolve them.

Thank you,

The Criminal Justice Bill 2004

Dear Madam Editor

The Criminal Justice Bill 2004 has become a very scary piece of proposed legislation indeed. I am an Olympic target shooter and have been worried by the Bill's amending of the Firearms Act for some time as a natural result; but the current wording of the Bill will mean that even those who have nothing to do with the shooting sports will be affected by the Firearms Act.

The Bill creates the post of a Firearms Range Inspector. The idea was that all shooting ranges would be certified by firearms experts from an Garda Síochána or the Department of Justice for safety; but this is not what we now see in the Bill. The Firearms Range Inspector does not have to be a member of an Garda Síochána. Nor do they need to be Department of Justice personnel. Nor, in fact, need they be firearms experts; in fact they don't even have to worry about having a criminal record, according to the Bill. However, according to Section 4B(4), should they suspect “that any place is being used for rifle or pistol target shooting may enter and inspect it, at any time and without prior notice“. They need have no search warrant. They need not inform anyone ahead of time, and that seems to include the Gardai and the Department of Justice as well as the occupant concerned. There are no rules as to how this inspection must be carried out. And since neither the Firearms Act nor the new Bill define what a shooting range is, or even what a target is, how can anyone say that the inspection did or didn't find what it was looking for? Indeed, nowhere in the Bill is it stated to whom these inspectors will report, or when, or how.

It would appear that these inspectors will be able to inspect any premises, any dwelling, any vehicle, any aircraft, belonging to anyone – be they olympic target shooter, or someone who's never even seen a firearm – all without any of the safeguards to our civil liberties that are present when Gardai or Customs Officers serve conventional search warrants.

Given the severity of abuse that could result from this one single section in a Bill that virtually rewrites the entire Firearms Act, I suppose the fact that the Bill creates two conflicting definitions of what a “firearm” actually is should be only a small footnote...

Thank you,

Clare gunner wrote:

Unless he is struck dumb,he can speak with his hands up.

He was an unidentified individual acting in a susspicious manner on private property.

PROVE IT !!!

He came onto the property uninvited,He didnt announce himself and allowed me to make him aware of the dangers on the property.There is no responsibility on me.

How???most people will not be intrested in this until it actually happens to them.

Acedemic qualifications are no substitute for common horse sense

Mr. McDowell: ... The new subsection (2A) provides that in a case involving a restricted firearm - this does not relate to shotguns, air rifles, etc., but rather to high velocity weapons and short firearms - a person will be liable on summary conviction to a fine of €5,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both and on conviction on indictment to €20,000 or seven years imprisonment or both. ...
Subsection (2B) of the 1925 Act, which provides penalties in respect of sporting firearms, is being deleted consequent on this change in section (2A).

As it stands, the existing subsection (4) provides exceptions to the requirement to hold a firearm certificate. One of these relates to persons who are members of gun clubs, authorised by a superintendent, when using guns while engaged in competitions at ranges that are also authorised by a superintendent. Under the law as it stands, there is no obligation on gun clubs to be authorised and most are not. The only advantage of authorisation is that it confers an exemption on members from holding firearm certificates while engaging in competitions also authorised by a superintendent. The norm is that all members of gun clubs should have firearm certificates. However, under amendment No. 109 in my name, all rifle and pistol clubs and all shooting ranges will in future require to be authorised. Consequently, subsection (4) is being amended to include such clubs and shooting ranges. This means that if one goes to an organised competition, one can take up a weapon that another competitor is using and have it in one’s possession and fire it without having a separate certificate in respect of that weapon.

Mr. Howlin: I also support the amendments. On a point of clarification in respect of sporting events, clay pigeon shoots are often incorporated in field day events. Will some sort of licensing regime be required for each location consequent on this change?

Mr. McDowell: We are talking about rifles and target shooting as requiring authorisation. Clay pigeon shooting is not included. I will check on the point the Deputy raises. If I go to a hotel for a weekend and one of the recreations is clay pigeon shooting, am I breaching the law——

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Is a clay pigeon not a target?

Mr. McDowell: That is a good point. It is not a target for me. I will check regarding whether there should be some provision covering casual clay pigeon shooting as a recreational activity.

Mr. McDowell:[/i] ... This amendment inserts a new section 2A into the Firearms Act 1925. It provides for a firearm training certificate to allow for the training of persons over the age of 14 in the use of firearms. In the course of discussions with my Department, many of the shooting organisations strongly advocated that the age at which a person may hold a firearm should be reduced from the current age of 16 years. They argued, in the interests of safety, that it is important that people be trained in the use of firearms and that such training should take place when a person is young. They also pointed out that other countries have age limits as low as 12 years - some had no age limits - and because children are properly trained at a young age, such countries have considerable success in international shooting competitions, such as the Olympic Games.

An incident which led to my particular interest in this matter was raised at my clinic a long time ago. A young fellow, who is probably over age now that the legislation has taken so long to come forward and who was a very skilled marksman - I hesitate to use the words “child prodigy” - pointed out that while Irish law allowed him to compete in foreign competitions, it did not permit him to operate in Ireland.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe proposes eight amendments to my amendment. His first proposes that the age at which a training certificate may be granted be increased from 14 to 16 years. His second amendment proposes that the age of persons supervising training be increased from 18 to 21 years. His third seeks to provide that the age at which the consent of a parent or guardian may be granted be increased from 16 to 18 years.

Under the law as it stands, a person aged 16 years is legally entitled to hold a full firearms certificate and own a firearm. To provide that a person may only be issued with a firearms training certificate having attained 16 years would defeat the purpose of my amendment which is to widen the scope of the legislation to provide the analogue of a provisional driving licence in respect of firearms. On the Deputy’s proposal to raise the age at which firearms instruction can be provided by a person from 18 to 21 years, I point out that many shooting clubs are attached to colleges in which the membership may be 18 years and under. My proposal to allow persons of 18 years to act as instructors will facilitate such clubs. The aim of my amendment is to facilitate the training of persons in the safe use of firearms under very controlled circumstances by persons who are themselves members of established clubs. The proposed age at which persons may be trained in the safe use of firearms strikes a balance and ensures that a young person may be properly and safely trained before he or she is legally entitled to own a firearm. I am not persuaded of the merits of Deputy O’Keeffe’s amendments.

Deputy O’Keeffe’s amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, to my amendment are drafting amendments. I made a calculation on an envelope one time and, by multiplying the number of legally-held firearms by ten or 15 minutes, found that a significant amount of Garda time and an extraordinary number of gardaí must be devoted to the task of licence renewal every year. There is a great advantage to renewing on a three-year basis. In fact, if I were in radical rather than redundant mode, I would wonder if we should be thinking in terms of a firearms licensing agency separate from the Garda completely but with some level of Garda input. However, I want to get the legislation through rather than get into all sorts of outsourcing arguments. The three-year rule is a sensible one.

Mr. McDowell: ... This amendment inserts a new section 2B into the Firearms Act 1925. That new section will allow the Minister to declare certain firearms as restricted by reference to a number of set criteria including category, calibre, action type, muzzle energy and description. For example, with regard to action type, one is referring to whether a firearm is automatic or otherwise. The law as it stands permits only superintendents to license firearms. However, amendment No. 106 in my name provides that only the Garda Commissioner, rather than a superintendent, may grant firearm certificates in respect of restricted firearms.

This new provision is being inserted in the context of a Supreme Court decision in Dunne and others v. Superintendent Kay Donohoe and others. Since the early 1970s, policies with regard to certification for ownership and use of firearms had been set on an administrative basis under directives issued by the Garda Commissioner. In other words, a direction was issued by headquarters in the Phoenix Park as to how it was to be operated. In the Dunne case, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to issue firearms certificates conferred on a superintendent by the Firearms Act was conferred on a persona designata and that it vested in the superintendent a discretion which could not be abdicated or directed by anybody else. The Supreme Court reached its decision on two counts. First, it found that the Commissioner’s directives were void in so far as they had the effect of fettering the discretion of a superintendent in the exercise of his or her functions under the Firearms Act 1925. Second, it found that a Garda superintendent was not empowered to impose a fixed condition on the granting of a firearm certificate, such as the acquisition of a firearms safe. The Supreme Court also made it clear that, in its judgment, a persona designata cannot adopt a fixed policy towards the exercise of his or her powers - in other words, he or she cannot say that he or she will never entertain an application in respect of a revolver - when making a determination because the powers are those laid down in the parent statute and any regulations made under it.

As a result of that decision, the Garda Commissioner no longer has a function with regard to the controlling and licensing of firearms. There is also no mechanism for uniformity. Different superintendents are entitled to take totally different views on this issue. This demonstrates the importance of what the Chief Justice said about being careful when one is drafting legislation. It is interesting that the Supreme Court effectively ruled that the Commissioner could not, within the context of a disciplined organisation, tell his superintendents the policy they were to follow with regard to restricted weapons.

We are dealing here with ammunition and firearms. We are stating that there will be restricted types and that, from now on, a person will be obliged to go to the top to obtain permission to possess such ammunition or firearms. I do not know whether anybody in Ireland privately owns automatic firearm but it will not be a question for their local superintendent to decide whether they can have a machine gun in their house. That will be for the Garda Commissioner to decide.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McDowell:: ... The purpose in introducing these new conditions is to ensure that before a firearm certificate is granted, there will be proper scrutiny of an applicant’s fitness to hold a firearm. In the course of the tribunal of inquiry into the Abbeylara shooting being carried on by Mr. Justice Barr the question of the fitness of a person to hold a firearm was raised. In response to these concerns I am introducing a new provision which will require an applicant for a firearm certificate on the request of a Garda superintendent or the Commissioner to give written consent for inquiries in regard to the applicant’s medical history to be made from a health professional. The consequence of this is that Mr. Justice Barr has not yet reported his findings. Consequently I propose, as soon as he does, to bring forward any necessary amendments arising from any recommendations he may make in this regard.

Deputy O’Keeffe is proposing nine amendments to my amendment. Amendment No. 1 to the amendment proposes the insertion of two new conditions on which the Garda Commissioner or superintendent must be satisfied before deciding to grant a certificate, namely, that the person concerned is, first, of sound mental and psychiatric health and, second, that he or she has sufficient capacity to possess and operate a firearm responsibly and safely. The effect of the amendment, as drafted, would be to require the Commissioner or superintendent to make a judgment as to the mental or psychiatric capacity of an applicant - they could not object on the basis that they were unhappy with the application but would have to do a psychiatric assessment. I see where the Deputy is coming from, but he will appreciate that they are not qualified to make such a finding in respect of somebody. My amendment proposes, at subsection (3), that the applicant, on the request of the Garda Commissioner or superintendent, should provide written consent for any inquiries in regard to his or her medical history that may be made from a health professional. This will allow a third party to be brought in where there is a doubt about whether somebody is stable or suffering from mental illness. I do not suggest this in an arrogant way, but the Deputy is asking superintendents to make far-ranging findings about people. If it were to be put the way the Deputy suggests, it would amount to serious findings. If a superintendent said that a particular person was suffering from a psychiatric disorder and that he would not, therefore, grant a certificate——

Chairman: I am not sure Deputy Jim O’Keeffe intends that a superintendent should make that judgment.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe: While I agree with the approach generally and while, as such, the majority of my amendments are technical and put forward for the Parliamentary Counsel to consider, I tabled amendment No. 1 to the amendment because I have serious concerns that inadequate consideration is being given to the mental stability of applicants for firearms certificates.

Chairman: Surely, a doctor would be required to make the judgment.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe: The Minister made the point that a superintendent is not in a position to assess the mental and psychiatric health of an applicant, which I accept. However, the issue could be resolved by providing for a requirement by the applicant to produce a medical report, affidavit or declaration. If there are concerns, we must find a way of dealing with them. The same issue arises in the context of the revocation of firearms certificates. I was greatly affected by the case in Kilkenny and I am concerned about a system that could permit such circumstances to arise.

...

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I want the Minister and his officials to give consideration to ensuring we have a structure that meets my concerns about people holding firearms being of sound mind and in good mental and psychiatric health. I am not sure the amendment I have proposed is ideal. There may be a better way of dealing with this, but as long as the issue is tackled, I will be happy. On that basis I will withdraw my substantive amendment on condition that it will be further discussed on Report Stage.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe:... I have also tabled a number of technical amendments to amendment No. 110. While I will not press amendments Nos. 1 or 2 to the amendment, the requirement to give notice in writing to the firearms range certificate inspector is relevant. I would prefer to see inspectors inspecting ranges on a more regular and ordered basis and ensure they have power to enter and inspect without prior notice or permission. My amendments seek to reinforce the powers of firearms range inspectors.

Mr. Howlin: The inspection of ranges is an important issue in respect of which standards will be set out in regulations to be made under section 4A(13). In specifying the minimum standards, what advice will the Minister take? Perhaps I am still captured by my previous area of responsibility, namely, health and safety.

Mr. B. Lenihan: Deputy Jim O’Keeffe summarised, very fairly, that the purpose of his amendments is to strengthen the position of firearms range inspectors, in respect of whom provision is being made for the first time. The Deputy wishes to amend the relevant provisions to read “on an ongoing and regular basis and at any time and without prior notice” but I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that the section as drafted allows firearms range inspectors to enter and inspect as they see fit. The additional words proposed are unnecessary.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe is also concerned with the power that must exist to revoke the appointment of a firearms range inspector. Again, I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that any appointments and terminations will be governed by the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005, as provided for in subsection (6). Accordingly, the Deputy’s amendment in this regard is also unnecessary. While Deputy Jim O’Keeffe’s concerns are understandable, they are covered by the provisions as drafted.

Deputy Howlin asked what minimum statutory standards would be required to apply at ranges by the new section 4A. The standards will be those that apply internationally in respect of safety of the location, security of firearms, construction standards and building materials at ranges, safety distances, proximity to housing or other buildings, visibility and remoteness of location.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: How many ranges are there? Is it ten or 100? In responding the question on notice of revocation of an appointment, the Minister of State implied that the firearms range inspectors will be civil servants. I take it, therefore, that inspectors will be appointed by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As they will be new appointments, can the Minister of State indicate how much inspectors will be paid and how many of them will be employed? Have the practical implications been thought through? I ask these questions to satisfy my curiosity, since the issue has been raised. I am prepared to accept the responses of the Minister of State to the issues I have raised and will examine them further. I will not press my amendments at this stage.

Mr. Howlin: I have a question regarding standards, which are important. The Minister of State will lay down the conditions and regulations after consultation with the Commissioner. It is not clear exactly what constitutes a range under section 4A(13). For example, if a farmer provides an ad hoc practice ground on his or her own land, is that a range encompassed by the legislation? Are standards required if he or she invites his or her neighbour over to practise? Are we putting in place a very burdensome regime?

Mr. B. Lenihan: In reply to Deputy O’Keeffe, there are six ranges known to the Department within the State. It is envisaged that on the enactment of this legislation there could be a substantial increase. There is a tendency towards an increase in the number of such facilities.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Can the Minister of State say roughly where they are and why is it expected there will be an increase in the number?

Mr. B. Lenihan: I do not have information on the exact locations but there are six such ranges.

Mr. Howlin: Why would an unregulated situation involve smaller numbers?

Mr. B. Lenihan: The clue lies in my reply to the Deputy that on the enactment of this legislation any target shoot involving rifles or pistols will require the place where it takes place to be subject to authorisation as a range.

Mr. Howlin: Is the Minister of State saying that if a farmer in County Wexford wants to provide a temporary range to practice, either with a neighbour or by himself or herself, he or she needs to apply for a licence and have it inspected by an appropriate inspector and comply with health and safety standards?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: As alternative land use it would figure in the Department of Agriculture and Food booklets.

Mr. B. Lenihan: It applies to pistols and rifles, not shotguns. If he or she is practising with a pistol or rifle, he or she must be on a range.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Will firearms inspectors be former Army personnel? What qualifications will they have?

Mr. B. Lenihan: No decision has yet been taken on that issue.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The practical implications have not yet been worked out.

Vegeta wrote:

My god who is giving them their info, it is similar to the blind leading the blind and ill informed. They need to talk to the shooting community

17HMR wrote:

Dictionary definition of a range (in this context) is:
"A place where shooting is practiced"
Penguin English Dictionary
Thus anywhere where any kind of shooting is practiced could be considered a range and thus require all the official nonsense being proposed.
The word "practice" though is interesting......
Could you claim you weren't practicing shooting but actually shooting for real ?

Surely for any of this to be enforceable the following, at the very least, need to be defined in law:
Range
Target
Hunting (as distinct from target shooting ?)
Practice
etc