Debate on the Working Group on Review of Firearms Licensing

Gormley85 · 18-12-2014 6:08pm

Sparks wrote: »

(Note: anyone can make a submission, not just NGBs - you've all got something written, right?)

Who do you make a submission to..???

Sparks · 18-12-2014 6:19pm

Gormley85 wrote: »

Who do you make a submission to..???

The committee are taking submissions and so are the department.
Instructions for the committee submissions are attached:

BattleCorp · 18-12-2014 6:47pm

clivej wrote: »

This should be fun as I have just this week applied for a Restricted Shotgun license on my Mossberg Maverick 88, 7 +1, 24" barrel.

Reason for use is vermin control & target shooting in International competitions.

You might get the licence, pay for the gun and then have it taken back off of you with no compensation. That's what they are proposing anyway.

clivej · 18-12-2014 7:31pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

You might get the licence, pay for the gun and then have it taken back off of you with no compensation. That's what they are proposing anyway.

I already own this shotgun as is and have the plug in to limit the mag to two shells. So I have a loss anyway if this goes thru. Unless someone wants to buy it. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wadi14 · 18-12-2014 8:35pm

clivej, as the man says if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck , the barrel looks a bit long u could take and inch or 2 off it eh lol

Grizzly 45 · 18-12-2014 9:12pm

https://www.facebook.com/associationofhuntsaboteurs.

BTW whats face book policy on publishing information on making weaponry or info likely to be of help to extremists and terrorists,as they have a nice link to their "how to make firebombs" manual "Arson around with Auntie ALF"..
This BTW is the Irish website run by Bernie Wright not the UK or international version.

yubabill1 · 18-12-2014 10:28pm

Watched the full justice committee on firearms meet today:

AGS were very short on stats - pretty hamfisted to go in unprepared like that. They did mention that 3 handguns were stolen in the latest year available, out of 300-odd, 88 of which were airguns, starter pistols, humane killers and the like and they were forced to concede that 2 firearms dealers robberies contributed to the total.

Also mentioned that they were aware of an instance when a rifle and shotgun were left behind and a handgun stolen, so what is the underlying reason for AGS concern about theft from licensed firearm holders? Genuine question.

Also, three committee members - MacLochlainn SF, Kenny Lab and the FG guy with vision impairment voiced their support for the AGS proposals, before they have heard our submissions, which are due in by 9 Jan 2015.

And the threat of atrocity is the major Garda concern with licensed firearms. Funny that, because they can refuse/revoke a licence on those very grounds right now.

Oh, almost forgot the absence of ballistic data linking licensed firearms to crime - you would think that after 10 years of licensing handguns here that at least a few licensed firearms used in crime would start to show up.......but they don't have the info at hand.

Got pieces of paper clogging up the house with all my thoughts for the committee..

Sparks · 18-12-2014 10:31pm

yubabill1 wrote: »

And the threat of atrocity is the major Garda concern with licensed firearms. Funny that, because they can refuse/revoke a licence on those very grounds right now.

Not quite, it's worse - they are legally not allowed to grant if they have that concern. They don't actually have any choice in the matter. So to say that they have that concern on the basis of licenced firearms is a statement that either says they're breaking the Firearms Act and endangering the public; or they're overstating their concern to the point of misleading the Dail Committee on Justice.

Either way, non-trivial.

It's section 4 in case anyone's wondering:

Firearms Act wrote:

4.—(1) An issuing person shall not grant a firearm certificate unless he or she is satisfied that the applicant complies with the conditions referred to in subsection (2) and will continue to comply with them during the currency of the certificate.

(2) The conditions subject to which a firearm certificate may be granted are that, in the opinion of the issuing person, the applicant—

...

(b) can be permitted to possess, use and carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace,

Read the bold bits in particular...

hrcbob · 18-12-2014 11:18pm

It has all the signs of the death of shooting sports as we know it.

It makes for hard watching to see the future of the legislation in the hands of people who have no interest in our sport and who will gladly sacrifice it to make themselves look good,,

Is there a case to be had to send a copy of the firearms licence application form as it currently stands to some of these people and see if they feel that the effort and detail of information required to fill it out really and truely means that we have an unrestrictive gun licencing system here,

Maybe get them to apply for some of the firearms that they are so obsessed with talking about like the "assault type" centre fire rifles and 9mm military type handguns and see how far they get before they run into a brick wall..

cw67irl · 18-12-2014 11:24pm

yubabill1 wrote: »

Watched the full justice committee on firearms meet today:

AGS were very short on stats - pretty hamfisted to go in unprepared like that. They did mention that 3 handguns were stolen in the latest year available, out of 300-odd, 88 of which were airguns, starter pistols, humane killers and the like and they were forced to concede that 2 firearms dealers robberies contributed to the total.

Also mentioned that they were aware of an instance when a rifle and shotgun were left behind and a handgun stolen, so what is the underlying reason for AGS concern about theft from licensed firearm holders? Genuine question.

Also, three committee members - MacLochlainn SF, Kenny Lab and the FG guy with vision impairment voiced their support for the AGS proposals, before they have heard our submissions, which are due in by 9 Jan 2015.

And the threat of atrocity is the major Garda concern with licensed firearms. Funny that, because they can refuse/revoke a licence on those very grounds right now.

Oh, almost forgot the absence of ballistic data linking licensed firearms to crime - you would think that after 10 years of licensing handguns here that at least a few licensed firearms used in crime would start to show up.......but they don't have the info at hand.

Got pieces of paper clogging up the house with all my thoughts for the committee..

Is the full recording available? I couldn't find it online

Suffering Jbox · 18-12-2014 11:46pm

Sparks wrote: »

Not quite, it's worse - they are legally not allowed to grant if they have that concern. They don't actually have any choice in the matter. So to say that they have that concern on the basis of licenced firearms is a statement that either says they're breaking the Firearms Act and endangering the public; or they're overstating their concern to the point of misleading the Dail Committee on Justice.

Either way, non-trivial.

It's section 4 in case anyone's wondering:

Read the bold bits in particular...

What he's saying is that the Gardaí are not granting them - the applicant can appeal to the District Court and will get them.

Sparks · 18-12-2014 11:50pm

Suffering Jbox wrote: »

What he's saying is that the Gardaí are not granting them - the applicant can appeal to the District Court and will get them.

And that's also wrong because the DC can't just ignore Section Four; if it did, the case would just wind up appealed for judicial review and the verdict thrown out. The law is the law; it doesn't apply only to Gardai, but to "An issuing person" which is the DC in an appeals case.

Gormley85 · 19-12-2014 2:19am

Sparks wrote: »

The committee are taking submissions and so are the department.
Instructions for the committee submissions are attached:

The main document should contain the following information:
(i) A brief introduction, for example, explaining your area of expertise;
(ii) Any factual information that you have to offer from which the Committee might be able to draw conclusions, or which could be put to other parties for their reactions;
(iii) Any recommendations to the Committee which should be as specific as possible and should be summarised at the end of the document; and

in order

i) Im not an expert
ii) What kind of facts do they want.. crime statistics is it?
iii) Im not sure what recommendations I have, just leave the law the way it is I suppose would be good. Or if they could give us reloading that would be nice.

Sparks · 19-12-2014 12:09pm

Gormley85 wrote: »

i) Im not an expert

How long have you been shooting?

ii) What kind of facts do they want.. crime statistics is it?

If you had them, that'd be a fact, yes, but mostly they mean that they don't want opinions without something backing them up.

iii) Im not sure what recommendations I have, just leave the law the way it is I suppose would be good. Or if they could give us reloading that would be nice.

Reloading's going to come in off the explosives act, so they'd just dismiss that as being a problem for another review. But "do nothing" is still a valid recommendation.

Gormley85 · 19-12-2014 1:19pm

Sparks wrote: »

How long have you been shooting?

Since I was a teenager. But I dont believe X amount of years of shooting automatically makes me an expert. How long have you been driving cars.... do you think you are a driving expert?

Sparks wrote: »

If you had them, that'd be a fact, yes, but mostly they mean that they don't want opinions without something backing them up.

Ok but what facts do they want? I mean what facts can I tell them... or what facts do you reckon I should tell them?

www . gunfacts.info/

Sparks wrote: »

But "do nothing" is still a valid recommendation.

Ok well I think I'll go with that then.

Sparks · 19-12-2014 1:25pm

Gormley85 wrote: »

Since I was a teenager. But I dont believe X amount of years of shooting automatically makes me an expert.

Makes you an expert compared to people who haven't spent X amount of years shooting.
Certainly puts you ahead of half the people who were in that room this week...
And expertise doesn't have to be in every area of a field don't forget. I'm okay with rifle and pistol, for example, but I have trouble hitting the broad side of a barn with a shotgun, even if I'm inside the barn at the time.

Ok but what facts do they want? I mean what facts can I tell them... or what facts do you reckon I should tell them?

It's not about what facts they want, or they'd ask for them. It's about what facts you know that you think they should also know.

Ok well I think I'll go with that then.

Good man.

Gormley85 · 19-12-2014 1:41pm

Sparks wrote: »

Makes you an expert compared to people who haven't spent X amount of years shooting.
Certainly puts you ahead of half the people who were in that room this week...
And expertise doesn't have to be in every area of a field don't forget. I'm okay with rifle and pistol, for example, but I have trouble hitting the broad side of a barn with a shotgun, even if I'm inside the barn at the time.

It's not about what facts they want, or they'd ask for them. It's about what facts you know that you think they should also know.

Good man.

I had this typed before I saw your reply. Im going to post this of to them.

Sir,

Im not an expert shooter or an expert in anything to do with shooting or ballicistics or crime etc. But this my sport and these new laws affect me too so I think my opinion should still count.

I think in Ireland if a gangster can take in kilos of cocaine and heroin then they can probably also take in guns themselves without stealing them from us. I wonder was Martin Cahill killed with a licenced pisol? Or Veronica Geurin? Or was John Gilligans recent shooting by a legal pistol- or stolen legal pistol?

You mention the school shooting by the taliban this week. That shooting was very political. That was a planned military style attack. That was not something that happened when a few people with licenced guns decided to go on a shooting spree.

I read that we have had target shooting in Ireland since 1800's and havent ever had an incident and is one of the safest sports in the country. To me that says something.

So why are you trying to change the law? I dont see a problem with it the way it is. If you want to prevent a school shooting then the best way is to make sure the Garda do a good job on background checks. You have to give a reference in the application form and this refernece can be a family member, of course they arent going to say anything bad. Maybe let Garda contact your place of work and pick a random person there and see what reference they give.

To shorten all that and put it simple. Leave the law as it is. Dont change it or you will kill our sport.

All the best

Steve012 · 19-12-2014 6:52pm

Excuse my ignorance lads an lassies, Would a say, Ruger 10/22 come under the cosh?, In this proposed nonsense..
I'm aware of plugged shottys that can hold more than 3 rounds, and .22 pistols. Might be on the chop, Which I have myself..

Witcher · 19-12-2014 6:57pm

Under this proposal a super would be able to refuse any application on the basis that they believe crime rates are too high in their district. Everyone's firearms are under threat no matter what they are.

Should this go through, even if a super was willing to grant licences I'm sure there will be pressure from above to refuse them.

Imagine it;

'Crime rates are too high in your district super'

'No not really, they're actually down a bit'

'No, you didn't hear me...your crime rates are too high..sort it out

Grizzly 45 · 19-12-2014 7:06pm

Yup,that policy is already in existance albeit unofficaly.
Example
Limerick Leader May 2013 Garda Chief Super and state pathologist stating that gun crime in Limerick is down by 95%. In that same year the Chief refused over a dozen CF handgun liscenses and then stated in the witnes box in Oct 2014 that they were refused on the basis of "public saftey and rising gun crime."

Sparks · 23-12-2014 12:31pm

Problem is proving that that's a blanket policy and not several individual decisions that went the same way. You and I might have our thoughts on that, but proving it in a courtroom (and thus proving a chief superintendent of the gardai is deliberately acting in contempt of the supreme court) is somewhat harder.

Grizzly 45 · 23-12-2014 3:21pm

Unfortunatly we missed that opportunity in the High court two years ago,when it was proven that there was Garda conspircy to do such.But was sorted out in the back room with Min Shatter pulling the AGS hot potato out of the fire for them,and our yet again naivity of "fair play" would be shown after that incident.

Hopefully the line from a song by The Who [showing my age here:pac:]
"We wont be fooled again" will apply in these matters from now on.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Debate on the Working Group on Review of Firearms Licensing

Comments