Gardai proposals to ban firearms

turismo2142 · 22-01-2015 9:13pm

Owing to work pressures I have not had time to view the full days video as of yet. I will do so.

However, from looking at all the posts since yesterday's subs and Q&A I get the impression that the vast majority dealt with the question of handguns and S/A large bore rifles.

As a semi-auto shotgun owner did anyone deal with the cynical phrasing of the proposed ban re shotguns which are manufactured with more than 3 shot (2 + 1) capability. It seems to me that shotguns are not really even being discussed at the moment despite the fact that if the ban goes ahead unchanged that the largest (by far) amount of firearms to be confiscated will be pump and semi-auto shotties.

Did anyone specifically make the point that no pump or semi auto shotgun was ever manufactured as a 2 + 1 (I've looked hard to find one and I cannot) and the proposed legislation didn't even allow for an owner to permanently restrict his existing shotgun to 2 + 1 (in my case seems pointless as mine's a 3 + 1 Beretta without the plug).

Also, has anyone provided the committee with pictures of the sort of purpose built hunting shotguns (Benelli, Brownings, Beretta's etc) which will be banned if this comes in and how these shotguns are standard purpose duck, phesant, pigeon field guns?

If you don't mind me saying so, it's mostly been about rifles and handguns thus far (and I'm right behind you guys on that btw!) and I am concerned that nobody is specifically dealing with the largest category of firearms involved.

As I said, I'll look at the rest of the vid but I'd be obliged if someone could put me at ease in the meantime.

By the way, on the parts that I've seen, stellar job guys. Well done indeed.

Nekarsulm · 22-01-2015 9:24pm

Well said, Turismo2142.
I "think" Browning brought out an Auto with a 2 shell magazine back in the 1950's, for trap shooting.
Might have been only in 20 bore.
That's the only one I can think off, at the moment.

Grizzly 45 · 22-01-2015 9:35pm

turismo2142 wrote: »

Owing to work pressures I have not had time to view the full days video as of yet. I will do

Des Crofton mentioned it in the morning session.That the fact is these shotguns dont come equipped with three shot mags as standard or manufactured as such and have to be limited or not in the country of import. Also that this will affect more than a mere 160 as claimed by AGS.

Sigh!! If only people had shown more intrest in practical shotgun comps back in the 80's here....We proably would have all IPSC formats here and a better ligit reason for restricted shotguns.

gunhappy_ie · 22-01-2015 9:43pm

turismo2142 wrote: »

Owing to work pressures I have not had time to view the full days video as of yet. I will do so.

However, from looking at all the posts since yesterday's subs and Q&A I get the impression that the vast majority dealt with the question of handguns and S/A large bore rifles.

As a semi-auto shotgun owner did anyone deal with the cynical phrasing of the proposed ban re shotguns which are manufactured with more than 3 shot (2 + 1) capability. It seems to me that shotguns are not really even being discussed at the moment despite the fact that if the ban goes ahead unchanged that the largest (by far) amount of firearms to be confiscated will be pump and semi-auto shotties.

Did anyone specifically make the point that no pump or semi auto shotgun was ever manufactured as a 2 + 1 (I've looked hard to find one and I cannot) and the proposed legislation didn't even allow for an owner to permanently restrict his existing shotgun to 2 + 1 (in my case seems pointless as mine's a 3 + 1 Beretta without the plug).

Also, has anyone provided the committee with pictures of the sort of purpose built hunting shotguns (Benelli, Brownings, Beretta's etc) which will be banned if this comes in and how these shotguns are standard purpose duck, phesant, pigeon field guns?

If you don't mind me saying so, it's mostly been about rifles and handguns thus far (and I'm right behind you guys on that btw!) and I am concerned that nobody is specifically dealing with the largest category of firearms involved.

As I said, I'll look at the rest of the vid but I'd be obliged if someone could put me at ease in the meantime.

By the way, on the parts that I've seen, stellar job guys. Well done indeed.

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Well said, Turismo2142.
I "think" Browning brought out an Auto with a 2 shell magazine back in the 1950's, for trap shooting.
Might have been only in 20 bore.
That's the only one I can think off, at the moment.

Ill answer this one......

If unknown, I am Phillip Slattery that spoke yesterday in the meeting after lunch.

While the majority of the meeting centered around Semi autos and handguns this is because these were the questions we were asked ! I had a vast array of information available should the committee members have asked.

Personally I felt that I could have contributed more had I have been in the morning sitting but I was not and I cant change the past.

I have however included this matter of shotguns in my submission with great length and while now irrelivant.... included in the presentation that I had made for the committee I included a section that dug deeper into the reasoning of CS Healys comment that only 47 restricted shotguns would be effected.

These points were also included in several other submissions.

GH

gunhappy_ie · 22-01-2015 9:51pm

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank anyone who contacted me to wish me well. I have to say that it is greatly appreciated.

While my submission/views might not be to everyone's cup of tea please realize that first and foremost I am a shooter and want to at a minimum preserve my sport.

While I have stepped back from posting is recent years if anyone has any questions please do not hesitate to contact me via PM.

GH

knockon · 22-01-2015 10:10pm

badaj0z wrote: »

Overall, I thought that the representatives of the shooting sports did very well but 3 "holes" were dug unnecessarily, this was one.This was further dug when the comment was made that ,any licensed firearms that were stolen, were probably of this type. This contradicted Des Crofton's comment about "few or none stolen". What was to be gained by pointing this out?

Because the basis of the AGS/DOJ document is to ban all semi auto's with more than 3 round, pistols etc as a matter of public safety.......

Head 4 - New section 9A of the Firearms Act 1964 Banning renewal of centre fire handguns, and certain rifles, shotguns and 0.22 rim fire handguns 9A(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3D of the Firearms Act 1925, as amended, as and from the date of commencement of this section, an application for the renewal of a firearm certificate shall be refused by an issuing person for:
a) a centre-fire short firearm;
b) a short firearm, using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition, other than such a firearm listed in a regulation to be made by the Minister, in consultation with the Commissioner;
c) a semi automatic centre-fire rifle;
d) a shotgun manufactured to hold more than three cartridges, that has not,[at the time of renewal,] been adapted or modified so as to render it permanently incapable of holding more than three cartridges

Yet out of the 1,300 stolen firearms(AGS Figures!!) between 2010 and 2013 (there is no breakdown provided) it is a widely held view and it is almost certain that the firearms the Gardai want banned were in fact not stolen at all. It is an absolute fact that shotguns (mostly rural locations so you could assume, farmers) are been stolen (just google stolen shotgun and search Ireland only). So when Des Crofton said "few or none" he was referring to the firearms they want to ban.

Sparks · 22-01-2015 10:14pm

turismo2142 wrote: »

As a semi-auto shotgun owner did anyone deal with the cynical phrasing of the proposed ban re shotguns which are manufactured with more than 3 shot (2 + 1) capability

I think it was mentioned at one point, but I can't remember off the top of my head if it was morning or afternoon.
It did go in in a lot of submissions though. Mine had this:

49. Chairman: Head 5 of the Bill discusses shotguns manufactured to hold more than five cartridges. These
are in a magazine, which I assume slips into the gun.
...
Mr Healy: A common problem with all firearms with magazines is that the magazines are
interchangeable. Today I could have a magazine which complies with the requirements but tomorrow I
could put in a different magazine with greater capacity.

The nature of the shotgun magazines being discussed is that they are fixed component parts of the shotgun and
cannot be readily interchanged. Further, any person purchasing, importing and using a magazine that renders
their unrestricted firearm a restricted firearm is breaking the law and would be in possession of an unlicenced
restricted firearm, the maximum penalty for which is seven years imprisonment and twenty thousand euros in
fines.

There are no grounds for implying criminal intent on the part of certified firearms owners like this.

Did anyone specifically make the point that no pump or semi auto shotgun was ever manufactured as a 2 + 1 (I've looked hard to find one and I cannot) and the proposed legislation didn't even allow for an owner to permanently restrict his existing shotgun to 2 + 1 (in my case seems pointless as mine's a 3 + 1 Beretta without the plug).

I'm pretty sure Des mentioned that in the morning session actually.

Also, has anyone provided the committee with pictures of the sort of purpose built hunting shotguns (Benelli, Brownings, Beretta's etc) which will be banned if this comes in and how these shotguns are standard purpose duck, phesant, pigeon field guns?

I don't think so, but they will see them in the flesh when they visit either Harbour House or the Midlands range.

OzCam · 22-01-2015 10:24pm

I'm just finishing viewing the morning session. Very impressed, well done.

Might I offer some comments as a non-shooter?

On the interaction with Dep. McGrath about the "insult" issue: If this comes up again it might be easier to explain it as Yes "we" do "get it" about public safety and fear of crime, we're serious about security etc, what shooters are insulted about is being linked with criminality.

That kind of thing is a soundbite issue.

On the interaction with Sen Bacik: She said that there is "no sanction" for not complying with the regulations about security, alarms etc. This was passed over and not challenged. I would have made the point that there is a sanction if a licenseholder fails to maintain compliance with the regs - they lose their license(s), and all their guns.

I'm not sure that the committee members understand that having a license revoked is a serious-to-massive sanction, depending on how much money is invested and whatever other consequences there are. You guys all know that but I think it might be useful to spell it out in public.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Our advantage is show them at HH as many civillian modern sporting rifles that we can get up there on the day, explain their differences and features and the stories behind them in the court cases...

I'd be a bit cautious about overloading the committee members with information. I'd recommend that you have a plan for what you're going to show, what you're going to concentrate on, and how you're going to explain it in as few syllables as possible.

Then break it up into 30-minute chunks. And don't let yourselves be side-tracked.

I've no noubt that some of that committee are smart cookies, notably the chairman. But if you see eyes glazing over, that's an opportunity for the Antis to sow confusion. FUD is your enemy.

Back to the videos...

Sparks · 22-01-2015 10:29pm

OzCam wrote: »

On the interaction with Dep. McGrath about the "insult" issue: If this comes up again it might be easier to explain it as Yes "we" do "get it" about public safety and fear of crime,

No.
We don't "get it".
We own it. We are it. You're posting on an internet site used by the Department of Justice Firearms Unit as a mechanism to warn shooters about dangerous product recall notices. Officially. The people you saw in that room are the people who wrote the book on firearms safety in Ireland (specifically, I mean the range rules handbooks, the range officer training manuals, the range risk assessments, the syllabus requirements for the competency courses that are used for licencing, and so on).
The Deputy is an ex-principal of a school who was looking to get a soundbite into the press, hence his words and tone.
Apologising to someone abusing the process like that isn't the right approach; you have to pretty much demonstrate to any reasonable observer that they're in the wrong.

Yeah, I'm pissed off he didn't show up in the afternoon too

OzCam · 22-01-2015 10:37pm

Sparks wrote: »

No.
We don't "get it".
We own it. We are it.

This. So this.

turismo2142 · 23-01-2015 12:46am

Sparks wrote: »

I think it was mentioned at one point, but I can't remember off the top of my head if it was morning or afternoon.
It did go in in a lot of submissions though. Mine had this:

I'm pretty sure Des mentioned that in the morning session actually.

I don't think so, but they will see them in the flesh when they visit either Harbour House or the Midlands range.

Thanks sparks. That does cover it but it's needs to be driven home further if possible. So is the range decided upon? I know this sounds pushy but frankly I'd love to be there for the demonstration to get my two cents in regarding shotguns in particular.

They need to know that
1 no pumps/autos have less than 4 shot mags from factory (most are 5) so all (circa) 9,000 semi autos and pumps will be banned without exception.
2 they need to know what plugs are and that they're used worldwide to restrict shotgun capacity and have been so used for decades without any problem. That includes decades usage in Ireland with no problems.
3. They need to be shown real world non scary examples of the guns they're considering banning together with manufacture literature showing them as hunting firearms and nothing else.
4. Firearm ownership is a privilege but this does not mean property rights are not in play. The Supreme Court has held that driving is also a privilege and not a right but there could be no suggestion that a car be confiscated in the same way so I think we can be assured that were those 8,000 to 9,000 shotguns confiscated that each individual would stand to be compensated. My beretta is worth €2k, some are worth less but let's just say that the average compensation value per owner of pump or s/a shotgun was worth €500. That's 4.5 million euro. All spent to ban legit hunting weapons which didn't even feature in the spurious "we're worried about some guy going on the rampage" scenario because they're short range firearms with limited offensive uses.

These guys need to be spoon fed this sort of stuff and I'm just slightly concerned from the shotgun users perspective that we're being overlooked. This might be or good thingo r a bad thing. I'm just not sure which.

I advocate for a living and I wish there was some way I could do so here to help out the cause in general and indeed from my own perspective.

But I really must say I'm very heartened at the quality of you guys in holding your positions so calmly and clearly. Well done.

Sparks · 23-01-2015 1:02am

turismo2142 wrote: »

Thanks sparks. That does cover it but it's needs to be driven home further if possible.

There are a lot more points I'd like to see driven home as well, but we'd have needed a week in front of them to do it fully.

So is the range decided upon?

HH is a definite; Midlands is a maybe (but they're looking at a reloading proposal so it'd be silly to skip it).

2 they need to know what plugs are and that they're used worldwide to restrict shotgun capacity and have been so used for decades without any problem. That includes decades usage in Ireland with no problems.

I think that point equally applies to both shotgun and handgun cases, so yes, needs to be emphasised.

4. Firearm ownership is a privilege but this does not mean property rights are not in play.

Quoting my own submission (and I'd be shocked if noone else mentioned this):

Section 13 contemplates the confiscation of a large amount of expensive privately owned sports equipment from
law-abiding people without compensation and concludes no legal case would be successful in pursuing
compensation. I find myself unsure as to whether or not the Working Group was serious in this conclusion, or
whether they were just kidding around. I'm hoping as a taxpayer whose taxes would be used to pay for the
inevitable Supreme Court cases that they're just joking.

I advocate for a living and I wish there was some way I could do so here to help out the cause in general and indeed from my own perspective.

Contact the ICPSA and volunteer. Every NGB out there is starved of manpower, competent volunteers are worth their weight in gold to all of them.

But I really must say I'm very heartened at the quality of you guys in holding your positions so calmly and clearly. Well done.

Dark trousers help enormously with that

Grizzly 45 · 23-01-2015 3:43am

Section 13 contemplates the confiscation of a large amount of expensive privately owned sports equipment from
law-abiding people without compensation and concludes no legal case would be successful in pursuing
compensation. I find myself unsure as to whether or not the Working Group was serious in this conclusion, or
whether they were just kidding around. I'm hoping as a taxpayer whose taxes would be used to pay for the
inevitable Supreme Court cases that they're just joking.

I went and dug up Mr Storys article "Compensation for banned handguns indemnyifing old property." Google it,plenty of links to sites that it can be downloaded from.Seems from the first page this is another" picked to suit our arguement legislation." forgetting to mention that this was the UK and second we now have EU law to trump this,and a method of bypassing our supreme court and go straight to Europe these days.Also in the first page Mr Story says that" the legal bill in 1997 could exceed 200 million or higher",for the Dunblane buy back and hooha.Hungerford was "several million"

I havent downloaded it yet or read it but it seems;
Mr Storys article isn't BTW any type of UK law.Its an opinion piece,essay or academic judical arguement,for not paying compensation in another juristiction,and didnt sort out the problem of gun crime either. Eighteen years later in the second most court happy country on the planet....anyone care to guess a figure in Ireland should we go there??

Mostly it flies in the face of EU law.[From Wikipedia]

In many European nations, the European Convention on Human Rights provides protection from appropriation of private property by the state. Article 8 of the Convention provides that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence" and prohibits interference with this right by the state, unless the interference is in accordance with law and necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This right is expanded by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which states that "Every natural person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.". Again, this is subject to exceptions where state deprivation of private possessions is in the general or public interest, is in accordance with law, and, in particular, to secure payment of taxes. Settled case-law of ECHR provides That just compensation has to be paid in cases of expropriation.

IOW We signed up to this in EU law..That means their above justification is utter BS and if they do confiscate,the govt is required by law to pony up just compensation means market value,not what AGS/DOJ/Govt thinks it is.

And what does the UK think of it??Actually they dont agree either ...Chapter 28 of the Magna Carter requires cash payments for all exporpriations by the King/Queen.Austraila paid how many millions for these types of guns,and a decade later are letting them back into Oz with special good need.Meantime their gun crime on the streets with their "Bikie" gangs are going thru the roof,whith said biker gangs building DIY SMGs to settle their busisness transactions in the drug world.

Sparks · 23-01-2015 3:44am

BTW:
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10367070/
14:25 in, there we are...

IRLConor · 23-01-2015 5:38am

tac foley wrote: »

Surely we have a few thousand photos out there of the likes of our own IRLConor and co. doing their thing?

For what it's worth, this link gets you all the photos in my Flickr photostream that are tagged "shooting" and are reusable under the "Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives" license (short version: so long as you say where you got it and don't alter it you're free to copy and republish it).

Few, if any, of them are newspaper quality but if people are looking for legally-reusable photos of ISSF style shooting it might be a start.

BattleCorp · 23-01-2015 8:59am

Here's a point to argue regarding compensation that maybe hasn't been fleshed out.

If I was to seek compensation for the loss of my firearm should it be confiscated, I believe I would be entitled to such compensation - most here would agree.

But what about the rest of my shooting gear (cleaning kit, spare parts, cases, range bags, holsters, etc) which would be rendered useless to me?

Whatever value firearms I have, I have the same value or more in accessories.

Could compensation be sought for these items too seeing as a ban would render them irrelevant?

If they could be claimed for, it makes an expensive ban even more expensive to the State.

yubabill1 · 23-01-2015 9:32am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's a point to argue regarding compensation that maybe hasn't been fleshed out.

If I was to seek compensation for the loss of my firearm should it be confiscated, I believe I would be entitled to such compensation - most here would agree.

But what about the rest of my shooting gear (cleaning kit, spare parts, cases, range bags, holsters, etc) which would be rendered useless to me?

Whatever value firearms I have, I have the same value or more in accessories.

Could compensation be sought for these items too seeing as a ban would render them irrelevant?

If they could be claimed for, it makes an expensive ban even more expensive to the State.

I heard this mentioned by one of our representatives during the Committee afternoon session, I think. It was definitely elaborated.

Just remember, the Justice Committee are in no hurry with all this. the minister has promised further round table discussions - mentioned on Dec 17 and Jan 21 sessions by D Stanton - so plenty of time to get into every detail, if necessary (hopefully not).

daragh8008 · 23-01-2015 11:18am

Sparks wrote: »

BTW:
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10367070/
14:25 in, there we are...

I think that RTE did a good job there, seemed like a relatively fair edit of the overall discussion. Nice to see.

tac foley · 23-01-2015 1:08pm

Just to point out, as an aside, but the handing in of all ancilliaries for which there was no further use was part of the mainland UK handgun banning of 97/8.

They took in reloading gear -not applicable in the RoI - including literally hundreds of thousands cartridge cases.

I've mentioned this before, but it does no harm to remind you all - members of the committee included if they are reading this - but the cost to the ENTIRE nation's tax-payers - and that, of course, includes all the legal handgun owners AND citizens of Northern Ireland who did NOT have any part in the hand-in - amounted to an astonishing £103,000 PER GUN.

And there were only 57,000 of us.

tac

meathstevie · 23-01-2015 1:31pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I went and dug up Mr Storys article "Compensation for banned handguns indemnyifing old property." Google it,plenty of links to sites that it can be downloaded from.Seems from the first page this is another" picked to suit our arguement legislation." forgetting to mention that this was the UK and second we now have EU law to trump this,and a method of bypassing our supreme court and go straight to Europe these days.Also in the first page Mr Story says that" the legal bill in 1997 could exceed 200 million or higher",for the Dunblane buy back and hooha.Hungerford was "several million"

I havent downloaded it yet or read it but it seems;
Mr Storys article isn't BTW any type of UK law.Its an opinion piece,essay or academic judical arguement,for not paying compensation in another juristiction,and didnt sort out the problem of gun crime either. Eighteen years later in the second most court happy country on the planet....anyone care to guess a figure in Ireland should we go there??

Mostly it flies in the face of EU law.[From Wikipedia]

In many European nations, the European Convention on Human Rights provides protection from appropriation of private property by the state. Article 8 of the Convention provides that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence" and prohibits interference with this right by the state, unless the interference is in accordance with law and necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This right is expanded by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which states that "Every natural person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.". Again, this is subject to exceptions where state deprivation of private possessions is in the general or public interest, is in accordance with law, and, in particular, to secure payment of taxes. Settled case-law of ECHR provides That just compensation has to be paid in cases of expropriation.

IOW We signed up to this in EU law..That means their above justification is utter BS and if they do confiscate,the govt is required by law to pony up just compensation means market value,not what AGS/DOJ/Govt thinks it is.

And what does the UK think of it??Actually they dont agree either ...Chapter 28 of the Magna Carter requires cash payments for all exporpriations by the King/Queen.Austraila paid how many millions for these types of guns,and a decade later are letting them back into Oz with special good need.Meantime their gun crime on the streets with their "Bikie" gangs are going thru the roof,whith said biker gangs building DIY SMGs to settle their busisness transactions in the drug world.

I think whoever wrote that document thought that coating it all with a bit of public safety varnish, real or spurious, would get them out of paying any compensation.

turismo2142 · 23-01-2015 2:42pm

I really do not think that uncompensated confiscation will be considered. It was an arrogant inclusion in the working group document which misquoted law from Charleton (a rather "State" orientated Judge, if I might be so bold) and it simply will not reflect the views of the wider Judiciary.

I read somewhere that in Italy you were required to go further than using a plug to restrict your gun to 2 + 1. I do not know if anyone is aware of this and if it is accurate?

I'd like to know that if the Minister is serious about going about banning shotguns as recommended and that at least the option of a permanent restrictor being inserted rather than confiscation should be mooted.

Is this something that might be considered as fall back? Obviously there are practical issues with this such as having to satisfy the Gardaí as to the permanent nature of the restrcition and that said Gardaí would remain "unsatisfyable".

Also, some guns might not be as easy to permanently restrict as others. Plus, who would pay for your gunsmith to do it?

Either way, is this a fallback position which has been discussed between interest groups?

gunhappy_ie · 23-01-2015 2:51pm

meathstevie wrote: »

I think whoever wrote that document thought that coating it all with a bit of public safety varnish, real or spurious, would get them out of paying any compensation.

My own personal opinion..... that isnt worth the paper its printed on..... I dont think "public safety" was mentioned to get out of paying, I believe it was mentioned some 36 times in the report to have politicians think that it was a great service to the nation AGS were doing !!

No compensation was added as a little cherry in the hopes that it would be passed without scrutiny !

Gh

Grizzly 45 · 23-01-2015 3:07pm

Anyone read todays Indo and Journal.ie about AGS and the speeding tickets and points STILL being abused?? The Indo has reported that one Superintendant cancelled out his own points!:( John Wilson one of the Garda whistle blowers summed up it up nicely "Its letting the fox in charge of the hen house."He has even stated the whole speeding management and review of such should now go to the RSA or a civillian body.. Now thats TWO strikes agains AGS about managing something they were entrusted to manage impartially or fairly or without favour.

And this rank section of Superintendants want more discretionary powers to decide what is a high crime area??

It also shows an absolutely disgusting abuse of power and attitude of some of AGS officals " Feck ye,no matter what I AM MY OWN LAW! in my district"

I get the feeling that no matter what round table talks are held and deals brokerd if any.The moment AGS walks out the door ,we will get the finger and it will be back to busisness as normal in the DC or lots of long delays . Untill we see in public members of AGS being dismissed from the force or heavily censored by the Garda comission of inquiry for such misuse of power,our only hope is to have this liscensing system removed from AGS,bar back round checks.They are now utterly untrustworthy on these issues.

OzCam · 23-01-2015 3:19pm

Well said Turismo. You must be a good advocate.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Article 8 of the Convention provides that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence" and prohibits interference with this right by the state, unless the interference is in accordance with law and necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

This right is expanded by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which states that "Every natural person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.". Again, this is subject to exceptions where state deprivation of private possessions is in the general or public interest, is in accordance with law, and, in particular, to secure payment of taxes.

Those will be the first arguments against paying compensation. There is at least a chance that the Supreme Court will require that argument to be backed up with facts, if it gets that far.

Am I correct in understanding that if the proposal goes through the only remaining shotguns in the country will be the old break-to-reload type? (sorry if terminology is wrong.)

Nekarsulm · 23-01-2015 3:25pm

Many multiples of numbers of people are killed by cars, stolen and otherwise, each year.
Recently we heard of youngsters being killed in a car crash, where one young fellow had bought an old car for €60.
Consider how much more difficult it is for a civilian to legally acquire a shotgun or rifle, than a car.

I hear of no proposal to ban and confiscate motor cars from law abiding members of the public!

OK, rant over.......

ntipptop · 23-01-2015 3:42pm

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Many multiples of numbers of people are killed by cars, stolen and otherwise, each year.
Recently we heard of youngsters being killed in a car crash, where one young fellow had bought an old car for €60.
Consider how much more difficult it is for a civilian to legally acquire a shotgun or rifle, than a car.

I hear of no proposal to ban and confiscate motor cars from law abiding members of the public!

OK, rant over.......

In a meeting I had with an inspector, I brought up that automobiles harmed and killed more people around the world than any gun, which he replied "if we were in control of them there would be a lot less on the road" !!!!!
I think that about sums up the thinking that some ags have

Grizzly 45 · 23-01-2015 3:42pm

turismo2142 wrote: »

I read somewhere that in Italy you were required to go further than using a plug to restrict your gun to 2 + 1. I do not know if anyone is aware of this and if it is accurate?

Er no ,not really..Hunting in Italy is a national pastime and passion and it is quite common for five shot plus shot guns to be available.Only things they dont like are the usual suspects of full auto silencers,etc,and esp 9mm cal in handguns,but its fine in a rifle!!...Go figure. In fact they are so hot on it,even the US secret service had to change their 9mm UZis to 9x21mm and their hand guns to 10mm when in Italy in the 1980s!! Any Italian shotgun that I've ever handled ,is de reiguer from the factory a five round.

I'd like to know that if the Minister is serious about going about banning shotguns as recommended and that at least the option of a permanent restrictor being inserted rather than confiscation should be mooted.

Well the way the act proposition is worded is "permantly and incapable of holding more than three shots." Seeing that changing a shotgun mag tube is a gunsmith job and unlike a pistol of hitting a button and dropping a mag and inserting another possibly illegal ten round or just flipping over the taped together back to back five round mag....They cant argue the simmilarity.TBH even a dreaded box loading shotgun,which have been freely available here for the last 30 odd years have and can be restricted to three shots.

The UK post Hungerford,sorted this relatively well and we have the process here anyway,just not used or really understood. Since 1976 here under the wildlife act it has been illegal to use anything with more than three shots to hunt game.So that implies ...Any shotgun newly imported or sold second hand MUST have a restricted mag capacity anyway.So where does this problem arise??Again the "It might be misused" syndrome,and we can all counter this ad infniteum.What they want here is a" to be sure ,to be sure" system where a wooden plug and the mistrust of the law abiding not to break the law and remove said plug to do whatever isnt satisfactory anymore,but has been up to now satisfactory since 1976 and even before that where in the TCO of 1972 shotguns with more mag capacity than three were utterly ignored.. Dunno about you but i think a eight shot 1960s era Remington 870 would be a pretty good urban street fighting weapon in Belfast or Derry. Proably better than some of the junk the "RA" had to use back then.

In fact in Ireland there are plenty of "good reasons" to own a restricted shotgun,but its convincing your local cheif that they are so.The UK has had it easier with IPSC ,[which we missed here] and other target comps that allow use of slug ammo.We missed on that bit here as well with slug ammo becoming restricted.So in the UK it becomes a Sect 1 firearm and is on a firearms cert,not a shotgun cert.IOW put it in a safe and use on only approved ranges etc.
Simple way to sort it out is we need to get more competitions going with the need for multi shot shotguns.They are there and are out there.

Also, some guns might not be as easy to permanently restrict as others. Plus, who would pay for your gunsmith to do it?

The UK does it by the proof house and issue a cert that satisfies their police forces,but no doubt our lot would moan about the paper quality,type size or some other triviality.The UK is satisfied with the mag being crimped for two shots.Everywhere else in Europe they are happy enough to trust their citizens and their police officers are competant enough to load and unload a pump or semi to see how many rounds go into it on a spot check if necessary. No doubt WE pay for it as well,like getting our guns ballistically tested and all the other costly suggestions up at the comittee.Des said it well,we pay 14 million into the Irish economy and get dam little back, bar hassle from it.

Either way, is this a fallback position which has been discussed between interest groups?

Why?? The system works fine as it is,and its only AGS paranoia and spitefulness that has brought this to the fore.Even the dreaded SPAS15 they were waving under the comittees noses as being easily liscensed here,[all one of them ASFIK:rolleyes:] can have a box mag of three shots.FROM THE FACTORY.Have you heard of anyone building or buying a bigger box mag for their old Mossberg 695 or Marlin goose gun here??Its a non issue being made into an issue by aGS.

gunhappy_ie · 23-01-2015 3:55pm

OzCam wrote: »

Am I correct in understanding that if the proposal goes through the only remaining shotguns in the country will be the old break-to-reload type? (sorry if terminology is wrong.)

I have to say IF and thats a big IF the proposals go through then yes the majority if not all of the shotguns remaining will be break open type. They will come as either single or double barrel (over and under or side by side shotguns).

While I believe it will never happen but if the wording was placed into law as it is in the report then it would be impossible to licence a semiautomatic or pump action shotgun as none are manufactured in the way the law requires to have a max of 3.

GH

Grizzly 45 · 23-01-2015 3:57pm

ntipptop wrote: »

he replied "if we were in control of them there would be a lot less on the road" !!!!!
I think that about sums up the thinking that some ags have

Hmm nice Stalinist NKVD Kommissar you have in your district.Does he decide your work quota and bread ration too??:mad:

ntipptop · 23-01-2015 4:14pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hmm nice Stalinist NKVD Kommissar you have in your district.Does he decide your work quota and bread ration too??:mad:

Ya grizz

There's no over weight people in this district, food free, car free and gun free !!!!!
what a wet dream he would have !!!!!!!

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Comments