Criminal Justice Bill 2004

newby.204

Clare gunner wrote:

Maybe our lords & masters have never heard of Wikipedia,Google,the internet,or a plain good ol Oxford dictionary????:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well thay are politicians CG, if it doesnt come in a "brown" package they are probably unfamiliar with it!!!!! LOL

That was just an ignorant dig, however how they couldnt possibly come up with a satisfactory definition, with the mound of information available, is beyond me

grizi

Meow!
Anyways ye are thinking of it from a legally operated shooting range point of view. The problem I could see with defining it rigidly like that is that people could try to argue that they weren't running an illegal shooting range because they didn't have x,y or z, it's not a specialised facility, there are no range masters, circular targets, sandbags, it's not indoors, there is no membership, organisation etc etc.
Even a shooting gallery at amusement fair thing could be described as "specialized facility designed for firearms practice"
As someone else mentioned targets are not just sports equipment but could be considered live and would a mannequin or scarecrow or tree be a target by your definition.
While wikipedia and google are good at finding simple explanations and sources, these definitions would weaken rather than strengthen the Act imho

grizi

Apparently a live target means you are hunting (Which is ok by law ) whereas an Inanimate object is a "Target " type target and is not ok

I disagree here - both practices are restricted. Hunting has restrictions on what you can hunt(protected species), where (permission of land-owner) and when (hunting season).Target shooting with rifles and pistols etc is restricted to shooting ranges, not banned.

jaycee

Quote:
Apparently a live target means you are hunting (Which is ok by law ) whereas an Inanimate object is a "Target " type target and is not ok

I disagree here - both practices are restricted. Hunting has restrictions on what you can hunt(protected species), where (permission of land-owner) and when (hunting season).Target shooting with rifles and pistols etc is restricted to shooting ranges, not banned.

Sorry if you missed my point ...
I was referring to what is defined as "Target shooting" in the CJB .. and it's not allowed unless you are on an "Approved Range" even to zero your rifle.

Of course hunting carries it's own restrictions , permission etc.
But the difference is .. I can go on my own land and shoot all day at rabbits , but I can't take even one shot at a paper target on the same piece of land or I am guilty of "Target shooting on an un-approved range"
How daft is that !

where's the problem then..? , safety ..? ..Hardly that , I shouldn't be taking any kind of shot if it's not safe to shoot. Having said that ... where is the greater margin for error ? A quick shot at a bunny .. or a very slow considered shot at paper.

My point being ... How can it be logical to say I can hunt on my land , but not shoot at paper unless I am on a range.

I was also trying to explore the stupidity of trying to define what a target is in the broad sense .. If I shoot at a rabbit .. Isn't he my target..?
Isn't that target shooting ? .... No wait... thats hunting

I am aware of the restrictions proposed , I am a member of a range , I also hunt .

Sparks

The transcripts of yesterday's CJB debate are up on the web here. The rest of the debate starts at 1130 today.

Sparks

And apparently the report stage amendments were not the final ones, three new ones were literally handed around as the opening remarks on the bill were being made...

Sparks

And by 1900 they had gotten to Amendent 8 of four hundred and sixteen...

Sparks

They were due to carry on for two more hours from 2030 to 2230, but the minutes aren't up yet. Anyone watch it on the live stream? How far did they get?

Vegeta

jaycee i think you have spoken the most sense on the topic yet.

grizi

Shooting an animal in a field and shooting a target in a field may not be very different technically but it's the context that's different.

To me the intent is to limit the danger to the public and one way of doing this is to only allow target shooting in approved ranges. Including zeroing seems harsh but what's to stop someone "zeroing" their weapon every 15mins. However hunting could not practically be restricted like this. Also, when hunting, the number of shots fired would be a lot lower I presume and you would not have a large team of shooters as you might at a shooting range-licensed or unlicensed.

A firearms range inspector is decribed in the Act like this:

4B.—
(1) The Minister may by warrant appoint such and so many persons as he or she thinks necessary to be firearms range inspectors and may revoke any such appointment.

(2) It shall be the duty of a firearms range inspector—
(a) to examine applications for the authorisation of rifle and pistol shooting
ranges, and
(b) to inspect rifle and pistol shooting ranges for the purpose of ensuring their compliance with the minimum standards provided for in regulations
under section 4A(13) of this Act.

(3) After inspecting a rifle or pistol shooting range, an inspector may—
(a) if satisfied that the range complies with those minimum standards, issue a firearms range certificate in respect of it, and
(b) if not so satisfied, refuse to issue such a certificate or revoke any such certificate that is in force.

(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.

(5) The Minister shall issue to each inspector the warrant of appointment, or a copy of it, for production, on request, when an inspector is exercising any power conferred by this section.

(6) The terms and conditions of appointment of firearms range inspectors shall be determined by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance.”

and they will be looking for whatever the minister sets as the minimum standard

4A.—
...
(13) The Minister, in consultation with the Commissioner, may by regulations specify minimum standards to be complied with by a rifle or pistol club or shooting range before an authorisation under this section may be granted in respect of it.

I think that you know what is meant by "target" but are trying to argue that hunting is target shooting so that it wouldn't be restricted to ranges and this isn't going to work imho

Vegeta

grizi wrote:

Shooting an animal in a field and shooting a target in a field may not be very different technically but it's the context that's different.

To me the intent is to limit the danger to the public and one way of doing this is to only allow target shooting in approved ranges. Including zeroing seems harsh but what's to stop someone "zeroing" their weapon every 15mins. However hunting could not practically be restricted like this. Also, when hunting, the number of shots fired would be a lot lower I presume and you would not have a large team of shooters as you might at a shooting range-licensed or unlicensed.

A firearms range inspector is decribed in the Act like this:

and they will be looking for whatever the minister sets as the minimum standard

I think that you know what is meant by "target" but are trying to argue that hunting is target shooting so that it wouldn't be restricted to ranges and this isn't going to work imho

To you the intent is to limit the danger to the public, which is fair enough. It is extremely dangerous to hunt wiht a poorly zeroed or sighted rifle.

We are arguing that surely it is safer to be shooting at a stationary target for about 10 shots to zero in a rifle, than shoot at a wild animal in the open countryside with a poorly zeroed rifle. It is a danger to the public and cruel to animals.

If I drive to Offaly zero my rifle and then drive home to Clare (which the Minister may be forcing me to do) there is no guarantee the rifle will still hold zero. The bullet may not go where I am aiming and firing a gun when you don't know where the bullet is going to stop is one of the most dangerous thing a shooter can do.

Sparks

They're getting ready to debate the CJB again in the Dail. Sinn Fein is protesting the curtailing of the debate (which is due to end tonight at 2230, and any amendments not debated will be dropped). Labour is agreeing. 55 amendments of 416 have been covered so far, by the way.

civdef

There's so much stuff in the CJB, and with a lot of pressure to get it through the Dail before the summer recess, this was bound to happen.

Sparks

They've called a vote on it now.

Clare gunner

Vegeta wrote:

jaycee i think you have spoken the most sense on the topic yet.

Amen to that.Other point in daftness coming up.
It is then illegal to shoot targets which can then be anything from a tin can to a paper bullseye on your land with a rifle or pistol,but perfectly legal to shoot it with a shotgun with slugs.

Next point,how many of these range officers will be appointed?Considering there is a ban on civil service recruitment and we are short of wildlife rangers for example. Do I feel the smoking ban inspectors will now be range officers as well??And how many of those are there exactly??
It's going to be intresting to see what the "requirements" will be for Farmer Brown to set up a shooting range in his back 40 that he and his father have been plinking tin cans in for the last fifty years.Well, maybe if we are farmers and landowners we can apply for grants for it.:D Get grants for everything else.
Or will it be more a type of an Irish permission to an Irish problem.

Farmer Brown "I'll be needin permission to be shootin the oul target in me back field"
RO D'ye have a backstop?
FB I do...tis been there last fourty years.. a disused silage clamp.
RO Any houses anywhere near it?
FB No..not a one
RO Thats grand so,I'm happy with that.
FB Are you a shootin man yerself??
RO No,TBH I am into darts,but I was appointed to this job from the pensions dept of the Irish army's womens auxillary balloon corps, they thought I would know about guns being army and all.I was stuck behind a desk there,and I wouldn't know a butt from a buttstop, last time I fired a gun was in training after the Congo crisis ,all I am told is to make sure they are safe and the paperwork is killing me in tripiclate.So if you have been shooting there for whatever time it is fine by me.

Belive it or not this is what we could end up with. I have seen it happen with the private security act.A civil servant appointed to the job whom by her own admission hasnt a clue about the security industry,is trying to make it as effective as the badly worded law allows,whilst fumbling around in the dark to do right by those affected by it.

Vegeta

well i guess we're shafted then.

EDIT: How did my post come out before Sparks' one, weird

Sparks

They voted on it and they're going to go ahead and guillotine it at 2230 anyway. (69 votes to 51).

Sparks

And the CJB debate has begun, despite protest. Starting on amendment 57 (our amendments start on 74).

Sparks

Ten minutes from lunch and they're up to 62. I don't think they'll get to our stuff until they resume in the late afternoon (1545).

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

And apparently the report stage amendments were not the final ones, three new ones were literally handed around as the opening remarks on the bill were being made...

That page is now up here. Nothing in it referring to our stuff, the three amendments seem to be minor changes of spellings and the like.

Meanwhile, debate has adjourned on amendment 62. It's due to resume after questions for the Finance Minister, at 1545.

Sparks

The rest of last night's debate transcripts are now up on the web here.

Sparks

Debate has resumed on amendment 62.

Sparks

Almost noone in the dail and amendments 62 through 73 just fell because noone proposed them.

Rovi

Looks like Brendan Howlin has gone missing, and all his amendments from 63 to 72 have fallen.
I hope he reappears for the firearms bit

Amendment 74 very soon now.

edited to add-
Dammit, beaten to the punch again!

Sparks

The minister now proposing the definitions amendment (74) and also 160,161.
Amendment passed.

Sparks

75 passed.

Sparks

76-87 discussed as one (to do with raising training cert ages from 14 to 16 and supervisors from 18 to 21 and only letting them be issued for target shooting).

Minister defended his amendments citing DURC as a good reason to have the lower age limits.

The amendments regarding certs for international competitions was dismissed as it's not needed in the Minister's view.

Lots of daft talk about whether or not it was safe to have training certs for hunters.

Amendment 76 defeated by vote.
Amendment 77 defeated by vote.
Amendment 78 defeated by vote.
Amendment 79 defeated by vote.
Amendment 80 defeated by vote.
Amendment 81 defeated by vote.
Amendment 82 withdrawn.
Amendment 83 defeated by vote.
Amendment 84 passed.
Amendment 85 withdrawn.
Amendment 86 withdrawn.
Amendment 87 withdrawn.

Sparks

Brendan Howlin's turned up just in time to discuss his amendments

Sparks

Howlin's saying he got lots of requests from us about how we wanted to be consulted. Point made that we are technical experts on firearms in our areas.

Sparks

Point made about how we're getting wrapped up with criminal justice legislation and so should be given some consideration.

Sparks

And it's rather funny to see your own email printed out and being read in the Dail

Sparks

The amendment on being able to have an appeals mechanism for orders restricting firearms is being discussed.

Sparks

Minister has just been asked specifically if Olympic target shooting pistols will be banned.

Sparks

The question of why restricted firearms have to be licenced by the Commissioner has been asked.

Vegeta

all i can say is fair play to everyone who sent an email, every amendment may fail but at least our opinion has been aired early on

Sparks

Minister's response:

- Doesn't want to make it law that he has to consult with us, but "my door is always open". Hmph.

- Doesn't want judicial review of his decision on restricting firearms.

- Doesn't want the High Court to have any right to overturn his policy decisions.

- Says any order made can be appealed to him informally and immediately. "I'd have to admit that I was wrong and that's an uphill battle with me"

- Doesn't want Tipperary licencing AK47s while they're not licenced in Laois, so all restricted applications go to the Commissioner.

- Even though the muzzle energy depends on the ammunition used, "it's possible to describe a weapon as a "high-velocity" weapon because of its general characteristics" "no matter what bullets you used in it".

Vegeta

Sparks wrote:

Minister's response:

- Doesn't want to make it law that he has to consult with us, but "my door is always open". Hmph.

- Doesn't want judicial review of his decision on restricting firearms.

- Doesn't want the High Court to have any right to overturn his policy decisions.

- Says any order made can be appealed to him informally and immediately. "I'd have to admit that I was wrong and that's an uphill battle with me"

- Doesn't want Tipperary licencing AK47s while they're not licenced in Laois, so all restricted applications go to the Commissioner.

- Even though the muzzle energy depends on the ammunition used, "it's possible to describe a weapon as a "high-velocity" weapon because of its general characteristics" "no matter what bullets you used in it".

McDowell really is a fcuking tool, he doesn't have a clue

Sparks

Howlin - the minister wants to do it (ie. to allow appeals) but not to make it legal that he has to do it. Stressing the point that it ought to be law.

The minister have a bit of a joke about whether or not it's the armed wing of Labour making the suggestions...

Sparks

Debate over the first part of 91, which formally says we have the right to ask the Minister to reconsider a restriction order. Minister has said he'll do it, why not make it formal? And the Minister is just ignoring the point...

Sparks

Amendment 88 being voted on. The Minister, Howling and O'Keefe now chatting away in the foreground.

civdef

I'm watching it here myself, and I have to agree with the minister here

- the High Court really hasn't a place to be overturning ministerial orders, and in my view would be most unlikely to do so anyway.

- The consultation ones would have been fairly toothless, as the minister was under no obligation whatsoeverto take any heed of them.

- the inconsistency across the country thing, is something we've all been complaining about lately.

- The muzzle energy thing is true to an extent.

Sparks

Still voting. BTW, if 88 is defeated, odds are 89-91 won't be contested.

Sparks

civdef wrote:

I'm watching it here myself, and I have to agree with the minister here
- the High Court really hasn't a place to be overturning ministerial orders, and in my view would be most unlikely to do so anyway.

I don't know about that - the Bill lets you contest other similar orders in the District Court.

- The consultation ones would have been fairly toothless, as the minister was under no obligation whatsoeverto take any heed of them.

Indeed. But apart from the "better to light a candle" argument, it's the sheer contempt he's expressing at the idea that's the remarkable part here.

- the inconsistency across the country thing, is something we've all been complaining about lately.

And which should be fixed with guidelines, not with centralising things, for reasons we discussed earlier to do with a lack of time given the number of applications that one person may wind up facing.

- The muzzle energy thing is true to an extent.

Yeah, but how do you treat borderline cases like an airsoft gun whose muzzle energy is very dependent on the ammo?

Sparks

The Dail's filling up now that a vote was called, by the way. Lots of sidebar chatting going on. Pity the microphones are turned off

Vegeta

civdef wrote:

I'm watching it here myself, and I have to agree with the minister here

- the inconsistency across the country thing, is something we've all been complaining about lately.

- The muzzle energy thing is true to an extent.

I agree we need consistency ironed out

Why should be high velocity rifles be restricted? Can someone explain the reasoning behind this cos i just don't get it. Does the Minister have evidence of these being used illegally by licensed firearms holders or something

In my opinion to ban a a gun because in has the potential to fire at high velocity is non sensical. Knives have the potential to be lethal we better restrict carving knives and bread knives.

The gun can fir at high velocity, so what?

as pointed out several times the .220 swift is very high velocity round when compared to some calibres bigger than it yet it has been licensed for years.

Am i missing something here, i must be. What are your views Civ

Sparks

Amendment defeated 67 to 58.
The other amendments were also defeated.

Sparks

Amendments 92, 93 being discussed.
The question on Olympic pistols was ducked. Which is a bit ominous to my mind to be honest.

Sparks

93 is on the two month overlap problem on the licencing renewal.

Howlin pointing out the problem specifically.

Sparks

Minister saying there's no problem, renewals happen immediately. (Which doesn't tie in with the club licencing legislation by the way).

Howlin saying if the renewals are so fast, why not make it one month for the gardai to renew?

Minister responds that the 3 months is for application and not renewals. He's been told he's wrong and it applies to both.

civdef

Why should be high velocity rifles be restricted? Can someone explain the reasoning behind this cos i just don't get it. Does the Minister have evidence of these being used illegally by licensed firearms holders or something

I think you might be missing something. This amendment will not instantly result in the banning of "high-velocity" rifles. It allows the minister to include muzzle energy as one of the criteria for determining that a firearm should be restricted (note not banned). It deson't mean that .220swift will be banned (or restricted) by this thime next week or anything like that.