Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Criminal Justice Bill 2004
Options
Comments
-
Well done Sparks ,
Burning the midnight oil a bit there ..!
I don't know what to make of all that ...
I agree with your conclusions re the Barr inquiry ,But I fail to see any real relevance to our situation (except as you have pointed out.. the mental health angle)
The incident in Abbeylara while obviously regrettable , shouldn't really have a bearing on the type and calibre of firearms available .
AFAIK ..it involved one 12 gauge shotgun , and a combination of garda and army firearms.
Perhaps ..he's going to suggest that the Gardaí and Army undergo mental evaluation before issuing them with weapons. :rolleyes:
You'd save more lives by introducing a sanity test before allowing people to drive cars..(Judgeing by some of the idiots I've seen)
Equally ..leaving aside criminal elements...
Quite right too... Criminals seem to have access to all types of firearms..the Criminal Justice Bill should not be construed as equating legitimate sports people with criminals.
Legitimate sportsmen don't...:mad:
more people have been killed by blunt instruments and knives than firearms .
Following his logic you'd need a mental health check before you can buy .... cutlery or...... a hammer ..?
Sadly theres still no indication of what those famous "Further provisions" might be...Further provisions on the control of firearms to be introduced on Committee Stage will also be in the form of amendments to that Act.
0 -
Might as well do something if I have insomnia, no?jaycee wrote:Well done Sparks ,
Burning the midnight oil a bit there ..!
There isn't - but then ought and is are largely unrelated in firearms legislation for a depressingly large amount of the timeI agree with your conclusions re the Barr inquiry ,But I fail to see any real relevance to our situation (except as you have pointed out.. the mental health angle)
Indeed, but instead on the enforcement of the existing laws.The incident in Abbeylara while obviously regrettable , shouldn't really have a bearing on the type and calibre of firearms available .
Well, irony aside, that's not the first time that that sentiment has been stated by a Minister for Justice, though I don't know if that's the first time in those words for McDowell... good to see it being restated though.Equally ..leaving aside criminal elements...
Quite right too... Criminals seem to have access to all types of firearms..
Legitimate sportsmen don't...:mad:
Well, we do know one will be banning sawn-off shotguns. No loss there. But I got an email this morning saying that article 21 of the 1964 act will be amended to include ammunition as well as firearms, so if that's done the way we'd like (ie. you don't need an importation order for your own ammunition), that'd be good for us - of course, if they amend it to rescind it, that wouldn't be so fantasticSadly theres still no indication of what those famous "Further provisions" might be... But we can hope (and push )! 0 -
-
True civ, but then it took a fair stretch of logic to turn the actions of a madman who shouldn't have been given an FAC in Dunblane into a ban on handguns throughout the UK! It's amazing how far logic can be stretched if your point of view is sufficently ill-informed 0
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I wouldn't say ridiculousZakalwe wrote:Limits on calibre size are ridiculous. But definitely not the right way to do it. Of course, that's assuming that limits in this case at all are a meaningful idea. Which in all honesty, they're probably not - you could kill someone with an air rifle if you put your mind to it after all (though probably by beating them over the head with it...).
That said, realistically speaking it's unlikely that the general public (who know nothing of firearms on a technical level) would be comfortable with the idea that there are no limits - so perhaps we would be best served by choosing limits that have some meaning. Muzzle energy perhaps, or muzzle velocity. I know that there are already such limits (10,000 joules of muzzle energy and I think it's 7000 m/s muzzle velocity) for the fullbore ranges at Bisley (as in, exceed those limits and you're not allowed shoot there). So perhaps those are metrics we can work with - thus giving the general public something they want while not overly crippling ourselves to do so. Besides, if the limit was muzzle energy, it makes it a bit easier to bring in a lower limit where an air rifle becomes a firearm (which is set by muzzle energy through most of Europe at present - 7 joules in Germany, 12 foot-pounds in the UK for air rifles and half that for air pistols, and so on).
No, but they were a weapon of choice for paramilitaries, hence the lack of reluctance to reintroduce them hereWhy ban say, a .50BMG target rifle? They're 7 feet long, weigh a ton and cost a small fortune. I doubt they'd be the weapon of choice for bank robbers.
Not being a hunter, don't take this as authorative, but in the words of a certain marine, "it's not calibre, it's placement". The 5.56 round could certainly do the job, assuming you're close enough and accurate enough (which all hunters would strive to be, no doubt).Shooting a decent size deer with a 5.56 is probably cruel ( hunters fill me in here? )
As to whether it's the best round for the job, I leave that to those that know more about it to debate it - me, I can't even bring myself to swat flies, let alone shoot mammals 0 -
7000m/s is around Mach 20. I think that may be slightly faster than any bullet ever made travels. Unless........... Can you get railguns licensed?Sparks wrote:Muzzle energy perhaps, or muzzle velocity. I know that there are already such limits (10,000 joules of muzzle energy and I think it's 7000 m/s muzzle velocity) for the fullbore ranges at Bisley (as in, exceed those limits and you're not allowed shoot there).As to whether it's the best round for the job, I leave that to those that know more about it to debate it - me, I can't even bring myself to swat flies, let alone shoot mammals
Me either. I trap spiders and release them outdoors myself. I'm sure it's possible to take a deer with a .22 if you hit it right, but I'd bet most hunters prefer to err on the side of caution and kill the animal humanely.0 -
Erp, sorry, bad handwriting in my notebookZakalwe wrote:7000m/s is around Mach 20. I think that may be slightly faster than any bullet ever made travels. Unless........... Can you get railguns licensed?
It's not 7000, it's 1000 m/s for MoD ranges in the UK. (Which is nearly every fullbore range going).0 -
Advertisement
-
Phew..!
That's a relief..!
I was racking my remaining braincells to try to figure out what calibre kicks out
@ 7000 M/S :eek:
Although ...?
Maybe if you handloaded using a "Hot" load of dilithium crystals..!
"She'll 'nooo stand it capt'n ..she'll vibrate herself to pieces "
(Childish I know ..Just couldn't resist it..)
0 -
Evening gents, this is my first post so please be patient.
I own two .22 rifles but have started to become interested in airguns.
Briefly, this is what I think:
1. Airgun law in the ROI is grossly unfair . It has legistated the ownership of airguns out of existance. No one can buy/sell airguns, collect airguns, import airguns/ and generally pursue an interest in airgun shooting as can be freely done in the U.K.We are treated like children.
2.This policy is both unnecessary and draconian. We are the only E.U. country requiring an import licence for airguns--are we right and everybody else wrong ??
3.Following the 1972 confiscations I believe a mindset developed in the Dept. of Justice allowing them to issue diktats from Dublin without ever being challenged and this persists to this day. I grew up in the 1960's buying airguns freely and still have a sense that a civil liberty was taken from me.
4. When Governments start to confiscate property and allow it's police to enter homes without any checks and balances a small part of democracy is forever eroded.
5.I don't see any effective lobby in this country for genuine reform of airgun law, so lets put our shoulders to the wheel on forums like this.( the link to the DOJ above is not working ! )
6. Realistically I'd be in favour of adapting similar laws to the U.K. Airguns could be imported from the main manufacturing countries--U.K./ Sweden/ Germany/ without impinging on their export regs.
7. The law banning airgun shooting of vermin including rabbits is ridiculous and positively dangerous. What should we use around farmyards--.22 rifles ?
8. The image of airguns being the preserve of immature teenagers should be dispelled. Airgun science has progressed apace with most serious airgunners using PCP's , --3 or 4 times as expensive as standard .22 rifles.
Can anybody restore the link to the DOJ as I'd be happy to convey the above to them. ?0 -
-
Thank you Sparks.
Is it still not Garda policy to make the installation of a gunsafe a precondition to getting a firearms licence ? If this succeeds then of course they will want to inspect it in our homes. Once that is granted I see it being very difficult to refuse repeat visits/annual inspections etc. Maybe I'm paranoid but I value my privacy.I did pose this as a hypothetical scenario.
The link is still not working for me , I get a "this page cannot be displayed "notice.0 -
-
Ah, it's my (albiet unpaidrecipio wrote: Thank you Sparks.) job.
No. It was attempted to install this as a policy, but defeated in the Supreme Court by the NARGC on the grounds that a policy that extends to all must be put in place in legislation and only the government can do that, not the gardai. However, in an individual case, the local superintendent can pretty much place any precondition that he deems reasonable on the licence, so long as it's legal (though you can ask for a judicial review of his decision if you feel it's unreasonable).Is it still not Garda policy to make the installation of a gunsafe a precondition to getting a firearms licence ?
There is, however, an amendment coming up that will make it a precondition that you must have secure storage, though no definition of secure storage is given, but that's not here yet.
Not to worry. The right to privacy is a constitutional right. The amendment cannot override it, and is written in such a way that rather than have the safe inspected, you can just prove it's there to the superintendent (invoices, polaroid photo of it's installation, perhaps?). However, no matter what, the amendment does not give anyone the right to demand entry to your home without a warrant.If this succeeds then of course they will want to inspect it in our homes. Once that is granted I see it being very difficult to refuse repeat visits/annual inspections etc. Maybe I'm paranoid but I value my privacy.I did pose this as a hypothetical scenario.
I don't understand why that is. Or is it that you're clicking on the email link?The link is still not working for me , I get a "this page cannot be displayed "notice.0 -
Thank for that.
I was clicking on the e-mail link only. The other links are working fine. I'll post a more diplomatic response when I've mulled over things.
Sparks, I'm relieved about the Gunsafe issue . Please don't think I'm a luddite, in an ideal world I think all firearms owners should have a gunsafe installed but it should'nt be forced on us and if it were, we should get some major concessions in return.??
Overall I think we should try and get the DOJ to see the issue of airgun use as a sport and hobby --not some dangerous pastime or the preserve of an elite.
However I'm new to all of this and don't even own an airgun ! I think however we should be treated on a par with our E.U. cousins . What does everybody else think ?0 -
Excellent. The more the better.recipio wrote:I'll post a more diplomatic response when I've mulled over things.
Well, to be honest, I had my safe before I had my rifles, so you can guess how I feel about having secure storage for a firearm (especially if there are others in the house, or if your rifles are worth €4000!).Sparks, I'm relieved about the Gunsafe issue . Please don't think I'm a luddite, in an ideal world I think all firearms owners should have a gunsafe installed but it should'nt be forced on us and if it were, we should get some major concessions in return.??
But note that the law won't say that you need a gunsafe, but that you'll need "secure storage", and it leaves it up to the local superintendent to define that. So for the majority of cases, yes, it'll be a gunsafe, but there's some wiggle room there for cases where it's an unorthodox but safe solution.
Not just airgun use!Overall I think we should try and get the DOJ to see the issue of airgun use as a sport and hobby --not some dangerous pastime or the preserve of an elite.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'd agree to a degree - in that in the EU, you do need a licence for many airguns - dependant on their muzzle energy (12 foot/pounds for air rifles in the UK, six for air pistols there, and seven joules for air rifles in Germany and so on). Something like that here (and I'd be thinking of the seven joules limit rather than the UK one), would be appropriate.I think however we should be treated on a par with our E.U. cousins . What does everybody else think ?
Thing is that there have been a lot of cases here of kids abusing airguns, and while that doesn't mean they ought to be banned (I'm still of the opinion that it shouldn't be harder to get an air pistol than it is to get a car), it does mean you're looking at a difficult uphill negotiation, and there's this very widespread mindset unfortunately, which says it should be a battle instead of a negotiation. Which doesn't help matters much (and whose conclusion would be forgone given that there's 100,000 of "us" and 2,900,000 of "them"). I mean, I can fully understand where it came from, and it's not entirely unjustified, but when the people at the table act on it, we don't make much progress 0 -
well I've posted my views to the DOJ. Essentially I've politely suggested that sub 12ft/lbs rifles and 6 ft/lb pistols be taken off licence, that power levels above that be allowable on licence,that there is no justification for banning the hunting of small game/vermin with accurate airguns , that licences be processed every 5 years and that all this would pose no threat to anybody .Basically we are being punished for a tiny minority of idiots who would misuse airguns .No response yet !! 0
-
-
Advertisement
-
Well, I did'nt expect to get an individual response, more an aknowledgement . Minister Mc.Dowell seems to have plenty on his plate at present .! Whats a "PQ " --public question ?
Sparks wrote:I don't think we'll get individual responses, it's not usual for these kind of things. We could drop in a PQ to ask how many responses we've gotten or that kind of thing, but I doubt we'd get a detailed response to the submissions because:
1) It'd take a while to draft one and they don't have that many staff; and
2) Any response would be preempting any review process by giving the conclusions prior to the deliberation process.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement