Criminal Justice Bill 2004

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Er, who specifically is "we"?

FLAG I would presume

In specific terms, what is in the amendments that isn't what was in the Minister's speech?

It is obvious that nobody knows this except perhaps the Minister and whoever is drafting the amendments. Declan was giving us the general gist of the amendments as they were given to him.

Er... just how exactly is this a "return" to Garda HQ, when the first actual Firearms Act ever signed into law in this country put the decision making process squarely in the hands of the Superintendents on the basis that the licencing decision should be made by someone who knows the licencee?...snippage

But the practice was that they were forwarded to GHQ to get the final rubber stamp. The reccomendation was and is made by the Super (or essentially the Firearms Officer), but if info was known at GHQ about the individual that was not known by the Super (e.g. suspected involvement in a subversive organisation etc.) they would have the final say. Anyway, this is not the thrust of what Declan was saying, what is apparent from reading his post, is that guidelines for issuing of firearms certs will be drawn up by GHQ which should make for a more consistent application of the acts. The only real change is the devolving of reposnisbility for certification of restricted firearms to the Commissioner. The Super is still the licensing authority.

And this isn't a small point - this is a fundamental rewriting of the Firearms legislation in this country at a very basic level.

No it's not. You've jumped to a conclusion that is not borne out by the info Declan posted. Maybe he didn't phrase it correctly, but you can infer a great deal from other parts of what he said. e.g. the shifting of the appeals system to the District Courts, which would obviously involve the local Super.

What's needed are guidelines and oversight for Superintendents so that they're not in the situation of having their personal behinds in the bacon slicer and so we have a third party to review their decisions if we feel they're unjust (that doesn't involve the expense of the high court). This ain't that.

Did you actually read his post or the Minister of Education's speech?

FLAG from Ministers speech wrote:

The provisions will also introduce a right of appeal to the District Court from firearms decisions made by the Garda Síochána, a new power for the Commissioner to make guidelines or guidance notes for the uniform administration of the Act

And if you have two or three guys, with fifty or sixty applications each to get through before day's end, is that going to be a better and more secure system?

I don't see the relevance of this, you could just as easily be describing the situation in any rural Garda Station with one Garda and 2000 licenses.

Yes, and owning pistols was not illegal for the past 32 years either. You just couldn't get a licence for one.

Your point being?

That is an excellent thing to report, thank you. Do you know if it will impact on the ongoing court case of a gentleman in Wicklow whose house was raided by gardai to recover his reloading equipment and who is currently charged with possession of unlicenced ammunition, namely empty shell casings not of the calibre for his firearms?

Not likely Sparks, as laws can not be applied retrospectively.

Is that definite, or is that your best guess? What did the DoJ say on the matter of what standard would be applied? How much are clubs going to have to do to achieve this approval? Can it be taken away, and if so, for what kind of infractions? Could a club have its authorisation taken away for an accident caused by one of it's members, for example?

I would doubt that the DoJ have looked at this in any detail as yet. I would imagine that a legal instrument to license clubs and ranges would be created in the act, with the details to be drawn up at GHQ. It would be impracticable to put this in the act as every range/club is different as are types of firearm.

For example, the college clubs are not in a position to spend thousands of euros on environmental impact assessments should these be made a part of the requirements

Yes, but realistically that's down to the College Authorities as would any other sports facility provided for on the campus.

Why not answer them here, where everyone can see them? As every teacher will tell you, you answer questions to the whole class, because most people who don't know won't say so in public, so if one person asks in public, you take the questions as an aid in getting that information out there and you answer them in public...

Sparks, this was important information, it would have helped if you had thought out your questions before firing them off. Asking who exactly saw the DoJ was revisitng the grounds of previous arguments wou have had with Declan to no useful purpose other than to piss him off. I'm not suggesting you kiss and make up, as there isn't that much make up in the country , but from an objective point of view, you were unable to keep your personal animosity from creeping to the surface.

Kryten

civdef wrote:

In all fairness Sparks, given this is a decent bit of info, is it really necessary to dissect it all and get back into another bloody slagging match?

I agree, Keep the bickering off the board. Any info on upcoming legislation, no matter how insignificant it may seem, is very useful to us the general readership. We are really are still in the dark until this legislation comes into effect and the big secret is over.

les45

If anyone is interested I have a copy of the range spec for a full bore pistol range as applied in NI, PM me and I can send out a copy if required.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

FLAG I would presume

Sure? Or was it the NRPAI? Or was it a joint meeting of the NARGC and the NRPAI and the DoJ? Or what? And was it just Declan or was it Declan and some others on the subcommittee (who exactly is on that subcommittee and who elected/appointed them?).
Look, you might think that's just animosity, but face it RRPC, in a few days you'll be sitting there over your coffee and you'll be wondering the same thing.

It is obvious that nobody knows this except perhaps the Minister and whoever is drafting the amendments. Declan was giving us the general gist of the amendments as they were given to him.

But he said : "in broad terms what the minister quoted above is what is in the amendments," which implies that Declan's seen the amendments and there are bits in there that aren't in what the Minister quoted. I'd like to know what those are, thankyouverymuch. It's what Declan's actual job in FLAG is to tell us, y'know?

But the practice was that they were forwarded to GHQ to get the final rubber stamp.

Nope. Legally, the super was advised on the person's security background by GHQ, and he took that on as part of the decision - but it was always the super's decision. If GHQ said no and the super just rubberstamped, it was the super wound up in court if a case was taken, not GHQ.

Anyway, this is not the thrust of what Declan was saying, what is apparent from reading his post, is that guidelines for issuing of firearms certs will be drawn up by GHQ which should make for a more consistent application of the acts.

That's apparent?
we will see a return of the decision making process to Garda HQ
the amendments when they take effect will mean that a central "informed" location will make decisions on applications

Look, I'm not a politician or a barrister, but I'm having trouble finding a way to take those statements and see that it's apparent that GHQ will just draw up guidelines and that the decision making will remain with the Superintendents.

No it's not. You've jumped to a conclusion that is not borne out by the info Declan posted. Maybe he didn't phrase it correctly, but you can infer a great deal from other parts of what he said.

Ye what now? What, I shouldn't listen to what he says to figure out what he meant, but I should guess at what he meant based on other stuff he said?

I don't see the relevance of this, you could just as easily be describing the situation in any rural Garda Station with one Garda and 2000 licenses.

How many rural Garda Stations get 2000 new licence applications a week?

Your point being?

My point being that the fact that "restricted" and "banned" have different meanings does not mean that the de facto situation on the ground will see any real difference at the end of the day.

I would doubt that the DoJ have looked at this in any detail as yet. I would imagine that a legal instrument to license clubs and ranges would be created in the act, with the details to be drawn up at GHQ. It would be impracticable to put this in the act as every range/club is different as are types of firearm.

Sounds reasonable.
Mind you, we've seen very unreasonable legislation from the DoJ in the past! It'd be nice to know what they were actually planning, hence the question to Declan on that point. How much would it have cost for him to have said what you said?

Yes, but realistically that's down to the College Authorities as would any other sports facility provided for on the campus.

That's not "realistically" RRPC, I'm afraid. It's been too long since you ran a college club. Realistically, given the choice between a mandatory EIA and closing the club, the club will be closed every time. College Authorities are not pro-target shooting and it's a constant struggle in TCD to keep the place open. I can't speak for UCD, but I do get the impression that if asked for a few thousand to do EIAs or other things to keep it open, that UCD would find other uses for the money and the space the club takes up instead.

Sparks, this was important information, it would have helped if you had thought out your questions before firing them off.

What would have helped was if reasonable questions were answered in a civil fashion by the man who is representing us to the DoJ. You and I are both members of the NTSA and thus associate members of the NRPAI, rrpc, this guy volunteered to work in our interests. Answering our questions is a part of that job. It would have cost him nothing to do so. And there certainly wasn't anything in those questions that constituted a personal attack unless you're suffering from clinical paranoia.

As to important information, yes, it is. But if the man who has it isn't willing to hand it over, what are we to do? Give ourselves another authority in target shooting that won't talk to us, but makes demands of us for what ought to be more freely available?

Asking who exactly saw the DoJ was revisitng the grounds of previous arguments wou have had with Declan to no useful purpose other than to piss him off.

Firstly, that question was of interest because if it was just a one-on-one with civil servants and no sign of the Minister, that'd be status quo, but if it was a large seminar-type affair where the Minister at least made some passing remarks, it would signal a change in the DoJ in how they relate to us. Secondly, it would be of interest to know who's representing us to them, rather than the current situation with nameless people meeting other nameless people behind closed doors.

from an objective point of view, you were unable to keep your personal animosity from creeping to the surface.

I do not accept that, rrpc. Are you trying to tell me that those questions were personal attacks? Next you'll be telling me that asking the time of day is racist! :rolleyes:

Look, dammit, we get newbies in here all the time asking about how to get into shooting, where's the nearest club, and so on. We all answer them as best we can. It's not our jobs to do so, it's just what you do. So why can't a guy whose job is to tell us this stuff, tell us this stuff? Why the big scrap every time he's asked a straightforward, civil question?

civdef

On the point of Environmental Impact statements, Health & Safety required air filtration systems etc for indoor ranges, what makes you think range safety requirements would result in needing these? More to the point, why aren't they needed already?

Anyway, one would imagine a university club would have a much easier ob getting someone to write up an EIS, for example, than other clubs.

fiacha

nice to see what was once a very informative thread turning bad :rolleyes:

any chance of the mods splitting this thread ? keep the sticky for just the updates and have another for the "discussions".

Sparks

what makes you think range safety requirements would result in needing these?

Last time the Government drew up specs for a firing range it was for the ERU's training range, which has (to listen to the gent who trains them in it, which many of us have) an air filtration system that microchip laboratory cleanrooms would be proud of.
Of course, it cost an inordinate sum of money, but what worry to the government?

Doing that for DURC or UCDRC would be financially impossible (and probably technically impossible for DURC given the construction of the range), and not much easier for other clubs like RRPC.

More to the point, why aren't they needed already?

They might well be. It's just that none of us can afford to build them. And I don't see the DoJ or the DoAST making funds available to build such filtration systems so we can comply with their new rules, do you?

Anyway, one would imagine a university club would have a much easier ob getting someone to write up an EIS, for example, than other clubs.

Sure. If you don't mind your EIS being written by an unqualified third-year student as a class project. But somehow I don't think the DoJ would accept that...

civdef

If levels of pollution are such that filtration is necessary, then it's legally compulsory already. Not being able to afford them wont keep the HSA or EPA people at bay.

There's nothing to say a student can't write the EIS, all sorts of people write them all the time.

The idea that this will all come about as a result of the CJB amendments is a straw-man argument, given that there is no information whatsoever that range requirements will include such details. Maybe a separate thread would be a better place to discuss Health & Safety and environmental consdirations of range management?

Fiacha, your suggestion is appealing, but perhaps unworkable, as the updates have become integrated with the discussion. Any off-topic matters will be split off from now on as much as possible.

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=civdef]If levels of pollution are such that filtration is necessary, then it's legally compulsory already. Not being able to afford them wont keep the HSA or EPA people at bay.

Thats why maybe many new "indoor" ranges on the continent are somwhat open to the elements.IE only the firing point and the target area is coverd.The rest is open air.No need for fancy air conditioning.Somthing to consider in future building plans.

rrpc

Clare gunner wrote:

Thats why maybe many new "indoor" ranges on the continent are somwhat open to the elements.IE only the firing point and the target area is coverd.The rest is open air.No need for fancy air conditioning.Somthing to consider in future building plans.

Actually, that would not satisfy EPA regulations, as there would be nothing to prevent lead dust from entering the atmosphere. The EPA regs I'm referring to are the US ones, as there are (as yet) none for ranges in Ireland or the UK.

The simplest method is for air to be drawn in above the firing point and expelled at the target area, with filters to catch any lead dust. It's not terribly expensive, and can be incorporated in a heating system.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Look, you might think that's just animosity, but face it RRPC, in a few days you'll be sitting there over your coffee and you'll be wondering the same thing.

Well here I am sitting over my cup of coffee and wondering what you're banging on about. I don't particularly have to know who was there, just that I'm getting the information.

...which implies that Declan's seen the amendments and there are bits in there that aren't in what the Minister quoted...

Or it might imply that he was told broadly what was in the amendments. It's quite likely that they haven't been legally drafted yet.

Nope. Legally, the super was advised on the person's security background by GHQ, and he took that on as part of the decision - but it was always the super's decision. If GHQ said no and the super just rubberstamped, it was the super wound up in court if a case was taken, not GHQ.

Which is effectively the same thing. If the Super wound up in court, do you not think that head office might have a say as to whether he should defend or not?

That's apparent?...Look, I'm not a politician or a barrister, but I'm having trouble finding a way to take those statements and see that it's apparent that GHQ will just draw up guidelines and that the decision making will remain with the Superintendents.

It's apparent that GHQ will make decisions on restricted firearms, and will issue guidelines for all the rest. It will still be up to the Super to make his decision on these. That's apparent to me.

Ye what now? What, I shouldn't listen to what he says to figure out what he meant, but I should guess at what he meant based on other stuff he said?

Stop being obtuse, most of what he said was quoted from either ministers speeches or a briefing from the DoJ. These may be paraphrased, but you can't start shooting the messenger if you can't understand the message.

How many rural Garda Stations get 2000 new licence applications a week?

The country as a whole has not got 2000 apps a week. But many rural stations have to deal with that many licenses at renewal date. The workload is still extremely high in a very short space of time.

My point being that the fact that "restricted" and "banned" have different meanings does not mean that the de facto situation on the ground will see any real difference at the end of the day.

Still don't follow you

...that if asked for a few thousand to do EIAs or other things to keep it open, that UCD would find other uses for the money and the space the club takes up instead.

This has nothing to do with the CJB and more to do with current planning acts.

What would have helped was if reasonable questions were answered in a civil fashion by the man who is representing us to the DoJ.

Yes, but less with the scattergun approach. Get the main question down, and worry about the supplementaries later.

Sorry outta time gotta go l8r

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Thats why maybe many new "indoor" ranges on the continent are somwhat open to the elements.IE only the firing point and the target area is coverd.The rest is open air.No need for fancy air conditioning.Somthing to consider in future building plans.

As RRPC pointed out, that won't satisfy the lead pollution regs, but it also means you wouldn't be able to shoot ISSF disciplines for 10m events. Those have to be held indoors, it's a part of the rules. (Rule 6.3.6.3.4 to be exact )

civdef

Back on to the main topic, what perception do people who have dealt directly with the DoJ have of their general mindset towards shooting at the moment. In times past it wasn't great, has this changed?

FLAG

In 2004, we had a very negative Principal Officer in Firearms and Explosives, had he stayed we would have had significantly different legislation, we may have contributed to him being replaced but we will never be sure.

The current PO is open minded and very experienced in the formulation of legislation, we did a lot of work early in the year to convince him that there truly is a sport in shooting, in February we would have had a ban by late March when we had visited ranges in NI and some in North Co Dublin (our friends in the middle of the country refused us permission to bring the official from the DOJ to their range), there was a change, simply because we proved there was a sport and that we had very high standards of safety in our clubs.

With respect to a positive attitude, we will always be fighting an uphill struggle, but by maintaining a professional attitude that represents all disciplines of shooting sport we will keep our head above water. Building relationships and maintaining creditability is very important.

Even when the CJB comes in and we see the positive benefits to the sport we still have a significant amount of work to do to keep the sport progressing.

Remember truly we are a minority sport, both the Gardai and the DOJ deal with a million different issues, we are not in the top 50, what was done in recent years was to get us up there and as a result we have seen tangible benefits, did one ever think we would see pistols back! No well we have then and it was not one single action that resulted in them being licensed but continued presure over the past ten years that ensured a return of the sport.

Hope this answers your question!

Declan

FLAG

Attached is extracts from the 2nd stage debate of the CJB, I am delighted to report the Minister putting on the record the positive contributions made by the shooting organisations namely the NARGC and the SSAI. It is particularly pleasing to be recognised by the Minister for making positive contributions to the pending changes. Perhaps it may enlighten some of our critics that we truly have made a positive impact with government.

FLAG

Attached is extracts from the 2nd stage debate of the CJB, I am delighted to report the Minister putting on the record the positive contributions made by the shooting organisations namely the NARGC and the SSAI. It is particularly pleasing to be recognised by the Minister for making positive contributions to the pending changes. The extract provides an insight into the actual cahnges that are proposed in the CJB and also reflects an intention to seperate the amendments into their own section to include the Section 30 of the exisitng amendment to the CJB. Further changes to be proposed at committee stage will include reloading and some other amendments that have been looked for like the inclusion of the word "ammunition" in section 17 of the 1964 amendment.

Sparks

From the Clerk to the Select Committee:

Hi Mark
The Criminal Justice Bill 2004 is unlikely to start in our Committee until early December. I understand informally that the Ministers amendments are going to Cabinet shortly. If you contact me again at end November things should be a bit clearer. Thanks

Also from the Clerk:

Hi Mark
We will email you the Ministerial amendments when they've been released and printed.

I'll post them as soon as I receive them.

Sparks

Ray,
I noticed today that it was announced in the Irish Times that the Cabinet were to be presented with the amendments to the CJB; have you any idea how long it will be between this and the amendments being publicly available?
Thank you...

Mark
No formal word yet. It certainly wont be until early December at the earliest because of the volume and complexity of the amendments for the full Bill. Thanks

Oh well. Back to waiting.

cycllops

All,

The proposed amendments are available on http://www.justice.ie - follow the link at the bottom of the page - a downloadable version in PDF format is available

Very legal language so it will take a while (and a solicitor) to digest...


good luck

cycclops

Rovi

<quick scan of document>
EEEK! :eek:

There's a LOT of stuff there; 49 page heads in the Firearms part alone!
I do note however, quite a few references to pistol clubs and ranges, which would appear to be good on the surface of things.

I await our learned friend jaycee's considered opinion with interest

.

jaycee

Sorry to keep you waiting ....:D

Ok.. it is proposed ..that (Among other stuff)

Safe storage.

Training licences for 14 year olds , while under supervision of an over 21 yo
for target practice etc..

Firearm licences to have a 3 year life from the date they were granted.

Ammo can be imported with a firearm on foot of a FAC for that firearm.

Reloading , with a separate 1 year licence from the "Super"

Ahem..! no reference that I could see to particular "Banned" or "Allowed" calibres , but plenty of references to "restricted calibres" without a description .

Possession of ammo for which you don't have a licence.. an offence
(No surprise really)

That's about it , havent had much time to cross reference it to the earlier acts yet though.

Rew

jaycee wrote:

Safe storage.

Any definition on this?

Firearm licences to have a 3 year life from the date they were granted.

Great!

jaycee wrote:

Reloading , with a separate 1 year licence from the "Super"

Not bad...

no reference that I could see to particular "Banned" or "Allowed" calibres , but plenty of references to "restricted calibres" without a description .

I wonder will the restrictions come from the Garda Commissioner directly?

civdef

Some more thoughts:

Lot of grey areas being tidied up.

"Restricted firearms" can have conditions attached to their possesssion and use, rather than what currently is pretty much a blanket authorisation.

Firearm Training Cert for over 14s is to be granted by the Minister, not the local super.

Granting of a restricted cert is conditonal on the type applied for being the only thing sutable for the intended purpose.

Maximum period of 3 months for the grant or refusal of a "restricted" cert.

New offence of altering a firearms cert.

Commissioner can set general guidelines for approval of firearms certs and club authorisations.

Secure storage is required.

Membership of an approved club in order to get a firearm for target shooting is required.

Requirment to show competence before grant of a cert.

Applicant may give permission for his/her medical records to be examined.

Applicant may be required to provide two character referees.

Condtions to be met post granting of cert may be applied.

Storage facilites may be inspected.

Minister can set standards of required secure storage.

More to follow:

Rew

jaycee wrote:

no reference that I could see to particular "Banned" or "Allowed" calibres , but plenty of references to "restricted calibres"

Here is the relevent bit. Once its passed he will then make orders restricting specfic firearms and/or ammo.

CJB2005 wrote:

Head 44 (Minister to deem certain firearms as restricted firearms)

Provide that:
The Firearms Act, 1925 is hereby amended by the insertion after section 2 of the
following

"2A. (1) The Minister may make an Order deeming firearms, by reference to any or
all of the following criteria,:

(a) Category
(b) Calibre
(c) Action type
(d) Muzzle energy
(e) Description

as restricted firearms and the Minister may make an Order deeming ammunition, by
reference to any or all of the following criteria,:

(a) Category
(b) Calibre
(c) Weight
(d) Kinetic energy
(e) Ballistic coefficient
(f) design
(g) composition of ammunition

as restricted ammunition for the purposes of the protection of public safety and
security.
The Minister may, by Order, add to, delete from or amend previous Orders made
under this section.

(2) Subject to the exceptions from this section hereinafter mentioned, it shall not be
lawful for any person after the commencement of this Act to have in his or her
possession, use, or carry any restricted firearm or component part or parts, as defined
by section 4(1)(g) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990, as amended, of
a restricted firearm or restricted ammunition, save in so far as such possession, use or
carriage is authorised by a firearm certificate granted under section 3(1C) of this Act
and for the time being in force.description .

civdef

Ranges / clubs must be authorised.

Authorisation can set conditions.

Security of the premises can be a condition.

Firearms can be stored on suitably authorised club premises.

Provision for the new appointment of Firearms Range Inspector.

A firearms cert can be revoked if the conditions under which uit was granted have not been met or the holder has allowed the firearm to be used by someone under the age of 16 without proper authorisation.

Appeal to district court now available in event of the refusal of a cert applciation.

Restricted firearms will not be allowed to be imported unless a cert has already been granted for that firearm.

An order may be made requiring any legal firearm holder to submit their firearm for ballistic testing.

Payments may be made to persons who having legally held a firearm before the introduction of the act, can no longer legally do so.

Licences last for 3 years.

New mandatory sentences for certain firearms offences - plus some mitigating factors.

New definition of >1 joule energy for airguns.

Deactivating a firearm is now an offence ->?

Converting a firearm to fully automativc or increasing claibre is an offence.

Shortening a shotgun barrel nelow 61cm (24") is an offence

Reloading licences can be granted if conditions are met (needing to do so for resonns of economy doesnt count), including competenc and safety/security of premises.

The minister can make regulations regarding the amount of components and relioaded ammo allowed.

civdef

There is loads and loads of stuff here, much of which seems to have already been unofficially introduced (eg import of restricted firearms and ammo and authorisation of clubs).

It'll take ages to digest, and no doubt amendments will be made as it passes through the Oireachtas.

The big questions now are:

What will be restricted.

What will be the allowable conditions for restruced firearms.

What will new security requirements be like.

FLAG

At last we can all see the detail related to amendments of the act, points of note, the extension of the validity of a firearms certificate to 3 years, 3 months limit in which a decision must be made on a firearms application, right of appeal to the district courts. Reloading permited at last. Have a look, it appears complex but it shows the effort needed to make the appropriate amendments, restricted firearms means exactly that, firearms deemed only to be licensed by the commissioner or appointed officer.............................Actual application of the amendments will be interesting to see.

Makes interesting bedtime reading.

Regards
Declan Keogh
http://www.justice.ie/80256E010039C5AF/vWeb/pcJUSQ6JDMLU-en

Keelan

Hi declan,
Restricted firearms, does this mean deer hunting calibers and .223s ect?

Rew

civdef wrote:

Payments may be made to persons who having legally held a firearm before the introduction of the act, can no longer legally do so.

Implies that some current legal firearms will become restricted. I think they should come clean with the calibers they are going to restrict and save us all some time and money! :mad:

FLAG

Folks

They will not put into legislation details of restricted firearms, only category by which they may be restricted as outlined in the heads of the bill, actual calibre type etc will be in the regulations that come later, what is really important to appreciate is that a restricted firearm is not a "banned" firearm, there is no ban in the legislation on any firearm, restricted firearm means one that can only be granted by the commissioner etc, remember before the high court appeals, highpower rifle applications were considered by Garda HQ, this will be what restricted means.

What is worrying however is the concept of purchasing firearms that may become illegal when the legislation is enacted! Lets see how this one develops.

I note also an ability to ballistically test firearms, a useless exercise and a total waste of time and money as proven in many other countries, but if it makes them feel more comfortable what the hell!

Clear positive things that are in the legislation, reloading, 3 year certificate, district court appeal process, 3 month max response time to a firearms application, impoeration of ammunition and firearms to which certificates relate. Training certificate for young people.

Granted they are introducing some things that will be hare to measure or implement, proof of compentency before the grant of a certificate......clear opportunity for clubs to develop competency programs, what will they be traceable to however and who will judge the competency of the trainers!

Interesting times ahead.