Criminal Justice Bill 2004

rrpc

And one other thing... From my reading of the bill, it appears to me that pistols will be 'restricted' firearms if I am right about the 'target shooting' clause. You can glean this from looking at the training cert conditions which allow for training certs for other than target shooting.

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=rrpc]Can I just point out that you don't have to be a member of a club to get a license. Only to get a license for a particular (not defined) firearm to take part in target shooting. I would read this as being for pistols primarily as there is no other use that can be given legitimately other than perhaps for deer hunting (for coup de grace), also I think mink despatching could be a case.

Err.How about long range target shooting,shilloute,and varmit.Handgun deer hunting.As there are calibres for some handguns that EXCEED the wildlife acts parameters.Thompson Contender pistols spring to mind.Collecting of a certain type of pistol for investment purposes.Also a thing not touched in this bill.What about collectors of live or deacts???Again very neblous.

Secondly, I would like to point out to Clare Gunner that you would have to get planning permission for a range first before you would get it authorised, and as I have first hand knowledge of that particular process, I doubt very much if the Range Inspector would turn you down, considering the amount of work involved in satisfying a county council planning department.

Ok,so is the Range Inspector also going to have to be a construction specialist as well?Because once your building specs are laid down they have to be in full agreement then with both inspectors.If the RI says it has to be Xmeters thick and the BI says Y meters,and neither of them agree where do you as the payer stand?

Anyone who wants to get the details of our planning application, can PM me and I'll make a copy of our (successful) application for them. Be advised that it will cost, as it's quite a large volume, and will cost a bit to have it copied. Our application was for both indoor (up to 25m) and outdoor (up to 100m) ranges on a seven acre site.

[/QUOTE]

Actually,I would be very intrested,because that site size sounds ideal as to what I would have in mind.PM you later:)

Clare gunner

Also i noticed with the restricted firearms. Oh yea i can have one but i have to fully comply with section 4. Have a good AND sufficient reason. And this is the most intresting one (c) the restricted firearm is of such a UNIQUE type as to be the ONLY weapon appropriate for the purpose.

I tryed to think to myself if semi autos are to be restricted what reason could you give for having one in this country? I couldnt come up with an answer! so me thinks there gone

Well, if you had a STG44 made in 1945 and you were particapating in a classic battle rifle competitions.That would fit the bill.
Other uses for semis
Gallery rifle[but could be argued it could be done with lever or pump]
Service rifle national match issued
Service rifle national match modified
Service rifle classic issued
Service rifle classic modified
Three gun match [semi auto rifle,shotgun,pistol all large cap and calibre]
Practical rifle,service,modified,extreme modified.
Practical rifle inter agency matches of police,civvie and military teams.
Hunting,with restricted mag to 3 shots for wildlife act game.Carbine mods very suitable for follow up or dense cover hunting
Varmit hunting,
Because it is a supposedly democratic country,and I should have the right to choose what I use to shoot with if I fulfil the categories of legal gun ownership.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Can I just point out that you don't have to be a member of a club to get a license.

No, you don't, but chem specifically said he'd be taking up target shooting; which meant that he'd need to be in a club. Or he could be done for using a firearm for a purpose he's not licenced for, which means that he'd lose his licence:

3A. (1) A person shall not knowingly give false information to the Minister, the Commissioner, the person designated by the Commissioner or the Superintendent (as the case may require) in relation to an application for a firearm certificate.

And it has teeth:

(4) A person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €1,500 or to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €15,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both."

Anyone who wants to get the details of our planning application, can PM me and I'll make a copy of our (successful) application for them. Be advised that it will cost, as it's quite a large volume, and will cost a bit to have it copied. Our application was for both indoor (up to 25m) and outdoor (up to 100m) ranges on a seven acre site.

And was the work of many years and a *lot* of effort on RRPC's part, and on the part of the Rathdrum club in general, and frankly, I'm dying to see what it'll look like when built; but the problem is, rrpc, that these amendments will force all clubs to go through that process, and not all have the money, time, skill, or even permission to do so (the college clubs I'm thinking of for that last one).

rrpc wrote:

And one other thing... From my reading of the bill, it appears to me that pistols will be 'restricted' firearms if I am right about the 'target shooting' clause. You can glean this from looking at the training cert conditions which allow for training certs for other than target shooting.

It does look that way, doesn't it?

Clare gunner wrote:

Actually,I would be very intrested,because that site size sounds ideal as to what I would have in mind.PM you later:)

Now there is an idea that I'd love to see more people take up!

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Well, if you had a STG44 made in 1945 and you were particapating in a classic battle rifle competitions.That would fit the bill.

For a moment there I thought you were talking about reenactments :eek:

Service rifle national match issued

I can't quite see licences for AUGs being that commonplace

Because it is a supposedly democratic country,and I should have the right to choose what I use to shoot with if I fulfil the categories of legal gun ownership.

I wouldn't go bandying the word "right" about like that. Especially because 94.5% or so of the population would probably go "Says who?" to that assertion!

Vegeta

Ok i just want to clear something up. I was just about to undergo the process of getting a walther .22LR pistol for target shooting, I read all the posts on how to successfully go about this. I was wondering shoul I even bother now or can someone tell me what they are proposing with regards handguns. Sorry for the silly question but I don't have a lot of time to read the whole list of posts

Rew

No one knows what they are going to do. If i were you I would go ahead with it. If they restrict it after this becomes law then they have a provision in there to financially compensate you.

Sparks

I'd agree with Rew, Vegeta. Go for it, get the pistol, get training, and you add to the weight behind our case. And if the worst comes to the worst, you get your money back.

Vegeta

Thanks guys this is something I've been considering for bout a year at this stage, hopefully it'll all come together for me anyway. I might see the local FO this weekend and see what he says my chances are. I am only 22 living in a housing estate which i think are my two biggest obstacles. Age cos lets face it everyone equates age with experience even though i've been shooting all calibre of weapons since I was 16 and the housing estate thing cos of security.

Still goin to go for it though. All he can say is no

chem

Rew wrote:

No one knows what they are going to do. If i were you I would go ahead with it. If they restrict it after this becomes law then they have a provision in there to financially compensate you.

I see your point Rew. But as we seen in the UK people who lost there collections of pistols were not fully compensated. Alot of rare guns were just givin a standard price by the goverment. Not sure that there would be to many collectors pieces in the country but have been told that some of the pistols from the 70`s call in are worth alot. I dont see anywhere in the sections mention of a full refund of what you payed for the gun. And look how fast the goverment moved on drafting a (save us money) law, when it came to light they had been illeagly chargeing old folks for care for years :mad:

Clare gunner

I can't quite see licences for AUGs being that commonplace

Nope,but possibly FN FAL match rifles, or lee enfield mk 4 303,or the AUG civvie,withit's thumbhole stock.

I

wouldn't go bandying the word "right" about like that. Especially because 94.5% or so of the population would probably go "Says who?" to that assertion!

Sort of like the 45% of motorists who are going to fail their NCT,because it is their "right" to modify their cars with cherry bombs or tinted windows.Who says now you have a "right"to modify your car?.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

No, you don't, but chem specifically said he'd be taking up target shooting; which meant that he'd need to be in a club. Or he could be done for using a firearm for a purpose he's not licenced for, which means that he'd lose his licence:

Well it depends on the use and the firearm. Take a sporting rifle for example, you could apply for varmint shooting with landowners permission or you could apply for target shoting with club membership. If you applied for target shooting, could you then be done for shoting rabbits?. Methinks not, as if you remain a member of the club, you have fulfilled that condition of the grant. It also depends on the form you apply on, as if you could put both reasons on it, you would be covered, and if you could not, well then you have a case of; "I wanted to put both reasons in, but was not permitted by the form". In any event it would have to be a very nit-picking firearms officer who tried to put a stop to your gallop in this manner, and he would look very silly in front of a district judge.

Which brings me to a further point, namely district court challenges: An FO or Super who was spending every session of the DC defending decisions on firearms, would very soon piss the district Judge off, to the extent that he would get very few decisions in his favour. DJ's take an extremely dim view of the courts' time being wasted.

And was the work of many years and a *lot* of effort on RRPC's part, and on the part of the Rathdrum club in general, and frankly, I'm dying to see what it'll look like when built; but the problem is, rrpc, that these amendments will force all clubs to go through that process, and not all have the money, time, skill, or even permission to do so (the college clubs I'm thinking of for that last one).

I don't agree. Long standing clubs, with authorisations under the 63 act, will get a greater degree of lattitude than newer clubs, since there is already a mechanism in place (the authorisation) by which the local Super has authorised the club. He would look rather silly turning around and saying "I was wrong up to now". The act doesn't actually say what will constitute a properly authorised range, and since there is a degree of lattitude given to Supers to interpret the guidelines, then you should at the very least be given time to rectify any perceived failings. In any event I can't see what problems either DU or UCD's ranges could have, as they are both indoor and could not under any circumstance be deemed a danger to the public.

Now there is an idea that I'd love to see more people take up!

Yes, but don't all come looking at once, as I don't have access to an industrial copying machine!

FLAG

Dear All

Please read the proposed amendments together with the notes, the notes are important as these notes give a clear understanding of the intention of the particular section.

It is possible that we can change some aspects of the proposed legislation, I do not believe protesting the amendments in total will achieve anything, it is time to clearly outline our specific concerns with the specific amendments.

Some comments to date have been well made and need to be relayed to the people who are advising the Minister, like for example a one year license to reload when the firearms certificate is 3 years, personally I have a very specific concern about the conditions for the grant of a restricted firearm:
"(c) the restricted firearm is of such a unique type as to be the only weapon appropriate for the purpose [sought]."

Note:
This Head amends section 3 of the 1925 Act by the insertion of a number of new subheads governing the grant of firearms certificates.

A Superintendent shall refuse an application for a firearm certificate if the application is for a firearm or ammunition which has been deemed restricted by Order of the Minister. In effect this provides that a Superintendent cannot issue a firearms certificates in respect of firearms once it has been deemed "restricted".

The Head only allows a firearm certificate to be issued in respect of a "restricted" firearm by the Gárda Commissioner, or a person designated in that regard by the Commissioner.

Provision is also been made for an appeal to the District Court against a refusal of a certificate or an authorisation.

Finally, provision is being made requiring a decision on a firearms certificate to be issued within 3 months of receipt of an application.


This to me means that they could narrow ownership of restricted firearms to a known maker and configuration.

My suggestion is that if one has a specific issue with a particular amendment, write down your specific concerns, what effect that you might think the application of the amendment may have and most importantly a suggested alternative:

Unfortunately anonymous submissions are useless and do not waste your time writing them, please refer any written query to flagireland@eircom.net and I can assure you that it will be raised with the appropriate people.

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

Dear All
Please read the proposed amendments together with the notes, the notes are important as these notes give a clear understanding of the intention of the particular section.

I'll back that up - everyone should read these amendments. The notes, though, have no legal weight and are put there by whomever drafted the document (the DoJ I presume) to put forward what they think the point is; that may differ widely from how they're used in practise.

It is possible that we can change some aspects of the proposed legislation

Indeed, if we show a wide enough degree of grassroots opposition to them.

I do not believe protesting the amendments in total will achieve anything

So why was so much made of their inclusion in the Criminal Justice Bill in the beginning, when it was equally hopeless to get them out of it as protesting them now would be (according to yourself)?

it is time to clearly outline our specific concerns with the specific amendments.

Which is what this thread was meant to do.

This to me means that they could narrow ownership of restricted firearms to a known maker and configuration.

Indeed. Or could simply give a de facto ban on them alltogether.

My suggestion is that if one has a specific issue with a particular amendment, write down your specific concerns, what effect that you might think the application of the amendment may have and most importantly a suggested alternative:

Indeed, and such submissions from an NGB or lobby body could be of use; but

Unfortunately anonymous submissions are useless and do not waste your time writing them

An anonymous submission to the DoJ? Or are you saying that you won't take any idea submitted here, no matter how good, because it comes from here?

please refer any written query to flagireland@eircom.net and I can assure you that it will be raised with the appropriate people.

Or just send them to minister@justice.ie and it'll go directly to the Minister's Office, or send them to sean@ardagh.org for the Chairman of the Committee who will be reviewing the amendments in December.

FLAG

Mark: Why if you are so much the SSAI policeman do you not join the association and try and make changes from the inside instead of pissing on it from the outside, as I see it you continue to protest the happenings of yeaterday, when what matters is today and tomorrow. You encourage individuals to make individual representation to the minister on the current amendments to the firearms acts, this is really not a good idea at this juncture, time is not on our side, individual representation will have little effect, despite what you may think the SSAI as represented by FLAG at the DOJ and the Gardai are recognised and have a significant degree of crediability, so do not mislead people. If they have input send it to flagireland@eircom.net validated by their identity because we cannot represent views from individuals who refuse to be identified, no matter how good an idea it might be.

Sparks

Declan, I said we'd keep the personal stuff to the "How to derail a topic" thread. I've deleted your duplicate post here, and answered it over there.

In answer to your above post, I'll reiterate; if you will not accept any idea from here, no matter how good, then you are not representing our best interests but your personal feelings and it's time for you to step aside and let someone more objective and pragmatic to do the job. Ideas and solutions are meant to be judged on their merits, not their source. Forget that and you have no business doing what you're supposed to be doing, though it does more accurately reflect how you feel about this forum and your personal "I decide how this sport is run" philosophy.

chem

I was talking to a firearms dealer today who was telling me that pistols are only being allowed back into the country because Ireland has to conform to EU laws on trade and firearms laws. It sparked off a memory i had of the proposed change to the fireworks laws in Ireland

http://www.justice.ie/80256E010039C5AF/vWeb/flJUSQ6AXJGN-en/$File/Fireworks.pdf

This was the bit i remembered seeing:

Page 19


Consultation Document on Fireworks
...........penalties in order to deal with issues such as the illegal possession and use of
fireworks. This approach would ensure that realistic penalties would provide a
basis on which the law could be effectively enforced. On the question of meeting
our obligations under the proposed EU Directive on fireworks we could seek a
derogation from the provisions of the new Directive. However, it is by no means
certain that such derogation would be agreed to and, in the medium to longer
term, it may be necessary for us to adopt a more liberal importation policy if we
are to meet our likely EU obligations.

It looks to me like they no more want fireworks in the country then they want the dail bar to close, but are only thinking of making them legal because they might have to under EU law.

Is there a similar goverment text for the proposed coming together of EU firearms laws?

Did the goverment seek a derogation for Ireland and not get it? Just found it abit interesting. Hope someone has an answer

Sparks

Is there a similar goverment text for the proposed coming together of EU firearms laws?

Is there a similar EU body of firearms law? Yes. But it makes explicit reference to not imposing more liberal (!!!) laws on EU members with stricter firearms laws than EU law. There aren't too many exceptions; the importing of automatic firearms (well, that class of firearms anyway) being about the only one I can think of off the top of my head. I'll look up the specific reference when I get a chance; that may not be tonight though chem.

chem

Cheers sparks.

Just sitting on the jacks reading over my print out of the new CJB. Was tempted to use it for somthing else but then noticed on Head 42 the following,

"all references in the firearms Acts, 1925 to 2000 and in this act to "firearms" and "ammunition" except references in section 2,3 and 17 of the Principal act and sections 11 and 21 of the firearms act, 1964 shall be read as referring to "restricted firearms" and "restricted ammunition" also;"

Does that smell abit to anyone else like everything will fall into the restreicted section?

Has anyone who has an education in Law had a look at this? Or has FLAG taken it to a Solicitor and had them look over it?

Sparks

chem wrote:

Does that smell abit to anyone else like everything will fall into the restreicted section?

No, it means that every firearm law - except those to do with getting the licence in the first place (section 2 and 3), importing it or its ammo (section 17 and section 21 of the '64 act), or changing the firearm on your cert (section 11 of the '64 act) - applies to restricted firearms as well as "regular" ones.

The idea being, I presume, that you can't get a restricted firearm and then have no law apply to what you do with it; and the exceptions mean that you can't get a restricted firearm through a loophole such as getting the licence for a .22 pistol and then changing up to a .45 with a simple change to a licence (which I understand has happened more than once and was bound to tick someone off eventually...).

has FLAG taken it to a Solicitor and had them look over it?

I would hope that if this is the case, that the legal opinion resulting would be made public to all.

I'd imagine that the NARGC are doing this (seeking legal opinion) as well, by the way. I'm not in the NARGC though, so I don't have any right to demand to see whatever they get back.

Rovi

There's a lot of stuff on the CJB in The Poacher's column in the current (February 2006) issue of the Irish Shooter's Digest.
I'm a little surprised it hasn't come up here already to be honest, as it's been out a few days now.


Anyhow, my synopsis of the article (you'll have to buy the magazine if you want to read it in detail! )-

Eddie Kelly and Des Crofton of NARGC met with the DOJ on December 21st, 2005.

Here's the document they're referring to (approx 0.5MB)-
http://www.justice.ie/80256E010039C5AF/vWeb/flJUSQ6JDMQ6-ga/$File/CrimJusticeAmend.pdf

Head 43.
Apparently, as currently worded, a separate firearms certificate would be needed for a telescopic sight or a silencer.
DOJ agreed to reword this.

Head 47.
NARGC questioned the length of the 3 month application processing time, as much more complex stuff like planning applications can be dealt with in 2 months.
DOJ agreed to change this to 2 months, provided the Garda Commissioner had no over-riding objections.

Head 49.
This is the 'make it up as we go along' part :mad:
NARGC strongly objected to this provision, citing the litany of court cases dealing with (and overturning) Garda Guidelines. NARGC had been previously given to believe that comprehensive guidelines would be published, drafted with input from the shooting associations, and not in the manner proposed under this heading.
DOJ accepted these concerns, and specifically undertook to re-write the provision. DOJ also confirmed that a set of guidelines was being drafted for discussion by the various interests.

Head 50.
This provision allows a Superintendent to satisfy himself that an applicant has achieved a sufficient level of competence in firearm handling.
NARGC pointed out a contradiction in the provision whereby no-one can achieve this competence in advance of acquiring a licence without breaking the law.
DOJ agreed, and propose making the training licence available to all ages.

NARGC asked who would set the level of competence, and suggested that the Gardai were not in a position to do this.
DOJ agreed to re-word the provision so that completion of a safety course run by one of the recognised shooting associations would be acceptable.

NARGC objected to the current wording as regards a Superintendent requesting permission to consult an applicant's medical practitioner. There are no conditions under which this requirement could be applied, no mention of what grounds for concern must exist, and no account taken of proportionality which would undoubtedly apply.
DOJ stated that this was in the provision as a reminder that the recommendations of the Barr Tribunal would have to be taken into account. The Barr Report is due in January 2006, and its recommendations will be inserted in this heading.

Head 88B.
Reloading.
NARGC accepted the need for some form of licencing, but objected to the provision currently specifically excluding 'economy' as a reason for the granting of a licence. NARGC argued that if this was to remain, there would hardly be any point in including the provision at all.
DOJ agreed and stated that the bar would be removed, and 'reasons of economy' would be accepted as a valid reason for reloading.


NARGC profess themselves surprised and pleased with the DOJ's level of willingness to accept and address their concerns, and felt that the meeting was one of the best yet.
DOJ confirmed that it is highly unlikely that the new legislation would be in place before the 2006 licence renewal date.



If either of the gentlemen from NARGC are reading this, or if anyone here knows them, please tell them: "Fair play to you lads, and well done!"
There's lots of good stuff there; and I'm particularly pleased with the reloading bit.

.

Vegeta

Delighted to hear it and again congrats to the people who speak on our behalf, they've done us proud

Sparks

Good work for all bar perhaps one point;

Head 50.
NARGC asked who would set the level of competence, and suggested that the Gardai were not in a position to do this.
DOJ agreed to re-word the provision so that completion of a safety course run by one of the recognised shooting associations would be acceptable.

Leaving aside for the other thread the questions regarding the safety courses themselves/itself; how would we ensure that the recognised shooting associations do not abuse this new regulatory position in reprisal for criticisms, as has happened in the past with non-regulatory issues?

civdef

Easy, don't give any single association a monopoly on courses. There's no reason for any organisation to be given power of veto.

Sparks

And if no other group is running the course you need?

civdef

If the course is a general firearms safety one (see other thread :0 ) I can't see that being an issue.

If you want ala carte courses for every discipline, then yeah it might be a problem - but who's suggesting that?

Riggser

Is this bill actually going to come in this year?
With so much of the bill up in the air and the fact that organisations are still contesting/squabbling/questioning the proposals made by the DOJ on the issue wouldn't it be fairly stupid to rush this through the houses in time for summer?

KerryShooter

Is their any update as to the situation with Handguns or Full bore rifles ??

Sparks

Apart from some dodgy questions&answers in the dail in the last few days (see the Parlimentary Questions thread here), and a report on the meeting between the NRPAI and the DoJ here, nothing that I know of.

Clare gunner

Rumour and scuttlebutt has it coming into law fully as 31st July 2007.