Firearms, public roads/rights of way, and the law

johngalway

So I'm having a conversation with a friend on Paddys day. I was mentioning to him my intention of purchasing a rifle in the future for fox control. The area I would be conducting this on would mainly be a large expanse of commonage bogland used for grazing sheep (my own included), with many natural banks for backstops. Through this land runs a public road. I told him that I had read online that it wasn't illegal to shoot from a public road (NARGC.ie website, under predator control, fox). He disputed this and we had the usual I'm right, you're wrong discussion lol. So I thought that I'd post a couple of questions to see if the truth really is out there.

1. Where would I find easy to read/understand information on what's legal/illegal concerning firearms in the Republic? (It's a scary question to see posted I know, common sense & safety dictates what I've done so far. Some patterning, 1 greycrow. And just so I don't have to post quite so many noob questions).

2. Is it indeed legal to shoot (rifle/shotgun) from a public road? Safety concerns dictating whether to take the shot or no obviously. (Just to settle the argument).

3. Can one shoot from a parked car? (If yes it'd be nice to be able to take advantage of the comfort at night while watching an area).

4. What are the distances, if any, that I must keep from say public places/roads/rights of way etc if no to 2&3? The safe distance of the firearm or another set distance?

I'd like to say I've not done either 2 or 3. I like to be safe and responsible both in the locations I shoot and when taking any particular shot, so I don't hesitate in posting when I have questions. I think thats about it, any thoughts welcome and much appreciated guys

Vegeta

I had this arguement with my bro before aswell so if anyone can answer it that'd be great

thelurcher

It's in either the Firearms or Wildlife Acts i'm sure?
They're all on-line.

As far as I can remember you can't even shine a lamp from a public road (maybe without permission only?) :rolleyes:

Hagar

I can't remember the exact details but AFAIR you can't discharge a weapon within 50yds of a public road. This would, if correct, obviously preclude you from shooting while on the road whether in a car or not.

Rovi

This has come up before, and as far as I can remember, there is no mention of this in Irish law.
It appears to be somehow codified in English law, which may be where the notion came from that it's a specific offence here.

.

Sparks

It's definitely specifically codified in UK and N.Ireland law.
N.Ireland Firearms Act 2004, section 61(2):

(2) A person who discharges any firearm on any public road, or within 18 metres of the centre of any public road, or in any church, churchyard or burial ground shall be guilty of an offence unless he shows that he had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for doing so.

In the UK, it's 50 feet from the centreline of any public highway. The exact rule should be in the UK Firearms Act 1968 in section 19.

But I can't find a single mention of this in Irish case or statute law. Anyone else had any luck finding it?

deRanged

60 feet from a public roadway is in the 'guidelines' you get with your shotgun license each year. I've no idea if ithere's a legal version of that though.

Sparks

I don't know if those have any legal weight though deRanged.

deRanged

sparks wrote:

I don't know if those have any legal weight though deRanged

I wouldn't think they do.

rrpc

AFAIK, it used to be in the Road Traffic Acts, but got dropped in an amendment in the 90's. The replacement for it is under 'dangerous discharge of a firearm' in the Firearms Acts. Although they do not specify roads per se, the inference being that if you discharge a firearm on a public road, or in any public place, you are liable to prosecution under that section.

Sparks

Can't find it in there rrpc. Closest I can find is the 1963 road traffic act which says you can't take firearms on public transport. The firearms act 1990 says you can't recklessly discharge a firearm but gives no mention of roads or distances from them whatsoever; and the thought of legislation through inference... youch. That's not a nice thought at all.

You can't take a firearm on public transport?

Would that include Taxis?

scout

no they are private

Sparks

original_psycho wrote:

You can't take a firearm on public transport?

Nope, that's why DURC's always had hassles getting to competitions
Mind you, there's a gray area; if the firearm is securely cased, then no-one's allowed search it legally so who'd know what it is? And does the same exemption from the rules about carrying the firearm in a public place apply in this case?

Put it this way OP - DURC for years avoided public transport with firearms just to avoid getting in trouble...

Would that include Taxis?

Hmmm. It definitely did before deregulation, taxis and buses were operated under the same licence - public service vehicles - but now, I don't know...

scout

if there is any doubt go hackney

johngalway

I never thought my questions would generate so many responses

At this point it looks like I'll have to consult the local cop before even thinking about doing any of the above. Who's betting two guards will give two different answers? I've been working most of the day so haven't had time to dig up the relevent firearm/wildlife acts yet.

deRanged, I don't remember seeing 60 feet on my licence anywhere, I'll look again though (open to correction here though). The licence itself is all the official paperwork I've recieved to date.

I thought they were interesting questions from a newbie perspective, as my friend told the story that his uncle had a rifle confiscated years back. Though the details offered were sketchy and there was a dog shot in the incident.

John

scout

you chould sue the land owner now for not controling the dog!

The cops wont have a clue they will just guess

not on the lience,but hey it tries to say a lot of things

deRanged

johngalway wrote:

deRanged, I don't remember seeing 60 feet on my licence anywhere, I'll look again though (open to correction here though). The licence itself is all the official paperwork I've recieved to date.

When I renew my license I always get a white piece of paper with a number of rules/guidelines like not firing within 60 feet of a public road, carry the weapon unloaded and so on. It's not on the license itself.
It doesn't quote the firearms act or anything so I dont think it's legally binding.

I thought they were interesting questions from a newbie perspective, as my friend told the story that his uncle had a rifle confiscated years back. Though the details offered were sketchy and there was a dog shot in the incident.

That wasn't in Cork was it I once reported a guy to the Gardai for shooting at a dog across 4 lanes of the Cork Waterford dual carriageway.

Clare gunner

Guy down here in Co Limerick was done for shooting a crow in a field from a public road a couple of years back.Proably also because it was on land he didnt have permission to do so.I was once pulled by the cops,because I was sitting on our local bridge with the 22 shooting rats that frequent the stream.Just told my it was illegal to fire a gun on ,or from, or to a public road.That was it.It seems to be a guideline made into law.Like how many rifles you could have back in the 70s.

scout

it might have been back then the whole amendment to the traffic act above

rrpc

Here it is:

Section 14(15) of the Dublin Police Act 1842 makes it an offence to do any of the following acts in any thoroughfare or public place: to wantonly discharge any firearm or throw or discharge any stone or other missile, to the damage or danger of any person, or make any bonfire, or throw or set fire to any fireworks. Section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, section 10(2) and (8) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act 1851 and section 72 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act 1854 contain similar provision. Section 61 of the Dangerous Substances Act 1972 also makes it an offence to throw or cast any fireworks in or onto, or ignite any fireworks in, any highway, street, thoroughfare or public place. It is suggested that the provisions other than the latter might be replaced by a new provision making it an offence without lawful authority or excuse to light any fire or discharge any stone or other missile on, or within 20 metres of the centre of any public road so that a road-user is injured, interrupted or endangerd. The maximum penalty for the offence should be a fine of £500.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote:

Here it is:

but put simply does that not mean you cant fire a gun in a public place if it is dangerous to others

Sparks

RRPC, most of those acts precede the modern state - I don't think they are still valid statutes here. They might be cited in case laws as precedent if none existed, but you couldn't be hauled up in court for violating them, if you follow me.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

RRPC, most of those acts precede the modern state - I don't think they are still valid statutes here. They might be cited in case laws as precedent if none existed, but you couldn't be hauled up in court for violating them, if you follow me.

BUZZ Wrong!!!!

That quote was from a law reform commission report in 1985. The statute was still active at that time. AFAIK, parts of that particular act are still used today. The sections relating to niusance caused by dogs etc. come to mind. I also came across a High Court judgment in 2005 that referred extensively to the 1842 Act. And btw you do not cite statute law as precedent, it's either law or it isn't. Precedent is created by interpretation of law in a judgment and is referred to by the case not the act.

Many laws still in use in this country predate the foundation of the state.

Hagar

within 20 metres of the centre of any public road

Just nit picking really but how wide will the new widened M50 be?

Sparks

Funny that this comes up the very day that they're getting rid of a lot of pre-founding legislation that's still around.

(Mind you, I get the distinct impression that the ones you cited are superseded by the current Firearms Act RRPC. And do any of, them talk about how far from the centreline you have to be before you can discharge a firearm?)

And btw you do not cite statute law as precedent

You do if there's no statute law or case decisions in the state to cover a particular case; you make reference to laws in similar states. For example, we would cite laws in the UK if there was no other precedent for a decision here. It does not happen so often these days as it did in prior years, but it does happen.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Funny that this comes up the very day that they're getting rid of a lot of pre-founding legislation that's still around.

Yep, the Statute of Winchester (1285) is still on the statute books :eek:

(Mind you, I get the distinct impression that the ones you cited are superseded by the current Firearms Act RRPC. And do any of, them talk about how far from the centreline you have to be before you can discharge a firearm?)

I already said that in an earlier post. What has superceded it is the dangerous discharge provision, but as the other acts are still on the statute books they can still be used. None mention a specific distance, so you would be at the mercy of the arresting officer as to what would be a 'safe' distance.

You do if there's no statute law or case decisions in the state to cover a particular case; you make reference to laws in similar states. For example, we would cite laws in the UK if there was no other precedent for a decision here. It does not happen so often these days as it did in prior years, but it does happen.

You nit-picker. :mad: I was specifically referring to Irish Law, as were you:

Sparks wrote:

RRPC, most of those acts precede the modern state - I don't think they are still valid statutes here. They might be cited in case laws as precedent if none existed, but you couldn't be hauled up in court for violating them, if you follow me.

Go on wriggle out of that one if you can...

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

You do if there's no statute law or case decisions in the state to cover a particular case; you make reference to laws in similar states. For example, we would cite laws in the UK if there was no other precedent for a decision here. It does not happen so often these days as it did in prior years, but it does happen.

Actually, that does not come under precedent per se. Precedent from a case in this jurisdiction is effectively a direction to a judge in an identical case to follow that precedent. In effect the precedent becomes law. A law in a similar jursidiction has no force in law in this country and may only be used by a judge at their discretion for guidance in a similar case.

The Judge could quite rightly dismiss such a 'precedent' whether it was identical in every respect to the case in front of him or not.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Yep, the Statute of Winchester (1285) is still on the statute books :eek:

Yes, but when they get rid of it, we'll finally be able to put sheep droppings in our coffee. Witch-burning's still out, though. Oh well.

I already said that in an earlier post. What has superceded it is the dangerous discharge provision, but as the other acts are still on the statute books they can still be used. None mention a specific distance, so you would be at the mercy of the arresting officer as to what would be a 'safe' distance.

Except that what you posted said "on" the roadway, so if you were off it, it wouldn't be a problem according to those laws. Mind you, I'd be surprised if those laws were known about by most Gardai

You nit-picker. :mad:

Said the guy who just posted acts from 1842!

I was specifically referring to Irish Law, as were you:
Go on wriggle out of that one if you can...

Citing laws from other states if there's no irish precedent to use and me thinking that pre-founding laws were no longer on our books, those are different issues. I don't see what the conflict is!

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

The Judge could quite rightly dismiss such a 'precedent' whether it was identical in every respect to the case in front of him or not.

Very true, he or she could; but then he or she can overrule precedents in case law as well (as no two cases are precisely identical even for the same offence or issue; the plaintiff and defendant's cases will always differ somewhat).

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Very true, he or she could; but then he or she can overrule precedents in case law as well (as no two cases are precisely identical even for the same offence or issue; the plaintiff and defendant's cases will always differ somewhat).

NIT-PICKING AGAIN :eek:

And misreading me. I chose my words very carefully to avoid just such a response, but you had to insist on getting the last wrong word..

rrpc wrote:

a direction to a judge in an identical case to follow that precedent

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Except that what you posted said "on" the roadway, so if you were off it, it wouldn't be a problem according to those laws. Mind you, I'd be surprised if those laws were known about by most Gardai

And 'dangerous discharge' covers everything else. Which I also said.

Said the guy who just posted acts from 1842!

The question was about a specific law. That's the one that refers. Not my fault it's so old.

Citing laws from other states if there's no irish precedent to use and me thinking that pre-founding laws were no longer on our books, those are different issues. I don't see what the conflict is!

Read the posts again carefully, all will become clear. You never brought up other jurisdictions until I pinned you on precedent. You made them different issues to avoid admitting I was right , And ignored the fact that other jursidictional law is not a precedent within the legal meaning of the word.

Sparks

You never brought up other jurisdictions until I pinned you on precedent.

At the risk of engaging in basic primate behaviour, I'll ask how this became a wrestling match. You're correct about prior cases, I thought I'd said so; but they don't answer the original question. You're not correct about precedent being a direction to a judge as no two cases are ever identical so precedent can only ever be used as guidance. And I can cite cases to you where laws from other states were used as guidance by judges up to and including the supreme court, but the word they use is not precedence, so I don't know who you'd award points to there.

More on point, do we have any case law that offers a precedent for this? BAILII hasn't got anything, neither has IRLII nor the Courts.ie judgement database.

Chopperdog

No fighting in the playground children......

Rew

Chopperdog wrote:

No fighting in the playground children......

The rate they go at each other we will have to get a sub-forum especially for them!!

Sparks - those legal databases are crap.

You need the physical journals to get anywhere near a comprehensive list

Sparks

I wouldn't call them crap OP, it's just that they don't have everything in them. You'd need one of the subscription-based services to get a full list, and I don't have access to those right now.

eh... Berkely Library maybe??

Sparks

You're a darn sight closer than I am to there don't forget OP...

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

You're not correct about precedent being a direction to a judge as no two cases are ever identical so precedent can only ever be used as guidance.

That's just plain wrong. Precedent becomes law, the argument in court is whether the case in point matches the precedent, not whether the precedent can be used or discarded at the whim of the judge even if the facts fit. No two cases are exactly identical, yet precedent rules all the time. New laws are constantly being tested in court, and in the cases where the test wins the precedent becomes de facto law. The X case is a case in point. If it was something that a judge could ignore, why then the pressure to legislate for the X case? I seem to remember just such a case coming up again some years later and being judged under the X case precedent.

And I can cite cases to you where laws from other states were used as guidance by judges up to and including the supreme court, but the word they use is not precedence, so I don't know who you'd award points to there.

My point precisely. I described that as 'precedence' the inverted commas were used to distinguish it from legal precedence. So cite away, you're talking about guidance, I'm talking about legal precedence. It was you who brought up the extra-jurisdictional cases in the first place, when they had no part in the topic under discussion.

More on point, do we have any case law that offers a precedent for this? BAILII hasn't got anything, neither has IRLII nor the Courts.ie judgement database.

What do you mean by 'this'?

rrpc

Rew wrote:

The rate they go at each other we will have to get a sub-forum especially for them!!

Nothing to see here, just a little blood!, Move along now, Nothing to see here folks, Move along.....

Chopperdog

Come on lads, this is getting very tedious and painful. Three options for you:

1. Handbags at dawn.
2. Drop it and shut the **** up.
3. Take it to the Legal discussion forum.