Pistols Recalled in Wicklow

flight93

I am very suprised with the lack of publicity surronding the fact that licences for pistols in a large part of Wicklow have not been renewed. The inspector there has also demanded that pistols be handed in to registered firearms dealers. This is the only part of the country that this is happening, so I would assume that this has no basis in law, it is case of "who is going to stop us?" from the Superintendent.

Perhaps the Superintendent in that area expects to be taken to court (where he will most probably loose) just to raise awareness and get support.

I know sevral individuals who refused to hand in thier pistols and told the garda this. No action was taken against them.

Others panicked and handed them in (perhaps the correct thing to do) because they were afraid of the consequences of having an unlicenced firearm in thier possesion.

I am concerened that in the longer term this could effect all of us that enjoy pistol shooting. Am I the only one that feels this way??

Can anyone tell me what the NARGC are doing (if anything)?

I have heard many rumours about legal cases etc. but I dont know what is true.

civdef

This was mentioned here a few months back, but no updates.

Were these people members of fuctioning clubs/ranges?

.243

im one of the many in this district ,the letter was sent out about a week before the renewals went out by the inspector not the super.His excuse is he has the new certs there and wont be issuing any until all ranges in his district are "certified" and he bases this on the firearms act 1925-2005

flight93

Yeah they are members of well established clubs.

flight93

.243 did you hand yours in? Have you guys got a plan? Are you getting together?

civdef

Some posts containing unsubstantiated rumours have been removed from this thread. Please bear in mind that it isn't a good idea to post allegations that could upset people if you can't stand behind them.

Sparks

Noticed today in the Digest that Des Crofton and the NARGC are taking said Inspector to court over this. They're advising anyone who gets such a letter to refuse to comply.

17HMR

Has all this money that Garda are wasting been highlighted to the Public Accounts Committee ?

Sparks

Technically 17, that €5.5m hasn't actually been spent yet, it's a projected cost if all 60-odd cases were taken to completion and lost by the state. Pretty solid projection, mind you - it might even be conservative.
Of course, it'd be presented to the PAC by the DoJ with a little post-it on the front saying "These lads want to licence .45 calibre sidearms" and the PAC would probably start thinking that it wasn't such a waste of cash.
Gotta love it when your sport has a negative public image

17HMR

Yeah... they'll probably put it across as being worth it as it deters all but the most dedicated and genuine shooter from pursuing a licence.

I suppose too that 5.5 million isn't a whole lot compared to electronic voting machines or the wonderful PPARS project....or etc etc etc

Sparks

'Fraid not 17. When the 2006 budget is something like €44 billion, €5.5 million isn't even chicken feed.

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

'Fraid not 17. When the 2006 budget is something like €44 billion, €5.5 million isn't even chicken feed.

BUT if it is pointed out how many hopital beds,ambulances ,etc etc could be bought with this and the std current Govts cavalier spending of the public cash.It can have quite an add on effect.

Sparks

Been watching the news about the current Government lately CG? €5.5 million spent "making sure that firearms weren't licenced to the wrong people" wouldn't even raise much of a blip in the Sunday World these days. And when it transpired that that money wasn't even spent yet, it'd be even less newsworthy. Not when people are wondering how many days are left in the current government. Besides which, all they'd do is point out how a certain high-level criminal recently applied to the Garda Reserve and say that this showed that "you have to be careful" and we're not only back where we are now, but we'd have just taken a wallop in the PR department too.

Clare gunner

QUOTE=Sparks]Been watching the news about the current Government lately CG? €5.5 million spent "making sure that firearms weren't licenced to the wrong peoplewouldn't even raise much of a blip in the Sunday World these days.[/QUOTE]
BOLLOCKS !!!That wouldn't wash in a million years anymore Sparks. All it needs is FOUR buzzwords Finna Fail,Govt Waste.....And hang the little details like wether it is spent or not.Especially in a gutter press like Sunday World.

And when it transpired that that money wasn't even spent yet, it'd be even less newsworthy.

Like it wasnt newsworthy when the Govt was going to fork out Xmillions on a new Govt Jet in the Airbus class of things?????

Not when people are wondering how many days are left in the current government

.

Another full term of four years no doubt,because like good little sheeple we will all vote them back in again,as we all seem to develop collective amnesia at voting time.Sure we voted a known crook and conman and gunrunner back in so many times,because he was a Great fella who gave the old age pensioners free travel,and scalped the rest of the country.So there is no worry about the current lot getting back in.Some bread and circuses will sort that out.

Besides which, all they'd do is point out how a certain high-level criminal recently applied to the Garda Reserve and say that this showed that "you have to be careful" and we're not only back where we are now, but we'd have just taken a wallop in the PR department too.[/QUOTE

considering that they cobbled this lets do somthing about crime stunt,and the Gardai are not exactly hot on their backround checks,considering how many padeophile swimming instructors and raping taxi drivers there still out there.Saying you cant be too careful with ligit shooters would make them look like bigger clowns than they are already..How much more BS will we have to put up with,last time it was the IRA would get our handguns,the IRA would use paintball as a training aid,yadayadayada.It is high time we became ACTIVE and not so damn defensive and reactive to every little thing that might hurt our precious "public image."Always said if we are going to be branded bastards,we might as well act like them then.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

BOLLOCKS !!!That wouldn't wash in a million years anymore Sparks. All it needs is FOUR buzzwords Finna Fail,Govt Waste.

And the odds of you seeing those four words associated with the costs we're talking about by a press which is not run by the NRA are fairly close to zero, unfortunately. I'd prefer it if it wasn't like that CG, I really would - but you know what they say about wishing in one hand and defecating in the other - one hand gets filled a lot faster...

Like it wasnt newsworthy when the Govt was going to fork out Xmillions on a new Govt Jet in the Airbus class of things?????

There you could say "erra, toys for the boys" and make the jokes about Mary Harney's weight. Here, you're talking about court cases taken against the Gardai by people seeking licences for guns. Believe me, we wouldn't get the same response.

Another full term of four years no doubt,because like good little sheeple we will all vote them back in again,as we all seem to develop collective amnesia at voting time.Sure we voted a known crook and conman and gunrunner back in so many times,because he was a Great fella who gave the old age pensioners free travel,and scalped the rest of the country.So there is no worry about the current lot getting back in.Some bread and circuses will sort that out.

Then what's the point of protesting at all? If they're not embarressable into doing things, why waste the time, energy and money on court cases at all? Why not sink all that cash into building ranges all over the country or hiring coaches or doing any of the hundred and one things we could be doing with it that would make the shooting sports better off and hunters too?

Saying you cant be too careful with ligit shooters would make them look like bigger clowns than they are already

You just said yourself that that wouldn't matter. And after yesterday in the Dail, I'd be well disposed to agree with that.

How much more BS will we have to put up with

I agree with the sentiment - but what exactly is your plan to bell that cat?

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

And the odds of you seeing those four words associated with the costs we're talking about by a press which is not run by the NRA are fairly close to zero, unfortunately. I'd prefer it if it wasn't like that CG, I really would - but you know what they say about wishing in one hand and defecating in the other - one hand gets filled a lot faster...

The indo,RTE,radio commentaries,seem to be filled at any given day with those four words.

There you could say "erra, toys for the boys" and make the jokes about Mary Harney's weight.

The joke stopped along time ago Mr TD and no one is laughing anymore.

Here, you're talking about court cases taken against the Gardai by people seeking licences for guns. Believe me, we wouldn't get the same response

.
Yeah,and lets have more egg on the GTarda face.In the end after the disasters of Donegal,Abbylara,etc.Sooner or later a judge is going to say.Have you not got somthing better to do than bother the most law abideing of the land?

Then what's the point of protesting at all? If they're not embarressable into doing things, why waste the time, energy and money on court cases at all? Why not sink all that cash into building ranges all over the country or hiring coaches or doing any of the hundred and one things we could be doing with it that would make the shooting sports better off and hunters too?

Maybe,just for once,we should show a bit of spine and speak up and say we have had enough being pushed around as a minority.If this treatment was handed out to any other miniority in Ireland we would never hear the end of it.You dont embarrass a govt into anything.You vote the rascally fellows out again after four years.And when they show up on your door,you tell them EXACTLY why..Grumbling into our pints in the pub is not the way to run a country.Anywhere else in the world by now there would be a mob outside a certain address in Drumcondra and Kildare st demanding blood.

You just said yourself that that wouldn't matter. And after yesterday in the Dail, I'd be well disposed to agree with that.


I

agree with the sentiment - but what exactly is your plan to bell that cat?[/

Two prong,as you said build facilities etc.Second every time there is an attack on us we should be making more noise than our actual size warrants.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

The indo,RTE,radio commentaries,seem to be filled at any given day with those four words.

Yes, but about waste from different programmes which are usually seen as being more politically correct. Which isn't good for us, but that's how it is.

Yeah,and lets have more egg on the GTarda face.In the end after the disasters of Donegal,Abbylara,etc.Sooner or later a judge is going to say.Have you not got somthing better to do than bother the most law abideing of the land?

Leave aside for now the pragmatic view which says that with the powers now given to them in the CJA2006 we'd be better off not antagonising those who could eliminate our sport with one signature, and perfectly legally at that. Instead ask yourself at what point in this country has it ever been possible to beat the legislative branch of government with the judiciary?
Seriously.
Did noone learn anything from the whole CJB process? We saw the best legal victory ever won against the government - the Dunne v. Donoghue case, taken all the way to the Supreme Court and decided on in our favour - overturned with one single off-the-cuff paragraph in the miscellaneous section of the original CJB. Did noone get the message at that point? Did everyone forget what was explicitly stated at an earlier NRPAI AGM - namely that we'd been told as early as 1972 by the DoJ that we could beat them in court on Monday and they'd have a new law in by Friday?

You dont embarrass a govt into anything.You vote the rascally fellows out again after four years.

And then deal with the next lot. At which point, the fundamental defining problem for us will not have changed - we are a very small minority, we have a poor public image, and no politician will have a net loss in votes if he or she acts against us.
You want to make a difference in our sport in the long term? Fix the public image problem. Anything else, and you're just wasting time and resources and energy.

Second every time there is an attack on us we should be making more noise than our actual size warrants.

The hell with that. You want to prevent attacks in the first place, so you need to be pushing our image in a positive way all the time, rather than waiting about for something bad to happen.

17HMR

Sparks wrote:

You want to prevent attacks in the first place, so you need to be pushing our image in a positive way all the time, rather than waiting about for something bad to happen.

Let's face it - the general public don't like and/or are afraid of guns.
The only way shooting is going to get a positive image is if Ireland has significant and frequent success at high profile events like the Olympics.

The average shooter, either hunting or target shooting, is not ever likely to have a positive impact on public opinion but any fool with a gun can have a disproportionately large negative impact on how the public sees gun owners just by behaving irresponsibly.

Sparks

That's a pretty fair assessment 17

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=Sparks]Yes, but about waste from different programmes which are usually seen as being more politically correct. Which isn't good for us, but that's how it is.

But it is WASTE and waste is waste is waste.Again it is hoew it is brought across.

Leave aside for now the pragmatic view which says that with the powers now given to them in the CJA2006 we'd be better off not antagonising those who could eliminate our sport with one signature, and perfectly legally at that. Instead ask yourself at what point in this country has it ever been possible to beat the legislative branch of government with the judiciary?
Seriously

.

That sounds to me like the old Jewish answer to the Nazi problem.If we hand over one more thing or freedom and dont provoke them they will leave us alone.What did THAT thought process cost in the end????????
Plus why should we "beat"the judicary???They have supported and found in our favours since day one.It is the Govt where our gripe is not the courts.


Did noone look further than their own noses and see the influence of the EU???????? This is standardisation of EU firearms law,with the placebo of the individual countries looking after their own affairs RE firearms.

And then deal with the next lot. At which point, the fundamental defining problem for us will not have changed - we are a very small minority, we have a poor public image, and no politician will have a net loss in votes if he or she acts against us.
You want to make a difference in our sport in the long term? Fix the public image problem. Anything else, and you're just wasting time and resources and energy.

And you propose doing that by how exactly????????By building many air rifle ranges and winning many gold medals???And then the sheep out there wont know about this,or be intrested.You need to get a public figure or somone photogenic and militant enough to fight the corner of ALL shooting sports,plus you need advertisement and a method of getting a message across to the rest of the people out there.Somthing like NRA TV or a radio station or publicity stunts.Anyone going to fork up for this or do???Nah thought not.Our best bet INMHO is to project an image of leave us well alone and do not FUK with us.Or we will create all sort of legal and embarrassing hassle for you.Any politican that acts against us could take a lesson from toe sucker David Mellor.A 24 hour seige ,but it would take somthing we are generally short of here.SPINE and cohesion.

The hell with that. You want to prevent attacks in the first place, so you need to be pushing our image in a positive way all the time, rather than waiting about for something bad to happen.

So you would rather spend the time REacting than PROacting????And building ranges on every street corner and winning oodles of Olympic golds [which I always think is a totally elitelist form of the sport] will get us not much further ,cos as you argued yourself can be closed down by the uber range officer at the stroke of a pen.And for somthing "bad"to happen has any shooting organisation sat down and put a plan together for this ??Or will we be caught with our pants down around our ankeles,going hamanahamana???
We got our point across at the Barr tribunal,can we keep this up if somthing happens tomrrow.Actually I think us shooters are painting ourselves blacker than we actually are seen.it is time now to push abit and see how far we can get,rather than trying to drip away at a piece of granite.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

But it is WASTE and waste is waste is waste.Again it is hoew it is brought across.

And what I'm trying to point out is that because of our public image, noone in the media would ever risk trying to point that out. Best we'd hope for would be one of our own sneaking it into an interview as an anecdote, and that's a long shot at best.

Plus why should we "beat"the judicary???They have supported and found in our favours since day one.It is the Govt where our gripe is not the courts.

Which is what I said - you cannot beat the legislative branch (ie. the Dail) with the judiciary as a stick.

And you propose doing that by how exactly????????By building many air rifle ranges and winning many gold medals???

Exactly. Something safe and harmless and which all the scouts and pony club kids and others can get involved in. Something cheap and easy to set up. The shooting equivalent to pitch and putt. We'll see more medals in shotgun shooting first, but air rifle is something you can introduce kids to without anyone getting terrified. And if you get the kids, you get the parents.

You need to get a public figure or somone photogenic and militant enough to fight the corner of ALL shooting sports

The moment you get a militant figurehead fighting for shooting sports, we all lose.

Let me try to explain what I'm thinking here more clearly. The public, as a whole, is more or less undecided about firearms but is also basicly ignorant of them. Mention olympic shooting - they're all for it. Mention shooting in general - you won't get the same response. Mention hunting to an urbanite - well, no prizes for guessing how that goes. Now you take a public like that and expose them to an aggressive, militant person who's fighting with "the man" so people can have guns and I can't think of anyone who'd react well to it. You want someone who is not militant and who will not fight, because we are not a military group and we do not want to be seen as the kind of people who get into fights. We want someone who will put our interests forward - not fight. And who will seek to educate the public on the positive side of our sport - an advocate, not a militant figurehead.

an image of leave us well alone and do not FUK with us

The average age of a shooter today is in his late forties. And it goes up every year. Leave us alone and do not FUK with us and the sport will die out naturally in short order. We need to be seen as being as threatening as golf. We need to be seen as gregarious and friendly and we need our sport to be seen as a fun activity, or our grandkids won't remember the sport.

So you would rather spend the time REacting than PROacting?

I was suggesting acting, you were suggesting reacting.

And building ranges on every street corner and winning oodles of Olympic golds [which I always think is a totally elitelist form of the sport]

Think of it however you will, the fact remains that more people by a very, very, very wide margin have heard of the Olympics than of any other competition in the sport, both in Ireland and globally. Only in the US might that be different. You can rail against it and think of olympic shooting as elitist all you want - or, you could use the namebrand to your advantage. I know what a level-headed pragmatist would do...

it is time now to push abit and see how far we can get,rather than trying to drip away at a piece of granite.

There was serious pushing before the CJB and now we've been given law that gives the Minister the absolute, unchallangable right to ban any and all classes of firearms with one stroke of his pen.
Would you mind not pushing much harder please? I'd like to keep my sport.

civdef

What's all this got to do with the original topic?

BTW,

There was serious pushing before the CJB and now we've been given law that gives the Minister the absolute, unchallangable right to ban any and all classes of firearms with one stroke of his pen.

is incorrect.

Sparks

It's wandering civ, but since this all goes sub judice and we can't talk about it soon enough anyway, little harm.

And it's not incorrect. All the Minister has to do is to draft an order making a class of firearm restricted and that's a de facto ban right there. No appeal, no consultation needed, and he can set whatever guidelines he wants on what you have to have to licence one. So if he wanted to, he could simply require anyone who wanted a pistol to have 24-hour security staff and a room safe first. That's a de facto ban right there.

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

And what I'm trying to point out is that because of our public image, noone in the media would ever risk trying to point that out. Best we'd hope for would be one of our own sneaking it into an interview as an anecdote, and that's a long shot at best.

Really?Has it been tried???

Which is what I said - you cannot beat the legislative branch (ie. the Dail) with the judiciary as a stick.

Oh! I'm sorry.I thought the Dail and all it's residents were supposed to be under the same laws of the land as the rest of us.Must have woken up in some third world dictatorship this last year!

Exactly. Something safe and harmless and which all the scouts and pony club kids and others can get involved in. Something cheap and easy to set up. The shooting equivalent to pitch and putt. We'll see more medals in shotgun shooting first, but air rifle is something you can introduce kids to without anyone getting terrified. And if you get the kids, you get the parents.


The moment you get a militant figurehead fighting for shooting sports, we all lose.

Let me try to explain what I'm thinking here more clearly. The public, as a whole, is more or less undecided about firearms but is also basicly ignorant of them. Mention olympic shooting - they're all for it

.

Why ??It is" nasty guns" as well,and damn how medals they win that arguement was used post Dunblane.End result the Olympic pistol team GB trains in Switzerland and Belguim

Mention shooting in general - you won't get the same response. Mention hunting to an urbanite - well, no prizes for guessing how that goes. Now you take a public like that and expose them to an aggressive, militant person who's fighting with "the man" so people can have guns and I can't think of anyone who'd react well to it.

You want someone who is not militant and who will not fight

, Great a herd of sheep then.

because we are not a military group and we do not want to be seen as the kind of people who get into fights. We want someone who will put our interests forward - not fight. And who will seek to educate the public on the positive side of our sport - an advocate, not a militant figurehead.

You seem t ohave this image of cammoed mobs protesting outside the Dail.Far from it we might be only o60K in Ireland ,but if everyone took a day off in protest every week about somthing in unfavourable legislation,we would soon be noticed.Dont laugh it has been sucessful,in Germany that is.But then again the Germans do belive in unity and disipline and getting out and protesting.
.

We need to be seen as being as threatening as golf. We need to be seen as gregarious and friendly and we need our sport to be seen as a fun activity, or our grandkids won't remember the sport.

RIghhhhttttt.Somthing as friendly as the recent Ryder cup in Dublin???Very open,common and non eliteist??Tell that to the residents of the K club surrounds.that is the imperssion olympic shooting has with the common man.
I was suggesting acting, you were suggesting reacting.

Think of it however you will, the fact remains that more people by a very, very, very wide margin have heard of the Olympics than of any other competition in the sport, both in Ireland and globally. Only in the US might that be different. You can rail against it and think of olympic shooting as elitist all you want - or, you could use the namebrand to your advantage. I know what a level-headed pragmatist would do...

Yes they have heard of the Olympics.But could you ask anyone on the street to name the Gold winners in pistol or DTL???They could name the Olympic tiddlywink team quicker.How much publicity did we REALLY get ???Apart from a sort of "BTW some Irish lads won a few golds or somthin in shooting things."In the papers or TV???Have any of our shooting teams been to open any supermarkets,bars or whatever?How much paid sponsorship or advertiseing did we get???SFA in comparision to the rest of the Olympic sports.Until you can keep in the public face morning noon and nite.Bringing in Golds will get you a three minute soundbite,after the Irish leap frog teams sucess and before the weather.Shooting in the Olympics is considerd an eliteist sport and that is why Joe&Jane Bloggs will alwys regard it as such,and the media will do nothing to disuade that image.

There was serious pushing before the CJB and now we've been given law that gives the Minister the absolute, unchallangable right to ban any and all classes of firearms with one stroke of his pen.
Would you mind not pushing much harder please? I'd like to keep my sport.

Fine, you can die then by a death of a thousand cuts.When will you say "enough"?I said it a long time ago.

Anyway,back on topic.are folks surrendering meekly in Wicklow or are they saying to the Gaurds to go and FK themselves and see them in court???

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Oh! I'm sorry.I thought the Dail and all it's residents were supposed to be under the same laws of the land as the rest of us.

Not been watching the news this week (or any other week)?
Seriously, there are many examples of the legislative branch overruling the judiciary by writing new laws; in our own sport, we've just seen Dunne v. Donoghue, a Supreme Court judgement no less, overturned in effect by the CJA2006. We've seen it with radar guns as used by the gardai traffic corps, we've seen it with the bin taxes, we've seen it several times in the life of this government alone.

Why?

Because most people are nervous about guns and someone who's militant about fighting for those who use them is just going to scare the average undecided voter into voting against them purely on the basis of "erra, better safe than sorry, y'know?" I don't like it any more than you do, but that's how it is in this country.

that arguement was used post Dunblane.

No, it wasn't. The NSRA made an actual decision to stay quiet until the official report was out and they got hammered in the PR fight before they even started as a result, because they didn't understand PR. And no, a militant figurehead there wouldn't have done any good either - it would only have given the Labour spin doctors a convienent target to lampoon, as if Hamilton hadn't given them that already.

Great a herd of sheep then.

Sheep who vote. And who outnumber us.

RIghhhhttttt.Somthing as friendly as the recent Ryder cup in Dublin?

How much publicity did that bring to golf in Ireland? How many people came back to, or took up the sport as a result of it? How many people even just tried out pitch and putt as a result?

I was suggesting acting, you were suggesting reacting.

You were talking about reacting to attacks on the sport in a strong fashion. I was saying that waiting for such attacks was worthless - you had to be out there pushing our image long before such attacks are made, and on a continual basis. That's the only way you'll ever punch above your weight. We don't have the votes ourselves - so we need people who'll vote for us because they think we're in a safe and harmless sport that it wouldn't be right to penalise.

Yes they have heard of the Olympics.But could you ask anyone on the street to name the Gold winners in pistol or DTL?

Of course not, that's not the point. But you introduce them to Derek Burnett and tell them he came in 8th in the Olympics in Athens representing Ireland and they're automatically impressed. Besides, can you name (without google) who came in first in the 400m butterfly in Athens?

How much publicity did we REALLY get ?

Derek Burnett made it into every single paper in Ireland on the night he was lying in a medal placing in Athens. Every one. In most cases, he got a double-page spread, because the sport is novel and photogenic. He made it to the television and radio media as well. And that's without a large, professional, concerted effort in PR - that was with the dedicated efforts of a very few.

Anyway,back on topic.are folks surrendering meekly in Wicklow or are they saying to the Gaurds to go and FK themselves and see them in court???

Half-and-half, from what I hear. The NARGC is recommending noncompliance, but it's a tough road for those who normally see the Gardai once a year to renew a licence and who've never been in disagreement with them!

Bananaman

Was at hilltop the other night - the range is now fully authorised
Met a guy up there who had his pistol license re-issued from wicklow that day

JunkieW

Just to get back on topic...

Sparks wrote:

Been watching the news about the current Government lately CG? €5.5 million spent "making sure that firearms weren't licenced to the wrong people" wouldn't even raise much of a blip in the Sunday World these days. And when it transpired that that money wasn't even spent yet, it'd be even less newsworthy.

You are forgetting that the waste will be highlighted if the Gardai lose the court cases. They will lose because the basis of the withdrawals are (at present) without any standing under the law.

The NARGC have pointed out that the Gardai have taken this stance because they do not want to be seen to issue pistol licences, and are passing the buck up the line to the district court so that they can say (if anything goes wrong) 'We didn't issue the license, the courts did"

That's the reality.

I believe that they are also using range closure for the same reason. If there isn't "a safe place" to use the firearm, then they can say that they are not obliged to issue the license.

At the moment they are using a very broad interpretation of the firearms acts to support these actions. (All this was in the August edition of the Shooters Digest). The quoted sections they are using are as follows:

1. District Officers are empowered to ensure that legally held firearms are used without endangering the public. Section 4(b) of the 1925 Act.

Section 4(b)
Before granting a firearm certificate to any person under this Act the superintendent of the Gárda Síochána or the Minister (as the case may require) shall be satisfied that such person can be permitted to have in his possession, use, and carry a firearm or ammunition without danger to the public safety or to the peace

2. The FA empowers Superintendents to authorise club ranges: Section 2(4)(d) and Section 2(5)(a) of the 1925 Act. (They're actually in the 1964 Act, but little details like that don't matter when you're the Gardai)

Section 2(4)(d)
This section shall not apply to any of the following cases and such cases are accordingly excepted from this section, that is to say: the possession, use or carriage of a firearm or ammunition by a member of a rifle club or other gun club that stands authorised under this section while engaged as such member in a competition or target practice at a range or other place that stands authorised under this section

Section 2(5)(a)
The Superintendent of any district may authorise in writing the possession, use or carriage of firearms or ammunition in that district in any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) of subsection (4) of this section during such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the authorisation.

Just to remind you, section 2 is the section that deals with licensing of firearms. The main part of the section makes it an offence to carry or use a firearm without a certificate. There were a number of exceptions to this and the changes made in the 1964 act add some more exceptions to this part of the law; the one that is quoted was actually to allow clubs to hold authorisations for firearms (rather than licenses) so that members could use club firearms without the need for a license.

It was not intended to imply authorisation of ranges, nor did any other part of the act refer to this section other than as a substitute for an individual firearms certificate. In fact if you look at section 2(5)(a) you can see that it solely refers to the possession, use or carriage of firearms. In other words a firearms certificate by another name.

You might also note that there is no fee for a club authorisation.

Clare gunner

I would also question wether it is a total necessity to be a member of a gun club per se.My liscense has in one line
"The holder being a member of GUN CLUB".
True I am a member of IPSA[well as soon as I sens you the fees again:D ] But as such this ASFIK is not what you could constue as a traditional club with a fixed premises,range etc. So is the concept of a "club" still very nebelous here?IE a body of people with a fixed body of rules,elected members ,etc and no facilities.Or the above with a premises,range etc???
Your thoughts on this folks?

Sparks

JunkieW wrote:

You are forgetting that the waste will be highlighted if the Gardai lose the court cases.

Will it? The only time I've seen previous losses being highlighted in the press is when we pushed the articles towards the press, and for those that don't remember, we didn't always come off looking the best in those articles - the one in the Times about Nick Flood's .308 case for example, did not really portray him in a fantastic light, with lots of "described as a world-class marksman" and "lost the opportunity to compete...it was claimed" and other such language. I have yet to see an article where the reporter or editor themselves sided with us and condemned the waste of money by the Gardai, not in any paper worth mentioning. Get the Times - heck, get Joe Duffy - to say the Gardai are wasting money unnecessarily on this and you'll have a point.

They will lose because the basis of the withdrawals are (at present) without any standing under the law.

More than likely. Of course, in six months time or so, we may well see the commencement orders being celebrated with a giant call-them-all-in order as if it was 1972 all over again, but this time with the full backing and authority of legislation. At which point you have to ask yourself if all this effort and time and money was worth it?

The NARGC have pointed out that the Gardai have taken this stance because they do not want to be seen to issue pistol licences, and are passing the buck up the line to the district court so that they can say (if anything goes wrong) 'We didn't issue the license, the courts did"

And the CJA2006's changes to the Firearms Acts do nothing but take the buck away from the Superintendents and give it to the Commissioner, overruling the Dunne v. Donoghue ruling from the Supreme and High courts. So it's not like we can't say that we didn't have a hand in bringing on this problem. What I'm thinking is that if being militant and adversarial didn't work, maybe we should stop using that approach and try something else?

As to the legislation, we're in full agreement here. I'm not saying that the Gardai have the authority to do what they're doing, they don't - right now. That will change, and fairly soon, probably early in the new year. So is it worth the cost, the time, the energy and the possible reprisals (and please don't tell me that they won't happen after arguing for a page about Gardai overstepping their authority) to - and excuse the metaphor please - fight a battle that can be won now, only to lose the war in six months as a result?

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

I would also question wether it is a total necessity to be a member of a gun club per se.My liscense has in one line
"The holder being a member of GUN CLUB".
True I am a member of IPSA[well as soon as I sens you the fees again:D ] But as such this ASFIK is not what you could constue as a traditional club with a fixed premises,range etc. So is the concept of a "club" still very nebelous here?IE a body of people with a fixed body of rules,elected members ,etc and no facilities.Or the above with a premises,range etc???
Your thoughts on this folks?

You're getting into an odd area there CG - there is a body of law, under the 1904 (to 1988 I think) Registration of Clubs Act, that deals with officially registered clubs - but if that's not what the CJA is referring to when it talks about clubs, then you're talking about bodies which are wholly unregulated by law. Which seems a bit messy really.
The other thing to remember, of course, is that the concept of the club and of the range are seperate in the new Firearms Acts. The Range is what we normally think of as "the club", but from the law's point of view, it's more like the relationship between the midlands club and the midlands range - seperate legal entities, with the club hiring facilities from the range company. In legal terms, it makes a bit more sense to do things that way (from a limitation of liability viewpoint, as well as accounting and so forth), but it's certainly not intuitive...

JunkieW

From the October Issue of Shooters Digest:

This is the letter received by license holders in the Wicklow district:
RE: RENEWAL OF FIREARMS CERTIFICATES FOR ALL HANDGUNS

Dear...

I refer to the above and pistol firearms certificate number xxxxx you hold.

As the range which you nominated for using your weapon has not been authorised under the Firearms Act 1925. I cannot renew your firearms certificate for the above mention certificate at this time. Therefore you are obliged to hand your weapon to a firearms dealer for temporary storage.

The procedure for the authorisation of the firerarms ranges is underway and is expected to be completed in the near future. On the completion of that process I will then be in a position to renew your firearms Certificate in respect of the weapon.

Yours faithfully

Inspector

Italics are mine, misspellings and grammatical errors are his.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

And it's not incorrect. All the Minister has to do is to draft an order making a class of firearm restricted and that's a de facto ban right there. No appeal, no consultation needed

Actually civdef is right, there is right of appeal

An applicant for a certificate under subsection (1A) or (1C) or an application for an authorisation under subsection (1D) whose application has been refused may, within 30 days of receipt of notice of any such decision, appeal any such decision to
the District Court. In determining the appeal the Judge may -
(a) confirm the refusal, or
(b) allow the appeal, inform the Minister, the Commissioner or the person
designated for the purpose by the Commissioner (as the case may require) of his or her decision and direct the Minister to re-consider the application, or
(c) allow the appeal, inform the Minister, the Commissioner or the person
designated for the purpose by the Commissioner (as the case may require) of his or her decision and direct the Minister, the Commissioner or the person designated for the purpose by the Commissioner (as the case may require) to grant the application."

(1C) Any person wishing to obtain a firearms certificate under subsection (1), in respect of the firearm or ammunition which is deemed restricted by Order of the Minister under section 2A(1) of the Principal Act

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Actually civdef is right, there is right of appeal

I meant a right of appeal against the Minister's order - we specifically asked for that in the Dail and got smirked at by the Minister at the time.

rrpc

But it's not a de facto ban, seeing as any refusal to grant a certificate under the restricted section can be appealed to the district court.

From the applicants point of view, there will be very little difference between a restricted firearm and an unrestricted one. The only one I could see would be the imposition of conditions above and beyond those for an unrestricted firearm.

Onerous conditions could also be appealed against as being a de facto refusal to grant.

Sparks

But it's not a de facto ban, seeing as any refusal to grant a certificate under the restricted section can be appealed to the district court.

At which point you effectively have to convince a DC judge to overrule conditions on a firearms licence laid down by Ministerial order and provided for explicitly in primary legislation - because if you could meet them, you would have and would have skipped the court step.

No offence meant, but if judges in the high court and supreme court won't do it, and have explicitly stated in the past that they believe it is not the judiciary's role to second-guess every ministerial decision (or even corporate decisions!), and the Minister himself made exactly the same point in the dail on exactly this point, why would anyone expect a DC judge to do so?

And how would you argue that having 24 hour manned security for a firearm is onerous when at least two clubs in the country have that already?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

At which point you effectively have to convince a DC judge to overrule conditions on a firearms licence laid down by Ministerial order and provided for explicitly in primary legislation - because if you could meet them, you would have and would have skipped the court step.

I was talking there about a refusal to grant under the restricted section. Right to appeal is written into the legislation, and is the same procedure as for an unrestricted firearm.

Sparks wrote:

And how would you argue that having 24 hour manned security for a firearm is onerous when at least two clubs in the country have that already?

Because as an individual, I would not have access to the same resources as a club.

Sparks

I was talking there about a refusal to grant under the restricted section.

So was I. I said a de facto ban, not a legislative one - just put in place conditions which err so far to the side of caution (without actually being ridiculous) and you have a de facto ban without breaking the Firearms Act 2006. It's like the way pistols were never illegal to own - you just couldn't get a licence...

Because as an individual, I would not have access to the same resources as a club.

Hence the reason why you have to be in a target shooting club to get a target shooting licence.

I didn't say any of this was right, proper, just or fair y'know. It's just that what's in the CJA2006 does not indicate a fair and just system, but one which maintains the appearance of fairness while having more mechanisms in it which can be used legally to damage the sport than anything that's ever come before.