Publicity in shooting sports

Sparks

Was passed on this interesting bit from the ICPSA website on briefing the media and such. Very clearly lays out the sport, the competitors and their support team. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

By five points if I remember correctly. Not entirely sure that qualifies as an ass-kicking

I'm happy enough to take 0.5 of a point these days Though now that I'm back in college, I might take the smallbore rifle back out of storage again. At least it never mangled my arm like the archery does

rrpc

pullandbang wrote: »

Nothing wrong with publicity for shooters if they've achieved something or done something worthwhile in their community. All too often we read the bad publicity in relation to guns/shooting usually accompanied by ill informed editorials (Examiner!)

The profile of the sport needs to be highlighted to promote it to the younger generation and to encourage them into it. Articles like the one in the Wicklow Times do just that. Obviously home addresses should be ommitted.

Hopefully we'll be reading plenty about Derek Burnett on his return from the Olympics:)

I wholeheartedly agree. There was an article in the Sports supplement of the Turbine recently on Derek and I thought it was a very well informed, well written, positive article.

The more of those we have, the better the imgae of the sport. I really am praying that shooting brings home a medal this year from the Olympics. The positive impact that would have would be incalculable.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I'm happy enough to take 0.5 of a point these days Though now that I'm back in college, I might take the smallbore rifle back out of storage again. At least it never mangled my arm like the archery does

Oh do please, we've kinda missed you being around for the last couple of years. Standards have improved a lot recently as well. In the last twelve months, the number exceeding 570 has gone from 31% to 45% on average and that's with an increase in numbers as well.

Good shoot in DRC yesterday, I made a horlicks of the first three series (over 30 off :eek:), but picked it up for the last three (12 off). I'm blaming it on the lack of practice at that moving around the target thingy . Weather was great and a very good turnout as well.

Grizzly 45

Folks,I'll throw my 2cents in here.

First off,the papers publishing addresses,names etc.As it is in the DC,as I suggested before try and get your legal counsel to have your application heard in the afternoon sessions,or on liscensing days.Usually a DC will try and finish off the scumbag cases and drink driving ,etc in the AM,and concentrate on the more sensitive cases in the PM.Also usually the press has sodded off to the pub or whereever,unless it is a noteworthy or intresting case that they have been tipped off on.

Second,your counsel can put in an application due to the sensevity of the case regarding your personal security and of your family that your address and possibly name be omitted from press reports of court proceedings.Any competant judge will/should agree with such an application.As should counsel for the Gardai.

Third,should it emerge that the papers will publish the report,you can apply for an injunction to prevent the article being published.Thing is;your solr needs to be a bright boy/girl who can move fast on such things.But it is doable.

There is the reverse psychology too of if somone of the scumbag class knows there is a gun in the house.Will they want to risk getting the contents of the magazine first??? Criminals are not generally known for heroics,and surely there easier ways of getting a shooter these days down in the Glass and Face bar ?

It wasn't me!

I shouldn't think, in the vast majority of cases, that in cases where firearms are stolen, that the house was targeted because firearms were known to be kept there; I'd expect that the majority of the time at least, it's very much an incidental find, a bonus for them. There are easier ways to get less easily traceable firearms for criminal purposes, so it's not worth the hassle, and I imagine they're gotten rid of the same way everything else is, not kept by the original thieves for criminal purposes.

Our man in Havana

First off,the papers publishing addresses,names etc.As it is in the DC,as I suggested before try and get your legal counsel to have your application heard in the afternoon sessions,or on liscensing days.Usually a DC will try and finish off the scumbag cases and drink driving ,etc in the AM,and concentrate on the more sensitive cases in the PM.Also usually the press has sodded off to the pub or whereever,unless it is a noteworthy or intresting case that they have been tipped off on.

Second,your counsel can put in an application due to the sensevity of the case regarding your personal security and of your family that your address and possibly name be omitted from press reports of court proceedings.Any competant judge will/should agree with such an application.As should counsel for the Gardai.

Third,should it emerge that the papers will publish the report,you can apply for an injunction to prevent the article being published.Thing is;your solr needs to be a bright boy/girl who can move fast on such things.But it is doable.

+1

Yes Grizzly 45, try and get it heard on the licensing court day (journos are not interested in pub licences) or on the civil court day. In my local DC the journos don't attend for civil cases and as said seek an adjournment to the afternoon sitting.

Sparks

An approach that goes out the window when the journalists hear a firearm is involved. "Guns sell papers" might have been the saying...

Our man in Havana

Journos won't know what is on the civil list, unless they have people inside the clerks office. Also there are ways (procedural) to keep such a case off the list until as late as possible. Also in any case an application to suppress the info should be made in any case.

Sparks

unless they have people inside the clerks office

I'd have thought that would have been a fairly basic requirement for a court reporter. Hell, if I can call up the clerk's office of the supreme court to ask about a judgement, or check the daily legal diary, then any court reporter who doesn't do that over his morning coffee isn't going to last a week.

Also, I've asked about and I'm told that there is no reason why DC cases couldn't be held in camera if the judge is willing. However, I haven't found a way to require a case to be held that way, so you're down to the whim of the judge. Mind you, most of them should be amenable - but then, I've heard horror stories from DCs over shooting cases as well. I think we may see over the next few years a situation where the "problem Superintendent" scenario evolves into the "problem District Judge" scenario

Grizzly 45

Geez Sparks,
you have fierce helpful court clerks in your neck of the woods.:D

Sorry, misread the post,thought you said DC,not Supreme court.Different planet & animals altogether.

Our DC lot will tell you nothing by phone and reluctantly so if you call in in person.Attitude is; if you are involved,you will know your date &time.If not just spend the day/week in court there to find out about it.:eek:

Good reason is personal security or threat to damage,to life&limb of you or family.Most judges will accept that,but proably wont order an in camera session,if they are up the walls.Best hope is just that the press whores are asked to depart.

Sparks

Here's the thing Grizzly - the local DC clerk won't know you, but he will know the journos.

Our man in Havana

That all depends on the DC clerk concerned.

Terrier

Two young Men granted licences for Assault pistols all over the Connaught Tribune, Galway First and the Tuam Herald this week after a Sig and Beretta Storm 9mm were granted to two men from Tuam after being dragged through the district court.. both names and address were listed of course!!:mad:

Sparks

Terrier, the coverage in the Tuam Herald at least was quite positive compared to that in the Examiner (it was posted up here in another thread), and they weren't dragged in there, they chose to go in there to appeal the Super's decision. And yes, I know, they wouldn't have chosen to do so had he not said no in the first place, but that's the nature of the beast at the moment. Calling it something else is not going to help fix things.

Grizzly 45

By rights,this is actually a job now for the press council.
Was it really necessary to publish names and addresses in this case??
Do the general unwashed need to know if somone was in court and sucessfully won a firearms liscense grant?
Child molestors have now seemingly more rights to privacy than gun liscense applicants.:(
It comes to a point where the public has a right to know vs somones saftey and privacy.

Sparks

Was it really necessary to publish names and addresses in this case??

It wasn't necessary to publish the case at all to be honest. But the level of detail in the home addresses was over the top. Names, well, if you're going to be doing this you can't reasonably expect that your name will be kept secret.
And the "right to know" versus "privacy" argument died in the 70's Grizzly. "Right to know" won the day Woodward and Bernstein heard about a few lads up in the US version of a district court on minor burglary charges.

Our man in Havana

sparks wrote:

Names, well, if you're going to be doing this you can't reasonably expect that your name will be kept secret.

I don't accept that. What will be the next thing? A list of all FAC holders will be available for viewing at your local Garda Station alongside the electoral register?

Grizzly 45 wrote:

Was it really necessary to publish names and addresses in this case??
Do the general unwashed need to know if someone was in court and successfully won a firearms license grant?

No they have no business knowing. You never see in the local rag, "Johnny Murphy granted a publicans licence" or "Ballydehob N.S. granted a lottery licence". These are applications heard at a typical DC.

In my view there needs to be a judgement on the right to know against security of the gun owner.

Sparks

Bond-007 wrote: »

I don't accept that.

That may be; but it doesn't change the fact that your name is on the docket and the diary and as such is requestable under the FOI act, secret trials being a really bad idea.

No they have no business knowing.

To your mind, yes. To theirs, not so much. You'll need a better reason to give in court to earn you special treatment, especially given the workload of the DCs and the extra amount that in camera hearings add to it.

You never see in the local rag, "Johnny Murphy granted a publicans licence" or "Ballydehob N.S. granted a lottery licence". These are applications heard at a typical DC.

You don't see them because the public's not interested - but you do see massive amounts on Johnny's planning permission applications and the like. What's news will sell papers, so until gun licence appeals cease to be interesting (ie. when people get used to them), we'll be seeing press coverage of them.

In my view there needs to be a judgement on the right to know against security of the gun owner.

I agree in principle, but not in practise. Certain things are always going to hit the public domain. Maybe not your home address and phone number, but your name will be out there almost immediately and if it's on the docket for a DC, it's not hard to get the home address from it. So if you are going to the DC, to my mind, you'd better be prepared for all this stuff to land in the public domain because you can't get a guarantee that it won't. And complaining about how morally wrong it is won't solve the problem.

Grizzly 45

[And the "right to know" versus "privacy" argument died in the 70's Grizzly. "Right to know" won the day Woodward and Bernstein heard about a few lads up in the US version of a district court on minor burglary charges.[/quote]

Ahh.but that is the United States Sparks,with article 1 of freedom of press,expression etc.
We dont have freedom of the press enshrined in our constitution,or in a very grey ,maybe,but if way.And it looks like this is being somwhat curtailed further under the press council courtsey of mr Mc Dowel and Co getting a bit peed off about nosey journalists reporting on his son getting digged in the head. So yes this could be argued that this was intrusive reporting not in the best public intrest.

Rovi

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sparks wrote:

And the "right to know" versus "privacy" argument died in the 70's Grizzly. "Right to know" won the day Woodward and Bernstein heard about a few lads up in the US version of a district court on minor burglary charges.

Ahh.but that is the United States Sparks,with article 1 of freedom of press,expression etc.
We dont have freedom of the press enshrined in our constitution,or in a very grey ,maybe,but if way.

Of course, if the judiciary here were inclined to enforce the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution in this jurisdiction, they'd then be obliged to enforce the the next one too, wouldn't they...?

Sparks

We dont have freedom of the press enshrined in our constitution

Except that we do. There are limitations on it, which have historical roots, but there's no such thing as an unlimited right anyway.
At any rate, you think that it was intrusive, but you're heavily biased because you're a shooter. It's not clear that the general public would agree with you, and it seems unlikely that the people in this case didn't ask for in camera hearings and discretion from the press - which would mean that the DC judge and the newspaper people all disagree with your opinion.

Grizzly 45

At any rate, you think that it was intrusive, but you're heavily biased because you're a shooter. It's not clear that the general public would agree with you, and it seems unlikely that the people in this case didn't ask for in camera hearings and discretion from the press - which would mean that the DC judge and the newspaper people all disagree with your opinion.[/quote]

Well on that case,wouldn't it be in "the public intrest" to know that a child molestor is living in your neighbourhood for example?Yet they are afforded a degree of privacy that is not shown a liscense applicant.And I cant say I am biased in this above example as I dont have kids.But i would like to know what kind of people are around me. "Public intrest
" is NEVER in the public intrest.
As for the above case.Did we know if it was asked for by their solr???
If the solr doesn't ask there is no obligation on the judge or court to point this out to them.Solrs are paid alot to know the law,but somtimes fall down on common sense.