Pistol Refusal by High Court Judge ?

bunny shooter

Traumadoc wrote: »

Do you mind if I crawl back under my rock to eat it?:o

Be more fun if we can watch

Grizzly 45

Thanks Cavan,was just going to edit me post to refer to that point about the other Donegal case.
Hair,
One swallow does not a Summer make....That can also be reviewed as well that decision.If the judge can be shown to be using his position of personal bias against the weight of law....
On this point with all these high court cases that have gone in favour,isnt there one precedent case on the whole lot,or is this still based on individual case by case???

bunny shooter

Judge may have brought up Dunblane but RTE found archive footage to go with his comment :mad:

Dunblane happened and it was tragic, but it didn't happen here

Callow Man

Hello Lads

My first post

In relation to the topic being discussed, waiting on a rifle licence at the moment (already have shotgun) hope this wont influence my supers decision in any way. Any ideas on the criteria needed for rifle licence???

Sorry if i'm straying from the main topic.

bunny shooter

Callow Man wrote: »

Hello Lads

My first post

In relation to the topic being discussed, waiting on a rifle licence at the moment (already have shotgun) hope this wont influence my supers decision in any way. Any ideas on the criteria needed for rifle licence???

Sorry if i'm straying from the main topic.

Good luck with it. Depends on what type of super you have. Most are Ok but there are a few di**kheads

Grizzly 45

Hi Callow
Welcome to the house of Fun!:).
depends on what type of rifle you have applied for and your good reason given by you to your Super.As BS said,depends if you have Super nice guy or Super nasty Bll**ks.simple as that.

Sparks

Troll's post deleted; responses to the troll deleted; those who tried to tear strips out of the troll instead of hitting the report post button have received an infraction; and thanks to bunny shooter who was the only one to actually report the troll and let the mods know there was a problem.

kowloon wrote: »

I filled out the form for the primetime scaremonger special and never heard a word back. :mad:

That's downright odd. The BCC will always respond if they receive a complaint, no matter what they think of it - try resending, the problem might be as simple as that.

On the case, since it's in the court system, it's best to wait for the transcript. The circumstances of the case, the reasoning of the judge - I wouldn't trust a 2 minute 9pm news bit to get the actual situation. Nightly news and reasoned judgements don't tend to go together...

And don't forget - there have been upheld refusals before. This isn't the first. It's just that two upheld against over a hundred overturned indicates a problem with the system

Grizzly 45

Speaking of the BCC.Have any of you other 4 lads got anything back from the BCC yet??What is the time reply... 30 days???

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

.........and thanks to bunny shooter who was the only one to actually report the troll and let the mods know there was a problem.........

No bother.....................didn't think any responses to troll deserved an infraction considering what I was going to say :eek:

Callow Man

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hi Callow
Welcome to the house of Fun!:).
depends on what type of rifle you have applied for and your good reason given by you to your Super.As BS said,depends if you have Super nice guy or Super nasty Bll**ks.simple as that.

Thanks Grizzly

I have applied for a licence for a CZ 452.17 hmr. I dont know much about the super but did'nt have any problems with the shotgun. I dont think I went too mad with the .17 to start off with.

bunny shooter

Callow Man wrote: »

Thanks Grizzly

I have applied for a licence for a CZ 452.17 hmr. I dont know much about the super but did'nt have any problems with the shotgun. I dont think I went too mad with the .17 to start off with.

Should have no problems

thehair

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thanks Cavan,was just going to edit me post to refer to that point about the other Donegal case.
Hair,
One swallow does not a Summer make....That can also be reviewed as well that decision.If the judge can be shown to be using his position of personal bias against the weight of law....
On this point with all these high court cases that have gone in favour,isnt there one precedent case on the whole lot,or is this still based on individual case by case???

sorry about not giving you a replay grizzy 45 busy looking at pm steve

Sparks

Nothing back yet Grizzly, but I'm not expecting anything back yet.

didn't think any responses to troll deserved an infraction

Normally, I'd say no, but after four years of constantly repeating "don't feed the trolls, hit the report button", it seems people aren't getting the idea yet (with a few exceptions). I'm hoping a short period of this sort of thing will set the habit and improve the entire forum in the long term.

By the way, a quick search:

• Mc Carron -v- Kearney: .40 Glock 22 applied for, cert refused on the grounds that it wasn't suitable for target shooting, refusal upheld.
• Goodison -v- Sheahan: 9mm Glock applied for, cert refused on the grounds of unsuitablility, refusal was upheld but it was noted that the applicant should re-apply with more information indicating that the pistol was suitable (ie. what matches, that sort of thing)

G17

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Speaking of the BCC.Have any of you other 4 lads got anything back from the BCC yet??What is the time reply... 30 days???

My last mail from the BCC was 6th of June, shouldn't be long now.

jwshooter

bunny shooter wrote: »

One of us is wrong

If it's me I'll have some humble pie to eat:o

hi lads ant link too the news of this regards jw

Grizzly 45

• Mc Carron -v- Kearney: .40 Glock 22 applied for, cert refused on the grounds that it wasn't suitable for target shooting, refusal upheld.

Just after reading this case.Is this the same case that was featured on the RTE news broadcast????As it has all the same references..40 Cal,ref to Dunblane etc etc.

If it is and reading the Judges decision,it shows a VERY alarming lack of understanding of firearms,and of the law relating to them as well.Things like "that is why telescopic sights are also controlled under the Firearms act 2006" Section 12 of the construction section.

Suffering Jbox

Sparks wrote: »

Troll's post deleted; responses to the troll deleted; those who tried to tear strips out of the troll instead of hitting the report post button have received an infraction; and thanks to bunny shooter who was the only one to actually report the troll and let the mods know there was a problem.

Sorry, folks..did not realise use of irony was an infraction...have learned my lesson.

Grizzly 45

Dats what dis fellow here :rolleyes: is for.

Suffering Jbox

I get you. New to this.

IDon'tKnow!

If you get refused a cert by your super then court. Could you not reapply for the same kind of firearm a few weeks later, your super will most likely refuse you again. But you could then go back to court in the hope that you get a different judge second time around who has different ideas about firearms and who should have them?

IRLConor

IDon'tKnow! wrote: »

If you get refused a cert by your super then court. Could you not reapply for the same kind of firearm a few weeks later, your super will most likely refuse you again. But you could then go back to court in the hope that you get a different judge second time around who has different ideas about firearms and who should have them?

You could, but:

1. It's expensive.
2. Your previous case is a precedent. Unless you make a different argument odds are the judge will rule pretty quickly in the same way as the previous one.

IDon'tKnow!

IRLConor wrote: »

You could, but:

1. It's expensive.
2. Your previous case is a precedent. Unless you make a different argument odds are the judge will rule pretty quickly in the same way as the previous one.

Will if money was no object and.
Your first case was a bit weak, you could go back and try give better argument in court as to why you need that gun in that cal for your sport.

Also is the fact that other people have gone to court and got there supers overturned is that not a precedent.

Sparks

If money was no object, you'd appeal to the circuit court (you start off in the District Court these days - this case and the others are holdovers from the old system), then the high court and then the supreme court. However, appeals can only be made if there are grounds to appeal on (otherwise, people would just keep appealing in the hope that they'd get a different judge... ).

That said, in the second case I cited there, the applicant was virtually told to reapply by the judge...


Grizzly, McCarron might well be that case, it came out yesterday (kindof odd for a judicial review to get up on courts.ie so fast - we were waiting weeks for the O'Leary transcript).

IRLConor

IDon'tKnow! wrote: »

Will if money was no object and.
Your first case was a bit weak, you could go back and try give better argument in court as to why you need that gun in that cal for your sport.

Oh yeah, if money was no object then you have little to lose by trying again. If you have new info and/or your legal representation made an error it might be worth trying again too.

IDon'tKnow! wrote: »

Also is the fact that other people have gone to court and got there supers overturned is that not a precedent.

Well, in this case (McCarron v Kearney) reference was made both to O'Leary v Maher and Goodison v Sheahan.

I wasn't saying that the precedent was necessarily binding but that if you turned up with pretty much the same argument then there's a good chance the judge would say something like "nothing new here, I don't see why I should rule differently".

Sparks

Looking at the transcript in detail is interesting:

He argues in this judicial review application that once he has decided in good faith to buy a weapon that it must be licensed by the respondent provided he is not a person who is ineligible under the Act to hold a firearm and provided he has been trained to safely use it.

See, right there that's a weak case. The Act says nothing about the Super having to licence you. It says it's his decision and that there are prerequisites before he can say yes; there's nothing about forcing him to say yes and the persona designata status is now explicitly established by Dunne so basicly he can't be forced to decide either way by anyone. (Well, that's not quite the case anymore, but under the rules this case started under, it was).

It is unfortunate that a number of allegations were directed against the respondent superintendent by the applicant

:eek:
That sounds like having an argument with a Garda about a speeding ticket on the side of the road to me...

It was said, on affidavit, that the respondent refused, in general and as a kind of policy, to grant certificates for this type of firearm; that he had “a mental block against granting certificates above a certain calibre”; and that he was “prejudiced by an unfounded view that such calibre firearms are combat weapons”. A temperate and dignified answer to these allegations was provided by the respondent at para. 4 of his affidavit. I accept this evidence.

Yup. Basicly, the applicant accused the Super of breaking the law (Dunne established that even the Super can't impose new mandatory blanket prerequisites on top of those already in section four) and dived into the argument before getting in front of the judge, and it sounds like it was heated; the Super stepped back and gave a measured response and took it to the court. The courts always tend to think more of measured statements than of accusations in those kind of situations.

The statement the Super handed in should be made mandatory reading for anyone feeling hotheaded when applying for a pistol licence:

I further informed Mr. McCarron that in reaching my decision I considered that this type of weapon was one declared to be particularly dangerous by the Firearms (dangerous weapons) Order, 1972. However, I did not say that I “would not license a handgun of higher calibre than an Olympic standard handgun – in other words a .22 calibre handgun”. I consider applications for firearm certificates on their merits and if I receive an application for a handgun with a greater calibre and there is good reason for acquiring same I would (provided I am satisfied of all the matters contained in the Firearms Act), grant a certificate for same. However, I believe that the calibres used in Olympic type shooting competitions are non military/police calibres and present less of a risk to society and participants than the type of handgun for which the applicant seeks a certificate. In short, Mr. McCarron stated that he required this particular gun for target shooting; I am not satisfied that same is suitable for target shooting given the dangers inherent in such a gun, although I concede that it can be used for same and I am therefore not satisfied that Mr. McCarron has a good reason for acquiring this particular handgun.

That's the legal equivalent to a right hook, a left hook and a pretty solid uppercut.

The applicant says that he is aggrieved by the refusal to allow him to have this high calibre pistol because so many of his shooting friends already have them.

Oh for the love of small furry things. Peer pressure isn't a reason to have a firearm!

The firearm in question is required by the legislation to be considered by the district superintendent since that, if the application is successful, will be the weapon that the superintendent is also required to be satisfied can be left in the possession, use and conveyance of the licensed person.

That's about the most worrying thing in all of this - as it mitigates the O'Leary ruling directly and in fact he later says he disagrees with the O'Leary (and another similar) judgement.

Mind you, that last point might be grounds for appeal, and this is a case that from our point of view ought to be appealed, because for anyone going to the District Courts with a hostile Superintendent, this precedent is a nightmare. Why such a weak case was taken in I don't know, but the net result is one of serious damage for the rest of us.

IRLConor

The Super said:

"However, I believe that the calibres used in Olympic type shooting competitions are non military/police calibres"

which is not correct. The .32 S&W Long currently in favour for ISSF center fire pistol was originally a police cartridge (NYPD standard issue for a while) and was called ".32 Colt New Police" by Colt. Also, 7.62 and 9mm (both "military calibres") are allowed in that event.

Surely pointing out that the Superintendent was acting without full information would be grounds for the judge ordering him to review his decision?

Sparks

...not to mention that any calibre at all up to 8mm is permitted in the 300m rifle events (on the Olympic program until 1972; taken off because of space pressure and rising costs and beach volleyball's smaller bikinis; still shot all over europe today and in the ISSF world championships program)...


I'd say there were sufficient technical flaws (telescopic sights, the "military calibre" stuff, the prejudicial nature of constantly referring to the firearm as a weapon, etc, etc) in the judge's remarks to try for an appeal allright, but I don't know if you'd get it.

Dr Strange

It's in the Irish Time this morning, page 4. Apparently you'll need a better explaination/reason than "for sporting purposes" if you want a certain type of gun. The judge in this case does not see the gun as suitable because it is a "combat weapon". The article repeatedly throws in this years rise in gun crime and murders and the issuing of lots of handgun licences. They may not say it directly but it is quite clear that they link these murders and guncrimes to legally licensed handguns. :rolleyes:

chem

Preusse wrote: »

It's in the Irish Time this morning, page 4. Apparently you'll need a better explaination/reason than "for sporting purposes" if you want a certain type of gun. The judge in this case does not see the gun as suitable because it is a "combat weapon". The article repeatedly throws in this years rise in gun crime and murders and the issuing of lots of handgun licences. They may not say it directly but it is quite clear that they link these murders and guncrimes to legally licensed handguns. :rolleyes:

What other reason have we then sporting use of a pistol??? So here is the defacto ban again is it? Yep you can have a pistol above .22 but it cant be for sporting use? What is going on here people? Do thes people not realise pistol shooting has never been outlawed in the north? This was during one of Irelands longest and darkest times. I dont see anyone rolling out stats of licenced guns used in crimes. Because there are none!!

It makes my blood boil the way we are treated as a group.:mad: I could probably go into a gangland pub and buy anything I wanted easier then go into my local station and apply for a pistol licence or full bore rifle. It a crazy set up.

This feeling of everyone who is into shooting must be watched or must have a marble lose is notting more then propaganda to sell papers, yet we are the ones who keep suffering. Mark my words. The days of pistol shooting in this country are numbered:(

Unless your involved in gangland crime that is! Look how the pistol ban in the UK worked out so well. The disarming the UK season on CH4 showed how easy it is to get pistols on the streets!!

Grizzly 45

[BOHICA with the Irish Times.Where is Dr Clonan when you need him???:rolleyes::rolleyes:.
Later after reading IT article
WTF sort of nonsense is that??:rolleyes: Shotguns are less dangerous than handguns as the pellets disperse after a short distance.Sort of like saying it is safer to be hit by a slow moving truck at 20mph as a pedestrian than a sports car doing 100mph!
Would rather face down somone with a handgun at close range,than somone with a sawn off shotgun any day.

Silly season has most certainly arrived in the Irish media this year.:rolleyes::(