Pistol Refusal by High Court Judge ?

IDon'tKnow!

chem wrote: »

Apparently you'll need a better explaination/reason than "for sporting purposes" if you want a certain type of gun

But sporting purposes are the only reason you can get any firearm cert in this country!

chem

IDon'tKnow! wrote: »

But sporting purposes are the only reason you can get any firearm cert in this country!

Yep thats my point;)

Its the same way they tried to allow re-loading but you couldnt use low cost as a reason to reload!

Grizzly 45

Or it just goes to show how clueless about those who should be in the know about the firearms laws and firearms actually are,and how much personal bias can influence jurisprudence as well.Always bad news for the law and those who must live under it.

ASFIK if you can prove that there was personal prejudices involved in the judges decision [seemingly he strikes meas being anti gun anyway,in his wording and news reports]or ignorance of pertinent facts of law.IE the statement that you need a better reason than sporting purposes to apply for a handgun.When that is under Irish statute law the only valid reason,[apart from possibly being a vet,knacker,or professional deer stalker]to posses one.It would be grounds for appeal,plus another technical side 40 S&W is NOT a military calibre in any Army[more like a police cal].So it could also be argued that a 40SW Glock is not a combat weapon per se.Although that term is stupid anyway,who is going to go to war with just a handgun???

Cpt.Blackadder

Ok I'm relatively new to sport shooting, I have no firearm yet due to living arrangements but I try to keep up to date. But one refusal shouldn't do much in terms of judical precedent, should it?

After reading the link it seems pretty clear that the judge had a particular ruling in mind from the start.

Our man in Havana

It shouldn't Blackadder but it fuels the fire for the anti gun groups and in particular it justifies what RTÉ is doing in it's brand of reporting on all matters to do with shooting.

kowloon

RTE is getting dreadfully pop cultured at the moment.
I give them a few years before they have the news looking like brasseye.

Tea drinker

The standard of reporting in this country is abysmal. Especially by RTE, and most of the mainstream media.
Everyone knows all the gun crime is due to guns coming in with drugs shipments, being used in Drug related crime.
Unfortunately, it's politically correct (sure aren't the politicians at it) to do drugs, in particular soft drugs. It's simply unreal the amount of people who are paying for these illegal guns to be brought into the country, and who are unwilling to accept any hand act or part in drug related crime.
To then turn around and point the finger at legally held firearms is wholly disingenous.

Sparks

I did note that the judge said it wasn't sufficient reason to "want to have sport with" a pistol:

The reason for possessing and using the particular weapon has to be more than a simple desire to use it or to have sport with it in some way

That's not quite the same thing as saying that sporting reasons aren't sufficient (and the word "sporting" never appears in the judgement at all in fact).

He does say later that it's not enough for an individual to just want to use the firearm for sport, but that's in the context of legal prerequisites and it's perfectly correct - good reason is only one of the things you have to have.

Grizzly 45

But what other good reasons are there Sparks??Legally you can only use good reason to aquire for target shooting,be it stationary or dynamic.Possibly by some good chance as a pro stalker,animal knacker,or vet.But hardly revelant here.We will have to ASSume here that he made an application to join either IPSA and/or a gun club.Granted or not,one has no way of knowing.The judge said he was qualified to use it,[in a rather dispraging way to the general shooting pouplation too I might add."Individuals that have gained some basic saftey courses....."]
So what else is there under law that can qualify as good reason??

cavan shooter

Guys, I think that this is all back to the caliber issue here and a total misunderstanding of same by people. Canaries are had when you mention certain calibers (think of the rifle issues), because of the inherent link and the name associated with the fire arm.
I wonder would the guy have had the same trouble if he was going for a 22 target pistol, I'd say not because it sounds benign. Now go looking for a Glock 9mm for target shooting and the last time somebody heard those two words where from a news item where someone was shot by a thug using a Glock 9mm..

Just a thought

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But what other good reasons are there Sparks?

I think I wasn't clear enough?
"to have sport with" = "to mess about with"
"to use for sport" = "for sporting reasons".
Not the same thing. Two different meanings of the word sport.

The judge said he was qualified to use it,[in a rather dispraging way to the general shooting pouplation too I might add."Individuals that have gained some basic saftey courses....."]

We have no idea what course he did so we can't really tell if he was talking about applicants that have done certain courses or people in the larger shooter population.
It's best not to bite the head off a judge without knowing the reason for his judgement...

So what else is there under law that can qualify as good reason??

For a pistol? Sport.

chem

cavan shooter wrote: »

Guys, I think that this is all back to the caliber issue here and a total misunderstanding of same by people. Canaries are had when you mention certain calibers (think of the rifle issues), because of the inherent link and the name associated with the fire arm.
I wonder would the guy have had the same trouble if he was going for a 22 target pistol, I'd say not because it sounds benign. Now go looking for a Glock 9mm for target shooting and the last time somebody heard those two words where from a news item where someone was shot by a thug using a Glock 9mm..

Just a thought

Im with you on this one CS and understand what 9mm means to some supers. But how can a person who is ment to uphold the law trow the book out the window, when an already licenced shooter asks for a 9mm pistol?

Lets face it. The gardai no more want shooters having pistols then they want to be armed themselfs. But how can a supers mind be changed? answer go to the highcourt. Its a silly Irish problem and it will not change till the super is no longer the issueing body. It will have to be a system like in the north where all applications go to one place and are sorted out there.

Sparks

Cavan, according to the Super's testimony, he offered to licence a .22 but the applicant wanted a 9mm and the judgement doesn't paint an accomodating picture of the applicant (which says more about how you ought to conduct yourself in these things than it does about the applicant to be fair - it does sound like someone got in over his head without realising it).

chem

Sparks wrote: »

Cavan, according to the Super's testimony, he offered to licence a .22 but the applicant wanted a 9mm and the judgement doesn't paint an accomodating picture of the applicant (which says more about how you ought to conduct yourself in these things than it does about the applicant to be fair - it does sound like someone got in over his head without realising it).

To be fare Sparks why should he have settled for a .22? If he could be trusted with a 22 why not a 9mm?

Its hard to figure out how garda minds work at times:rolleyes:but maybe its abit like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Sparks

chem wrote: »

how can a person who is ment to uphold the law trow the book out the window

According to the court, he didn't.

Lets face it.

Well, if you want to face something, face the fact that this was a case that should never have been taken to court. It was an easy win for the Garda in this case, and the applicant was hammered. And now the O'Leary precedent has been challanged, making it harder for everyone else.
Had this guy just waited a few short months for the CJA to get commenced - and he would have been able to know what was coming up, it was all over here since 2004 - then this case would have gone to the DC and with the O'Leary verdict, and enough smarts not to argue with a Garda outside of a courtroom, he'd have his firearm licenced today.

But how can a supers mind be changed? answer go to the highcourt.

District court. The high court never had the power to change a super's mind, it only ever had the power to tell him that the reason for his choice wasn't good enough and to go reconsider. It could never tell him to grant or not to grant.

Its a silly Irish problem and it will not change till the super is no longer the issueing body.

Which probably won't ever happen (unless you consider the ability of the DC to override a refusal - which from the point of view of any sportsperson is useless because if the barrier of entry to your sport is that you have to go to court to challange a superintendent of the gardai, you're never going to get many people in your sport.

It will have to be a system like in the north where all applications go to one place and are sorted out there.

And then it just takes one problem person to screw it up for everyone. Right now, one or three problem people = 99% or so of all applications/renewals handled fine, and the courts can handle the rest.

To be fare Sparks why should he have settled for a .22

While I'm not saying he had to take up the Super on the offer (I was commenting that cavan's speculation had a twist) - there's a point here. It's not settling, it's a start. It's not an immutable end. Why does everyone who wants to take the Gardai to court seem to think that if they don't get everything they want at once, it's a failure? I swear, we wouldn't accept that from twelve-year-olds!

SIG

It would appear that what happened is the the Judge refused the applicant the right to take a Judicial Review of the Garda refusal to grant a licence. That decision will I think be appealed. Due to all the other issues already dealt with I would suspect that the appeal would succeed. What the Judge did by denying the application was to highlight the issue and have it thrashed out with a greater glare of publicity. Common sense and the law most likley will prevail.

thehair

the way i see it a 9MM is the one the bad guy used a lot so super think
no way and judge thinking is oooo no he might bring all the bad guys
to donegal from down south east:eek: at the end of the day will we ever
have a sort of peace process for all sports shooter alike:)steve

Sparks

SIG wrote: »

It would appear that what happened is the the Judge refused the applicant the right to take a Judicial Review of the Garda refusal to grant a licence.

Yes, but that also acts as a refusal to overturn the refusal. It would be hard to appeal the refusal for judicial review; you'd have to go to the supreme court. Not impossible, but quite expensive and time-consuming and with a case this weak, it would be far better to give it up and either take another test case with a better chance, or to resubmit for judicial review with a different, better argument. The latter course, however, would likely be looked at funny and might not even be allowed.

What the Judge did by denying the application was to highlight the issue and have it thrashed out with a greater glare of publicity.

That's a pretty serious accusation to level at a judge. The media (ie, RTE, currently the subject of a BCC complaint on this same issue over the prime time report) is where this was reported.

Common sense and the law most likley will prevail.

We can only hope!

SIG

Sparks, the Judge did mention his concern on the issue therby bringing the whole area to a wider audience. One can appeal a refusal to grant leave to take Judicial Review proceedings to the Supreme Court with little difficulty, and I suspect that this will occur. A good PR for the sport shooting fraternity need to be upmost in mind.

cavan shooter

I'm with sparks on this one This case seems flawed/badly thought out from the start. I'd Love to read the two affidavits

Sparks

There are chunks of them in the judgement cavan.

SIG

Yes thehair, 9mm is a bad calibre ?. I went for a 9mm over s&w 40 due to cost of round and availability. Amazing that law enforcement/military now see 9mm as not sufficient for the job at times, hence 10mm !!. Its comic at times what the term 9mm causes in the media, ( glock also sadly ) they never heard of H&K, Sig, Beretta, et al.

Sparks

SIG wrote: »

Sparks, the Judge did mention his concern on the issue therby bringing the whole area to a wider audience.

See, there's the thing - it didn't. The whole thing was brought to a wider audience because it showed up on the RTE news - the judge didn't order for that to happen.

One can appeal a refusal to grant leave to take Judicial Review proceedings to the Supreme Court with little difficulty

One can try. One is not guaranteed to succeed and one feels the need to point out that it was a similar (and similarly unjustified) sense of entitlement that caused this mess in the first place.

Also, and for about the Nth time, if you have the money to be taking cases to the supreme court that could have been settled for nothing with just a little flexibility and the ability to take a longer view; then please consider donating some to your local club, because that'd be a far better use for it than buying a barrister a new S-class...

and I suspect that this will occur.

I'm somewhat more skeptical, obviously.

A good PR for the sport shooting fraternity need to be upmost in mind.

This is one of the few cases where the thing itself is a lot more important than the PR. Doesn't matter how this got reported or not reported by RTE, who'll forget it in a fortnight or so. The court precedent, however, is on the permanent record now. And precedents count for a lot, especially with the district courts being brought in as the route of appeal instead of the high court judicial review process. Weak cases should not be encouraged, as they hurt everyone else.

And while we're on the topic - this mindset (if you don't get what you want, the next step is the barrister) needs to be taken out behind the bike sheds and given a good kicking, in my opinion. It does far more harm than good.

Sparks

SIG wrote: »

Yes thehair, 9mm is a bad calibre ?. I went for a 9mm over s&w 40 due to cost of round and availability. Amazing that law enforcement/military now see 9mm as not sufficient for the job at times, hence 10mm !!. Its comic at times what the term 9mm causes in the media, ( glock also sadly ) they never heard of H&K, Sig, Beretta, et al.

If 9mm glocks are so hard to get a hold of because of licencing issues, why not instead get a H&K .40 or something similar, which doesn't have the "brand issues" associated with it? Surely slightly higher running costs are outweighed by the advantages of actually having the thing in the first place???

I keep wanting, whenever I see cases like this, to ask the applicant - "Is it more important to get what you first wanted over the objections of a Garda, or is it more important to do well in the sport you're getting the pistol for in the first place?"

(And correct me if I'm wrong, because IPSC isn't my bag, but don't you score higher with a .40 or .45 than you do with a 9mm in those matches?)

SIG

Thanks sparks for link to latest Judgement. Have just printed it. There are some mention of 'lethal' weapon which are unfortunate. I will digest fully, before more comment.

Sparks

There are some mention of 'lethal' weapon which are unfortunate.

Agreed

Mac Gunner

Judge urges review of rules on gun licences.

He described as "undesirable the piecemeal spreading" of the statutory rules for the control of firearms over multiple pieces of legislation - five armed acts and the 2006 criminal justice act"
(It appears in essence what he is getting at is that the DOJ / Minister are responsible for letting civilian firearms licenses especially pistols grow out of control. FCP does not get a mention.) Because reasonable people are "entitled to feel alarmed" about the large increase in the number of pistols licensed for private use in Ireland in recent years. There is "a pressing need" for drawing togeather into a clear law the multiple "piecemeal" rules on the control of firearms here, Mr Justice Peter Charleton added. (What does he think the FCP are trying to do, or is it that some Supers are very much opposed to this devolvement as it's too progressive and reasonable.) He points out we are going opposite to Britain regarding Pistols. Dunblane Scotland 1997 where a misfit armed with four handguns shot dead 16 school children. (On mainland britain you still can have highpowered revolvers licensed. The barrel lenght has to be a minimum 12"long apart from that they still are pistols and revolvers.)
Mr Justice Charleton noted he had been given information by counsel (no DOJ or FCP reps ) with wide experience of such cases that, from 1972 to 2004, coinciding with "one of the most vicious periods in Irish history", no revolvers, pistols or rifles above .22 calibre were licensed here except in the most exceptional circumstances" In additional in 1995, some licences for .27 calibre rifles were issued where a Garda Superintendent was satisified these were for hunting deer. ( no mention of target shooting) However, the policy against the licensing of pistols was relaxed last year "for whatever appearent reason" ( 30 years temporally held. A lot of Garda privately will tell you the 1972 act made no difference to the troubles in the north.) While this proliferation of pistols and larger calibre rifles may not have been noticed and a general policy of permission for private use of such weapons may not be pursued, a reasonable person was " entitled to feel alarmed" he said..........Supt Kearney said he refused the certificate because he did not believe the pistol was a suitable weapon for target practice.The 2006 criminal justice act required a person to have a "good reason" for requiring a particular firearm, which had to be more than a simple desire to use it or to have sport with it in some way. The more dangerous the weapon, the greater the onus on the applicant, the judge said. Directly opposite this article, Crime Correspondent Conor Lally adds the finishing touches to this double whammy. Garda are witnessing greater use of hand guns in drive-by shootings, where houses are shot at from passing cars. Pellets from a shotgun cartridge spray or disperse if fired at a target some disdance away, greatly reducing the chances of causing serious injury or death. Bullets from a hand gun do not break up and travel at much faster speeds than shotgun pellets. (Well Conor, a shotgun can fire a series of different type projectiles ranging from, birdshot, buckshot (less pellets but larger and heavier in size) to a solid slug 13mm in size. In this case the shotgun will win hands down. Break it down. The Republic of Ireland is not Britain. Northern Ireland is part of Britain yet they never impounded all pistols and rifles above .22 caliber like we did in the south of Ireland. The UK Labour party before they got into power in 1997 pledged they would ban all short hand held pistols. They did when they were elected in 97. All the evidence that criminals would still be able to access illegal firearms proved correct. Today in the UK like here, illegal firearms are out of control, criminal gangs have an abundance of heavy firepower to use, In the ROI it is reckoned the criminal underworld have twice as many pistols as the licensed God fearing Citizen have. Did the judge include rest of Europe as an example where pistols are available to counter balance the "entitled fear and alarm". Honest people have approved shooting range to practice at or they hunt with the appropriate firearm all locked up at and broken down when finished pistols have high spec alarms fitted to the pistol safe. If the Judge thinks we should roll back the clock to 1972 where pistols are banned all over again, rifles are limited to .22 then he is passing the buck for the explosion in criminal firepower to make scapegoats of law abiding licensed citizens. To the D4 intelligentsia firearms = latent hidden power. You can have knife crime day in day out shocking muders like the ones in London recently but because every household has a 8" knife in the drawer the impact is lost and soon forgotten. Everyone remembers Dunblane even in a population of 60 million the odds that this sort of thing would happen again are are small, aprox once every forty years possibly never again. The madman should not have been allowed to have firearms as he was standing out as been unwell acting strange etc the system failed to act his friend? the Superintendent should not have renewed his firearms certs.To conclude if someone is determined to make the headlines taking as many people with them, they will find a way. A couple of years ago a madman grove at full speed up Henry St into a crowd of pedestrians If someone wants to commit suicide another firearm fear ( Conor Lally) they will use what ever means suitable, creating overblown fear is wrong.

bunny shooter

Having read the link posted by Sparks, to me it seems it was the make of pistol was the problem, namely Glock.

Once again the Gardai refer to Olympic shooting.:(

Having been throught this situation myself I first applied for a 9x21mm, not a 9x19mm s/a. Super refused licence and I was offered a .22lr s/a, with a mention of Olympic pistol shooting, which I accepted.

Shortly after I applied for a .40 S&W s/a and was granted it, by another Super. I then had a .22lr & a .40 S&W.

Subsequentially, I sold .22lr and .40 S&W. I now have a .22lr revolver.

I know of at least two others who have been down the same road. My advise take a .22lr and build up some good faith with the Super.

Sparks

Mac Gunner wrote: »

There is "a pressing need" for drawing togeather into a clear law the multiple "piecemeal" rules on the control of firearms here, Mr Justice Peter Charleton added.

Yes, there is, he's correct, and we've been calling for it for years. And the DoJ said so itself two years ago when McDowell promised a restatement of the Firearms Acts.

What does he think the FCP are trying to do

The FCP are not trying to draw together legislation, their remit is to advise on the implementation of the CJA2006, not to draft new legislation (but the DoJ has hinted that they'd like to progress the FCP mechanism and have it as a permanent consultative avenue)

Everyone remembers Dunblane

...incorrectly, usually...

even in a population of 60 million the odds that this sort of thing would happen again are are small, aprox once every forty years possibly never again.

That's a weak argument - the first response will be "Really? And what was said after Hungerford ten years earlier?"

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Once again the Gardai refer to Olympic shooting.:(

Don't be too sad - it means the Gardai are saying "here, this kind of shooting's fine, why don't you do it?". Which is a marked improvement on a while back when they were saying "Shooting? Feck off, that's far too dangerous for anyone but us and the army - what are you, a terrorist or a bank robber or both?". That is progress, even if not as much as we'd like - but it implies that given enough time, they'll come round. Granted, we may all have gray hair by then, but still...

I know of at least two others who have been down the same road. My advise take a .22lr and build up some good faith with the Super.

That'd be my take on things as well. Just because you do things step-by-step doesn't mean you're quitting or copping out - forward motion is forward motion, and even if it takes a little longer to reach the destination, it's worth it if you didn't have to buy a new merc for a solicitor to get there...