Pistol Refusal by High Court Judge ?

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

No, I mean they're irrelevant when you're filling out your application form. "Erra, but up north this isn't a problem" is not going to help you there. Pragmatism in spades will.RTE can't stop you getting your cert, (Yes they can effect it with misinformation to Joe Public opinion)they're just trying to sell airtime and sex and violence sell - so you see lots of references to both on the news and since there's little sex in Irish target shooting, they try to lump violence in there instead, even when they have to import it to do so.

The judge, sadly, can use out-of-jurisdiction references, because he's the judge.


No, we can quote any legal case or situation to make a point; but not to get a cert; and quoting cases from other jurisdictions is a poor argument.Sparks tell that to the Judge, he is the one that qouted it

_________________________________________________________________

Sparks the picture of a pistol that Mac put up, is it or is it not a revolver, to me it's black and white, it is a revolver and to any non shooter it's a revolver.

We need to stop ducking and diving here, the fact of the matter is they do have pistols in Northern Ireland/mainland UK and the Isle of Man. If the Judge and RTE can misquote this for the benefit of making a case, then the leading bodies in shooting sports need to prove them wrong.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Sparks wrote: »

RTE can't stop you getting your cert,

Yes they can effect it with misinformation to Joe Public opinion

They can certainly make life awkward for you, but they can't change the laws. If you go for your licence and are level-headed about it and meet the criteria, then 99% of the time you'll get the cert. The remaining 1% (and I'm including donegal and kilcock here) are either cases of people not being level-headed when applying, or of people who should know better (gardai and judges) ignoring the law as written. Those cases should be addressed. Donegal is an example of a case that should never have been taken. Kilcock is an example of one that should go to the High Court.

The judge, sadly, can use out-of-jurisdiction references, because he's the judge.

Sparks tell that to the Judge, he is the one that qouted it

Not my place to tell it to him; that's the job of the barrister on the day. And if not on the day, it should be mentioned in the supreme court if an appeal is taken (and I'm really, really, really hoping that this is just dropped and a different case taken instead and the precedent challanged through that mechanism - if a second test case is taken and this one cited by the gardai there, we could argue against this case in that case and point out the errors in law without having to take a weak case to the supreme court).

Sparks the picture of a pistol that Mac put up, is it or is it not a revolver, to me it's black and white, it is a revolver and to any non shooter it's a revolver.

It's a revolver. Perfectly legal to own and use responsibly in the UK. Arguing (as Mac did above) that it could be cut down for concealment purposes and so normal pistols shouldn't be banned is worse than useless - it's a bloody good argument for banning all pistols.

We need to stop ducking and diving here, the fact of the matter is they do have pistols in Northern Ireland/mainland UK and the Isle of Man.

They have some on the mainland. Air pistols, black powder pistols, and longarm pistols. NI and the IoM are the better arguments here - less complex.

If the Judge and RTE can misquote this for the benefit of making a case. Then the leading bodies in shooting sports need to prove them wrong.

That's arguing with the dealer about the paint on the car being scratched instead of pointing out that it has no engine.

The argument here - and this is what the NARGC PRO should have been pushing this morning - is that "weapon" is a word that denotes intent. It does not identify an object, because anything - a firearm, a knife, a stick with a nail in it - can be a weapon. That's the flaw in the case. The Garda Superintendent called the firearm a weapon. The Judge called it a weapon. That's an a priori decision right there, made as to the intent of the applicant but never stated explicitly - in other words, their choice of word says that they think that McCarron wants to harm someone with the pistol; but they're denying him the licence on the grounds of what kind of pistol it is. That's the flaw here. If they have a problem with McCarron, say so, prove it and that's the end of it - if he really shouldn't have a pistol, they'll only be doing their job, and if they're wrong, he gets a chance in court to defend himself and everyone's talking about the same thing. But that's not what they've done here - their language says that they have a problem with McCarron and instead of saying so, sought an excuse (in this case the kind of pistol applied for) and charged after that. And that would be the thing to look at.

What you can licence in another jurisdiction is irrelevant and only confuses the issue here.

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

It's a revolver. Perfectly legal to own and use responsibly in the UK. Arguing that it could be cut down for concealment purposes and so normal pistols shouldn't be banned is worse than useless - it's a bloody good argument for banning all pistols.

Sparks the section in red above is not part of my posting, I would be obliged if you would edit this, I did not post that section.

There is enough misinformation going around i.e ( a supposed row in DTSC last Saturday and I was supposed to have been given a punch by somebody, AGAIN ANOTHER UNTRUTH being put around.

Sparks

Sika, I thought we were discussing what Mac had posted - that's the second time I've said that in relation to his post, not yours. If it was unclear before, hopefully it isn't now!

Mac Gunner

WTF, I turn on me pc and WW111 has broken out. What's with this misinterpretation stuff. It must be cover your arse time.

Sparks for demonstration purposes only a picture of the type of revolver
was posted to confirm sikamicks sightings in the uk of revolvers for sale.
Grizzly45 did not think these mongrel firearms would be an attraction for
criminals.I stated in so many words that they can be useful to the
criminal like all firearms, example of modification was given same thing
happens and goes for shotguns a fact of life it happens. Reason for this example, If the judge turns around in the future and says, Well I was wrong they have revolvers on the UK Mainland but they are of no threat to the community because they are too long.

"How does anyone know unless one gets discovered by the Uk police"
Quote [MG] If we were in the Uk, you would just have been banned for encouraging an illegal act. Quote sparks. ( One= Revolver not the person.)

Answer you this way sparks, If you have taken a misinterpretation of
what I posted then I hold no bad feeling for your reply. If you are certain
I have "deliberately" encouraged an illegal act in the UK,that the benifit of the doubt is not given or at the very least "what do you mean by that line" well all I can say is you are well below the belt and not what I would have expected from you of all people.

The point remains that for the criminal to rob one of these 12"...........etc
Quote [MG]

Please don't say that, because the immediate answer is "Gosh, you're
correct. Well, we have to fix that. Ban them as well, at once! Quote [Sparks.]

Arguing that it could be cut down for concealment purposes and so normal
pistols should't be banned is worse and useless-it's bloody good argument for banning all pistols. Quote [Sparks]

Sparks, putting a broad context on to one liners that I definitely did not "argue" for or imply is not the correct thing to do, you are in effect putting in meanings that I have no understanding of. I very much Doubt
the Police in England,Scotland,Wales,NI need to view this forum as well
as the Doj to get useful tips and I am sure they know all the tricks when
it comes to firearm adjustments. Why would the UK authortities give a
second taught to what you or Any of the posters here on boards think
here in the ROI.

Disclaimer. This is purely for debate purposes only and not to be misinterpreted or have double meanings drawn / extracted or do not exist
in any way. Thank You.

Sparks

Mac Gunner wrote: »

Grizzly45 did not think these mongrel firearms would be an attraction for criminals.I stated in so many words that they can be useful to the criminal like all firearms, example of modification was given same thing happens and goes for shotguns a fact of life it happens.

In which case, you've just argued that even those revolvers should be banned. Quite effectively as well.

Answer you this way sparks, If you have taken a misinterpretation of what I posted then I hold no bad feeling for your reply. If you are certain I have "deliberately" encouraged an illegal act in the UK,that the benifit of the doubt is not given or at the very least "what do you mean by that line" well all I can say is you are well below the belt and not what I would have expected from you of all people.

You were too close to the line for leeway. Had we been in the UK, I would have banned you for a week for that, because this is not a natter over a pint with your mates down the pub of a sunday evening, this is a public forum read by the Gardai and DoJ on a daily basis. That's not something to forget, and it means that there are certain lines we can't let people cross.

Sparks, putting a broad context on to one liners that I definitely did not "argue" for or imply is not the correct thing to do, you are in effect putting in meanings that I have no understanding of. I very much Doubt the Police in England,Scotland,Wales,NI need to view this forum as well as the Doj to get useful tips and I am sure they know all the tricks when it comes to firearm adjustments. Why would the UK authortities give a second taught to what you or Any of the posters here on boards think here in the ROI.

Nonetheless, it's an argument for banning them, made in a public forum (which the media read as well, as we found in the BCC complaint).

Mac Gunner

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Gunner
Grizzly45 did not think these mongrel firearms would be an attraction for criminals.I stated in so many words that they can be useful to the criminal like all firearms, example of modification was given same thing happens and goes for shotguns a fact of life it happens.

In which case, you've just argued that even those revolvers should be banned. Quite effectively as well. quote [Sparks]

You once again are putting in meanings which I have not effectively argued for, now you effectively are say I am calling for a ban in the UK for 12" revolvers is that what you are saying sparks?. This is the ROI, not the UK, are the authorities in the UK naive.
You post here in good faith. Have a look back over recent months and lot's of threads will stand out as not been Kosher and in some cases very
off message.

Nonetheless, it's an argument for banning them, made in a public forum (which the media read as well, as we found in the BCC complaint). quote sparks.
Are you looking for scapegoats. You have the power to pull the plug
at any time. Prime time program was put up for discussion examined dissected those who posted the BCC did so without been forced to.

Sparks

Mac Gunner wrote: »

You once again are putting in meanings which I have not effectively argued for

You're posting on a public forum read by the media, gardai and DoJ. Why do you think you wouldn't be quoted like that?
"Of course we should ban them Minister, even shooters themselves have admitted that these firearms can be converted easily to deadly weapons with a simple tool, just look at this post here...".

Are you looking for scapegoats. You have the power to pull the plug at any time.

No, I don't as a matter of fact. Well. I do have the power to pull the plug on you, just not on the forum. But I'd much rather not do that, I'd much rather you just saw what I was trying to tell you.

Mac Gunner

Sparks wrote: »

You're posting on a public forum read by the media, gardai and DoJ. Why do you think you wouldn't be quoted like that?
"Of course we should ban them Minister, even shooters themselves have admitted that these firearms can be converted easily to deadly weapons with a simple tool, just look at this post here...".No, I don't as a matter of fact. Well. I do have the power to pull the plug on you, just not on the forum. But I'd much rather not do that, I'd much rather you just saw what I was trying to tell you.

Final one. You bet this is a public forum you are correct in that. Minister?
From what country are you talking about in this context its the UK. Long barreled revolvers are only available in the UK according to Grizzly. IF they
get converted by criminals they then become similar to what the have
as standard firearms available to citizens of NI back to the basic point
Pistols are available in the UK.

If you are now so worried about whats gets posted here you should have
made it very clear especially over the last few months what could and
what should not have been posted with regards to outside viewers.
I have viewed wild and crazy stuff that should have been pulled. On that note good evening.

Sparks

Mac Gunner wrote: »

Final one. You bet this a public forum you are correct in that. Minister? From what country are you talking about in this context its the UK.

Indeed. And are you banned? No. And why? Because we're not in the UK. As I already said.

back to the basic point
Pistols are available in the UK.

Air pistols and rifles (you're arguing with what a judge says about law? then use the legal terms - those long barrel revolvers, under UK law, are not pistols, but rifles). If you want to argue with a judge about his terminology, it's a waste of time - he's a judge. You have to play by his rules, it might seem crappy, but that's the name of the game.

If you are now so worried about whats gets posted here you should have made it very clear especially over the last few months what could and what should not have been posted with regards to outside viewers.

We did. Several years ago. It's in the forum charter. Read it.

I have viewed wild and crazy stuff that should have been pulled.

And never hit the report post button once...

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

If you want to argue with a judge about his terminology, it's a waste of time -he's a judge. You have to play by his rules, it might seem crappy, but that's the name of the game.

Sparks I don't know to much about the law and its workings, but I think if you disagree with what the judge says and his Judgement, that's what the court of appeal is for.


Re Mac Gunner's posting I think you misread it, he most certainly was not justifying a criminal act. As we know the criminals are beyond our control and sometimes that of the law. (Just my Opinion)

Chipboard

Great job lads, keep it up.

Given what you have said about the site being monitored by the DOJ, you obviously consider winning your very high brow argument to be more important than us being allowed to continue pursuing our sport.

bunny shooter

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, have we upset you

BornToKill

I missed the piece on 'Morning Ireland' this morning but I just heard it now. I don't think it really much advanced the debate in our favour. People here were jumping down Tom Cloonan's throat a few weeks ago following his comments on 'Primetime'. Could Micheal Cunningham have got in 'All weapons are dangerous' even one more time? Posters here in this forum are always being corrected for saying weapon yet the PRO repeated it over and over again on the most popular radio programme in the country. It kind of negates the complaints to the BCC.

This thread has headed down the route of criminals using illegal firearms and how stricter controls on licensed handguns won't address that. I think that debate misses the concern raised by the judge: Dunblane.

Stricter controls on the types of handguns and who gets them could possibly prevent the same happening here. Look around the world: severe legislative action on guns happens after a spree shooting incident. Is it such a bad thing that the licensing system takes preventative action? Should people be licensed even when the Guards oppose the application? Whose fault would it be if one of those applicants was unstable but ends up with a gun anyway? What would happen with firearms in this country then?

Sparks

The problem there BTK, is that in the case of Dunblane, the shooter had the firearms illegally. He'd been thrown out of various shooting clubs (which was a red flag in and of itself, if the actual formal complaints against him weren't enough) and being in a club was a mandatory requirement for his FAC renewal; one phone-call check at renewal time would have prevented the entire thing. The scottish police were at fault; but the axe fell elsewhere.

Also, not one single Superintendent in this country has ever been forced to grant a licence. They may have been found to be making their decisions based on things they can't base them on legally and ordered to remake their decisions - but at no time has a court ever directed a Superintendent to grant a licence. A judicial review in the High Court simply cannot make such an order, it does not have the necessary authority to do so.

bunny shooter

BornToKill wrote: »

.......Stricter controls on the types of handguns and who gets them could possibly prevent the same happening here....

They are very strict already

"possibly prevent" you expecting a Dunblane type incident here ?

I smell troll.

Sparks as you are here ........................

Sparks

I smell troll.

Possibly. Giving the benefit of the doubt just for the moment.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Possibly. Giving the benefit of the doubt just for the moment.

I thought so

BornToKill

My (possibly wrong) understanding on Dunblane is that the shooter did have licensed firearms. They may have been issued in error but I thought he did have certs.

Again, I'm not an expert on the workings of the High Court but I believe that it can order the reversal of a decision though normally that is not even asked for. Instead, the applicant requests that the decision be reviewed and if so ordered everyone knows that means issuance.

Bunny Shooter - why the name calling? I'm not expecting another Dunblane type incident here. I'm hoping it will never happen again. But the way things were going where everyone refused goes running for a barrister until they get what they want was asking for trouble. Is trolling having a different opinion to you?

Sikamick

BornToKill wrote: »

I

This thread has headed down the route of criminals using illegal firearms and how stricter controls on licensed handguns won't address that. I think that debate misses the concern raised by the judge: Dunblane


Sikamick reply
(Dunblane.) Who was responsible ? Hamilton was not merely lucky, he was clever enough to organise support. The local government ombudsman for Scotland, gun-club managers, gun-shop owners, the police officers who approved gun certificates and councillors .

bunny shooter

BornToKill wrote: »

........Bunny Shooter - why the name calling?

Accusing you of being a troll is not name calling, it is an observation on the content of you posts :rolleyes:

BornToKill wrote: »

........ I'm not expecting another Dunblane type incident here. I'm hoping it will never happen again.

Your post infers it's a possibility here if licences are not curtailed

BornToKill wrote: »

........ Is trolling having a different opinion to you?

So you understand what I mean by trolling ? Here it is having an opinion and attempting to lower the level of debate into the gutter.

I can guarantee you that everyone's opinion is welcome here, no matter what it is, as long as it's put forward for serious discussion and not to attempt to solely cause trouble

BornToKill

I genuinely don't want to get into an argument and I know I risk that by posting again but can you please let me know what you find funny or not serious about my post? Read that McCarron judgement if you haven't already. I'm not 'attempting to lower the level of the debate into the gutter'. This is the issue under debate. If you doubt me then watch Primetime (however painful) again or listen to the 'Morning Ireland' show. I have a gun (shotgun). I'm still uncomfortable with some of what has been happening out there. I also fish, so I know the proper meaning of trolling!

bunny shooter

Well your "handle", BorntoKill, on a shooting forum in the political climate we live in and the recent comments in the media and courts about shooters being closet nutters is a bit silly to say the least, especially as your last post claims you have concerns (I hope your not a shooter who doesn't agree with pistols being licenced).

I meant no offence, and will take none either. If I have judged you incorrectly, I apologise.

Trolling here means attempting to cause arguments for the sake of it.

Welcome to the forum and enjoy you're stay. All the regulars here are decent lads (and ladies :eek:), even Sparks, cough, cough

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

I hope your not a shooter who doesn't agree with pistols being licenced

I've met someone of this mindset before, a clay shooter. Talk turned to pistols (his friend shot a 9mm) and he says something along the lines of "9mm, sure they're terrible dangerous, mad really!" The mind does boggle sometimes.

bunny shooter

I know a few too. Never handled a pistol at all. They're convinced pistols are more dangerous than shotguns or even rifles :rolleyes:

thehair

Welcome to the forum and enjoy you're stay. All the regulars here are decent lads (and ladies ), even Sparks, cough, cough +1steve
hi bunny steve:)

bunny shooter

thehair wrote: »

Welcome to the forum and enjoy you're stay. All the regulars here are decent lads (and ladies ), even Sparks, cough, cough +1steve
hi bunny steve:)

Hi hair :P

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

I know a few too. Never handled a pistol at all. They're convinced pistols are more dangerous than shotguns or even rifles :rolleyes:

I tried to talk to the guy, but there was just no getting through that mad block. Silly really, all firearms are the same in the fact that, handled correctly and maintained correctly, they're safe, and in the hands of muppets, they're incredibly dangerous. I will never understand how someone is safe with a shotgun and a muppet with a pistol or rifle however, assuming they know the correct safety handling procedures for each; it just doesn't make any sense.

Mac Tire

There was a report on the Local radio station up here there now, just caught the tail end of it....Dont know if they put links to get the report again, but i will try to find out....Des Crofton was speaking in it....Radio Station was 'Highland Radio' incase any of you more computer savvy folks can get the report....

thehair

Mac Tire wrote: »

There was a report on the Local radio station up here there now, just caught the tail end of it....Dont know if they put links to get the report again, but i will try to find out....Des Crofton was speaking in it....Radio Station was 'Highland Radio' incase any of you more computer savvy folks can get the report....

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/
i dont know this might help and i am not that good on computers mac tire
steve