Liscence 'granted' - but. ! ?

BELOWaverageIQ

Hi ,
I have been told by the local F.O. that my liscence for the .22 ( first liscence) has been signed off by the super but he is awaiting the paperwork from the Pheonix Park.
I applied back on 10th nov. so how long shall the remaining process take ?
Any ideas or is it possible to enquire directly to the park ?

Thanks in advance.

Vegeta

I think they have a 24 hour turn around time in Phoenix Park so if the paper work has actually been sent there then expect it soon enough

dos29

I've recently learned that my latest application was sent up to the park mid december, and should be back around the end of feb. Not sure if this is only palming me off, but it was actually a guard I trust that checked up on it for me, cos the FAO was taking so long.
I could give the park a ring to try and hurry it, but I dont actually need it til then anyway, so no point making waves.
Far as I remember though, if your ringing the park, have the date that it should have been sent up handy(not the date you handed it into the station), otherwise they wont be able to find your application.

tonysopprano

The turnaround time for pistol applications is 24 hours, but rifle and shotguns can take alot longer. Your pulse number is a good starting, bit i appreciate that the OP may not know his, as this is his first application.

LOL

Terrier

All licences are turned around in 24hrs at Garda HQ.
This is a normal delay tactic by the Gardai to give themselves time..

macadam

I applied for my .22 hornet licence the first week of october and it was granted in 10 days by the local super, but it sat in the park for a further 10 weeks, think its pot luck.

BUACHAILL

Most people who apply for first licensing wait a minimum of three months for a numbers of reasons, mostly its the guards way of fobbing you off because most are anti firearm and unless you push the matter they are happy to let it rot on their desk. I wouldnt think calling Phoenix park is the brightest idea but I would certainly make it clear to your super/sergeant that you are running out of patience.

Believe it or not people forget that its your entitlement to have a firearm if you can prove a valid need for it, it doesnt make us criminals which is the twist authorities like to put on it and make you feel honoured for being licenced, what a load of rubbish, so push the matter at your station of application. Albeit if you can do it without making noise even better but I know I had a very slack station and they really needed pushing.

There is no reason in the world why you cant have your licence back within a few weeks but red tape and excuses set in and its always blown out of proportion.

Macadam you were the exception to the rule. fair play great to hear

It wasn't me!

BUACHAILL wrote: »

Believe it or not people forget that its your entitlement to have a firearm if you can prove a valid need for it

No it's not, and the sooner people realise that, the better progress we'll make.

BUACHAILL

yes it is , if you have a valid use for it and your nose is clean there is no reason why it should be refused !!

It wasn't me!

BUACHAILL wrote: »

yes it is , if you have a valid use for it and your nose is clean there is no reason why it should be refused !!

You have absolutely no right to own a firearm, at all. There are procedures for licensing, and if you feel that the firearms act hasn't been applied correctly in the case of your firearms cert application, you have recourse to the district court, but you have absolutely no right to demand a firearm. And what constitutes a "need" anyway? Why would you ever "need" to have one? There are plenty of reasons we apply to own firearms. None of them constitute needs however. Remember, there is no right to own firearms enshrined in our constitution. Never think you have any such thing.

BUACHAILL

Thats rubbish and if that mentality was taken nobody would actually own one. The law sets guidelines/ PROCEDURES of why / how / where you should have a use for one. If you can show a valid need within these guidelines there is no reason why you should not be entitled to one.
If what you say is true why is there firearms out there when its made perfectly clear that the Garda just dont want them in circulation ??

It wasn't me!

BUACHAILL wrote: »

Thats rubbish and if that mentality was taken nobody would actually own one. The law sets guidelines/ PROCEDURES of why / how / where you should have a use for one. If you can show a valid need within these guidelines there is no reason why you should not be entitled to one.
If what you say is true why is there firearms out there when its made perfectly clear that the Garda just dont want them in circulation ??

The use of terms like "right" or "entitlement" needs to be strongly discouraged, because you don't have any. What we have are a series of precedents. Hitherto, the protection of livestock and the provision of game have been taken to be good reasons to own a firearm, provided the applicant satisfies the criteria of the act, but that's precedent alone. It's by no means absolute, and all it takes for long-established precedent to mean absolutely nothing is for a superintendent to disagree with those as good reasons and for his decision to be found to be within the remit of the firearms act. You have no rights or entitlements here. The possession of firearms for whatever legal reasons you have them is a privilege, and until people realise that, you get more stupid court cases being taken that shouldn't be, and more precedents of licence refusals being (often correctly) upheld by the courts, and shooting suddenly looks a whole lot worse.

me_right_one

BELOWaverageIQ wrote: »

Hi ,
I have been told by the local F.O. that my liscence for the .22 ( first liscence) has been signed off by the super but he is awaiting the paperwork from the Pheonix Park.
I applied back on 10th nov. so how long shall the remaining process take ?
Any ideas or is it possible to enquire directly to the park ?

Thanks in advance.

I applied for a licence, it took about a year, no bull. Meath area

BUACHAILL

Ok so you have two completely different people who both fit the criteria , Your telling me the Local Garda station can accept one but not the other ????? Thats rubbish. Problem is people accept what they are told and walk away. They are not informed of the entitlements.

Example: Two men work same service in a job, both get made redundant. One gets passed for Unemployment benefit the other doesnt. This is at the discretion of the Social Office ??? F...ckin ribbish, they have guidelines and procedure to follow so follow it. Problem with the Guards is you get one Super who is Anti and brings in his own rules ( which are unconstitutional) but who argues ???? only a few eg NARGC

I think the NARGC has proved time and time again in court that we do have entitlements once we fulfill the required standards like it or not. I will also point out that they are yet to be beaten in court.

It wasn't me!

BUACHAILL wrote: »

Ok so you have two completely different people who both fit the criteria , Your telling me the Local Garda station can accept one but not the other ????? Thats rubbish. Problem is people accept what they are told and walk away. They are not informed of the entitlements.

You are entitled to have your application dealt with by the system prescribed by the firearms act, no more. In your hypothetical case, it depends on the circumstances of the applicants and their refusal.

Example: Two men work same service in a job, both get made redundant. One gets passed for Unemployment benefit the other doesnt. This is at the discretion of the Social Office ??? F...ckin ribbish, they have guidelines and procedure to follow so follow it. Problem with the Guards is you get one Super who is Anti and brings in his own rules ( which are unconstitutional) but who argues ???? only a few eg NARGC

Unconstitutional? Quote me the relevant section of the constitution there please. The local Superintendent is the person who deals with firearms licensing. The highest court in the land, the president, the Dail and the Seanad are absolutely powerless to reverse his decision. The most that can happen is that he's asked to reconsider his decision as it was not in keeping with the firearms act. It's entirely possible to refuse you for a plethora of reasons, and it's your job to make sure you don't fit any of the boxes that would prevent you being a convincing candidate. One angry phonecall to your super and all the clean records in the world won't get you a firearm, and no court in the country will support you either.

I think the NARGC has proved time and time again in court that we do have entitlements once we fulfill the required standards like it or not. I will also point out that they are yet to be beaten in court.

You do not have entitlements. You do not have rights to own a firearm. If they are yet to be beaten (do I not recall at least one defeat?) it's because they pick their cases wisely. Shooters have lost their appeals to courts, and there are plenty of dodgy characters with clean records applying for licences that I'm very glad are being refused. Just because you look clean, doesn't mean you are. Impression and character means everything, and is absolutely enough to refuse you.

BUACHAILL

You can go around the houses all you want but your wrong, I had my Super overruled so explain it to me ? And its in Wicklow one of the hardest most anti stations in the country because of the populations of hunters/shooters. I do agree not everyone is as clean as they appear and the only problem I had was getting a Pistol but thats not the point.

I am good enough for three firearms but not for another where others are being licensed ????
Its not at the discretion of the Super, he can refuse yes but can be overruled and often is..... NARGC

So what your saying is the law is in black and white for people to obey / meet / obide by but a Superintendant of one station can decide he doesnt agree with anyone else and can refuse everybody who appllies for a firearm licence !! because he knows he cant be challenged ?? get a grip

enough said

It wasn't me!

BUACHAILL wrote: »

You can go around the houses all you want but your wrong, I had my Super overruled so explain it to me ? And its in Wicklow one of the hardest most anti stations in the country because of the populations of hunters/shooters. I do agree not everyone is as clean as they appear and the only problem I had was getting a Pistol but thats not the point.

Wouldn't have considered Wicklow a bastion of difficulty from all accounts. Your super was not overruled by any court, unless the court acted outside the law itself. He was asked to reconsider his decision in light of the fact that the court found his decision not to have been made within the boundaries of the firearms act. The super could have deemed your reason for wanting a pistol insufficient, and possibly absolutely rightly (I don't know you or your professed reasons to want a pistol) and a court might well have agreed with him. Had you come up in front of Justice Peter Charleton, for instance, I imagine you'd be a pretty glum chap without a pistol right now.

I am good enough for three firearms but not for another where others are being licensed ????
Its not at the discretion of the Super, he can refuse yes but can be overruled and often is..... NARGC

Depends on your reasoning for having the firearms, and you need good reason for all of them. It is at the discretion of your super; that's what the term "persona designata" means.

So what your saying is the law is in black and white for people to obey / meet / obide by but a Superintendant of one station can decide he doesnt agree with anyone else and can refuse everybody who appllies for a firearm licence !! because he knows he cant be challenged ?? get a grip

The law is pretty blunt alright. The superintendent has a wealth of reasons for which he can refuse a licence. If he's in any doubt as to your motives for applying for the licence or your interest in the professed reason or that you can use and possess it without constituting a threat to society (proper range facilities, adequate training and safety knowledge, properly secure storage, etc.) or has any doubts about your character, he's obliged by the same law to refuse the licence. Superintendents, by virtue of the 230,000-odd firearms certs issued every year, are pretty obliging folk. You cannot apply to a court for a firearms cert, and they can't grant you one. After your court case, your Super could easily have refused you again for a different reason, entirely legally, and have had it uphelp in every court in the land, so be thankful you got away with what, ultimately, is grandstanding and taking a very aggressive stance, chancing your arm and coming away intact, because you do not have any rights to own a firearm. In fact, I'm still waiting on that constitution quote from you, got it to hand?

enough said

Agreed. This thread's been completely derailed. Probably best either pruned out for the OP and have this stuff either split off or deleted.

BUACHAILL

who ever said my Super was overruled in court ??? Assumptions are not wise.

So let me recap on your previous comments !!

Asked to reconsider within the boundries of the firearms act ?? is that your way of saying he meets all the criteria and there is no reason why he should be refused ???

I didnt need to come up against Peter Charleton , you know why ? My range met all that standards, mapping , regulations etc as did I so they knew not to take the case, not just me but plenty more shooters in the club, why ? because we met the criteria in every sense of the word. They had no case. Why ENTITLED to if I meet all the criteria.

You also say Super has a wealth of reasons to refuse ?? thats fair enough. lets just say the Super has satisfied all his reasons and suspicions ?? can he still refuse ???? NO is your answer

I must have bullied my way to a firearm your right, god forbid I met all the criteria and do I count myself lucky absolutely , but not because I am LUCKY to receive licence, but because I am fortunate enough to have had a life which allows me to obey law and carry out my responsibilities with maturity and thought for others some things other people dont get the privelidge of.

If your telling me it doesnt carry weight in court for overrulling can you please explain why NARGC take cases to the high court ??? just curious . oh sorry did i mention its gets overruled every time.

Finally its not an agressive stance its a fact, can I ask do you hold a firearm licence?

It wasn't me!

BUACHAILL wrote: »

who ever said my Super was overruled in court ??? Assumptions are not wise.

He wasn't overruled anywhere. What you're saying is he changed his mind then?

Asked to reconsider within the boundries of the firearms act ?? is that your way of saying he meets all the criteria and there is no reason why he should be refused ???

No, that's the court saying the decision wasn't made on a basis the law allows for, so must me remade on that basis. It doesn't mean you then have to be granted a licence.

I didnt need to come up against Peter Charleton , you know why ? My range met all that standards, mapping , regulations etc as did I so they knew not to take the case, not just me but plenty more shooters in the club, why ? because we met the criteria in every sense of the word. They had no case. Why ENTITLED to if I meet all the criteria.

That's absolutely wonderful, but you still don't have an entitlement. Also, the Gardai/DoJ don't take court cases; disgruntled would-be shooters do. There are plenty of convincing arguments (and arguments is an important word, because it's not authoritative) to receive a firearms certificate, but ultimately if a superintendent decides your possession and ownership of a pistol is likely to cause any danger, whether by virtue of the place you live, the company you keep, someone who's known to have a grudge against you who has a history of burglarly or anything of the sort, the super has to refuse you, and you don't have a comeback to that, because it's what he's obliged to do under the firearms act. His first responsibility is to public safety, and he has to think in terms of that.

You also say Super has a wealth of reasons to refuse ?? thats fair enough. lets just say the Super has satisfied all his reasons and suspicions ?? can he still refuse ???? NO is your answer

This is where it becomes tricky. To the best of my recollection, nowhere in the firearms act does it state that the superintendent is obliged to grant the certificate at this juncture, and it's this that gives rise to the "persona designata" status, whereby it's entirely at his or her discretion. So NO is most definitely not the answer.

If your telling me it doesnt carry weight in court for overrulling can you please explain why NARGC take cases to the high court ??? just curious . oh sorry did i mention its gets overruled every time.

I'm well aware of the NARGC's history of taking cases, but I think you're somewhat misinformed as to the nature of why the results are so favourable. Superintendents never have their decisions overturned by courts. The courts do not have that power.

Finally its not an agressive stance its a fact, can I ask do you hold a firearm licence?

Your fact is absolutely not one. Still waiting on that quote from the constitution, or anything that says you have a right to a firearm if you fulfill all the criteria, or that the superintendent is obliged to grant the certificate in those circumstances. Those are facts, hard legal facts, and until you produce them, you're talking hot air.

And yes, I do, and will hopefully, with the cooperation of my local Gardai, have more in the not too distant future.

BUACHAILL

your whole statement is a contradiction:

All supers can come up with a reason why you shouldnt have a firearm or why its unsafe for general public. You cannot tell me your house is safer than any other regardless of your security measures, its checked by your local crime prevention officer before you are a passed for licence...... who's blowing hot air ???

Fact of the matter is no Super or Guard wants licensed or unlicensed firearms for that matter in public hands. So why dont they just ban them all ? Because they cant. You still havent answered this????? when you answer this I will tackle your inferior excuse for ENTITLEMENT.

your whole argument has been based on this yet you contradict yourself a number of times. Like excuses a super can give for refusal yet a court can SUGGEST why a super should reconsider ???? MORE HOT AIR

your boring me and I refuse to continue , when you come up with some hard cases of a super overrulling a high court etc in court come back to me, I think I SHALL BE WAITING.

bottom line is you have no argument good enough for this blog other than a super can if he wants , thats why they have lost every high court action taken against them at a cost to you and me, the public , why because of his / her belief and not the word of the law. hence they are OVERRULED / SUGGESTED different measures / outcomes.

It wasn't me!

BUACHAILL wrote: »

Fact of the matter is no Super or Guard wants licensed or unlicensed firearms for that matter in public hands. So why dont they just ban them all ? Because they cant. You still havent answered this????? when you answer this I will tackle your inferior excuse for ENTITLEMENT.

Clearly you're not up to speed with the past couple of months, where Dermot Ahern has announced his intention to draft legislation banning handguns and any other firearm he feels like at any stage thereafter. Superintendents don't legislate; the minister does, and he's entirely capable of banning every licensed gun in the country. Superintendents can't, but they're under no obligation to grant licences either. Find me any document that says they are. Plenty of Gardai have less than no problem with firearms in private ownership for responsible use, so you're wrong there.

your whole argument has been based on this yet you contradict yourself a number of times. Like excuses a super can give for refusal yet a court can SUGGEST why a super should reconsider ???? MORE HOT AIR

No, a court can ORDER a superintendent to reconsider BECAUSE HIS DECISION WAS NOT IN LINE WITH THE LAW. *THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE IS ORDERED TO GRANT THE LICENCE*

your boring me and I refuse to continue , when you come up with some hard cases of a super overrulling a high court etc in court come back to me, I think I SHALL BE WAITING.

I've already asked, and am still waiting, for your constitution quote, or any legal quote obliging the superintendent to license you a firearm just because you fulfill the criteria necessary.

bottom line is you have no argument good enough for this blog other than a super can if he wants , thats why they have lost every high court action taken against them at a cost to you and me, the public , why because of his / her belief and not the word of the law. hence they are OVERRULED / SUGGESTED different measures / outcomes.

Bottom line is that you still haven't produced a single letter of legal document to support you. Shooters have lost plenty of days in court too, so wouldn't shout aloud too much about court cases. It's done very little good, when they've just legislated to ban handguns as a result.

BELOWaverageIQ

JJJJJJJJJaaaaaaaazzzzzzzUS lads, didnt mean to start W.W.4 !!:)

Some Very interesting reading none the less .

P.S. - Still waiting

Sparks

BUACHAILL wrote: »

Thats rubbish

No, it isn't. Actually read the damn firearms act, would you? It does not ever, at any time or point, say that someone has to grant you a cert, no matter what conditions you fulfill. It's highly explicit as to when they are not allowed grant you one, but not the other way round. The core of it all, for example, is from Section 4:

The conditions subject to which a firearm certificate may be granted

If what you say is true why is there firearms out there when its made perfectly clear that the Garda just dont want them in circulation ??

Because that's not what the Gardai want. 99% of them just don't give a damn, one way or the other. They're doing their job, like the rest of us, and licencing firearms is less than 1% of that job even for those who're tasked with it. You hear about the few Gardai with a problem about firearms for the same reason you hear about airliner crashes and lottery winners - because they're very rare and the news reports rare things. But, like the millions of lottery losers and the millions of safe airliner flights, the other side of the coin won't make the nine o'clock news.

Sparks

BUACHAILL wrote: »

Ok so you have two completely different people who both fit the criteria , Your telling me the Local Garda station can accept one but not the other ?

Yes, and that's happened.
I fit the criteria. So, oddly enough, does Gerry Adams. I'm - for some strange reason - more likely to be granted the licence....

I think the NARGC has proved time and time again in court that we do have entitlements once we fulfill the required standards like it or not. I will also point out that they are yet to be beaten in court.

Actually, they've been beaten at least twice that I can think of off the top of my head, and the second case (the one with Justice Charleton) has caused us all immense damage because it should never have seen the inside of a courtroom as the applicant had a very weak case in the first place.
And the NARGC, in all their won cases, has never, ever, shown we have entitlements - they have shown, every single time, that the Gardai have to obey the law, nothing more. There are specific grounds the Gardai may refuse you a cert on - if the court determines they went outside that remit, then the court can order them to remake their decision. The court cannot direct the Garda Superintendent as to how to decide.
It's a subtle point, but a bloody important one, or we wouldn't bother going to the Gardai, we'd go to the courts instead (because if the courts can overrule, why go to the messanger first?)

BUACHAILL

your missing my point, For sure they can refuse for certain reasons and unmet criteria. Yes they also have to obey the law. So if you are a case that meets all criteria the Super must obey the law and accept your application. But not all do. This however doesnt mean that its within their rights to do so. They just dont get challenged on it. The ones that do get challenged in most cases reverse their decision ( i am saying most cases because i dont have factual information ) and know I will be jumped on.

If we want to pick everyword I have said I will agree it doesnt state in black and white we are entitled to a licenceobviously as it would leave them on a hiding to nothing, but it does state you can only be passed for licence if you meet the criteria.

Again my point on Supers havent changed, why do they change their minds so to speak ? Because they know push come to shove they will be overruled in court.

Sparks why do the courts not deal with it then ??? fairly obvious I would have thought but doesnt strengthen your argument. It i purely that its your local staton and its easier to control, if you have put a foot wrong its your local station who deal with it. It also makes the process more manageable.

IT WASNT ME: I am fully up to speed on whats going on thank you, another assumption. why is Dermot Ahern looking for this legislation to ban or refuse at will ??? Because right now they dont have that comfort and anyone who meets criteria will be accepted if they push it hard enough. What we have is discrinmation among Supers this is why this argument has arisen. They have the freedon to make a judgement call or refuse on their own criteria this is what see's them in the paper.

"Court has the right to order him to reconsider" show me a super who has reconsidered and still said no !!!

It wasn't me!

Look, you can meet all the criteria in the world and still be refused a firearms certificate on the grounds of public safety, depending on your area, your neighbours, a spate of burglaries in the area, history of burglary to your house, failure to demonstrate seriousness with regard to the application, failure to demonstrate a good reason *IN THE OPINION OF YOUR SUPERINTENDENT; YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOOT TARGETS* or anything else, and there's nothing in law to say he needs to grant you the licence in these cases. In fact, the law obliges him to refuse in these cases. Superintendents see court cases as a way of passing the buck, but look at the continuing trend of their decisions being upheld, because Irish shooters are cocky and fundamentally misunderstand how the law works, and you're exemplifying that right now. We've now got a high court precedent where a judge castigated a shooter and blanket castigated all pistol shooters for the "proliferation" of handguns, and as a result, we're facing legislation to remove them completely, and that's all those sodding court cases have achieved, because when you've got a big crap-eating grin and are sitting smug in having found yourself a loophole, suddenly you forget that the Department of Justice just have to move the goalposts slightly, and you're shagged, so perhaps you'd be much better served reading the plethora of legislation we have with regard to firearms and their licensing and see that you have no rights, and that the assertion that you do is what's led to this whole sloppy, stupid mess.

BUACHAILL

I agree with all you have just said in so far as the mess we are in, I do disagree that this is the only reason why they want pistols gone. I didnt find a loophole I have a validated need for mine, not saying everyone who has one does but I wont speak for anyone else.

Please just read your first three sentences ! On one hand you say u can meet all the criteria and still be refused, then you go on to say your being refused because of failure to demonstrate seriousness with regard to the application, burglaries etc etc. This is a contradiction and if these are your reasons for not being authorised for a firearm it means you have actually not met all the criteria ???

I will leave it on this and I really appreciate your views on it but I am very passionate about this as I am a genuine case who does meet all the criteria and have the upmost regard to my public safety as well as my own be it while out shooting or just storing my firearms at home or while travelling to and from range etc.

I feel the Garda are anti pistol for obvious reasons and sure I fully agree its not all Guards nor is this a vendetta against them. We ( pistol holders) are becoming under more pressure to obtain our licences because there are some irresponsible holders out there plus the fact the pistol related crime is on the rise and its publically been shown that it has been twisted in the press that Legal license holders are tarred with the same brush as illegal holders.

I do recall a Super saying that how can we fight the gun crime when we are still handing out licenses to the public, This boils my blood. There are two types of gun holders. Licensed and unlicensed and it shouldnt be confused as it often is.

Thanks for your views

kermitpwee

BUACHAILL wrote: »

I agree with all you have just said in so far as the mess we are in, I do disagree that this is the only reason why they want pistols gone. I didnt find a loophole I have a validated need for mine, not saying everyone who has one does but I wont speak for anyone else.

Please just read your first three sentences ! On one hand you say u can meet all the criteria and still be refused, then you go on to say your being refused because of failure to demonstrate seriousness with regard to the application, burglaries etc etc. This is a contradiction and if these are your reasons for not being authorised for a firearm it means you have actually not met all the criteria ???

I will leave it on this and I really appreciate your views on it but I am very passionate about this as I am a genuine case who does meet all the criteria and have the upmost regard to my public safety as well as my own be it while out shooting or just storing my firearms at home or while travelling to and from range etc.

I feel the Garda are anti pistol for obvious reasons and sure I fully agree its not all Guards nor is this a vendetta against them. We ( pistol holders) are becoming under more pressure to obtain our licences because there are some irresponsible holders out there plus the fact the pistol related crime is on the rise and its publically been shown that it has been twisted in the press that Legal license holders are tarred with the same brush as illegal holders.

I do recall a Super saying that how can we fight the gun crime when we are still handing out licenses to the public, This boils my blood. There are two types of gun holders. Licensed and unlicensed and it shouldnt be confused as it often is.

Thanks for your views

I will explain this simply to all involved.

The criteria is there as a guide to who should be granted a licence. But the final decision is at the discretion of the Super. So you can meet all criteria but the final part of the process is AT the Supers DISCRETION.

So you can sum it up as follows.

The criteria is there as a guide to who should definitely not get a licence. After that it is a matter of DISCRETION. So It's up to the Super as he holds the key which is? You guessed it DISCRETION.

Happy shooting

Peter

Sparks

BUACHAILL wrote: »

your missing my point

No, I understood you perfectly. I'm just saying you're wrong. I'm not trying to score points here - I'm just saying you've misread the legislation. The law is not "on our side" and we do not have rights in this.

So if you are a case that meets all criteria the Super must obey the law and accept your application.

He has to accept your application - he does not have to grant it though.

But not all do. This however doesnt mean that its within their rights to do so.

Wrong again I'm afraid.

Sparks why do the courts not deal with it then?

They don't because of us. The court case the NARGC took (Dunne v Donoghue, the "gun safes" case as too many people call it) established the primacy of the Superintendents over the Courts. So the problem, if it's that, is of our own making. Mind you, since over 99% of the licences have no problems, it's not as big a deal as many think.

why is Dermot Ahern looking for this legislation to ban or refuse at will ?

Because it's easier to be seen to be "doing something" than it is to actually do something effective. Also, given the trend between centralised and local government in Ireland in the last forty-odd years, it's just par for the course. The government has been centralising pretty much all effective authority for that time period; this is a continuation of that trend. And I suppose it wouldn't hurt that (a) the law was actually written by McDowell, not Ahern, and (b) it was written shortly after it was ruled in court that McDowell didn't have that particular power as Minister.

BUACHAILL wrote: »

Please just read your first three sentences ! On one hand you say u can meet all the criteria and still be refused, then you go on to say your being refused because of failure to demonstrate seriousness with regard to the application, burglaries etc etc. This is a contradiction

Eh, no, it isn't. It's being refused for two seperate reasons.

I will leave it on this and I really appreciate your views on it but I am very passionate about this as I am a genuine case who does meet all the criteria and have the upmost regard to my public safety as well as my own be it while out shooting or just storing my firearms at home or while travelling to and from range etc.

So are the rest of us, and none of us have rights to our firearms.

I feel the Garda are anti pistol

To be honest, while I agree there are cases where there are problem Gardai, I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as that. 220,000 licences renew every year without trouble. Like I said, it's like airline crashes or lottery winners - we hear so much about them because they're rare, not because they're common.

I do recall a Super saying that how can we fight the gun crime when we are still handing out licenses to the public, This boils my blood. There are two types of gun holders. Licensed and unlicensed and it shouldnt be confused as it often is.

Amen to that, and we should be protesting that sort of thing more - but that's a PR battle, not a legal one. And given the freedom we have in the PR side of things compared to the legal side, I'm constantly surprised at the reticence and general ignorance shown by shooters in Ireland when it comes to PR.

kermitpwee wrote: »

The criteria is there as a guide to who should definitely not get a licence. After that it is a matter of DISCRETION. So It's up to the Super as he holds the key which is? You guessed it DISCRETION

Nailed it.

CamperMan

BUACHAILL wrote: »

Believe it or not people forget that its your entitlement to have a firearm if you can prove a valid need for it, it doesnt make us criminals which is the twist authorities like to put on it and make you feel honoured for being licenced, what a load of rubbish, so push the matter at your station of application. Albeit if you can do it without making noise even better but I know I had a very slack station and they really needed pushing.

We are in Ireland now, not America!

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

Amen to that, and we should be protesting that sort of thing more - but that's a PR battle, not a legal one. And given the freedom we have in the PR side of things compared to the legal side, I'm constantly surprised at the reticence and general ignorance shown by shooters in Ireland when it comes to PR.

It's because PR is very hard. Hard work, hard to get right and very easy to destroy. There's a reason PR professionals charge so much.

Sparks

It's not just the doing of it though Conor, it's just taking part at all that sees a lot of people backing off!