Pistol license refusal

Slug chucker

Got my refusals for my two centre fire pistols today, to quote from the standard letter from the chief super “I am not satisfied that you have shown good reason for requiring a restricted firearm”. I sent in all the supporting info with the application.
• I’m a member of an authorised pistol range
• My club shoots centre fire pistol comps as part of the shooting calendar.
• I use the pistols for competitive shooting sports
• I use the pistols regularly.
• I have complied with all the new security arrangements required.
• I have them longer than three years.
• I have had the relevant training in their safe handling and use.
So I’ve ticked all the boxes, jumped through all the hoops and the answer is still no, so where do I go from here?

Cheers,
Slugchucker

Rew

Not good news at all... what district if you dont mind me asking?

Slug chucker

The Chief Super is based out of Crumlin.
Another club member with a CF pistol has got the same letter also!(same district)
Their using a pre-drafted letter and just inserting your details.
Dark clouds are gathering!

gunhappy_ie

Arrange to meet your chief and ask what would satisfy him/her. Otherwise Fight it through the courts ! I believe its your local district court that will feck with this.

ranger4

Slug chucker wrote: »

Got my refusals for my two centre fire pistols today, to quote from the standard letter from the chief super “I am not satisfied that you have shown good reason for requiring a restricted firearm”. I sent in all the supporting info with the application.
• I’m a member of an authorised pistol range
• My club shoots centre fire pistol comps as part of the shooting calendar.
• I use the pistols for competitive shooting sports
• I use the pistols regularly.
• I have complied with all the new security arrangements required.
• I have them longer than three years.
• I have had the relevant training in their safe handling and use.
So I’ve ticked all the boxes, jumped through all the hoops and the answer is still no, so where do I go from here?

Cheers,
Slugchucker

Hope you get super to see reason and change his mind otherwise court action would be needed to try and overturn the supers unfair decision, was your extension period till october? hope you get this unfair and unjust decision overturned, I will be bringing court action myself if i feel i have been treated unjustly with my firearms applications.

Slug chucker

Yea, October was the renewal date. I'll sit down with him and have a chat. To be fair the guy doesn't know me from Adam, maybe things will be different after we meet. Time will tell!

jwshooter

Slug chucker wrote: »

Yea, October was the renewal date. I'll sit down with him and have a chat. To be fair the guy doesn't know me from Adam, maybe things will be different after we meet. Time will tell!

any offer of compensation

Mr. Presentable

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Arrange to meet your chief and ask what would satisfy him/her. Otherwise Fight it through the courts ! I believe its your local district court that will feck with this.

On what grounds could you fight this in court?

rrpc

jwshooter wrote: »

any offer of compensation

Compensation won't come into it. You're being refused a licence, they're not taking your property.

And don't go quoting the constitution, read it first

You don't got no rights where firearms are concerned. :pac:

By the way, for anyone thinking of court action and saying "sure it's only the district court"; remember that the district court is like a nice juicy worm on the end of a hook that leads all the way to the Supreme Court and you're the wriggling fish that can't get off.

Just be prepared to go all the way because a win in the district court can just mean you'll be looking down both barrels of an appeal to the High Court etc.

rrpc

nipplenuts wrote: »

On what grounds could you fight this in court?

You asked

15A.—(1) An appeal may be made to the District Court by a person aggrieved by any of the following decisions made by an issuing person:
(a) to refuse to grant a firearms training certificate under section 2A of this Act;
(b) to refuse to grant or renew a firearm certificate under section 3 of this Act;
(c) to refuse to grant or renew an authorisation for a rifle or pistol club or shooting range under section 4A of this Act;
(d) to revoke a firearm certificate under section 5 of this Act;
(e) to refuse to register a person, or to renew a registration, in the register of firearms dealers under section 9 of this Act;
(f) to grant or renew an authorisation under section 10 of this Act;
(g) to remove the name of a person from the register of firearms dealers under section 11 of this Act;
(h) to refuse to grant a licence under section 10A of this Act;
(i) to refuse to grant an authorisation under section 16(1) of this Act;
(j) to refuse to grant a licence for the import of firearms or ammunition or a prohibited weapon under section 17 of this Act or to vary such a licence or conditions named in it;
(k) to refuse to renew a firearm certificate under section 9 of the Firearms Act 1964; or
(l) to refuse to grant a firearm certificate, or to revoke such a certificate, under section 2 of the Firearms (Firearm Certificate for Non-Residents) Act 2000.
(2) An appeal shall be made within 30 days of receipt of notice of the decision concerned.
(3) On the appeal the Court may—
(a) confirm the decision,
(b) adjourn the proceedings and direct the issuing person to reconsider the decision in the light of the appeal proceedings, or
(c) allow the appeal.

Slug chucker

RRPC,
LOL, talk is cheap so that's my first course of action with the Gardaí, I'll bore them into submission
I wonder would the Gardaí agree to take pistols into care in the park during the legal phase of an apppeals process, after all it could possibly take years to iron out. After all they did assist me import it into the country?

rowa

rrpc wrote: »

Compenastion won't come into it. You're being refused a licence, they're not taking your property.

And don't go quoting the constitution, read it first

You don't got no rights where firearms are concerned. :pac:

By the way, for anyone thinking of court action and saying "sure it's only the district court"; remember that the district court is like a nice juicy worm on the end of a hook that leads all the way to the Supreme Court and you're the wriggling fish that can't get off.

Just be prepared to go all the way because a win in the district court can just mean you'll be looking down both barrels of an appeal to the High Court etc.

i was talking to a laywer today and i said that because of it being a firearm that we're not entitled to compensation ,he completely disagreed with this , the dealers are going to refuse to take pistols in for storage so the gardai will have to , so they will be refusing you the right to keep and use your own property and to do so at any point in the future and will have taken the pistols up for storage in the park i presume , so they have effectively confiscated them , i don't think it unreasonable that we be compensated for our own property being denied us .

rrpc

Slug chucker wrote: »

RRPC,
LOL, talk is cheap so that's my first course of action with the Gardaí, I'll bore them into submission
I wonder would the Gardaí agree to take pistols into care in the park during the legal phase of an apppeals process, after all it could possibly take years to iron out. After all they did assist me import it into the country?

I know, it's just people are waving solicitors around like snuff at a wake and hasty decisions like that can lead to penury (except for the solicitor of course ).

Talk is cheap and it's always best to talk first. Sometimes there are misunderstandings that can be ironed out, you won't know till you ask.

Good luck

rrpc

rowa wrote: »

i was talking to a laywer today and i said that because of it being a firearm that we're not entitled to compensation ,he completely disagreed with this

Of course he did, there's a recession on

the dealers are going to refuse to take pistols in for storage so the gardai will have to , so they will be refusing you the right to keep and use your own property and to do so at any point in the future and will have taken the pistols up for storage in the park i presume , so they have effectively confiscated them , i don't think it unreasonable that we be compensated for our own property being denied us .

There's lots of 'effectivelys', 'presumes' and 'going to's' there that I wouldn't bet my house on Rowa.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

i was talking to a laywer today and i said that because of it being a firearm that we're not entitled to compensation ,he completely disagreed with this , the dealers are going to refuse to take pistols in for storage so the gardai will have to , so they will be refusing you the right to keep and use your own property and to do so at any point in the future and will have taken the pistols up for storage in the park i presume , so they have effectively confiscated them , i don't think it unreasonable that we be compensated for our own property being denied us .

Said that a few times here..And it would also include being in a dealer,as it is a defacto removal to an authorised storage place.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Said that a few times here..And it would also include being in a dealer,as it is a defacto removal to an authorised storage place.

As RRPC said, there's a recession on and with the property market having collapsed, conveyancing (once the largest revenue source for legal folk) has collapsed too.
I'd ensure my legal advice wasn't being affected by that loss of a revenue stream if I were you.

Slug chucker

Hmm....
I've had a re-read of my letter from the Super, he doesn't anywhere in the letter say he is refusing my application just says "I am not satisfied". Where does that put me now, is it currently licensed or not?
Is the license extension not in place to facilitate the outcome of the application process, is my time now effectively up?

Rew

Slug chucker wrote: »

Hmm....
I've had a re-read of my letter from the Super, he doesn't anywhere in the letter say he is refusing my application just says "I am not satisfied". Where does that put me now, is it currently licensed or not?
Is the license extension not in place to facilitate the outcome of the application process, is my time now effectively up?

Extension is an extension of you license till the 31st so your covered till then.

Grizzly 45

Well,if he is saying he is "not satisified" this must imply that there is somthing there that is [a] causing him concern that needs to be clarified,ergo somthing that can be amended it is a very badly worded form letter implying that he is declining the application due to him being not satisifed by whatever reasons..

I was always worried why on the application forms there was this box for the Super to tick on refusals "other":( There should be no such leeway.Just proper logical reasons for a refusal.

Just in conspircy theory mode here. Supposing this is the situation that the system cant handle all these applications,time is aticking here towards the 31st and this is the quickest way around saying "yes Minister the system works 100% and all is hunky dory. Trouble with the PULSE,no my good sheep...er citizenery.Nothing wrong,move along there"
Sparks,
That info was from last year,when things were still pretty good.True,things are tough,but Iwouldnt argue with a solicitor who is running a multi million law firm,and personally has made his name on one of the more controversial cases in the State recently,so he isnt too worried about the bobs.

maglite

Does a reason not have to be given for refusal?

And could this be a measure to "weed" out the non serious, deny all and let the court issue type of thing?

Chipboard

I don't know how anyone could think that the constitution is not a basis for appealing this. The constitution entitles you to fair procedures;

The courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect you, must treat you fairly. There are two essential rules of fair procedure.

* The person making the decision that affects you should not be biased or appear to be biased.
* You must be given an adequate opportunity to present your case. You must be informed of the matter and you must be given a chance to comment on the material put forward by the other side.

Reference www.citizensinformation.ie

It doesn't matter whether it pertains to employment, a criminal offence or whatever, you have that right. I'm not saying you always get fairness but its in the constitution and it can be used as a basis for appeal. It was reasonable to expect given the legislation that was enacted that there were grounds under which a pistol licence could be granted. Blanket refusal of pistol licences means that either the decision makers were directed to refuse them or they are biased. Either way it is unfair.

In addition to this, not a single firearm under discussion was brought into this country without the approval of the department of justice. They cost money and the security requirements dictated to us cost money too. It is very likely that a significant number of pistol owners who applied in the last few weeks spent money enhancing their security arrangements based on the guidelines issued. This doesn't mean that they have a right to a licence but it sure as hell means that they have the right to have their application assessed in line with the guidelines issued instead of this blanket refusal.

I think that some help or encouragement would be more appropriate for anyone considering appealing this. Whats the point in discouraging people from appealing. As far as I can see the shooting community is taking it up the ass from the DOJ and the Gardai (especially the FCP). The time for discussion is long gone. When are people going to stand up to this - when the firearms have been smelted?

I'm involved in instructing solicitors on legal actions every day of the week through my job and I advise anyone who is going to pursue a legal action to hire a solicitor from a recognised firm in Dublin. Not to slate rural Ireland (I'm from it) but most of the solicitors down the country are best left to drunk driving and assault cases. We only use Dublin based solicitors and they chew up and spit out the country ones.

I'll say it again that I think it would be a good idea if we established a fund to finance a legal case. If it cost €100,000 to take this to the High Court and there were 500 pistol holders signed up to it that would equate to only €200 each - 20% of the cost of an average pistol. Thats before you count the very generous contribution you would get from the firearms dealers and I'm sure Magtech et al, who I am a keen supporter of, would like to give a little something back.

I'm pissed off by the way.

Sparks

Chipboard wrote: »

The constitution entitles you to fair procedures

Not that I don't agree with the sentiment and not that I wouldn't love to see it proven in court, but could you quote the Constitution if you're talking about it and not citizensinformation.ie? The latter has no legal weight at all.

And when you start talking about rights, be very specific because someone stomping about claiming he had "rights" (that didn't exist) is how we got the Charleton judgement and that's the stick we're currently being beaten with.

Slug chucker

Hey Chipboard,
I hope you can take some solace in this; my wife’s applications were also declined.
She was referred to as Dear Sir,….in her letter!
They are only standard letters, so in my opinion the Super probably didn’t even read the applications. I have a feeling they are just waiting for the challenge that has to be lodged within 30 days of receipt of the refusal.

Chipboard

My point is either valid or it isn't Sparks. If all your disagreeing with it is the source of my quote rather than the substance I will take it on the chin.

IRLConor

Slug chucker wrote: »

Hmm....
I've had a re-read of my letter from the Super, he doesn't anywhere in the letter say he is refusing my application just says "I am not satisfied". Where does that put me now, is it currently licensed or not?
Is the license extension not in place to facilitate the outcome of the application process, is my time now effectively up?

I'm suspecting that he's deliberately using the wording from Section 4 of the Firearms Act (I've bolded the bits that he probably used):

Firearms Act, Section 4 wrote:

1. An issuing person shall not grant a firearm certificate unless he or she is satisfied that the applicant complies with the conditions referred to in subsection (2) and will continue to comply with them during the currency of the certificate.
2. The conditions subject to which a firearm certificate may be granted are that, in the opinion of the issuing person, the applicant—
   1. has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for,
   2. can be permitted to possess, use and carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace,
   3. is not a person declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate,
   4. has provided secure accommodation for the firearm and ammunition at the place where it is to be kept,
   5. where the firearm is a rifle or pistol to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club,
   6. has complied with subsection (3),
   7. complies with such other conditions (if any) specified in the firearm certificate, including any such conditions to be complied with before a specified date as the issuing person considers necessary in the interests of public safety or security, and
   8. in case the application is for a restricted firearm certificate—
      1. has a good and sufficient reason for requiring such a firearm, and
      2. has demonstrated that the firearm is the only type of weapon that is appropriate for the purpose for which it is required.
3. An applicant for a firearm certificate shall supply to the issuing person the information requested in the application form and such further information as the issuing person may require in the performance of the person’s functions under this Act, including, in particular—
   1. proof of identity,
   2. proof of competence in the use of the firearm concerned,
   3. written consent for any enquiries in relation to the applicant’s medical history that may be made from a health professional by or on behalf of the issuing person, and
   4. names and addresses of two referees who may be contacted to attest to the applicant’s character.
4. A member of the Garda Síochána may inspect the accommodation for a firearm provided by an applicant for a firearm certificate or require the applicant to provide proof of its existence.
5. The Minister, in consultation with the Commissioner, may by regulations provide for minimum standards to be complied with by holders of firearm certificates in relation to the provision of secure accommodation for their firearms.
6. In this section “health professional” means doctor or psychiatrist registered under any enactments governing the profession concerned or a clinical psychologist

It's probably an attempt to avoid giving you an easy way of taking him to court.

Slug chucker

IRLConor,
In my opinion that’s what he’s doing. If you shoot centre fire pistol competitions what other firearm but a centre fire will suffice? The fact that I meet all the criteria is the worrying bit for me. I’m an active shooter, known to the Gardai as an active competitive club shooter. I have the firearms for all the right reasons.

ranger4

Slug chucker wrote: »

IRLConor,
In my opinion that’s what he’s doing. If you shoot centre fire pistol competitions what other firearm but a centre fire will suffice? The fact that I meet all the criteria is the worrying bit for me. I’m an active shooter, known to the Gardai as an active competitive club shooter. I have the firearms for all the right reasons.

I feel with the present downturn the guards feel many Licenced owners woint bother to go through the courts because of expense etc, I hope we hear very soon of a fund which will be set up to challenge in court any unjust-unfair Licencing refusals by Competent Licenced sportsmen and women.

meathshooter

ranger4 wrote: »

I feel with the present downturn the guards feel many Licenced owners woint bother to go through the courts because of expense etc, I hope we hear very soon of a fund which will be set up to challenge in court any unjust-unfair Licencing refusals by Competent Licenced sportsmen and women.

Also it would be nice to see firearms dealers and importers put a little something back in to the industry back a challenge which in the long run would benefit them I can think of a few that have made it rich from our sports

cavan shooter

From my understanding of the grounds for refusal "Not satisfied" isn't grounds on its own and therefore he has to back up the "Not satisfied" bit with justification.

I agree with others it's time to go have a chat with him. I would also be raising it with your shooting body.

But I think the cards are stacked against you.....

The downside and the argument that you will have to convince him on is "what can you do with a 9mm that cant be done with a .22 target pistol". thaat against a backdrop of sure a target is a target mentality.

sorry for your troubles, but I fear you wont be the last

Sparks

"Not satisfied" isn't exactly a refusal cavan - like rrpc pointed out, the Super is saying that he's not satisfied, therefore Section 4(1) does not allow him to grant a licence. I think that unless someone in the FPU knocks a few heads together (and that's assuming this isn't coming down from the Commissioner himself) that we're going to see this go to court several times over

Slug chucker

I need a bit of sound advice:
1. How do you properly lodge an appeal with the distinct court in accordance with section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006
2. Does section 6 of the Firearms act 1925 still stand up:

Sale of firearm when certificate refused or revoked.

6.—Where a superintendent of the Gárda Síochána refuses an application for a
firearm certificate or revokes a firearm certificate and the applicant for or
holder of the certificate has a firearm, with or without ammunition therefor,
in his possession in Saorstát Eireann at the time of such refusal or
revocation, such applicant or holder shall forthwith deliver such firearm and
ammunition (if any) to such superintendent who shall retain the same, but such
applicant or holder shall be at liberty to sell such firearm and ammunition
(if any) to any person approved of by such superintendent a on such sale
taking place and the provisions of this Act being complied with by the
purchaser, the superintendent shall hand such firearm and ammunition (if any)
to such purchaser

I’ll need a place to put this firearm after the 31st of October, will the above work of can they destroy the firearm while waiting for the appeals process to come to court. I believe from what I’m hearing that the dealers are not going to store them period.

rowa

i heard that from the dealers too slug chucker , its not being done out of badness but out of solidarity with the shooters , they aren't going to cooperate with this rubbish and assist the doj/ AHern / the gardai in stiffing us .

if you have a northern ireland licence you might be able to store and us the pistol up there .

pedroeibar

Slug chucker wrote: »

I need a bit of sound advice:
1. How do you properly lodge an appeal with the distinct court in accordance with section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006
2. Does section 6 of the Firearms act 1925 still stand up:

Sale of firearm when certificate refused or revoked.

6.—Where a superintendent of the Gárda Síochána refuses an application for a
firearm certificate or revokes a firearm certificate and the applicant for or
holder of the certificate has a firearm, with or without ammunition therefor,
in his possession in Saorstát Eireann at the time of such refusal or
revocation, such applicant or holder shall forthwith deliver such firearm and
ammunition (if any) to such superintendent who shall retain the same, but such
applicant or holder shall be at liberty to sell such firearm and ammunition
(if any) to any person approved of by such superintendent a on such sale
taking place and the provisions of this Act being complied with by the
purchaser, the superintendent shall hand such firearm and ammunition (if any)
to such purchaser

I’ll need a place to put this firearm after the 31st of October, will the above work of can they destroy the firearm while waiting for the appeals process to come to court. I believe from what I’m hearing that the dealers are not going to store them period.

It would be a very brave or extremely foolish C. Super that would sell your pistol while you were in an appeal process. Firstly try to avoid Court - they will appeal you if you win, a barrister for the Circuit court will be 1-5k, one for the High Court will be 10k. . Try all other avenues first, but build your case for going to court should yoou have to. If you have to go there, DO GET a solicitor who knows the firearms laws, most do not as they rarely have exposure to them.

In your position I would immediately send a letter by registered mail to the C. Super who wrote to you. Be polite, but firm, it might have to be read in Court and you want to appear polite and reasonable!

Something on the lines of :

Date : 8 October 2009

Re : Firearm (Make) (Model) (Serial No.)

Dear Chief Superintendent,

As a firearms owner of longstanding, I am surprised by the contents of your letter of XXdate stating that you are not satisfied that I have shown good reason for requiring the restricted firearm referenced above. In the past I never encountered any problems with renewal of my licence and the Guidelines issued to the Gardai suggest that I meet the necessary requirements.

I reiterate my qualifications (already submitted with my FCA1 form) for holding the licence required:

• I’m a member of an authorised pistol range
• My club shoots centre fire pistol comps as part of the shooting calendar.
• I use the pistols for competitive shooting sports
• I use the pistols regularly.
• I have complied with all the new security arrangements required.
• I have them longer than three years.
• I have had the relevant training in their safe handling and use.

To enable you reconsider the granting of the permit required, I would like to know on what grounds under the Firearms Acts you are not satisfied. This would enable me take appropriate action to remedy any concerns you might have. If a Firearms Officer would like to visit my home and inspect my security arrangements I would be glad to offer you that opportunity. I look forward to hearing from you within 14 days, as time is now of the essence given the deadlines set both by the licence extension letter and the appeals process periods.

Yours sincerely,

You have 30 days to lodge an appeal, and if you do so you will be able to show that you have tried to be compliant which will be a big plus in front of the judge.
FWIW,
Good luck and I hope I do not have to do this myself!
Rs
P.

Greenacre

Is it really appropriate to discuss on an open forum every possible avenue a shooter may have for appeal or every argument that he or she may wish to use, if and when you eventually get to court?

Surely, at this point the correct course of action would be to approach your NGB with your club representative and decide on a course of action that can be implemented in a professional manner and not under the scrutiny of a public forum?

pedroeibar

Greenacre wrote: »

Is it really appropriate to discuss on an open forum every possible avenue a shooter may have for appeal or every argument that he or she may wish to use, if and when you eventually get to court?

Surely, at this point the correct course of action would be to approach your NGB with your club representative and decide on a course of action that can be implemented in a professional manner and not under the scrutiny of a public forum?

Why shouldn't we discuss it? The Gardai have a very good idea of what they want, they have free legal advice and they are paid while researching this stuff. Nothing we post here is going to educate them, other than giving an indication of (a) our sympathy for them for having to implement a crappy piece of legislation that is both badly drafted and the interpretations of which are unclear and (b) letting them know that we are not going to take crap lying down. I have spoken to FOs in two districts, one in Munster, the other in Leinster and both have said that a total bags has been made of all this by the DOJ and that it was stupid to target the existing licensed gunowners.

By all means get your club/association etc involved, but make sure you educate youself first.

Sparks

There's definitely no issue in discussing possible avenues. I'd hesitate before deciding on an actual course of action using boards.ie as your sole guide however. The best advice remains to retain a solicitor familiar with the relevant body of law and to follow their advice.

And it'd be nice if you told us of your experiences afterwards to build up a public knowledgebase on these matters.

But I'd run a mile from the idea of hiding all this away and not discussing it in public - after all, had we done that in the case of the Charleton judgement, a valuable lesson would have been lost - one which must be learnt before a problem arises since it concerns the first few moments when that problem arises.

rrpc

Before anyone starts going to court, they need to find out what he's not satisfied about and what it would take to satisfy him.

He's well within his rights to ask for more information to help him in his decision and knocking heads is not necessarily the best way to satisfy him that he's making the right decision.

this is from my phone so apologies for any misspellings

triskell

It's bad enough to not be allowed to relicence your pistol, but what about the fact that it's then going to be a on your permanent record that you have been refused a licence ( it's even a question on FCA1) so each time you apply for a new firearm licence this is going to be an issue. it also means that if you apply for a licence/permit outside of this country you have to explain this, a lot of the european countries would have an issue with this specific fact and it may hinder those applications. This is going to have more repercussions than just losing cost of the firearm.
Seriously pi$$ed off:mad::mad:

meathshooter

Greenacre wrote: »

Is it really appropriate to discuss on an open forum every possible avenue a shooter may have for appeal or every argument that he or she may wish to use, if and when you eventually get to court?

Surely, at this point the correct course of action would be to approach your NGB with your club representative and decide on a course of action that can be implemented in a professional manner and not under the scrutiny of a public forum?

I know where your coming from as it is well known the the powers that be read these boards but don't think for one minute that the powers that be don't no all the loopholes as well this piece of legislation is serious flawed we know and they know it too its up to us now to see how much we want to hold on to our sport I spoke to a friend who would be very qualified in this field he said its full of holes let the fun and games begin time to put our money where our mouths are

rrpc

meathshooter wrote: »

I know where your coming from as it is well known the the powers that be read these boards but don't think for one minute that the powers that be don't no all the loopholes as well this piece of legislation is serious flawed we know and they know it too its up to us now to see how much we want to hold on to our sport I spoke to a friend who would be very qualified in this field he said its full of holes let the fun and games begin time to put our money where our mouths are

A Superintendent (or Chief Superintendent) is well entitled to refuse a licence application where he feels the applicant has not demonstrated a good reason for requiring the firearm.

There are no loopholes here, it's been in the firearms act since the beginning. People advocating taking court action immediately are (a) not giving good advice, (b) not going to pay your legal bills and (c) probably not half as invested in the result as you are.

If you are faced with a refusal under the above grounds, you are duty bound to find out why the licensing person does not believe you've provided a good reason and what they would consider a good reason to be. Until you know the answers to those questions, you're going to have a very weak case in court and will quite probably lose it.

For all you know, you've left something out that may be obvious to you, but which is not half as obvious to someone else.

Why everyone's first option is to go to war is beyond me.

pedroeibar

triskell wrote: »

It's bad enough to not be allowed to relicence your pistol, but what about the fact that it's then going to be a on your permanent record that you have been refused a licence ( it's even a question on FCA1) so each time you apply for a new firearm licence this is going to be an issue. it also means that if you apply for a licence/permit outside of this country you have to explain this, a lot of the european countries would have an issue with this specific fact and it may hinder those applications. This is going to have more repercussions than just losing cost of the firearm.
Seriously pi$$ed off:mad::mad:

No.
Slugchucker has not been refused, he's been told that the CS is not satisfied he meets the requirements. There is a difference. That is why I said be nice to the CS , put the onus on him and ask what needs to be done to meet his requirements. Those requirements have to be reasonable and if the CS refuses to state them he will not have a nice day in court should it end up there. The CS already knows this because most judges give more preference to the man in the street than they do to officialdom.

Watch the deadlines, keep copies of everything. If no reply go to a solicitor. BS about the District court being user-friendly, it is not. Try every avenue first before going to court, that is a nightmare. Apart from an emotional strain that is head-wrecking, you have to pay your costs but the CS has the equivalent of free legal aid with the State and the AG's office at his beck and call.
FWIW
P.

pedroeibar

rrpc wrote: »

A Superintendent (or Chief Superintendent) is well entitled to refuse a licence application where he feels the applicant has not demonstrated a good reason for requiring the firearm.

There are no loopholes here, it's been in the firearms act since the beginning. People advocating taking court action immediately are (a) not giving good advice, (b) not going to pay your legal bills and (c) probably not half as invested in the result as you are.

If you are faced with a refusal under the above grounds, you are duty bound to find out why the licensing person does not believe you've provided a good reason and what they would consider a good reason to be. Until you know the answers to those questions, you're going to have a very weak case in court and will quite probably lose it.

For all you know, you've left something out that may be obvious to you, but which is not half as obvious to someone else.

Why everyone's first option is to go to war is beyond me.

Agreed. Sorry rrpc, I'm on dial-up speed here so we overlapped.
Rs
P.

rrpc

pedroeibar wrote: »

Agreed. Sorry rrpc, I'm on dial-up speed here so we overlapped.
Rs
P.

It probably needed to be said twice anyway . Some people are beginning to think I'm a Garda in disguise :rolleyes:, so having another voice say the same thing is useful.

4gun

if you think about it the Guard is actually using the clause of where "there is an unresticted alternative" by offering to consider an olympic style .22 to decline the FCP and the whole thing seem to be down to a matter of "opionion" by the local super, so back to square on as far as the new leglislation is concerned

rrpc

4gun wrote: »

if you think about it the Guard is actually using the clause of where "there is an unresticted alternative" by offering to consider an olympic style .22 to decline the FCP and the whole thing seem to be down to a matter of "opionion" by the local super, so back to square on as far as the new leglislation is concerned

All that could mean is that the applicant didn't adequately explain why the firearm was the only one suitable for the job.

I'm not saying it is by the way (before someone jumps on me and accuses me of being a Quisling) but that it's a possibility.

Actually for most people who are applying now with centre fire pistols, the reason could well be: 'It's the one I have and since I can't get another one and since the competition requires a centre fire pistol, it is the only one suitable for the job"

Hard to argue against seeing as the new act has made it impossible to change a centre fire pistol.

Cass

4gun wrote: »

if you think about it the Guard is actually using the clause of where "there is an unresticted alternative" by offering to consider an olympic style .22.........

Okay, people with a greater knowledge can correct any errors in specifics.

WA1500 and PPC1500 are the same and require a centre fire pistol of calibre greater than .32 in revolver and .35 in semi auto pistol. So how can a .22 do the same job when it cannot be used. I know some will say that practical shooting is gone but static target shooting is not and can be used as practice. (to some extent anyway).

Originally Posted by rrpc

Hard to argue against seeing as the new act has made it impossible to change a centre fire pistol

If someone/people are granted licences for their pistols they are deemed fit and able to own, use and possess the firearm. Once you have your licence you can then amend a licence to change from one firearm to another (if only like calibre to like calibre). Forget about importing and all that say the gun is in the country why can you not change the pistol?

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

If someone/people are granted licences for their pistols they are deemed fit and able to own, use and possess the firearm. Once you have your licence you can then amend a licence to change from one firearm to another (if only like calibre to like calibre). Forget about importing and all that say the gun is in the country why can you not change the pistol?

The wording of the new act seems to make it impossible:

(c) a short firearm for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearm certificate on or before 19 November 2008.

It seems to be specific to the firearm held before 19/11/2008.

jwshooter

ezridax wrote: »

Okay, people with a greater knowledge can correct any errors in specifics.

WA1500 and PPC1500 are the same and require a centre fire pistol of calibre greater than .32 in revolver and .35 in semi auto pistol. So how can a .22 do the same job when it cannot be used. I know some will say that practical shooting is gone but static target shooting is not and can be used as practice. (to some extent anyway).



If someone/people are granted licences for their pistols they are deemed fit and able to own, use and possess the firearm. Once you have your licence you can then amend a licence to change from one firearm to another (if only like calibre to like calibre). Forget about importing and all that say the gun is in the country why can you not change the pistol?

if the guy has been refused a licence for his pistols and given a licence for a high powered rifle.
he must be deemed fit to own and possess a firearm.

Cass

rrpc wrote: »

The wording of the new act seems to make it impossible:

How? It does not specify the firearm only that a firearm cert be held prior to 19/11/2008. So if granted a new cert/licence, under the law i can change the firearm listed on my cert/licence for another firearm as we have been doing for years. Granted they may impose restrictions such as if you have a 9mm it can only be another 9mm, but how can they refuse to allow you to change if they have given a new cert/licence?

rrpc

jwshooter wrote: »

if the guy has been refused a licence for his pistols and given a licence for a high powered rifle.
he must be deemed fit to own and possess a firearm.

You've kind of contradicted yourself there though: He's been refused one and granted another means he must be deemed fit? What happens if you're granted all your applications? Does that mean you're deemed superfit

That's only one part of the process though. He also has to give a good reason for having it and prove that he has a safe place to use it.

The law doesn't state that because you have a .22 Brno, you can get a 50 cal rifle :rolleyes:. There's a bit more to it than that.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

How? It does not specify the firearm only that a firearm cert be held prior to 19/11/2008. So if granted a new cert/licence, under the law i can change the firearm listed on my cert/licence for another firearm as we have been doing for years. Granted they may impose restrictions such as if you have a 9mm it can only be another 9mm, but how can they refuse to allow you to change if they have given a new cert/licence?

Maybe I should have quoted the whole thing in context:

3D.—(1) As and from the date of commencement of this section, no application for a firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm shall be considered by an issuing person other than for—
(c) a short firearm for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearm certificate on or before 19 November 2008.

That's quite specific to the firearm in my view.