Pistol Licensing Questions

Sikamick

Is anything been done to try and save the pistols for the people that were expecting to keep them under the Grandfathering system, how can some be licensed and others not, where is the equality in this. The right to Firearms ownership may not be in our constitution but equality is.

One of our members has a classic .22 Olympic pistol and has been refused and another has .22A SW and has been granted a license. What are people supposed to do to be treated fairly and with equality.

Sikamick

Meyer

What was the reason given for the refusal?

Sikamick

Super does not want any pistols/handguns in his district.

Sikamick

Meyer

Sikamick wrote: »

Super does not want any pistols/handguns in his district.

Sikamick

Well that's just plain ole discrimination, and It would be laughed out of court if a case were to be taken.

Sikamick

The Persona designata status given to super's has to be questioned, is it constitutional, how can anyone be allowed to act outside the law.

It's like in the States having a local county sheriff making his own rules as he goes, crazy.

Sikamick

rowa

i haven't heard of any of the shooting organisations doing anything or making any statements about this , i have been told that instead of the superintendent making the decision about granting a restricted licence, its the chief super who now makes that decision , i don't see the difference personally , the decision has simply been moved up the line of command .

Meyer

rowa wrote: »

i haven't heard of any of the shooting organisations doing anything or making any statements about this , i have been told that instead of the superintendent making the decision about granting a restricted licence, its the chief super who now makes that decision , i don't see the difference personally , the decision has simply been moved up the line of command .

Well in fairness to NASRPC they have an e-mail function for refusals Link so perhaps they are doing something about it...

rowa

Meyer wrote: »

Well in fairness to NASRPC they have an e-mail function for refusals Link so perhaps they are doing something about it...

i stand corrected and fair play to them for doing something .

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Super does not want any pistols/handguns in his district.

Is that on paper? If not, step two will be to get a reason for refusal on paper. (Step one being to contact your FCP body so they can talk to the FPU and try to sort it out that way first). Refusing an olympic pistol is something the Super would have to have a pretty good reason for, I would have thought.

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

The Persona designata status given to super's has to be questioned, is it constitutional, how can anyone be allowed to act outside the law.

It's like in the States having a local county sheriff making his own rules as he goes, crazy.

Sikamick

Persona designata just means 'designated person' which is the person who is designated under the act and by the Oireachtas to make decisions on firearms applications.

It certainly does not mean 'outside the law'. Why else have we had courts telling Superintendents to revisit their decisions?

And with the new legislation, the status is diluted with district courts having the power to effectively grant licences.

As for your member, +1 to what Sparks and others have said. Get his details to his governing body and have them deal with it.

boards is not the place tgo sort these out as invariably there is some vital piece of information left out that make any pronouncements here null and void.

Bananaman

Has he been using it - range attendance, competition attendance, etc. He can't have it just because he wnats to have it - he has to use it for purpose.

Just because a pistol is the same as one someone once used in the Olympics is just making the decision between whether a super or chief super will deal with the application. The 22a is on the same list as all other non-restricted short firearms therefore it goes to the super aswell.

At that point you still only have a right of application - you have no inherent right to a license.

After that it comes down to
a) Who are you
b) Why do you want it (if a re-up show that is what you have been using it for)
c) Where will you keep it

I'd make sure those questions have been answered properly first as those are the reasons it can be refused - the make, model, colour etc has very little to do with it.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Has he been using it - range attendance, competition attendance, etc. He can't have it just because he wnats to have it - he has to use it for purpose.

Just because a pistol is the same as one someone once used in the Olympics is just making the decision between whether a super or chief super will deal with the application. The 22a is on the same list as all other non-restricted short firearms therefore it goes to the super aswell.

+1 to what B'man has said and I'll add that if he put in his application based on the fact that his pistol was 'Olympic Class' and hadn't been taking part in any competitions of that sort, well then I wouldn't be surprised if his Super had problems with that.

It's been said here often enough before: 'use it or lose it'

There's nothing wrong btw with using it for club competitions, but people saying that they're doing things that they are patently not is just going to get up a Super's nose.

Please note that I am not making any accusations here, just pointing out some of the pitfalls and errors people make.

Sparks

I wonder though if the Super can really refuse a licence on the basis of a lack of range attendance records when those range attendance records weren't legally mandatory until the most recent legislation change. I mean, you could have been plinking away down the club once a week for the last few years without as single paper record of it as a result; only to run into problems now? Ignorance of the law is no defence, but ignorance of laws yet unwritten is!

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I wonder though if the Super can really refuse a licence on the basis of a lack of range attendance records when those range attendance records weren't legally mandatory until the most recent legislation change. I mean, you could have been plinking away down the club once a week for the last few years without as single paper record of it as a result; only to run into problems now? Ignorance of the law is no defence, but ignorance of laws yet unwritten is!

It's nothing to do with range atendance records Sparks, and really those are an adjunct to already well established legislation.

It's about 'good reason' and if someone specifies participating in competition as their good reason and they haven't, then they're taking the p*ss and should be called on it.

Which is why I said shooting in the club is fine providing that's what you've been doing. Too many people have been citing club membership as their 'good reason' when they haven't been seen in the club since the day they joined.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

It's nothing to do with range atendance records Sparks, and really those are an adjunct to already well established legislation.

Well, it is and it isn't. If you specify "entering competitions" and you're not entering competitions, then yes, you've no good reason.

The hassle is when you say you're shooting in the club, like the majority of target shooters, and not competing, but just shooting recreationally. If someone's called on that by the Super, proving it comes down to a they-said-vs-they-said situation in a hurry. I mean, if you're only shooting once a fortnight, and the club grants access to its facilities to its members without supervision (as a lot of clubs do), it's completely possible for someone to genuinely shoot for a long while with the club rarely, if ever, seeing them actually shooting.

That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with you - the eejits who chanced their arm and got a year's club membership to get the licence then vanished into the aether, they have no claim on holding their licence and shouldn't be allowed to do so. I'm just a bit worried about the edge cases.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Well, it is and it isn't. If you specify "entering competitions" and you're not entering competitions, then yes, you've no good reason.

The hassle is when you say you're shooting in the club, like the majority of target shooters, and not competing, but just shooting recreationally. If someone's called on that by the Super, proving it comes down to a they-said-vs-they-said situation in a hurry. I mean, if you're only shooting once a fortnight, and the club grants access to its facilities to its members without supervision (as a lot of clubs do), it's completely possible for someone to genuinely shoot for a long while with the club rarely, if ever, seeing them actually shooting.

Although you're right, I suspect that there are very few cases like that. Many clubs (not all, I know) have sign in books for members so that's evidence of attendance. Unless you're particularly shy, most members will have bumped into you at some time or another.

That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with you - the eejits who chanced their arm and got a year's club membership to get the licence then vanished into the aether, they have no claim on holding their licence and shouldn't be allowed to do so. I'm just a bit worried about the edge cases.

And it could be that Mick's fellow member is one of those edge cases and needs some follow up to determine their record.

I honestly don't think there is a club member anywhere who's been attending relatively regularly and nobody knows about them. It's too small a community for that.

rowa

does the law state anything on regular attendance being a condition of the licence being granted or renewed ? what is, or would be considered reasonable usage ?
i know people who have pistols but only shoot a few times a year despite being club members .

Sikamick

rrpc re the Olympic standard pistol (Benelli), the owner is a very credible person, with full attendance and has competed. I cant say much more than that without given his identity away.

re the 22A SW we now have two passed for licensing, both owners would have reasonable attendance records but would not be competitive. All three are from different districts.

Sikamick

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

rrpc re the Olympic standard pistol (Benelli), the owner is a very credible person, with full attendance and has competed. I cant say much more than that without given his identity away.

There's no need, I was speaking generally. Has he actually been refused or was he aked for further information like some of the guys with centre fire pistols? If the latter, then it's a case of getting a letter from the NGB or some other record of competition, but either way it's NGB => FPU first I'd suggest.

re the 22A SW we now have two passed for licensing, both owners would have reasonable attendance records but would not be competitive. All three are from different districts.

Sikamick

Being competitive is not the issue. We've often stated here that the guys who are competitive are the point of the pyramid and they wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the club shooter who turns up and does his bit to keep the club going.

TMC121

I know the member in question and from a conversation I had with him he was basically told the officer in charge was not inclined to license small arms.
The member did point out that the pistol was of Olympic standard and on the commissioners guidelines, he also pointed out all his "good reasons" and attendance to the officer but did not receive a favorable response. He is now left in limbo awaiting the letter.

Maybe the outcome will be positive but from the conversation I don't think so.

rrpc

rowa wrote: »

does the law state anything on regular attendance being a condition of the licence being granted or renewed ? what is, or would be considered reasonable usage ?
i know people who have pistols but only shoot a few times a year despite being club members .

There's nothing stated in particular, but the clubs SI specifies that the club record those members who haven't attended in the previous six months.

That's not to say there would be any action taken, but you've got to assume that it would go against your 'good reason' for having a firearm if you aren't using it.

rrpc

TMC121 wrote: »

I know the member in question and from a conversation I had with him he was basically told the officer in charge was not inclined to license small arms.
The member did point out that the pistol was of Olympic standard and on the commissioners guidelines, he also pointed out all his "good reasons" and attendance to the officer but did not receive a favorable response. He is now left in limbo awaiting the letter.

Maybe the outcome will be positive but from the conversation I don't think so.

It's not a refusal either. There may be an element of 'testing' people to see if they're serious or not, or if they have evidence of their participation in a sport or not.

Wait and see. There's nothing else to do in the absence of an outright refusal in any case.

Sikamick

rrpc it's alright to say wait and see, but we have only five days to go until the expiry of people licenses.

The Minister stated he wanted to get illegal firearms of the streets, he and his new system will be the cause of the biggest number of unlicensed firearms the country has ever seen.

Sikamick

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

rrpc it's alright to say wait and see, but we have only five days to go until the expiry of people licenses.

The Minister stated he wanted to get illegal firearms of the streets, he and his new system will be that cause of the biggest number of unlicensed firearms the country has ever seen.

Sikamick

What's your alternative Mick?

And wait and see is the right course of action if you've nothing concrete. If the chap has further evidence of his participation in a sport involving the Benelli, then now would be a good time to present it, otherwise without a refusal he's got nothing to act on. Yet.

And he can leave it with a firearms dealer if he's worried about not having a licence for it, or ask for it to be put on the club's authorisation.

Sikamick

Quote [rrpc] What's your alternative Mick?

I was hoping you would have the answer.

I see on another thread re a .308 super states its restricted also a .270 ????.


Sikamick

Sparks

A round of extensions to the extensions would be nice, given the hassle there's been so far...

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

I was hoping you would have the answer.

I gave you two

I see on another thread re a .308 super states its restricted also a .270 ????.

Sikamick

You see, that's not what I read on that thread. I read that a FO in both cases said that the firearms were restricted and referred to the Super. No direct qoutes from a Super though.

Sikamick

rrpc wrote: »

I gave you two


You see, that's not what I read on that thread. I read that a FO in both cases said that the firearms were restricted and referred to the Super. No direct qoutes from a Super though.

______________________________________________________________

Not to nit pick rrpc I may have misquoted (Super) but in rereading the post the FO is not mentioned either.

None of this solves the problem for people that are been given the wrong information from their stations. We are at the eleventh hour and firearms holders, their clubs or NGB'S have to keep going back to the FPU to clarify things.

I will ask you this question rrpc, have the Inspectors/Superintendents not been fully informed by their superiors as to what can be licensed and what cannot. Restricted does not mean Banned (banned = limited or controlled) not banned.

This wait and see / softly softly approach is what has us where we are, NGB'S, and Governing bodies can have all the meetings they want but if they don't keep their membership informed it becomes a complete waist of time.

I don't have all the answers, but we have enough people involved at higher levels that should have a least some of them.

I state once again, we are aware that our constitution does not give us the right to bear arms but it does give us the right to claim equality and there can be no equality when some are given licenses and others aren't for no just reason.

As a point of interest the two 22A pistols that have been licensed have no restriction on there magazine capacity.

Sikamick

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

______________________________________________________________

Not to nit pick rrpc I may have misquoted (Super) but in rereading the post the FO is not mentioned either.

He is in one of 4gun's subsequent posts. But yes it's nit-picking. The important thing to note is that a lot of these mistakes are being made at station level which isn't really surprising. There are over 100 districts, so rolling out training to all stations in the time span is going to be tough. That's what the FPU is for and the message seems to have got out to the stations that these are the guys to call.

None of this solves the problem for people that are been given the wrong information from their stations. We are at the eleventh hour and firearms holders, their clubs or NGB'S have to keep going back to the FPU to clarify things.

I will ask you this question rrpc, have the Inspectors/Superintendents not been fully informed by their superiors as to what can be licensed and what cannot. Restricted does not mean Banned (banned = limited or controlled) not banned.

Of course they have. The FPU has been aound the country to all divisions and districts explaining the new system. My local has their phone number on the wall in big writing and they've been doing trojan work answering phone calls from stations and the public alike.

But I'll reverse the question Mick. How much of this stuff do you actually know? Or the rest of the posters here? Why do I and others find ourselves time after time explaining the same stuff on this forum if it's so easy?

It's not, and a huge amount of it is new. If we're not expected to know it all, how are the Gardai to whom firearms licensing represents less than one twentieth of their job expected to know it all immediately?

This wait and see / softly softly approach is what has us where we are, NGB'S, and Governing bodies can have all the meetings they want but if they don't keep their membership informed it becomes a complete waist of time.

Mick, would you like to let me know which NGB you're a member of that isn't keeping you informed? I know we keep our members informed, have a full guide to filling out the form and are available at any time to take calls on problems that arise. We've been in touch with the FPU on the few occasions that we've had to and any problems encountered have been solved quickly.

I state once again, we are aware that our constitution does not give us the right to bear arms but it does give us the right to claim equality and there can be no equality when some are given licenses and others aren't for no just reason.

I'm afraid I can't comment on those cases. Third hand information usually means that salient points have beeen omitted. I refer you to my original advice which was to take it to the NGB who will progress it through the FPU.

As a point of interest the two 22A pistols that have been licensed have no restriction on there magazine capacity.

Sikamick

If they were licensed as non-restricted pistols, they do. It's written into the SI. The same as the wildlife act prohibits having more than three rounds in a shotgun, but doesn't actually stop you doing it :rolleyes:

G17

Ok, so apart from the Steyr in Clare, has any full bore target pistol cert/letter looking for €80 been issued. This one is the only one I've heard confirmed, i.e. the letter has been actually seen by someone who contacted me. I've heard several, "he's been approved", or "the <insert officer rank> has given me the nod". PMs welcome.

rrpc

G17 wrote: »

Ok, so apart from the Steyr in Clare, has any full bore target pistol cert/letter looking for €80 been issued. This one is the only one I've heard confirmed, i.e. the letter has been actually seen by someone who contacted me. I've heard several, "he's been approved", or "the <insert officer rank> has given me the nod". PMs welcome.

Yes I've heard of a couple at this stage. Directly from the licensees. Different areas of the country.

TMC121

The owner of the Olympic pistol was on to me yesterday. He was wondering what he should do with his fully compliant 5 shot, Olympic standard, .22 caliber Benelli MP95 target pistol that is listed as acceptable in the Garda Commissioners guidelines. Sorry about pointing all that out.

He has not received a receipt for the paperwork he submitted even though he did see the receipt that is normally posted out. It was attached to the application paperwork which is in the district office. He seen this when he was called into see the superintendent.

So, no instructions, no receipt, verbally told not a hope and no idea what he should do with his pistol. License expires at midnight tonight.

He is now wondering if he is going to get a visit tomorrow requesting the item to be handed over.

There must be hundreds if not thousands of shooters in the same situation.
What a great system they've developed.

What a way to treat law abiding citizens of the Irish State.

rrpc

TMC121 wrote: »

The owner of the Olympic pistol was on to me yesterday. He was wondering what he should do with his fully compliant 5 shot, Olympic standard, .22 caliber Benelli MP95 target pistol that is listed as acceptable in the Garda Commissioners guidelines. Sorry about pointing all that out.

Acceptable is not the word I'd use and being on the list is not a de facto right to a licence for it. There's more to the firearms acts than a list in an annex to the Commissioner's Guidelines (which are just guidelines and not law).

The list is a sample of what is considered to be a non-restricted pistol according to the firearms acts; as the list itself says, it's not exhaustive and is a guideline.

You still have to fulfill all the other obligations and criteria to have a firearm licensed.

As of now, your friend (unless it's happened in the meantime) has not been refused a licence for his Benelli. Many more of us are in the same position and have neither a licence nor a refusal.

For the moment, my advice is to use common sense and keep the firearm locked up until either a licence or a refusal issues.

TMC121

He has handed his pistol into a dealer.
rrpc you make a valid point, all I can say is the qualifying criteria he put forward for the ownership of his other firearms where accepted by the same superintendent (he was told this directly by the superintendent) but the issue is the ownership on the .22lr Olympic pistol

He has his stalking rifle and shotgun licenses back both unrestricted items and his reasons for licensing the pistol have not changed but if the criteria from the superintendent who previously licensed the firearm have changed then that is different.

This guy is just a law abiding citizens who doesn't wish to rock the boat at all.
He enjoys the target shooting sports.

Will pass on the words of wisdom

Bananaman

PLEASE - stop specifying where your firearms are.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

PLEASE - stop specifying where your firearms are.

Did I miss a post with addresses in it?

TMC121

B'man
Unless you know where in the country the chap with the problem is there are no posts with his address on it as Sparks has pointed out. I thank you for your security concerns.

There are intelligent people using this forum to high light the current licensing issues faced by law abiding citizen and the way in which they are being treated. .

rrpc

I think Bananaman's point is that a certain body of people are carrying a few more bits and pieces than they normally would.

Dvs

By George I think he's got it !

Dvs.

Bananaman

Light dawns on yonder hill

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

I think Bananaman's point is that a certain body of people are carrying a few more bits and pieces than they normally would.

So he's telling people here to shut up on the basis that that "certain body of people" may be carrying things they're licenced to carry and that their stock levels might be up by 2 or 3 percent? That's an unsupportable pile of hooey of a position really.

B'man, leave the back seat modding to the people being infracted and banned for it, would you please?

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Light dawns on yonder hill

The light had dawned on this hill from the first. The point was to shine a light for others to see by

Sparks

Shine lights on hills all you want lads, but remember the only section 42's to tell other posters what not to post are with the mods.

LB6

lol more snippage due - so who had an answer to the OP's question - back there on page one?

rrpc

LB6 wrote: »

lol more snippage due - so who had an answer to the OP's question - back there on page one?

The short answer is: The question was ambiguous. It was asked about the grandfather rule (Section 3D(c)) in reference to a non-restricted pistol (section 3D(b)) and then referred to inequality in two different cases for which no details were given.

It then turned out that there was no refusal.

Impossible to answer. And I'm not reccommending that full details be given here, but that the situation be deaalt with by the relevant NGB to whom the details can be given in confidence. Which was the advice given.

It's a bad idea to be trying to advise people on specific firearms certifcate application stuff here, general advice is fine, but specific cases need to be dealt with properly.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

It's a bad idea to be trying to advise people on specific stuff here.

Depends on the specific stuff really.
I'm not going to delete the specific details of this weekend's shoot in RRPC, for example

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Depends on the specific stuff really.
I'm not going to delete the specific details of this weekend's shoot in RRPC, for example

Did I have to say 'firearms application related'? :P

Well I have now, so even the pedants will be happy

Sparks

Well, it's not even that clear-cut rrpc.
Look, if someone comes on here and asks what specifically to do in a court case, that's one side of the "are you kidding" line. It's legal advice, which introduces various legal liabilities for boards.ie if the responses aren't perfectly correct (and of course, even a solicitor or barrister can't give perfectly correct answers as you might still lose the case and sue for poor advice, even if counsel did nothing incompetent).

And those liabilities, by the way, apply equally to NGBs who give advice, and who may be less well-able to cope with the subsequent lawsuit than boards.ie ltd. would be, ironically enough.

But if someone asks "is this firearm restricted?" or "what's the procedure if I'm refused a licence?" or "what security do I need for one restricted firearm?" or any one of a large number of other questions, then we can give specific answers because things like that are spelt out in the legislation in black and white.

There's a gray area in between the two, and a line in there somewhere, but that's what judgement's for.

But "don't use boards.ie, you can't get good advice there"? No, I don't think that's accurate. (I also think far more people in NGBs are reading it than you think are, but I think many of them are lying about whether or not they lurk here )

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

But "don't use boards.ie, you can't get good advice there"? No, I don't think that's accurate. (I also think far more people in NGBs are reading it than you think are, but I think many of them are lying about whether or not they lurk here )

That's not what I said Sparks and not what I meant either. The context of the post should have demonstrated the latter and the actual words I used defined the former

You actually referred to the kind of advice I meant in your opening paragraph which although not legal advice, is effectively what's being sought when people bring up: "I've been refused because the Super doesn't like me" type requests for advice.

Invariably the request is phrased in such a way as to immediately elicit the sympathy of the reader and ire against the system before 10 pages later we find that the applicant marched in "demanding a 9mm pistol because his friends had them" :rolleyes:

It's best that these are handled elsewhere as we are generally not best placed to analyse the situation nor is our opinion worth anything more than the virtual paper it's written on.

So the answer should always be: take it to your NGB and ask their advice.

The general stuff you spoke about is obviously not of the same nature.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

So the answer should always be: take it to your NGB and ask their advice.

I think we're arguing over how well we agree with the other points, but on this one I do wonder -- what saves the NGB's from being sued for giving poor advice (under the whole Negligent Misstatement area of tort law)? Certainly they have no more protection or privilege than boards.ie ltd, if anything they're more exposed. Advice here comes from anonymous posters and boards.ie ltd if pressed can argue that they didn't give the advice, Joe Bloggs did. But if (say) the NTSA gives someone advice on keeping their .32 licence (or whatever, insert appropriate example here) and their application fails and that advised person sues the NTSA, the NTSA can't exactly say "hey, it wasn't us!". And every other NGB is in the same boat.

I've been advising people here to talk to their NGB not because the NGB can give better advice (because frankly, most of them cannot as they have no more legal expertise than we do here); but because as an NGB, they can make a phone call to the FPU and try to sort it all out quietly before someone starts looking for solicitors. (For those wondering, yes, any individual could call the FPU, it's just the FPU want it to go through the NGBs to try to keep the workload managable). In fact a few times I've just said to talk to their FCP body because that seems more appropriate (someone in the NASRPC for example, would probably get results faster by talking to the SSAI directly).

rrpc

There are three reasons that I give this advice:

1. The full details can be given to the NGB where they can't here.
2. As you say, the NGB is the proper point of contact with the various organs of state.
3. They can advise you to seek further advice such as from a solicitor etc.

At no point did I actually state that the NGB should give legal advice, I didn't even specify what advice the NGB would give. I just said that for individual cases, that's the first step.

Which it is.