.22 Pistol or 9mm Licensed in Limerick?

knockon

Lads,

I am pretty sure a 9mm has not been licensed in the Limerick Division (City & County) but I believe a .22 pistol licenses have been issued. If you could PM me the Make and model I would appreciate it.

LB6

Just out of curiosity - is there a reason for this info request? Which division of Limerick are you talking about too?

knockon

Sure - I have an appeal being prepared by a legal firm in Limerick District Court and that was lodged last week. I want to know what .22 and 9mm pistols were licensed in the Limerick City and County by now retired Chief Supt Gerry Mc Mahon. Every bit of information the legal guys get helps.

Grizzly 45

Do you mean under the current new legislation...Or previous to this?

knockon

Any pistol licence issued by C.S. in Limerick City or County since July 31st 2009.

So yes - Current.

Grizzly 45

Havent heard of any.Am still awaiting my fate as well.I get the feeling the Super decided that on retirement a policy of LTBSP[Let this be somone elses problem].Hope it works out too on Jan 6th for you.

LB6

I got my .22 short Griz - but it's not on the restricted list - it's olympic std!

daveob007

I spoke to a senior garda who works from the chiefs office in limerick and was told the following.
The gardai are not using the list as a definitive list because there are many other .22 guns which would be granted.
He told me that i can apply for any .22 pistol as non restriced but it was up to myself to make sure that i don't use the pistol untill it meets the requirments ie barrel not less than 10cm and magazine not capable of holding more than 5 rounds.
if i did not get the mag blocked and was found using the pistol thats where the trouble starts,,so basically you can get your .22 and then get the mag plugged but do not use it before you have this done.
you may also have to show the gun to your local firearms officer to prove that it complies.

rowa

daveob007 wrote: »

I spoke to a senior garda who works from the chiefs office in limerick and was told the following.
The gardai are not using the list as a definitive list because there are many other .22 guns which would be granted.
He told me that i can apply for any .22 pistol as non restriced but it was up to myself to make sure that i don't use the pistol untill it meets the requirments ie barrel not less than 10cm and magazine not capable of holding more than 5 rounds.
if i did not get the mag blocked and was found using the pistol thats where the trouble starts,,so basically you can get your .22 and then get the mag plugged but do not use it before you have this done.
you may also have to show the gun to your local firearms officer to prove that it complies.

i have been told the complete opposite , that the supers in the south east dublin area ARE using the list and any .22 pistol not on the list are going to be treated as restricted and are being sent on to the chief supers office , regardless of the advice of the firearms policy unit .

there appears to be no common all ireland policy and its back to the same old rubbish that the cjb was supposed to put to rest .

bunny shooter

rowa wrote: »

......regardless of the advice of the firearms policy unit .

Definately seems to be the case alright. "Firearms Policy Unit" is a very misleading name as they don't appear to make/enforce policy. They seem to offer "advice" and it is still up to the Super/ Chief Super to accept the "advce" :rolleyes: Not much different there then.

rowa wrote: »

......there appears to be no common all ireland policy and its back to the same old rubbish that the cjb was supposed to put to rest .

+ 1

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Definately seems to be the case alright. "Firearms Policy Unit" is a very misleading name as they don't appear to make/enforce policy. They seem to offer "advice" and it is still up to the Super/ Chief Super to accept the "advce" :rolleyes: Not much different there then.

That part of the firearms act didn't change bunny, I think I noted this for your benefit before...

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

That part of the firearms act didn't change bunny, I think I noted this for your benefit before...

So you agree "policy unit" is a bit misleading or are you choosing to ignore this part of my statement ?

So what happened to all the promises from the shooting members of the FCP that these guidelines were going to put all applicants on a level playing field and that the Supers/Chief Supers were going to follow the guidelines so we were all treated the same and if you ticked all the right boxes that you'd be fine? And that the FPU would sort things before it became necessary for court cases ?

So if they are not going to follow the guidelines and are going to continue the old ways why waste time with guidelines ?

And just because you keep repeating the same old smoke screen and dodging the truth here to cover up this fact won't make it come true

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

So what happened to all the promises from the shooting members of the FCP

Dunno*. What does Des say, seeing as how he took on such a lead role in the FCP from day one?









*Okay, actually we do know - they were all pretty much fulfilled as promised. It's just that people never actually listened to what was being promised, so when the FCP delivered what they said they would, everyone went nuts because they had led themselves to expect the impossible. People started asking why the FCP wasn't overruling the Minister, why it wasn't rewriting the Dail's legislation, and why wasn't the FCP sorting out their individual problems - all of which everyone on the FCP knew from before Day One wasn't ever going to be possible or even constitutional in Ireland to try to do; and which we said over and again in here. People just didn't bother to listen at the time. As to the FPU, their role actually is to ensure consistency, and yes, they're not getting it done. Yet. But it's hardly fair to yell at them, when the real problem in all of this is sitting well above their paygrade in a Ministerial Merc...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Dunno. What does Des say, seeing as how he took on such a lead role in the FCP from day one?

Ah bitterness ?

Dunno, he ain't saying too much anymore

The silence is getting relly deafening now ........ maybe they realise they were hood-winked

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Ah bitterness ?

Nope, irony - because you've sung his praises quite a bit on here in the past.

Dunno, he ain't saying too much anymore
The silence is getting relly deafening now ........ maybe they realise they were hood-winked

Er, are you in the same country I'm in?
'Cos last I looked, several FCP members were taking cases from District Courts right up to Supreme Courts; and the FCP itself, being run as it is by the DoJ (I'm reasonably sure that technically, the Minister chairs the FCP, acting through one of his DoJ officials), is not someplace you should be expecting an anti-DoJ or anti-Minister or anti-Garda statement to come from...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Nope, irony - because you've sung his praises quite a bit on here in the past.

Praise where it's due when it's due, quite a simple concept

Sparks wrote: »

...............and the FCP itself, being run as it is by the DoJ (I'm reasonably sure that technically, the Minister chairs the FCP, acting through one of his DoJ officials), is not someplace you should be expecting an anti-DoJ or anti-Minister or anti-Garda statement to come from...

Sparks wrote: »

What does Des say, seeing as how he took on such a lead role in the FCP from day one

Both statements are correct ................... yet ............. they don't seem compatable

Sparks wrote: »

'Cos last I looked, several FCP members were taking cases from District Courts right up to Supreme Courts;

To me that makes all their efforts seem even more pointless, despite thier good intentions

Sparks wrote: »

*Okay, actually we do know - they were all pretty much fulfilled as promised. It's just that people never actually listened to what was being promised, so when the FCP delivered what they said they would, everyone went nuts because they had led themselves to expect the impossible.

Agreed BUT Don't remember hearing anyone correcting all these misinformed people and there was a lot of them here. DeValera pulled a similar stroke on Michael Collins

Sparks wrote: »

People started asking why the FCP wasn't overruling the Minister, why it wasn't rewriting the Dail's legislation, and why wasn't the FCP sorting out their individual problems - all of which everyone on the FCP knew from before Day One wasn't ever going to be possible or even constitutional in Ireland to try to do; and which we said over and again in here.

We were told as long as ya tick all the boxes you'll be fine ..... not so in reality for most people

Sparks wrote: »

People just didn't bother to listen at the time. As to the FPU, their role actually is to ensure consistency, and yes, they're not getting it done. Yet. But it's hardly fair to yell at them, when the real problem in all of this is sitting well above their paygrade in a Ministerial Merc...

To be fair the consistency problem is down to some Supers/Chief Supers abusing their power probably because they don't want their name on a licence form if something goes wrong, basic "pampers" (cover your arse )physology, and it will unfortunately take more court cases to solve this which the whole FCP/FPU situation was meant to stop :rolleyes: The current Minister, well his time will end and soon hopefully

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

So you agree "policy unit" is a bit misleading or are you choosing to ignore this part of my statement ?

You said: make/enforce, and since they can't enforce anything (the firearms act has something to say on that), the rest of your sentence was basically bull* and deserved to be ignored on that basis.

So what happened to all the promises from the shooting members of the FCP that these guidelines were going to put all applicants on a level playing field and that the Supers/Chief Supers were going to follow the guidelines so we were all treated the same and if you ticked all the right boxes that you'd be fine? And that the FPU would sort things before it became necessary for court cases ?

I asked you before to point out where anyone on the FCP actually said that - which you didn't, so saying it again is about as valid as the first time. I may need to point you to the terms of reference of the FCP, but I can't be a*sed, so you do if you're bothered. But making the assumption that the guidelines and by extension the firearms act are some sort of recipe to create the firearms licence of your dreams is naive in the extreme.

And just because you keep repeating the same old smoke screen and dodging the truth here to cover up this fact won't make it come true

Play the man bunny, it's so much more constructive. :rolleyes:

People here, you included - even if you like to play the sardonic bystander - always seemed to ignore the inconvenient truth of what the firearms act actually says and what it actually means. Most of it has been in existence for a far longer period than the current Minister has held office and both myself and Sparks among others have pointed out time and again where the problems with it would bite. Somehow this fact was lost in the general noise on here and the belief that somehow all this would be rolled back with the advent of the FCP. Right now there are people posting here who seem to believe it's some Grimm fairy tale that will wink out of existence when they all wake up, yet somehow are disavowing the messages their olfactory nerves are sending them.

The reality is that the work of the FCP is only really beginning because the firearms act (the operation of which they are to report on) is only now being rolled out.

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

............


Play the man bunny, it's so much more constructive. :rolleyes:

...............

rrpc wrote: »

..........so unless you're deciding to be thick for thicknesses sake then I'm happy to leave it at that.

Touche

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Touche

It's Touché

And I gave you a choice, you don't have to be thick

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Praise where it's due when it's due, quite a simple concept

I can dig that. I just think that "questions where they're due" is equally valid

Both statements are correct ................... yet ............. they don't seem compatable

Des took a lead role amongst the shooting representatives (or at least a loud one, sometimes it's hard to distinguish the two). But the actual panel itself, overall, is the DoJ's to run.

To me that makes all their efforts seem even more pointless, despite thier good intentions

Nope. Most people knew going into the FCP that it was an advisory body. And, credit where it's due, under other Ministers (like Lenihan, who set it up and invited everyone in), it would probably have had more weight. But this Minister is... well, bad, to be succint. And if the rot is in at the top, it's pretty hard for anything below to be unaffected.

Agreed BUT Don't remember hearing anyone correcting all these misinformed people

From much earlier (from when the restricted list was first announced in fact):

Sparks wrote:

shooters in ireland did not draft the mandate for the FCP; nor did they issue the invitations to the representatives on the FCP; and not only that, but the FCP does not just represent the interests of shooters, but also those of farmers and the Gardai and dealers and insurance people and so forth. Last I checked, the Gardai and the IFA don't answer to us...

...

My point was that the FCP has no power as such. It is an advisory panel of invited people. Meaning that not only do they not have the power to draft legislation, they don't have any power in that sense.
About the best they can do is to mitigate the worst of the potential damage in the CJA2006. And even there, they're limited. (That's not to say that we shouldn't do that - I'd rather have the airbag than not even if I'd have preferred not to crash the car in the first place, if you follow me).

We were told as long as ya tick all the boxes you'll be fine ..... not so in reality for most people

Indeed... by Des. And one or two others who are banned from here and so of whom we don't speak much anymore. But for what the FCP shooting bodies themselves were saying, well, read their statement at the time. I don't see anything in there about ticking boxes. I see them saying they were in a bad spot, without much authority, doing the best they could (which they weren't really trying to oversell, not excessively anyway). And honestly, compared to ten years ago, we are in a better place. Maybe not to the liking of this Minister, but we're here and in two or three years we'll still be here and he'll be gone and maybe we can make more progress then. This isn't a sprint, it's a looooong walk, y'know?

To be fair the consistency problem is down to some Supers/Chief Supers abusing their power probably because they don't want their name on a licence form if something goes wrong, basic "pampers" (cover your arse )physology, and it will unfortunately take more court cases to solve this which the whole FCP/FPU situation was meant to stop :rolleyes: The current Minister, well his time will end and soon hopefully

That's pretty much the sum of it

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

It's Touché

How bad is it when you revert to correcting grammer and spelling mistakes or the use/misuse of my keyboard :rolleyes:

é ......

rrpc wrote: »

And I gave you a choice, you don't have to be thick

You gave me a choice :pac:

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

I can dig that. I just think that "questions where they're due" is equally valid

Agreed

Sparks wrote: »

Des took a lead role amongst the shooting representatives (or at least a loud one, sometimes it's hard to distinguish the two). But the actual panel itself, overall, is the DoJ's to run.

Take your word for it I wasn't there

Sparks wrote: »

Nope. Most people knew going into the FCP that it was an advisory body. And, credit where it's due, under other Ministers (like Lenihan, who set it up and invited everyone in), it would probably have had more weight. But this Minister is... well, bad, to be succint. And if the rot is in at the top, it's pretty hard for anything below to be unaffected.

Agreed. Minister is/was a bit too right wing

Sparks wrote: »

From much earlier (from when the restricted list was first announced in fact):

:cool:

Sparks wrote: »

Indeed... by Des. And one or two others who are banned from here and so of whom we don't speak much anymore. But for what the FCP shooting bodies themselves were saying, well, read their statement at the time. I don't see anything in there about ticking boxes. I see them saying they were in a bad spot, without much authority, doing the best they could (which they weren't really trying to oversell, not excessively anyway).

:eek:

Sparks wrote: »

And honestly, compared to ten years ago, we are in a better place. Maybe not to the liking of this Minister, but we're here and in two or three years we'll still be here and he'll be gone and maybe we can make more progress then. This isn't a sprint, it's a looooong walk, y'know?

Agreed but I think dark days are ahead

Sparks wrote: »

That's pretty much the sum of it

Yes it is unfortunately