Licence applications, it's not all horror stories.

meathstevie

About two weeks ago I went to my local Garda Station to apply for the new type certs for two 12g shotguns and a .22 hornet.

A quick inspection of the guns by the local sergeant to see if serial numbers matched the old certs and a check of the application forms and a little over two weeks later the payslips arrived in the post.

Suffise to say I was pleasantly surprised. Now find the money ...

Norwayviking

meathstevie wrote: »

About two weeks ago I went to my local Garda Station to apply for the new type certs for two 12g shotguns and a .22 hornet.

A quick inspection of the guns by the local sergeant to see if serial numbers matched the old certs and a check of the application forms and a little over two weeks later the payslips arrived in the post.

Suffise to say I was pleasantly surprised. Now find the money ...

Sounds great.
I am in the process of gettin a cert as well.So if this is the case i might have something to look forward too.
Since i am working offshore 6 months of the year i would appreciate if it was all sorted when i get back on the 22 of June.
But i guess i have to wait and see when i get back on the 22 of June.
Best of luck with your new rifle and shotgun.

noodle650

i got my payment slips for the shotgun back in 5 days!

Tackleberrywho

noodle650 wrote: »

i got my payment slips for the shotgun back in 5 days!

I payed in post office on a Thursday and had the licences on the Monday.
So chin up lads!

Dusty87

Iv said this lots of times before but mine took just over two weeks, start to finish. Put deposit on rifle in griffen hawe, application in on 23rd of December, good chat with FO, Everything from weather to pistols, (her opinion was 'sure its not the licenced ones doing any harm, dont they do that in the midlands range?'). Got the letter to say they had recieved application about 12 days later, the next day got a letter to say it was granted. Paid, next day or two maybe, it was in the postbox. Ya cant argue with that.
All that over the xmas period, and the same station that took 5 months on the old system to give me my shotgun.
Not saying the new system is better but it was a whole lot faster for me!!!

Grizzly 45

Glad to hear this works folks,but have we heard a story of a resticted application going this easy???I'd love to hear that somone out there had no problems liscensing their restricted rifle,shotgun or handgun???

Tackleberrywho

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Glad to hear this works folks,but have we heard a story of a resticted application going this easy???I'd love to hear that somone out there had no problems liscensing their restricted rifle,shotgun or handgun???

I did an interview for a Glock 40 Cal, 26 mins of nervousness.

But worth it I believe. I'm glad that eejits can't have pistols. (I mean someone who could not answer a few simple questions with simple answers)
I'm not mean your good self.
4 or more in a pump gun or semi? well i only ever load 3 in any hunting shotgun anyway. Most fellas who go after pheasant will only see one or 2 in a day anyway.
Most times I go out with the shotty I never fire a shot in the field.
Saying that most times lately i went out with bird shot i saw Bambie, Typical

Don't give up hope Grizzly, hope is all we have

Sparks

Several pointless posts which were hijacking the thread with a pointless argument based on misreading a post, deleted.
Two posters, equally infracted.
Can we please remember the first rule in the Shooting forum charter?
Back on topic...

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

........I'm glad that eejits can't have pistols. (I mean someone who could not answer a few simple questions with simple answers).........

So what if people did answer these silly questions and still got refused are they then "eejits"?

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

So what if people did answer these silly questions and still got refused are they then "eejits"?

Tac answered that to you fairly directly Bunny (in the deleted posts, by pointing out that he wasn't talking about that subset of applicants -- and we both know that there were applicants who were described fairly as "eejits"). Back on topic please.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Tac answered that to you fairly directly Bunny (in the deleted posts, by pointing out that he wasn't talking about that subset of applicants -- and we both know that there were applicants who were described fairly as "eejits"). Back on topic please.

And obviously some of those applicants that got a licence could be called "eejits" too

Duck's hoop

The new system does seem to speed things up slightly - My previous 2 were done in around 5 weeks but this time round 2 submitted and granted in under 2. I couldn't really ask for any better.

pat58

To be fair to things my second last licence was back in two weeks , Not bad at all;)

Bananaman

I have a dbl brl shotgun and a Glock 34 - both were processed with a minimum of grief and faster than the first time around - only had an interim questionnaire for the pistol but that was done over the phone

I am in the minority

remember that the first batch included all short firearms and all more dangerouser firearms - the majority of those people are either still awaiting an outcome or are challenging an unfair outcome through the courts - most for 6 months and at a serious expense

please spare a thought for these poor souls before praising the merits of the new sysytem - it may be faster now but only because these individuals have had to go through it's foibles and growing pains in your stead

leave no man behind


B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I am in the minority...the majority of those people

Do we have any actual statistics on how many of the first tranche of ~12,000 renewals had problems?

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Do we have any actual statistics on how many of the first tranche of ~12,000 renewals had problems?

Poll?

Hibrion

Things do seem to be getting slightly better. Although I am still waiting to hear anything on my .308 I did receive permission for my mod on the .22 after a brief interview over the phone with the super.:)
Now if I could get the .308 in the next month I would be very happy.

Bananaman

I do not have statistics but as far as I am aware there is still no hunting license - there are still problems with mods - we have carbines chameberd in low power rounds classed as restricted rifles because the calibre of the round is greater than .308 - we have the ludicrous 5 round limit for smallbore pistols which creates a nightmare for revolvers and the majority of sports which require 6 rounds details - we have smallbore pistols being refused because they are not on 'the list' - we have people being refused renewals for centrefire pistol licenses they have held for many years on spurious grounds - we have blanket bans on any restricted firearms in many districts - we had Gardai telling people to hand in their shotguns as they are only allowed to have one - we have crazy conditions placed upon licenses - we have 100's of district court appeals and many high court appeals in the offing - the list goes on.

My guess would be a lot of them had problems.

The purpose of dividing the applications into tranches was to do exactly what you are not saying - give the false impression in later tranches that the system is running well. I am sure for some people - such as farmers who only hold a shotgun for vermin, who after all are a powerful voting block - the system will run well enough but that should not justify the criminalisation of a minority of shooters and we, as shooters, should not tolerate it.

It is just the standard divide and conquer policy which has been used time and again and which many within the shooting community feel it is their duty in life to foster.

If you are one of those who has had to go to court to appeal an unfair decision or who has had to give up your firearms (some for the second time) having done nothing wrong - the system does not look so rosy - it's all fur coat but no knickers.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I do not have statistics

That's a problem because you need those to judge how things have gone. With a change this large in such an old system, problems are a given, there's no way round them; and with no special training for those on the ground doing the implementing, you know they're going to be stupid problems at that. But without the statistics, you can't tell the difference between expected "innocent" problems and something more policy-driven.

If, for example, 200 dc cases turn up from the entire first tranche, that's 0.8% of the first tranche that have a problem. Even if there are three people who gave up for every DC case, you're still looking at less than 4% out of the first tranche. What you need to have in order to know if there's something beyond the mundane problems of changing an old system, are more details. Are the refusals coming exclusively from centrefire pistol cases? Across the board? And it's not enough to say "oh, everyone knows they are" because without the data, noone knows. Everyone is guessing without that data.

The purpose of dividing the applications into tranches was to do exactly what you are not saying

The purpose of the tranches was less paranoid in nature - if you have rolling date for renewals, you need to spread the licences out artificially, or else you'll have one or two every other week and then 220,000 in the first week in August, which is the problem the rolling date was introduced to alleviate in the first place. And that was pointed out by every shooting body around, because that's what made the most sense.

Bananaman

Q.E.D.

That is like going in for a pay review and expecting a payrise to be told you will; betting a 0.04% annualised net adjustment - i.e. you are going to get screwed but we will try to hide it by not saying it out loud.

It is disingenuous to those that are having problems to be saying that their problems are miniscule - they are not - they are VERY SERIOUS - they are in essence being told that they are no longer good enough, are no longer trusted or that they are no longer allowed to take part in their chosen sports and should take up another sport - i.e. they are being treated as criminals.

They are being criminalised and forced to go to court to defend their name and their ability to continue to take part in their chosen sports.

I was lucky not to have any problems and I personally know of at least 6 others who are in the same boat whereas I personally know of at least 100 others who are having a terrible time because of the new system.

Some have been let have something e.g. their shotgun but nothing else, some have been told that they must give up something to be allowed have something else e.g. give up their centrefire pistol to be allowed have their smallbore pistol or give up their pistol to be allowed have their rifle, some have been told they can have nothing and "let the courts decide", some have been told they can have their license but it cannot be used in the ROI, some have simply heard nothing, many are before the courts so cannot be discussed.

Now - i shoot Pistol, Rifle and Shotgun so know a lot of people across a lot of disciplines, I am a member of a very large club with a very high participation rate and I attend a lot of competitions all over the place so meet a lot of people and whereas the numbers I personally know of may be small - if the ratio held true countrywide it would be a disaster.

I have no doubt that for restricted firearms - which are required for the sports I take part in most - it is an absolute disaster.

I do not want that glossed over by the fact that it may be going ok for the final tranche in which their are no restricted firearms.

It is incorrect to assume that because things are going swimmingly for the few lads whose extensions are only now running out - that people are not being screwed over by the system.

People are being screwed over by the system - whether they are part of a 40% or a 0.00004% minority they are still being screwed and the stats will not change that.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

It is disingenuous to those that are having problems to be saying that their problems are miniscule

What's disingenuous is to say that I'm saying the problems should be ignored.

I'm saying that in order to prove that the problems are the result of a direct policy, you need data, because there is an alternative explanation. Nowhere in that statement is there the hint or suggestion that we ignore the problem - in fact, I'm saying we need to solve it. But step one in solving any problem is identifying it, and without the statistical data, you can't even prove a problem exists, because anecdotal data is not data.

Bananaman

The data is being correlated but as many of those in question are seeking legal recourse their circumstances cannot be specifically discussed in a public forum such as this.

Many of them have no time for boards and see it as a problem and a source of dis-information rather than a solution or a source of information so a poll on here will be of little relevance.

I just gave you anecdotal evidence from my own reasoning that there are massive problems with the system and that is to do with specific individuals.

As to these problems being the result of a direct policy - I personally cannot attest to that - but have no doubt that it does exist and will out in due course. It is patently obvious to those that live in certain districts that it does indeed exist.

Then there are the colossal oversights in the system such as the fact that there is no such thing as a hunting endorsement on the new license, a requirement of the DOE. This was obviously missed in the rush to implement a solution to a non-existent problem.

Considering that of the > 200,000 licensed firearms in the state the vast majority are for hunting, what were they focusing on that they forgot to cover that in the new licensing system? Perhaps a more streamlined system for the good of all - surely not.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

The data is being correlated but as many of those in question are seeking legal recourse their circumstances cannot be specifically discussed in a public forum such as this.

Their individual cases cannot; but the statistics are anonymised and no such restriction exists.

Many of them have no time for boards and see it as a problem

That's okay, a few of us feel that way about the main sources of that particular belief too

I just gave you anecdotal evidence from my own reasoning that there are massive problems with the system and that is to do with specific individuals.

The problem is that you can't tell from that whether the problems (which everyone agrees exist) are caused by the system being changed, or by something more policy-driven, or by specific problems with specific individuals.

It is patently obvious to those that live in certain districts that it does indeed exist.

That would be an arguement against such a policy, because a policy wouldn't be district-specific like that, it'd apply everywhere, to every case.

Then there are the colossal oversights in the system such as the fact that there is no such thing as a hunting endorsement on the new license, a requirement of the DOE. This was obviously missed in the rush to implement a solution to a non-existent problem.

Agreed, there are serious problems with the system's design (and we've talked about them before, like the requirement to give up medical confidentiality and so forth) - but you're talking about overt problems there. We need statistical data to determine if an undisclosed policy is being implemented on the ground in violation of stated legislation. And we don't have it.

Considering that of the > 200,000 licensed firearms in the state the vast majority are for hunting

They're not. The vast majority are held for farmers for vermin control, not for hunting (which are the licences which need the licence attachment).

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Their individual cases cannot; but the statistics are anonymised and no such restriction exists.

I think the issue is that they do not want it publicised or discussed on boards due to the negative nature of the sentiment here.

Sparks wrote: »

That's okay, a few of us feel that way about the main sources of that particular belief too

I happen to believe that. It is very disheartening to actually try and find information here - it is most likely there but is nigh on impossible to find between the mental diarrhea

Sparks wrote: »

The problem is that you can't tell from that whether the problems (which everyone agrees exist) are caused by the system being changed, or by something more policy-driven, or by specific problems with specific individuals.

If you are being affected by the problems or take the time to understand the problems of those that are you can. I don't need the CSO to tell me most people live in the cities same as I do not need correlated statistics to tell me what is going on with the new licensing system.

For example refusals - you have people that were licensed to shoot pistol since the 50's and 60's - had to hand them in in the 70's for safe keeping, got them back in 2004 returned to their sport and in 2009 were again refused. This latest refusal was a result of a direct policy as if the merits of their particular case were actually taken into account there would have been no question of renewing their licenses.

Sparks wrote: »

That would be an argument against such a policy, because a policy wouldn't be district-specific like that, it'd apply everywhere, to every case.

In this context a policy means that, on any level, people applications are being dealt with in a common way based on the opinions of beliefs of a group or individual as opposed to based on the particulars of the application itself, as is required by the law.

To believe that that is not happening - statistics be-damned - is head in the sand time.

Sparks wrote: »

Agreed, there are serious problems with the system's design (and we've talked about them before, like the requirement to give up medical confidentiality and so forth) - but you're talking about overt problems there. We need statistical data to determine if an undisclosed policy is being implemented on the ground in violation of stated legislation. And we don't have it.

You don't have it and I assume have no intrinsic interest in collecting it.

Open your eyes and you will see, Open your mind and you will believe.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I think the issue is that they do not want it publicised or discussed on boards due to the negative nature of the sentiment here.

I happen to believe that. It is very disheartening to actually try and find information here - it is most likely there but is nigh on impossible to find between the mental diarrhea

You'll have to excuse my finding both those sentiments ironic, since prior to boards, that was exactly how things were with all of the NGBs. No information at all, any new ideas rubbished by default, and heaven help you if you ever criticised anything in public because that was your ticket stamped for the rest of your days.

Personally, I'll accept the few faults boards.ie has if it means I also get the many strong points it has - in my honest opinion, its weaknesses are far, far outweighed by its strengths, something I can't say about other NGOs in our little community.

I don't need the CSO to tell me most people live in the cities

Actually, you do.
Otherwise, it's a guess. You might think it accurate because it's your guess, but that doesn't make it so. And the data doesn't have to come from the CSO - but it does have to come from somewhere that can measure it properly. And we don't have that data yet.

For example refusals - you have people that were licensed to shoot pistol since the 50's and 60's - had to hand them in in the 70's for safe keeping, got them back in 2004 returned to their sport and in 2009 were again refused. This latest refusal was a result of a direct policy as if the merits of their particular case were actually taken into account there would have been no question of renewing their licenses.

But can you say that about everyone who was licenced in the 50's and 60's, handed in in '72 and got them back in 2004? Because I know of people who fit that description and who were not refused.

This is what I mean by anecdotal data - you know some folks, and they've all had bad experiences. I know some who have had bad experiences and some who've had good experiences, with similar classes of firearms. I'll bet there are others who've only heard of good experiences. You can't rely on anecdotes - you need actual, hard data.

In this context a policy means that, on any level, people applications are being dealt with in a common way based on the opinions of beliefs of a group or individual as opposed to based on the particulars of the application itself, as is required by the law.

Except that that's not a policy. A policy has to come down from the Minister or Commissioner (or equivalent rank) to the Superintendents making the decisions. Otherwise, it's not a policy, but individual Supers making the decision - and the recent Supreme Court losses mean that that would be perfectly legal.

But we're reassured that those losses have no ill-effect for the rest of us, so that can't be right, can it? :rolleyes:

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

You don't have it and I assume have no intrinsic interest in collecting it.

Actually I started chasing it last year.

Open your eyes and you will see, Open your mind and you will believe.

I prefer to keep an open mind. Just not so open that common sense falls out...

Bananaman

Roses are Red , Violets are Blue

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

A policy has to come down from the Minister or Commissioner (or equivalent rank) to the Superintendents making the decisions. Otherwise, it's not a policy, but individual Supers making the decision - and the recent Supreme Court losses mean that that would be perfectly legal.

But we're reassured that those losses have no ill-effect for the rest of us, so that can't be right, can it? :rolleyes:

That is your opinion and, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

I, however, believe that is not the outcome of the SC ruling.

According to those rulings The Commissioner, Ch. Super, Super or DC i.e. licensing authority, can take the type of firearm into account as part of their decision - they always did - that ruling just says that you cannot challenge the decision on the basis that they took that factor into account as PART OF the decision making process. That only affects, as far as I am aware, the appelant in that case.

They are still required, however, as per legislation, to process each application on it's own merits.

They are not entitled to decide that 'I draw a line, you cross it you die' (As Dermo does) as that is implementing a policy as opposed to fulfilling their requirements under law.

B'Man