HIGH COURT APPEALS

.270 remington

Has anyone information on high court appeals regarding center fire pistols.

Grizzly 45

Pat Herlihy won his appx a month ago.Havent heard of any others since.

deerhunter1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Pat Herlihy won his appx a month ago.Havent heard of any others since.

i think they are a few up for hearing this month

bunny shooter

Friends of mine are back in court this month I think

tonysopprano

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Pat Herlihy won his appx a month ago.Havent heard of any others since.

A very common misconception there, Grizzly. The High Court (Judicial Review process) has NO JURISDICTION whatsoever in the awarding of FAC's. It only rules on the procedure followed by the Judge in the District Court. All that happened was that his case was sent back to the District Court for further consideration. This new consideration can also end up as a refusal.

gunhappy_ie

tonysopprano wrote: »

A very common misconception there, Grizzly. The High Court (Judicial Review process) has NO JURISDICTION whatsoever in the awarding of FAC's. It only rules on the procedure followed by the Judge in the District Court. All that happened was that his case was sent back to the District Court for further consideration. This new consideration can also end up as a refusal.

While they have no juristiction to rule yes or no would the fact they they sent it back to the district court not be a win in itself ???

bunny shooter

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

While they have no juristiction to rule yes or no would the fact they they sent it back to the district court not be a win in itself ???

The legal team win alright .................... more fees :rolleyes:

tonysopprano

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Pat Herlihy won his appx a month ago.Havent heard of any others since.

A very common misconception there, Grizzly. The High Court (Judicial Review process) has NO JURISDICTION whatsoever in the awarding of FAC's. It only rules on the procedure followed by the Judge in the District Court. All that happened was that his case was sent back to the District Court for further consideration. This new consideration can also end up as a refusal.

gunhappy_ie

tonysopprano wrote: »

A very common misconception there, Grizzly. The High Court (Judicial Review process) has NO JURISDICTION whatsoever in the awarding of FAC's. It only rules on the procedure followed by the Judge in the District Court. All that happened was that his case was sent back to the District Court for further consideration. This new consideration can also end up as a refusal.

You already posted this.....

tonysopprano

Must be a boards problem. I posted this nearly an hour ago, and only once.

Grizzly 45

tonysopprano wrote: »

A very common misconception there, Grizzly. The High Court (Judicial Review process) has NO JURISDICTION whatsoever in the awarding of FAC's. It only rules on the procedure followed by the Judge in the District Court. All that happened was that his case was sent back to the District Court for further consideration. This new consideration can also end up as a refusal.

Well, after speaking to the man himself yesterday in person after the Limerick DC.
He is as happy as a cat with two tails about it!!
Very true that the HC has no juristiction in the granting.It does however have the power to tell the district court judge,you were wrong on points X,Yand Z of the law,go back and revise the judgement.
Those points are what the judge ruled on have been found in error by a higher court,so according to Pats legal team and the man himself,those points are null and void,he has to come in in favour of granting.So I'll take it from the Horses gob that it correct.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well, after speaking to the man himself yesterday in person after the Limerick DC.
He is as happy as a cat with two tails about it!!
Very true that the HC has no juristiction in the granting.It does however have the power to tell the district court judge,you were wrong on points X,Yand Z of the law,go back and revise the judgement.
Those points are what the judge ruled on have been found in error by a higher court,so according to Pats legal team and the man himself,those points are null and void,he has to come in in favour of granting.So I'll take it from the Horses gob that it correct.

Yes, but it may also rephrase the judgment in accordance with the HC findings. This may also result in the appeal being disallowed which is all tony is saying.

I am NOT saying this will happen and getting into a discussion on it here would not be very helpful.

Sparks

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

While they have no juristiction to rule yes or no would the fact they they sent it back to the district court not be a win in itself ???

Yes, but of a specific type. Court cases are rarely things to be celebrating as final victories.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well, after speaking to the man himself yesterday in person after the Limerick DC.
He is as happy as a cat with two tails about it!!

Of course he is, if he wins, he's not likely to have costs awarded against him. I'd be celebrating if I were him!

Those points are what the judge ruled on have been found in error by a higher court,so according to Pats legal team and the man himself,those points are null and void,he has to come in in favour of granting.So I'll take it from the Horses gob that it correct.

RRPC is correct, the case itself is not settled, and going into more detail would technically be contempt of court, so I'm locking this until the case is settled, when it'll be reopened.

Sparks

From the Cork DC:

The case was concluded and Mr
Herlihys application was granted with conditions as set out by the
inspector in court. We do not record these cases and no transcripts
are available.

Cork District Court Office

So congratulations to Pat!

bunny shooter

"conditions" ..................... what were these does anyone know?

Sparks

They might be security specific things bunny, there's no record according to the DC, so unless Pat himself wants to comment, we're probably in the dark.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

They might be security specific things bunny, there's no record according to the DC, so unless Pat himself wants to comment, we're probably in the dark.

The 2006 act allows any conditions to be attached to a firearms certificate. Those conditions would have been stipulated in court, but as there's no court report, perhaps the newspapers may have had a reporter there.

Usual caveats apply when reading newspaper reports :rolleyes:

Sparks

Do they have to be stipulated in the DC? I thought they could just be attached to the licence?

Grizzly 45

I'll hazard a guess,that they will be proably the same as mine..And a few others.
Do not carry concealed on your person in a public place.
[So is open carry and display in a public place legal then???common sense says NO,but the law and preconditions on this point isnt specific...A point to ponder:rolleyes: FOR ACADEMIC DISCUSSION ONLY]
Disassemble when in transit.[How do you disassemble a revolver??Is the magazine removed from a pistol disassembled?]
When in transit do not carry in the passenger area of the car or where any passenger may have access to the firearm.[Logical,but needs better clarification. what do you do if you have a station wagon /jeep commercial type vechicle??Do you need to instal a seperate strong box/safe?What is the acceptable minimum here??]
Do not leave unattended in vechicle or in plain view.
[Logical and clear on that point]

sfakiaman

Pat's result is great news and very well deserved.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So is open carry and display in a public place legal then???common sense says NO,but the law and preconditions on this point isnt specific...A point to ponder:rolleyes:

Academically speaking, the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 gives any garda to power to arrest on sight anyone carrying anything in a public place which they think might be used in a crime; and if it's something like a firearm or a knife it's down to the defendant to establish their innocence in front of a judge (rather than it being down to the gardai to prove guilt).

What is the acceptable minimum here?

There isn't any yet defined for vehicles. It was discussed briefly at the second FCP seminar, but other discussions (well, shouting if we're honest) ate the time to be used for discussing that, and others there just thought we should use pre-existing standards from abroad.

sfakiaman

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I'll hazard a guess,that they will be proably the same as mine..And a few others.
Do not carry concealed on your person in a public place.
[So is open carry and display in a public place legal then???common sense says NO,but the law and preconditions on this point isnt specific...A point to ponder:rolleyes: FOR ACADEMIC DISCUSSION ONLY]
Disassemble when in transit.[How do you disassemble a revolver??Is the magazine removed from a pistol disassembled?]
When in transit do not carry in the passenger area of the car or where any passenger may have access to the firearm.[Logical,but needs better clarification. what do you do if you have a station wagon /jeep commercial type vechicle??Do you need to instal a seperate strong box/safe?What is the acceptable minimum here??]
Do not leave unattended in vechicle or in plain view.
[Logical and clear on that point]

In regard to open or concealed carry I think that we all know what that means. If the PTB haven't the wit or the grasp of the language to define what we all know then there are adult literacy classes available.

Disassembled in transit? If we can we do but if the PTB want to insist then they should specify. If they dont they should be challenged to do so.

As for carriage in a vehicle, this is just a ploy to sell more large, very secure cars such as the ones our law br makers are used to being ferried about in at our expence.

Sparks

a ploy to sell more large, very secure cars

What, the government is specifying secure storage conditions in order to sell more Toyota Corrolas and VW Jettas? C'mon sf, that's a bit of a stretch

sfakiaman

Sparks wrote: »

What, the government is specifying secure storage conditions in order to sell more Toyota Corrolas and VW Jettas? C'mon sf, that's a bit of a stretch

I'd forgotten that in your neck of the woods the PTB travel incognitto for security reasons. In my area the chauffeur driven Merc is de rigueur but only as far as Knock airport where more suitable transport awaits.

Sparks

What I meant was that the most ardous security requirements I've heard of required that the licence applicant drive a saloon model car with a "real" boot rather than a hatchback or estate wagon.

The PTB in my neck of the woods either travel with an escort or aren't in government

Greenacre

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I'll hazard a guess,that they will be proably the same as mine..And a few others.
Do not carry concealed on your person in a public place.
[So is open carry and display in a public place legal then???common sense says NO,but the law and preconditions on this point isnt specific...A point to ponder:rolleyes: FOR ACADEMIC DISCUSSION ONLY]
Disassemble when in transit.[How do you disassemble a revolver??Is the magazine removed from a pistol disassembled?]
When in transit do not carry in the passenger area of the car or where any passenger may have access to the firearm.[Logical,but needs better clarification. what do you do if you have a station wagon /jeep commercial type vechicle??Do you need to instal a seperate strong box/safe?What is the acceptable minimum here??]
Do not leave unattended in vechicle or in plain view.
[Logical and clear on that point]

If anybody is interested, the NASRPC have safe transport guidlines on their website:
[URL][/url]

.270 remington

hi all
is there any up date on the high court cases?????

Sparks

Motions for discovery in three cases last friday .270, they're the three test cases that the DoJ is taking first before the 180 others. Haven't heard much back yet beyond the usual scuttlebutt.

.270 remington

Thank you for the reply sparks
excuse my ignorance concerning legal matters
what does motions for discovery mean on theses cases

Sparks

It's where documents are requested by one side from the other. It's a prepatory step for the actual hearings themselves.

Sparks

I can't find mention of the three cases in the legal diary, so I don't know when they're back up in court again, btw.

sfakiaman

adjourned till 14th April.

ravima

interesting date - last day of the current legal term - no case will start that day, so it will be kicked into touch yet again!

thebeef44

Anyone know how it went today

rowa

as far as i can see they'll keep putting it back till we're too old and decrepit to shoot them, no matter what the outcome is.

Sparks

Folks, please take a few minutes to read this:
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT - Discussion of Court Cases and Comtempt of Court

As a result of that thread, which explains all in detail, I'm closing this thread temporarily.