FIREARMS LICENSING CASES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I sound off on a two bit internet chat group and the Irish legal and police system stops to read my outpourings????PLEUUUZEEE!!!:rolleyes:

You missed this thread, I take it? You might read post 6 in there. The AGS are reading here, twitter, facebook and so on. Have been for a long time now. And we've been telling you this for just as long.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

266 posts on this thread and all I have learned about the case is:
1. We still don't know 100% if the licences will be granted. They will be looked at again but still could be refused.

Correct. The 168 cases were Judicial Reviews of District Court decisions. They could never have resulted in an order being given to grant the licences being issued by the High Court; at best the High Court could rule that the District Court had not made its decision correctly and that would require the District Court to reconsider the decision.

2. The cops didn't do anything wrong .....ahem :mad: :mad: :mad:

More that the settlement clears them of wrongdoing (according to the Ministers' statement).

3. The different shooting NGBs can't even be civil to each other let alone mount a co-ordinated defence of members of the shooting community.

I wouldn't have said that; they worked together for a few years there in the FCP (and fair's fair, I didn't think that was possible, but they did it), and only one NGB walked away from the FCP to the courts.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And when was the last valueable input from that venerable organisation into Irish shooting matters,or even on the FCP?

The last input I saw was at the meeting with the SSAI in Mullingar a while back. Their rep was missing from the FCP for a few meetings because of a family bereavement and was replaced by a new rep, but before he got stuck in, the court cases were underway. As to what they've achieved, I'm tempted to suggest that there might be a correlation between the most common form of firearm found on a farm and the security requirements for licencing a single shotgun, but I certainly couldn't prove there was a causative link...

As you said yourself the IFA man at the table in 08 was asmuch use as a rabbit in the searchlight when all this was announced,despite him or his minions attending and not having a clue wTF was happening?

'scuse me?
Where exactly did I say that?

So tell me this...Why isnt it in existance anymore and how many meetings did this actually have?as far as I understand all of about two meetings ever took place???

Far more than two. Two public meetings took place in Mullingar (covered on here in detail), but there were many more meetings where the actual work was done and more where only the shooting bodies met to agree on directions for the unified front they were trying to present.

Why isn't it meeting now? Could you sit at a table and work with a guy who's attacking you in the press every chance he gets and taking 168 cases against you in the high court? (Hint; your solicitor would advise strongly against it).

it sounded like it wasnt as rosy as you make it out to be?

I never said it was rosy. I believe I was wearing out terms like "unsexy", "hard work", "undramatic boring necessary work"...
But compared to the alternative, it wins hands down.

Swing it around for a mo...Ask WHY has it come to this state as well?And for what reason would a active organisation[I'll exclude the largest[IFA] as they dont seem to be doing much for their members on these matters] start getting totally Bolshie over the years about this??NOONE in all sane humanity goes off the deep end right off.
What does NARGC gain by doing all this??

I could advance some theories if I speculated a bit. I couldn't prove any of them though, so I'll skip the defamation lawsuit if you don't mind, at least until I have some proof. Suffice it to say that there isn't just the one possible answer and a cynic might formulate a hypothesis that was not based upon altruism and the desire to promote a sport.

A chap!!!....And what about all the other "chaps" from the other various organisations shooting related??Collective guilt poisioning the whole assembly,or alot more reasons??

Some chaps feel that if you can get some of what you want and all of what you need without going to court, that the wisest thing to do is to take those and work on the remaining things tomorrow. It's not sexy, it's not dramatic, it won't get your name bandied about by people very much, but it gets the job done more effectively.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

As I understand it all 168 are now settled.
As to who was running the cases and where the clients fitted into it, we've at least one poster on here from the 168, so maybe they could comment.

yes sparks but what exactly is settled ? the right to have your case looked into by the same crowd who refused it in the first place and if refused appeal to the dc , you could have done that anyway , it looks like they've travelled all around the houses and arrived back where they started from

Sparks

hk wrote: »

All said I have found this to be an extremely frustrating process, personally I have found that the lack of information from the legal team extremely surprising. Like others here I am one of those that this thread relates to and I still dont know the full facts about what happened in the HC.

That's the second time I've seen that stated by one of the 168 in this thread, and I have to admit I'm somewhat puzzled by it, because I was under the impression that no settlement in a court case could be reached without the agreement of the plaintiff.

No doubt there's something I'm missing - perhaps the 168 signed legal documents given Egan & Associates the right to do this, but if so, the lack of communication does seem to be suboptimal. I don't think I'd be happy with going to a public meeting with 167 other people in order to hear from my solicitor how my high court case went, not when I consider the financial ramifications had that case been lost, nor when I consider that even with costs awarded, I would still be out a considerable sum (the exact amount being set forth in the section 68 letter).

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

yes sparks but what exactly is settled ? the right to have your case looked into by the same crowd who refused it in the first place and if refused appeal to the dc , you could have done that anyway , it looks like they've travelled all around the houses and arrived back where they started from

That's rather my impression as well. I read the statement from Egan&Associates and found it somewhat puzzling; it says that the court case settlement has won those who took HC cases the right to reapply for their licences, and that this was also extended to those who lost a DC case but did not appeal to the HC, and to some other classes of person as well -- but I was of the rather distinct opinion that they had that right before going to the High Court, because you can apply for a firearms certificate as many times as you want, nobody can prevent you from doing so, nor from going to the District Court to appeal if refused on those re-applications.

Perhaps I missed something in the statement, and someone can enlighten me?

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

That's rather my impression as well. I read the statement from Egan&Associates and found it somewhat puzzling; it says that the court case settlement has won those who took HC cases the right to reapply for their licences, and that this was also extended to those who lost a DC case but did not appeal to the HC, and to some other classes of person as well -- but I was of the rather distinct opinion that they had that right before going to the High Court, because you can apply for a firearms certificate as many times as you want, nobody can prevent you from doing so, nor from going to the District Court to appeal if refused on those re-applications.

Perhaps I missed something in the statement, and someone can enlighten me?

but what did the doj/gardai concede to the nargc 3 test cases to prevent them going back into court , it was obvious from the newspaper reports of what the judge was saying he was going to find in favour of the nargc , so something had to be given.

Sparks

I don't know. I might speculate that perhaps the odds on the 165 cases behind the test cases were not felt to be as strong as for the first three cases and so the settlement was less damaging than a loss would be, but that's pure speculation.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

You missed this thread, I take it? You might read post 6 in there. The AGS are reading here, twitter, facebook and so on. Have been for a long time now. And we've been telling you this for just as long.

Sparks,
I dont need to be advised on this.As you well know....The AGS have already interviewed about my posting habits as has our frireams dept of the DOJ in absentia in that interview ...Taking cherry picked posts from threads that have gone as long and as hot and trying to build an unfavourable picture...I have most of it via FOIA..
Send you a copy of it ,you should put in a request as should anyone who posts regulary and is involved in the shooting scene here..
So?????? let them read here...Free country..still.
I'm not intimidated by that fact.
But you are right about one thing Ireland is too small for secrets and it all does eventually come out.That works both ways for Govt and the private individuals.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

The last input I saw was at the meeting with the SSAI in Mullingar a while back. Their rep was missing from the FCP for a few meetings because of a family bereavement and was replaced by a new rep, but before he got stuck in, the court cases were underway. As to what they've achieved, I'm tempted to suggest that there might be a correlation between the most common form of firearm found on a farm and the security requirements for licencing a single shotgun, but I certainly couldn't prove there was a causative link...

Yeah,along with wanting grants for gunsafes..If needed..:rolleyes: and still having the highest theft rate of firearms of a particular group,because of that requirement.Anywhich,they got what they wanted,and further input of benefit to any of their members with more than one firearm or handgun was????

'scuse me?
Where exactly did I say that?

Somplace back around 2008 when the demise of everything seemed imminent from the FCP onwards.Put it around Aug/Nov..so around the time of the court cases???I remember you werent too happy with their performance at the last?FCP meet??

Far more than two. Two public meetings took place in Mullingar (covered on here in detail), but there were many more meetings where the actual work was done and more where only the shooting bodies met to agree on directions for the unified front they were trying to present.

OK.thats where I was getting mixed up on this public/private meeting.I only thought it was two meets in total.Sorry about that!

Why isn't it meeting now? Could you sit at a table and work with a guy who's attacking you in the press every chance he gets and taking 168 cases against you in the high court? (Hint; your solicitor would advise strongly against it).

Which was a long time before these168 cases..
So because one guy is throwing his teddy from the pram,it closed up??:eek:
What of all the other reps and organisations that were there???they were struck dumb??Didnt anyone say,OK since X has gone...Can we continue as adults with the agenda??

I never said it was rosy. I believe I was wearing out terms like "unsexy", "hard work", "undramatic boring necessary work"...
But compared to the alternative, it wins hands down.

No you didnt say it in so much.But you are painting it as that a bunch of reps of organisations got together and instantly agreed[for Irish time] an agenda and were all unified on this...
Forgive me for being cynical but that doesnt sound very much like all shooting organisations here in the ROI that we all know and love....

I could advance some theories if I speculated a bit. I couldn't prove any of them though, so I'll skip the defamation lawsuit if you don't mind, at least until I have some proof. Suffice it to say that there isn't just the one possible answer and a cynic might formulate a hypothesis that was not based upon altruism and the desire to promote a sport.

"Nuff said!!

Some chaps feel ............

[/QUOTE]
Doesnt answer what I was asking.But it is the same question in a previous paragraph.

meathshooter1

Sparks wrote: »

I don't know. I might speculate that perhaps the odds on the 165 cases behind the test cases were not felt to be as strong as for the first three cases and so the settlement was less damaging than a loss would be, but that's pure speculation.

I wouldn't say that, there are lots of similar, common and far reaching circumstances involved in the 168 .for certain reasons I wouldn't like to elaborate as you would appreciate.any one who was involved in the cases can ring Egan's IF they feel that they haven't been informed,or attend the meeting on the 19 th which is on the NARGC website which is as far as I know a open meeting http://nargc.ie/news-container/To-all-firearms-applicants-affected-by-the-recent-high-court-settlement.aspx.you must appreciate that this case took many months to compile with mountains of paperwork and much negotiations and personally I would ask everybody to be patient.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

they got what they wanted,and further input of benefit to any of their members with more than one firearm or handgun was?

That's what a mathematician would call an ill-formed question and what the rest of us would call not understanding what was going on.

Every NGB (and don't tell me any NGB was different, because that's just so much cat warbling) went into the FCP with the mandate from their members to represent their members' interests. The meetings between the shooting bodies were to find a way to present a unified front despite the differing needs and priorities without stepping on each others toes. That the IFA did this and achieved what they sought without stepping on toes just means they did the job competently. You're asking a question that assumes fundamentally that they also had the job of representing people who weren't members. Well, the AGS weren't members and they wanted less firearms out there, should they have represented them too? The ICABS aren't members, should they represent their interests? Or should they have done what they did, which was to look after their own while taking care not to stand on anyone else?

Somplace back around 2008 when the demise of everything seemed imminent from the FCP onwards.Put it around Aug/Nov..so around the time of the court cases???I remember you werent too happy with their performance at the last?FCP meet??

You misremember.
I was very annoyed at the last public FCP meet, not because of the FCP, but because some folks got loud and shouty, ignored completely the point of the meeting (which was to discuss the ranges SI, which had major problems at the time which weren't worked on because of the shouting, and which now require any range to pay €2k in fees right off the bat, which might have been avoided - that's eight air pistols, for those not counting...
And I got particularly annoyed at one shouty gentleman who stood up in front of the people in the AGS who were most opposed to firearms and stated that his 9mm would fit in the ISSF measuring box and followed the ISSF rules so why couldn't he have it. At that point, the Restricted List draft effectively (though I'm paraphrasing) said "any pistol governed by ISSF rules" -- which meant that all of the .32, .38 and 9mm pistols would have remained unrestricted. The next day, those lovely folks in the AGS sent inquiries in and within a few hours, we'd lost those centerfires too, because someone opened his mouth without engaging his brain in front of the wrong people when the topic of the meeting was a completely seperate and equally serious matter (yes, equally serious. You think taking away the pistol is the only way to kill pistol shooting? You need a range too...)

Which was a long time before these168 cases..

You're misremembering the timeline I think.
Those cases were already in train by that time.

So because one guy is throwing his teddy from the pram,it closed up??:eek:

Stop. There are two problems with that statement. One, taking 168 District Court cases to the High Court for a Judicial Review and using those cases as a political football isn't throwing the teddy from the pram. It's a wee bit more serious. And trying to have someone sacked is a wee bit serious as well.

Secondly...

What of all the other reps and organisations that were there???they were struck dumb??Didnt anyone say,OK since X has gone...Can we continue as adults with the agenda??

And just like that, Grizzly45 said "**** unity amongst the shooting bodies, if one disagrees, **** 'em over".

Or doesn't the unified front mean that much to you anymore?

No you didnt say it in so much.But you are painting it as that a bunch of reps of organisations got together and instantly agreed[for Irish time] an agenda and were all unified on this...
Forgive me for being cynical but that doesnt sound very much like all shooting organisations here in the ROI that we all know and love....

You think you were cynical? I nearly had a stroke when it worked.
Turns out, most of the NGBs were perfectly fine with working with other NGBs so long as everyone played their cards on the table, bought into the goals and worked side-by-side. It turns out that it's only when people want to be seen as being the man in charge and take all the credit and do things without talking it over with the others (or, not acting like grown-ups as my parents used to call it) that folk get irked. Didn't hurt that those at the table weren't the shouty folk either, mind you.

It'd almost give you hope for the future of the sport...
...if it hadn't been abandoned, that is.

Grizzly 45

You misremember.
I was very annoyed at the last public FCP meet,.........

I wouldnt have brought this up,but I distinctly remember you being rightly peed off with the IFA about somting at one of those meets,and it was about inactivity...Otherwise I wouldnt have mentioned it.

You're misremembering the timeline I think.
Those cases were already in train by that time.

Dont think so.This was mid to late 08,the first refusals were Nov 08,so the first threats of court must have been early 2009 if not later in 09??March/April at the earliest??

Stop. There are two problems with that statement. One, taking 168 District Court cases to the High Court for a Judicial Review and using those cases as a political football isn't throwing the teddy from the pram. It's a wee bit more serious. And trying to have someone sacked is a wee bit serious as well.

Not talking about these cases,but about somone doing a huff at the FCP and shutting it down long before these cases were ever mooted.

And just like that, Grizzly45 said "**** unity amongst the shooting bodies, if one disagrees, **** 'em over".

Er no Sparks,it means exactly what it says ,not what you are implying it says...seeing that the majority was still there and this gent went off in a huff,did the remaining 99 or however many say."In a unified gesture we are all going too?" Or more likely the DOJ reps said "lads,get yourselves sorted out and come back to talk to us then..Our budget doesnt run to cleaning blood off the office carpet!":)
Sounds like in that case the unified front worked,for the worse..If that was the case.

You think you were cynical? I nearly had a stroke when it worked.
Turns out, most of the NGBs were perfectly fine with working with other NGBs so long as everyone played their cards on the table, bought into the goals and worked side-by-side. It turns out that it's only when people want to be seen as being the man in charge and take all the credit and do things without talking it over with the others (or, not acting like grown-ups as my parents used to call it) that folk get irked. Didn't hurt that those at the table weren't the shouty folk either, mind you.

It'd almost give you hope for the future of the sport...
...if it hadn't been abandoned, that is.

Sounds the usual problem then of any comittee worldwide.Just reading of a major bustup in the German shooting scene on a Federal level on pretty much the same lines and reasons outlined..
So next question is ,how do you react this and make sure no one else starts a primma donna act??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I wouldnt have brought this up,but I distinctly remember you being rightly peed off with the IFA about somting at one of those meets,and it was about inactivity...Otherwise I wouldnt have mentioned it.

Think I found what you're talking about and I feel like a heel for having written it now - the reason the guy wasn't so active was that he'd just had a family bereavement. His replacement rep was more active.

Dont think so.This was mid to late 08,the first refusals were Nov 08,so the first threats of court must have been early 2009 if not later in 09??March/April at the earliest??

2008? We're not talking about the same thing so.

Not talking about these cases,but about somone doing a huff at the FCP and shutting it down long before these cases were ever mooted.

No, the flouncing and the court cases started at about the same time.

Er no Sparks,it means exactly what it says ,not what you are implying it says...seeing that the majority was still there and this gent went off in a huff,did the remaining 99 or however many say."In a unified gesture we are all going too?"

'scuse me?
Since when did the NARGC run every other NGB? Or are you saying that when the NARGC flounces off out of a collective effort without talking to the other NGBs first that those other NGBs have to follow in train?

Or more likely the DOJ reps said "lads,get yourselves sorted out and come back to talk to us then..Our budget doesnt run to cleaning blood off the office carpet!":)

You should talk to those who were on the FCP at the time, I think you'd find that the majority of their impressions do not match that particular world view...

Sounds the usual problem then of any comittee worldwide.Just reading of a major bustup in the German shooting scene on a Federal level on pretty much the same lines and reasons outlined..
So next question is ,how do you react this and make sure no one else starts a primma donna act??

Don't tempt me, I don't want to get started (and no, I haven't gotten started yet)

hk

knockon wrote: »

Sounds a bit naive there hk and if you think standing up for ourselves by taking cases to the HC and DC and commenting on same was somehow "pissing off the people" because of a few guys were trying to make up there own laws as if we have to be afraid of them!

Well i am basing my comments on my personal experience of what happened with my refusal and from talking to others I know.

I was not suggesting that its not a good idea to appeal through the courts, I have done so myself. Its the required process as laid down under the act, its about appealing a decision and how it was made, not attacking people or trying to prove a point.

I want my firearms certs so that I can continue to enjoy my sport, thats where my interest starts and finishes. I have no interest in proving points, getting one up or making people pay, its not about winning battles or wars, its about proving that a decision was made in error or that the opinion held was unfair or badly judged, getting the cert and moving on.

my problem is that there are people within my sporting community who now do feel that this is about retribution and getting one over on the GS or DOJ.
My real concern is similar to Sparks, the constant pushing of this agenda could result in a very simple response.....'fine we will put this to bed once and for all' and then by simple change of the act we loose everything. I worry that if people push to far then the result is not going to suit anybody. All I wanted was to appeal a decision and get back to the enjoyment of my sport not make everyone pay and change the world, and I think a lot of shooters feel the same way.

rowa

I'd tend to agree with you hk , that getting your licence back is the only reason to take court cases, the problem is though what happens if the people who were up to all sorts of nonsense wait until the licence is due for renewal and refuse you on spurious grounds again ? They caused a problem once , there is no reason to suppose they won't do it again after three years. Who can afford to go to court every three years for their licence ?

hk

Yep, agree completely, but the optimist in me says that if we get it put to bed now without much more fuss there wont be too many looking for a repeat performance in three years. These cases are costly and inconvenient for the DOJ, GS and Gov too.

However, if it does happen then the same course of action is still open to us then. I just think its better to wait and see how things play out and address the issues and problems as they arise. Trying to use the current appeals for something more then is required could push people to bring in legislation nobody in the sport needs.

I do believe that the current Gov parties were somewhat supportive of our community when ahern brought his bill forward. They certainly put forward some of my points and questions to him in the Dail. If we push the current Gov to the point that we become an annoying headache to them then whatever support was there is totally gone. FF are proven to be no friend of ours, neither are SF (besides I wouldnt ask for their help as i wouldnt want them knowing I had a firearm) the majority of independents are from urban areas and a large proportion of the rural ones are not taken seriously by the public anyway.

I just dont see the need for a public crusade now. If the same problems continue to occur then fine, there is nothing to loose then anyway.

People need to slow down and take their time. old bull young bull

Sparks

hk wrote: »

I was not suggesting that its not a good idea to appeal through the courts, I have done so myself. Its the required process as laid down under the act, its about appealing a decision and how it was made, not attacking people or trying to prove a point.

I want my firearms certs so that I can continue to enjoy my sport, thats where my interest starts and finishes. I have no interest in proving points, getting one up or making people pay, its not about winning battles or wars, its about proving that a decision was made in error or that the opinion held was unfair or badly judged, getting the cert and moving on.

I think that's about the most sensible thing I've seen posted on boards.ie on this topic in, oh, about eight years.

whydave

Report on altering of gun licence applications
Updated: 12:56, Monday, 13 February 2012
The Garda Commissioner has expressed concern about the alteration of gun licensing application forms by gardaí after gun enthusiasts initiated legal action.
( Link )

tac foley

whydave wrote: »

Report on altering of gun licence applications
Updated: 12:56, Monday, 13 February 2012
The Garda Commissioner has expressed concern about the alteration of gun licensing application forms by gardaí after gun enthusiasts initiated legal action.
( Link )

I bet he has.

It's called 'tampering with a legal document'.

Be very interesting to hear the 'why I did it' from the persons responsible for the alterations.

IF we ever do.

tac

rowa

The commissioner has expressed concern about the tampering with the application forms as if he didn't know it was going on. So he either knew it was going on and did nothing or didn't know this tampering was going on, if he didn't know it was going on, why not ? As commissioner the buck stops on his desk and he should be aware what the senior officers beneath him are up to.
Either way it doesn't reflect well on him.

Sparks

The interim report was delivered (according to the Minister) the day before the officers involved received promotions to very senior ranks in the AGS.

lead loader

Sparks wrote: »

The interim report was delivered (according to the Minister) the day before the officers involved received promotions to very senior ranks in the AGS.

The officers involved were on a promotion list long before the High Court revelations. AGS were waiting for finance approval for the promotions due to recruitment embargo in public service. Had the Minister refused to promote the officer in question as a result of firearms applications mess, you can be sure there would have been further legal action taken by the Chief. Everyone is entitled to due process, and when the Minister has the Commissioners final report on his desk the decision how to deal with the mess will rest with him. I believe that this is not over by a long shot, but whatever punitive measures are taken, will be taken behind closed doors and we will never hear the details.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

The interim report was delivered (according to the Minister) the day before the officers involved received promotions to very senior ranks in the AGS.

How very, ah, convenient. :rolleyes:

I shall say no more on the subject.

tac

Sparks

lead loader wrote: »

The officers involved were on a promotion list long before the High Court revelations. AGS were waiting for finance approval for the promotions due to recruitment embargo in public service. Had the Minister refused to promote the officer in question as a result of firearms applications mess, you can be sure there would have been further legal action taken by the Chief. Everyone is entitled to due process, and when the Minister has the Commissioners final report on his desk the decision how to deal with the mess will rest with him.

Indeed, but this was not my point.
My point was to do with how serious an offence this is seen as within the AGS and by the Minister - it would seem not very.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Indeed, but this was not my point.
My point was to do with how serious an offence this is seen as within the AGS and by the Minister - it would seem not very.

In all fairness though sparks its the irish way of doing things, half the great and good (supposedly :rolleyes:) in irish politics and business should be in jail for their behaviour in the recent past, instead of which they get a golden handshake and lotto win type pension for the remander of their lives.
If a super or chief super had been found out to be doing wrong and was turfed out minus their pension , the next generation might think twice before Being reckless with the law.

Sparks

From the NARGC website:

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS TRYING TO STEAL OUR CLOTHES AGAIN?

We have received quite a number of calls and messages enquiring about Countryside Alliance’s contribution in the recent High Court firearms test cases. This apparently has arisen from a posting on the CAI website. We wish therefore to clarify as follows:

• The NARGC was the sole financial supporter and instructing party in the test cases.
• Countryside Alliance was not at any time, nor at any level, involved in any of these cases.
• Countryside Alliance did not provide a single cent of financial contribution towards the defence of any of the 168 refused applicants whose cases were before the High Court .
• Countryside Alliance has never financially supported a firearms licence court challenge in this jurisdiction.
• Any impression given that Countryside Alliance is somehow associated with the defence of these cases is entirely erroneous.
• If Countryside Alliance wishes to rake the kudos, we can only advise that it steps up to the plate, provide the service and take the risk.
• NARGC is the only organisation which has consistently called for a centralised licensing system, even as far back as when Michael McDowell was Minister for Justice. While other organisations, including Countryside Alliance supported our calls, it was nonetheless an NARGC innovation, and one which we still insist is the only longterm solution.
• NARGC is the only organisation which has consistently fought and funded the battles to defend all shooting sports.
• Finally, if Countryside Alliance is going to comment on the outcome, it should get it right. It hasn’t done so.

This is the statement they're referring to, I think:

ROI Firearms Update
Wednesday, 08 February 2012

Countryside Alliance Ireland has welcomed the decision in the high court to allow all those persons who have had their restricted firearm applications refused the opportunity to re apply. This followed a number of test cases which had identified that the procedures for granting or refusing the issue of a firearm certificate were not followed correctly by the authorising authority.

This court action has highlighted the need for adherence to the correct procedure at all stages within the processing of firearm applications by both the applicant and those processing the application and that there must be a valid reason for refusal. It has been abundantly clear over the past few years that legitimate target shooters have not had their applications processed in the correct manner.

Lyall Plant Chief Executive Countryside Alliance Ireland said “We had stressed on many occasions the value for having a centralised Firearms Licensing Unit within the Garda Structure. The establishment of such a unit would we believe remove the variation in processing and decision making and provide consistency throughout the whole process. We have financially supported the National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs over this period of firearms licencing uncertainty".

As the first renewals will be issued shortly we believe that the new forms will be automatically completed and all that will be required is for the applicant to check all details on the completed form are correct and return.

Given that the CAI's page doesn't take credit for those cases and is talking about supporting an entirely different legal team, I think this kindof highlights what was really important about those 168 cases to the NARGC.

Sparks

Oh, and one postscript?

NARGC is the only organisation which has consistently called for a centralised licensing system, even as far back as when Michael McDowell was Minister for Justice. While other organisations, including Countryside Alliance supported our calls, it was nonetheless an NARGC innovation, and one which we still insist is the only longterm solution.

...is a load of bull****. Take a peek via our search function on here if you don't believe me - it's been called for here for years, and by far more groups than just the NARGC.

Mind you, I still say it's a horrifically bad idea, for the same reason I've cited since I first heard of the idea - if 5-10 problem supers in nearly 200 districts cause this much grief, what would happen if you had only one person making the decisions and they weren't friendly towards target shooting? What if that one person was, say, the Assistant Commissioner for the Eastern Region?
Centralisation won't fix the issue. The FPU is how you fix the issue, but you need to give them more weight to swing when a super is going against the legislation to forestall court cases becoming necessary.

macnas

The NARGC was the sole financial supporter and instructing party in the test cases

This crowing from the NARGC is really starting to p1$$ me off. I don't remember anyone asking me if the NARGC could be an instructing party in my case.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Oh, and one postscript?

...is a load of bull****. Take a peek via our search function on here if you don't believe me - it's been called for here for years, and by far more groups than just the NARGC.

Mind you, I still say it's a horrifically bad idea, for the same reason I've cited since I first heard of the idea - if 5-10 problem supers in nearly 200 districts cause this much grief, what would happen if you had only one person making the decisions and they weren't friendly towards target shooting? What if that one person was, say, the Assistant Commissioner for the Eastern Region?
Centralisation won't fix the issue. The FPU is how you fix the issue, but you need to give them more weight to swing when a super is going against the legislation to forestall court cases becoming necessary.

I had a meeting recently with a chief superintendent about a firearms issue , he (and another senior garda at the meeting agreed) told me that firearms licencing and who does and does not get a firearm should not be part of his brief. He freely admitted he knows nothing about firearms, but has to try understand the firearms act and justify refusals and granted licences. This is not the first time i have been told something like this by a super/chief super.

So , if like germany for example, the role of the gardai was simply to do a background check and to look into any criminal intellegence concerning the applicant , passing that information onto a civilian licencing office. If you have a clean criminal record , mental health record , membership of a club or other demonstrable need for a firearms licence , tick all the boxes required by the firearms act , then you get your licence.

Probabily far too efficient a system to ever be deployed in ireland :rolleyes:.