FIREARMS LICENSING CASES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

Chipboard

Somebody is lying. I'm not sure who but only yesterday we were assured that 168 judgments will issue.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2012-02-16.1139.0&s=firearm#g1141.0.r

rowa

Ezridax wrote: »

How would that refusal be any different from someone that was "helped" fill in their application?

The focus is already on restricted firearm applications. Even the 168 are not guaranteed to be granted their license. So how does paying someone €100 to help you ensure or even strengthen your application. There is no section on the FCA1 for a solicitor or NGB to sign as a "guarantor".

I just do not see what paying €100 can provide that cannot be gotten or was not answered here and elsewhere for free. Now if there is some "thing" that will be attached to an FCA1 done through W.E. then i stand corrected, and am happy to be proved wrong.

I wasn't commenting on willie egan's assistance with applications , but to sparks previous post , i honestly don't know what the €100 gets you , but would be interested to know.

Sparks

Chipboard wrote: »

Somebody is lying. I'm not sure who but only yesterday we were assured that 168 judgments will issue.

I don't know about lying (in fact I suspect you'd find it could be proven to be something else entirely if you asked) - but I can't see how anybody could legitimately give such an assurance. The High Court cannot direct anyone to issue a firearms certificate as a result of a Judicial Review case (which is what these 168 cases were). All the HC can do is instruct the District Court Justice to revisit his or her original decision. The District Court can at that time decide to issue or deny a certificate or direct the Superintendent or Chief Superintendent to revisit their decision. All this is laid out in section 15A of the Firearms Act.

They could have told you that they were sure all 168 judgement will result in licences being issued, yes; but that would only have been a guess.

Of course, there is the alternative possibility that the Minister is lying to the Dail in a written record about the contents of the settlement; somehow that seems slightly less likely to me.

And of course, in theory it's possible the Minister does not know the contents of the settlement since he was not a party to it. But somehow I can't quite bring myself to believe that that is what's happened in practice. I could, of course, be wrong about that.

Mind you, if either of the last two alternatives are the case, then the assurances given yesterday could be completely valid. It's just that from what I can see, it's either that the assurances were valid OR the Minister answered that PQ accurately; I can't see how you can have both. If anyone else can, please, enlighten us!

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

But if someone does apply for a previously held cf pistol and is refused again, that refusal will attract greater scrutiny from all quarters and would have to be a refusal based on an actual reason rather then the usual "i don't like dem yokes so no licence" bs.

....which would happen the second time you landed in the DC to argue your case.
It's generally perceived that persistence in the face of adversity isn't a characteristic of those chancing their arm (though that doesn't mean it's always true, of course). And it's definitely not ideal. But on the other hand, it's cheaper, faster and less risky than a High Court case...

as someone said the chief supers are looking over their shoulders now, they were caught out bigtime with the application form tampering etc during the court session, who knows, they may actually do the job they are paid to do and act in a professional manner now, rather then like a bunch of yahoo's.

I wish I could agree that that would be a likely outcome.
But, if someone is acting the yahoo, and you embarrass them and possibly damage their career, but they retain their office and powers, I suspect that a complete change of professional attitude and character is not as likely as you getting bent over the metaphorical table at their earliest convenience.

We're already seeing visits from Gardai that are somewhat out of the ordinary. I suspect we might see further such events. I hope I'm being cynical to the point of paranoia, but every anecdote I've ever heard from the past two decades says I'm not

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

I wish I could agree that that would be a likely outcome.
But, if someone is acting the yahoo, and you embarrass them and possibly damage their career, but they retain their office and powers, I suspect that a complete change of professional attitude and character is not as likely as you getting bent over the metaphorical table at their earliest convenience.

We're already seeing visits from Gardai that are somewhat out of the ordinary. I suspect we might see further such events. I hope I'm being cynical to the point of paranoia, but every anecdote I've ever heard from the past two decades says I'm not

I don't know about anyone else here , but if i am paid to do a job and i don't do it, i'd expect to be sent down the road with a p45 in my hand. Instead of that we have supers/chief supers ignoring the commissioners guidelines and "setting a standard in their area" as one told me.

What visits ? Range or home ? I don't mind any visits as as i comply with the law and any directions on my licences and have nothing to hide, my club likewise.

Concerned Shooter

rowa wrote: »

But if someone does apply for a previously held cf pistol and is refused again, that refusal will attract greater scrutiny from all quarters and would have to be a refusal based on an actual reason rather then the usual "i don't like dem yokes so no licence" bs.
as someone said the chief supers are looking over their shoulders now, they were caught out bigtime with the application form tampering etc during the court session, who knows, they may actually do the job they are paid to do and act in a professional manner now, rather then like a bunch of yahoo's.

Below is an excerpt from the ministers answer, to a dail question, on the commisioners report
"
he is satisfied that the applications were decided in accordance with that person’s understanding of the relevant firearms legislation, decisions were recorded in notifications to applicants, and those decisions were informed by understandable concerns of public safety in the light of the difficult situation concerning crime in his Division."

Why do you think that after all that has gone on, that he is going to roll over and let his belly be tickled?

He has just notified us that he agrees with all refusals on PUBLIC SAFETY issues.

rowa

Concerned Shooter wrote: »

Below is an excerpt from the ministers answer, to a dail question, on the commisioners report
"
he is satisfied that the applications were decided in accordance with that person’s understanding of the relevant firearms legislation, decisions were recorded in notifications to applicants, and those decisions were informed by understandable concerns of public safety in the light of the difficult situation concerning crime in his Division."

Why do you think that after all that has gone on, that he is going to roll over and let his belly be tickled?

He has just notified us that he agrees with all refusals on PUBLIC SAFETY issues.

If thats the case then why weren't the licences i hold for my shotguns , rimfire and centrefire rifles revoked also ? Also it wasn't the initial application that was refused, i applied for a was granted a licence for a 9mm i held the licence for it for 4 years before i had to reapply for the new 3 year type licence, so it was only after 4 years without incident that i suddenly became a threat (but only with a cf pistol and not two rimfire pistols) to the public safety ? Absolute rubbish.
"a difficult situation concerning crime" is also a complete insult to law abiding shooter, and ****ter is not the first minister to associate us with the criminal elements.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

What visits ? Range or home ? I don't mind any visits as as i comply with the law and any directions on my licences and have nothing to hide, my club likewise.

Range. And likewise, I have no problems with visits for the same reason; so long as those visits are done in good faith.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

If thats the case then why weren't the licences i hold for my shotguns , rimfire and centrefire rifles revoked also ? Also it wasn't the initial application that was refused, i applied for a was granted a licence for a 9mm i held the licence for it for 4 years before i had to reapply for the new 3 year type licence, so it was only after 4 years without incident that i suddenly became a threat (but only with a cf pistol and not two rimfire pistols) to the public safety ? Absolute rubbish.

We did have High Court precedents that stated that if you were deemed safe to own firearms, that that was the end of it; that the nature of the firearm was irrelevant in such cases.

However, we kept taking court cases and the inevitable happened in the form of Charleton's judgement in McCarron-v-Kearney, which overturned the precedent and which was then enshrined in the Commissioner's guidelines. So now there's a legal precedent to say it's not Absolute rubbish, even if we think it is. And that's the precedent they'll probably cite.

That's the risk you run every single time you go to court. Given that we just avoided running 167 cases (because the settlement was reached during the first case), it's very, very likely that we were exceptionally fortunate that things went the way they did. Nobody can tell you the odds accurately (and they're deluded if they think they can), but I doubt we would have gotten through 168 cases winning every time. We certainly can't say we've won every case to date (despite the NARGC's claim that we have) - we've lost cases in both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The idea that we'd win 168 of 168 cases is... well, I wouldn't think of it as being a particularly well-considered one.

Grizzly 45

Concerned Shooter wrote: »

Below is an excerpt from the ministers answer, to a dail question, on the commisioners report
"
he is satisfied that the applications were decided in accordance with that person’s understanding of the relevant firearms legislation, decisions were recorded in notifications to applicants, and those decisions were informed by understandable concerns of public safety in the light of the difficult situation concerning crime in his Division."

Gee...What CS wouldnt say that HIS division has a high crime problem to justify his actions on the grounds of "public saftey"???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
It eye wash for the Minister and general public..
So every applicant who was refused was refused on "not good enough reason to posses.Not on grounds of public saftey.It is the same ol baloney reasoning and arguement that they had about target pistols being combat firearms !!!Say it enough times and some might belive you.:rolleyes:

BattleCorp

I might be a bit thick but what was "won" with this high court challenge?

As far as I can see, all that is happening is that the 168 can reapply for their licences, but they could do that all along eitherways.

And in my view, what's stopping the CS from refusing their applications again for the same reasons that they refused them in the first place.

hk

To clarify a few issues.

The case was settled because the GS/DOJ dropped their defense and basically stated that they would review the applications.

That is what the gun owners were looking for as part of the judicial review. As pointed out already, the best we could have hoped for was that the original decision was deemed to be wrong and they were forced to review their decision.
That is exactly what we got. Once the GS/DOJ dropped their defense we could not proceed any further with the case.

Regarding the issuing of Judgement from the high court, that is not happening, the minister is correct. No body is lying, what will be issued are high court orders. These are orders from the high court ordering the GS to review the applications as the previous refusals have now been legally squashed (once the orders are finalized).

Regarding W Egan and the 100Euro, I believe the service he is offering is to assist in the completion of any application, including supporting documentation. Furthermore he will be seeking a meeting with the member of the GS who will be conducting an individuals review so as to explain the outcome of the order and what is required of that person under the legislation when making a decision. Those who are currently clients of mr Egan are covered for this service under the fees already paid by those people. I would say, and am not going into detail here of specifics, but based on the sales pitch given on Sunday it seems to be a worth while service as there were a few important points raised on the completion of the FCA1.

Finally, all persons who are reapplying will have to show up to date membership of a range. There was a call made on Sunday for ranges to be flexible with people who are looking to rejoin after the past couple of years. I know quite a few who had only just paid annual membership fees before their certs were revoked and would be fearful of the same happening again. I personally hope that clubs and ranges will come to a sensible arrangement with past members considering the current economic climate and the fact that people now have to come up with range fees at short notice which ere not budgeted for over the past few months

regards,
H

Sparks

hk wrote: »

Regarding the issuing of Judgement from the high court, that is not happening, the minister is correct. No body is lying, what will be issued are high court orders. These are orders from the high court ordering the GS to review the applications as the previous refusals have now been legally squashed (once the orders are finalized).

That can't be accurate hk - the High Court can't direct the GS to review the applications. It doesn't have the legal authority to do so (the Firearms Act does not have any provision allowing the High Court to direct a Licencing Authority to grant or refuse a licence application), the closest it could get would have been to have found in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the District Court to reconsider its decision.

I personally hope that clubs and ranges will come to a sensible arrangement with past members considering the current economic climate and the fact that people now have to come up with range fees at short notice which ere not budgeted for over the past few months

To be fair to ranges, they have to keep in mind the prohibition on day or temporary memberships of ranges. Strictly speaking, you'd need to have some sort of legal contract to pay the full annual amount even if payment by installments was offered as an option.

And bluntly, even taking the current economic depression into account, if your range fees for the year is enough to challange you financially, perhaps legal action wasn't the wisest course of action to have chosen, given that an adverse result would have led to a bill orders of magnitude higher than a year's membership of even the priciest of ranges.

hk

Sparks wrote: »

That can't be accurate hk - the High Court can't direct the GS to review the applications. It doesn't have the legal authority to do so (the Firearms Act does not have any provision allowing the High Court to direct a Licencing Authority to grant or refuse a licence application), the closest it could get would have been to have found in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the District Court to reconsider its decision.

Sparks,
The purpose of a Judicial review is to determine whether an action taken under the legislation is legally sound.
You are right when you say that the High Court cannot Grant or Refuse a licence however they can rule that the decision was flawed, squash the decision and order a reconsideration.
It does not have to be against the district court it can also be against the GS.

So to sum up there will be a number of high court orders issued ordering the reconsideration of the applications as the consideration given first time was considered legally flawed.

Sparks

hk wrote: »

Sparks,
The purpose of a Judicial review is to determine whether an action taken under the legislation is legally sound.
You are right when you say that the High Court cannot Grant or Refuse a licence however they can rule that the decision was flawed, squash the decision and order a reconsideration.
It does not have to be against the district court it can also be against the GS.

It's the last line there that's inaccurate hk - the High Court was asked to review the decision of the District Court and it cannot as a result of that consideration order anyone in the AGS to review their decision; that would be down to the District Court to argue. The original AGS decision wouldn't be something the High Court could make an order on. In the earlier JR cases, it could; because it was the decision of the local Superintendent that was being placed under Judicial Review. That's not the case here, as these are JRs of District Court decisions.
You see my point?

rowa

What about people who sold their pistol and want to reapply ? Can they licence an identical pistol ? Make ,Model, calibre etc ? Or would a substitution be allowed ?

Sparks

You can't licence any restricted short firearm other than the one you had licenced before Nov 2008 rowa. So either they find their original pistol and buy it back, or they're out of luck.

hk

Sparks wrote: »

It's the last line there that's inaccurate hk - the High Court was asked to review the decision of the District Court and it cannot as a result of that consideration order anyone in the AGS to review their decision; that would be down to the District Court to argue. The original AGS decision wouldn't be something the High Court could make an order on. In the earlier JR cases, it could; because it was the decision of the local Superintendent that was being placed under Judicial Review. That's not the case here, as these are JRs of District Court decisions.
You see my point?

No sparks,
it was not the JR of a District court case, it was a JR of the Chief Supers in most cases.

my JR was between me and my Chief Super, my case never got to the district court. The cases did not have to be against a district court decision they could be taken against the original decision maker.

"The High Court in Ireland has a power or "jurisdiction" called "judicial review". Judicial review is a way for the High Court to supervise the lower courts, tribunals and other administrative bodies to ensure that they make their decisions properly".

The high court can make an order on the Chiefs if it found that the decision taken was unsound. And the High court is in the process of making such orders against those refusals.

regards,
H

Sparks

hk wrote: »

No sparks,
it was not the JR of a District court case, it was a JR of the Chief Supers in most cases.
my JR was between me and my Chief Super, my case never got to the district court. The cases did not have to be against a district court decision they could be taken against the original decision maker.

Good grief. No wonder we're the gossip of the Law Society. The whole point of section 15A was to avoid the High Court if at all possible - hell, that was the single, sole, solitary positive thing that came out of the 2006 Act. This is exactly what I've been talking about when I said folk should exhaust all available options before going to court. To just jump from a CS decision to the High Court is downright belligerent behaviour. You're abandoning the defined mechanisms of appeal, and taking up High Court time with something which has a defined mechanism of appeal at the District Court level. I can't imagine any HC justice finding that to be a productive use of court time given the kind of cases they normally hear, but I certainly could see it having a very negative effect on any cases taken along that route.

Bluntly, given that we had absolutely no idea - and could not have had any - before the Walls case that the AGS would alter records like that, this outcome is looking more and more like we dodged a bullet through sheer blind luck. We would have won Walls' case - it was too obviously a poor decision to stand up - but the 167 other cases, if this was the way they were being taken? We've got a 50% win/loss record in the supreme court so far, and a better record in the high court; but if we were prejudiced the presiding justice by this kind of nearly-abusive process, that record would have worsened pretty darn fast - and I don't even want to think of how bad it would have been if we'd drawn Charleton for any of those cases. One High Court loss from his bench was all it took to overturn dozens of previous cases and crucify pistol shooters overnight.

The Garda who altered the records and thus torpedoed the AGS's cases ought to go down on the record as the best friend shooting in Ireland has had over the last few years, because it's looking more and more like he saved us from ourselves.

Sparks

Incidentally, in those cases where the HC can issue orders to a CS, it still can't direct them to grant the licences. It can only order them to reconsider the decision. Only the DC could have directed the CS to grant a licence. Which is why going via the DC in the first place would have been the correct route...

lead loader

It's the last line there that's inaccurate hk - the High Court was asked to review the decision of the District Court and it cannot as a result of that consideration order anyone in the AGS to review their decision;




Actually sparks hk is correct. I am one of the 168. My case stood adjourned in the District Court and had not been heard. The judicial review quashed the decision of my local Chief Super refusing my licence, not a ruling of the District Court. In effect I am back to stage one, and the chief has to reconsider my case in the knowledge that his last decision was quashed by a judge of the high court. Everybody concerned is well aware that none of us are guaranteed to get our licences, but the chiefs will have to consider each case on their own merits, and give a proper reason for refusal in writing, not a standard letter across the board. The nargc and Willie Egan believe that if the fac1 is completed correctly and the applicant can show that no other firearm would suffice, it leaves the chief with very little wriggle room. Willie Egan also intends to personally meet with the different chiefs and a copy of the Court order quashing my chiefs last refusal will be served on the gardai prior to my re-application. It will be very interesting to see how it goes, but as I said earlier I am feeling optimistic, for the first time in 4 years.

hk

Sparks wrote: »

Incidentally, in those cases where the HC can issue orders to a CS, it still can't direct them to grant the licences. It can only order them to reconsider the decision. Only the DC could have directed the CS to grant a licence. Which is why going via the DC in the first place would have been the correct route...

Yea but no, and you know my opinion on pushing too far to quickly.

However the test cases were taken to prove that there was a blanket policy applied by the GS. Such a point could not have been made in the DC. What was challenged was not the decision which was arrived at, rather how the decision was arrived at, ie in a manner where the legislation had not been applied properly.

The cases were grouped under test cases so there was never a danger of 168 separate cases being heard.

The overall idea is that the applications are looked at freshly and within the bounds of the legislation. If at that stage the application are still refused then you are appealing the decision on its merits in the district court, rather than appealing a policy which has now been proven to have been flawed.

Sparks

hk wrote: »

The cases were grouped under test cases so there was never a danger of 168 separate cases being heard.

That's just not true - Ireland doesn't have class action lawsuits. The outcome of the test cases was important; but there was no way to force a settlement across all 168 cases, at least not when they were filed. The discovery of the alteration of the forms was the sole thing that has allowed that, and that could not have been known about ahead of taking the cases.

And I don't accept for one moment that there is any fact you can prove in the High Court that you cannot equally prove in a lower court.

SVI40

Bluntly, given that we had absolutely no idea - and could not have had any - before the Walls case that the AGS would alter records like that, this outcome is looking more and more like we dodged a bullet through sheer blind luck. We would have won Walls' case - it was too obviously a poor decision to stand up - but the 167 other cases, if this was the way they were being taken?

Sparks, pure guessing on you part. It was not the Walls case where the applications were altered, but the second case that was being heard. You have no idea how these cases were chosen, so please stop speculating on matters which you appear to have no knowledge of.

I and many others, if not all of the 168, trust our legal team to do their job, and to do it well. If by taking the HC action, we avoid many hundred DC cases, and those empowered to licence firearms do their job correctly and in accordance with the law, then far more court time has been saved.

The FCP, from what I have seen did not work, was led up the garden path, and unfortunately, no matter how good an idea it is / was, if those you are dealing with are not being honest, it could never work. Both sides have to play ball. Unfortunately some in AGS did not.

Sparks

lead loader wrote: »

The nargc and Willie Egan believe that if the fac1 is completed correctly and the applicant can show that no other firearm would suffice, it leaves the chief with very little wriggle room.

And that's the most believable summation of the situation I've seen so far; people believe things are going to go well.

People also believe in the easter bunny, santa claus, justice and the inherent good nature of mankind, mind you...

SVI40

People also believe in the easter bunny, santa claus, Department of Justice and the inherent good nature of mankind, mind you...

FYP

Sparks

SVI40 wrote: »

Sparks, pure guessing on you part.

Pure inference from public statements SVI40. Either disclose the details that support your position or cease telling others to infer conclusions from the available details. Your "we know but we're not telling you" stance is repugnant. Only 168 people went to court; their actions affect up to 200,000 others.

I and many others, if not all of the 168, trust our legal team to do their job, and to do it well. If by taking the HC action, we avoid many hundred DC cases, and those empowered to licence firearms do their job correctly and in accordance with the law, then far more court time has been saved.

To quote the spartans, If.

The FCP, from what I have seen did not work, was led up the garden path, and unfortunately, no matter how good an idea it is / was, if those you are dealing with are not being honest, it could never work. Both sides have to play ball. Unfortunately some in AGS did not.

Funny then, how the NARGC are now calling for it to be reinstated.
Funny how the IFA - a group with far more political acumen, resources and effectiveness than the NARGC, even with the best will in the world towards the NARGC's record - backed the FCP, along with every other shooting NGB around.

Frankly, I remember the last "Big Win" for the NARGC. It led to the 2006 Criminal Justice Act and the worst stomping our sports ever received. I'm left wondering what this "Big Win" will lead to once all the shouting in the press dies down. I'm not optimistic.

SVI40

their actions affect up to 200,000 others.

As did the actions of some members of AGS, by issuing blanked bans and altering records after the fact. Firstly restricted handguns, then what?

I would also support the FCP fully, it's a great system, IF everyone around the table plays ball.

Sparks

SVI40 wrote: »

As did the actions of some members of AGS, by issuing blanked bans and altering records after the fact. Firstly restricted handguns, then what?

Agreed, but the AGS didn't cause the restricted system, that came down to Jim Deasy and Dermot Ahern ultimately. And the only solution to the problem that will last longer than a news cycle won't be found in the courts. People are going to have to work with the AGS and the DoJ and the Minister. There isn't any other way. You cannot force legislative changes through the oireachtas via the courts, it just cannot be done, there is no mechanism that permits it and no precedent that supports it, and a vast array of laws and principles that specifically prohibit it as a Bad Idea (see Seperation of Powers for the whole theory of it)

So how the hell does spending huge amounts of time, money and manpower destroying professional relationships by chasing through the courts in pursuit of something that wasn't there to begin with and ending up with something you had beforehand anyway, make any form of sense when you look up from the visceral thrill of embarrassing someone in the media whom you don't like, to look at where you'll be in two or three years?

I mean, you love shooting, right? You want to do it for as long as you can, right? You're not in this to shoot for 12 months and then sell everything off and give up and go learn tiddlywinks, right?

So where do you see all of this leading to in, say, four years?

I would also support the FCP fully, it's a great system, IF everyone around the table plays ball.

I'd echo that precisely, but I'd be looking at everyone at the table, on all sides. And if some party at the table acts against the best interests of the shooting community, I think the shooting community ought to be the ones who decide how to deal with it. Not one single solitary part of that community without agreement from the others, burning the whole thing down in a snipe hunt.

rowa

Going back in ancient history a bit , when the doj or whoever agreed to release .22 rimfire and air pistols on a limited basis back in the early 90's , who negotiated that release on the shooters side and why was it refused by them ?

Just asking , because if things had been handled differently the centrefires could have been released by an agreement.