FIREARMS LICENSING CASES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

My take would be ,sure go ahead ban the guns,and there will be a never ending push for a public enquiry

And mine would be that I shoot because I like to shoot, not because I like to publicly lobby for a public enquiry that probably won't ever happen and even if it did, wouldn't change anything.
I'll take standing on the firing line with my little Izzy pistol over sitting in the pub with a bunch of old men getting worked up over all the injustices of the past over a few pints, thankyouverymuch.

This has gone far beyond a mere thing of firearms liscensing,it has and could have much more serious implications for the Govt and AGS.

When the 2006 Criminal Justice Act came out it allowed the Firearms Range Inspector to enter any premesis, dwelling, vehicle or place and search it without a warrant for evidence of target shooting - an activity the Act didn't define.
The public didn't bat an eyelid.
And you think the nation, now facing several more years of austerity budgets, is going to care that a garda altered a form, when even those taking them to the high court signed a document saying that garda did nothing wrong?
I think perhaps you have an inaccurate gauge on public sentiment when it comes to firearms there Grizzly.

Who,when and where?

I don't have transcripts. I do know that the DoJ personnel intervened to prevent an immediate and total ban, with the backing of the NGBs on the FCP. I know that the NGBs didn't get all they were hoping for because of the way things went in the next few weeks, but I also know that we lost everything larger than .22lr pistols because someone decided he'd stand up and shout at a public meeting without asking anyone what was going on first.

I also know that the view was taken that if we could keep most of what we had, and keep a route open to bring back what we lost, that that was about the best we could get at the time. And that's what we wound up with - air and smallbore pistols still openly licenced, centerfire pistols in a grandfathered state but able to get out of that state with a single SI from the minister. Who you now want to drag over the coals in public...

Madames ofice in the "Toimes " never printed anything on this of course.

Did you see them printing quotes from heads of NGBs lambasting people that those NGBs would have to sit in a room with and work with in order to fix the problem?

Got a we'll get back to you ,thats intresting sort of response from our NGBs and silence from most as to what was going on.

A few NGBs seem to believe in silence as a panacea. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I've been arguing against it for years - especially since a few NGBs used that silence to try fairly nasty things, as you remember.
But there's a difference between saying nothing to the press so that they can talk to the Minister directly; and saying nothing to their members. Most of the NGBs worth their salt were doing the former, not the latter.

And this is what I'm trying to say or allude to... That how do we NOT know that this is not going on????

In case you weren't listening to me, I'm pessimisticly sure that that is what is going to happen. We just took a large, public court campaign against the AGS and Minister and at the conclusion of the case signed an agreement which the Minister has just stated, says nobody did anything wrong. So we've agreed not to punish anyone.
We've also gotten in the settlement, according to Egan&Associates, the right to reapply for a restricted licence even if you applied before and were refused. The point that we had that right before the cases, that it is in fact guaranteed by law, might be churlish to point out but seems apropos nonetheless.
And none of the 168 applicants have been granted their licences, but have instead been told they can reapply.

Look, I'm a pessimist in most things, so maybe I'm biased - but I'm really not seeing what we got for the minimum €168,000 outlay we put into this case (the going rate for being represented in these cases was cited in a few places as being on the order of €1000, and no, having costs awarded does not mean that all the money paid out is coming back; we'd need to see the taxing master's report and the section 68 letters to know what the overall cost is, but I suspect they'll remain confidential).

What I'm seeing is that we took a swing and missed and now it's the other guy's turn and he's got a very big stick indeed.

meathshooter1

.


When the 2006 Criminal Justice Act came out it allowed the Firearms Range Inspector to enter any premesis, dwelling, vehicle or place and search it without a warrant for evidence of target shooting - an activity the Act didn't define.
The public didn't bat an eyelid.

why should they we have noting to hide or fear

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

I agree the FCP should have a say in things but you also have to remember the last minister lead them up the garden path

That's been said, but not everything that's said is true or even accurate...

Me, I go with the view that they didn't trust him as far as they could throw him because he was a career politician, but they also knew they had to work with him because he was in the Minister's chair. It's a less viscerally satisfying position, but I find it works better for me.

a lot of people who's only avenue left was the court.

You know I think that if you have to go to court, then that's a different thing to choosing to go to court; but I can't help but wonder why it is that we keep seeing the court cases described in terms that indicate that they were regarded as a stick to beat the government into submission with, if all they were was the last resort of people who'd tried every other reasonable avenue.

And I can't help remembering the high court and supreme court cases we've lost over the years, and the damage those losses have done. Court is always a risk where the cost of losing is paid by everyone. Which is why 168 case taken to the High Court all at once should have had all of us well into squeaky bum territory but instead quite a few of us were treating it like going to the cinema.

see fellow shooters of all disciplines stick together as the NARGC HAVE DONE

I get the sentiment, I even agree with it - but I remember the NARGC telling the DoJ that we don't need airguns to be deregulated and that hunters don't need to reload, so I kindof think that the ideal you're thinking of hasn't actually been taken up by anyone yet, even when they've paid lip service to it or used it as a rallying call.

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

why should they we have noting to hide or fear

Assuming you're not being terribly hipster and ironic by bringing that quote out; they should have batted an eyelid because it gave the Firearms Range Inspector an unquestionable, unchallengeable right to enter and search anywhere in the country; it didn't matter if someone didn't do target shooting, he could still legally wander in and search their bedroom closet if he'd wanted to. That was something that affected everyone in the country, and nobody cared - so why would they give a tuppenny over some Garda tweaking a form that doesn't apply to them?

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

And mine would be that I shoot because I like to shoot, not because I like to publicly lobby for a public enquiry that probably won't ever happen and even if it did, wouldn't change anything.
I'll take standing on the firing line with my little Izzy pistol over sitting in the pub with a bunch of old men getting worked up over all the injustices of the past over a few pints, thankyouverymuch.

Here might be the news that because we DONT take intrest in such things YOU mightnt be shooting with your pistol air or otherwise

When the 2006 Criminal Justice Act came out it allowed the Firearms Range Inspector to enter any premesis, dwelling, vehicle or place and search it without a warrant for evidence of target shooting - an activity the Act didn't define.
The public didn't bat an eyelid.
And you think the nation, now facing several more years of austerity budgets, is going to care that a garda altered a form, when even those taking them to the high court signed a document saying that garda did nothing wrong?
I think perhaps you have an inaccurate gauge on public sentiment when it comes to firearms there Grizzly.

And you miss the point yet again.This has gone beyond firearms or has the potential to do so.Yeah the GP mightnt be intrested in a minority sport.BUT they certainly are intrested in Garda corruption,people being framed,and possible gross misuse of human rights.If they werent I doubt the Garda ombudsman,for whatever good that organisation is worth,wouldnt be investigating 25 thousand complaints of various types against AGS personel PA.

I don't have transcripts. I do know that the DoJ personnel intervened to prevent an immediate and total ban, with the backing of the NGBs on the FCP. I know that the NGBs didn't get all they were hoping for because of the way things went in the next few weeks, but I also know that we lost everything larger than .22lr pistols because someone decided he'd stand up and shout at a public meeting without asking anyone what was going on first.

I also know that the view was taken that if we could keep most of what we had, and keep a route open to bring back what we lost, that that was about the best we could get at the time. And that's what we wound up with - air and smallbore pistols still openly licenced, centerfire pistols in a grandfathered state but able to get out of that state with a single SI from the minister. Who you now want to drag over the coals in public...

NO I dont... I want PROOF of your assertations that what you say was done was done!!! Not you said,you heard,this was that was,Solid WRITTEN EVIDENCIAL proof ..Is there anyway of getting such?Or does it exist???

A few NGBs seem to believe in silence as a panacea. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I've been arguing against it for years - especially since a few NGBs used that silence to try fairly nasty things, as you remember.
But there's a difference between saying nothing to the press so that they can talk to the Minister directly; and saying nothing to their members. Most of the NGBs worth their salt were doing the former, not the latter.

Dunno what your NGBs were doing... MY NGBs werent saying much to either press or members!:(

We've also gotten in the settlement, according to Egan&Associates, the right to reapply for a restricted licence even if you applied before and were refused. The point that we had that right before the cases, that it is in fact guaranteed by law, might be churlish to point out but seems apropos nonetheless.
And none of the 168 applicants have been granted their licences, but have instead been told they can reapply.

I reckon they wont be waiting very long for them either.:)
So you honestly think 168 people decided just for the heck of it to have an aul lark in the high court because they didnt fancy doing this via the DC route???
Didnt think you can go to the HC unless you have a DC ruling first on this??Maybe I'm wrong...But I would assume people would have been refused first before they would consider gambling in the high court.

Look, I'm a pessimist in most things, so maybe I'm biased - but I'm really not seeing what we got for the minimum €168,000 outlay we put into this case (the going rate for being represented in these cases was cited in a few places as being on the order of €1000, and no, having costs awarded does not mean that all the money paid out is coming back; we'd need to see the taxing master's report and the section 68 letters to know what the overall cost is, but I suspect they'll remain confidential).

What I'm seeing is that we took a swing and missed and now it's the other guy's turn and he's got a very big stick indeed.

I certainly wouldnt belive a thousand quid would even get a SC not to mind a barrister out of bed even in these recessionary times!I paid 1500 for a SC in a DC situation!!! Think we have to read abit more deeper into this than just the surface looks of gloom.We wont know until whatever other deal or details emerge over the next weeks.I agree with you on being pessimistic,but not to the point that we are sunk,as we dont even know yet what the damage is.

meathshooter1

Sparks wrote: »

That's been said, but not everything that's said is true or even accurate...

Me, I go with the view that they didn't trust him as far as they could throw him because he was a career politician, but they also knew they had to work with him because he was in the Minister's chair. It's a less viscerally satisfying position, but I find it works better for me.

I agree he was looking for weakness,thank god the career ended

You know I think that if you have to go to court, then that's a different thing to choosing to go to court; but I can't help but wonder why it is that we keep seeing the court cases described in terms that indicate that they were regarded as a stick to beat the government into submission with, if all they were was the last resort of people who'd tried every other reasonable avenue.

no one is using a stick to beat the goverment the cja bill was to big and wide reaching act which was rushed,the mistakes are been highlighted

And I can't help remembering the high court and supreme court cases we've lost over the years, and the damage those losses have done. Court is always a risk where the cost of losing is paid by everyone. Which is why 168 case taken to the High Court all at once should have had all of us well into squeaky bum territory but instead quite a few of us were treating it like going to the cinema.

we only have what we have due to brave people putting there money where there mouth is,would love to see it being done another way

I get the sentiment, I even agree with it - but I remember the NARGC telling the DoJ that we don't need airguns to be deregulated and that hunters don't need to reload, so I kindof think that the ideal you're thinking of hasn't actually been taken up by anyone yet, even when they've paid lip service to it or used it as a rallying call.

times are changing we need for all to work together,we all have a common interest.the safe enjoyment of our sport

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Here might be the news that because we DONT take intrest in such things YOU mightnt be shooting with your pistol air or otherwise

Grizzly, I would have been standing on that line with my Izzy ten years earlier if people hadn't taken the shouty approach over the pragmatic approach (and then kept really quiet about that decision).

And you miss the point yet again.This has gone beyond firearms or has the potential to do so.Yeah the GP mightnt be intrested in a minority sport.BUT they certainly are intrested in Garda corruption,people being framed,and possible gross misuse of human rights.If they werent I doubt the Garda ombudsman,for whatever good that organisation is worth,wouldnt be investigating 25 thousand complaints of various types against AGS personel PA.

Grand so.
Shame we (and I'm now repeating myself) signed a legal document stating that they did nothing wrong.
At which point the general public says "so what was all the fuss over then?" and goes back to watching Whomever Has Talent This Week.
And we lose our sport for nothing.

NO I dont... I want PROOF of your assertations that what you say was done was done!!! Not you said,you heard,this was that was,Solid WRITTEN EVIDENCIAL proof ..Is there anyway of getting such?Or does it exist???

Not that I can think of off the top of my head. You could get the records of meetings and phone calls in the DoJ at the time under FoI I suppose, they'd be in the public record, and minutes of the meetings, and the like, but I haven't done that because instead I called my NGB and talked to them at the time. Mine told me what was happening, why didn't yours?

Dunno what your NGBs were doing... MY NGBs werent saying much to either press or members!:(

If I remember rightly, there was a reason for that....

I reckon they wont be waiting very long for them either.:)
So you honestly think 168 people decided just for the heck of it to have an aul lark in the high court because they didnt fancy doing this via the DC route???

No, I think that going from DC to HC was pushed for a political agenda, ticking off the Law Society, the Minister and lots of others along the way, and I still can't see what we got for all that money and for ticking off all the people we'll have to work with for the next twenty years at least...

Didnt think you can go to the HC unless you have a DC ruling first on this?

No, you normally go from DC to CC to HC normally; here the DC itself was being taken to the HC in effect (hence the ticked off members of the legal profession, whom I wouldn't normally worry about except that if you're looking for a favourable judgement, it's a bit unwise to begin by kicking the judge's cat).

I certainly wouldnt belive a thousand quid would even get a SC not to mind a barrister out of bed even in these recessionary times![

You and I both. The normal estimates I hear for HC and SC cases run to six and seven figures respectively.
When costs are awarded, those estimates fall to the three to five figure range, depending on the taxing master and what was agreed in the section 68 letter; my point was that they don't fall to zero.

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

times are changing we need for all to work together,we all have a common interest.the safe enjoyment of our sport

Plus ca change.
The first time I heard your sentiment expressed in those terms was 2000 meathshooter, and I'm told it was around a long time before that point. More cynical people than myself translated that particular sentence to mean "I want your money, here's the hat, then sit down, shut up and feck off". I'm not quite that cynical myself yet, but I have to admit I'm a lot closer to being there than I was ten years ago

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

we only have what we have due to brave people putting there money where there mouth is,would love to see it being done another way

Still got an air or smallbore pistol or a grandfathered restricted pistol despite Ahern telling every newspaper that he'd ban them all? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Didn't have to agree to let your dentist be consulted as to your mental health? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have legislation which makes sense at least in some places rather than in no places at all? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have reloading (and yes, the pilot programme has been opened up ahead of the legislation coming in later this year)? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have an unrestricted centerfire rifle with a moderator? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have firearms range regulations which don't require an airgun range to cater to antitank weaponry safely? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have a unit in the AGS who are charged with trying to smooth over all licencing difficulties internally when it takes the least amount of effort to handle instead of having to go directly to court? You have that because of people doing it another way.

We could go on y'know. Suffice it to say that while those who've taken successful court cases have been lauded quite a bit (and not undeservedly), those who've taken the less sexy, far less credited route have also achieved things, and those things haven't been overturned on a Minister's whim quite so easily.

meathshooter1

Sparks wrote: »

Assuming you're not being terribly hipster and ironic by bringing that quote out; they should have batted an eyelid because it gave the Firearms Range Inspector an unquestionable, unchallengeable right to enter and search anywhere in the country; it didn't matter if someone didn't do target shooting, he could still legally wander in and search their bedroom closet if he'd wanted to. That was something that affected everyone in the country, and nobody cared - so why would they give a tuppenny over some Garda tweaking a form that doesn't apply to them?

customs and revenue already have that power years,what worries is changing something that could change somebodys life,donegal comes to mind,can they be trusted??

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

customs and revenue already have that power years

No, they haven't. Customs and Revenue and TV Licence Inspectors had to be looking for something specific which was defined in law. But without a legal definition of target shooting, the Firearms Range Inspector didn't have that limitation. How do you prove someone has not found evidence of something if you don't have a definition of what they're looking for?

meathshooter1

what I mean is they dont need a warrant.asfik no range inspector has done this as of yet.also gardai can enter on resonable grounds

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Still got an air or smallbore pistol or a grandfathered restricted pistol despite Ahern telling every newspaper that he'd ban them all? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Didn't have to agree to let your dentist be consulted as to your mental health? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have legislation which makes sense at least in some places rather than in no places at all? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have reloading (and yes, the pilot programme has been opened up ahead of the legislation coming in later this year)? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have an unrestricted centerfire rifle with a moderator? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have firearms range regulations which don't require an airgun range to cater to antitank weaponry safely? You have that because of people doing it another way.

Have a unit in the AGS who are charged with trying to smooth over all licencing difficulties internally when it takes the least amount of effort to handle instead of having to go directly to court? You have that because of people doing it another way.

We could go on y'know. Suffice it to say that while those who've taken successful court cases have been lauded quite a bit (and not undeservedly), those who've taken the less sexy, far less credited route have also achieved things, and those things haven't been overturned on a Minister's whim quite so easily.

What were centrefire pistol shooters supposed to do though sparks ? It was agreed with ahern that anyone who held a cf pistol licence before sep 08 or whenever could reapply , everyone reapplied and the vast majority were refused (me included) , it was patently obvious that senior gardai were playing silly buggers, how do you negotiate with people who are playing with you ? Worse , they were colluding with each other and breaking the law by interfering with application forms. A meeting with them would have been a complete waste of time and effort.
So were cf pistol owners supposed to just pack it up and go home ?

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

what I mean is they dont need a warrant

Correct, but they need reasonable grounds, which can be shown to exist or not because things like illegally smuggled goods have a legal definition and you can point to them and say "there they are". Without a legal definition of target shooting, you're in a whole other ball game.

.asfik no range inspector has done this as of yet.

That's because (a) there's only been one and (b) he's not actually a nasty chap and just wants to get on with the job rather than doing what the badly written law would allow him to do.

also gardai can enter on resonable grounds

That's a statement that covers a multitude of rules, exceptions, warrants, procedures and protections that just don't exist for the Range Inspector.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

What were centrefire pistol shooters supposed to do though sparks ?

Yeah, they were in trouble as soon as Deasy got Ahern riled up. There wasn't going to be an immediate solution for them. Initially it looked like all the centerfires up to .38 calibre would be safe, but then someone jumped in with both feet and then it was .22lr only. Those over .38 calibre (the .40s and.45s) would have had to put their pistols in storage and wait for the Minister to leave his office two years later and seek to have the SI altered to bring them back out of storage, unless of course they'd gotten their restricted licences.

However, put that in context before decrying it - the Minister had just told the entire electorate that he was going to ban them. Which would have meant amending the Firearms Act to ban legal ownership of pistols outright, which would have meant nobody, anywhere, could have any pistol; and we'd have to fight through the entire Dail and Seanad to change that afterwards (and frankly, you'd have better odds of winning the lotto, and you'd need a lotto win to finance the attempt if you wanted a reasonable chance at success).

So were cf pistol owners supposed to just pack it up and go home ?

They weren't supposed to do anything, this isn't an army.
But the smarter thing to have done would have been to have gone through the FCP and used the FPU and waited and sought a change in the SI which would have brought everything back to them and they'd have had the paintball, airsoft and target crossbow people all looking for reviews at the same time to give support.

From what I can see, all that's happened now is that you've burnt money, burnt time, and burnt the bridges you'll need to avoid any blowback from the court cases, and I honestly don't see what you've gained from it except the fleeting visceral thrill of seeing someone you don't like embarressed in the press; but without any real protection from that coming back to bite you in the face.

I will be interested to see how many of the 168 who reapply are granted their licences and how many are refused under well-documented, perfectly reasonable if conservative and risk-averse grounds...

SLK2005

This thread is called Firearms licensing cases before the high Court and has gone way off topic and should be put out of its misery. I propose to start a new thread and hopefully something good will come of it.

meathshooter1

Sparks wrote: »

That's because (a) there's only been one and (b) he's not actually a nasty chap and just wants to get on with the job rather than doing what the badly written law would allow him to do.

IM sure he wont,and now we have SI on ranges. But lets hope we dont see any abuse of power or over stepping his brief,that can happen to people in power plenty examples of that about..

SVI40

Shame we (and I'm now repeating myself) signed a legal document stating that they did nothing wrong.

Sparks, where are you getting this from? Can you please provide a link to it?

SLK2005

I too would like to see this as I hav'nt heard the terms in full of the settlement from my legal team. Anyway even if it is true there is nothing stopping anyone personaly affected by the actions of a certain CS from making a complaint to the Garda ombudsman if they so choose. Look up the GO website for info.

meathshooter1

do you know the terms of the settlement ?

Grizzly 45

Anyway even if it is true there is nothing stopping anyone personaly affected by the actions of a certain CS from making a complaint to the Garda ombudsman if they so choose. Look up the GO website for info.

Let me tell you a little story about how much good that was in my case.
My mother of 73 was refused,and by a quirk of fate we recived back the documentation from AGS Henry St Limerick,as we were going to challange it in the DC as well.Three days before the Super sends the documentation back with a "mature re consideration " of my mothers case and granting the certs,if she changes some technical point on the liscense.Already got to ask why the sudden reversl if al these forms are "carefully studied and decided on":rolleyes:
Unfortunatly for them and fortunatly for us they also sent back the decision of grant and refusal.Refused because she is a danger to the public Stamped Supers office,signed and dated by the Super and of course the ubiquitious "other" box ticked as well.:mad:

Lest you think my mother is some kind of hell raising Hellion much known for bar brawling or whatever..She isnt,and has never been trouble with the law,not even a speeding ticket in 50 years of driving in the ROI.
Anyways off to her solicitor for an explanation from the Super as to how he comes to this and to defame an innocent woman by suggesting she is a pubic danger to the peace.
Stall,stall,stall,BS,BS, stall comes out of Henry St...Finally after three months ,our Solr takes it to the Garda ombudsman,who refuse to touch it as the complaint is out of date by a week!!!!Despite us trying to explain the point that it was out of sdate as the Super refused and obstructed to answer a solicitors question on the matter.
IOW we gave the man every opportunity to explain himself and sort this out in an amicable manner with us..A personal apology and that would have been the end of this!!

I had the same problem with them refusig to do anything when I made a formal complaint about the cheif super in Henry st,refusing to obey a DC edict and issue my Semi auto rifle liscense.Not their policy to deal with day to day regulatory matters":rolleyes: Despite them having a DC court order to do so!!!

TWO firearms complaints about two senior ranking police officers in the same district by two people of the same surname and address???Make you kind of wonder.....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

So TBH lads dont waste you time with the Garda Ombudsman,after all it is retired and civilianised Gardai running that shop as well!:( Just another expensive Govt whitewash for the Irish sheeple.

And some people wonder then why I have a somwhat billigerent attitude to the senior members of AGS???Walk a mile in my Hunter wellies and you would know why!!

Whole system is rotten to the core!!!:mad:

meathshooter1

Thankfully you where granted your licence in court.and to date most have.

Grizzly 45

Indeed MS,but it was just a point that dont think the GO is any friend of the wronged Irish gunowner either. Even when you have a court order in your favour.

meathshooter1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Indeed MS,but it was just a point that dont think the GO is any friend of the wronged Irish gunowner either. Even when you have a court order in your favour.

That's why a fair and transparent system is needed echoed in justice Hedigans remarks

SVI40

do you know the terms of the settlement ?

No I don't. As one of the cases with W. Egans for Judicial Review, I am waiting on further information from them on how we will proceed. What I am interested in, is how Sparks seems to know what the agreement is, when those of us who have engaged W. Egans are currently waiting on an update.

Sparks

SVI40 wrote: »

Sparks, where are you getting this from? Can you please provide a link to it?

I did earlier in the thread (post 194), it's from a Parlimentary Question from the 7th of February where the Minister states one of the conditions of the settlement is that everyone's acknowledged to be free from wrongdoing.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Finally after three months ,our Solr takes it to the Garda ombudsman,who refuse to touch it as the complaint is out of date by a week!

In other words, rather than risk defaming you by stating that he thought you were trying to get a licence for a gun under your mothers name (or some other theory which could have gotten him into a defamation lawsuit) he took advantage of the loophole we pointed out in 2004 back when the shoutiest people were saying the Bill was a great thing because the gardai had to give you a written response within three months.

So the actual issue was down to us not having an FCP to look over the legislation back in '04.

Can't see how that'd be fixed by shouting and pounding on a table Grizzly, I honestly can't. The FCP isn't perfect but even if it only got half the things it tried for, that'd be 50% more things than the courts can ever give us.

the Irish sheeple.

Sorry, but you brought this joke on yourself.

Whole system is rotten to the core!!!:mad:

Grand. Now, what are you going to do, do for the next ten years what we've just spent ten years proving doesn't work and does cause things to get worse; or maybe try a different approach?

SVI40

I did earlier in the thread (post 194), it's from a Parlimentary Question from the 7th of February where the Minister states one of the conditions of the settlement is that everyone's acknowledged to be free from wrongdoing.

Sorry Sparks, but if a politician told me the time, I'd check my watch!:D

Maybe the Minister interpreted the Commissioners report the same way the CS interpreted the law?

Me, I'll wait until I hear from W. Egans.

Sparks

SVI40 wrote: »

Sorry Sparks, but if a politician told me the time, I'd check my watch!:D

Funny how that attitude immediately vanishes if the politician says a shooting body did something considered nefarious by other shooters...

Me, I'll wait until I hear from W. Egans.

Let us know what response you get.
Me, I figure that since they just promoted the Gardai involved to fairly high ranks, that settlement says what the Minister says it does...

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Sparks;77008134]In other words, rather than risk defaming you by stating that he thought you were trying to get a licence for a gun under your mothers name (or some other theory which could have gotten him into a defamation lawsuit

Oh stop the lights man!!!HOW do you jump to that conclusion?????????

ERrr NO! Sparks.She HAS and had her own liscenses,and there were TWO different cases and case numbers Wiuth the Garda ombudsmanjust to prevent such a situation!!!

he took advantage of the loophole we pointed out in 2004 back when the shoutiest people were saying the Bill was a great thing because the gardai had to give you a written response within three months.

Again wrong..This had then moved away from the liscense to enquiring as to why a woman of good upstanding was suddenly being written down again on an offical Garda document as suddenly being a public danger to the peace...Despite haveing no criminal involvement with AGS and having a liscense previously for25 years for firearms.Yet suddenly under the new regime is a dangerous person???THATS the crux here man!!!

So the actual issue was down to us not having an FCP to look over the legislation back in '04.

Can't see how that'd be fixed by shouting and pounding on a table Grizzly, I honestly can't. The FCP isn't perfect but even if it only got half the things it tried for, that'd be 50% more things than the courts can ever give us.

OH for GODS SAKE!!:rolleyes:Ths has nothing got to do with the FCP.This has got to do with the Garda Ombudsmans reluctance to tackle issues relating to firearms matters and discrepencies within AGS,not to mind blatant defamation of an innocent who did get her liscense,but is still unsure as to what is floating around to make a superintendant belive she is a public danger!!!!


SNIP OF SPARKS ATTEMPT AT LEVITY!!!

Grand. Now, what are you going to do, do for the next ten years what we've just spent ten years proving doesn't work and does cause things to get worse; or maybe try a different approach?

Great lets talk,and talk and talk,and if the Supers ,cheif supers and comissioners and ministers chose to ignore us and we go through all the correct channels and still face a brick wall..Your suggestion will be????

You know Sparks you should really give people more credit for having a tad more intelligence than you think they have.I for one did it all the correct and right route,tried all the meeting of Superintendants [HAH!:rolleyes:],the diplomatic routes of FCP,FAC, organisations,Garda Ombudsman..Blah,blah,blah!!!

I've been thru the entire legal system and procedures for this,and the nice way amounted to diddly SQUAT!!!:mad: I was left with NO other choice but to take them to court,as were all the others!
So please dont just ASSume that everyone is running off pell mell to law to sort out these things.
Thats why I'm saying the system is rotten!! You are treated like dirt and how dare you challange the might of AGS is the attitude,even when they damn well know that they are in the wrong they are right.What sort of a system is that??A rotten one!
FUK sake !! All i want to do is go shooting with a few guns of my choice and not be involved in having to fight a untrustworthy police force top brass and a bunch of thick beauracrats on every turn of the road to do so,and spend my nights internet warrioring and playing at politics!!!Is that too much to ask for???