FIREARMS LICENSING CASES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

Sparks

Also, on the point that the court cases were just necessary court cases and not a political football, here's the NARGC statement:

Unfortunately, the High Court settlement has not bought tuppence worth of peace in relation to how the Gardai operate the licensing system and NARGC is determined to continue the battle in the courts until someone in the political establishment engages with us with a view to bringing forward a lasting peace. Neither current DOJ officials nor any member of the Garda Siochana are capable of commanding the trust and respect necessary to deliver that peace. Certainly, NARGC will not again sit with such people.

In other words, trying to do via the courts what the FCP was designed to do more quickly, with less risk, for less money, and with more permanence.

SVI40

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

You've lost me there, care to elaborate?

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...

Seems to me that is circling the wagons, which is not unexpected. How many public servants have suffered because of errors they have made? Is it not the errors of Government and the public servants that have the country in the mess it is in now? Yet some of them have retired with very comfortable pensions.

The legislation and guidelines are fairly clear in the issuing of firearms certificates. If those in charge of issuing firearms certificates do not follow the legislation, or the guidelines, what other recourse do we have, besides the courts? Do you think those who took legal recourse did so lightly? I doubt any of us who did, did so to score points against the Gardai, or the Minister, or others. We just wanted to continue to pursue our chosen sport.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

HOW do you jump to that conclusion?

I didn't. I tried to think of a reason why a Super who didn't know you personally might wish to refuse a licence without stating why. That was the one I came up with, but as I said, there might be other reasons.

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

That's got everything to do with the FCP.
The Ombudsman won't touch it because there's a defined-in-law avenue to challange a decision via the DCs, and a defined-in-policy way to handle things quietly via the FCP and FPU. They only take on a case if there's an accusation of wrongdoing by a Garda and in this case, they wouldn't touch the licencing decision even if they found he was doing something wrong, you'd still have to go to court to have the decision appealed.

But go via the FCP and FPU and you had a shot at having it dealt with quietly and effectively before you have to go to court. I know, because that's how I got my pistol (and it didn't even have to go via the FCP, the local firearms officer and FPU handled it before I even knew there was a problem).

SNIP OF SPARKS ATTEMPT AT LEVITY!!!

Yeah, well dial back the melodrama a bit there drama llama. We're not sheeple, and the world's not out to get you, it's just one super being an arse. That's not the largest problem you'll ever have to deal with, just one of the more annoying ones.

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?

To actually try it before dismissing it.
If it fails, then we deal with that.
But don't just jump right to the end because you think they won't give you a fair shake, not because it's unfair to the process, but because if you don't, you're crippling your court case by not doing all the steps first.

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!

In that circumstance (and I've told you this before, on here, use the search function if you don't believe me), the courts are the appropriate route.

But you ought to see the difference between that scenario and what the NARGC are talking about above.

So please dont just ASSume that everyone is running off pell mell to law to sort out these things.

Not assuming.
Reading what they say.
Slight difference.

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!

So emigrate or learn to play smart. Because whining won't fix it.

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???

I don't think so.
I do think that you'd have that if we'd shown a bit more patience with the AGS in the past though, instead of demanding everything at once and not giving them acclimatisation time. And we were saying that as early as 2004 on here:

to use a very eighties term, it's like eating an elephant. Try to do it all in one go and it just won't work. You have to take it one small bite at a time. Start with the most innocous form of shooting and get people used to that. Then go on to something a bit louder. Then try something else. And so on. If you try to start by convincing the public that an IPSC match shot with fullbore sidearms is perfectly safe and fine, they just won't believe you. Hell, I would have trouble believing you (a carryover from the "don't run with scissors" lectures from my mother as a child, no doubt). So instead you box clever. Start by showing off air rifle sports (we've been doing that). Then move on to ISSF .22 shooting (again, we've been doing that). Both of these are pleasant, look very safe and harmless, and use firearms that don't look like what the public expects a "gun" to look like. Plus, you've the whole Olympic view there as well. Next, show off ISSF air pistols. Again, same arguments apply there. Move from there to ISSF smallbore pistols. And thence to ISSF fullbore rifles and pistols.

(Note that by this time, lots of people here are thinking "why ISSF?" but don't seem to see that there's little if any legal difference between an ISSF pistol and a IMSSU pistol or a plinking pistol. So if ISSF's easier to sell, and it gets you what you want, why fight it?)

Once you have these established, you can go on to other disciplines that are harder to sell. Start with bullseye pistol - that brings in more fullbore pistols - or with service rifles.

But if the first thing you ask for is to go shoot at human silhouettes with fullbore sidearms, you'll just get a fast lesson in what actual legal rights you have regarding the ownership of firearms in this country.

There are times, like that one, when I hate being right.

Sparks

SVI40 wrote: »

You've lost me there, care to elaborate?

Minister says he has full backing of FCP for something or other. He actually doesn't, but nobody listens to that, they're too busy sharpening knives.
We've seen that more than once...

If those in charge of issuing firearms certificates do not follow the legislation, or the guidelines, what other recourse do we have, besides the courts? Do you think those who took legal recourse did so lightly? I doubt any of us who did, did so to score points against the Gardai, or the Minister, or others. We just wanted to continue to pursue our chosen sport.

I think we usually have options before we go to court. If those options are exhausted, then court is perfectly valid and right and I've said that quite often on here.
But that statement above from the NARGC is not saying that, it's saying it's using the judiciary as a stick to beat the government with, and I've been saying that that just doesn't work since, oh, around 2006 and others have known it for a lot longer - the earliest example I can personally remember people talking about was in 1972...

SVI40

I think we usually have options before we go to court.

We have 30 days to appeal it to the court once you get your refusal. And when a CS refuses to take a phone call or meet with you, where do we get the opportunity to talk?

When did the FCP last meet? Yes, this would be the preferred option, but when the FCP is lead up the garden path, where do we go from there? When IPSA is told to shut down, and CF firearms will be safe, and it does, and still CF firearms licence holders get refused having had a licence for the previous 5 years, what are they to do?

Sparks

SVI40 wrote: »

We have 30 days to appeal it to the court once you get your refusal. And when a CS refuses to take a phone call or meet with you, where do we get the opportunity to talk?

When the FPU calls him up with your problem (and they were pretty fast because of that 30 day limit, usually they'd be on to him in one to two days). If he refuses then, yeah, then it's looking like a court case, but the difference is in having exhausted all possible options first instead of not putting as much effort into those options as people put into court cases.

When did the FCP last meet?

Just before the NARGC pushed the court cases and started making unpleasant statements in the media about the people they'd have to work with in the DoJ.

Yes, this would be the preferred option, but when the FCP is lead up the garden path, where do we go from there?

That's the second time someone's said that in here, but I still haven't seen much evidence...

When IPSA is told to shut down, and CF firearms will be safe, and it does, and still CF firearms licence holders get refused having had a licence for the previous 5 years, what are they to do?

So CF firearms are banned from ever being licenced in Ireland? And that can't ever be altered, ever?

SVI40

When the FPU calls him up with your problem

Believe it was done, not by me, but someone I trust completely, hence me not calling. Too concerned about the clock ticking.

Just before the NARGC pushed the court cases and started making unpleasant statements in the media about the people they'd have to work with in the DoJ.

And how long would we have to wait for some feed back from the FCP? Don't know where you're getting the unpleasant statements from, seems to me they were statements of fact. If those in charge admit to amending documents after the fact, how can they be trusted?

So CF firearms are banned from ever being licenced in Ireland? And that can't ever be altered, ever?

Of course it can, but how long do we wait? Shooters have never been of the list of those who must be listened to. We have been treated poorly by those in power, as evidenced by the recent court cases. This is something we have all known, but finally was admitted to in court. Blanket bans in at least one district, that we now know of. How do we deal with those who deliberately do not follow the law, when it's their job to do so?

Sparks

SVI40 wrote: »

And how long would we have to wait for some feed back from the FCP?

Not very long, though that does seem to depend on the NGB you're in.

Don't know where you're getting the unpleasant statements from, seems to me they were statements of fact. If those in charge admit to amending documents after the fact, how can they be trusted?

(1) I'm not talking about the statements made after the cases, but those made before like this.
(2) You're talking like the AGS and DoJ weren't seperate groups.

Of course it can, but how long do we wait?

Until a change of Minister, which we've had, but now the pitch has been queered and who knows how long we'll have to wait now?

Shooters have never been of the list of those who must be listened to.

And yet we were, while on the FCP. Not 100% of the time, but more often than not.

How do we deal with those who deliberately do not follow the law, when it's their job to do so?

Well, we have just proven the courts won't do the job, so my money's on the FCP route instead of the pound-the-table approach.

richiedel123

Of course it can, but how long do we wait? Shooters have never been of the list of those who must be listened to. We have been treated poorly by those in power, as evidenced by the recent court cases. This is something we have all known, but finally was admitted to in court. Blanket bans in at least one district, that we now know of. How do we deal with those who deliberately do not follow the law, when it's their job to do so?

What area was the blanket ban in. Does any 1 know the cs's involved in the case. I would just like to know was the cs im dealing with involved in it or mentioned even

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I didn't. I tried to think of a reason why a Super who didn't know you personally might wish to refuse a licence without stating why. That was the one I came up with, but as I said, there might be other reasons.

Sparks..Helloo..focus!!! We are talking about the reason he refused my mother!!He signed,dated and stamped the reason...A danger to the public !!!and the "OTHER" box..We have the reasons,we are not talking about the reasons I was refused,that was a CS decision on 3 restricted firearms.

What I want to know is [1] why did he belive my mother was a danger to the public?Contary to all known evidence??And her never being to the attention of AGS??
[2] Why would the GO not act on a case of defamation,when there is evidence to prove such???

Understand we are dealing here with a case of possible defamation arising form a liscensing issue...NOT the liscense itself!!!!
2] The inaction of the GO on the defamation issue...Nothing else

That's got everything to do with the FCP.
The Ombudsman won't touch it because there's a defined-in-law avenue to challange a decision via the DCs, and a defined-in-policy way to handle things quietly via the FCP and FPU. They only take on a case if there's an accusation of wrongdoing by a Garda and in this case, they wouldn't touch the licencing decision even if they found he was doing something wrong, you'd still have to go to court to have the decision appealed.
[

Again!!!This had nothing to do with the liscensing,it had to do with a superintendants decision to refuse to answer a simple question as to why he thought my mother was a danger to public saftey.He refused to anbswer this question and we had to take it to the Garda ombudsman to try and get an answer out of him as to why my mother was defamed of her good name..END OF!!!NOTHING to do with a liscense application..

But go via the FCP and FPU and you had a shot at having it dealt with quietly and effectively before you have to go to court. I know, because that's how I got my pistol (and it didn't even have to go via the FCP, the local firearms officer and FPU handled it before I even knew there was a problem).

I dont know you must lead a charmed life on this..I got nowhere with the FPU[Cant do anything about a CS policy of issuance] FCP[We'll look into it...Guess they are still looking!:rolleyes:]
CAI contacted the FPU on my behalf,to be told pretty much Fk off!

More Snippage of Sparks irrevelantness

To actually try it before dismissing it.
If it fails, then we deal with that.

1] I'm pretty sure people have been talking in some shape or form since 1972 on this issue.35 odd years later they were still talking...And getting nowhere.
2]what do you do when the FCP has argued the case to the minister and he says"Thanks lads,very intresting.Now this is what [EMAIL="I@LL"]I'LL[/EMAIL] DO as I am the Minister,and ye can like it or lump it!" As D Aherne apprently did do on one or two occasions...
3] Who will pay for it??they will say simply well if we give in on this whats to say te next pressure group will want a quango for the rights of someone else or whatever??.They are cutting NGBS /Quangos not setting them up.You had better have a very good sell for Micheal Noonan I can tell you that.

But don't just jump right to the end because you think they won't give you a fair shake, not because it's unfair to the process, but because if you don't, you're crippling your court case by not doing all the steps first[.
In that circumstance (and I've told you this before, on here, use the search function if you don't believe me), the courts are the appropriate route.

Then why do you keep saying this is wrong in every other case????
I'm sure 168 people didnt just jump into the idea of a HC challange,just because their CS's didnt talk to them either...

But you ought to see the difference between that scenario and what the NARGC are talking about above

.

Are you reading too much into NARGC rethoric??

Not assuming.
Reading what they say.
Slight difference.

So emigrate or learn to play smart. Because whining won't fix it.

I'm not whining ,I went out,took all the wise advice and wisdom of all involved , tried all the approved routes ,got nowhere until I reluctantly had to take everyone to court.TWICE!BTW!! Got my liscenses.Tried to jaw jaw,had to go to war war!!IF there was a third route,I'd love to know what it was....Unfortunatly your FCP/FPU wasnt much help either.

I don't think so.
I do think that you'd have that if we'd shown a bit more patience with the AGS in the past though, instead of demanding everything at once and not giving them acclimatisation time. And we were saying that as early as 2004 on here:

Fine you are right ,Happy???Now can we deal with the present not what needs to be dealt with in 2004??It's past history .....What do we do in 2012 here and now???
The first problem I see with getting the FCP going is lack of money and the Govt will plead hardship on this forevermore.So unless we fund the FCP ourselves???And try selling that one...:eek:.Thats dead in the water already.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Fine you are right ,Happy???Now can we deal with the present not what needs to be dealt with in 2004??It's past history .....What do we do in 2012 here and now???

This is like banging my head off a brick wall. No, I'm not happy. I said in '04 that charging right in wouldn't work, that only a cooperative approach would last. Folk disagreed. Folk were wrong. I've now told you what I think will get the best results in 2012 - a cooperative approach - you're saying it won't work. I disagree.

I point out the NARGC's statements that these cases are a political football, an exercise in trying to use the courts as a stick to beat the government with, you make an excuse up to say that's not really what they mean, that it's just rhetoric; but frankly, I don't buy it. If they'd sunk this much effort and expense into the FCP, I don't think we'd be here now, I think you'd have your firearms and could be on the range having fun. But hey, what would I know...

The first problem I see with getting the FCP going is lack of money and the Govt will plead hardship on this forevermore.So unless we fund the FCP ourselves???And try selling that one...:eek:.Thats dead in the water already.

Sure, easy sell. Anyone want an FCP for free? Because nobody on it was getting paid, so it wasn't actually costing anything to run, other than the costs of the two public conferences.

.270 remington

i think it time to see exactly which districts imposed the blanket ban
can anybody start a poll on this

lickarse2

I may have this wrong, but from reading this and other sources, wouldn't the decision whether to settle or not, rest with the individuals concerned in the test cases and not the NARGC?

Any past judicial review cases I've seen have always been referred to as individual X vs Superintendent Y, so criticism of the outcome must be tempered by this knowledge? Isn't it their right to decide?

And aren't there roughly 170 more of these cases yet to be heard? And go all the way to judgment if necessary?

I understand the judiciary = stick > legislature argument, but aren't these cases primarily about the applpication of the law rather than the law itself?

Just asking

Sparks

lickarse2 wrote: »

And aren't there roughly 170 more of these cases yet to be heard? And go all the way to judgment if necessary?

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.

knockon

.270 remington wrote: »

i think it time to see exactly which districts imposed the blanket ban
can anybody start a poll on this

Ok I'll bite

Limerick City - All restricted pistols were refused by the CS (the day he retired) in Nov 2009. Most I believe were subsequently Licensed via a D.C. appeal (me Grizzly45 and 12 -15 more were anyway).

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

This is like banging my head off a brick wall. No, I'm not happy. I said in '04 that charging right in wouldn't work, that only a cooperative approach would last. Folk disagreed. Folk were wrong. I've now told you what I think will get the best results in 2012 - a cooperative approach - you're saying it won't work. I disagree.

Quit banging the head off the wall,take an asprin for the headache and listen a minute.:)
As fatso Cowen once said "we are where we are".That was eight years ago,We are here now.So if an FCP is the way forward thats fine,and I'm100% all for it as I have been all along.Contrary to what you might think of me Sparks,I do belive in trying to talk and sort out a situation first
however the problem arises when the other side does not want to talk,and obstructs and does everything to make you go away and stop being an inconvient little sheeple!!
And I think this is the crux of the whole thing.Lack of engagement on the PTB side of things or willingness to.How many people here waited ,are waiting or have not still got a chance to talk to their local Super or cheif super???That should be no big deal to meet them,they are public servants with secetaries who handle their schedules.yet a private audience with the pope might be easier to arrange than meet some of these. Even it came out in the HC case,one after refusing the applicant said he didnt "think it necessary"to meet the applicant!!??We have cases of CS ignoring the advice of the FPU on firearms and turning to the ballistics section for "better advice"from our old friend Inspector Brookes as his advice would fit their world view and logic alot better.!And then you are surprised that people go to court?
From the amount of betimes nill engagement,talking to other gunowners,and the stonewalling you read and hear about..I'm not surprised that people might turn aound and say "fek it! The only way to deal with a refusal is just go to court!! They wont listen or entertain me anyway".Unfortunatly it seems that some people in power only understand a kick in the arse to make them go and do their duty/job in the legal sense.:(
So simply put,how is this FCP going to make sure that its advice is listened to first off,and secondly by some miracle acted on??
.

I point out the NARGC's statements that these cases are a political football, an exercise in trying to use the courts as a stick to beat the government with, you make an excuse up to say that's not really what they mean, that it's just rhetoric; but frankly, I don't buy it. If they'd sunk this much effort and expense into the FCP, I don't think we'd be here now, I think you'd have your firearms and could be on the range having fun. But hey, what would I know...

I am not making an "excuse" for NARGC!! I am not a member of them so what they do is quite beyond my control.I am suggesting that this is their rethoric on the whole thing...There is alot I disagree with them too on their polices.
Unfortunately or fortunately as the case might be,they are also the largest and most coherent group that is dealing with DOJ and have been for years,because on the target side of things its just chaos and incoherency.So unlessthe target side shapes up and can get somone to speak properly for that side,without cutting each other up ,the DOJ will continue to work with NARGC.Good ,bad or indifferent.
Put it another way..Why would NARGC need/want an FCP when they already have the DOJ ear????

Sure, easy sell. Anyone want an FCP for free? Because nobody on it was getting paid, so it wasn't actually costing anything to run, other than the costs of the two public conferences.

[/QUOTE]

Ok,who pays for the room?Lights ,stationary,secetary and minions ,tea /coffee biccies and proably forensic cleaning of the room of blood and guts have been ripped out of each other after the first meeting?:eek: There has to be some cost somwhere that inconviences the Govt???
Swear you'd want a job on that FCP!:D

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

however the problem arises when the other side does not want to talk,and obstructs and does everything to make you go away and stop being an inconvient little sheeple! And I think this is the crux of the whole thing.Lack of engagement on the PTB side of things or willingness to.

Except it's not on the PTB side of things, it's on the specific side of what the AGS publicly refer to as "problem superintentendents" and some higher-ups (and it looks like that includes the commissioner).
If it was all the PTB, we wouldn't even be having this conversation Grizz.
And I don't see the point in sabotaging the one official avenue we had into the PTB because you've a problem with one small group of people. It's just turned a difficult but managable problem into a complete mess where nobody is talking to us officially anymore.

And no, I'm not getting into the whole "all 168 cases were last resorts" way of thinking because the people who seem to be calling the shots on how the cases were directed are openly stating that they're using those cases as a stick to beat the Minister with (it's quoted up above, for those joining us without reading the last few hundred posts). A case, taken after exhausting all available options, is not the same as what the NARGC is talking about in its statement. It's not even close.

Unfortunatly it seems that some people in power only understand a kick in the arse to make them go and do their duty/job in the legal sense.:(

Yeah, right. Because the last ten years have taught us that that works, hasn't it.
I mean, all the time, effort, money and risk in taking the Commissioner to court in Dunne wasn't wasted, it cost the Minister a whole hour to draft a few lines in the misc.... you know, I can't help but think I might have said this before.

So simply put,how is this FCP going to make sure that its advice is listened to first off,and secondly by some miracle acted on??

Put simply, by hard work. The kind they were doing before people flounced off in huffs and started pounding on tables. There aren't any guarantees - if you want them, buy a blender - but there's a far better record for the outcomes from the FCP than from the courts, which have a habit of lasting for as long as the Minister can be kept away from a pen...

I am suggesting that this is their rethoric on the whole thing

I suspect it's not rhetoric, but actual policy.
But then, I'm just reading their words and following their deeds for the last ten years, so I could be wrong.

Unfortunately or fortunately as the case might be,they are also the largest and most coherent group that is dealing with DOJ

No, they're not, that'd be the IFA.
And as to coherent, the bodies on the FCP were coherent. First time, possibly ever, we had every NGB in the country tied into the one place, all standing in a unified front... and then the NARGC went to court.

I'd rather we'd tried the unified front for a while longer myself.

So unlessthe target side shapes up and can get somone to speak properly for that side

Grizz, you weren't there. With the exception of shouty people in the NASRPC (who'd written the rules that governed how they would be represented), every NGB in the target side of things was getting along, working together. I'd never seen that before, but there it was, ICPSA, NTSA, SSAI, gun dealers, insurers, all sitting round a table working as a group.
And then the NARGC went to court.

I'd rather we'd not done that.

the DOJ will continue to work with NARGC

They will?
Who told you that one, and did they try to sell you a bridge too?
The NARGC just spent months badmouthing the people in the DoJ from the Principal Officer on down, just dragged them into a huge series of court cases, and just embarressed the Minister into answering odd PQs from Sinn Fein on firearms law.

Do you think that that kind of thing will (a) help build a working relationship; or (b) poison an already existing working relationship?

Ok,who pays for the room?

Already covered in departmental overheads. Room exists, room's lit, regardless of whether they're in it or not. DoJ and AGS personnel are already paid, regardless of being in the FCP meeting or not. The NGB personnel are all volunteers.

There has to be some cost somwhere that inconviences the Govt?

Yeah. They'd have to sit down there with a chap who just spent months attacking them in the press, and I doubt very much that they'd think that would be a productive use of their time anymore.

Swear you'd want a job on that FCP!:D

Not if you paid me. Watching hard work get squandered for no reason is too soul-destroying.

.270 remington

kilkenny carlow district
all refused

SVI40

DMR Northern Division - all refused.

.270 remington

some in laois
some in wicklow

otmmyboy2

.270 remington wrote: »

some in laois

And were not counting those who were granted but never received their actual licences are we?

.270 remington

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

And were not counting those who were granted but never received their actual licences are we?

its a strange setup in wicklow some we granted and more not

hk

This thread is getting hard to read and is extremely frustrating for those of us who are looking to share information on the current situation as people get it.

Grizzly: I have a problem with your posts and I alluded to it earlier but now im going be a little blunter.

You my friend have your certs, all be it through your DC but you have them none the less. However your emotive comments are not helping the rest of us who are still waiting to get ours. Unfounded comments relating to the false imprisonment of innocent people is not going to help anyone. As I said before I do not mistrust the CS's involved, rather my opinion is that they were pressured into getting rid of Handguns by a previous minister.

I do not believe that pissing off the people you have to work with will further your interests. A point I am coming back to soon.

Sparks: While I completely see your point of view and agree in many ways, its a bit unrealistic to suggest that we should have sat back and waited to see if consultation would work or if a change of minister would result in a change of SI. Under the new act as I know your well aware the appeal process for a refusal is through the district court and the right of appeal is time limited. Therefor I was left with no other option than to commence an appeal almost immediately on refusal. I believe the HC challenge was taken as a result of certain DC decisions so as to ensure that legal precedence was set before other appeals went ahead. I certainly know of one case where the DC judge essentially stated that there was no reason that the appellant should not be granted his cert and as he concluded his judgment did a complete U turn and stated that he did not want to over rule the CS.

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.

I dont believe that under the re evaluation of the applications concerned that we will see another mass refusal. Hopefully im not proved wrong on that one but I do believe what happened in the HC will have an effect.

Finally, I cannot state strongly enough my disgust at the statements made by the NARGC in their most recent correspondence. The tone and language used is most unhelpful and will further damage relations between the shooting community and the state bodies involved. The DOJ and GS will always have a central role in firearms licencing in this country and my opinion is that either the NARGC know this and are engaging in C*ck waving of the most damaging kind or else and even worse they are stupid enough to think otherwise in which case we have little going for us. I for one feel that the majority of comments made here and by the NARGC do not represent my opinion as a shooter and I dont believe that it represents the opinions of the majority of shooters.

Grow up, talk like adults and resolve the problems like adults

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=hk;77022042]This thread is getting hard to read and is extremely frustrating for those of us who are looking to share information on the current situation as people get it.

Grizzly: I have a problem with your posts and I alluded to it earlier but now im going be a little blunter.

You my friend have your certs, all be it through your DC but you have them none the less. However your emotive comments are not helping the rest of us who are still waiting to get ours. Unfounded comments relating to the false imprisonment of innocent people is not going to help anyone

HK and I am going to be blunt to the point of rudeness!!!:(
Become a Moderator here and then you can have the power to moderate my posts.or [2] put me on your ignore list.Otherwise like it or lump it!! or[3] dont read them .
So all that happened in Donegal was an entire putup job was it??All innocent and didnt happen... Think the MacBearty family might disagree with you...Not to mind one current CS who ws caught up in this mess was promoted for investigating Garda corruption.!!!
And for the last time if you care to READ what I actually wrote,not ASSumed I wrote!! I said it is a distinct possibility that somthing like what I decsribed COULD have happened!!! Not your spin on it that it is or did happen!!!

This is truth,if you dont like it...Tough!!!

And as for getting your certs.Do you think my commentary will have an effect on your case??????OMG!! I sound off on a two bit internet chat group and the Irish legal and police system stops to read my outpourings????PLEUUUZEEE!!!:rolleyes:


.

As I said before I do not mistrust the CS's involved, rather my opinion is that they were pressured into getting rid of Handguns by a previous minister.

Well fine...I 'll leave to your your illusions then on trusting the people who want to kill off your sport.. Think you will find in the current climate you are in the minority of gunowners beliving a word anymore from a CS or supers mouth.Unfortunate that,"but thats the way it is !" As we say.

I

do not believe that pissing off the people you have to work with will further your interests. A point I am coming back to soon.

Sorry I dont expect to "work" with these people.I expect my liscenses to be granted if I have good reason and am complying with the law!!And if they have a problem to respond to me in a timely and civillised manner, not treat me or anyone else like some kind of 3rd class dirt!!:mad:
For your information HK,I and am now heartily sick of typing it,but for you I'll do it again...I tried all the approved,talking and negoiating routes and got nowhere,apart from stalling and shoddy treatment..
Or have members of my fammily made out to be some kind of danger to the public,because it suits somone who couldnt be botherd to do their job right,or had some sort of agenda,personal or from on high!!
Now thats my experiance..and I dont remember YOU being around to observe and comment when these events happened..So take it or leave it !!

Grizzly 45

hk wrote: »

This thread is getting hard to read and is extremely frustrating for those of us who are looking to share information on the current situation as people get it.

Grizzly: I have a problem with your posts and I alluded to it earlier but now im going be a little blunter.

You my friend have your certs, all be it through your DC but you have them none the less. However your emotive comments are not helping the rest of us who are still waiting to get ours. Unfounded comments relating to the false imprisonment of innocent people is not going to help anyone

HK and I am going to be blunt to the point of rudeness!!!:(
Become a Moderator here and then you can have the power to moderate my posts.or [2] put me on your ignore list.Otherwise like it or lump it!! or[3] dont read them .
So all that happened in Donegal was an entire putup job was it??All innocent and didnt happen... Think the MacBearty family might disagree with you...Not to mind one current CS who ws caught up in this mess was promoted for investigating Garda corruption.!!!
And for the last time if you care to READ what I actually wrote,not ASSumed I wrote!! I said it is a distinct possibility that somthing like what I decsribed COULD have happened!!! Not your spin on it that it is or did happen!!!

This is truth,if you dont like it...Tough!!!

And as for getting your certs.Do you think my commentary will have an effect on your case??????OMG!! I sound off on a two bit internet chat group and the Irish legal and police system stops to read my outpourings????PLEUUUZEEE!!!:rolleyes:


.

As I said before I do not mistrust the CS's involved, rather my opinion is that they were pressured into getting rid of Handguns by a previous minister.

Well fine...I 'll leave to your your illusions then on trusting the people who want to kill off your sport.. Think you will find in the current climate you are in the minority of gunowners beliving a word anymore from a CS or supers mouth.Unfortunate that,"but thats the way it is !" As we say.

I

do not believe that pissing off the people you have to work with will further your interests. A point I am coming back to soon.

Sorry I dont expect to "work" with these people.I expect my liscenses to be granted if I have good reason and am complying with the law!!And if they have a problem to respond to me in a timely and civillised manner, not treat me or anyone else like some kind of 3rd class dirt!!:mad:
For your information HK,I and am now heartily sick of typing it,but for you I'll do it again...I tried all the approved,talking and negoiating routes and got nowhere,apart from stalling and shoddy treatment..
Or have members of my fammily made out to be some kind of danger to the public,because it suits somone who couldnt be botherd to do their job right,or had some sort of agenda,personal or from on high!!
Now thats my experiance..and I dont remember YOU being around to observe and comment when these events happened..So take it or leave it !!

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Except it's not on the PTB side of things, it's on the specific side of what the AGS publicly refer to as "problem superintentendents" and some higher-ups (and it looks like that includes the commissioner).

lets call a spade a spade..The problem cheif supers were all 18 of all the districts...And there seems to be a distinct reluctance on their part to fix these problem officers...Why??

If it was all the PTB, we wouldn't even be having this conversation Grizz.
And I don't see the point in sabotaging the one official avenue we had into the PTB because you've a problem with one small group of people. It's just turned a difficult but managable problem into a complete mess where nobody is talking to us officially anymore.

Sounds like they havent been talking to us for a longwhile since 2008,or there were a bunch of shooters in a DOJ office yelling at each other as who was to be cheif,and the DOJ reps walked away to do somthing useful.

Yeah, right. Because the last ten years have taught us that that works, hasn't it.
I mean, all the time, effort, money and risk in taking the Commissioner to court in Dunne wasn't wasted, it cost the Minister a whole hour to draft a few lines in the misc.... you know, I can't help but think I might have said this before.

Talking on aindividual personal level, not in the great NARGC conspircy level.

No, they're not, that'd be the IFA

.

And when was the last valueable input from that venerable organisation into Irish shooting matters,or even on the FCP??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???
Maybe if there " EU Grants for farmers owning guns" they might get moving???:rolleyes:

And as to coherent, the bodies on the FCP were coherent. First time, possibly ever, we had every NGB in the country tied into the one place, all standing in a unified front... and then the NARGC went to court.
I'd rather we'd tried the unified front for a while longer myself.

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???

Grizz, you weren't there. With the exception of shouty people in the NASRPC (who'd written the rules that governed how they would be represented), every NGB in the target side of things was getting along, working together. I'd never seen that before, but there it was, ICPSA, NTSA, SSAI, gun dealers, insurers, all sitting round a table working as a group.
And then the NARGC went to court.

No indeed I wasnt,all I could do is build a picture from all the posts here over the months about this organisation,and it sounded like it wasnt as rosy as you make it out to be???

They will?
Who told you that one, and did they try to sell you a bridge too?
The NARGC just spent months badmouthing the people in the DoJ from the Principal Officer on down, just dragged them into a huge series of court cases, and just embarressed the Minister into answering odd PQs from Sinn Fein on firearms law.

Do you think that that kind of thing will (a) help build a working relationship; or (b) poison an already existing working relationship?

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??

Already covered in departmental overheads. Room exists, room's lit, regardless of whether they're in it or not. DoJ and AGS personnel are already paid, regardless of being in the FCP meeting or not. The NGB personnel are all volunteers.
Yeah. They'd have to sit down there with a chap who just spent months attacking them in the press, and I doubt very much that they'd think that would be a productive use of their time anymore.

OK,then the elephant in the room question...Why... doesnt... it.... exist .....today???

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??

meathshooter1

FROM the NARGC


All Firearms Applicants Affected by the Recent High Court Settlement.


FROM: Des Crofton, National Director, NARGC.

I wish to confirm that the NARGC will host a meeting at 2pm sharp in the Mullingar Park Hotel, Mullingar on Sunday, February 19th 2012 for all those affected by the recent High Court settlement i.e.:-

Category 1 Persons.
1.) All persons who pursued a District Court Appeal and also a Judicial Review application (168 in total), will have their applications for restricted firearm certificates reconsidered by the appropriate licensing authority, who is either the Commissioner of An Garda Siochana or his lawful delegate, (that being an officer of a rank not below Chief Superintendent) with a full right of appeal against any further unfavorable decision to the District Court.

Category 2 Persons
2.) Any person who does not fall into category 1 and who was the subject of a refusal to grant a restricted firearm certificate by a Chief Superintendent and who did not appeal the decision to refuse, is acknowledged under the terms of the settlement negotiated, to be entitled to re-apply for a firearm certificate. Many hundreds of pre-existing firearm certificate holders will fall into this category and this was a crucial element of the settlement the objective of which was to serve the interest of all recreational Target Shooters and not just Clients of these offices.

Category 3 Persons
3.) Category 3 persons are a small number of persons whom the offices of William Egan & Associates represent, but also include individuals who have retained the services of a different Solicitor, but on whose behalf Judicial Review applications had not been pursued either by ourselves for our Clients (for whatsoever reason) or by their own Solicitors. We are presently considering the legal positions of such persons, who as matters stand, are in a less advantageous position than those persons who belong in categories 1 and 2. Suffice to say that these offices and the NARGC are committed to ensuring that category 3 persons are treated in exactly the same manner as category 1 & 2 persons. In other words both us and the NARGC will continue to press for the refusal to be expunged from the record, and that category 3 persons have an application considered afresh in accordance with law as is the position with category 1 and 2 persons. For those of our Clients who fit into this category of persons, we will be writing to them individually, and we will shortly publish particulars of the service we propose to provide to all persons who fall within this category, to ensure equality of treatment of all applicants. Protection of the interests of this category of person may well require the pursuit of further legal action. Given the fact that the State has lost every legal challenge it has faced in the NARGC supported cases, it would not be unreasonable to expect that any further legal action as may be required to protect and vindicate the interests of category 3 persons will be brought to quite a swift conclusion.

Category 4 Persons
4.) Persons heretofore holders of a firearm certificate in respect of a restricted handgun as of the 19th of November 2008, and who did not apply for a firearm certificate under the new licensing regime, continue to be eligible to apply for a firearm certificate for their restricted handgun. Their applications need to be carefully constructed to optimize their prospects of securing the grant of a restricted firearm certificate.

The purpose of the meeting will be to provide a briefing for all the above categories of people who are affected and to provide further clarifications through questions and answers. The meeting will give clear direction to applicants in relation to their applications and also in relation to their rights.

The integrity of the firearms licensing system (and of the Gardai at senior rank) has suffered a severe body blow. It is clear from the revelations in the High Court that the Gardai cannot be trusted to operate the system on their own. Judge Hedigan focused on the Garda admissions of failure in the system to keep proper or any records and the fact that applications had been altered by a Senior officer. He declared the system to be “flawed”. Clearly, an alternative arrangement must be found, if for no other reason than to eliminate the necessity for a queue of legal challenges to continue with the consequential implications for the taxpayer.

Unfortunately, the High Court settlement has not bought tuppence worth of peace in relation to how the Gardai operate the licensing system and NARGC is determined to continue the battle in the courts until someone in the political establishment engages with us with a view to bringing forward a lasting peace. Neither current DOJ officials nor any member of the Garda Siochana are capable of commanding the trust and respect necessary to deliver that peace. Certainly, NARGC will not again sit with such people.


Des Crofton
National Director

BattleCorp

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.

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

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.


In fairness, if we can't get a working relationship between the various NGBs, how can we ever hope to have a working relationship with the powers that be?????

knockon

hk wrote: »

As I said before I do not mistrust the CS's involved, rather my opinion is that they were pressured into getting rid of Handguns by a previous minister. I do not believe that pissing off the people you have to work with will further your interests.

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!

meathshooter1

FROM: Des Crofton, National Director, NARGC.

I wish to confirm that the NARGC will host a meeting at 2pm sharp in the Mullingar Park Hotel, Mullingar on Sunday, February 19th 2012 for all those affected by the recent High Court settlement i.e.:-