Limerick District Court Appeal success again!!

daveob007

SPARKS Know what you mean,we have been over this so many times our heads hurt from banging them against brick walls.
restricted list and guidelines need to be looked at alright,guidelines should be black and white and not open to various outcomes by different districts.
not trying to open any cans of worms here,just curious.

Sparks

To be honest Dave, the first thing we'd have to do is get our own house in order, which means the NARGC getting back in line with the other governing bodies and not going off on its own again. Until that happens, we're never going to be able to look at the other stuff and even then we might still be stuffed because nobody in the DoJ was willing to sit down with them last I heard (which was several months ago) because of the things they were happily saying in the Digest or anywhere else that would print it. That burned a lot of bridges that we would need if we were to even try to get back to square one.

Tackleberry.

Sparks wrote: »

To be honest Dave, the first thing we'd have to do is get our own house in order, which means the NARGC getting back in line with the other governing bodies and not going off on its own again. Until that happens, we're never going to be able to look at the other stuff and even then we might still be stuffed because nobody in the DoJ was willing to sit down with them last I heard (which was several months ago) because of the things they were happily saying in the Digest or anywhere else that would print it. That burned a lot of bridges that we would need if we were to even try to get back to square one.

It would be great to have the different bodies sort there differences out so that they could get back to the table and chip away at sorting out our difficultlys within target shooting, as it is now I'm guessing no one is gaining anything anywhere in any shooting disipline/sport..?

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

and saying a .22 is not a military round is plain wrong, AGS.

A couple of special forces have used it for decades.

Dont even have to go to SF units using it.It has been used as a training round by.
The UK,Germany,[East&West] USA,Switzerland,Russia,thats off the top of my head
It also has been issued as a personal defence weapon round...In Northern Ireland to the UDR,especially to their female personel ,the "Green Finches" during the troubles,it was a .22lr Walther PPK style handgun.
Both the gun and the ammo round have a NATO designitation supply code as well.Which makes it an offical NATO military round too.
So to say that the lowly .22 is a civillian round only is bull manure these days.

Sparks

Tackleberry. wrote: »

as it is now I'm guessing no one is gaining anything anywhere in any shooting disipline/sport..?

Pretty much. You see a few low-level meetings reported as great events every now and then, but in real terms? Nothing.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

That's not quite what the story is, Grizz had it right above, the DC has no legal authority to grant costs in these cases anymore, there's no "disallowing" involved, they simply don't have a choice in the matter.

Original thread is here.I'll leave that to the others who have the receipts, but expect four-figure sums if it's just a DC appeal.

.

thanks for the link, sparks.

I'm not pretending to be a legal eagle, but I remember the finding in the link was a result of another case (something to do with a (CIE -owned) hotel in the north west?)

It does relate to shooter's appeals, but it is a general thing.

Again, that doesn't make it right.

I really can't believe those politicos got their costs from the Mahon tribunal, which found they had acted corruptly (and they were cleared by a criminal court before the tribunal findings could be released this week)

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

To be honest Dave, the first thing we'd have to do is get our own house in order, which means the NARGC getting back in line with the other governing bodies and not going off on its own again.

I'm not anti NARGC but why don't you engage with the authorities without the NARGC if they don't want to take part in discussions?

Surely some contact must be better than nothing happening?

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

I'm not pretending to be a legal eagle, but I remember the finding in the link was a result of another case (something to do with a (CIE -owned) hotel in the north west?)

Nope, it arose from one of the firearms appeal cases. Someone else mentioned on here a case relating to hotels and other kinds of licencing arrangements, but the ruling is actually very specific and only applies to firearms licences (other kinds of licences have their own Acts and those Acts permit DCs to grant costs; the Firearms Act doesn't do so and so we're stuffed).

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not anti NARGC but why don't you engage with the authorities without the NARGC if they don't want to take part in discussions?

(a) Not my call;
(b) Like I said elsewhere, the NARGC's big enough to sink the whole thing (but not big enough to fix things on their own) so it's not really a viable option;
(c) Last time I remember something similar to this was when the NASRPC complained that they didn't have a seat at the FCP table (they were represented through the SSAI) and that led to an end run attempt that we've talked about at length before. A rerun of that could cause havoc.

Surely some contact must be better than nothing happening?

A part of me says you're right and feck the NARGC, they chose their path. Thing is, everyone would have to agree to that and act with the DoJ and Minister to cut the NARGC out of the loop completely. You couldn't just go on without them -- nobody would sit at the table if the NARGC seat was just empty, not when the NARGC was saying nasty things about them in the media and had the option to just show up at the next meeting when nobody in their right mind would think they were acting in good faith. And the thought of everyone acting to cut out the largest group in the community is one that is very unsettling.

A cynical person might think that that's exactly what people were counting on.

Personally, I've given up on the idea of us fixing anything for the next few years at least. We're not going to get traction from this Minister, key personnel have changed in the DoJ and we'd have to rebuild relationships there (good luck with that given the last few years of history), priorities for the government boil down to money for the foreseeable future, and all we'd be is an easy target for a crackdown if we were incautious in our lobbying. I don't see much light in that tunnel.

Basicly, we're screwed, years of work have been thrown away, a very promising long-term future thrashed, and worst of all it was done by ourselves, not the government or the gardai or any of those we'd think of as the usual suspects, and we got nothing out of it in the end and the odds are very high given our defamation laws that we'll never be able to tell the general public exactly what happened and who did what.

rowa

Why does it have to be "either or" ? if an organisation such as the nargc decides to head down the court route, what precludes another org or group of orgs from sitting down with the Doj/coppers ? it happened recently happened with the unions and the croke park deal, some played ball and some didn't.
Anyway with some of the underhand carry on the supers/chief supers went on with (and no reprimands) you might as well have talked to yourself, it was clear they wanted c/f pistols and practical gone as a media stunt after the murders in limerick.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Why does it have to be "either or" ? if an organisation such as the nargc decides to head down the court route, what precludes another org or group of orgs from sitting down with the Doj/coppers ?

Because they (the DoJ and the other powers that be) have no interest in sitting down with half the community and working out things through the FCP route while the other half takes them to court. They don't want the risk that some FOI-able statement to one half could stuff up the court cases with the other half and on top of that, they don't particularly see it as their job to both get sued and sit in open talks on the law with the same community at the same time.

Honestly, I can't blame them, I'd have made the same decision, but I'd have used more profanity when talking about it.

it happened recently happened with the unions and the croke park deal, some played ball and some didn't.

You know what the difference is between the shooting community and the unions?

The government need something from the unions. They need diddly-squat from us and have the completely legal power required to shut all of us down in the morning if they wanted to, and they know it, and they've done it before and they know they can do it again.

Do you think if the government could draft a Temporary Shut-up-and-get-back-to-work Order the way they can draft a Temporary Custody Order that the unions would even exist?

Anyway with some of the underhand carry on the supers/chief supers went on with (and no reprimands) you might as well have talked to yourself, it was clear they wanted c/f pistols and practical gone as a media stunt after the murders in limerick.

They didn't care about c/f and practical. They wanted guns gone. Not any one specific kind. And if you think the Commissioner and the Minister enjoyed being told by the Supreme Court in Dunne that there was something they weren't allowed to do and that they would never react to that, then you don't understand people very well.
Truth is, over 99% of the cases had no problems. We had problem supers, we had support from the FPU in trying to fix that but no tools that could do it in the short term and we got hammered because we made ourselves easy targets and easy tools for muppets like Deasy to use and we're now paying the price and will be for years to come.

And the depressing thing? Nobody learnt anything. Odds are we'll see all this happen again when we get the next opportunity to improve our lot.

Don't believe me? Go down to the club. Find some random shooter who doesn't sit on an NGB committee and ask them something specific about how the sport is organised or what the law is. Dollars to doughnuts, they won't know the answer because they don't care enough to learn. Now ask them if the olympic shooters screwed over everyone else or if the FCP was led up the garden path or if FLAG got pistols back for everyone or any one of the hundred other urban legends we have, and observe first-hand that the old adage about lies, truth, boots and world travel is completely correct.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Nope, it arose from one of the firearms appeal cases. Someone else mentioned on here a case relating to hotels and other kinds of licencing arrangements, but the ruling is actually very specific and only applies to firearms licences (other kinds of licences have their own Acts and those Acts permit DCs to grant costs; the Firearms Act doesn't do so and so we're stuffed).

Correct, but the hotel was a landmark case with widespread implications which was used to explain the firearms costs ruling, I think.

Ok, I've actually gone back and read it. The hotel case was used to say that the DC does not have an inherent jurisdiction and the judge goes on to say that the firearms act is silent on costs.

Basically, the DC does not have the power to award costs unless that power is given explicitly.

yubabill1

Just another thought, I think it's positive that the OP got his grants through so quickly after the DC hearing.

A sign of some movement, however glacial, maybe?

tomtucker81

yubabill1 wrote: »

Just another thought, I think it's positive that the OP got his grants through so quickly after the DC hearing.

A sign of some movement, however glacial, maybe?

I'd say it was quick because the D.C. had ruled in the op's favour. I doubt it means you'll see any improvement in the waiting times for applications in general.
Problem supers is an issue though, there are many that see handguns, moderators, and even hunting rifles as simply dangerous or sinister, and refuse applications.
The fact is there are many men and women who are supers or c . supers(and firearms officers for that matter) that have no interest or proper knowledge of firearms and their uses, and dealing with applications is a nuisance to them.

For example a previous super in my area was a shooting man, and knew his stuff. The new one hasnt a clue.(and the firearm officer said as much).

Anyway, I would say the fact that the chief refused the op was more a case of , well im not granting it, if he wants he can go to court and a judge can grant it. That way of anything goes wrong its not me or AGS that granted it.

I think there needa to be a dedicated unit for applications, with gardai who have an interest in firearms or know different calibres, accessories etc and know properly why each would he wanted. Imo it would make such applications more straightforward.

catastrophy

tomtucker81 wrote: »

Anyway, I would say the fact that the chief refused the op was more a case of , well im not granting it, if he wants he can go to court and a judge can grant it. That way of anything goes wrong its not me or AGS that granted it.

You've hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, granting officers are exposed and act as such. Until such a time as there is a coherent and cohesive licencing system, this is how things will operate.

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Just another thought, I think it's positive that the OP got his grants through so quickly after the DC hearing.

A sign of some movement, however glacial, maybe?

Not really, he was pulled on it in various cases in the last three years by counsel as he delayed issuing them three years ago by six weeks to me and Knockon.On top of the five months we were sitting around without firearms waiting for a court date from Dec/Jan 09/10.:mad:
As he was trying to appeal the judges decision to the circut court! !!
I'm no lawyer,but I could have told them that the circut court has no bearing whatsoever on the firearms laws or any mention in the firearms acts,and apprently this decision is now confirmed in a recent high court judgement on this matter just to prove that particular point in the firearms laws.Its the district court or the high court for decisions on points of law,and thats it!
Anyway the judge refused leave of appeal to the CC on those very grounds.

I logged over 30 phone calls between me and my solicitor to the cheifs office in that time period to get him to issue the paperwork.:mad:

By the time another case was heard in Sept 10 the judge commented that this was totally unsatisfactory behaviour on the part of AGS in unnecessary and vexatious delaying of issuing the liscenses in the Limerick division and that he was to issue all liscenses within a reasonable time frame once they had been granted.

daveob007

I have always though that it was stupid for one super/chief super to make a decision on any application,as last post stated half of them have no idea about shooting/firearms or simply hate anyone having one.
I would have preferred a panel of 3 or 4 people dedicated to the issue of firearms certs,some with an interest and some with knowledge.

rowa

daveob007 wrote: »

I have always though that it was stupid for one super/chief super to make a decision on any application,as last post stated half of them have no idea about shooting/firearms or simply hate anyone having one.
I would have preferred a panel of 3 or 4 people dedicated to the issue of firearms certs,some with an interest and some with knowledge.

The firearm licencing system seems to be a relic from the civil war days, after all it was drafted in 1925. An attitude of mistrust towards people looking for firearms was probably encouraged within the gardai. A much better system is the german system, the only real input the police have is a security and background check, the rest is done by a civilian staffed office.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

The firearm licencing system seems to be a relic from the civil war days, after all it was drafted in 1925. An attitude of mistrust towards people looking for firearms was probably encouraged within the gardai. A much better system is the german system, the only real input the police have is a security and background check, the rest is done by a civilian staffed office.

Their equivlient of the county council handles it all,and TBH the police have little to do if anything to do with it even on backround checks.About the only time the police get involved is if it is an application for concealed carry of a live gun for self protection,and the approved police firearms training.
For that you need an extreme good reason with clear and present danger to your life.
How ever, thing is the German firearms pre requsites put our system in the lassiez faire leauge.With written oral and practical tests.But once you have the liscense you have it for life,pending doing something daft,like DUI,or even tax evasion these days.

knockon

Half-cocked wrote: »

And hopefully you won't go through all this again in 3 years time. Just out of interest when they arrive let us all know if the new licences are valid from the date of issue, or from the date the old ones expired. Wouldn't put it past them to back date the licences just out of pure badness.

Information as promised .....

Both Restricted licences arrive this morning. Both have an expiry date of Oct 31st 2015 which means they have back dated the issue back last year when the last one expired. The 9mm has had its ammo reduced from 1000 to 500 rounds and the .22 as been reduced from 500 to 300 rounds. In the last 46 months I have been without my firearms for over 20 of those months. I have already expressed my opinion that I believe I am absolutely wasting my time communicating with the Chiefs office therefore I have referred it to my Legal representative for further action.

BattleCorp

knockon wrote: »

Information as promised .....

The 9mm has had its ammo reduced from 1000 to 500 rounds and the .22 as been reduced from 500 to 300 rounds.

300 rounds is next to useless when it comes to target shooting. I'd use that in one afternoon practicing.

You can't even buy one box of federal bulk .22 because they are sold in a box of 525.

That's crazy. Seriously.

yubabill1

Sunday Times is reporting this morning that

"The state has agreed to meet the legal costs of the 168 people who took legal challenges. The state has so far received 22 bills from Egan (the solicitor who took the cases) according to a letter sent to the Dail's Public Accounts Committee by Orla McPartlin, a chief superintendent."

Article also says licences granted to people who did not take cases, bringing the number to over 200.

Well done to all.

ROSSKI

yubabill1 wrote: »

Sunday Times is reporting this morning that

"The state has agreed to meet the legal costs of the 168 people who took legal challenges. The state has so far received 22 bills from Egan (the solicitor who took the cases) according to a letter sent to the Dail's Public Accounts Committee by Orla McPartlin, a chief superintendent."

Article also says licences granted to people who did not take cases, bringing the number to over 200.

Well done to all.

Is there a link to above I can't seem to find one ?

Does this mean that it will cover costs inc. district court costs as well or what's the story ?

yubabill1

ROSSKI wrote: »

Is there a link to above I can't seem to find one ?

Does this mean that it will cover costs inc. district court costs as well or what's the story ?

ST is a subscription site. I'm not a subscriber, sorry - saw article in hard copy.

Pretty sure DC costs will be allowed. Seems anomalous, but this is Ireland....

richiedel123

As far as I know (and I could be wrong) the only thing thats covered is them168 cases that were in the high court. All other cases will have to be paid for by each person appealing

Grizzly 45

Unless the HC grants in their awards the total costs of both DC and HC in each case.
But it is doubtful they will make a ruling allowing new cases that are successful in the DC their costs.The DC cant award costs ,that needs a statue law change.
ASFIK how they do award costs in civil cases and torts,is to build the costs into the overall award of the case where there is monetary gain.

rowa

Take the super/chief super to the Small claims court ? You are out of pocket through no fault of your own.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Take the super/chief super to the Small claims court ? You are out of pocket through no fault of your own.

If you managed to reclaim costs through the small claims court like that, you'd be the first, so far as I know.
Somehow I doubt the court would even allow you to try...

Grizzly 45

The small claims only handles goods and services that are faulty.

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The small claims only handles goods and services that are faulty.

A f**ked up application is a service thats faulty, super didn't do his job. If willie egan is taking a case for costs will the people who paid be reimbursed ?