District Court Judgement

Roundpack

A written District Court judgement, certainly worth a read.

http://www.nasrpc.ie/hot-news-1/districtcourtjudgementdecember2013

Sparks

Oh ****...



...and we're hosed.

Well, enjoy the pistols lads, I don't think we're going to have them much longer with judgements like that entering into the record.

BattleCorp

Roundpack wrote: »

A written District Court judgement, certainly worth a read.

http://www.nasrpc.ie/hot-news-1/districtcourtjudgementdecember2013

It's crazy that the man in this case was refused his licence incorrectly and yet he isn't allowed to recover his costs.

That's some unfair law.

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

Oh ****...



...and we're hosed.

Well, enjoy the pistols lads, I don't think we're going to have them much longer with judgements like that entering into the record.

That'd be all guns so Sparks, not just pistols.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

That'd be all guns so Sparks, not just pistols.

Yup, but they won't ban everything at once, or we'd all shout together.
But now we have a legal judgement saying we're all one bad hair day away from using our legally held firearms on ourselves or others; whereas before now we only had the Gardai saying those guns might be stolen by criminals.

This is not an improvement.

rowa

The court didn't hide its contempt towards the way brooks and the chief super went about things.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

The court didn't hide its contempt towards the way brooks and the chief super went about things.

Doesn't matter - the court can't have much effect on them, but statements like that coming from the bench can have a massive effect on us.

yubabill1

The appeal was allowed, despite the concerns.

Reference the mass shootings by headcases in the US vs. the dearth of same in Canada, with similar gun ownership rates.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

The appeal was allowed, despite the concerns.

This one was.
The next one has this as a precedent, including the concerns, and if you think they won't be stressed by Ballistics in the future, you're not paying attention.

Reference the mass shootings by headcases in the US vs. the dearth of same in Canada, with similar gun ownership rates.

One of these days, I'm going to meet a firearms owner who doesn't think that logic and reason are the sole driving forces in court cases and the media, and when I do, I'll know I'm talking to a solicitor, a barrister, or someone who's had way too much time spent around either the law or the press.

I mean, some of the things we think about court cases is just ridiculous nonsense. We think of "sure things" when court cases are never sure and always entail risk. We think we can sue sitting Ministers into changing announced policy even though that would be career suicide for any Minister and they tend to be averse to that.

And worst of all, we think we can embarrass the state into not taking court cases against us if we just rack up enough money spent on those cases, which is the funniest notion yet, but since you won't believe my opinion (hey, I'm just an engineer, not a barrister), take the word of McGarr Solicitors on the matter instead:

• One thing that strikes me about that #thisweek interview re the #CRC was the reference to the threat of going to court.
• If we did X we might end up in court and then if we lost it might cost €100Ks”
• This is often trotted out in discussions of the helplessness of the state in the face of paying money to management.
• And yet, the State actually does go to court very regularly. The difference is, it goes to court, wasting huge sums to defend no hoper cases
• The State does not fear court.Here’s Ms. Justice Irvine quite recently on the state’s willingness to deny the obvious: http://t.co/7IrbDcQgxg
• In that case a child was catastrophically injured at birth, requiring critical care for the rest of its life. The State fought for 5 years.
• It isn’t just in Medical Negligence cases that the State uses its willingness to force people to run the risk of costs.
• I’ve run cases against the state in commercial activity, in judicial review, in minor PI.At every level, there is no fear of fighting a case

I've highlighted the bit that stuck in my head. A child was brain-damaged at birth by medical negligence, leaving it needing medical care for the rest of its life, and the state fought to not accept liability there for five years. Today, we saw another example, where a woman abused as a child had to fight through the High Court, the Supreme Court and then out to the European Courts in order to get the state to accept their responsibility for having appointed the teacher who abused her.

And we think that people who'd do that without blushing would even blink at spending taxpayers money to fight firearm licences when the average member of the public is usually shocked to learn anyone can own firearms at all in Ireland and is often rather suspicious of why they're owned?

/headdesk

Grizzly 45

They cant have it both ways...We are in Ireland and when anyone on the pro gun side of the arguement brings up any reference to the EU or the US
.It is immediately dismissed as "We are not in that juristriction,and its irrevelant to a case in Ireland." Ergo the same argument can be made in this case.Whatever happens in other jurstrictions outside the Irish Republic cant have any bearing on us deciding what our law is.

The only thing that CAN have influence here is EU directives,and thats because we signed up and are ala carte EU card carrying members,as we arent too hasty in implimenting those when it suits.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

They cant have it both ways

Er, what? Have you not been watching the news for the last forty years? :pac:
Seriously, it doesn't matter how unfair we think it is, that has no bearing on what happens in court or Dail. Hell, if it did, do you think Louise O'Keefe would have had to go to the european courts?

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Er, what? Have you not been watching the news for the last forty years? :pac:
Seriously, it doesn't matter how unfair we think it is, that has no bearing on what happens in court or Dail. Hell, if it did, do you think Louise O'Keefe would have had to go to the european courts?

Them and us type situations is never a good way to do anything.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Them and us type situations is never a good way to do anything.

Where have I heard that before? :pac: