AGS Behaviour on licensing same as current goings on?

dc99

Has anyone seen the similarities in the way the AGS have conducted themselves and apparent policy of opposing and refusing to apply the legislation correctly regarding gun licensing and comparing it to the other miss practices reported in the press at the moment.

From our sports point of view there should be an investigation here as well.

Comments?

Cass

There are similarities no doubt. The thing is, and this is my own view point so feel free to disagree, with all the crap that has been found out, the crap that hasn't been made public yet, the interim Commissioner, and new Minister, the focus is going to be on "bigger" issues.

So while there are problems, injustices, unfairness, etc. in firearm legislation/application the fact is we have legislation and as such we can "tick along" until such a time as there is time to address it.

At the moment the new Minister will have to face into a sh*t storm left over by her predecessor. Her tasks are going to include cleaning up the Gardaí, uncovering alleged corruption, re-assuring the public in the Gardaí and her new office, not to mention the other daily aspects of the job that need done weekly.

We are going to be so down on that list that i'd be surprised if we are even on it.

cookimonster

I don't think that there is an orchestrated campaign from the brass down to the front line of the GS. This is not to say that there's not a general consensus at the policy makers level of wanton change to existing regulations and policies.
I believe what some people are experienceing in relation to firearms is the long lasting effects of the reorganization and restructure of the GS across the nation.
When Kenny made his statement yesterday he went onto waffle about lower crime rates etc etc, the Guards in the street will tell you this is bullsh*t and it is a manipulation and massaging of facts and figures. The GS are struggling to keep up with crime fighting and its related paperwork let alone the processing of legally held firearms.

Grizzly 45

It could be intresting times ahead alright,and not just on the shooting front.

Considering we now have three women in charge of our law enforcement branches of the state.
The garda cheif comissioner,the attorney general and the minister for justice.

Only time will tell whether the ladies make a better job of our situation or a worse hames of things.Could they do any worse than whats gone before?

yubabill1

Cass wrote: »

There are similarities no doubt. The thing is, and this is my own view point so feel free to disagree, with all the crap that has been found out, the crap that hasn't been made public yet, the interim Commissioner, and new Minister, the focus is going to be on "bigger" issues.

AGS are being dragged out of the 1970's slowly but surely. Very few here will remember the "Heavy Gang" and the fear they imbued in anyone who even knew anyone who had anything to do with them.

AGS were given carte blanche by the politicians during the Troubles to "solve" the emergency situation. with the effective dissolution of Military Intelligence in Parkgate St. and AGS lacking an officer corps, things got a bit out of hand.

to cut a long story short, this led to a maverick element in AGS which rose to top ranks.

You know the rest.

German pointer

yubabill1 wrote: »

AGS are being dragged out of the 1970's slowly but surely. Very few here will remember the "Heavy Gang" and the fear they imbued in anyone who even knew anyone who had anything to do with them.

AGS were given carte blanche by the politicians during the Troubles to "solve" the emergency situation. with the effective dissolution of Military Intelligence in Parkgate St. and AGS lacking an officer corps, things got a bit out of hand.

to cut a long story short, this led to a maverick element in AGS which rose to top ranks.

You know the rest.

Its the same parties in power now as then with probably the same thinking.

TicTacDoc

I put in a license on a restricted rifle, they have not even sent me an acknowledgement that they are in receipt of it. I sent a letter queriing the Sergent that porocess them and has ignored it.

The attitude of AGS is if they don't understand it, they don't want to know about it.

juice1304

TicTacDoc wrote: »

I put in a license on a restricted rifle, they have not even sent me an acknowledgement that they are in receipt of it. I sent a letter queriing the Sergent that porocess them and has ignored it.

The attitude of AGS is if they don't understand it, they don't want to know about it.

Just ring the secretary who will be dealing with it which in your case will be the chief supers, She will sort it out. The same thing happened to me for something similar she was very helpful and sorted the whole mess out within a few days, it had been going on for months. I have done this a few times. I rang her she asked me when could i come in for a meeting which was the next day and then it was processed for me. I don't bother chasing the people in my local station anymore as i never get anywhere.

TicTacDoc

i have found through previous dealings with AGS its best to put everything in writing. Conversations that happened months and years ago are not on the record and can't be called upon in the future. Written letters sent and received are on the record and offer as direct evidence.

g00167015

TicTacDoc wrote: »

i have found through previous dealings with AGS its best to put everything in writing. Conversations that happened months and years ago are not on the record and can't be called upon in the future. Written letters sent and received are on the record and offer as direct evidence.

I can second that.

However, it's ironic that their printer seems to become faulty any time when a written explanation for unacceptable behaviour and/or breaches of the Garda Siochana Act or Garda Disciplinary Regulations or Data Protection Act or quite commonly the Firearms Act, regarding the processing and handling or an FAC application/renewal is requested by a perfectly law abiding citizen.


Also, be aware of your data protection rights........, they can often become important when you are being given the runaround by AGS.

TicTacDoc

g00167015 wrote: »

I can second that.

However, it's ironic that their printer seems to become faulty any time when a written explanation for unacceptable behaviour and/or breaches of the Garda Siochana Act or Garda Disciplinary Regulations or Data Protection Act or quite commonly the Firearms Act, regarding the processing and handling or an FAC application/renewal is requested by a perfectly law abiding citizen.


Also, be aware of your data protection rights........, they can often become important when you are being given the runaround by AGS.

ha! i can second that motion...!

g00167015

Touché :-)

Slick50

Cass wrote: »

We are going to be so down on that list that i'd be surprised if we are even on it.

We are on the list alright. FAC was a work in progress, at the behest of the AGS, because of their "concerns for public safety", prior to Shatter's departure. Though I'd say this file could be gathering a lot of dust, on the shelves of the DOJ, for some time.

TicTacDoc wrote: »

The attitude of AGS is if they don't understand it, they don't want to know about it.

They do understand it. What they didn't understand was, they were obliged to comply with the legislation too. Not as they felt like, depending on their personal attitude to firearms.

TicTacDoc wrote: »

i have found through previous dealings with AGS its best to put everything in writing.

That's a good theory. Any time I have submitted an FAC application, I have requested some form of acknowledgement of having done so. All I have ever recieved varied from looks of disdane to incredulity.

It is something I feel should be included in legislation, if/when they get around to reviewing it.

TicTacDoc

Slick50 wrote: »

It is something I feel should be included in legislation, if/when they get around to reviewing it.

Print your own copy or form of a receipt and DIRECT the member of AGS to sign it when you are giving in paperwork. That's what I do. They are public servants there are required to take direction from the public. We do forget this sometimes.

I use the following form (its partly from the application, but they sign it and keep it for themselves) always good to have your own evidence

Slick50

TicTacDoc wrote: »

DIRECT the member of AGS to sign it when you are giving in paperwork. That's what I do. They are public servants there are required to take direction from the public. We do forget this sometimes.

I use the following form (its partly from the application, but they sign it and keep it for themselves) always good to have your own evidence

It certainly is a good idea to have proof of submission. I find gardai are not very receptive to 'direction' from the general public. Maybe I'm not assertive enough.

Grizzly 45

Dont have to do that.Just get the name of the Garda on duty on the desk and note the time and date of your hand delivery.Anything of this event should be logged in the Station day desk log.

Sparks

Slick50 wrote: »

We are on the list alright. FAC was a work in progress, at the behest of the AGS, because of their "concerns for public safety", prior to Shatter's departure. Though I'd say this file could be gathering a lot of dust, on the shelves of the DOJ, for some time.

I'd love to see that list if you have a copy of it

And I think you might find that there's a difference between a "review" and "the Garda Commissioner directing the Minister for Justice to write a new law according to the Commissioner's wishes".

Also, with the Commissioner and Minister gone and the head of Ballistics going, who's left to push a ban agenda through the incredible ****storm that's breaking in the DoJ and AGS right now? I mean, seriously, do you think that the fallout has all finished with them now, that there will be no more changes, or that anyone who works there thinks that?

knockon

Sparks wrote: »

I'd love to see that list if you have a copy of it

And I think you might find that there's a difference between a "review" and "the Garda Commissioner directing the Minister for Justice to write a new law according to the Commissioner's wishes".

Also, with the Commissioner and Minister gone and the head of Ballistics going, who's left to push a ban agenda through the incredible ****storm that's breaking in the DoJ and AGS right now? I mean, seriously, do you think that the fallout has all finished with them now, that there will be no more changes, or that anyone who works there thinks that?

Purcell will be gone by the end of the week...

Sparks

Sure looks that way. There hasn't been this much upheaval in the DoJ and AGS... well, I can't remember a precedent firsthand and neither can many in the DoJ. Honestly, if we didn't have people actively poking at the giant rocks at the worst possible time you could think of, I'd have zero worries about reviews and would think the future had quite a bit of potential from the point of view of licencing and regulation for our sport.

However, the constant PQs and poking at politicians who are already in an election frenzy keeps bringing one image to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY-wsyZWoE4

yubabill1

Hope AGS become more like UK system, with independent oversight.

Shooters have got to be the biggest group of citizens to have face-to-face contact with Gardaí.

Maybe someone can think of another group?

I know motorists do, but they don't usually engage in conversation when having insurance/tax checked on the road.

If you see what I'm angling at.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Hope AGS become more like UK system, with independent oversight.

Er, maybe not. No central policing authority but an amalgam of overlapping bodies that grew organically over time into a hodge-podge? Serious scandals over the years from recording prisoner's conversations with their solicitors (ie. exactly what we're currently seeing our police charged with, amongst other things) to shooting unarmed innocent civilians on the tube because of mistaken identity? Serious questions raised over the training standards of their armed units?

Actually, I think we might be a lot like the UK system already...

Shooters have got to be the biggest group of citizens to have face-to-face contact with Gardaí.
Maybe someone can think of another group?

Yes. Criminals (even when convicted, they're still citizens, it's why it wouldn't be legal to just shoot them in the back of the head for non-payment of TV licence fees).

In terms of innocent citizens, yes, we'd be one of the biggest groups to have regular contact with them.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Er, maybe not. No central policing authority but an amalgam of overlapping bodies that grew organically over time into a hodge-podge? Serious scandals over the years from recording prisoner's conversations with their solicitors (ie. exactly what we're currently seeing our police charged with, amongst other things) to shooting unarmed innocent civilians on the tube because of mistaken identity? Serious questions raised over the training standards of their armed units?

Actually, I think we might be a lot like the UK system already...


QUOTE]

Thought for a minute you were talking about Ireland, there.

The difference I see is that in the UK, these things are dealt with, not covered up and left to fester for 40 years.

Ireland was under a state of emergency for many years, but we are at peace now, nominally. AGS focus is now on criminals and subversives are relegated to priority number 2.

The public tolerated the behaviour of AGS under emergency legislation for good reasons, but we all expected a return to normality (no-one foresaw the rise of drug abuse) after the peace process.

Independent oversight is the way to go IMHO.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Independent oversight is the way to go IMHO.

I doubt anyone at all disagrees with you; though how that oversight is done will make or break the idea here I suspect.

I just don't think we should look at any particular country and say "They're what we should be like". Take the best bits from lots of places and use them, certainly, but when you just want to be country X, you have the problems that (a) you're not people from country X and culture is a massive part of this kind of thing; (b) you don't have the budget of country X; and (c) country X has problems of its own.

BattleCorp

You know that there are serious problems when law abiding shooters are viewing the Gardai as 'the enemy'.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

You know that there are serious problems when law abiding shooters are viewing the Gardai as 'the enemy'.

Yes, but there's some hope to be gathered in the observation that even the most outspoken proponents of that view qualify it to exclude the vast majority of the rank and file gardai and limit it to certain high-ranking members of the force with decision-making authority under the law.

It's not a huge amount of hope, but every little counts...

Slick50

Sparks wrote: »

I'd love to see that list if you have a copy of it

So it wasn't being worked on? What are all them posts you have been puting up about ministers questions re: FAC's.

Sparks wrote: »

And I think you might find that there's a difference between a "review" and "the Garda Commissioner directing the Minister for Justice to write a new law according to the Commissioner's wishes".

Where did I say that? But, then, how was the 'ban agenda', you mention below being pursued.

Sparks wrote: »

Also, with the Commissioner and Minister gone and the head of Ballistics going, who's left to push a ban agenda through the incredible ****storm that's breaking in the DoJ and AGS right now? I mean, seriously, do you think that the fallout has all finished with them now, that there will be no more changes, or that anyone who works there thinks that?

So that's it, FAC legislation is set in stone forevermore?

You seem to have jumped to a lot of incorrect conclusions in your haste to the keyboard.

Sparks

Slick50 wrote: »

So it wasn't being worked on? What are all them posts you have been puting up about ministers questions re: FAC's.

The posts saying that the worries didn't actually have any evidence at all behind them you mean?

Where did I say that? But, then, how was the 'ban agenda', you mention below being pursued.

Some folks in the AGS definitely would like to see us gone. What I was saying was that they might want that... but that doesn't mean they're going to get that.

So that's it, FAC legislation is set in stone forevermore?

Nope. Pity we don't keep that in mind more often, we'd have had pistols in the late 90s...

However, while no legislation is ever set in stone and hasn't been during the last two thousand years or so, paper being so much easier to use; that doesn't mean that it changes on a whim overnight with no process...

Slick50

Sparks wrote: »

The posts saying that the worries didn't actually have any evidence at all behind them you mean?

Is that why you were posting them? That is not the impression I got from statements like...

Alan Shatter (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Defence; Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 534, 570 and 601 together.
In light of public safety concerns highlighted by An Garda Síochána and difficulties in the interpretation of the legislation expressed by members of the judiciary, my Department is currently examining key policy, legislative, administrative and other issues relating to firearms licensing in conjunction with An Garda Síochána. I expect to receive and consider a report in relation to these matters within 2 months. When I have considered that report I will consider what further action is necessary in relation to the firearms licensing system, including the proposal from interest groups for an examination of relevant administrative issues by the Garda Inspectorate.

Sparks wrote: »

Some folks in the AGS definitely would like to see us gone. What I was saying was that they might want that... but that doesn't mean they're going to get that.

Hopefully not. But pretending it is not a possibility, so there is no need to be vigilant, only makes it more likely, and all the easier for it to become so.

Sparks wrote: »

Nope. Pity we don't keep that in mind more often, we'd have had pistols in the late 90s...

So what is your point, when you say the commissioner and the minister are gone, and the head of balistics going?

Sparks wrote: »

However, while no legislation is ever set in stone and hasn't been during the last two thousand years or so, paper being so much easier to use; that doesn't mean that it changes on a whim overnight with no process...

I didn't say it does. (or is the turn of phrase what's bothering you.)

I don't know why you have taken issue with my post, but you seem to be contradicting yourself at every hands turn

Cass

Slick50 wrote: »

We are on the list alright. FAC was a work in progress, at the behest of the AGS, because of their "concerns for public safety", prior to Shatter's departure. Though I'd say this file could be gathering a lot of dust, on the shelves of the DOJ, for some time.

Can you explain what FAC stands for please. There are so many acronyms i'm finding it hard to keep track.

As for any proposals. They are most definitely sitting on a shelf, gathering dust and as such we should shut up and let the erupting sh*tstorm pass us by rather than stick our head up for an eye full.

Like a dog in a bad mood. Don't poke it.

Slick50 wrote: »

So it wasn't being worked on? What are all them posts you have been puting up about ministers questions re: FAC's.

There is that FAC term again.

Proposals were most likely being done up however as they never saw the light of day and the "coalition" knew about them 5 months in advance of the scare mongering i have to wonder.

So that's it, FAC legislation is set in stone forevermore?

Think you're misreading the post, guy.

Slick50 wrote: »

Is that why you were posting them? That is not the impression I got from statements like...

As above.

Hopefully not. But pretending it is not a possibility, so there is no need to be vigilant, only makes it more likely, and all the easier for it to become so.

It's always a possibility, but as i've said numerous times there is a time and place to fight your corner. Before was not the appropriate time and now is definitely not the time.

You seem to have jumped to a lot of incorrect conclusions in your haste to the keyboard.

I didn't say it does. (or is the turn of phrase what's bothering you.)

I don't know why you have taken issue with my post, but you seem to be contradicting yourself at every hands turn

Calm down. No one is attacking you here. You responded to my post, then your post was responded to and now you see those responses as attacks. They are not.


Getting back to the topic of the thread, to a degree, i read in the paper today about more fallout/info from the Guerin report. Senior Gardaí being promoted although they have numerous accusations against them for fairly serious, alleged, misdeeds. One senior Garda was named over 180 times in the report. Yet he was promoted.

The other issue, from my own perspective, is the seeming impotence of the GSOC. I believe, as was said above, this relates to the higher/senior levels and not the 90%+ of the rank and file members of AGS. However this is far from over, and while a small part in the larger scheme of things, alleged alterations to FCA1s, and other misdeeds will come to light. Consdiering we are an "undesirable" element we have never been in the public eye, but it seems we were not at the sh*t end of the stick and such alleged abuse was widespread.

knockon

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, but there's some hope to be gathered in the observation that even the most outspoken proponents of that view qualify it to exclude the vast majority of the rank and file gardai and limit it to certain high-ranking members of the force with decision-making authority under the law.

It's not a huge amount of hope, but every little counts...

Nail on the head there....

Lots of decent and hard working people in AGS must not be viewed as "the enemy". There is lots of stuff to come out in the wash that's not in the public forum at the moment. One thing for sure is huge changes are coming with a new Authority and a massive overhaul of the ways thing are done in 94 St Stephens Green.
If people have a genuine grievance such as myself, with the way CS and Super are dealing or not dealing with their FAC's renewals/applications then they have recourse to GSOC.

Grizzly 45

Also RE the GSOC.
They must have had a sea change in he matter of liscensing too.Three plus years ago they would hardly if ever entertain a quiery about mis handling of gun liscenses or the like. Now, if it is genuine and fits in their time parameters of lodging a complaint,they are jumping to it.Whats more,even if the complaint is out of time it is still logged as happening under a certain superintendants or cheifs watch and district which adds weight to others complaints about it being a problem district regarding liscensing.
Simply put,the more genuine complaints that are coming into GSOC from us,the more they will investigate this aspect.

Likewise if your application goes "lost" as it seems to happen an awful lot in Garda stations the length and breath of our great little country.You should be onto the data protection comissioner.It is a very serious matter that your personal data be it written or in data form is kept secure under our data protection legislation.[At least it is in the private sector] and firearms details and who owns what might be considerd pretty sensitive,so isnt it kinda worrying that AGS keeps losing sensitive data like that on a regular basis??

rowa

knockon wrote: »

Nail on the head there....

Lots of decent and hard working people in AGS must not be viewed as "the enemy". There is lots of stuff to come out in the wash that's not in the public forum at the moment. One thing for sure is huge changes are coming with a new Authority and a massive overhaul of the ways thing are done in 94 St Stephens Green.
If people have a genuine grievance such as myself, with the way CS and Super are dealing or not dealing with their FAC's renewals/applications then they have recourse to GSOC.

I'll believe it when i see it. Why wasn't there a big change after the donegal revelations years ago ?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

I'll believe it when i see it.

Nothing wrong with that, so long as you don't forget to believe it when you do see it

Sparks

Now being reported that a panel of external experts is to be appointed to review the workings of the Department of Justice in wake of the Guerin report...

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Also RE the GSOC.


Likewise if your application goes "lost" as it seems to happen an awful lot in Garda stations the length and breath of our great little country.You should be onto the data protection comissioner.It is a very serious matter that your personal data be it written or in data form is kept secure under our data protection legislation.[At least it is in the private sector] and firearms details and who owns what might be considerd pretty sensitive,so isnt it kinda worrying that AGS keeps losing sensitive data like that on a regular basis??

Let's hope they keep Pulse securely encrypted.
Can you imagine someone hacking it a getting all that info?

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Let's hope they keep Pulse securely encrypted.
Can you imagine someone hacking it a getting all that info?

Here's a photo of the NSA intercepting your mail so that they can take apart your shiny new network router and install their own bugs (for non-computer people, the router is the thing that your broadband plugs into and your computer plugs into it, only they're used everywhere from homes to banks to *everywhere*):
https://twitter.com/csoghoian/status/466218302730420224/photo/1

So... "imagine"? It's more the idea that PULSE is secure that I have a hard time imagining

yubabill1

:eek:

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Let's hope they keep Pulse securely encrypted.
Can you imagine someone hacking it a getting all that info?

Hmmm well it has been know t o leak the odd time to those who have decided to keep their hands in as "private eyes" and who might still have a pal at the keyboard. Been happening a few times now with the social welfare as well...One reason us PIs are precluded from joining AGS reserve..We might run off with the PULSE system:D

Slick50

Cass wrote: »

Can you explain what FAC stands for please.

FireArms Certification

Cass wrote: »

As for any proposals. They are most definitely sitting on a shelf, gathering dust

Which is what I said in my original post.

Slick50 wrote: »

Though I'd say this file could be gathering a lot of dust, on the shelves of the DOJ, for some time.

Cass wrote: »

Proposals were most likely being done up however as they never saw the light of day and the "coalition" knew about them 5 months in advance of the scare mongering i have to wonder.

There is no doubt, Shatter said on numerous occasions that "my Department is currently examining key policy, legislative, administrative and other issues relating to firearms licensing". I'd guess not because it's such a good read.

Cass wrote: »

Calm down. No one is attacking you here. You responded to my post, then your post was responded to and now you see those responses as attacks. They are not.

I AM CALM. I don't see them as an attack. Sparks quoted one line from my post, then went on to extrapolate random nonsensical arguements from that. I asked on more than one occasion where I had said what sparks was implying I said. In my last post, I was merely expressing my confusion at his implications.

Sparks

Slick, it was the bit where you said

We are on the list alright.

We're not on a list unless that list is so exhaustive that it covers everything from drug lords to missing dogs. They have so many things to worry about right now that we're not even close to making the radar, and we want it that way, at least for now, when every politician is thinking "election" and throwing things under buses has become a national pastime again.

You may have missed it, but there are those who disagree with this and think now is the perfect time to stand up and shout and pound the tables and they've just spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to panic the entire community into thinking we're going to all lose our certs tomorrow.

Hence the somewhat unwelcoming reply. Sorry if it got under your skin